A small rant
There's something that has begun to irk me more and more.
It's the idea that men are some kind of barely intelligent shambling beasts that lose all control when confronted with the possibility of sex.
Now, a less objectionable and more limited form of this trope has been used many, many times in TV and film. A hapless character will be shown to be a slave to his libido for comedy purposes and that's okay because it is a flaw in his character, for whatever reason. In a film, a female prisoner may escape by duping a male guard using sexual attraction and again, this is largely okay because narrative convention dictates that a nameless guard is hopeless enough to be duped with a sheet of bubble-wrap or some bright colours. It also provides a bit of cheap titillation, which is all to the good. But in both of those examples the flaw is limited to that character at that time, and it is not suggested that is universal to all men al all times.
But consider the old chestnut 'it was her fault she was raped because she dressed like that'. Not only is it just damn stupid as an excuse, but if you think about it's also insulting to men. It implies that when confronted with more bare flesh than usual, men just can't help themselves. Better cover up, love, otherwise the pack will be baying at your heels. Stupid.
Countries with very strict legal or social codes about demure female dress make the same mistake. Now, what is considered 'decent' attire is more a matter of context and local custom than any hard and fast absolute value, but the idea that leaving your hair uncovered will provoke those poor, weak-willed men into sin is idiotic. Anything left uncovered that is normally covered can be erotic but, and this is important, the presence of something erotic does not necessarily bring the male mind to a standstill.
In a way, it comes full circle to the rape example above. The canard that it's not a man's fault if he's driven to aberrant behaviour by indecent attire probably only got a foothold because it was a convenient excuse for misogynists to deny responsibility for their actions. Now it is an easy way to denigrate men. I refuse to allow myself to be a party to this kind of nonsense.
It's related to another annoying trend- adverts where the evil woman gets one over on the poor, stupid man. There was a time, when the concept of gender equality was relatively new, that this was an interesting reversal and reversal can be very novel. But now the idea is tired and obnoxious. It's one thing where you see two people each giving as good as they get, it's another where someone gets justifiable revenge on someone else for an infraction but both have a kind of moral outlook. When the advert consists of a woman tricking/cheating/abusing a man simply because he is a man and men deserve everything they get it is sexist.
It's the idea that men are some kind of barely intelligent shambling beasts that lose all control when confronted with the possibility of sex.
Now, a less objectionable and more limited form of this trope has been used many, many times in TV and film. A hapless character will be shown to be a slave to his libido for comedy purposes and that's okay because it is a flaw in his character, for whatever reason. In a film, a female prisoner may escape by duping a male guard using sexual attraction and again, this is largely okay because narrative convention dictates that a nameless guard is hopeless enough to be duped with a sheet of bubble-wrap or some bright colours. It also provides a bit of cheap titillation, which is all to the good. But in both of those examples the flaw is limited to that character at that time, and it is not suggested that is universal to all men al all times.
But consider the old chestnut 'it was her fault she was raped because she dressed like that'. Not only is it just damn stupid as an excuse, but if you think about it's also insulting to men. It implies that when confronted with more bare flesh than usual, men just can't help themselves. Better cover up, love, otherwise the pack will be baying at your heels. Stupid.
Countries with very strict legal or social codes about demure female dress make the same mistake. Now, what is considered 'decent' attire is more a matter of context and local custom than any hard and fast absolute value, but the idea that leaving your hair uncovered will provoke those poor, weak-willed men into sin is idiotic. Anything left uncovered that is normally covered can be erotic but, and this is important, the presence of something erotic does not necessarily bring the male mind to a standstill.
In a way, it comes full circle to the rape example above. The canard that it's not a man's fault if he's driven to aberrant behaviour by indecent attire probably only got a foothold because it was a convenient excuse for misogynists to deny responsibility for their actions. Now it is an easy way to denigrate men. I refuse to allow myself to be a party to this kind of nonsense.
It's related to another annoying trend- adverts where the evil woman gets one over on the poor, stupid man. There was a time, when the concept of gender equality was relatively new, that this was an interesting reversal and reversal can be very novel. But now the idea is tired and obnoxious. It's one thing where you see two people each giving as good as they get, it's another where someone gets justifiable revenge on someone else for an infraction but both have a kind of moral outlook. When the advert consists of a woman tricking/cheating/abusing a man simply because he is a man and men deserve everything they get it is sexist.