Why, yes, but that's not what I'm talking about here. It's a way of being treated that's very difficult to deal with -- at fifteen, being told by a friend's father that I didn't need to tell jokes, that I should understand that that wasn't what made me appealling; lately having a loopy friend of the family maunder on about how wonderful and incomprehensible women are...
Anyway, click through and read AWB on it -- her post is interesting. I'd been thinking about posting on it, but couldn't put anything together; I dragged it out because we need comments.
Yeah, I liked that post too. It seems to me that there are two ways of men being that way: one is the totally bizarre on-a-pedestal thing that, like you say, is just fucking impossible to deal with. But the other is a kind of game, that seems to involve a certain self-consciousness. I can't help it, and maybe it's just a measure of my own internalized sexism, but I do really love being around men who appreciate the feminine performance. It's a fun game to play, as long as it doesn't preclude real interactions. But basically, the "vive la difference" attitude is one I'm a bit of a sucker for, I must admit.
I know this exists, but I don't know that I've ever encountered. A male pianist once told Clementine that "something about her would always be a little mysterious" (I don't remember if he said "to men"). When I heard this, I snorted. Clementine is about the least mysterious person in the world.
As I said on that thread, it's a developmental stage, and maturity contextualizes without entirely superseding it. I think I can have an adult conversation with a woman whose allure and yes, mystery are making an overwhelming impression on me, and I would expect the same to be true for those women altogether aware of the lovely, lovely line.
8: Yeah, I notice it because I do 'feminine performance' very badly (this isn't disapproval of it, just lack of skill). Which means that interactions that rely on appreciation of feminine performance tend to grind to a painful, boring halt rather quickly.
Yeah, I second what Tia said. I know that this attitude exists, but I mostly know of it from other people's experiences or maybe from pop culture or somewhere. I'm trying to think of times when I 've met with this attitude, and I can't think of any.
The sexism I've dealt with is the more straightforward, brute kind.
I think the "incomprehensible women" thing is key. There seem to be men who think women are like a different species, and I want to hit those men Really Hard. But there are also men who really genuinely like women as human beings, but for whom that doesn't mean seeing women as "just like men."
Shit, I'm not making any sense. Oh well. We were asked to comment in volume, so fuck it.
IDP, can you explain what "mystery" is? I don't understand, actually. I understand allure. I understand being attracted to someone who flirts. I don't really understand mystery. It seems to me that the only thing that makes a person mysterious is the fact that you don't yet know them well, unless they're frequently cryptic on purpose, or make a point of hiding their true feelings. Is that what mystery is?
Stendhal illustrates the difference: He really, really loved women and could be quite silly about it, but also saw them as human with a sympathy rarely matched. The appreciation of him in The Second Sex made a big impression on me as an undergraduate, and validated my feelings and impulses.
Give credit where it's due. My male co-blogger coined the term and described the phenomenon.
That said, I keep switching sides on it. I lust after my boyfriend terribly badly when I think about all his mysterious masculine traits, and I'm sure heterosexual sex depends on a degree of lusty objectification. But as I don't pay suggests, it's not everyone who can snap out of it when, like, dealing with adult women with whom one is not about to have intercourse. Is it possible that the problem is men treating all women as if it's possible they're about to have sex with them?
Maybe, although I have to say that when I've run into it, it's been much more common in contexts where I'm explicitly unattainable or being treated as such -- the father of a friend when I was a teenager, friends of my husband's... that sort of thing. It certainly goes with a creepy sense of sexual attraction, but not, IME, necessarily with any direct sexual intent.
If mystery is attraction that you can't account for, then maybe it's just lust + emotional need + failure to introspect. I mean, Graham has lots of masculine traits, but I know what they are and why I find them attractive. Even if I didn't know, I wouldn't locate the failure to know in the other person, but in myself.
I think there are more female than male commenters—I tend to assume female around here, anyway. No, there was a specific comment that led me to believe you were a guy, but I shall not link to it, lest this whole site come crashing down!
33: You're right, LB, it's not just when any real possibility of intercourse is there. There's a weird middle ground with guys, I think, where they know they're talking to someone who's unattainable (bc of age, position, marital status, etc.), yet they are enjoying pretending they are attainable, or fantasizing that they are available. Like that passage in "Portnoy's Complaint" where Portnoy walks down the street astonished at the realization that every single female he sees has a c***. It makes him feel sick with power (the ability to penetrate) and impotence (the inaccessibility of that penetration) at once. Is this the feeling LB is describing, which is, perhaps, even more powerful than actual sexual availability?
Of course it's in yourself, but some people suggest it and some don't. I have many faults, but failure to instrospect is seldom one of them; some attractions fascinate and elude my understanding after years of daily exposure.
I'm sorry the word irritates you. I'm trying to be true to my feelings, but we probably haven't got any disagreements about behavior.
Some men use it as a responsibility-dodge: "Oh, women - who can explain them! Totally mysterious!" instead of "Gee, maybe my co-worker had a logical reason for what she just said."
It's juvenile, and iit puts the onus on the woman to ensure that there is understanding/comprehension. To my mind, it makes the woman be the kind of social grease-in-the-wheels that is what I vaguely understand a geisha to be.
Someone who is skilled at this role serves as kind of a simultaneous translator. That this is a valuable, gender-neutral interpersonal skill doesn't mean that it's OK for some men to offload the communication responsibilities on to women under the guise of "You're all just such beautiful mysterious creatures - how could I possibly understand you?"
Okay. What are these "mysterious masculine traits"? Because while I really like men, I have to confess that there's not much about them that I think of as "mysterious."
Things that are, however, attractively masculine: the ability to tease. The ability to wear a well-fitting suit. The ability to *smoothly* orchestrate things. The ability to stay calm when someone's acting like a dipshit. The ability to appreciate and perpetuate irony. Oh, and really really important, being able to discuss sensitive or touchy things without getting all defensive. Also, not making me feel self-conscious or stupid when I'm feeling insecure. (As distinct from a certain amount of teasing.)
Are those really attractive masculine traits in the sense of being traits both attractive and peculiarly male (the second I'd buy), or attractive masculine traits in the sense of being traits you find attractive when they occur in men?
Yeah, I guess I'm just saying I don't think it's possible to be attracted to another person's mystery in the sense that mystery is a quality that person possesses. It's only possible not to notice the thing that's attracting you to the other person, unless the person is really acting out a genuinely mysterious feminine performance, which I guess some women do, in which they make a point not to reveal anything about themselves or to make what they reveal deceptive. But I would guess a small percentage of the women adjudged mysterious are actually doing that.
On preview: then failing to introspect successfully. You can introspect a lot without getting to the heart of the matter.
43: A cab driver once broke into a conversation between my sister and a good friend of hers as follows: "I ain't never heard no conversation in no locker room like you two ladies..."
And I can think of very few instances in literature where the woman exclaims about the mystery of the man. Misunderstanding, incomprehension, sure, but not mystery. She doesn't necessarily understand why one has got it and the other doesn't, and doesn't spend much time thinking about. I'll bet just accepting that it exists and not needing to try to account for it is the big difference here.
Well, I'd say it's certainly related to the blank-slate attraction toward young girls; whatever part of that is an attraction toward innocence and psychological youth, rather than physical.
I have from time to time met a woman who aroused in me feelings of lust + emotional need + failure.
