Unskeptical Monogamy: “Monogamy is Natural”

Editorial Note: This post was written by Wes Fenza, long before the falling out of our previous quint household and the subsequent illumination of his abusive behavior, sexual assault of several women, and removal from the Polyamory Leadership Network and banning from at least one conference. I have left Wes’ posts here because I don’t believe it’s meaningful to simply remove them. You cannot remove the truth by hiding it; Wes and I used to collaborate, and his thoughts will remain here, with this notice attached.

—–

Some time ago, I wrote a post about Skeptical Monogamy. My goal there was to go over a bunch of the reasons why I think monogamy is justified. There are other reasons, though, that are unjustified and lazy. One of the most common is this:

“Monogamy is natural.”

This is an argument used almost exclusively by people who also believe that “natural” relationships only involve one man and one woman. Sometimes, it’s phrased in terms of the animal kingdom. This is one of the easiest arguments to knock down. It’s easy because almost no animals are actually monogamous. Plenty form pair-bonds, some even form them for life, but they almost all play around on the side.

In fact, no species of mammals have been shown to truly be monogamous.. Swans, often held up as a model of monogamy, are, no such thing. Gibbons, who my local zoo claims are monogamous, turned out to be total swingers. Scientist used to estimate that 90% of birds were monogamous. Now the numbers are flipped, and most acknowledge that, at most, 10% of birds are monogamous. The animal kingdom offers no help to those advocating monogamy.

Then you get the other kind of naturalist argument. John Witte Jr., writing in the Washington Post, says:

Both traditional theorists and modern scientists point to four facts of human nature that commend monogamy. First, unlike most other animals, humans crave sex all the time, especially when they are young and most fertile. They don’t have a short rutting or mating season, followed by a long period of sexual quietude.

Second, unlike most other animals, human babies are born weak, fragile, and utterly dependent for many years. They are not ready to run, swim, or fly away upon birth or shortly thereafter. They need food, shelter, clothing, and education. Most human mothers have a hard time caring fully for their children on their own, especially if they already have several others. They need help, especially from the fathers.

Third, however, most fathers will bond and help with a child only if they are certain of their paternity. Put a baby cradle on a sidewalk, medieval and modern Western experimenters have shown, and most women will stop out of natural empathy. Most men will walk by, unless they are unusually charitable. Once assured of their paternity, however, most men will bond deeply with their children, help with their care and support, and defend them at great sacrifice. For they will see their children as a continuation and extension of themselves, of their name, property, and teachings, of their own bodies and beings, of their genes, we now say.

Fourth, unlike virtually all other animals, humans have the freedom and the capacity to engage in species-destructive behavior in pursuit of their own sexual gratification. Given the lower risks and costs to them, men have historically been more prone to extramarital sex than women, exploiting prostitutes, concubines, and servant girls in so doing and yielding a perennial underclass of “bastards” who have rarely fared well in any culture.

Given these four factors, nature has strongly inclined rational human persons to develop enduring and exclusive sexual relationships, called marriages, as the best form and forum of sexual bonding and reproductive success. Faithful and healthy monogamous marriages are designed to provide for the sexual needs and desires of a husband and wife. They ensure that both fathers and mothers are certain that a baby born to them is theirs. They ensure that husband and wife will together care for, nurture, and educate their children until they mature. And they deter both spouses from destructive sexual behavior outside the home.

So, Witte identifies four factors that justify monogamy in humans:
1) humans crave sex all the time;
2) human babies have a long period of dependence;
3) fathers require paternity certainty to bond with a child;
4) humans are unique in engaging in “species-destructive behavior” such as extramarital sex, prostitution, etc.

As we’ve already seen, #4 is crap. Almost all animals engage in such behavior. #3 is also begging for a citation. Paternity certainty is often brought up by evolutionary biologists as a way to justify the way our society mistreats women. However, it’s far from proven, and there is substantial evidence that the need for paternity certainty is far from “natural.” Christopher Ryan, in Sex at Dawn, lays out a pretty conclusive case that early humans societies didn’t care at all about paternity certainty. He also identifies several modern-day cultures for whom paternity certainty is not an issue. Witte’s glib statement that fathers require paternity certainty in order to bond with their children is not supported by the evidence. And I’d imagine the idea is extremely offensive to anyone with an adoptive father or child.

So after taking out the propositions that are unsupported, we’re left with:

1) humans crave sex all the time; and
2) human babies go through a long period of dependence.

Sounds like an argument for polyamory to me! I’d wager that my five-person household is just as well equipped to meet everyone’s sexual needs and care for children than a monogamous couple.

Furthermore, so what if something is natural? “Natural” is not synonymous with “desirable.” In many species, murder, rape, theft, and various other antisocial behaviors are natural. That’s not an argument in favor of humans engaging in these behaviors. Much of our progress as a species has been in overcoming our natural behaviors and learning to act in more beneficial ways.

Even if polyamory isn’t natural, I think it stands on its own merits. Nature isn’t everything.

