Heather Heying (rhymes with flying) on toxic femininity

Great tune though.

There used to be another word for girls/women who acted as though they were "up for it" all evening and then refused at the last moment. It was "cock teasers". Tease a cock long enough and it may peck you. That strategy probably led to a few date rapes!

Shakin' Stevens had a song www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhBdxUq6j28

My main aim when my girls were teenagers was that they should be safe. No way would I sacrifice their well-being to a principle.

The issue of blame colours all thinking on this subject. I am not interested in apportioning blame to either men or women when communication breakdown occurs - my only interest was the safety of my DDs.

Inspired by some recent tweets of our CariGransnet, I give you a word: coquettishness.

And a question: is female flirting okay but male flirting not?

And, if so, why? (Don't tell me all male flirting is damaging).

I think part of the purpose of the article is to bat down the "toxic masculinity" meme that is in vogue at the moment, by pointing out that women can be a bit toxic too sometimes.

When DS2 was about 20 his then girlfriend worked in the summer as a waitress in an upmarket, gentlemen's club-type restaurant in St James's. Her uniform was the traditional male-type garb of black trousers and long white apron and blouse. She said that, without fail and at every shift, she was propositioned and made to feel uncomfortable by middle-aged men old enough to be her father. She was serving food to these men, at lunchtime, not lap-dancing and leading them astray.

Then those men were behaving badly. As the article in the OP says, most men do not behave badly regardless of whether women are appropriately or inappropriately dressed. Heying covered that kind of annoyance in the article. She had similar experiences and "wished they wouldn't" make her feel uncomfortable but, at the same time, she says she "felt no risk" except once out of many times being "propositioned".

That scenario is quite separate from what she then goes on to describe as toxic femininity.

muffinthemoo- very well said, wishing you well.

I am a mother of boys and girls, brought them up the same. It is time to stop blaming girls for being raped or assaulted it is the men that have done this that are to blame. Men also rape men, let's not forget.

There are rapes in India, Pakistan and Muslim countries where females wear burkas, and traditional dress, which are not revealing.

I can only recall one case of a female raping another female, and she was posing as a male.

Well and bravely said Muffinthemoo. The majority of men wouldn't rape a woman regardless of how she was dressed or how provocative she was. It's not necessarily a sex thing but about power and domination.

muffinthemoo
Very well said. Completely agree with your opinion which is seemingly
from experience.

I was a child. I was a child in a pair of a jeans and a floppy t shirt with a band’s name on it.

I was at work in a trouser suit and a polo neck.

I was in bed in my big old Bugs Bunny pyjamas.

I was coming home from the local shop in a pair of jeans, a borrowed hoodie and a parka.

I was sitting on the bus in old jeans for painting and a jumper with a hole at the wrist.

When you are raped or sexually assaulted, what are you going to blame when you don’t have “orgasm makeup” and “revealing clothes”?

I personally learned after therapy to blame the men who hurt me. Because it sure as hell was not my fault.

I wonder, who gets the blame for the sexual abuse of the elderly in care homes? Are their nighties and incontinence pants too revealing? Too attractive to abusers?

When will sexual violence stop being redefined to be somehow the fault of women and girls? We don’t trip, fall, and whoops, once again land on the hands and genitals of unfortunate poor men who of course are entirely innocent of any blame.

The only reason women and girls are raped is because they have the misfortune to cross paths with a rapist.

There always seems to be during these discussions a real lack of appreciation that women and especially young women can and do enjoy having sex with men. The idea seems to prevail that they wear revealing clothing without being aware of what they are doing and that they are then offended when men make advances.I think there is now a large number of young women who know exactly what they are doing and what they want. In some cases that is just sex. The result of good contraception is that women can now choose to have recreational and not procreational sex.
Of course there are younger and less experienced women who copy these women's dress styles and then can't deal with the attention they attract. But equally there will always be men who will hit on younger women because its a power trip no matter what they are wearing. But this concept of toxic masculinity or toxic femininity is wrong for both sexes.

We have to compare what should happen with real life and act accordingly.

I should be able to leave my doors wide open and not be burgled.
I should be able to leave my handbag in full view in my unlocked car.
Women and girls should be able to wear as much or as little as they choose.

Regretfully we don't live in a world like that .

Going back to the chimps with blushing bottoms - 98% of our genes are identical with chimpanzee ones, and sexuality is a basic drive which is present in both males and females in both species. The difference is that in humans the expression of it is hedged around with cultural habits and traditions, but it is still there, nevertheless.

In 2008 a group did a survey of "Changes in Women's Choice of Dress Across the Ovulatory Cycle" which seems to show that although women may not consciously be trying to allure men into a sexual relationship, their subconscious is well aware at the time of ovulation/fertility that the moment has come to mate and continue the species, so they do the equivalent of developing the red swollen behind. This has the side effect of the feel-good factor of receiving positive male responses (encouraged by social and media reinforcement) Unlike the chimps, who are restricted to what nature has given them, human females can do a "fake news" fertility announcement whenever they wish. When human males misread the signals, the social and cultural factors are brought into play, but the biological instincts are still there in both sexes.