Ah yes, I am very familiar with that sort of situation. I usually become dear friends with the person in question, but only after much anguish and turmoil.
Yeah, when I talk about dreamily appreciating manliness, I don't think of it as mysterious, just as stereotypical. You know, the Boy Scout virtues: brave, thrifty, reverent, kind, whatever.
55: Oh, see I meant physical things. I'm very simple. I kind of think male genitals are fascinating. I also like how men's faces get scratchy overnight.
re "instances in literature", there is a beautiful passage in Garcia Marquez' Love in the Time of Cholera (one of the few things I remember from the book, these many years later), describing a newly married (and sexually naive) woman touching her new husband's penis for the first time. If I am remembering correctly, that passage illustrates intergender feelings of mystery very nicely; and it is all from the bride's pov so it is masculine mystery that is being illustrated.
45: I think the latter. I don't think there are such a thing as traits that are peculiar to men. Or women, for that matter.
Although I have to admit that I like women who can tease and flirt, too. But there's a different quality to it with women friends than there is with men.
Sometimes, when my first boyfriend's penis was bobbing around half-erect, he'd make me laugh by saying " 'Ello" in a pronounced British accent in time with the bobbing, so it looked like his penis was talking. A few months into our relationship, we watched Labyrinth together, he for the first time, me for the first time since I was little. Near the beginning of the movie, there's a scene where a little worm comes out and says, " 'Ello" in the exact same voice. We about died.
I grew up as a Boy Scout (did all the activities with brother but didn't get the badges), so I'm actually kind of annoyed at Boy Scout traits in men. When Max gets all "I'll organize this! And I'll carry that! I'll tie knots in that thing over there!" I feel competitive, not aroused. But I am weird.
Is it odd (or merely socially less acceptable) for a woman to lust visually?
I lust visually, though I do think less so than the men around me. Graham and I sometimes have a little struggle where I want to be all cuddled in my dark little hole next to him and he wants to be looking at my face.
Re. feminine "mystery" and masculine lack of it: I think 60 gets it right. Men aren't mysterious to women because everything in the world is about the male p.o.v.; women are maybe mysterious to some guys for the same reason.
But I'd really much rather discuss what's attractive in men.
60 is not analogous to what I had in mind. It's also a man imagining a woman in a particular situation. There's plenty of that kind of mystery in Fanny Hill, in very good English.
I, too, get competitive when guys are all, "let me do that!" But I absolutely fucking adore it when say, it's raining and someone has to go get the car and the man I'm with says "I'll be right back."
And I think the whole men are visually stimulated and women aren't thing is just hogwash.
I was thinking, maybe the appeal of "mystery" is a sort of reserve; the cryptic comments of a Snufkin (won't make sense if you haven't read the Moomin books, but that's your problem). Which makes me think: Is part of the idea behind the "women are mysterious" stereotype that, contrary to other stereotype, they actually get to talk much less than men do?
Having just received permission from Joe D. to talk about him in this thread, I offer him as an example of a man who observes body language very well, and can put his finger on exactly what a woman is doing to attract him. I could easily see someone who does not observe people as well calling "mystery" what he'd call "expressive eyes" or something else.
Then 'Boy Scout' was a poorly chosen term; I was trying to get across a sort of casually habitual thoughtful helpfulness and competence, which would totally be a Cary Grant thing. Is there anyone who would take Ron Howard over Cary Grant?
Determined to break down and delegitimate? "Putting [my] finger on exactly what a woman is doing to attract..." wouldn't necessarily dispel the mystery of why a particular woman had this impact, yes on me and why another woman didn't. If it makes you feel better, plenty of women do nothing for me and their attempts to be feminine and seductive are merely irritating to me .
87 -- that doesn't necessarily mean there is someone who would take Ron Howard over Cary Grant -- likely Howard's wife did not have the option of marrying Grant.
Re Tia's and IDP's comments, mostly. Surely there are people who are enigmatic, and who keep being enigmatic once you've got to know them well? And surely some of those peopkle are also charismatic?
81: I have hung out with a lot of dicks, but also some really great, wonderful, intelligent men with good hearts and ideas who thought they were honoring women by treating them with respectful distance, assuming, perhaps, that their virtues might lie somewhere other than their intellectual powers (perhaps due to sexist parenting). One of Max's exes is a French dressmaker of extraordinary talent, vivacity and charm, but whose mind is singularly concentrated on bows and ruffles. As a young chap, Max found her devastatingly appealing in ways he had no knowledge of or access to. He fell for her without once asking her who was her favorite author. You know?
This used to be enough for at least a few dates for me, too. I'd find some exotically odd chap with bizarre talents and attitudes, and screw his brains out. Somehow, deep discussions of ethics, literature, and history never came up.
Personally, I can tell you exactly what in someone attracts me, and what repels me. But I think there's still room for mystery here and there. When someone attracts you, but from what you know of them it seems like they wouldn't be attractive, that can be mysterious. But I think usually what people mean by "mystery" and "women are from venus" and such is just that they're too damn lazy to listen to their partners and find out what they're actually thinking instead of just relying completely on stereotyped interactions.
OK, let me ask about this stereotype. Do any people think that woman actually are more linguistic/social/intuitive? I have heard second-hand about some studies done saying that woman actually do speak about a third more per day than men, or something. But it seems to me that it's more of a working-class stereotype than anything.
104: And hair. And less Opie-fied freckles. And if he didn't engender a sneaking suspicion that his "aw shucks" manner didn't hide a dark personality. And a more worrying suspicion that it didn't hide anything at all.
I think Matt's right about oath; I can feel my three fingers drawing together when I say the words.
My troop, and my son's ,were rough-and-tumble affairs very removed in spirit from what seems to be meant by "Boy Scout" here. It may have been the times, but mine in the sixties had a kind of pre-Ranger-training ethos, and in fact a couple of the older boys went into the Marines, where one was killed, while I was still a scout. You didn't want to fall out. I remember thinking years later, during Basic Training, "Man, this is too easy. You guys should have been in my scout troop..."
109: It seems like portrayals of the stereotype are much more common when the subjects are working class, along with the rest of the "men as apes" class of stereotypes. I don't recally seeing portrayals of markedly middle- or upper-class families where such stereotypes are displayed.
110: I should admit that I heard an interview with him on some Elvis Mitchell show, and he came off much better than I expected. Not the least bit sanctimonious, for example. And he's got a LOT of cash. So maybe he is sexy.
Elvis Mitchell, OTOH, may be the most irritating person in the world.
112 -- funny, I wouldn't have made that association -- I'm familiar with the stereotypes you're talking about, just never thought of them as specifically working-class. (So I was mainly checking to see if "working-class stereotype" didn't have some meaning I was not aware of.) But maybe you're right.
I think the stereotype is class-based, but a lot of young people try to live by it. I can remember some "why do you want to talk so much?" which I would attribute to class. Probably talked plenty to other women, just didn't think a man and a woman should be talking. "Aren't you going to do something?" "What are you waiting for?"
105: I think the "women are better at talking thing" refers to women's facility with using language as a relationship tool. Which I think we generally do do better than men, although I think that about 80-90% of that is socialization. (I allow for the possibility that women, as mothers, might have acquired some kind of genetic advantage in articulating things, as a parenting skill.)