***UPDATE***
Sex expert Dr. Darrell Ray weighs in on “natural sex”

If “natural” sex is better, then Catholics are far from practicing it. Natural sex does not include any hocus pocus of religion. Your dog has natural sex as do Bonnobos. The Mangainians of the South Pacific have natural sex and have had for centuries. It included many partners and a high focus on female orgasm. The Na culture in China have natural sex, it includes multiple men for a woman and no concept of marriage. I could site many other cultures that practice sex without the guilt and shame of religion AND they did not use birth control or condoms until recently.

Sexism and Transphobia in Doctor Who

—–

I love Doctor Who (the show. I have mixed feelings about the character). I think it’s an excellent show, particularly New Who. We all love Doctor Who. I look ridiculously forward to new episodes. At its best, Doctor Who presents masterful storytelling and character development that could be a model to television shows everywhere. I’m currently producing a freaking Doctor Who themed burlesque show I love it so much.

I also love that Doctor Who introduced the character Jack Harkness – one of the first openly bisexual characters in mainstream TV, and with an overwhelming sexuality that was a welcome contrast to the relative asexuality of the Doctor. It showed that the BBC is not afraid to piss off a few haters in order to create compelling characters and deal with adult topics.

However, something that’s always bother me about the show is the sexist undertones. The Doctor, through 11 regenerations, is always male, is always the smartest person in the room, and generally has a pretty young female companion (who often has a crush on him) who wanders off, gets into trouble, and need the Great Man to come rescue her. There are some exceptions (and companions often end up saving the Doctor, but never by being smarter than him), but largely the pattern holds. Even the current season was disappointing in that regard. It opened with Oswin, another pretty young woman. But this time, she was an intellectual equal of the Doctor. That lasted for one episode. When she was reintroduced midseason, her character had no memory of the resourceful genius from the first episode, and was back in the classic hapless woman companion role.

Against that backdrop, we now have this:

After bookies William Hill revealed that the new Doctor Who to replace Matt Smith when he leaves at Christmas was odds on 8/1 to be a female, bosses at the BBC have come out to rule this out as an option.
…
According to The Daily Star newspaper, bosses at the BBC have ruled out a female Doctor, which Sue Perkins and Miranda Hart were both being linked to also, as they feel that it would cause upset amongst its younger viewers, and awkward conversations about sex changes with their parents.

Confirming this decision, Russell T Davies explained to the publication how this mega change would never be allowed because it is “a family show”, adding:

“While I think kids will not have a problem with a female Doctor, I think fathers will have a problem with it.

“That’s because they will then imagine they will have to describe sex changes to their children.”

So much fail.* Before we even GET to the transphobia, what the fuck is Davies even talking about? He thinks kids will understand that during a regeneration, a time lord’s height, weight, hair, face, arms, legs, torso, feet, and entire personality can change, but if their genitalia changes, then IT WILL BE TOO CONFUSING!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

But obviously, the REAL problem is that if having a female Doctor might lead parents to discussion the existence of trans* people with their children, that’s a GOOD thing! Just like Jack Harkness helped confirm the existence of bisexuals, a female Doctor could help confirm the existence of trans* people.

And let’s not neglect to point out the sexist assumption that it’s fathers who will be having this conversation. Because mothers couldn’t possibly. How uncouth.

This is extra disappointing because personally, I would love to see a female Doctor. Flipping the gender roles that have pervaded the show in the past would go a long way toward undoing some of the sexism that it’s perpetuated in the past. I would love to see how various alien races react to a hyper-intelligent woman who battles the forces of destruction with her mind and wit (and sonic screwdriver). I would love to see a woman be just as giddy, juvenile, reckless, dramatic, arrogant, playful, condescending, and ultimately lovable as David Tenant or Matt Smith.

Also, Katie McGrath would be an awesome Doctor. Just sayin, BBC.

———
* to be fair, Davies is no longer affiliated with the show, but he was the lead writer from 2005-2010, and is still affiliated with the BBC.

Toward a More Skeptical Monogamy

—–

Here at polyskeptic, we tend to refer to atheism and polyamory as “skepticism, properly applied.” I’d like to unpack that a little. As happy poly people, we love polyamory. We love polyamory so much that sometimes, it sounds as though we think polyamory is the only way to have a good relationship. So when we say that properly applied skepticism results in polyamory, it might sound as though we mean that monogamy is inherently unskeptical. This is only half true. It is true that if we lived in a more skeptical world, there would be a lot more polyamorous people. If people took a skeptical approach toward their relationships, many people would conclude that monogamy was not the best way to achieve their goals. However, not everyone would. There are plenty of ways to practice monogamy skeptically, and I’d like to go through a few of those.

Both Parties are Only Interested in Each Other

This is the most often-cited reason for monogamy, but often one of the rarest to be approached in a skeptical manner. Most people feel sexual or romantic desire for more than one person. However, not everybody does. A couple who approached their relationship skeptically could easily conclude that they were only interested in each other. However, the difference between this and your garden-variety monogamy is that skeptical monogamy (or what Shaun calls accidental monogamy) would not have rules against outside sexual or romantic connections. They just wouldn’t happen, because neither party would be interested. A skeptical couple, however, will know they cannot predict their future desires (especially many years in advance), so a skeptically monogamous couple will not make long-term plans or rules that are dependent upon their desires remaining only for one another.

