If the guy you’re with thinks you need different breasts, maybe you just need a different guy.
This is for the lesser-endowed ladies of the world: the women who were dealt too lightly by Nature, who wondered at some point or another if they should correct the injustice through the skills of a plastic surgeon, or at least invest in an arsenal of pushup bras.
Despite the typical male preoccupation with breast size, there are some of us who wouldn’t want you any other way, who see sublime perfection where others see absence.
Maybe we’re just not as vocal as some.
We’re not the guys working construction who whistle chauvinistically from across the street three stories above you as you walk to work.
We’re not the ones throwing themselves at you at the frat party. Or your friend’s wedding, countless drinks in.
Maybe we’re the ones quietly taking you in from five tables away. Listening to your voice. Your perspective. Your sense of humor. The witty way you referenced an F. Scott Fitzgerald line in the middle of ordering your drink.
And yes, don’t worry, we snuck a good, long look at your body.
But maybe it’s not a giant rack we’re looking for.
Maybe we happen to love the sleek lines of your silhouette, the elegant simplicity of your form.
Maybe there’s something fearless and yet vulnerable about your petite frame that draws us.
Maybe we’re actually turned off by someone who’s used to transfixing men with her obvious, womanly attributes.
Some of us grew up as athletes, amongst thin, athletic, small-breasted women and grew to like different physical traits than most guys. Like the tight calves of a runner. Or the strong thighs of a skier. Or the muscular stomach of a volleyball player. Maybe we know that having an athletic woman at your side means being more likely to live an adventurous and daring life. (Not just in the outdoors, but in the bedroom, too…)
Guys like me, like the fact that you’re used to having to win people over with your mind and personality, not what was peeking through your blouse.
For me, an A-cup puts you on the A-list, every time.
Some of us have learned from experience that small-breasted women often have larger minds. Or better moves on the dance floor. Or more optimistic attitudes when the chips are down. Because you’ve been overlooked by luck before. And it didn’t get the better of you then, either.
Hell, some of us are just ass-men.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against large-breasted women. Many of them are good friends—or even exes. And yes, many have just as sharp a mind, as buoyant a spirit, or witty a retort as you.
But there’s something about you A-girls that I just can’t shake.
Maybe you’re just a bit lighter—at how you handle life. Maybe the thing you think you’re lacking has given you so much more. And you’re better able to move around the obstacles of life a lot quicker without it.
Whatever it is, I, for one, am under your spell. I swoon when you walk into the room. I want your first dance, your next kiss, your every smile.
You have more admirers than you know.
If the guy you’re with thinks you need different breasts, maybe you just need a different guy.
—Photo avaviel/Flickr
About Mark Radcliffe
This is some creepy-ass shit right here. I’d quote the creepy part, but copying and pasting the entire post into my comment seems redundant.
Okay, I’m curious as to what about it you found creepy?
Absolutely every word in the entire thing. “Who see sublime perfection,” in particular, made me cringe.
Have you ever head some douchebag intimate that overweight women are easy, so he goes after them? Well, this article gives the same impression only with a different target demographic.
When he claims to not be like those boys at the frat, he makes it abundantly clear he is exactly those boys at the frat – only a boy at a frat with a twisted perception of women that they have some inherent weakness to puerile flattery used to overcome a lack of self esteem. Basically, you could replace the entire article with “women are insecure and easily manipulated” and it would communicate much the same idea as it currently does.
I’m curious as well, I found nothing creepy here.
@GoodMenProject This website claims that you “we let guys be guys, but we do it while challenging confining cultural notions of what a “real man” must be.” What cultural notion are you really challenging with this post? There is nothing being challenged, save for maybe how ridiculous this whole “project” can really become. Rather you’re affirming everything toxic in our culture when it comes to objectification, and in doing so further stripping women of agency. This patronizing drivel does nothing to affirm men and it does even less to affirm that women come in all shapes and sizes, just like men and such posts exacerbate the situation in our culture. I really hope that this “real man” you are striving to affirm can stop looking at women as objects for even just a short while, and work to develop his real brain because in publishing such ludicrous material you seem to be implying that such a possibility is beyond comprehension.
And if Mark (or someone else reading) were to recognize the error of their thinking wouldn’t that no contribute to the betterment of men? Or would you rather folks that think this way just stay silent and never change?
Well, the GMP editors might reply, too, but my 2¢:
For me the goal with this piece was to challenge a typical definition of beauty, to provide a contrast to the predominant male obsession with the large-breasted Pamela Andersons, Dolly Partons and Swedish Twins of the world. I’ve seen a lot of men over the years–as far back as junior high–make disparaging remarks about (and to) small-breasted women, as if there were defective, unworthy of their admiration (as if earning their admiration should be their primary goal, which we of course know is ridiculous). As a result, I’ve known a lot of women who’ve come to feel less-valued as a result, and many who’ve even come to see themselves as less of a person, which to me is terrible. It’s no secret many women feel pressure to go under the knife to change themselves to feel accepted. So this is my small effort to try to show some adoration for women who have often gone less appreciated.
You might say that this is ultimately still concerned with subjective definitions of physical beauty and is therefore inherently “toxic,” but I disagree. I think attraction is a natural part of being human, and we should all think about our attractions and see what we can learn. I think true objectification is when you’re seeing someone ONLY as a sex object, failing to respect and acknowledge their humanity. I don’t think I’m doing that here. Ultimately the physical attraction I’m talking about here is connected to a woman’s energy, personality and character. I realize people are taking issue with HOW I’m connecting them, however, and I welcome the discussion.
See this, right here, I’ve no problem with…except yes, as you mention, with the way you’ve connected physical attributes and personality traits.
It’s funny because when I read the title of your article I thought I’d probably end up loving it. Hurray, I thought, someone who’s finally out to say that breast size doesn’t equal beauty. Except that’s exactly what you did…you just said that small breast size = beauty. And again, it’s not that you’re talking about your preference…it’s the way the article judges women with large breasts. It’s exactly what you were trying to counteract about women with small breasts.
As Heather says, your motives were not bad, it was the method you used. In effect, you did the very thing you set out to counter, you devalued small breasts by saying that small breast help women develop attributes to overcome the deficiency. This isn’t really valuing small breast so much as distracting from them. The Irony is, despite your claims that most men like big breasts, I find many MANY men will admit to having a preference for Asian women, who, generally have a petite stature/smaller breasts, and not the big breasts we’re all told we like. I suspect this is because it’s ok to like Asian women, but as I said earlier, liking a woman with a small frame/breasts makes one a paedophile and open to even more ridicule than the small breasted women themselves, and more often than not, this criticism comes from women.
That said, I don’t think Jenn’s criticisms are very helpful, as they rely heavily upon the gender feminist dogma on male oppression, female helplessness and objectification.
I’ll just wait with my small breasts and non-athletic body for “in praise of non-socially acceptably thin women”, I guess.
Mark Radcliffe what you said there in your post was fabulous.
Thanks for saying it. And I appreciate both your insight on how women can be treated regarding the issue of breasts in our culture and your brevity to approach a clearly sensitive topic.
See I liked the article, especially as a man who has liked ladies with small breasts.. and it is only since getting into my 40′s that the larger variety even really attracts me. I hear Jen’s woes of objectifying but find the same polorazation going on in her that i’ve found in dating.. woman want this “perfect guy” or the bad boy… and if their guy deviates from perfection, well then he’s a douche and doesn’t respect them. News Flash, the reason you find the right guy only to find out he’s not all that, or has a secret life.. yep, you got it .. He’s a player.. because your ideology plays so easily into that.. The great thing about this site is it attempts to work with where we are as guys.. and yes this article has reflection, appreciation, and contemplation about elegent and simple outer beauty and how it may relate possibly to inner traits.. encourage that sister and expound on it.. don’t be a hater..
@ Jenn
I don’t agree with the article, but I do see value in posting it. Men have just recently started challenging the gender constructs society has created for them and articles like these do serve to spark debate and introspection. There are however certain problems with your statement.
“What cultural notion are you really challenging”
The cultural notion that men like large breasts. Unless all the complaints I hear about women’s insecurity about their breast sizes is overblown, this seems to qualify as a challenge to a “cultural notion”.
“objectification, and in doing so further stripping women of agency”
How does objectification strip women of agency? Women have agency. It may strengthen a societal perception that women don’t have agency, but it doesn’t strip them of agency. I’ve seen numerous articles and comments on feminist websites that strip women of agency. Every time feminists claim that men commit the overwhelming amount of DV, when they really mean the majority of serious DV, the strip women of agency for their actions. It’s just a slap. What did she do wrong? She couldn’t hurt him anyway.
“it does even less to affirm that women come in all shapes and sizes”
I think it affirms that,. It does it in a very condescending way, which is my problem with it.
It’s ironic that you refer to men as “real men”. Are you implying that there is a gender construct that determines whether a man is a man or not a man? GMP was about what made men good not what made them real.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2571#comic
I will never, never, never understand our society’s obsession with breasts. Every second person (or more, for that matter!) out there has them. Other mammals have them. They’re not different or fascinating or original. They’re designed to feed babies. I don’t care what size my breasts are or what my body looks like, you creep me out beyond all reason if you’re just staring at my exterior and don’t really see me as a person.
“They’re designed to feed babies.”
Alright yeah, but they’re also sensitive enough that physical stimulation can turn a woman on.