I surely don't think that this is a "working class" thing. Think about women's dominance of the novel, both as authors and readers, just to give one example. Surely a big part of that isn't about innate talent--after all, writing is a more "respectable" occupation than many--but it at least suggests that it isn't, and wasn't, only working class women who are highly invested in the nuances of language and relationships.
More evidence that it isn't just working-class folks who hold this stereotype: the frequent claim that women's management styles are more "cooperative" or "relational," etc.
psyc studies have in fact found that women's management styles are more cooperative and relational. Or specifically, that you find people of both genders who manage all ways, but the women tend to more frequently use some, men more frequently use others.
OK, I think my impression of the stereotype is that the negative aspect of males having no linguistic/social skill is lower class, while the positive stereotype of woman being better at it than men is both lower and middle to high-middle class. (I don't know about upper class.)
123 - OK, you're right, Tim. I just Google imaged Elvis Mitchell and he was not cute in most of the pics. The one picture I had seen of him before must have been unusually flattering.
126: I still think you're mistaken. I've read plenty of business section-type articles saying that women's "relational managerial style" is more effective or productive than men's "traditional" style, and so on.
To revert briefly to discussing the post, I've been trying to think about whether I've really ever experienced this Orientalized Mysterious Woman thing, and to my recollection, the only times when I even briefly inhabited that role were when I was really tired--or maybe when I was unwilling to explain myself to somebody I didn't know very well? What I can't figure out is whether I've managed somehow to shortcircuit the Orientalizing attitude or whether I'm particularly oblivious to other people's perceptions of me.
Maybe what I'm looking for are particular examples of how this attitude manifests itself.
129: Sure, but that's compatible with my impression. Stereotypically, middle class men aren't bad at communication (like lower-class men), just not really good at it like women are.
I've read plenty of business section-type articles saying that women's "relational managerial style" is more effective or productive than men's "traditional" style, and so on.
132: You've never heard middle-class women discuss their exasperation at trying to get their husbands to talk about something? A fight, a problem, the kids? Because my middle class friends and I do it all the time.
131: I think a certain tomboyish, "one of the guys" type of demeanor can obviate this type of treatment, at the expense of being seen/treated more as an asexual type of creature. Maybe you give that impression most of the time?
134: Sure, but (again, stereotypically) this is because women's expectations are too high. They're "reading too much into things", and being "bitchy" and "shrewish" and such.
133: I can't tell if you're baiting me or serious! But in fact, I've very seldom worked for women (interesting, now that I think about it). And when I have, I've had both great and awful experiences, mostly depending on how direct the women are. With men supervisors, I'd say that the dividing line, ime, has been similarly about directness, although I think with men I'd characterize it more as "frankness."
Just that I'd use a different word to mean a similar, but not entirely exact, quality. To emphasize the word substitution, the use of the word as word.
137: JM, haven't you ever had a guy friend, though, ask you to explain to him what some woman he was crushed out on was thinking? I mean, that's a pretty benign version of the orientalism thing, and women do it too, but surely on some level that's a version of the belief that the opposite sex is unfathomable.
138: Well, I was joshing, but all of my women bosses have in some way managed to make their working relationships about the relationship rather than the work. I work OK in that sort of environment, but I gotta say that having a male boss who is interested in the work, then the relationship, has felt like a breath of fresh air. Anecdotal evidence, don't know whether it holds true universally, but my experience.
112: No, this stereotype permeates all classes. The upper-class version: brittle chatter and snobbish gossip among the ladies, while the men retreat to the library and smoke pipes. Emsworth and Lady Constance, Mr. and Mrs. Bennett in P&P. I'm sure there are lots more.
138: That's really interesting. B/c I've had women bosses who've made things about the relationship in really awful ways, like trying to control your feelings about bad news or whatever (but I also work with a guy right now who is just AWFUL about doing that). I think, though, that my preference for what I'm calling direct/frank management styles *do* have to do with a sense of relationship between me and my boss: that I can trust her/him to be honest with me about what's possible and what's not, to warn me against unforseen mistakes, and to give me good advice when it's asked. The colder, "here's the job, this is what I expect" kind of directness (which is, I think, the distinction between direct and frank I'm identifying in men) makes me feel insecure. Because ime there always *are* some kind of unwritten rules or some kind of office politics or whatever, and I'm uncomfortable when that's not acknowledged.
139: Words that are part of my description of the stereotype, as opposed to my commentary about it, or something.
142: I think the stereotype is different, there. Certainly, the sociability aspects are still applicable, as men are still seen as not as relationship-oriented. But not so with linguistic ability--men are seen as just as capable, only preferring more studious and productive endeavours.
144: Well, I'd call that one of the distinctions between being a good and bad boss--you have to give your employees the info they need to succesfully complete the tasks you assign.
138, 144, 147: I wonder if differential treatement by bosses towards male vs. female coworkers affect what conclusions we draw from our personal experiences. Chopper, I forget, are you male or female?
149: Yes, but they also need to believe that you're being truthful and that you'll back them up if problems arise (that aren't their fault). I'd call that a relationship.
If only we could link to old comments. This would be an excellent time to point to Chopper exuding masculine mystery, the leather barely able to contain his strapping physique, his face in shadow from the wide brim of the sombero.
140: JM, haven't you ever had a guy friend, though, ask you to explain to him what some woman he was crushed out on was thinking?
I've seriously wracked my memory here, and if it's happened, it's seriously rare. Part of it may be that I offer my explanations for everything unasked and sometimes unwanted. Another part may be that my explanations for things are often baroque and inaccurate. Maybe I run with an enlightened male crowd; maybe I inhabit the Feminine poorly. I know what the Orientalized Woman dynamic is supposed to look like--I've seen some of my female friends work it, when they feel like doing so--but it's not a noticeable part of my life.
My best bosses have been women with this frankness. Both unconventional and not interested in me or, um, any other man. My wife's boss is a revelation to her, she can't get over what a mensch he is. This is because he is very good at communicating what he wants from her and at supported and praising what she does. Also at making sure she is recognised and treated as his colleague, by administrators and vistors etc. Her loyalty to him now is fearsome.
So JM, having not had these experiences, really, what's your take on Stendhal's world, or Flaubert's for that matter? These people must seem like they live on another planet, to a completely superseded psychology with not much to say to us.
If only we could link to old comments. This would be an excellent time to point to Chopper exuding masculine mystery, the leather barely able to contain his strapping physique, his face in shadow from the wide brim of the sombero.
If only Chopper hadn't deleted that photo from his Flickr account.
158 -- What purpose did it serve to take the photo off your Flicker account after the weird conversation? I would think at that point you did not have much to lose keeping it there.
IDP, I'd say that the psychological structure of focussing on attributes rather than human-ness still exists, but that the particularly gendered way it manifests in Stendhal and Flaubert is not one that overlaps much with my own life, even though I can understand and even appreciate it aesthetically. Or, in other words, those aren't really women S. and F. are writing about, not as I understand women in my experience, anyway.
158--My mother-in-law is not the only person in my life who would initiate a weird conversation where I would have to explain
a) what "blogs" are
b) how I hang out at a certain blog, the name of which I don't care to share
c) what might lead me to photoshop a sombrero onto my head, then paste both onto a picture of Rob Halford riding a Harley, as a joke for my friends at said unnamed blog
d) and that really, it's not a weird sex thing
I guess that does surprise me. I think of these issues as being earlier versions of continuing and closely-related structures. Does that hold for Austen and George Eliott too? Or is there something about the French?