Both Parties Enjoy a Controlling Dynamic

One of my least favorite things about traditional monogamy is that it involves each party being controlling in regards to the other party’s sexuality. It’s a form of ownership over an incredibly important part of another person, and I find it repellent. However, some people are into that! And that’s totally ok! In the kink community, there are tons of examples of people who have no desire for an egalitarian relationship. There are relationships which are explicitly based on ownership and control. Both parties go into the situation with eyes open, knowing what they want, and knowing what they are getting. This is entirely compatible with skepticism. So long as each party has skeptically examined their own (and each other’s) desire and each party enthusiastically consents, this sort of relationship is compatible with a skeptical worldview.

Social Consequences

If we lived in a more skeptical world, this would not be an issue. However, we live in the real world, and in the real world, being polyamorous can have consequences. Often, if we are thinking skeptically, those consequences are less bad or less likely than they seem. But sometimes the consequences are real and relatively certain, and it makes sense to try to fit in. Part of what the community is doing is trying to make this less of a concern, but as it stands now, the fear of societal consequences (especially in less liberal regions/countries) can be a legitimate, skeptical reason to stay monogamous.

Lack of Ability or Desire

This is lumping a lot of things together, but basically it stands for the proposition that polyamory takes a certain amount of emotional work and emotional stability, and not everyone is able to do it, either due to mental illness, societal conditioning, or just plain personality. For most people, being happily polyamorous takes a lot of effort.* A skeptic will not shy away from working toward a worthwhile goal, but there is always a cost/benefit analysis. For some people, the amount of work is too great, the payoff (in terms of happiness) too small, or the chances of success too low. A skeptical approach to life will recognize this and make decisions accordingly. Some people will reasonably conclude that it’s just not worth it. So long as their partner agrees, it’s a reasonable position.

I’m sure I’ve missed other reasons why a truly skeptical person or couple might choose monogamy. My intention here was to explicitly acknowledge that monogamy is not always a bad or unskeptical choice. However, I’d also like to stress that the bar for skeptical monogamy is pretty high. It requires a critical examination of all parties motives, desires, predictions, and assumptions. Just as polyamory takes a lot of effort, so does monogamy, and it’s not something to be entered lightly. As with all important decisions, it’s best to approach it in a critical, skeptical manner.

———————-

*this is another area in which we are hoping society will improve. As polyamory becomes more mainstream and monogamy becomes less of a default expectation, starting a polyamorous relationship should take much less work in terms of switching away from a mononormative mindset.

Why Polyamorous Marriage Might Happen

—–

In the Stranger this week, Mistress Matisse wrote an article entitled You May Now Kiss the Bride and the Other Bride and the Other Bride and the Other Groom: Why Poly Marriage is Never Going to Happen. She gives three reasons why poly marriage is a pipe dream, none of which are very convincing.

Her first reason:

For starters, poly- marriage organizers would have to agree on a precise definition of what, exactly, poly marriage even is. Explaining the flowcharts and Venn diagrams of poly relationships can be trickier and take longer than a play-by-play of naked Twister. And you can’t just engrave “It’s Complicated” on tasteful ivory card stock and mail it off to however many sets of in-laws.

Sure, it’s complicated… if you make it complicated. So why not keep it simple? Poly marriage can be exactly the same as mono marriage, just repeal the laws against bigamy. Whatever rights one partner has go to the other partner also. Rights that need to be divided can be split equally between partners.

People tend to get bogged down in the details of this sort of thing. Sure, legal rights like insurance, inheritance, property ownership, and the like would get more complicated when there is more than just a dyad, but so what? Those same legal rights get complicated when there is more than one child, also, but our courts can handle it. The law is always complicated. Even when laws are written clearly, courts find ways of complicating them. The fact that it would take a complicated legal framework is no reason why it can’t happen, especially when there is already a framework – mono marriage and parent/child relationships – that can be adapted.

Her second reason:

But let’s say the poly community comes up with a way of defining “poly marriage.” Then comes the price tag: It costs five bucks to file an initiative, but persuading voters to change the law in favor of poly marriage would take a lot of skillful and extremely expensive political marketing… fundraising infrastructure is key—and queers have it, poly people don’t.

Poly people definitely don’t have the infrastructure to fund a mass movement for marriage rights, can’t argue with that. But will this always be the case? There is reason to think not. For one, queers didn’t have the infrastructure 20 years ago either. Arguments for gay marriage like Virtually Normal by Andrew Sullivan were routinely dismissed as unrealistic or even undesirable. It wasn’t until homosexuality became more mainstream that the gay marriage movement started getting taken seriously, and it snowballed from there. Just because polys aren’t there yet doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Right now, the community’s goals are mostly visibility-related, but there’s no reason to believe that we’ll never get to the point where marriage is on the table.