I would go farther and say no, they’re not “designed” to do anything, because that tends to imply both a designer, and some exclusive purpose that the designer had in mind. Evolution does not work by design, or put limits that say a given trait or anatomical structure can only serve one purpose or function. To say that breasts are only for feeding babies is a moral judgment, not an anatomical fact.
So very true…I glossed right over the use of the term ‘designed.’ I think I’m just so used to seeing it.
They are for fat storage,too
I agree, I’ll never understand it either even within myself. Thats right, when I see a woman who “Fills out her sweater” quite nicely, it draws my attention, but I honestly can’t tell you why. It’s not like breasts make a woman better in bed. There just ‘Ornamentation’ so to speak. It’s kind of like when women say “size doesn’t matter” but yet they get all ‘ weak in the knees’ when they see a 8″ cock and some washboard abs to go with it.t least I see the advantage in that.
While I can respect your personal thoughts on breasts if one were to try to make a sweeping generalization (but I don’t think you are doing that here) why not extend that to other parts.
1. Why pay attention to a guy’s nipples? They don’t even have the usage of feeding babies.
2. Why enjoy looking at someone’s ass cheeks?
3. Why be sexually attracted to someone because of their feet?
But like HeatherN says a lot of women like having their breasts touched and stimulated. So why is it wrong that guys want to touch and stimulate them (unless its that hard to fathom that there are guys that are turned on by the idea that some women are turned on by breast stimulation)? Of course that doesn’t justify reducing you to your cup size, just why people would be interested in your breasts.
Great comment, Danny. This is why evo pysch (while informative) is often a poor way to look at human and sexual relations. Me getting turned on by the way your toes look has nothing to do with our offspring. My ass cheeks have very little to do with how I’ll raise our baby or if I get pregnant or not when you deposit sperm in me, but you might appreciate them anyways. My breasts are designed to feed babies…that doesn’t mean I don’t want them groped by my man.
“They’re not different or fascinating”
Says the person who has them to the people who don’t.
Its not even like that either Mark (because I bet money there are plenty of gay women that like breasts).
Maybe its more like, “Says the person who is not interested in them.”?
Yeah, but as much as Gay women might like them, I am unsure if they find them different and fascinating… after all, they have their own, so likely quelled the fascination when discovering themselves. I could be wrong, not being a gay woman and all, but that was my reasoning for not being inclusive this time.
Ah true. And I bet there’s probably a gay woman or two around here that might shed some light from that angle.
Could you perhaps be referring to moi? lol.
So obviously I can’t speak for every lesbian or bi woman out there…because, for starters, I don’t know them all and second, we aren’t all the same.
But yeah, when I first started realizing I was gay I had a heck of a time making sure I didn’t end up talking to a woman’s breasts. I mean not always, but it did happen quite a few times.
As for why…well I don’t know, really. I mean another woman’s breasts don’t hold the exotic appeal they might do for men, because yes I do have them. But on the other hand, I know just how awesome it can feel to have your breasts stimulated. Is it because my culture has told me that I’m supposed to find breasts attractive if I’m attracted to women? I dunno, maybe that’s part of it…but if so then that’s part of it for men too.
I’m sure part of it is to do with the way our culture tells women to cover their breasts. A woman can’t go walking around with a completely bare chest, because we’ve created a connection between breasts and sex. And, lesbian though I may be, I’m just as encultured by that. I see breasts as sexual parts of a woman’s body…and so to see cleavage or bare breasts does spark sexual thoughts.
But like, let’s take this even further…why do I find a woman’s vulva attractive, if I’ve got one of my own? Why do gay men care about the appearance of another man’s penis if he’s got one of his own? And really, for straight people, is the attraction to the other person’s genitals and secondary sex characteristics really all about how you don’t have the same ones? I’d think it’s more then that.
Also, I’d like to be clear, that (much like straight men) I’m not walking around transfixed by every bit of cleavage I see. We’re all thinking people, and we’re all able to set our more base urges aside and function in the real world.
Why yes I was.
So obviously I can’t speak for every lesbian or bi woman out there…because, for starters, I don’t know them all and second, we aren’t all the same.
Of course not. I think its quite clear that Mark here or Josh at his post don’t speak for all men.
I just note that often times when talking about things you tend to offer a different angle (usually that of a gay person and a gay woman specifically). I don’t expect you to speak for all gay women, just don’t want you to feel excluded.
I dunno, maybe that’s part of it…but if so then that’s part of it for men too.
Agreed. This conversation is pretty much about breast so chances are we’re not hearing much from the guys looking at dat ass, doz feet, dat hair, doz eyes, etc…
And besides if you hadn’t have chimed we might not have gotten this wonderful bit:
But like, let’s take this even further…why do I find a woman’s vulva attractive, if I’ve got one of my own? Why do gay men care about the appearance of another man’s penis if he’s got one of his own? And really, for straight people, is the attraction to the other person’s genitals and secondary sex characteristics really all about how you don’t have the same ones? I’d think it’s more then that.
That’s pretty deep and may be a question that really gets down to what sexual attraction is all about. I’m betting that for most straight guys they aren’t attracted to women just because they have a vagina and vulva (if that were the case the the thought that “men are slaves to their lust” would have beaten out the idea that “men are so picky about women they invoke -isms toward women” years ago but they both exist).
Yeah I think I failed to use proper winky emotes with the bit about “I don’t know them all.” I was making a joke…didn’t actually think you (or anyone else) thought that.
“I’m sure part of it is to do with the way our culture tells women to cover their breasts. A woman can’t go walking around with a completely bare chest, because we’ve created a connection between breasts and sex.”
Great quote. I honestly think men (and women) wouldn’t have such an obsession with certain body parts if they weren’t so taboo. I’m straight, but I can’t help but be turned on by bare breasts, ass, or vulva, despite the fact that I have my own. I think men would be far less transfixed with nipples if they just saw more.
“Could you perhaps be referring to moi? lol.”
You’re gay? Really? Why didn’t you ever say anything?
“I had a heck of a time making sure I didn’t end up talking to a woman’s breasts. I mean not always, but it did happen quite a few times.”
That is actually rather reassuring. I don’t know why.
“I’m sure part of it is to do with the way our culture tells women to cover their breasts. A woman can’t go walking around with a completely bare chest, because we’ve created a connection between breasts and sex.”
Despite elizabeth’s assertion that breast are just everyday things not to be seen as any different than any other body part (like a nose or hand), people, everyone, man and woman, see breasts as a sexual part of the body. I say this because, in Toronto at the very least, women CAN walk around with a completely bare chest (subject to certain limitations/dress codes on private property, often applying equaly to men… Oh, and weather, being winters can get a little chilly), but they don’t, except on rare occassions to make a point (and those willing to go at these rare occassions still don’t day to day). This reaffirms that, even women see their own breasts as sexual body parts of the body. So it gets annoying when those same women complain about men seeing them as such too.
“why do I find a woman’s vulva attractive, if I’ve got one of my own?”
I just want to clarify my stance, given the “have one, don’t have one” aspect of the conversation. It was the “breasts shouldn’t be seen as fascinating” implication I was addressing with “says the one that has them to those that don’t”. What one finds attractive or appealing, and what one finds fascinating are completely different.
That said, while you do have a vah-jay-jay, given the awkwardness of getting a good bead on it, it may actually draw some fascination as well as attraction. just my thoughts.
“That said, while you do have a vah-jay-jay, given the awkwardness of getting a good bead on it, it may actually draw some fascination as well as attraction. just my thoughts.”
Except that still doesn’t address the idea of gay men caring about the appearance of other men’s penises. In fact, it’s something of a stereotype that all gay guys care about is the physical appearance of other men…not just penises, but chest, bum, etc. Personally, I think it’s to do with the way we still think that men care more about the physical aspects of sex and women care more about the emotional aspects of sex. So we assume that, of course, gay men care about the physical aspects of their partners…and we assume that, of course, lesbians don’t care about the physical aspects of their partners.
OK, I’ll try one more time, and clarify definitions of what I mean.
When I see the word fascination, I understand that to mean an overwhelming curiosity and quizzical interest with the defined something. So when someone with breasts tells me (someone without breasts) that I shouldn’t find any fascination with breasts because half the population has them, I find that an odd assertion, given the half that DOESN’T have them are the ones she’s telling shouldn’t be fascinated. Note, being fascinated with breasts doesn’t preclude ALSO being attracted to them.
Now, what YOU’RE describing is attraction, which is finding an appeal with the target. One can be both fascinated with something, and find it attractive/appealing. Or one can find it appealing but not fascinating. My presumption was that men fell into the former category (more often than not) while lesbian are more likely to fall into the later (though, again, I am not a gay women to know for certain).
I just want to make it clear what I am saying, because it seems you think I’m saying lesbian’s shouldn’t be attracted to the same things men are, and vice versa for gay men.
Ah I get what you’re saying. And, to be clear, I sort of took your comment and extrapolated on it in my reply…I didn’t actually think you were suggesting that lesbians and gay men shouldn’t be physically attracted to the same attributes that straight women and men are. I’ve just heard that argument before, and I’ve always thought it was strange.
Okay so as to the fascination vs. attraction. I guess it all depends on the exact definition of fascination you use. (Ah, language!) Like, to me you can be fascinated with something even if you’re not curious about it, and even if you’re familiar with it. So if we use this definition here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascinate
then yeah, I am fascinated with breasts…or at least, I can be. I mean, not all breasts all the time, obviously. But yeah, I do understand that for straight guys there’s also the addition of them being exotic, or at least different to what you’ve got.