My new hire just invited me to a horror convention because "I seem like the type of girl who would dig it". I, apparently, do not embody womanhood in all its mysterious glory.
Let me try again:
By those aren't really women S. and F. are writing about, not as I understand women in my experience, anyway do you mean "aren't now, weren't then, just projections of these guys' ideas" or do you mean "probably close to what women were, at least as far as sympathy can use attributes to try to imagine and evoke human-ness, but so constrained by changes since those days as to be of limited applicability to current relations?"
IDP, I should amend my earlier statement. Emma Bovary is a female character with whom I can--to my horror--identify, as opposed to some of the women in Flaubert's more Stendhalian Education Sentimentale. I think it has everything to do with point of view: when male characters like Julian Sorel or Rastignac look at women from the outside as things to possess, status to attain, surfaces to appreciate, I can analyse or understand those perspectives, but I in no way identify with those women-constructs.
(And yes, the odalisque does seem particularly French.)
I think 172 is true for everyone. None of us identify with that idea of woman-as-other, not even those of us who've learned to play that game. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only way to play the game is to identify with Julian's point of view, which is why I suspect that enjoying the femme thing is, on some level, kind of fucked up.
I've said that before. Playing the socially approved role is fun and rewarding, but also expensive, time-consuming, and subject to misinterpretation. Also, see this comment.
Playing the socially approved role is fun and rewarding, but also expensive, time-consuming, and subject to misinterpretation.
Yeah, but when I say that, and even offer a policy proscription (girlie-girls should be tossed out of the land of Eden, and their parents beaten), I get accused of misogyny. NO JUSTICE! NO PEACE!
I'm embodying womanhood in all its mysterious glory
Conceited much?
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:05 AM
Silence, infidel Speak to the Mistress only when she requests it!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:08 AM
Why, yes, but that's not what I'm talking about here. It's a way of being treated that's very difficult to deal with -- at fifteen, being told by a friend's father that I didn't need to tell jokes, that I should understand that that wasn't what made me appealling; lately having a loopy friend of the family maunder on about how wonderful and incomprehensible women are...
Trust me, it's really irritating.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:11 AM
Anyway, click through and read AWB on it -- her post is interesting. I'd been thinking about posting on it, but couldn't put anything together; I dragged it out because we need comments.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:12 AM
I always love your posts -- not that I pay much attention to what they're saying, but you're just cute as a button!
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:13 AM
I've certainly done my share of dreamily appreciating the appeal of men being 'manly'
<blush>
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:13 AM
Trust me, it's really irritating.
I do.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:13 AM
Yeah, I liked that post too. It seems to me that there are two ways of men being that way: one is the totally bizarre on-a-pedestal thing that, like you say, is just fucking impossible to deal with. But the other is a kind of game, that seems to involve a certain self-consciousness. I can't help it, and maybe it's just a measure of my own internalized sexism, but I do really love being around men who appreciate the feminine performance. It's a fun game to play, as long as it doesn't preclude real interactions. But basically, the "vive la difference" attitude is one I'm a bit of a sucker for, I must admit.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:14 AM
I know this exists, but I don't know that I've ever encountered. A male pianist once told Clementine that "something about her would always be a little mysterious" (I don't remember if he said "to men"). When I heard this, I snorted. Clementine is about the least mysterious person in the world.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:14 AM
As I said on that thread, it's a developmental stage, and maturity contextualizes without entirely superseding it. I think I can have an adult conversation with a woman whose allure and yes, mystery are making an overwhelming impression on me, and I would expect the same to be true for those women altogether aware of the lovely, lovely line.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:16 AM
I think you all might be reading too much into things.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:17 AM
8: Yeah, I notice it because I do 'feminine performance' very badly (this isn't disapproval of it, just lack of skill). Which means that interactions that rely on appreciation of feminine performance tend to grind to a painful, boring halt rather quickly.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:21 AM
Yeah, I second what Tia said. I know that this attitude exists, but I mostly know of it from other people's experiences or maybe from pop culture or somewhere. I'm trying to think of times when I 've met with this attitude, and I can't think of any.
The sexism I've dealt with is the more straightforward, brute kind.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:21 AM
I think the "incomprehensible women" thing is key. There seem to be men who think women are like a different species, and I want to hit those men Really Hard. But there are also men who really genuinely like women as human beings, but for whom that doesn't mean seeing women as "just like men."
Shit, I'm not making any sense. Oh well. We were asked to comment in volume, so fuck it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:21 AM
IDP, can you explain what "mystery" is? I don't understand, actually. I understand allure. I understand being attracted to someone who flirts. I don't really understand mystery. It seems to me that the only thing that makes a person mysterious is the fact that you don't yet know them well, unless they're frequently cryptic on purpose, or make a point of hiding their true feelings. Is that what mystery is?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:23 AM
I remember someone else talking about the difference between "women" and "female persons" once. Hmmm...who could that be...
The server is nicely bouncy now, isn't it?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:24 AM
"comments", yes.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:24 AM
† ℵ is a woman?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:25 AM
Oh, exactly. I should have thought of him. Poor weird guy.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:25 AM
19 to 16.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:25 AM
Yup, I'm a woman. Never assume, dude.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:27 AM
Stendhal illustrates the difference: He really, really loved women and could be quite silly about it, but also saw them as human with a sympathy rarely matched. The appreciation of him in The Second Sex made a big impression on me as an undergraduate, and validated my feelings and impulses.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:28 AM
Uh, that is, if you are a dude.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:28 AM
But something's wrong, I can't use HTML to make special characters! Soon we'll all be spelling out Weierstrassian function p (℘).
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:29 AM
17 - You obviously are focused on the wrong part of my comment.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:33 AM
Mystery is at least in part an attraction you can't account for, or remains ever fresh or various. Antony's speech about Cleopatra.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:33 AM
Assume not for which sex the dude dudes.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:34 AM
25 -- I read 17 as a response not to your 16, but to the post title.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:35 AM
DA, "dude" is like "you guys"--all-purpose.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:35 AM
Give credit where it's due. My male co-blogger coined the term and described the phenomenon.
That said, I keep switching sides on it. I lust after my boyfriend terribly badly when I think about all his mysterious masculine traits, and I'm sure heterosexual sex depends on a degree of lusty objectification. But as I don't pay suggests, it's not everyone who can snap out of it when, like, dealing with adult women with whom one is not about to have intercourse. Is it possible that the problem is men treating all women as if it's possible they're about to have sex with them?
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:36 AM
Is it possible that the problem is men treating all women as if it's possible they're about to have sex with them?
That has been a problem for me, one I'm not entirely over. So I would say: yes, eminently possible.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:39 AM
Depends on what the meaning of about is about.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:41 AM
Maybe, although I have to say that when I've run into it, it's been much more common in contexts where I'm explicitly unattainable or being treated as such -- the father of a friend when I was a teenager, friends of my husband's... that sort of thing. It certainly goes with a creepy sense of sexual attraction, but not, IME, necessarily with any direct sexual intent.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:41 AM
28 gets it exactly right.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:41 AM
If mystery is attraction that you can't account for, then maybe it's just lust + emotional need + failure to introspect. I mean, Graham has lots of masculine traits, but I know what they are and why I find them attractive. Even if I didn't know, I wouldn't locate the failure to know in the other person, but in myself.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:41 AM
See, that's because you aren't an idiot.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:42 AM
I think there are more female than male commenters—I tend to assume female around here, anyway. No, there was a specific comment that led me to believe you were a guy, but I shall not link to it, lest this whole site come crashing down!