Queers have another leg up on the poly community that may not persist: numbers. Latest estimates place the number of homosexuals in the United States at 11.7 million, or 3.5% of the population. Reliable estimates of polyamorists are harder to come by, but most estimates place the number around half a million families (which would translate to an least one million individuals) – nowhere near the 11.7 million queer Americans. However, polyamory is growing, and has the potential to grow far larger than the gay community. As poly becomes more mainstreamed (which is happening more and more every day), monogamy will become less of a default and more of a choice. There is every reason to believe that the more people who see polyamory as a viable option, the more people will prefer it as a lifestyle. Unlike homosexuality, which all evidence suggests is an inborn desire, polyamory is not a sexual orientation. There is no limit on the amount of people who will choose polyamory. As our numbers grow, so does our political power.

Mistress Matisse’s third reason:

I’m a polyamorous person who has never yearned for poly marriage…. I think romantic love that leads to deep, committed relationships is wonderful. But the romance of filing a group tax return? I’ll pass. The legal aspects aside, I’ve never been interested in sharing a household with more than one person. Frankly, even one person is a bit much sometimes…. Multiple-partner cohabitation always seemed to me like it would have all the usual relationship difficulties, plus less closet space, more scheduling headaches, and definitely more emotional processing. I am not alone in my opinion. When I remarked to a poly friend that I was writing about this topic, he quipped wryly, “Oh, right. Poly marriage: When sustaining one happy marriage just isn’t challenging enough for you!”

Just… wow. So… poly marriage is never going to happen because Mistress Matisse isn’t interested in it? I hate to be the bearer of disappointing news, but paging Mistress Matisse! You are not the spokesperson for the entire community! Your personal preference on cohabiting is fine, but it’s far from universal. I live in a house with my fiancee and my wife (and her boyfriend and his wife) and we love it! I also know other poly families who cohabitate in more than just a dyad. Your personal preference is just that – personal. It has absolutely no bearing on the likelihood or unlikelihood of poly marriage at some point in the future.

Furthermore, attitude like this (“marriage? Who needs it?”) were common in the queer community 20 years ago, when it looked like marriage was out of reach. You still find plenty of queers these days who aren’t interested in getting married, but you’ll be hard pressed to find more than a handful (aside from closeted Republicans) who don’t support the rights of all Americans to marry the person (if not persons) of their choosing. As poly marriage becomes more realistic, it will become more popular. That’s just the way of things.

Poly marriage may happen and it may not. It certainly won’t be happening in the next five years. But maybe someday. I certainly hope that it does.

Welcome Our America Viewers!

—–

As most of you know by now, the Polyskeptics were featured on Our America With Lisa Ling tonight! In case any of you are new to the blog, you can check out our bio page and our driving philosophy. In addition, here’s some of our favorite posts you might want to check out:

My main philosophy on polyamory can be seen in my post Polyamory Isn’t All About You. It’s about why I became polyamorous, and how my love for my wife meant that I didn’t want to deny her the things that she wanted. You can also see one of my more controversial posts where I assert that Polyamory is Not a Sexual Orientation, and give my reasons why I think so. You can also see my view on The Transactional Model of Relationships, and why I’m not a fan. Also, don’t miss my more fun posts about Dick Stumps and Highlander Penis!

Gina tends to write about her personal experiences. One of her most-read is about how happy she is with her big house, and the followup, My Bigger House. She also talks about the history of our relationship and her struggles and coming out to her coworkers.

Shaun has a philosophy background, and his posts tend to reflect that. One of his most read post is Atheism over Humanism: Why We Must Philosophize With a Hammer. You can also check out his thoughts on jealousy as it relates to relationships and what it means to love authentically. You may also want to check out his post on Accidental Monogamy, which talks about why monogamous people might benefit from a journey through “the fires of polyamory.”

Ginny also blogs occasionally. Check out her experience at the Reason Rally and what it showed her about religion. Also, don’t miss her thoughts on individualism and atheism.

Hope you enjoy it! And we hope you’ll be back!

Poly isn’t Necessarily Egalitarian, but Egalitarian is Necessarily Open

—–

Franklin Veaux, a popular (within the community anyway) writer and activist for polyamory, recently posted about polyamory and ownership:

On another forum I read, someone made a complaint that folks in the poly community tend to see monogamy in terms of ownership and control; that is, for many poly folks, monogamy is about owning your other partner, while polyamory is more egalitarian, treating other people as fully actualized human beings.

And, sadly, I’ve encountered poly folks who do believe that. The misguided notion that polyamory is “more evolved” than monogamy comes, in many cases, from the assumption that monogamy is inherently rooted in ownership and polyamory is inherently egalitarian.

This commits one of my cardinal sins of argument. It’s the same one that got Charlie Jane Anders in so much trouble with the atheist community. Namely – he’s arguing against a point that nobody is making. It’s a special kind of straw man where there is no argument in the first place. You’re just arguing against a vague “other,” in the form of “some people think [unfair paraphrase of argument], but they are all wrong.”

Veaux claims that “some people” think that monogamy is inherently rooted in ownership and polyamory is inherently egalitarian. I know a lot of polyamorous people, I’m on a lot of poly forums, and I read a lot of poly blogs & websites, and I’ve never encountered anyone who believes that. Veaux provided no links or examples of what he’s talking about, so we only have his word that he’s properly interpreted the attitudes of the people he’s met. Let’s just say I have my doubts.