Ah, I was thinking more definition 1 (with a focus on the unique and unusual nature (to a man)) while you were more definition 2.
“You’re gay? Really? Why didn’t you ever say anything?”
I totally get you were joking, and yeah I do bring it up all the flipping time.
But, it’s kind of weird. With the current political and social dialogue, you’re stuck either announcing it everywhere or keeping it really quiet. I am much quieter about it in real life, where most of the time I’m not actually discussing political or social issues, but just getting on with my life. But whenever I do discuss politics or whatever (in real life or online) it’s always there sort of just hanging in the air…so I’ll usually bring it up.
And again, I totally get that you were joking and it is kinda funny. And this is totally off topic from the original article…but yeah…I kind of long for the day when I don’t feel the need to either actively keep quiet about it or shout it from the rooftops.
” And really, for straight people, is the attraction to the other person’s genitals and secondary sex characteristics really all about how you don’t have the same ones? ”
Doubtful. Male and female arses do not look all that different, but straight people of both genders tend to be attracted to them.
Ever seen something that just drags your attention, you try to ignore it but it keeps grabbing it? A glimpse can turn you on within seconds? Because breasts are hidden a lot they can get both the visually appealing attraction and the forbidden fruit attraction.
If a woman is wearing a revealing top, I’m sorry to say it but you are purposely showing off something known to be quite attractive to many and it becomes quite a big temptation to look at them. But realize that a man who does look at them, even stare at them, can STILL see you as a person, care about and respect you. Breasts though can be extremely nice to look at and considering how often men look at them I’d say there is quite a bit of instinct at play. What really pisses me off though is when a woman wears her cleavage out quite a lot and then get’s shitty that people look (not all women do this of course), what do they honestly expect? Walk out in public showing something that is known to be a major drawcard of men’s vision and you’re damn near guaranteed to have them look. This doesn’t mean you’re showing you want sex or any silly bullshit like that, no personality judgments can be made, it’s just they CAN BE very enticing to look at and it can literally be very distracting to try have a conversation with a woman who is pretty much showing them off.
It can be hard to describe to a woman, I guess to understand you need to be a male or at least very attracted to breasts.
I will assume the best and assume that your motives were good in writing this. However, I think you missed something? As a woman, the resulting article only objectifies me. If a man truly wants to be a good man, he needs to realize that women are whole people – not simply parts, and he should also speak, write, and act in a way that treats them as such.
SMBC’s response (linked above) to this article was great, and Dianna also said it fantastically well, here – http://diannaeanderson.net/?p=1149 -
“The answer to the problem of objectifying women is not to objectify them in another manner. It is not to say to a woman, “Oh, you’re feeling bad because you’re not a C or D cup? Let me tell you, I loooooove A-cups! Love ‘em! I think all women with A-cups are fantastic!”
That’s still objectification, buddy. That is still telling me that you fetishize me based on my body parts. Rather than viewing me as a whole person, you say, “But I like small breasted women!””
I honestly think you’re giving it an oversimplified read here, Leslie. I say throughout that it’s not just your physicality I’m attracted to. It’s a combination of various traits I’ve often found associated with small-breasted women. I admit it’s just a perceived pattern, I don’t state it’s an absolute constant and admit it’s fraught with exceptions, it’s just my experience. But to truly objectify you would be to treat you as nothing more than an object to be sexually desired. That’s not happening here. The admiration I’m talking about is about the way you live your life, your adventuresome spirit, your character, your actions, your passions, your energy. That’s what I love you for. As do a ton of other guys who don’t fawn over the first “rack” that comes along.
@Mark, you just keep digging yourself in deeper with this idea that small breasted women are superior human beings. It’s really, really offensive.
If he keeps doubling down, maybe he’ll win one and break even.
” If a man truly wants to be a good man, he needs to realize that women are whole people – not simply parts, and he should also speak, write, and act in a way that treats them as such.”
And likewise, if a woman truly wants to be a good woman, she needs to realize that men are whole people — not simply an ATM and walking hormone, and she should also speak, write and act in a way that treats them as such. Oh wait, is that an offensive statement to make, generalizing like that? I can tell you, it truly bothers me when a woman decides to tell a man that being a “good man” requires him to defer to her expectations.
“That’s still objectification, buddy. That is still telling me that you fetishize me based on my body parts. ”
Finding a woman attractive, or even a body part preferential, is not objectifying women. Saying “I looooove A-Cups! Love ‘em!” in no way hinders my ability to see the rest, personality and all. After all, saying “I loooove stuffin’! LOVE it!” in no way means I don’t also love the turkey, let alone the rest of the meal (and before you jump on me, if you find the analogy to a meal offensive, too bad, it gets the point across). It also doesn’t mean I can’t like pizza, or cooking things as much as eating them. Any appreciation for the female form is not objectification, and the constant beratement of men for appreciating the female form is what’s driving men away, causing all the “where have all the good men gone?” articles.
With that said, there were some offensive lines in the article which others have been quite right to object to, but the appreciation of small breasts was not one of them.
Firstly, that’s not generalising. That’s stating a principle you should follow. Why are you offended by such a principle if you don’t break it? Secondly, your comparison to women is H I L A R I O U S. Goddamn. Why are you even here?
If a woman is telling you she finds what you’re saying offensive and objectifying, shut up and listen and don’t tell women how they should feel about your BS.
You like small breasts. Awesome for you. That doesn’t mean that, in a sea of objectification about women’s bodies of all times, more objectification is good just because it inverts dominant norms about women’s bodies. Doesn’t mean it’s helpful. Doesn’t mean it’s flattering. Doesn’t mean it’s NOT objectification.
And yeah, analogies to meat do not help you. At all.
“If a woman is telling you she finds what you’re saying offensive and objectifying, shut up and listen and don’t tell women how they should feel about your BS.”
WOW!!! “Shut up and listen”. So, men’s opinions don’t make a lick of difference to you? A man must differ to a woman’s point of view, regardless of whether that point of view makes any sense, is applicable to all women, or whether or not I even give a damn about your opinion? As a man, I am not entitled to defend my positions, question your concerns or speak up against any unfair assertions? I must simply let YOU define what a good man is, without question, without being granted any feedback. yeah, ok.
How about I tell you to shut up and listen when I tell you that appreciating looks does not in any way prevent me from appreciating other aspects as well. Oh, but that would be offensive and abusive if I did it, because I’m a guy and on the wrong side of your double standard. I should just accept that, as a man, I’m not entitled to an opinion about anything YOU personally don’t want me to have an opinion on. Apparently, if I don’t treat you as an amorphous disembodied conciousness, I’m being offensive, well, too bad buttercup. If you want to get pissy at every guy who has eyes and enough self confidence to openly state what he likes to see, well, that’s your problem, and your bitter angry life to lead.
I also have to add, if I shouldn’t tell women how they should feel about my BS, why then should I shut up and listen to you tell me how I should feel about your BS? Your telling me how I should feel, act, speak, etc in order to be a good man and not make you feel bad by noticing the looks so many women CHOOSE to put so much time and effort into. This is so hypocritical it is bordering on the insane.
“Why are you even here?”
Because there is a lot to learn, and a lot to teach. Because I don’t like the constant double standards, such as those you demonstrate several times through this post. Because I find some articles amuzing, and some I find to be completely off the mark, and generally enjoy the conversations and debates the raise in most of them, though sometimes there are overly selfrightious twits that think themselves and/or their gender deserve to be given far more credibility than the other gender and never having actually earned that credibility… in the name of equality of course, because everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others, right?
I’m done shutting up for now.
PS, since when is stuffing, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, turnips, pie etc considered meat? My analogy was a thanksgiving MEAL, not just the turkey, as appropriate an analogy that may be for some.
Come on folks no need to get the blood pressure rising on this.
Mark,
So, men’s opinions don’t make a lick of difference to you? … As a man, I am not entitled to defend my positions, question your concerns or speak up against any unfair assertions? I must simply let YOU define what a good man is, without question, without being granted any feedback. yeah, ok.
She wasn’t talking about men though… she was talking about women… about herself. Honestly, your bluster here is kinda over-the-top and unnecessary. Notice she’s just objecting to being objectified. She made no opinions on what defines a “good man”.
And ironically enough, she’s doing the exact thing in her comment that you advocate you should be entitled to in yours. (See the above quotation.) She’s a woman and so I have ZERO problem with her telling me what’s offensive to women/to her as a woman and what is or isn’t objectifying to women. Personally I agree with her, and I said as much in my initial comment — which is buried under the sea of newer comments.
That said, if she WERE to make an opinion about men, or what constitutes male objectification, I’d feel entitled — like you are right now — to judge that opinion and tell her if she’s wrong + why.
However, since your comment is so long and deals with mostly a single misunderstanding, I’ll repeat one salient point:
JO’S COMMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD MAN. SHE DOESN’T MENTION IT ALL. SHE’S TALKING ABOUT WOMEN, NOT MEN. CALM DOWN.
“She wasn’t talking about men though… she was talking about women… about herself. ”
The post I was replying to** (but didn’t get included into the string), the one I directly quoted, discussing what a good man really is, very much WAS discussing men. Furthermore, telling me to shut up and listen is very much directed at me and men.
** http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-praise-of-small-breasted-women/comment-page-3/#comment-151175
“JO’S COMMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD MAN.”
