Let older boys tell girls what turns them on... says man

[PuffinsAreFictitious]

Article here

Horrible gaslighty article about how older boys should tell girls in schools what they find attractive in females... to stop 'body shaming'. Because all girls really need to know is how best to attract a man. No mention of older girls going and telling younger boys that not being a sexist dickhead is a good way to attract a woman though.

This from a man who wrote a truly awful and deeply unscientific article a while back about how women who leave their children in daycare are damaging them because men don't leave their children, it's always women.

Obviously the best thing a girl can do is listen to older boys tell her how to win a man and then stay at home and look after the babies. Unsurprisingly, it's causing a bit of a stir.

I cannot believe that article.

That bloke must be seriously naive if he can't see what a bad idea this is. He doesn't think that the boys might be tempted to say any old thing just for a laugh? They won't be affected by magazines/ tv/ internet/ porn culture? None of them have The Sun newspaper at home? They will all be perfectly honest with the girls?

Let's face it, we are talking about teenage boys. Not grown men, who might have a bit of maturity, but teenage boys. And it hasn't occurred to him that they might want to tell their mates "I got laid!", and that they might think that a good way to achieve that would be to tell Girl X that looking like Girl X is a man's dream?

Perhaps I am being slightly cynical about this. Or did the editor of the Telegraph use to work for The Onion?

One other thing. I have a very positive self image. In fact, I don't know anyone who is more confident and comfortable than myself, and that is no boast. I do not owe that to teenage boys, but to the influence of my extremely positive mother. I cannot help but think that better maternal support would benefit society in so many ways, from the mental health of lone mothers post partum, to childcare, to better images and self-worth for girls.

I need more words to say how much I agree with that, alex.

Alex you haven't met me. I do not however credit my mother alone for that. She played a part but my maternal grandfather should get more credit.

I am very glad to hear that there is someone else out there with such a positive body image, StillLost. It is very saddening to read and hear of so many people who are unhappy with themselves.

Both my maternal grandparents were also very positive, interestingly enough. Perhaps this is the key. And my father never commented on appearance except for one memorable occasion involving a Santa's Elf costume, never to be lived down so he was neither positive nor negative.

I was very self concious as a teenager. I am struggling to think of anything that could have been worse than sitting with a group of my peers whilst an older teen boy told us how men rated our attractiveness. For that I had teenage magazines

I thought he sounded sincere too. That made it much worse, somehow - that someone who'd actually thought about the issue could be so egocentric and clueless.

I thought he sounded sincere too. He is supposed to be an expert; one wonders what exactly he is an expert on, as human psychology doesn't seem to be it

The thing is sincerity and intent do not matter. The impact matters more. He is a sincere sexist. Wonderful so much better than those insincere sexists

The impact of his good intentions is the dragging out of the notion that we can and should comment on young women's figures for their own good.

If this leads to male tears so what?

His premise is wrong. ED is not in response to thinking that teenage boys are not turned on by your outward appearance. Should we all keep quiet so he can peddle his bad science, cos male tears. I mean how far does it go.

I know I banged om about this on the women of colour thread but this is important.

Good intentions don't matter. It is a platitude for small children. If I burn your house down trying to cook you dinner. I still burned your house down and you would let me go and cook for your friends and family.

This man is an educated adult peddling bad sexist science. I don't care that he looks cuddly and is well spoken. That is almost worse, someone might take him seriously

I agree with everything said so far.

What he seems to have missed, entirely, is that women don't actually enjoy being constantly subject to the judgement of men. What they want, generally, is to just get on with their lives and be happy, fulfilled people who meet other people who are kind and interesting and have fun, loving relationships. He seems to start from the premise that women need to feel attractive, in order to...what? Have a purpose in life? Doesn't he get that women need to feel respected and loved, liked for who they are? They need to feel like human beings, complete people who are known and admired for the people they are not for the fat they have distributed on their thighs.

It boggles me that men think women are such vacuous nothings that they believe that a man coming along and saying "it's alright love I don't think you're a hideous troll" will make us smile from ear to ear and think the world is a wonderful place.

This article has made me so incredibly angry and sad. It is such a clear illustration of how "naice" middle class men like him see girls - as dolls, playthings who need to be coaxed into giving men what they want.

Cailin I disagree with your emphasis not because I think you are wrong in your assessment but you keep coming back to male thoughts and opinions which you can definitely have an opinion on but I would say the battle needs to concentrate on the impact.

Otherwise you get bogged down in men saying they actually think xyz and not abc.