What *I* believe, and what I think all reasonable people must believe, is that a relationship that lives up to Veaux’s definition of egalitarian must necessarily be polyamorous or accidentally monogamous. Veaux is quick to point out that polyamorous relationships can be just as controlling as monogamous relationships (a point with which nobody I know disagrees), but glosses over the fact that his “egalitarian paradigm” is incompatible with traditional monogamy.

The only monogamous egalitarian relationship would look like JT Eberhard’s:

So here’s something I want to throw out there: I don’t care if Michaelyn dates or sleeps with other people. Yet, we are monogamous.
How does that happen? Well, she ha the green light to do those things, but she doesn’t. One day she might. But what I want is to know that she is with me because she wants to be. If Michaelyn is with me exclusively because she wants to be, we don’t need rules binding her to me in that way. If she doesn’t want to be with me in that way, why would I demand she do so? Love, to me, means wanting someone else to be happy, not just happy in a way that caters to me.

While I wouldn’t call this a polyamorous relationship, at the very least it’s “open.” These are two people who truly respect one another and want each other to be happy. This is de facto monogamy, as opposed to de jure (by rule) monogamy, which is what is traditionally practiced.

Now, even a passing familiarity with the BDSM community will teach you that not everyone wants an egalitarian relationship, which is fine. People can want whatever they want, and if they find consenting partners, that’s fantastic. But Veaux’s argument – that poly relationships can by just as controlling as traditionally monogamous relationships – sort of misses the point, which is that de jure monogamous relationships cannot be egalitarian. ALL relationships that qualify as egalitarian under Veaux’s paradigm will be open relationships.

In other words, polyamory is not inherently egalitarian, but all egalitarian relationships must be polyamorous, or at least merely de facto monogamous (and open). This is what people mean when they describe polyamory as “more evolved,” as Veaux put it. It looks like this:

I dislike posts like Veaux’s because I truly believe that if society were able to jettison a lot of the assumptions and expectations that lead to traditional monogamy, we would be much happier as a society. Posts like Veaux’s draw a false equivalence between polyamory and monogamy. It focuses on the purple part of the diagram, and ignores the blue part.

Vote for Optimus!

—–

The Pope is retiring. Paul Fidalgo is throwing his pointy hat into the ring:

Oh, and I’ll put an immediate end to the church’s tolerance and enabling of sexual assault; its treatment of women as second-class; its adherence to Bronze Age notions of morality; its hoarding of wealth for no purpose but its own aggrandizement (except for me, of course); its persecution of homosexuals; its intentional miseducation of developing nations ravaged by ignorance, overpopulation, superstition, starvation, and illness; and its utter failure to promote the ascension of robot-human hybrids.

Also, his Pope name will be Pope Optimus Prime I. I’m sold.

Anti-Abortion = Anti-Sex

—–

Ross Douthat, one of the more thoughtful conservatives out there (weak praise, I know posted today about the relationship between abortion and single parenthood. In an effort to rebut the conclusion that abortion restrictions lead to more single parents, he wrote:

in a post-Roe world, social conservatives often find themselves accepting single parenthood as the lesser (by far) of two potential evils. But there’s good reason to think Roe itself was instrumental in creating the kind of sexual culture that makes the Bristol Palin dilemma as commonplace as it’s become. While the frequent use of abortion can limit out-of-wedlock births, that is, the sudden mass availability of abortion almost certainly had the opposite effect — mostly by changing the obligations associated with pregnancy, and by legitimating male irresponsibility where sex and its consequences are concerned.

For all I know, this may be accurate. However, its efficacy as an argument in favor of abortion restrictions rests on some terrible premises. Namely, it relies on the standard conservative “sex is bad” attitude. How horrible it is that access to abortion has allowed people to have recreational sex! If only people were more terrified of pregnancy, then everything would be fine!

And this continues a familiar pattern, where every single person I’ve ever heard argue for abortion restrictions also takes an extremely sex-negative attitude toward recreational sex, some going so far as to argue that an unwanted pregnancy is some kind of divine justice for being irresponsible, where of course “being irresponsible” means “having recreational sex.”

The sad fact is that Douthat’s claim that “since the 1970s, social conservatives have had more success encouraging doubts about the moral acceptability of abortion than they have had on almost any other cultural front” is true. Douthat would have us believe that people are supporting abortion restrictions due to respect for the sanctity of life. I have my doubts. It seems much more likely to me that support for abortion restrictions stems from the fundamental sexnegativity of our culture.

On Feminism… Are We Talking Past Each Other?