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:46 AM
33: You're right, LB, it's not just when any real possibility of intercourse is there. There's a weird middle ground with guys, I think, where they know they're talking to someone who's unattainable (bc of age, position, marital status, etc.), yet they are enjoying pretending they are attainable, or fantasizing that they are available. Like that passage in "Portnoy's Complaint" where Portnoy walks down the street astonished at the realization that every single female he sees has a c***. It makes him feel sick with power (the ability to penetrate) and impotence (the inaccessibility of that penetration) at once. Is this the feeling LB is describing, which is, perhaps, even more powerful than actual sexual availability?
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:47 AM
Of course it's in yourself, but some people suggest it and some don't. I have many faults, but failure to instrospect is seldom one of them; some attractions fascinate and elude my understanding after years of daily exposure.
I'm sorry the word irritates you. I'm trying to be true to my feelings, but we probably haven't got any disagreements about behavior.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:48 AM
Some men use it as a responsibility-dodge: "Oh, women - who can explain them! Totally mysterious!" instead of "Gee, maybe my co-worker had a logical reason for what she just said."
It's juvenile, and iit puts the onus on the woman to ensure that there is understanding/comprehension. To my mind, it makes the woman be the kind of social grease-in-the-wheels that is what I vaguely understand a geisha to be.
Someone who is skilled at this role serves as kind of a simultaneous translator. That this is a valuable, gender-neutral interpersonal skill doesn't mean that it's OK for some men to offload the communication responsibilities on to women under the guise of "You're all just such beautiful mysterious creatures - how could I possibly understand you?"
Posted by Witt | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:49 AM
I have from time to time met a woman who aroused in me feelings of lust + emotional need + failure.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:49 AM
37 - Now I'm curious.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:50 AM
I think there are more female than male commenters—I tend to assume female around here, anyway.
Locker-room atmosphere, we hardly knew ye!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:50 AM
Okay. What are these "mysterious masculine traits"? Because while I really like men, I have to confess that there's not much about them that I think of as "mysterious."
Things that are, however, attractively masculine: the ability to tease. The ability to wear a well-fitting suit. The ability to *smoothly* orchestrate things. The ability to stay calm when someone's acting like a dipshit. The ability to appreciate and perpetuate irony. Oh, and really really important, being able to discuss sensitive or touchy things without getting all defensive. Also, not making me feel self-conscious or stupid when I'm feeling insecure. (As distinct from a certain amount of teasing.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:50 AM
Are those really attractive masculine traits in the sense of being traits both attractive and peculiarly male (the second I'd buy), or attractive masculine traits in the sense of being traits you find attractive when they occur in men?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:52 AM
37/42: I wonder if the word "dagger" has anything to do with it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:53 AM
Yeah, I guess I'm just saying I don't think it's possible to be attracted to another person's mystery in the sense that mystery is a quality that person possesses. It's only possible not to notice the thing that's attracting you to the other person, unless the person is really acting out a genuinely mysterious feminine performance, which I guess some women do, in which they make a point not to reveal anything about themselves or to make what they reveal deceptive. But I would guess a small percentage of the women adjudged mysterious are actually doing that.
On preview: then failing to introspect successfully. You can introspect a lot without getting to the heart of the matter.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:54 AM
43: A cab driver once broke into a conversation between my sister and a good friend of hers as follows: "I ain't never heard no conversation in no locker room like you two ladies..."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:54 AM
It certainly goes with a creepy sense of sexual attraction, but not, IME, necessarily with any direct sexual intent.
So, like for example, the way a lot of guys feel about Natalie Portman's character in Beautiful Girls?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:54 AM
And I can think of very few instances in literature where the woman exclaims about the mystery of the man. Misunderstanding, incomprehension, sure, but not mystery. She doesn't necessarily understand why one has got it and the other doesn't, and doesn't spend much time thinking about. I'll bet just accepting that it exists and not needing to try to account for it is the big difference here.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:55 AM
What are these "mysterious masculine traits"?
The cock is itself an organ of surpassing mystery.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:56 AM
Who said there were mysterious masculine traits?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:56 AM
Well, I'd say it's certainly related to the blank-slate attraction toward young girls; whatever part of that is an attraction toward innocence and psychological youth, rather than physical.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:56 AM
I have from time to time met a woman who aroused in me feelings of lust + emotional need + failure.
Ah yes, I am very familiar with that sort of situation. I usually become dear friends with the person in question, but only after much anguish and turmoil.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:58 AM
Yeah, when I talk about dreamily appreciating manliness, I don't think of it as mysterious, just as stereotypical. You know, the Boy Scout virtues: brave, thrifty, reverent, kind, whatever.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 11:59 AM
Sometimes men can be "mysteriously" stoic or inexpressive, but I think that's usually pretty easy to see through.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:00 PM
55: Oh, see I meant physical things. I'm very simple. I kind of think male genitals are fascinating. I also like how men's faces get scratchy overnight.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:00 PM
Sorry, ModKid covered that in 51.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:01 PM
The cock is itself an organ of surpassing mystery.
Mastery, TMK, mastery.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:03 PM
re "instances in literature", there is a beautiful passage in Garcia Marquez' Love in the Time of Cholera (one of the few things I remember from the book, these many years later), describing a newly married (and sexually naive) woman touching her new husband's penis for the first time. If I am remembering correctly, that passage illustrates intergender feelings of mystery very nicely; and it is all from the bride's pov so it is masculine mystery that is being illustrated.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:04 PM
manliness...You know, the Boy Scout virtues
Sweet, maybe all those years in boy scouts will pay off! You know, aside from the benefit of being able to tie some wicked awesome knots.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:04 PM
45: I think the latter. I don't think there are such a thing as traits that are peculiar to men. Or women, for that matter.
Although I have to admit that I like women who can tease and flirt, too. But there's a different quality to it with women friends than there is with men.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:05 PM
Sometimes, when my first boyfriend's penis was bobbing around half-erect, he'd make me laugh by saying " 'Ello" in a pronounced British accent in time with the bobbing, so it looked like his penis was talking. A few months into our relationship, we watched Labyrinth together, he for the first time, me for the first time since I was little. Near the beginning of the movie, there's a scene where a little worm comes out and says, " 'Ello" in the exact same voice. We about died.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:05 PM
I grew up as a Boy Scout (did all the activities with brother but didn't get the badges), so I'm actually kind of annoyed at Boy Scout traits in men. When Max gets all "I'll organize this! And I'll carry that! I'll tie knots in that thing over there!" I feel competitive, not aroused. But I am weird.
Is it odd (or merely socially less acceptable) for a woman to lust visually?
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:07 PM
I don't know that my testimony is sufficient to render it not odd, but I do.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:09 PM
I lust visually, though I do think less so than the men around me. Graham and I sometimes have a little struggle where I want to be all cuddled in my dark little hole next to him and he wants to be looking at my face.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:10 PM
Re. feminine "mystery" and masculine lack of it: I think 60 gets it right. Men aren't mysterious to women because everything in the world is about the male p.o.v.; women are maybe mysterious to some guys for the same reason.