Except for the fact it was a response to my response to a woman telling us what it means to be a good man, that basically told me to shut up and listen to what that other woman telling me what a good man is.
Now, in case your threads aren’t stacking proper, here is how the conversation went:
Leslie said what it means to be a good man: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-praise-of-small-breasted-women/comment-page-3/#comment-151175
I told leslies she doesn’t get to tell us what makes a good man, especially when it is so self serving: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-praise-of-small-breasted-women/comment-page-3/#comment-151216
Jo told me to shut up and listen when a woman is speaking to me: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-praise-of-small-breasted-women/comment-page-3/#comment-152406
So please, make sure you have all the facts before screaming in caps at me.
Mark,
The post I was replying to** (but didn’t get included into the string), the one I directly quoted, discussing what a good man really is, very much WAS discussing men. Furthermore, telling me to shut up and listen is very much directed at me and men.
Except that that post was by an entirely different person. I assume you realize that. Notably, Jo didn’t reiterate her points. Jo made her own points, which had nothing to do with your subsequent explosion.
Now, I find it interesting that you characterize a woman telling you not to tell HER how to feel about objectification = her telling you to shut up. Since when is asserting a person’s right to represent their gender and their gender is presented the same as silencing? We don’t allow women to decide what a man is or how men should feel about anything. You said as much yourself in your comment to Leslie. So I’m confused why you’re suddenly talking about both sides of your mouth, essentially holding a double standard in this case?
Another problem with your comment is that you’re acting as if Leslie and Jo are the same person, that their comments both agree with one another. But that’s a false equivalency. Jo is not Leslie. One woman’s opinion is not automatically equal to a different woman’s later opinion, especially when the later opinion’s content has nothing to do with the earlier one. Do you understand?
Personally I find this tactic to be distasteful, as it often used by radfems to shutdown discussions of MRM issues. They’ll hold up one opinion on a topic as representative of later opinions that are fundamentally different in their take on the aforementioned topic.
So please, make sure you have all the facts before screaming in caps at me.
So apparently I do have my facts in order and apparently you don’t… As such I believe my LOUD (not screaming) message stands. Calm down and think rationally. You’ll find this is a non-issue. Nobody’s silencing you. Nobody’s shutting you down. You are not being attacked as a man, for being a man, or for having an opinion as a man. Jo doesn’t want you to tell her (or women) how to feel about objectification. You don’t want Leslie to tell you how to be a good man. Neither you or Jo want to be told by the opposite gender how to be about your own gender. You both actually agree!
So, please, calm down.
“Except that that post was by an entirely different person”
I do, I even acknowledge it in my breackdown, with links to each post. What you are failing to notice is that Jo’s response to me (which wasn’t in response to her) made the assertion that I should listen to what the other poster was telling us about what makes a good man. She was defending that assertion. Moreover, she did so by telling me to “SHUT UP AND LISTEN”.
“Now, I find it interesting that you characterize a woman telling you not to tell HER how to feel about objectification = her telling you to shut up.”
No actually, I characterize a woman telling me to shut up and listen = to her telling me to shut up (and listen). Did you even read her post, or the direct quotes I added to mine? Or are you just coming to her rescue, all white knight like. Here, let me repeat what she said, and I’ll include the link to her post AGAIN so you can check for yourself:
“If a woman is telling you she finds what you’re saying offensive and objectifying, shut up and listen and don’t tell women how they should feel about your BS.”
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-praise-of-small-breasted-women/comment-page-3/#comment-152406
“So apparently I do have my facts in order”
Given you still don’t seem to realize my getting upset at her for telling me to shut up and listen was because she actually told me to shut up and listen, not because I interpreted it from some “don’t objectify women” opinion, I’d seriously have to question if you really do have all the facts.
And enough with the “Calm down”. It is an underhanded tactic of trying to assert some kind of unprovoked hostility on my part, implying an irrational mindset. It is an attempt to shut down discussion. The problem is, you are doing it AFTER you have told me I’m wrong.
Mark,
What you are failing to notice is that Jo’s response to me (which wasn’t in response to her) made the assertion that I should listen to what the other poster was telling us about what makes a good man. She was defending that assertion. </i.
No, she wasn't. She was making a different assertion and talking about a different point. Apparently you didn't understand my previous comments, since you said:
he can’t even seem to realize that the “shut up and listen” isn’t an interpretation, but an actual quote)Let me try again with you:
“If a woman is telling you she finds what you’re saying offensive and objectifying, shut up and listen and don’t tell women how they should feel about your BS.”
She was saying you should listen to her — and to women — when she/they say how they feel about objectification. Period. Full stop. Fin.
So why are you ignoring the first part and third parts of her statement and moving straight to the “shut up” portion? Are you merely looking for any reason to be offended and explode as you have done?
I’d not have been so hostile without the shut up and listen. Such a comment clearly intends to end discussion, and I don’t accept being silenced like that.
I guess I just answered my above question. Are you really making a tone argument? Are you really upset that someone else is upset at being told how they should feel about objectification? Notice no one has “silenced” you, evidenced by how you are here still discussing the issue. More importantly, telling someone not to tell them how to feel is not attempting to end discussion, but to end insults. I feel the same way when women tell me how to feel about misandry, and so I tell them to shut up to.
Did you even read her post, or the direct quotes I added to mine? Or are you just coming to her rescue, all white knight like. Here, let me repeat what she said, and I’ll include the link to her post AGAIN so you can check for yourself:
I read the whole exchange. I read your links. I even reread it to be sure I wasn’t missing anything. I’m not “White Knighting”, though your accusation to that effect is very telling. Let me clear something up for you: it is sexist (both misandric and misogynistic) to dismiss a man’s arguments simply because he is disagreeing with another man in favor of a woman. That you’re calling me a White Knight highlights my point that you are not thinking rationally. Like, at all.
So let me, for the last time, repeat myself:
Calm down. Think rationally. Try to see that both you and Jo actually agree! Look at the facts. It’s incredibly disappointing to see someone so committed to their outrage (or faux-outrage?) that they can’t see reality staring them in the face.
But in the end, I can console you so much. If you want to be dishonestly angry, then that’s your prerogative. I said my peace. Hopefully in the future you’ll be less hasty and more discerning? If not, I worry you’ll inevitably become embittered.
Take care, man.
“She was saying you should listen to her”
No, she is saying I should SHUT UP and listen to her. She is saying when a woman speaks, and man should not be aloud to have his say. You accuse me of ignoreing the first and third parts, while you ignore the second, but the first leads into the second, it gives the reasoning why a man should shut up, AKA, because a woman is saying something. It is then compounded by the final part which establishes a double standard, a woman should be not be told how they should feel, but a man should shut up and listen while a woman tells a man how HE should feel.
“So why are you ignoring the first part and third parts of her statement and moving straight to the “shut up” portion?”
Because I didn’t, but the shut up portion was what made the whole part offensive. Telling me I shouldn’t ignore what a woman gets offended about is one thing, tell me to shut up and listen when a woman speaks is something else entirely. So I need to ask, why are you ignoring that she actually said shut up and listen.
“Are you really upset that someone else is upset at being told how they should feel about objectification?”
1: I did not tell anyone how they should “feel” about objectification, I objected and defined that appreciation for one aspect of something does not preclude me from appreciating other aspects as well. Objectification is not “I like XYZ”, Objectification is “you are XYZ”. I like breasts does not mean all you are is breasts. The later is objectification, the former is not, and this clarification says nothing about how you should feel about ether assertion.
2: I’m upset about being told I’m not allowed to have a say, that, when a woman talks, I should shut up and listen. Have you dug in your heels so much you’re unwilling to see why that particular phrase is so offensive?
” Notice no one has “silenced” you, evidenced by how you are here still discussing the issue.”
Really? I thought we were discussing my getting offended by “shut up and listen”, not about objectification. So between the complete change of topic, and your continual “calm downs and accusations of irrationality, yes, the end result is my opinion on objectification has been silenced.
“More importantly, telling someone not to tell them how to feel is not attempting to end discussion, but to end insults.”
But as you, yourself acknowledged, I never told Jo how to feel, I was speaking to Leslie when she came in and told me to shut up and listen when a woman was speaking.
“I feel the same way when women tell me how to feel about misandry, and so I tell them to shut up to.”
Then you are wrong for that too. Shut up is nothing more than an attempt to distract the topic away from rational discussion and into a flame war. that is precisely what happened here, and worst off, Jo doesn’t even need to participate, since you jumped up to protect her like a good little boy. Oh, your repeated calm downs and think rationally are used for the exact same purpose. So was my cupcake remark, but I considered the conversation over by then anyways, given the shut up and listen comment.
“I’m not “White Knighting””
You’ve ignored her comments in favour of defending her. At no point have you even acknowledged that, regardless of what she intended, saying “shut up and listen” is not a good way to promote discussion. You have left her entirely blameless in favour of focusing, not on my opinion on objectification, but on my taking offense to a very hostile phrase. So I very much feel you are white knighting, shut up and listen and don’t tell me how I should feel about your choice to argue with me.
“Let me clear something up for you: it is sexist (both misandric and misogynistic) to dismiss a man’s arguments simply because he is disagreeing with another man in favor of a woman.”
It is also sexist to villianize a males anger and excuse the poor behaviour of the woman that caused that anger. And to continue to do so, never once acknowledging that that anger may be justified.