—–

Thanks to Shaun’s latest post (and a couple links he posted on Facebook), I’ve spent the past two days reading feminist articles, critiques of those feminist articles, and critiques of the critiques. I’ve been reading Skepchick, Greta Christina, PZ Myers, Jen McCreight (when she was blogging), and other feminist-friendly atheists for years. What I haven’t been reading are the people at Skeptic Ink or any other major criticism of the Skepchick/FTB-style feminism. The blog that Shaun linked on FB (not approvingly) was Skeptically Left, written by a woman who, to put it mildly, takes some issue with the kind of feminism that is practiced at FTB & Skepchick. One of the first posts I noticed was this one, where Maria Maltseva, the author, takes a collection of words, and gives them the definitions that are used in “certain darker parts of the internet.” A sample:

Feminism — A dogmatic stance on women’s issues promulgated by the likes of PZ Myers, who is notably not a woman.
Misogynist — Someone who disagrees with a feminist. See definition of feminism above. A vile human being.
Rape Enabler — Someone who disagrees with a feminist. See definition of feminism above. A vile human being.
Rape — Consensual sex with a woman after she’s been drinking. Also, actual rape.
Patriarchy — A nebulous conspiracy-like entity responsible for oppression of women in Western society.
Oppression — Being born with a vagina, even if you’re treated like a queen and allowed all the same opportunities as men.
Victim Blaming — The suggestion that women have some degree of control over their own behavior.
Slut Shaming — Pointing out that suggestive attire, inappropriate nudity, and sexual behavior are likely to get attention.
Rapist — Any man who’s had sex. Also any man who hasn’t. Synonym: man.
Rape Culture — A culture that glorifies rape. The one we live in. The same one that makes (actual) rape a criminal act.
Privilege — Something you say to get another party to shut up when you have no real argument, because clearly human beings are incapable of empathy. Existence of actual or even group privilege is irrelevant.

(sigh). I have some sympathy for the victims of unfair attacks at the hands of quick-to-anger feminists, especially at FTB & Skepchick. I too have had the word “privilege” used as a bludgeon to suggest that any opinion I have on a topic that concerns a marginalized group is completely worthless and irrelevant. I have been labeled a misogynist for having the audacity to voice a minor disagreement with a popular feminist. I’ve been decried as a troll and been accused of “JAQ-ing off” for asking sincere questions about a feminist position that I don’t understand. And in none of those situations did anyone come to my defense, so I understand how someone can be upset with the community. But come on, this crap is ridiculous. These definitions are ridiculous caricatures of complicated and nuanced issues, and surrender the moral high ground before the discussion is even started. I think contemporary feminism could use some strong criticism in certain circumstances, but juvenile bullshit like this is just flame warring.

Yesterday, Shaun described a post by Libby Anne at Patheos as “recommended reading.” Libby Anne’s post is a critique of a post by vjack at Atheist Revolution. I was not as happy as Shaun with Libby Anne’s post. The whole post was one big straw man.

vjack’s post was about some people’s hesitancy to identify as feminists, and posited that it was because “feminist” means different things to different people. While many people may be feminists under one interpretation, they may not be under another interpretation, and people don’t want to be associated with the more extreme factions. So far so good. Most of the feminists I know (including me) specifically disavow radical feminism, and specifically its shameful treatment of trans* people. vjack offers the following definitions:

In a nutshell, equity feminism refers to a focus on the goal of social and legal equality. That is, equity feminists believe that women and men should have the same rights, be paid the same for the same work, have access to the same opportunities, etc. They are advocates of equality, and I wholeheartedly embrace this form of feminism. Women deserve equality, and none of us should settle for anything less.

Gender feminism is very different. It looks far less egalitarian, involves sharp criticism of gender roles, and seems to emphasize victimhood. There are aspects of gender feminism with which I agree (e.g., the manner in which patriarchy can be harmful to both women and men, the critique of traditional gender roles), but I do not support the entirety of gender feminism.

So, clearly, those definitions are crap. Aside from the obvious bias of the author, I’ve read them several times now and I still have no idea what “gender feminism” is. As Libby Anne note, vjack did not invent the terms, and followed one of the links vjack provided to this post by Barry X. Kuhle, an evolutionary psychologist. Libby Anne provided the following quote:

What is feminism other than the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes? Regrettably to feminists like myself, far too many other feminists believe that being one means believing in far more than equality for women. These “gender feminists” cling to an ideologically driven, theoretically unsound, and empirically unsupported perspective on the origin and development of sex differences (Kuhle, 2012). To paraphrase New Jersey philosopher J. B. Jovi, they give feminism a bad name. In so doing, they have discouraged women and men who support sexual equality from self-identifying as feminists. … The reluctance most women and men have to embrace the feminist label in the absence of a definitional nudge is due in no small part to gender feminists’ untenable position on sex differences.

As an evolutionary psychologist, I believe that much light can be shed on psychology by considering how the information-processing mechanisms underlying our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors affected our ancestors’ abilities to survive and reproduce. As an “equity feminist” (Sommers, 1994), I believe that women should have the full civil and social equalities that are afforded men. Equity feminism has no a priori stance on the origin or existence of differences between the sexes; it is solely a sociopolitical desire for men’s and women’s legal and social equality. Defined in these ways, there is no rational reason why one cannot be both an evolutionary psychologist and a feminist.