But I'd really much rather discuss what's attractive in men.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:11 PM
feel competitive, not aroused.
And I get both. Or, maybe not precisely competitive, but I want to show off my competence and caretaking skills as well.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:11 PM
64: I don't think it's odd. It's possibly socially less acceptable, and women have fewer opportunities to lust visually.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:13 PM
in my dark little hole
Have you no pet names for it?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:13 PM
I want to be all cuddled in my dark little hole
Tia=Klein bottle? That is mysterious.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:14 PM
But I'd really much rather discuss what's attractive in men.
Yeah, that would be great. I'm always looking for new ways to find myself lacking.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:14 PM
Not odd, socially less acceptable.
60 is not analogous to what I had in mind. It's also a man imagining a woman in a particular situation. There's plenty of that kind of mystery in Fanny Hill, in very good English.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:14 PM
I, too, get competitive when guys are all, "let me do that!" But I absolutely fucking adore it when say, it's raining and someone has to go get the car and the man I'm with says "I'll be right back."
And I think the whole men are visually stimulated and women aren't thing is just hogwash.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:15 PM
55: Thriftiness and reverence are hot? Baby, observe how solemnly I clip coupons.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:15 PM
I was thinking, maybe the appeal of "mystery" is a sort of reserve; the cryptic comments of a Snufkin (won't make sense if you haven't read the Moomin books, but that's your problem). Which makes me think: Is part of the idea behind the "women are mysterious" stereotype that, contrary to other stereotype, they actually get to talk much less than men do?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:18 PM
I think LB is much more competitive than I am.
The motto changes, and I'm sure I could look it up, but in my day it was "Physically fit, _______ clean, and morally straight. What was that word?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:20 PM
won't make sense if you haven't read the Moomin books, but that's your problem
Matt Weiner just made my day.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:22 PM
Having just received permission from Joe D. to talk about him in this thread, I offer him as an example of a man who observes body language very well, and can put his finger on exactly what a woman is doing to attract him. I could easily see someone who does not observe people as well calling "mystery" what he'd call "expressive eyes" or something else.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:23 PM
77: 'Mentally" would fit. As my father reported the Boy Scout creed: "Clean mind, clean body -- take your pick!"
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:25 PM
Just read AWB's post. Isn't it possible that, prior to Max, she mostly hung out with dicks?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:25 PM
or "orally".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:26 PM
Sure, it's a category of acting like a dick. Her gay male co-blogger is actually the one who raised the topic.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:27 PM
What I think of as the boy scout version of masculinity totally revolts me. Give me Cary Grant over Ron Howard any day of the week.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:28 PM
Then 'Boy Scout' was a poorly chosen term; I was trying to get across a sort of casually habitual thoughtful helpfulness and competence, which would totally be a Cary Grant thing. Is there anyone who would take Ron Howard over Cary Grant?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:31 PM
Determined to break down and delegitimate? "Putting [my] finger on exactly what a woman is doing to attract..." wouldn't necessarily dispel the mystery of why a particular woman had this impact, yes on me and why another woman didn't. If it makes you feel better, plenty of women do nothing for me and their attempts to be feminine and seductive are merely irritating to me .
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:31 PM
85: Isn't Ron Howard married?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:34 PM
77: That's the scout oath. The motto is the "trustworthy, loyal, etc." one.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:35 PM
Thank you, Tia. I should note that being vaguely aware of the levers and pulleys doesn't make me any more immune to their effect.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:36 PM
>Is there anyone who would take Ron Howard over Cary Grant?
Now that Cary Grant is dead, I am sure that there are.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:36 PM
Sorry, those are the scout laws. The motto is "do a good turn daily". I don't think I've mixed any of this up, but it's been a little while...
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:36 PM
levers and pulleys
I have been doing this all wrong.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:36 PM
87 -- that doesn't necessarily mean there is someone who would take Ron Howard over Cary Grant -- likely Howard's wife did not have the option of marrying Grant.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:37 PM
And I'm not even going to mention hydraulics.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:37 PM
87: Was Cary Grant an available alternative? I think not.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:37 PM
All right, all right. Let's revise the question. Is there anything remotely sexy about Ron Howard?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:39 PM
I wish I could put my finger on what a woman does to attract men...
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:39 PM
Cary Grant is way more putrescent than Ron Howard nowadays.
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:40 PM
96: His money?
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:40 PM
Re Tia's and IDP's comments, mostly. Surely there are people who are enigmatic, and who keep being enigmatic once you've got to know them well? And surely some of those peopkle are also charismatic?
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:40 PM
81: I have hung out with a lot of dicks, but also some really great, wonderful, intelligent men with good hearts and ideas who thought they were honoring women by treating them with respectful distance, assuming, perhaps, that their virtues might lie somewhere other than their intellectual powers (perhaps due to sexist parenting). One of Max's exes is a French dressmaker of extraordinary talent, vivacity and charm, but whose mind is singularly concentrated on bows and ruffles. As a young chap, Max found her devastatingly appealing in ways he had no knowledge of or access to. He fell for her without once asking her who was her favorite author. You know?
This used to be enough for at least a few dates for me, too. I'd find some exotically odd chap with bizarre talents and attitudes, and screw his brains out. Somehow, deep discussions of ethics, literature, and history never came up.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:41 PM
likely Howard's wife did not have the option of marrying Grant.
What does this mean about the voluntariness of her choice?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:43 PM
Aren't choices always voluntary? I thought that was an intrinsic feature of choices.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:46 PM
96: A big problem with Ron Howard, in my view, is his voice. If he had a different voice he might be more sexy. I dunno.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:47 PM
Personally, I can tell you exactly what in someone attracts me, and what repels me. But I think there's still room for mystery here and there. When someone attracts you, but from what you know of them it seems like they wouldn't be attractive, that can be mysterious. But I think usually what people mean by "mystery" and "women are from venus" and such is just that they're too damn lazy to listen to their partners and find out what they're actually thinking instead of just relying completely on stereotyped interactions.
OK, let me ask about this stereotype. Do any people think that woman actually are more linguistic/social/intuitive? I have heard second-hand about some studies done saying that woman actually do speak about a third more per day than men, or something. But it seems to me that it's more of a working-class stereotype than anything.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:47 PM
Should have used "marriage" instead of "choice," perhaps. Also, I was making a joke without really thinking that anyone was going to get it.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:48 PM
104: And hair. And less Opie-fied freckles. And if he didn't engender a sneaking suspicion that his "aw shucks" manner didn't hide a dark personality. And a more worrying suspicion that it didn't hide anything at all.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:49 PM
I think Matt's right about oath; I can feel my three fingers drawing together when I say the words.
My troop, and my son's ,were rough-and-tumble affairs very removed in spirit from what seems to be meant by "Boy Scout" here. It may have been the times, but mine in the sixties had a kind of pre-Ranger-training ethos, and in fact a couple of the older boys went into the Marines, where one was killed, while I was still a scout. You didn't want to fall out. I remember thinking years later, during Basic Training, "Man, this is too easy. You guys should have been in my scout troop..."
