The arguments over the nature of men and women in the wake of the recent sex scandals -- Weiner, Schwarzenegger, Edwards etc. -- often miss the point
It's argued that women are more moral than men, "hardwired" not to stray from their mates. The old limerick puts it this way:
"Higamus hogamus, woman's monogamous.
Hogamus, higamus, man is polygamous."
But is it true? Not really.
Women in positions of power are not necessarily more virtuous than men -- they are just a lot more scared and careful.
Social science data tell us that women and men are more alike than different in their extramarital behavior. One major study of extramarital affairs found that, overall, 23 percent of males strayed, as compared to 12 percent of females. But for those under forty (the prime dating years), there were no differences between the sexes -- roughly three percent for each.
In a National Opinion Research Center poll at the University of Chicago of 3,432 adults, a fourth of the men and a sixth of the women had had at least one extra-marital affair -- not a major difference.
But from time immemorial, sanctions against female sexuality have been far more stringent than sanctions against straying men. Know a guy who wore The Scarlet Letter? Remember any male "chastity belts?" Did men ever have their feet bound so that women could indulge their foot fetishes?
The need to control female sexuality is powerful, explains New York Times science writer Natalie Angier:
Women are said to have lower sex drives than men, yet they are universally punished if they display evidence to the contrary--if they disobey their 'natural' inclination towards a stifled libido...all the laws, customs, punishments, strictures, mystiques and anti-mystiques are aimed with full hominid fury at that tepid, sleepy, hypoactive creature, the female libido.
A look at the 2008 presidential campaign is instructive. When Hillary Clinton appeared on the Senate floor with a tiny hint of cleavage, the press went wild. You'd have thought she'd done a pole dance in the chamber.
According to Media Matters for America, from 9am to 5pm ET on July 30, MSNBC gave 23 minutes and 42 seconds to segments discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's "cleavage." CNN devoted 3 minutes and 54 seconds to the story, while Fox News devoted none.
CNBC's John Harwood thought it was all part of some master plan. "When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil," he said on Meet the Press.
The press seemed to regard everything that Hillary did as if she were Lucrezia Borgia, even when she was picking out her wardrobe for the Senate. Most women realized she probably downed her morning cup of coffee, walked to her closet and grabbed a top to wear under a jacket, hoping she'd look pulled-together, but hardly planning some Clausweitzean strategy.
Conservative women seem to get a bit more latitude in the glam department, but there's an underside to that as well.
As Newsweek writer Julia Baird noted, while the media seem to applaud conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann for being sexual objects, it bashes progressive women leaders for their supposed failure to do the same. Progressive figures such as Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and, of course, Hillary Clinton, faced countless sexist attacks in their rise to high profile media attention. And the "smokin' hot" conservatives are subtly put down. Baird noted:
It's odd to see how some men insist that when women start to grasp power, we should think of them primarily as playthings and provocateurs. Is this the best way to explain their success? They aren't challenging the status quo. They're being wild! They're not trying to lift the ban on offshore drilling. They're being naughty!
But can you imagine what would happen if Sarah Palin snuck away from Todd and dallied with, say, an Alaskan wilderness guide or a conservative radio host? Would she be forgiven even by her zealous fan base?
Right or left, women are cautious. Nancy Pelosi is often pictured on the web as the Wicked Witch of the West, gripping her broomstick. Could she possibly retain her seat in Congress if she had an affair, like Louisiana senator David Vitter, who got reelected after frequenting prostitutes? Newt Gingrich can dump not one but (count 'em) two ailing wives and still be considered a viable presidential candidate. No woman could ever get away with that.
Even the mildest display of something remotely sexual by a political woman draws outrage. Consider Michelle Obama wearing a sleeveless dress and displaying her well-toned bare arms. Once again, the press acted like she'd appeared in a thong. "Obama's Choice to Bare Arms Causes Uproar," gasped ABC News. The Chicago Tribune opined, "A woman who bears her arms in front of the U.S. Congress, in winter... may well have texted an invitation to the nation to discuss her biceps." David Brooks of the New York Times said "She's made her point. Now she should put away Thunder and Lightning."
Women are acutely aware of a deep unease among men of the combination of female sexuality and power that stretches far back into history. The legendary Medusa caused men to drop dead at one glimpse of her face. Odysseus was so afraid of getting lured to his death by the sirens that he tied himself to the mast. Lady Macbeth combined femininity and murder, and when women practiced the healing arts, they were branded as witches. Some 400 women were burned to death in one day in medieval France.
While man is thought to be the cornerstone of what is human, rational, normal and real, and is seen clear, standing in the sunlight, woman is like the shadows in Plato's cave. She is seen through the male imagination, desired, dreaded, loved and loathed, misunderstood, puzzled over, worried about. Sigmund Freud, after all, did not ask, in a quandary: "What does a man want?"
If woman in her essence is seen as nature, in her sexuality she is seen once again through the prism of the male imagination. Critic Vivian Gornick writes:
Deeply interwoven in the fabric of this cultural cloak is the image of woman: woman, the temptress, woman the slut, woman the heartless bitch--luring men eternally towards spiritual death, making them come up against what they most fear and hate in themselves, pulling them down, down into the pit of themselves.
Or, there's a simpler fear, aptly voiced by Tucker Carlson of MSNBC when he said of Hillary Clinton, "When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." One image that appeared often on the web was of Hillary holding a "Testicle lock box."
Political women are acutely aware that whatever they do, they will get a higher level of scrutiny and disapproval of their personal life than men do. And in this age of the Internet, where nothing seems to be personal or private, they have to be extra careful. You don't actually have to be a nun to run for office, but it doesn't hurt to behave like one.
Caryl Rivers is the co-author of the forthcoming book for Columbia University Press, The Truth About Girls and Boys: Challenging Toxic Stereotypes About Our Children.