“So let me, for the last time, repeat myself:
Calm down. Think rationally.”
That’s the third time you have accused me of acting irrationally (not including those implied within the “calm down” remarks themselves.). Clearly you have already dismissed me and what I have to say. You are unwilling to accept anything I’ve said is anything more than an irrational reaction. You have assumed that your position is superior to mine, and should I just calm down and defer to your greater wisdom, I will see that for myself, but you still continue to ignore the hostility of the shut up and listen comment, and have given no rational reason for doing so, only the fact you are guilty of doing it yourself (so of sourse you are unwilling to see it as the hostility it is).
Since you clearly don’t care to have a discussion about objectification, and you clearly aren’t willing to acknowledge the wrongs I replied to (regardless of how wrong you feel my reply was), then clearly all you want to do is protect the poor women from my anger…(AKA white knighting), when the best way to do that would be to shut up and go away. I’m curious if, despite your claim to “for the last time”, can you actually do that (I suspect you can, given this post was largely about you, not Jo, and so long as the heat is off her, you’ve done your knightly duty and sacrificed yourself for her. Good boy.
” Think rationally. Try to see that both you and Jo actually agree! ”
Odd, I don’t think we do, because, you see, I think men should ALSO have an opinion, and be allowed to speak it. After all, the shut up and listen part couldn’t possibly been about giving leslie an opportunity to speak her mind, since, being this is text, I’m not capable of talking over her and denying her the chance to speak, so the ONLY explanation is that I am not to ever speak against such assertions, AKA, I’m not allowed an opinion. And as irrational as you say I am, I still have enough faculties to know that’s not what I think.
“Look at the facts. It’s incredibly disappointing to see someone so committed to their outrage (or faux-outrage?) that they can’t see reality staring them in the face.”
Is this really supposed to convince me of anything other than personal opinions of you which would break the forum rules should I describe them? What’s disappointing is that, until now, I thought what you had to say was typically fairly reasonable. I didn’t always agree, but we don’t need to, but right from the start, you have done nothing but excuse Jo’s hostility while condemning my hostility in response to hers. You have basically come to her defense because I got angry she slapped me.
And I don’t give a damn about your disappointment, this also is another derailing tactic. your posts have been rife with them since the start.
You can take your console and stuff it, because all it is is another attempt to shame me and silence me, which is no better than Jo’s shut up and listen.
“If you want to be dishonestly angry, then that’s your prerogative.”
And yet, you’ve spent several posts telling me it’s not, tat I shouldn’t be angry.
“I said my peace. Hopefully in the future you’ll be less hasty and more discerning?”
If that means I’ll excuse such comments as jo’s, then you’re going to continue to be disappointed.
“If not, I worry you’ll inevitably become embittered.”
Stuff your shaming language, I’m sick of it.
Honestly I think Mark would not have blown up (not as much perhaps) if it wasn’t for Jo’s “shut up and listen”. (And your all caps probably aren’t helping either.)
I’d not have been so hostile without the shut up and listen. Such a comment clearly intends to end discussion, and I don’t accept being silenced like that. It’s also why I’m disliking the whole “calm down” approach Mr white knight is taking (not so much the caps, but capping CALM DOWN is very annoying, given he can’t even seem to realize that the “shut up and listen” isn’t an interpretation, but an actual quote)
Mark has a point though, pointing out physical attributes ALONE doesn’t make it objectification. He’d have to only ever point out physical attributes in his life or care mostly about them, or write how the author wrote, to make it objectifying.
Basically talking about your fav boobies = fine, normal, talking ONLY about your fav boobies and ignoring other qualities in women = objectifying. Of course this also relies on subjective feelings and 2 people can read a comment differently, to one it might be objectifying and to another it could be fine. A question to ask is are some women seeing too much objectification in everything? Are they seeing it where it’s not intended nor shown?
It’s important for men to acknowledge a woman’s feelings but she needs to afford him the same respect, she needs to understand his intentions could be completely pure at heart and stating I love small boobies ALONE doesn’t have to mean he only cares about her body.
“If a woman is telling you she finds what you’re saying offensive and objectifying, shut up and listen and don’t tell women how they should feel about your BS.”
But what if she is seeing it where it isn’t? Projecting her own BS onto him, assuming he is being offensive when he’s not actually objectifying? Do we need to shutup and listen still, or would it be better for both to talk about it, have him understand her and her understand him? We may live in a sea of objectification of women in the media but it’s NO EXCUSE to simply ignore a man’s intention or hyperfocus on a few words whilst ignoring the rest of what he likes. I’ve had experiences where I’ve complimented a woman on both her physical and psychological attributes, her achievements as well but she’s glossed over the last 2 in favour of feeling objectified by the first. It’s annoying as hell for someone to not only misinterpret you, but become offended by your words whilst ignoring half of them.
Mark has a point though, pointing out physical attributes ALONE doesn’t make it objectification.
Oh I don’t doubt that.
Its just that once the shut up and listen came out the chances of civil conversation sunk lower than the Titanic. Even if I were totally disagreeing with Mark I wouldn’t have come at him like that. This could have turned out very differently if the hostility hadn’t have come at him like that, because as you can see he responded with hostility in turn.
And honestly I was hoping that a mod would have jumped in. Maybe there were none around when this went down.
Yup, tone can kill convos quick. It’s why I’ve done the rewording game before, reword a good but hostile comment into something less volatile so others can understand it better without being triggered into defensiveness.
Mark:
What is it with men and comparing women to meat? I do admit the turkey analogy is a little better than the chicken nugget one from another thread.
Since when are stuffing, mashed potatoes, turnips, cranberry sauce, apple pie and icecream meat? You see, I see women as a whole diversity of different things, brought together into a wonderful combination of stimulating deliciousness. The fact I choose to use a thanksgiving dinner for my analogy is because I happened to be eating stuffing at the time (stove top, unfortunately).
I could ask, why is it some women can’t understand the concept of an analogy, being to demonstrate an issue outside of the dynamics it was previously being discussed in? By using food as an analogy, I remove the gender dynamic, while still getting the idea across… unless someone chooses to inject the gender dynamic back in by accusing me of equating women with meat. I need to ask, do you see yourself as meat, and so associate any discussion of meat as being about you? I suppose it’s lucky I didn’t talk about steak vs roast beef vs hamburger, to add the COW implication to the meat one.
Mark Neil:
I see what you are saying, but comparing women to food especially MEAT makes it seem like woman are here to fulfill a man’s (sexual) appetite,. Women are like an assortment of flavors to be devoured. Food analogies are not the way to go not even by a long shot.
When discussing personal tastes and preferences, food analogies are very much appropriate. If you choose to read more into it than what the analogy was about, that is the projection of your own biases, and not my problem. This is especially noticeable given you’re still attributing what I said as comparing women to MEAT when the very first food I said was stuffing (you do realize stuffing is made largely of bread and spices, no meat necessary).
I’m not going to apologize because you don’t like my choice of analogy.
Mark Neil:
and walking hormone, and she should also speak, write and act in a way that treats them as such. Oh wait, is that an offensive statement to make, generalizing like that?”
It would actually be easier to the atm than judged on beauty which is luck of the draw. A woman can get help from a plastic surgeon to create a better body, aside from that she’s screwed.
There is a reason men are stereotyped as walking hormone is because a lot of men act like a walking hormone. For example, when I used to date the vast majority of men wanted sex on the first date. Right off the bat they let me know they are primarily interested in one thing. The last date I went on the guy admitted he just wanted to have “mad passionate sex,” and of course, no mention of actually getting to know me for who i really am. So there is probably a reason so many women here seem sensitive to being objectified.
I can tell you, it truly bothers me when a woman decides to tell a man that being a “good man” requires him to defer to her expectations.”
…But i’ve asked men on how I can better myself. I dont necessarily find suggestions from the opposite sex offensive.
and the constant beratement of men for appreciating the female form is what’s driving men away, causing all the “where have all the good men gone?” articles.
And how is omen expecting to be treated like whole people driving men away?
So basically, you’re justifying and making excuses for stereotyping and objectifying men?
“But i’ve asked men on how I can better myself. I dont necessarily find suggestions from the opposite sex offensive.”
1: You asked, weren’t told. 2: where their suggestions to defer to a man’s expectations? Is it not possible that the reason you were not offended was because their response didn’t relegate you to the role of servant or unpaid intern?
“And how is omen expecting to be treated like whole people driving men away?”
By ignoring that you are also a sum of parts and whinging whenever someone else notes those parts, by claiming acknowledging the parts precludes one from acknowledging the whole. Since you don’t like food analogies, how about sports? I can look at the Leafs and say, I think Lupul is a good player. This doesn’t mean I don’t think anyone else is a good player, and it doesn’t say anything about what I think of the team as a whole. When a man says “I like small breasts”, and gets attacked and accused for objectifying women for it, despite the fact he didn’t objectify women, at no point did he do anything to women except acknowledge there is a type of breast he has a preference for, which happens to be relevant to women due to them, you know, having breast… it kinda makes men want to walk away, because we all know, standing up for himself will only make things worst.
Mark Neil:
“So basically, you’re justifying and making excuses for stereotyping and objectifying men?”
A lot of times stereotypes have some kind of truth in them, and there’s a reason men are seen as walking hormones ie there own behavior. Seriously, am i not supposed to notice?
“where their suggestions to defer to a man’s expectations? ”
Actually, in some ways yes..