The impact on women should be the focus. Let men like the professor/dr/whatever have their thoughts but equally they need to know that the impact of their ideas will be monitored. I always feel that anti sexism/racism/homophobia is distracted by the thoughts and feelings of the person doing the ism but the victim impact is almost forgotten

Others have already touched on this but some girls develop eating disorders as a way to protect themselves from growing up, and having the curves of an adult woman - trying to protect themselves from being the targets of sexual assault and objectification from you know, older boys.

it's true briar, and susie orbach talks about this and the sort of "opposite but same" issue, where some women feel (consciously or otherwise) that being overweight works for them better because they feel they are more protected from being the targets of sexual assault and objectification too. it's all terribly complex and at the very least not solved by being given further information about the bases on which a woman may be objectified, and reminded that whatever else she wants to do, she is being observed and critiqued/approved as a sexual object and that this is condoned by those in positions of authority

I suspect I mentioned his apparent sincerity in a bid to say something nice about him. No idea why. Socialization?

But it is perhaps helpful to seek to understand the thought processes of the bigot in question - not because male tears, but to know your enemy? And it could be helpful to point out to them the (bigoted) thoughts that are implied by their (deeply damaging) ideas? I don't know. I agree sincerity really really doesn't make it better.

It is socialisation I think.

I think we have as a society have decided that only bad people are sexist racist or homophobic therefore we do all sorts of mental gymnastics to accommodate some pretty egregious behaviour. And when I say bad I mean almost Disney stereotypes.

I definitely do myself but the only way to stop it is to focus on the victim. Look at the impact and ignore the tears.

Know your enemy has merit but what if your enemy thinks they are your friend? You can talk with them until you are blue in the face on these points.

There are very few people who are out and proud with their sexism racism or whatever. So rather than arguing about their intent focus on the impact. Very few people like to be accused of being deliberately unkind or rude to others so I always try to frame it in that way as rudeness rather than an ism.

Well I mentioned his sincerity because I found it depressing. I always find these sort of fucked up ideas worse when the person in question is under the impression that they are DOING A GOOD THING.

I think it is important to mention his sincerity, because it highlights what a problem it is. He is saying this because he means it, not because he is trying to be controversial. Which means his opinion of girls is extremely low - vacuous, as cailin says. And his opinion of boys is extremely high.

He, and those who listen to him and nod their heads at his words, presume that this is how things should be, that this is an acceptable form of education. He is not trying to be misogynist, it's all so casual. And that's why he is dangerous. He would probably be shocked at any suggestion that he is being misogynist. "I am only trying to help!" he would claim.

This is why is sincerity is relevant, because the msogyny is so insidious, so normalised, so natural. It was in a mainstream newspaper, after all, not a MRA rag.

Alex, barbarian and cailin I am not disagreeing with points raised. However what do we actually want here?
Do we want nice middle class sexists to stand up and say "I think sexist thoughts and I want to do better". Or do we want these same men to be educated that the impact on these thoughts ignores all gay teens, ignores all research about ED and relies upon older teenage boys to say deeply inappropriate things to underage girls. And as such maybe these "thoughts" are problematic.

Look at the women of colour thread had the op said white feminists are racists rather than their ideas and thinking lead to problematic outcomes.

Sorry posted too soon...
We cannot have a conversation that is fruitful if you start from the premise that you want someone to confess their bigotry. No one will do that. They will argue and fight and ignore the main point.

My DH owned up to his bigotry. It was the only way forward for us. I for one am sick of skirting around men's refusal to own up to their misogyny. When I see it, I will name it, if only out of respect for myself.

This is a really good blogpost about it:

quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/objectifying-better-body-image-in-schools/

That's brilliant, Apocalypse.

'That “neurosis” about their bodies which Sigman so airily diagnoses and sets out to “cure” is not something girls dreamed up to make their emotional lives more interesting. It’s a rational state of confusion and angst when caught up in this aggressive and irrational set of narratives about how women should be.'---- yes.

Cailin I don't think it is skirting I think it is priorities. I also think your dh was more invested in owning his bigotry in discussion with you his wife than random bloke on the street.
I would like both obviously but I prefer and prioritise reality on the ground.

Sigman is a well known proponent of dodgy tabloid-friendly science. Saw him on Newsnight a few years ago up against Ben Goldacre, who was on top self-righteous form and demolished all of his claims making him look like an utter dickhead (though to be fair BG comes across as a bit of a nob too). Would love to see Sigman go a few rounds on a MN guest chat. Could we invite him to tell us ladeez about his very important manly work?