It reminds me a bit of the story about the mullah's daughter.
(could not find it on the Internet so you have to bear with my narration)
===================
The daughter of the Mullah comes to her dad and tells him that this honourable young man asked her out. He swears that he only has honourable intentions and there will be nothing than harmless conversation.
The mullah pulls his hair "Oh no, my daughter! You do not understand. This is how this will end: He will pick you up, and be totally honourable when you get into the car with him. On the way to the city he will remember, that he forgot his wallet at home, so he will kindly ask your permission to stop by at his house to get it. Of course you will accept as you don't want to embarrass him. He will drive to his house and tell you he will be right back.
But after he got out of the car he will turn around and tell you how impolite it would be to let you wait in the car, and if you would like to come in and wait in the house.
You will accept his offer and he will open your door, and politely accompany to the house. There he will introduce you, and then go upstairs to get the wallet from his room.
But halfway up the stairs he would turn back and apologize for his incredible rudeness letting you wait in the hallway. He will ask you to accompany him up to his room.
You will accept his offer and politely he will lead you to his room and all will be lost!
Once you are in his room, he will have his way with you and rob you of your virtue and of your honour and of the honour of the family!"
The Mullah almost wept at the imagination of these horrors.
The daughter assured her father that she would make sure nothing of that sort would transpire, and the mullah, who always had a soft spot for his daughter did not object to her evening out.
The evening came, and the young man, polite and well bred, showed up at the door. He made pleasant small talk with the Mullah and assured him of his incredible esteem of his daughter and his thoroughly honourable intentions.
Then they departed and the mullah anxiously awaited the return of his daughter, depicting the disgrace she would suffer in ever more colourful patterns.
Finally his daughter came back. Hysterically he asked: "My Daughter! Tell me! What happened this evening?"
"Well, he led me to his car, and was the perfect gentlemen. Then he remembered he had forgot his wallet, and asked if I would mind a stop at his house."
"Oh no " exclaimed the mullah in despair "What then?"
"I agreed because I did not want to embarrass him, and we went to his house. He said I could wait in the car while he was getting his wallet, but when he got out he came over to my side and told me how impolite it would be letting me wait in the car. And if I would like to wait in the house."
The mullah felt panic creeping up "And then?"
"He politely led me to the house and introduced me. The he went upstairs to get his wallet. But halfway upstairs he turned back and chided himself for his impoliteness and asked me if I wanted to accompany him to his room"
The mullah was beside himself "Oh my daughter what has he done to you?"
"Don't worry father, as soon as we were in his room, I had my way with him and robbed him of his virtue and of his honour and of the honour of his family."
The guy he described wasn't a traditional "creepy guy", but a macho alpha male. Different breed. The latter carries the sense of entitlement and swagger because, on its own terms, that approach works. Many women respond positively to it (which does not make it right, because plenty of women don't). He's an arrogant jerk because he's gotten away with it for a long time.
The issue with that whole stigma is that there are some really bad men out there-- for whom that repulsion is justified-- but the guys who get the "creepy" treatment are the socially awkward men with average intentions. The fact that so many bad men get rewarded (at least in high school and college) makes the whole thing worse.
Unfortunately it seems a lot more bad guys are in the former category, and a lot of good guys fall into the other. This does not mean that this author wins any points with me for this article.
Perhaps we could address this by fixing the "socially awkward" bit -- explicitly spelling out (perhaps through education, or a book, or something) what sorts of things are and are not acceptable.
It's difficult enough to get parents to consent to "sex ed" from a biological standpoint as it is, but I would have found it useful to have had classes in {elementary, middle} school about how to not treat girls like crap. Do you think that it would be possible to build a program that addressed this problem?
It's still a story where a man decides the outcome. What he did was indeed chivalrous, good even, but chivalry is nothing original.
And society will take the man's side. She provoked him. She was impolite. She emasculated him.
It's like the game of "cat and mouse" in Red Dwarf, the only way to win is not to be the mouse, well in this game the only way to win is not to be the woman. Because all the other players in the game - including the cops and the judge and jury - won't sit still for an outcome where the woman just wins.
And if she does draw on him, well, look up Marissa Alexander.
My limited understanding of history is that "affluent white men" were involved in granting women and blacks the right to vote, due to the nature of "democratic" processes at the time.
Similarly, ongoing debate about granting equal legal (tax, etc.) benefits to those in homosexual relationships requires the consent from a government consisting (mostly) of heterosexual people.
Should the approaching person had quit, lest he be called a creepy sexist?
Kind of negates the whole "I'm not a sexist" take on the situation. If you're going to write about how much of a chivalrous guy you are, you should probably also be more careful with the way you describe the thin skirts that you like so much.
And the "because I'm a writer" stuff doesn't even make sense. Because he's a writer he noticed someone being creepy and intervened? I don't understand that logic at all.
It sounds more like because he's a writer he knew the word "trope" and wanted to jam it into an article.
Give it a second reading if you didn't understand the connection between being a writer and the author's interpretation of the events:
> Others might get it for other reasons, but I got it because I am a writer. I knew the tropes and the cliches and the tired old lines. I was aware of how to create a role reversal in the "typical characters."
His point is that other people might experience the situation as "someone being creepy" and someone else intervening, but that he experienced and interpreted the situation differently: in a literary context, as a reversal of cliche roles.
Thank God for the physical qualities of the opposite sex. (Or evolution, whatever.)
No, it does not negate it one fucking iota.
Appreciating a beautiful woman or dress is not sexist in the least. Period.
Appreciating the beauty (in your eyes) of a person of the other sex, and even more, gathering some courage to go and talk and flirt, is how you (and me, and just about everybody fucking else) got into this planet. It's the very basis of every love story.
Only a prudish society, which evolved politically correctness to take the place of its older puritan religious blockings, would ever make the claim that this is the same thing as being "sexist".
What exactly would be the "right thing"?
To only ever be attracted to a person you're in a relationship with? To which you'll end up with in a magical unicorn way, because it would be sexist to like (and even lust) for that person (and, say, his smile or her dress) before you are together?
I don't like this way of interpreting the author's article, because it portrays women as helpless princesses that need saving, but I'm not sure what a better one would be.
I agree with you. If someone (male or female) were writing about an interaction with the genders reversed, you probably wouldn't hear anything about how good-looking the guy was or what he was wearing.
The (unconscious) sexism is not in finding her attractive (obviously) but in the fact that her attractiveness is treated as a relevant detail. How would it be different if she were unattractive? It wouldn't.
I think it's passive sexism, in that to play his role he needs a aggressively sexist beast in the triangle.
How this is sexism against the woman is beyond me. How this is sexism at all.
This seems to be a feminist keen-jerk reaction. Outer appearance of a somebody? That somebody happens to be a woman? What a misogynist!
So yeah please everybody try to learn to take a hint.