Ms. Rivers, while it is generally acknowledged what a societal effect birth control for women had on our culture, what has not been acknowledged is the societal effect of Viagra. Women have always been able to enjoy sex as long as a man would have them. Men have spent centuries looking for the Viagra "fountain of youth". Yeah, turns out that's what they meant by "fountain of youth". lol I think Viagra has had an amazing impact as yet unacknowledged. I could make an argument it's had more of an downside than an up, but i am sure men don't feel that way.
Pun intended?
Jane Yolen
2) Eleanor of Aquitaine's power and influence derived from her marriage to kings. Rest assured she would have had a short trip to the executioner's block if she had an affair. It was literally high treason to cheat on the king, because you're calling into doubt the entire royal bloodline.
3) Elizabeth I was famously known as the Virgin Queen for a reason.
4) Victoria I was already a head of state rather than a head of government, and she's not exactly known to be sexually adventurous.
Unfortunately the question is way too relevant even today. It's willful ignorance to say sexism played no part in those women's lives or that we don't have these problems today.
- ''Conservative women seem to get a bit more latitude in the glam department, but there's an underside to that as well.''
I have not much to add except on this one point. I believe the standards between left and right are much more than just a nit more. ( that being my perspective bing a liberal male )
I find the attacks on Mrs. Clinton are vicious and almost always of a personal nature and most about her looks and wardrobe.Rarely do i hear a criticism about what she is speaking about because the policy leads back to the President. I find the attacks singular to her because she has such a powerful position within the administration.
As for republican women ( Mrs..Bachmann and Palin being the most noteworthy ) , I find the most outspoken jabs come from liberal women .( the majority of the negativity about wardrobe and how they act and talk ) . For liberal men , our comments are mostly about how we perceive them to have low intellect . ( based on their outrageous responses to simple questions asked ) .
Either way , as part of the question you posed about how would the women be perceived if they were caught having an affair ?
- women are way too smart to lower themselves to the level of incorrigible men.
"women are way too smart to lower themselves to the level of incorrigibÂle men."
While it sounds like a compliment (and I'm sure you meant it that way) to say women are 'better' than men so they wouldn't have affairs. Well, let me just put it this way, when you're up on a pedestal, you're not really a part of the world. It's very limiting and paints women as two-dimensional. Know what I mean? Just some food for thought.
But therein lies the problem: With some women, the men likely have fantasies of being taken advantage of by the females, and would actually prefer to be "treated" in such a manner. On the other hand, if the females were not attractive to the male, only THEN would the "the way you would like to be treated" maxim apply.
So probably not a good idea to suggest to men that they would want to be treated the same as women, because in some cases, they would not.
I agree that guys should act like decent human beings, period.
I'd still be proud of my accomplishments and I'd still love sex.
But instead of being a computer programmer I'd be working in textiles. Probably weaving.
You see, back then weaving would give me everything computer programming gives me now. Because there were no Wallmarts, no malls, no Dress Barns, no boutiques, no racks and racks of cheap T-shirts.
Back then every scrap of cloth you owned was made by a woman like me. You were grateful and appreciative of her labor because without it you'd be naked. You were polite to her, and you traded the fruits of your labors to her for prized items like a nice blanket or clothe for a warm winter cloak. She was a woman of consequence and substance in your community.
Women haven't changed. Our old jobs are now done by by machines and no longer get us the wealth, power, and prestige we want. But you are missing something very fundamental if you don't understand WHY women used to love working in textiles, dyeing, and brewing and why we are less interested in them now that they are wasteful hobbies instead of important activities.
A woman used to be able to make a solid living making sweaters like that. People used to be eager to receive them and used to wear them proudly.
Then came the cotton gin and mechanical looms. Cloth is now ubiquitous and cheap. There is no wealth or honor in such work anymore.
Same for all the traditional Women's Jobs.
The folks who talk about the old ways being good and how it worked out just fine with Men doing X and women doing Y are actually right ... it WAS good. It WAS stable. They just vastly, tremendously, underestimate all that women used to do.
We had monopoly control over multiple industries that are vital to daily life which gave us power and respect at a local level. It wasn't that long ago that men broke into the brewing/distilling industry by getting people to agree that it was OK for the girly-men in monasteries to learn these arts that had been the sole domain of women for nearly ten thousand years.
You guys took our jobs. And this threw the whole system out of balance because we aren't pulling our weight anymore. Modernization made us dependents instead of partners. Of course we hate it.
Your version of the "old ways" is vastly oversimplified and sanitized with regard to women but you are right, there were things women did that were valued in the past that are no longer.
Secondly, the line in the article about "women in positions of power are not necessarily more virtuous than men -- they are just a lot more scared and careful." Prof. Rivers must not be very familiar with the current crop of women lawmakers. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein are not shy violets and do not hold back because they are "scared and careful" These women generally have stable relationships with their spouses and get their kicks from the politics they are involved in everyday. Even conservative lawmakers like Gov. Brewer, Sharon Angle, Barbara Bachman and Sarah Palin could never be accused of having to be "scared and careful". These women revel in their conservativeness and are far too set on their righteous causes to need the dubious thrill of harassing their male interns or staff members.
I hope the Trib was talking about carrying guns, otherwise the correct language is "bares her arms."
University education has come to this?
So it makes sense that men, who have an even higher levels of testosterone, would on average be that much more promiscuous, all things being equal. That doesn't mean they would have less self-control, but it does indicate that if for whatever reasons men's inhibitions aren't holding him back (such as when they occupy leadership positions which are linked with arrogance and flouting the rules)
How much of this is learned behavior as opposed to biology? Has it been shown anywhere that a baby girl thinks in terms of "we" as opposed to her male counterpart? Is she any less egotistical? I doubt it.