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:49 PM
105 -- do you mean it's a stereotype to which the propertied are not subject? Or what?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:52 PM
107: Chilling, SCMT. Chilling.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:54 PM
Er, ah, I think I meant "susceptible", not "subject".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:57 PM
109: It seems like portrayals of the stereotype are much more common when the subjects are working class, along with the rest of the "men as apes" class of stereotypes. I don't recally seeing portrayals of markedly middle- or upper-class families where such stereotypes are displayed.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:58 PM
Nope -- the OED thinks my usage is OK. So disregard 111.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 12:59 PM
113: M-W.com agrees with the OED. Is the OED available free online?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:00 PM
110: I should admit that I heard an interview with him on some Elvis Mitchell show, and he came off much better than I expected. Not the least bit sanctimonious, for example. And he's got a LOT of cash. So maybe he is sexy.
Elvis Mitchell, OTOH, may be the most irritating person in the world.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:01 PM
112 -- funny, I wouldn't have made that association -- I'm familiar with the stereotypes you're talking about, just never thought of them as specifically working-class. (So I was mainly checking to see if "working-class stereotype" didn't have some meaning I was not aware of.) But maybe you're right.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:02 PM
114 -- no, I access it through my university library.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:03 PM
(If I had an id/password combo that was specific to the library, I would give it out; but alas the same login controls all of my student accounts.)
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:06 PM
I think the stereotype is class-based, but a lot of young people try to live by it. I can remember some "why do you want to talk so much?" which I would attribute to class. Probably talked plenty to other women, just didn't think a man and a woman should be talking. "Aren't you going to do something?" "What are you waiting for?"
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:13 PM
105: I think the "women are better at talking thing" refers to women's facility with using language as a relationship tool. Which I think we generally do do better than men, although I think that about 80-90% of that is socialization. (I allow for the possibility that women, as mothers, might have acquired some kind of genetic advantage in articulating things, as a parenting skill.)
I surely don't think that this is a "working class" thing. Think about women's dominance of the novel, both as authors and readers, just to give one example. Surely a big part of that isn't about innate talent--after all, writing is a more "respectable" occupation than many--but it at least suggests that it isn't, and wasn't, only working class women who are highly invested in the nuances of language and relationships.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:19 PM
More evidence that it isn't just working-class folks who hold this stereotype: the frequent claim that women's management styles are more "cooperative" or "relational," etc.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:22 PM
115 - Yeah, but Elvis Mitchell is cuter.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:26 PM
122: Cripes, Becks...not all jokes are funny. Elvis Mitchell is Comic Book Guy writ black.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:27 PM
psyc studies have in fact found that women's management styles are more cooperative and relational. Or specifically, that you find people of both genders who manage all ways, but the women tend to more frequently use some, men more frequently use others.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:28 PM
115: Yeah, but his movies are irritatingly smarmy. I find Spielberg revolting for much the same reason.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:28 PM
OK, I think my impression of the stereotype is that the negative aspect of males having no linguistic/social skill is lower class, while the positive stereotype of woman being better at it than men is both lower and middle to high-middle class. (I don't know about upper class.)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:29 PM
And because of the gender-association, men and women both can always put a man on the defensive by suggesting he talks too much.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:29 PM
123 - OK, you're right, Tim. I just Google imaged Elvis Mitchell and he was not cute in most of the pics. The one picture I had seen of him before must have been unusually flattering.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:31 PM
126: I still think you're mistaken. I've read plenty of business section-type articles saying that women's "relational managerial style" is more effective or productive than men's "traditional" style, and so on.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:31 PM
127: Heh. Try telling a woman she talks too much sometime. We get pretty defensive about it too.
God, I'm cranky and chatty today. I blame the not smoking and the increasingly acute procrastination problem.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:33 PM
To revert briefly to discussing the post, I've been trying to think about whether I've really ever experienced this Orientalized Mysterious Woman thing, and to my recollection, the only times when I even briefly inhabited that role were when I was really tired--or maybe when I was unwilling to explain myself to somebody I didn't know very well? What I can't figure out is whether I've managed somehow to shortcircuit the Orientalizing attitude or whether I'm particularly oblivious to other people's perceptions of me.
Maybe what I'm looking for are particular examples of how this attitude manifests itself.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:33 PM
129: Sure, but that's compatible with my impression. Stereotypically, middle class men aren't bad at communication (like lower-class men), just not really good at it like women are.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:34 PM
I've read plenty of business section-type articles saying that women's "relational managerial style" is more effective or productive than men's "traditional" style, and so on.
Yeah, B, but try working for a woman.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:35 PM
132: You've never heard middle-class women discuss their exasperation at trying to get their husbands to talk about something? A fight, a problem, the kids? Because my middle class friends and I do it all the time.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:35 PM
131: I think a certain tomboyish, "one of the guys" type of demeanor can obviate this type of treatment, at the expense of being seen/treated more as an asexual type of creature. Maybe you give that impression most of the time?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:36 PM
134: Sure, but (again, stereotypically) this is because women's expectations are too high. They're "reading too much into things", and being "bitchy" and "shrewish" and such.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:37 PM
135. Maybe that's it.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:38 PM
133: I can't tell if you're baiting me or serious! But in fact, I've very seldom worked for women (interesting, now that I think about it). And when I have, I've had both great and awful experiences, mostly depending on how direct the women are. With men supervisors, I'd say that the dividing line, ime, has been similarly about directness, although I think with men I'd characterize it more as "frankness."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:39 PM
136: what are the " " to indicate?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:41 PM
Just that I'd use a different word to mean a similar, but not entirely exact, quality. To emphasize the word substitution, the use of the word as word.
137: JM, haven't you ever had a guy friend, though, ask you to explain to him what some woman he was crushed out on was thinking? I mean, that's a pretty benign version of the orientalism thing, and women do it too, but surely on some level that's a version of the belief that the opposite sex is unfathomable.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:43 PM
138: Well, I was joshing, but all of my women bosses have in some way managed to make their working relationships about the relationship rather than the work. I work OK in that sort of environment, but I gotta say that having a male boss who is interested in the work, then the relationship, has felt like a breath of fresh air. Anecdotal evidence, don't know whether it holds true universally, but my experience.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:43 PM
112: No, this stereotype permeates all classes. The upper-class version: brittle chatter and snobbish gossip among the ladies, while the men retreat to the library and smoke pipes. Emsworth and Lady Constance, Mr. and Mrs. Bennett in P&P. I'm sure there are lots more.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:44 PM
141: Interesting. I've had that problem with subordinates -- never with a boss.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:48 PM
138: That's really interesting. B/c I've had women bosses who've made things about the relationship in really awful ways, like trying to control your feelings about bad news or whatever (but I also work with a guy right now who is just AWFUL about doing that). I think, though, that my preference for what I'm calling direct/frank management styles *do* have to do with a sense of relationship between me and my boss: that I can trust her/him to be honest with me about what's possible and what's not, to warn me against unforseen mistakes, and to give me good advice when it's asked. The colder, "here's the job, this is what I expect" kind of directness (which is, I think, the distinction between direct and frank I'm identifying in men) makes me feel insecure. Because ime there always *are* some kind of unwritten rules or some kind of office politics or whatever, and I'm uncomfortable when that's not acknowledged.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:48 PM
of course I'm looking at the negative version of this stereotype. Because I'm that kind of person.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:50 PM
139: Words that are part of my description of the stereotype, as opposed to my commentary about it, or something.