Gender feminism is an alternative version of feminism and is the dominant feminist voice in academia (Sommers, 1994) and online (e.g., Jezebel.com). And boy (er, I mean girl, er, I mean womyn) do they take issue with feminism being compatible with evolutionary psychology. They ardently argue that psychological differences between the sexes have little or nothing to do with evolution, but instead are largely or solely socially constructed (Pinker, 2002; Sommers, 1994). Whereas equity feminism “makes no commitment regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology… gender feminism is an empirical doctrine” committed to several unsubstantiated claims about human nature, especially that of the psychological blank slate where sex differences are concerned (Pinker, 2002, p. 341).

Now, Kuhle seems like kind of a windbag, but I can’t point to anything factually inaccurate with his statements, other than that he seems to be doing an awful lot of generalizing based on relatively few citations. Libby Anne, however, finds a lot more of an issue:

In other words, Kuhle argues that there are significant natural and inherent differences between men and women, so while we should support equality of opportunity, we shouldn’t wonder when men and women make different life choices, pursue different careers paths, act in different ways, or value different things. Thus Kuhle appears to be arguing that men and women can be equal even if they, as a result of their evolutionary background, carry out vastly different roles in life.

Excuse me? Did we read the same quote? Kuhle never says “there are significant natural and inherent differences between men and women.” Kuhle merely says that it’s an “open empirical issue.” Kuhle doesn’t say that the idea that the sexes are psychologically identical is incorrect, he just says that it’s unsubstantiated, which is true. The psychological community has reached no consensus on the topic, and there is substantial evidence to suggest that the sexes have genetic psychological differences. Furthermore, Kuhle most certainly does not extrapolate from this that “we shouldn’t wonder when men and women make different life choices, pursue different careers paths, act in different ways, or value different things.” Later in his post (and not quoted by Libby Anne), Kuhle says the opposite:

The first misunderstanding, the myth of immutability, is evidenced when one erroneously concludes that “if it’s evolutionary, then we can’t change it.” As has been discussed at length elsewhere, evolutionary psychology does not view human behavior as impervious to change. In fact, evolutionary psychologists have cogently argued that knowledge of the informational inputs to evolved psychological mechanisms is a crucial first step toward changing the behavioral output of these mechanisms (Buss, 1996; Buss, 2012; Confer et al., 2010; DeKay & Buss, 1992; Geher, 2006).

The second pervasive misunderstanding is the naturalistic fallacy, which rears its illogical head when one concludes that “if it’s evolutionary and hence natural, then it’s okay and hence good.” Numerous evolutionary psychologists have unpacked the mistaken inference that if something is the case then it ought to be the case (Buss, 2003; Geher, 2006; Pinker, 2002).

Evolutionary psychology does not excuse, justify, or rationalize any human’s thoughts, feelings, or actions (Buss, 1996; Geher, 2006). It merely seeks to discover and detail the design of the information-processing mechanisms that underlie our psychology. If some women have been subjugated because they were regarded as different than and inferior to men and some men have excused their misogynistic behavior as being an inevitable consequence of their genes, then a reluctance to embrace a discipline which viewed such pernicious behavior as immutable and excusable would be understandable. But evolutionary psychology is not that discipline (Buss, 1996).

Kuhle may be an asshole, and by the tone of his post, he probably is, but he’s not arguing that women belong in the kitchen. Later in her post, Libby Anne quotes Harriet Hall as saying:

I think it is unreasonable to expect that equal numbers of men and women will be attracted to every sphere of human endeavor. Science has shown that real differences exist. We should level the playing field and ensure there are no preventable obstacles, then let the chips fall where they may.

Libby Anne’s followup:

Kuhle made this same argument in his article when he argued that there are natural differences between men and women and derided the idea that gender roles are socially constructed. Kuhle’s line of reasoning is why some people argue that it’s only natural that the vast majority of engineers are men and that the the fast majority of stay at home parents are women. Men are just better at spacial reasoning, after all, and women are perfectly evolved to care for children!

Again, nobody said that! Kuhle never “derided the idea that gender roles are socially constructed.” And he certainly never suggested that men evolved to be better engineers and women evolved to care for children. It is not “Kuhle’s line of reasoning” that leads to this attitude – it’s unscientific sexism. Kuhle never makes any such suggestion anywhere in his article, and to say that it’s his “line of reasoning” is ridiculous. It’s the laziest kind of slippery slope argument.

Libby Anne spends the rest of her post listing the various evils of assuming that our current gender roles are natural. It’s a good rundown, and would be a good argument against anyone who actually argues the opposite. However, the remainder of the post continuously implies that it is an argument against people like vjack and Kuhle. Libby Anne ironically closes with the following:

it’s critically important to find ways to communicate with those who may not fully agree with us, and listening to each other and trying to understand each other’s perspectives is crucial.

I agree. I hope Libby Anne will make more of an effort to do so next time, before putting words in people’s mouths. Chris Hallquist, of The Uncredible Hallq commented, echoing my concerns:

I’ve read the Kuhle article, and you seem to be reading a lot into it that isn’t there. In particular, [it] can be true that there are some innate psychological differences between men and women and at the same time think the male domination of many fields might be cultural.

Ed Clint, for example, has defended evolutionary psychology (including claims of innate psychological differences between men and women) against its detractors, but has also argued for having 50% women among speakers at skeptic conferences, for the sake of breaking the (possibly? very likely?) self-perpetuating maleness of skepticism.