It seems like a lot of the criticism was the tone of the article.
“You’re a small breasted, deformed creature, but it’s ok because I like you.”
I think the author meant well, it just came out very offensive.
“A lot of times stereotypes have some kind of truth in them, ”
I can remember that as a valid excuse next time I hear a complaint about stereotyping women then? For example, if someone stereotypes women as gold diggers, and a feminist complains that’s stereotyping, I’m allowed to jump in and say “A lot of times stereotypes have some kind of truth in them, and there’s a reason women are seen as gold diggers”? Or is this just setting up another double standard?
“Actually, in some ways yes..”
In some ways, but not in it’s entirety? It wasn’t “If you want to be a good women, you need to treat your man like the king and speak, write, and act in a way that treats them as such”?
You also said you don’t “necessarily ” get offended by the suggestions? Do these suggestion that don’t fit into the “necessarily ” exception include the ones where you are expected to defer to a man? Does the fact you asked for input not dull some of the offense (after all, you asked for it)? Keep in mind where the conversation came from, don’t take the question purely on its own, without context.
‘It seems like a lot of the criticism was the tone of the article.”
Oh, I agree. I’ve said a few times now the author did not do a very good job at getting his intentions across, and that what came out was pretty offensive. My problem is when that turns into “any man acknowledge women have bodies and are more than just an amorphous conciseness without physical form, and choose to note that he finds aspects of those bodies to be appealing, attractive, whatever, that he is now objectifying women” or worst, demands that (or makes assertions we can only be real men if) we don’t do that ( “Acknowledge women have bodies …. consciousness …. appealing … objectify women”).
Please, do keep that in mind. I am not defending this article, but I do find too many of the responses go TOO far in their criticism of men in general, and of what objectification is or isn’t.
A lot of times stereotypes have some kind of truth in them, and there’s a reason women are seen as gold diggers”? Or is this just setting up another double standard?”
I can actually see where some men are coming from with the gold digger idea (although i think the concept of gold digger is more about keep women from having any kind of standards for men ). I have posted criticisms of women on this site, so I’m not opposed to men posting criticisms of women.
If you want to be a good women, you need to treat your man like the king and speak, write, and act in a way that treats them as such”?
Actually, not quite that but something along those lines.
My problem is when that turns into “any man acknowledge women have bodies and are more than just an amorphous conciseness without physical form, and choose to note that he finds aspects of those bodies to be appealing, attractive, whatever, that he is now objectifying women” or worst, demands that (or makes assertions we can only be real men if) we don’t do that ( “Acknowledge women have bodies …. consciousness …. appealing … objectify women”).
Men have whole culture devoted to treating women like meat, so of course, some woman somewhere is going to feel objectified when men start talking about womens bodies.
I have massive knockers and a PhD from Cambridge. Does that, like, really mess with your head? I’ve never liked all the stereotypes associated with having big breasts and don’t feel I’ve particularly benefited from them, any more than a woman with small breasts will benefit from everyone deciding she’s some bookish wallflower. But hey, thanks for reinforcing the stereotypes all the same. Just what we women need.
I have always cringed when people from this side of the fence make the crazy claim that MRA’s are sexist. I will cringe with more energy than usual in the future. This article is a load of sexist crap.
I am guessing MRA’s will address this one. It appears GMP is indeed going in a very new direction under its new leadership.
Could you clarify that second paragraph? Cause there are several pro-men’s stance people (I don’t know which identify as MRA’s and which just prefer egalitarian, though I myself identify MRA) who have spoken up about this article. I’m also not sure which “new leadership” you’re referring to. Tom may have taken a firm stance against some of the hardline feminists that once dominated these pages, but the leadership, to the best of my knowledge, didn’t change, they just had an awakening. But they still publish drivel from both camps, as well as others, like this author.
@ Justa Mann
I don’t know if Mark identifies as MRA or not. Many feminists post on this site as well. I’m not even sure that the site is an MRM site in the classic sense. Since GMP is concerned with social justice for men, I can see how you might confuse this with a strictly MRA site. Although many feminist sites claim that they are concerned with equality and justice and breaking down gender roles, justice and equality and breaking down gender barriers for men does seem to be topics restricted to MRM sites.
Judging from your statement, I don’t think you spend significant time on this site. It’s interesting to me that you decided that Mark was an MRA. Not in the MRM, but specifically an MRA. No preconceived biases there, huh? I myself decided to identify as MRA when I found anti-male sexism present in modern day feminism (note the ACA’s denial of coverage for many men while providing it for women and feminist support of the ACA). Not always blatant sometimes only in omission (note the FBI rape definition that exempts almost every female perpetrator from the count and essentially genders the crime). At times, it is a direct contradiction to what they say. They preach bodily autonomy, but will not support a ban on FGC. I’ve even seen feminists state that they would practice FGC and not for religious reasons. That’s not even the most radical stuff. I’ve seen feminists cheer male rape. I’ve seen feminists advocate for male victims of rape to pay child support to their rapists. Thankfully, this site allows me to meet other feminists, who don’t agree with these things.
MRA is a fairly recent label so I’m still figuring out what the universal concept of what an MRA is supposed to be, but based on my understanding what Mark wrote would not qualify as MRA regardless of what he identifies with.
Good grief. Like others, when I read the title, I thought here’s a piece on simply loving women; the short, tall, slim, curvy, whatever shape women are in.
Instead it was just a male expressing his fetish for small breasts. Just as some men are turned on by the turn of an ankle, others dream of ponderous buttocks, Mark Radcliffe is into the athletic look. Nothing wrong with that I guess, but the following line suggests a rather skewed value system:
“Because you’ve been overlooked by luck before. ”
No, in fact I wish I could go back to being a perky A-Cup. I have never felt that the fickle finger of beauty has been unkind to me. Yes I was, and still am, athletic. I think breasts simply get in the way of many physical pursuits. In fact would like a breast reduction – but not that desperate to go under the knife either, besides plastic surgeon probably wouldn’t take me seriously anyway – in American measurement I am now a 36 B cup.
I did, once, get dissed for having small breasts – I was 17 at the time. I had already decided the guy was a waste of time, and he confirmed my opinion after suggesting I “go on the pill, as the hormone would make my breasts grow larger”. That was not devastating to my self esteem, or “unlucky” rather it weeded out the type of male who sees women as a collection of body parts.
Not saying ALL men are fetishists – please don’t start gender wars here. I was simply hoping for an article with some depth; a bit of cleavage in fact. Instead it was shallow, flabby – not a hint of intellectual athleticism.
oh man. Seriously–I got the same feeling. “Oh, you poor small breasted women. Let me take pity on you and your tiny vulnerability. I’m sure you’ll except my creepy, stalkerish praise because you don’t get that kind of attention anywhere else, do you?”
Every damn day walking to class, actually. Expect usually its from immature frat boys driving by in their trucks hollering shit like this. Not people claiming to be good men.
hahaha oh man. this article in a nutshell: “hey, girls, don’t think having big breasts is the most important thing. i mean, your breasts are the most important part of you, and pretty much the only thing i care about, but they don’t have to be BIG.”
“And yes, don’t worry, we snuck a good, long look at your body.”
I read that earlier today, and I can’t get it out of my head. Skeevy doesn’t even come close.
Thank you.
As an owner of two B-cups I guess I’m kind of in the middle. Does that mean no one likes me?
As a small-breasted woman, I, too, really wanted to like this article. I realize that the author had sincere intentions: To celebrate the beauty he sees in women who are often put down as inadequate. But it doesn’t read as real praise. Instead, it comes across as, “Because you are in fact lacking sex appeal other women have, you’ve had to try harder to succeed in other ways.”
The truth is, when it comes to personality, all women of all breast sizes are equal. We can all be adventurous, smart, fun, athletic, etc. True, it takes a certain resilience to live through being picked on for being flat-chested. It also takes resilience to be seen as a walking pair of breasts. These both come with ways to be insecure and ways to be arrogant. The problem with this article is that it says because you have small breasts you get to HAVE a personality valued by straight men because they aren’t so distracted by your cleavage. (But you still have to be skinny to be attractive.)
In relationships, what women want is pretty simple: They want to be seen by the men (or women) they date as a whole person, who has values, ideas, adventures, hobbies, opinions, emotions—and yes, an embodied sexual side. When you’re admired for everything but having a sexual side, that sucks. But it also sucks to ONLY seen as a sexual object, as opposed to a full human who enjoys sex on their own terms.
My last lover said all these amazing things to me, about how he admired me for my values, for who I am in the world, for how I think, for who I’m trying to be. It was awesome, and I absolutely want all of that. On top of that, I want a guy who is 100 percent into my boobs, and finds them just as irresistible and lust provoking as other guys find DDs. I don’t want to hear, “Oh your personality (or your ass or your BMI) makes up for your lack.” I want that raw sexual desire—which is not objectification when it comes with appreciating the whole person—to play on second base to be a part of the package. Is that asking for too much?
I wish there were a way to celebrate the sex appeal of small breasts that didn’t feel like shameful objectification for the author and didn’t involve insulting other women. Somehow, our society is much more comfortable casually objectifying women with large breasts, but with small breasts, we have to be, like, so much more refined about it. We can’t just say, “I think small breasts are freaking hot!” We have to talk about how elegant and athletic and dainty such the women who have them are. It’s odd.