142: I think the stereotype is different, there. Certainly, the sociability aspects are still applicable, as men are still seen as not as relationship-oriented. But not so with linguistic ability--men are seen as just as capable, only preferring more studious and productive endeavours.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:52 PM
143: coworkers, too. Subordinates, not so much, but I like to think it's because I do a good job of laying out expectations and enforcing them.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:52 PM
144: I've often been tempted to write "That's really interesting" about one of my own comments.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:53 PM
144: Well, I'd call that one of the distinctions between being a good and bad boss--you have to give your employees the info they need to succesfully complete the tasks you assign.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:54 PM
138, 144, 147: I wonder if differential treatement by bosses towards male vs. female coworkers affect what conclusions we draw from our personal experiences. Chopper, I forget, are you male or female?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:55 PM
149: Yes, but they also need to believe that you're being truthful and that you'll back them up if problems arise (that aren't their fault). I'd call that a relationship.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 1:58 PM
If only we could link to old comments. This would be an excellent time to point to Chopper exuding masculine mystery, the leather barely able to contain his strapping physique, his face in shadow from the wide brim of the sombero.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:03 PM
140: JM, haven't you ever had a guy friend, though, ask you to explain to him what some woman he was crushed out on was thinking?
I've seriously wracked my memory here, and if it's happened, it's seriously rare. Part of it may be that I offer my explanations for everything unasked and sometimes unwanted. Another part may be that my explanations for things are often baroque and inaccurate. Maybe I run with an enlightened male crowd; maybe I inhabit the Feminine poorly. I know what the Orientalized Woman dynamic is supposed to look like--I've seen some of my female friends work it, when they feel like doing so--but it's not a noticeable part of my life.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:06 PM
My best bosses have been women with this frankness. Both unconventional and not interested in me or, um, any other man. My wife's boss is a revelation to her, she can't get over what a mensch he is. This is because he is very good at communicating what he wants from her and at supported and praising what she does. Also at making sure she is recognised and treated as his colleague, by administrators and vistors etc. Her loyalty to him now is fearsome.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:06 PM
153: Wow, good for you.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:11 PM
So JM, having not had these experiences, really, what's your take on Stendhal's world, or Flaubert's for that matter? These people must seem like they live on another planet, to a completely superseded psychology with not much to say to us.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:17 PM
If only we could link to old comments. This would be an excellent time to point to Chopper exuding masculine mystery, the leather barely able to contain his strapping physique, his face in shadow from the wide brim of the sombero.
If only Chopper hadn't deleted that photo from his Flickr account.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:24 PM
157: yes, if only. I can put it back up if there's a serious demand, but it made for a weird conversation with my mother-in-law.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:27 PM
158 -- What purpose did it serve to take the photo off your Flicker account after the weird conversation? I would think at that point you did not have much to lose keeping it there.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:30 PM
Now he can mess with his mother-in-law's head: "What picture? No, I don't remember any weird conversation. What are you talking about?"
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:32 PM
IDP, I'd say that the psychological structure of focussing on attributes rather than human-ness still exists, but that the particularly gendered way it manifests in Stendhal and Flaubert is not one that overlaps much with my own life, even though I can understand and even appreciate it aesthetically. Or, in other words, those aren't really women S. and F. are writing about, not as I understand women in my experience, anyway.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:32 PM
150: All man, baby.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:33 PM
We're just totally ruining your life, aren't we Chopper?
Good for us.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:33 PM
158--My mother-in-law is not the only person in my life who would initiate a weird conversation where I would have to explain
a) what "blogs" are
b) how I hang out at a certain blog, the name of which I don't care to share
c) what might lead me to photoshop a sombrero onto my head, then paste both onto a picture of Rob Halford riding a Harley, as a joke for my friends at said unnamed blog
d) and that really, it's not a weird sex thing
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:38 PM
I guess that does surprise me. I think of these issues as being earlier versions of continuing and closely-related structures. Does that hold for Austen and George Eliott too? Or is there something about the French?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:38 PM
My new hire just invited me to a horror convention because "I seem like the type of girl who would dig it". I, apparently, do not embody womanhood in all its mysterious glory.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:46 PM
How 'bout growing a pair, Chopper.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:47 PM
Oh, I've got a pair. I'd show you, but first I have to get them out of your mom's mouth.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:53 PM
Let me try again:
By those aren't really women S. and F. are writing about, not as I understand women in my experience, anyway do you mean "aren't now, weren't then, just projections of these guys' ideas" or do you mean "probably close to what women were, at least as far as sympathy can use attributes to try to imagine and evoke human-ness, but so constrained by changes since those days as to be of limited applicability to current relations?"
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:56 PM
164d: So, you lied.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:56 PM
If you think that's weird, B, have I got some stuff that'll blow your mind...
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 2:58 PM
IDP, I should amend my earlier statement. Emma Bovary is a female character with whom I can--to my horror--identify, as opposed to some of the women in Flaubert's more Stendhalian Education Sentimentale. I think it has everything to do with point of view: when male characters like Julian Sorel or Rastignac look at women from the outside as things to possess, status to attain, surfaces to appreciate, I can analyse or understand those perspectives, but I in no way identify with those women-constructs.
(And yes, the odalisque does seem particularly French.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:00 PM
Or, to answer 169, the former.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:01 PM
171: Is that what you said to your mother in law?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:04 PM
No. Her name is Carol.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:04 PM
I think 172 is true for everyone. None of us identify with that idea of woman-as-other, not even those of us who've learned to play that game. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only way to play the game is to identify with Julian's point of view, which is why I suspect that enjoying the femme thing is, on some level, kind of fucked up.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:07 PM
175: How odd. Because that's actually my name, too.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:09 PM
I think 172 is true for everyone.
Phew!
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:19 PM
OK. But that's not what I said in 171.
[Can you tell that I'm stumped how to make this comment even remotely funny?]
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:21 PM
That's okay, Chopper. If calling me B. helps you pretend I'm not really your mother-in-law, that's fine by me.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:22 PM
Yeah, ummm.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:26 PM
I win!
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:33 PM
which is why I suspect that enjoying the femme thing is, on some level, kind of fucked up.
Whaaa...?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:42 PM
I've said that before. Playing the socially approved role is fun and rewarding, but also expensive, time-consuming, and subject to misinterpretation. Also, see this comment.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:47 PM
Playing the socially approved role is fun and rewarding, but also expensive, time-consuming, and subject to misinterpretation.
Yeah, but when I say that, and even offer a policy proscription (girlie-girls should be tossed out of the land of Eden, and their parents beaten), I get accused of misogyny. NO JUSTICE! NO PEACE!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 3:59 PM
Yeah, well, that's because you're a man, and therefore wrong.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-23-06 4:05 PM
bloody hell, you birds don't half rabbit on, dontcha?
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 05-24-06 1:47 AM
Oh, I've got a pair. I'd show you, but first I have to get them out of your mom's mouth.
Oh, sorry Chopper, you misunderstand. Joe was talking about a pair of balls, not a pair of tits.
Posted by Joe Drymala's Fairy Godbigbrother | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:21 PM
Hey!
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:22 PM
Yes?
Posted by Joe Drymala's Fairy Godbigbrother | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:28 PM
Speak up, squirt!
Posted by Joe Drymala's Fairy Godbigbrother | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:45 PM
Ah, screw it, I'm outta here. No pumpkin coach for you, Joe!
Posted by Joe Drymala's Fairy Godbigbrother | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 2:15 PM