No response from the OP. Both writers, Libby Anne and Maria Malseva, seem to be ignoring the actual words of the people that they are criticizing. While Libby Anne’s writing is seemingly from a much more conciliatory place, both posts unfairly lampoon their subjects and ignore what they are actually saying. It’s no way to start a dialogue, and it’s certainly no way to reconcile.

We can do better.

The Friendzone and Me

—–

So, Nice Guys of OKC has shut down. For those of you who missed it, it was a tumblr posting screenshots of okcupid guys who claimed to be “nice,” then proving elsewhere in their profile that they were racist, homophobic, sexist, or otherwise assholish. The main legacy of the blog is inspiring a lot of posts (seriously, a lot) about the use of the term “friendzone.” According to Nice Guys of OKC, the mere use of the term precludes one from actually being nice.

Most posts on the topic rely on the “nice guy” stereotype. It looks like this:

1. You become attracted to a woman.
2. You are friendly to that woman in the hopes she will show you her vagina.
3. She mistakes your friendliness for friendliness and befriends you, neglecting to show you her vagina.
4. You act like a butthurt little asswipe, forever placing yourself firmly outside of the circle on the Venn diagram of dudes she will ever show her vagina to.
5. You complain about it on the internet, and 1000 other maladjusted bro-dudes go, “I know that feel,” and you are validated in your misogyny.

Like all stereotypes, some people fit it, and those people deserve the collective derision they’ve been receiving throughout the the internet for the past week or so. But, like all stereotypes, it unfairly lumps people together and makes a lot of assumptions based on very little information. In my mind, the view that use of the term “friendzone” implies all of that is a bit much. Wikipedia defines it as “a platonic relationship where one person wishes to enter into a romantic relationship, while the other does not.” Urban Dictionary, as it tends to, has a few more colorful definitions, some reflecting Wikipedia’s simple definition, some reflecting the Nice Guy stereotype.

I recently had a discussion about this on my friend Angie’s blog:

the term [friendzone] itself always made sense to me. Unrequited feelings suck, and hearing “let’s just be friends” from your crush sucks. To me, the “friendzone” often bespeaks entitlement both ways. Both sides seem to think that, if the other person weren’t such a jerk, THEY would be the one to dictate the terms of the relationship* (i.e. a sexual relationship vs. a platonic friendship), and the other person ought to acquiesce to their preference. To me, getting “put in the friendzone” is being forced into a category that I don’t want. I HATE being categorized, and I hate being assigned labels that come with arbitrary baggage.

It also makes sense because I always saw the “friend zone” as a different thing than just being friends. As many recent articles point out, if you’re complaining about being friendzoned, you’re not really a friend. But you’re not a lover. You’re occupying a strange friend-like place that has its own rules. I view it as a term akin to monogamish. It’s LIKE being friends, but not really.

Angie makes some really good points, so I encourage you to read the whole discussion.

I’m still figuring out how I feel about all of this, but I think a lot of my discomfort with the negative judgments going around is because I can envision a number of situations which I think are rather common where a man (in these articles, it’s always a man) gets friendzoned merely because of a miscommunication, and not out of anything more malicious or blameworthy than that.

Men and women tend to interpret signals differently. Men tend to interpret things as being far more sexual than women do. I can easily envision a situation where a man is behaving in a way that he believes is sending romantic/sexual messages, the female object of his affections interprets his signals as friendly. Then, she reciprocates, sending only friendly messages, but the man interpreting them as sexual or romantic. Then, when the rejection comes, both sides feel as if they have been misled and lied to, and may get angry and/or whiny. Textbook friendzoning.

In that situation, I see the parties equally at fault. They’ve both misinterpreted the other’s signals while being less-than-explicit about their own. However, I don’t think either party is feeling entitled or misogynistic. It’s just been a misunderstanding. The man’s anger isn’t because he’s owed sex. It’s because he feels like he’s been misled and used. In his mind, he was being obvious about his feelings, and the woman in question ignored his feelings and tried to force him into a relationship model that he didn’t want. He’s wrong, of course, but there’s nothing entitled or misogynistic about his view.

I don’t know. I haven’t heard the term “friendzone” much (though according to Wikipedia, it was coined by Friends, the worst show ever). Is it exclusively used by entitled douchebags? Is there a better word to use that means “wants to be friends, but not touch each other’s genitals”? Is it routinely accompanied by the type of entitlement and misogyny noted above?

______________________________________________
*in the comment, I expanded on what I meant by “dictating the terms of the relationship”:

Each participant always and without exception has an absolute right to dictate what the relationship will NOT be. But inversely, neither participant has the right to dictate what the relationship IS. When I hear the term “friendzone,” I sort of automatically assume the dude (let’s face it, it’s always a dude) in question does not actually want to be friends. The presumption on his part is the he thinks the object of his affection is obligated to touch his naughty bits. The presumption on the other side, though, is the presumption that he wants to have a nonsexual relationship. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but it’s not cool to assume that he does if that hasn’t been discussed.