The summary of that study goes - "The authors tested the prediction that women prefer clothing that is more revealing and sexy when fertility is highest within the ovulatory cycle. Eighty-eight women reported to the lab twice: once on a low-fertility day of the cycle and once on a high-fertility day (confirmed using hormone tests). In each session, participants posed for full-body photographs in the clothing they wore to the lab, and they drew illustrations to indicate an outfit they would wear to a social event that evening. Although each data source supported the prediction, the authors found the most dramatic changes in clothing choice in the illustrations. Ovulatory shifts in clothing choice were moderated by sociosexuality, attractiveness, relationship status, and relationship satisfaction. Sexually unrestricted women, for example, showed greater shifts in preference for revealing clothing worn to the laboratory near ovulation. The authors suggest that clothing preference shifts could reflect an increase in female—female competition near ovulation."

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167208323103

When DS2 was about 20 his then girlfriend worked in the summer as a waitress in an upmarket, gentlemen's club-type restaurant in St James's.

Her uniform was the traditional male-type garb of black trousers and long white apron and blouse.

She said that, without fail and at every shift, she was propositioned and made to feel uncomfortable by middle-aged men old enough to be her father.

She was serving food to these men, at lunchtime, not lap-dancing and leading them astray.

When shopping, surely mothers teach their children that they can look but not touch some of the goods on display.

So why can't boys and men learn that they can look but not touch girls and women.

Is is so hard for them to understand?

I am not suggesting they should wear a burkha but simply that they should be conscious of the messages they are sending out

Luckygirl what message was the writer of the piece sending out when wearing a waiting uniform of classic tailored black and white? Whatever young girls and women wear, no matter how chaste, they can still be subject to sexual assault.

How about men take some responsibility? Why is it the female who should change her behaviour?

I'm minded to think of young primary school-aged girls in headscarves - the hot little minxes need to cover up so as to not attract male attention. Makes me sick!

Women and girls need to cover up or invite sexual assault because it's all part of nature - is that the message?

Their ideas of propriety

Luckygirl Do you think when we wore miniskirts in the 60’s we were consciously ‘presenting ourselves in a highly sexualised way’?
I don’t think so.
I think that as Farnorth says, we were simply following the trends set by our peers, and even though our apparel may have been at variance with our grandparents’ ideas of modesty and appropriateness, we weren’t motivated by a desire to exert sexual power over men.
If there was any motivation other than a desire to conform, it perhaps lay in a rebellion against previous generations and ideas of propriety and their associations with war and the nuclear bomb.

I had three daughters. They were all clear about the messages that their dress and behaviour sent out to others; and that there was a need to keep themselves safe in some situations.

The principle that women should not be the target of sexual advances, whilst at the same time presenting themselves in a highly sexualized way just does not add up. I am not suggesting they should wear a burkha but simply that they should be conscious of the messages they are sending out - and happy that they are doing so. That is their choice.

????? Eloethan. Sometimes I wonder if I have inadvertently clicked on the Mail on Line instead of GN!

As I have said before, if a woman - or a man - is verbally or physically intimidated or assaulted they are the victims of a crime. That does not mean that they are pathetic, snivelling creatures who have in some way contributed to a general notion of victimhood. It is just a word to describe someone who has been subjected to behaviour which has frightened, demeaned or hurt them in some way.

If you feel that there should be some sort of dress code to which women should adhere, perhaps - as I enquired - you could specify exactly what is and is not acceptable and at which point the line should be considered to have been crossed?

As Riverwalk has already pointed out, the writer of the article herself refers to a time when her manner of dress did not "display" "sexually-selected anatomy" and yet she was seen as a target, experiencing unwanted and uninvited sexual touching, which frightened and intimidated her and which, had she not been able to extricate herself, could have ended very differently. At that time she was in a relatively powerless position and was perhaps seen as someone who would be unlikely to jeopardise future waitressing assignments by kicking up a fuss. It would be interesting to know if she made a complaint about this man's behaviour.

Young people are very much influenced by what they see and hear around them.
From a very young age, girls are bombarded with information, including images of 'celebrities', that tells them how to present themselves.
Yet when they do present themselves in similar ways, they are to be considered the ones at fault? And criticised as toxic?

I agree with Eloethan's post also.

Men and women are not only sexual objects, baggs.
Human behaviour is not governed simply by instinct, but by thought and judgement, and values such as honesty and compassion. There are also cultural norms which vary between different societies.
That is why behaving towards people as sex objects is negative and unacceptable.

Pyschology and Sociology are not exact sciences. Theories in these disciplines cannot be proved in the same way as most other sciences and therefore the writings of, for instance, E.O. Wilson, though primarily a biologist, are also very much those of a theorist.

I realise the phrase 'sexual object' is usually used in a negative way. I am using the term in a non-negative way.