Social Trap: hard Truths About Public Sexual Illusion for Men

A fewer weeks ago, I witnessed a public affront about a sexual subtext a female committed against a man. What's important, he got hit without guilt. I think we're completely unprepared for specified events.

There's no point in describing the full situation in detail. Suffice to say that it was noticed by respective twelve people gathered in the hall – it was absolutely clear. However, no 1 reacted but for the short (or clear) surprise of the victim. At the same time, I imagine that if a guy had commented in specified an open way on the ass of a girl/woman, the ripost would be as fast as radical. possibly even a delinquent would be carried out on a wheelbarrow (literally and/or figuratively).

I wonder if it is not that women at specified moments may be allowed more, that allowing sexualisation of communication is greater in the case of women than men, that objectifying a man by a female is more evasive. How about a small sexist reprisal for centuries of men falling down? Of course, there is no excuse for this attitude, no way to defend a phrase in which what we deny the right of men is to be given to the ladies. And yet, under the skin, I feel that behind the phrase “see the kind what it's like” there is sometimes any hidden vindictive satisfaction.

Second of all, possibly it's just that it's not right to stand up for men who are attacked by women. Let the man respond himself – the figure of a strong, assured bravado relatable male seems to me inactive significant. Open support from a man with the blade of a sexist comment can be an expression of his weakness alternatively than the moral rightfulness of a 3rd party. Humiliation of a boy or a man brings more laughter and/or pity than solidarity. It's just a repeated nelson founded on mythical masculinity. An additional complication is the fact that, in the case of men, the perpetrators of harassment are besides women, and men – almost equally, according to investigation by Dr. Joanna Roszak and Greta Gober.

The 3rd thing is surprise. We have (unfortunately) become accustomed to seeing women sexually offended by men. The other situation in public space is something non-routine, something without the Interpretative Railroads. Not only are there no responses ready. There is besides no cultural legitimacy. The oppressive verbally patriarchate is simply a model commonly known. There are many question marks on the another side. I have the impression that a female drasticly taking control of sexual symbolism is inactive causing cognitive discomfort.

This situation could be considered so uncommon that it is even negligible. However, this is not true. The 2018 CBOS study “Sexual harassment” or investigation by Dr. Roszak and Gober (2012) indicates that harassment in public space affects men not 20-, 10- or 5 times little often, but... 2 times. Surprising, isn't it? (A crucial comparison of the 2007 and 2018 CBOS survey reveals an almost identical scale of this phenomenon in the workplace/sciences).

I don't know what she was/is the fact about what happened weeks ago. The sleazy hero that night thought it was a joke. possibly it was. Or possibly it was a form of demonstration of individual power on the rule of whose strength, isn't it? It could besides have been only innocent provocation, investigating the limits of unpleasantness, boldness and susceptibility to initiating scandals, investigating yourself and the another side for knowledge/not knowing each another on jokes, puffyness or oversensitivity. Another option is pure cyclicalism and pumping on bearable slogans of symbolic force – then another meaning takes the phrase “think it 1 but say it loudly” ... Or it was just a stupid, only temporary, situational, and in fact an accidental interplay of unfortunate reactions. quite a few conjecture, but...

...it is certain that we have absolutely no pattern towards verbal force of sexual colour directed at men (this of course besides concerns another forms of aggression). What do I do about it? It is most likely crucial to realize this fact at all, but the ability to respond to border crossings is not just a substance of value and a generalized moral attitude. They're besides skills. And with them is always the same: you gotta practice them, you gotta have ready reposts, justifications, various types of evasiveness. It's like with first aid: the explanation isn't enough, you just gotta learn to resuscitation. I think that the ability to defy verbal attacks is just any form of first aid – not only to others, but besides to ourselves.