“I wish there were a way to celebrate the sex appeal of small breasts that didn’t feel like shameful objectification for the author and didn’t involve insulting other women.”
I think any celebration of the female form is going to be interpreted as insulting by some women. They can’t seem to get over the word “objectification” without throwing a conniption fit. It strikes me as an epidemic of massive inferiority complexes.
And for the record “I think breasts are freaking hot!”
Thanks for your comment, Jimmy.
The thing is, when you’re a woman, you receive thousand upon thousands of coded messages to you every day telling you that your looks are all the matter and that you are unattractive. They’re on TV, on the Internet, on Facebook joke and ads, on subways, on public toilet ads, in stores, on magazine racks. These messages also tell you that you only matter if you can attract a man, and you have to compete with other women, who probably have a physical advantage (bustier, thinner, blonder, etc.) to do so. Guys don’t really process these messages, because they aren’t direct at them. They think, “Oh that’s a hot chick on that billboard,” and go on with their day.
On the flip side, as a woman, you’ll find yourself in a situation where a man is approaching you with an uncomfortable level of sexual entitlement. Trucker might see you dancing to a song in your car and leer and lick and smack his lips at you. A homeless bum might tell you how he intends to perform a sexual act on you. A group of teen boys might lean out of their car and say, “I’d like to like your pussy.” You get ogled, you get unwanted gropes. One of my unwanted gropers was a serial rapist; he followed me around campus and I had to file sexual assault charges. It did not stroke my ego. I got subpoenaed 10 years later to testify in actual rape case against him.
So, yes, women are sensitive to these issues. I hope you can give us a break. We want to be respected as fully human; we want to make sure we aren’t just reduced to our body parts, and we also don’t want to feel like we have to buy a million products (go on insane diets, get plastic surgery) to be perfect enough to enjoy our sexuality.
I do hope women listen to their friends and family more than the billboards though. I try to let my friends know how awesome it is they do stuff, their intelligence etc. If I compliment a woman I try to ensure I also compliment her personality, what she has done etc. The most beautiful women to me have a heart that is beautiful, and that whole package becomes awesome but I have found with some women that they only listen to the compliments about their body I give, ignore the other stuff and assume I only care abut their body. It’s pretty annoying
It’s extremely annoying though to be lumped in with some negative assumption of why men talk about a woman’s looks, like it or not physical attraction plays a role in dating and thus looks will be complimented. It seems like some women just want you to close your eyes and ignore their looks completely, any mention of it will be met with disgust and calls of objectification. Simply stating looks alone doesn’t make it objectifying, if that person only focuses on them then sure. But even if there is a lot of media that does objectify women, women need to realize that individual men can pay a compliment without ever trying to objectify women.
If I admire someones beauty, maybe I see a beautiful woman and look for a few seconds it doesn’t mean I am ONLY interested in her looks. After that initial “Wow! she is beautiful” I think “What is she like, wonder what she does, is she nice? etc”.
There are times where I wonder if I should even compliment physical attributes or just focus ONLY on other attributes. Is this feeling of objectification common to MOST women, or just a few?
I have never really liked being complimented on my looks (such as they are) because why compliment someone about something that they didn’t earn, that they just received by the luck of genetics? It’s like praising someone for having wealthy parents. So if I’m walking down the street and a guy says “hey beautiful,” I mean, really, why should I care? Does it make me a better, more valuable, more worthy person? No. I’d much rather be complimented for something I’ve accomplished through effort, not for something I don’t have a lot of control over.
In some cases I think compliments on looks are used as an ice breaker. One’s looks are immediately noticeable so it makes sense that someone would comment on them in hopes of getting a conversation started.
You’re walking down the street and someone wants to start talking to you and express their interest in you. Which are they going to notice on first contact? The fact that you are physically attractive or the fact that you are the CEO of a company you built from the ground up yourself? Yes you put in a lot of effort to build that company but that’s nowhere near as noticeable on first contact as your looks.
Now once contact has been made and its clear they are still focusing on your looks and not talking about accomplishments (or asking you about yours) then yeah that could be a problem.
There is also the fact that looks can go far beyond just genetics. Women can take a great deal of effort in making themselves up, with the right hair, the right make-up, the right cloths and attitude, one can really build up what was given naturally. Is it not rude to ignore those efforts?
True, but what is generally perceived as beauty in women is largely a combination of genetics and youth. Obviously staying in shspe helps one’s figure, but your face, breast size, and basic body structure are genetic, unless you’ve had a lot of cosmetic surgery. Clothes can’t really make someone more beautiful or less beautiful, they can only enhance or hide certain features, to an extent.
I’m not sure I agree with your wording, but I get your point.
But overall, I think what is defined as beautiful is a combination of both natural and artifical means. For example, a traditionally defined beautiful women doesn’t look nearly so beautiful with tangled hair, old runny makeup and a baggy sweat-suit as a traditionally unattractive large bodied woman all spruced up and in lingerie. So while I do believe what is defined as beautiful certainly plays off genetics and youth, but to limit it to that alone is rather dishonest. It also doesn’t address my point that, should a woman (whether naturally beautiful or not) takes the effort to make herself up as beautiful as she can, is it not rude to ignore that effort?
I think that beautiful women are often beautiful whatever they are wearing. A woman who is not considered conventionally beautiful will look better in nice clothes, but clothes won’t really do much to change whether she’s “beautiful” or not. Again, what most people call beauty is a gift of genetics and youth, for the most part. If a guy on the street tells me I’m beautiful, I doubt it has anything to do with the effort I put into selecting a wardrobe. He probably likes my breasts or thinks I have a pretty face , neither of which were achieved by any merit I have that others don’t.
“He probably likes my breasts or thinks I have a pretty face…”
If that is how you think of men, then I think we’re done.
@Mark, I’ve occasionally had a guy on the street say “hey beautiful” and I don’t wear makeup, and my clothes tend to be comfortable rather than stylish. I only have 2 features that stand out: I have largish breasts and I’ve been told that my face is pretty. Otherwise, I’m pretty average. So if a guy thinks I’m beautiful, I assume it has something to do with breasts+face. With other women, I’m sure other things are noticed.
So, because you have determined yourself to be average all around except for two features, that’s all men are allowed to notice and like about you? seems to me, it’s you who is objectifying yourself, but worst, you’re then blaming men for it. To believe you are nothing more than boobs and a pretty face (and even this you don’t seem so sure on, it’s only because you were told that)? You may not have had any makeup, but how was your hair? your walk? your confidence? Perhaps that man liked women who felt comfortable natural, and felt that, given the pressure on women to make themselves up, he wanted to encourage the natural look? But I suppose none of these could possibly be the case, after all, all you are are boobs and a pretty face.
Ok, well, look, my original point was that I don’t like being complimented for my looks because whether a woman is considered beautiful, or not, is largely a gift of genetics. Yes there may be some effort involved (staying in shape or whatever ) but that only goes so far. Most women who men find beautiful are young, and being young requires no effort whatsoever. So, in response, you pointed out that many woman put tons if effort into looking good. I agree, but I don’t put much effort into it. So, what men find beautiful about me, if they do find me beautiful, does not reflect effort. Even if there’s more to it than boobs & face, like how I walk, or a “natural look,” well that doesn’t require effort either. So we are back to genes again. A man might as well tell me ” you have beautiful DNA!” So my reaction is kind of a shrug. Look, I’m just saying this is how I personally react when men compliment my appearance , others obviously may feel differently.
And as a personal reaction, that’s fine. It’s when you start asserting that men shouldn’t do it because “you’re personal reaction” is to dislike it, where so many other women clearly put in the effort to make themselves as beautiful as they can (genetic advantage or otherwise) because they do want it (though they don’t always like how they get it). It goes further when you attribute to all men your own biases based on how you personally choose to interpret and react to such compliments.
PS, I still think you’re objectifying yourself worst than any man could.
Well beauty is a positive quality to go for as it’s a partial indicator of “good genes”, healthy offspring since many features that are beautiful are also good traits (symmetry, weight and body type, skin, etc). Not a perfect indicator of health though,.
I never said in any of my comments that men shouldn’t give compliments, I’m just saying that personally I am not impressed if/when men compliment my physical attributes, and there are women who share my feelings on the matter, though others may feel differently. I would rather be complimented on sime that reflects my value as a human being.
*something
Beauty is subjective though, what is beautiful to someone could be boring, ugly to another. So the compliment implies that person is attracted to you, something unique from genetics and luck of the draw. Whilst you might find many people attracted to a supermodel they still aren’t a universal beauty.
Things that make a person beautiful can be gained by hard work such as exercise to keep their weight in check, various makeup, clothing and hair styling, personality n friendly nature. I don’t see the compliment as saying you’re lucky in genetics, I see it as stating that person finds YOU beautiful and that isn’t guaranteed.
” Does it make me a better, more valuable, more worthy person? No. I’d much rather be complimented for something I’ve accomplished through effort, not for something I don’t have a lot of control over.”
Well on first meeting we can’t really understand your personality but later on sure there is a need to compliment all aspects of a person, not just their looks. You also do have control over your looks to a certain extent, hair style, makeup, clothing, what you eat, what you do, taking care of your skin (eg don’t suntan like crazy leaving sundamaged leathery skin), moisturizing that skin, exercise and fitness, sleep (tiredness shows), personal hygiene, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Maybe the beautiful compliment should be read as “I think your clothing, makeup, hairstyle, care of your overall body, hygeine, fitness, etc are all beautiful”. A small thing that can separate people in beauty is dressing decently for going to “town/city”. Instead of wearing torn up “yard” clothing people put on something a bit more decent to mix n mingle with, that adds to beauty for many people I think. Ensuring your hair isn’t daggy, frazzled, in need of a cut or trim is another way. Ensuring your skin isn’t like a couch is another, etc.
Yeah, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with appreciating beauty, or paying a compliment. My point was objectification is real, and unfortunately, the men who make women feel threatened or uncomfortable make it harder for everyone else. I think compliments are best when they’re given generously without expectations, and aren’t overtly sexual comments like, “Hey Red, you have a famous ass.”
A guy can also have this weird assumption (which is encouraged by the media) that all women care about what he personally thinks about their looks. Sometimes, I don’t care. So when my former psycho housemate gets in my face and says I’m lucky he finds me so unattractive, I didn’t care. He thought he was throwing verbal rocks at me, though, because his opinion should that power over me. I did care that the handsome and kind guy I was dating at the time hadn’t kissed me good night yet (eventually he did).
On the flip side, though, I have been involved with really great guys who were trying so hard to not objectify me that I started to wonder if they liked my physically. One would only only say, “You’re so attractive” and not gendered words like “pretty” or “beautiful.” And never ever “sexy,” even though his body clearly thought so. The latest kept saying, thinks like “The first thing I noticed about you was your writing” and “I love who you are–on the inside.” Eventually, he got comfortable enough to tell me he found me “hot” and “beautiful,” but it took a while. Pretty much, if I decide, “Yes, I want to be in relationship where we get to take off our clothes and fool around,” then you have a free pass to express lust. Because I am full of lust, too.
Thank you for your response, Lisa
“I hope you can give us a break. We want to be respected as fully human; we want to make sure we aren’t just reduced to our body parts, and we also don’t want to feel like we have to buy a million products (go on insane diets, get plastic surgery) to be perfect enough to enjoy our sexuality.”
You got it! I grew up surrounded by sisters and have seen firsthand the trouble and anxiety they go through to look beautiful. While I don’t understand exactly what you go through, I empathize with the pressure you must feel. But I hope that you can give us men a break and realize that we can view you and respect you as a fully functioning human being but also obsess a little bit over how beautiful you are. I can respect my girlfriend’s analytical and imaginative perspective on life while still fantasizing about her derriere. The two are not mutually exclusive
And by harshly criticizing men for appreciating the beauty of women you are stamping out something really special. The catcalls are disrespectful, I get that. The groping is reprehensible, I get that. But a simple man admiring the shape of a woman is not something to be rooted out and attacked. We are physically attracted to your bodies. And once upon a time, you liked that about us.
“The thing is, when you’re a woman, you receive thousand upon thousands of coded messages to you every day telling you that your looks are all the matter and that you are unattractive.”
I think women don’t realize that when you’re a man, you receive thousands upon thousands of not-so-coded messages to you every day telling you that your wealth and productivity are the only thing that matter about you and that you are not making enough money. That all a woman will ever want you for is what you can provide for her materially and you simply don’t make the cut, and that this in some way takes away your manhood. That if you can’t attract and provide for a woman you are somehow “not a real man.”
So yea, we understand what social pressure feels like.
Don’t forget the constant reminder that we are morons that don’t belong in the kitchen, raising children or taking care of ourselves because we are so inept.
Jimmy, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I realize the messages coded toward men are just a reprehensible and damaging. And also, largely falsehoods.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with appreciating beauty, or having your own turn-ons. I do that, too. I do think objectification is real, and it happens when women become dehumanized in a man’s mind (or vice versa). I think it’s entirely different thing from lust, which can go hand-in-hand with respecting a woman as a person and with love even.
I guess that’s the point I was hoping to make. I wish Mark had a way to say, “Small breasts provoke my lust” without having to couch it in pseudo poetic terms. But it’s hard to talk about lust on its own without sounding like the rest of the person isn’t being taken into account. I understand its difficult.
“I wish there were a way to celebrate the sex appeal of small breasts that didn’t feel like shameful objectification for the author and didn’t involve insulting other women. ”
I love small breasts! How’s that?
Awesome.
218 comments, LOTS of new commenters – has this article gone viral?
“Maybe there’s something fearless and yet vulnerable about your petite frame that draws us.” …are you really saying my vulnerable-looking body type is what turns you on? Honestly if someone told me that in person I’d think he was a rapist.
And I would think it was a compliment Sarah. The heart of relationships is are ability to be vulnerable, soft and open with one another. If someone told me they thought me vulnerable, I wouldn’t automatically think they wanted to rape me. I would think that I drew out protective feelings in them. Because that’s been my experience with men. They equate vulnerablity to intimacy and softness and feelings in protecting that. Not taking advantage of it.
I myself would personally be insulted if anyone thought me vulnerable.
Exactly. Men as protectors has been an ingrained role and part of the male identity for a very long time (and continues to be enforced in many ways even today), so it should not be surprising that a woman who makes a man feel needed in that way would still appeal to him, give him purpose. I myself have never consciously associated “petite as vulnerable” being what appeals to me about petite women, but it doesn’t really surprise me.
Then form a relationship with me. Don’t stand there and stare at my body. How the hell can you tell relational vulnerability from a woman’s size anyway? Answer? You can’t. He was talking about how small my body was, which made me vulnerable. Which means A: he was to physically overpower me, or B: he thinks I’m frail and helpless and in need of his saving. Both are yuck.
Devil’s advocate here!
I can definitely understand how a man would associate vulnerable with a petite woman. I like big and tall men (over 6ft, 230 lbs and up). I’m guilty of equating strong with tall. The men I used to date appreciated the size difference. It was exciting for both of us.
6’6, 300lbs here. Nearly everyone feels smaller than me, I do feel a sense of pride knowing that simply being near my smaller friends I’ve helped stop one getting bullied. I’ve heard from some women they like their men to be bigger than them, they feel protected, and it is nice to feel you protect someone. But I am under no impression that smaller people can’t defend themselves, I’d love a woman to fight side by side with me to help defend our kids if we have them. Size CAN be an advantage and I guess a woman could feel quite safe around me simply as I am nearly twice the size of many other people. It can also be intimidating though especially to women I don’t know.
But I myself am vulnerable at times, both physically n emotionally, a woman of any size can make me feel protected if they love/care for me.
Archy, are you a big cuddly teddy bear? lol
Haha I can be. Looking after a kitten atm and I am extremely cuddly:P. Only certain people bring out my cuddly side though.
I think he means the man being a protector role, I must admit I do feel special when I feel I can protect someone else though I also like knowing they’ll protect me. I don’t think he meant it as a vulnerable for rape kind of way though. Erin also hits the mark pretty well.
Personally, loved this piece of writing.
I read it as simply your expression of appreciation for “the under-appreciated” – at least in Mark’s mind. Honestly, after being around enough guys who seem to be intelligent, worldly, educated men but who somehow have not evolved past the “Al Bundy” level of appreciation for women, it’s nice to hear from a guy who’s not interested in marrying a Hooters waitress. And as someone who is, well, forget about A-cup; my bra size now is LOL…. it feels good to have a male-cheerleader, so to speak, who’s willing to say, “You go, sister, I like it like that!”
I really think the article lived up to its title marvelously.
I don’t really care how well-intentioned this article was.
It doesn’t sound well-intentioned.
It sounds like, “Hey girl, let me assume I can validate your existence purely because I’m a man who finds you attractive.”
Weapons-grade creepy.
And no, I’m not going to tell you what size my breasts are.
Great. Another article objectifying women. When will people get the point that saying “I prefer curvy women” or “I like small tits” is still just presenting women as sex objects rather than as people in themselves? How about, I like my girlfriend because she is fucking sexy, confident and awesome, rather than trying to console girls with small tits and make girls with big ones feel bad about themselves?
Natalie,
I agree that the article is objectifying. (See my initial comment in the older comments portion of the thread.)
However, saying *I* like curvy women/*I* prefer small tits is not, in itself, objectifying. Stating a personal preference does not constitute objectification as the word is defined. Attaching meaning, significance, intelligence, stupidity, and other value judgements to said personal preference IS objectifying though as the word is defined.
So, I’m fine saying I love my girlfriend’s sexy booty. It doesn’t mean I don’t love her hair, humor, jokes, or overall awesomeness. It just literally means I love her butt, because it looks awesome to me.
But I understand that it’s difficult to tread a line between objectification/fetishization/exocitizing and personal preference. We can condemn the former, but not the latter.
Are men allowed to speak of their attraction to women anymore? I agree the article objectifies due to it’s linking body-types and personalities, but “I like small breasts” alone isn’t objectification. Like it or not ladies part of attraction involves sexuality, and yes to hetero men women are usually sexually attractive, certain parts even more than others. This doesn’t mean they don’t like the rest of you, they still can care about your personality, etc but they’re simply saying I love small breasts, they turn me on the most just like nice women are what I love because I hate being around bitches. You’re more than your body but please don’t assume all men only care about your body if they are paying it a compliment (different to how this author did it, he messed up).
Good news for the smaller women….you are IN. I have large ones and it is considered a way to be fat, even though the rest of me is in no way fat. I have an intellectual bent…..I read, I have a degree in math and physics, and I cannot stand most reality television shows (exceptions being shows about some jobs or about large families or the man who combs the rivers of the globe looking for large fish)