Not always an Eyefuck
I just can’t shake the blatant one-sided sensationalist writing of the original article. I am compelled to respond.
Over the last few days or so since I read the article, I tried to let my thoughts stew. My husband caught the article first, and he forwarded it to me because he felt “off” after reading it, but could not quite articulate why. So, being the dialectical thinkers we are, I read it, we chatted, and then we chatted some more, and we walked the dog and drank coffee together, while chatting some more and letting our thoughts lead us down tangential paths. When we each felt we talked and listened enough, we let out sighs and resumed our positions behind our computer screens at opposite ends of our loft.
But then I stumbled upon Emma Watson’s address to the UN regarding the He for She movement. And it stirred up all the mucky feelings and rage I had towards this article. My thoughts started to congeal into a few points: my inner-scientist is disgusted by the misappropriation and misrepresentation of poorly collected data feigning as a study, my inner feminist is yearning to hear the male perspective on this issue, and my logician is just plain dumbfounded. Three point essay, here we go!
The sciencey stuff
My decade-long foray and dance with academia taught me a lot, but it wasn’t until after I stepped off the dance floor that I really learned a thing or two about the people and science.
Most people don’t stop to consider the basic principles and motivations behind science, its semantics, and its gross misuse in the public domain.
I am saving this article because if I ever teach Intro to Psych again, it is such a stellar example, just point on perfect articulation, of how when science goes pop, it’s not science anymore. Authors take their ideas and dress them up with charts and graphs, throw in a few sciencey terms here or there, and Bam! We’ve got credible research, right? Wrong. Simply using science terms doesn’t make a scientific argument.
At the risk of letting people think I take the methods of this article seriously, I offer some sciencey critique:
- As IDrumGood mentioned, confirmation bias! The authors of the diaries, who were collecting subjective qualitative data, were asked to go find cat calls. They were not asked to note any male interactions. They weren’t even asked to note only male interactions initiated by men. They were asked to find cat calls. So what do you think they found? Cat calls.
- Sample size. There’s an average n of 1 in each country. That has no power. You cannot generalize anything from this data. This data says nothing.
- Individual variation. I’m willing to bet that all the women who participated already hated any form of male-inititated interaction. I’m also willing to bet they were all pretty attractive. I don’t mean to sound so vain, but experimentally, general attractiveness needs to be normalized, because it’s an obvious variable; the more attractive you are, within your social context, the more likely you are to receive cat calls. Duh. There’s a lesson in correlation there, but that’s another article.
- Operationalized Variables. This ties in/together with both 1 and 3. What are you studying here? Cat calls. Ok, so what constitutes a “cat call”? Who is making the judgement call? Individual women. Soooo, you are really taking a look at 10 individual responses to male interactions throughout one week. I know, it just sounds so frumpy. Not sexy at all. But if you want to do science, there are strict rules. It’s not like fashion where it’s not quite what you wear, but how you wear it. Nope. If you aren’t wearing the ensemble properly, with all its pieces being used correctly, you aren’t science. When you parade around as science, it’s rather offensive to those who think in the upper tail. If you don’t know what that means, find out, and in the mean time, stop pretending to be science and feeding yourself to the masses. You’re making us stupider.
Item number two: the male perspective
I genuinely wonder what men have to say about the recent news bits and blogs regarding cat calls. During our chats, I got to hear my husband’s perspective, but as n only equals 1 here, that makes it too limited to generalize. Needless to say, I was thrilled to see IDrumGood also felt he really wasn’t a cat caller, that he too thinks there’s a difference between a sincere attempt at connection with the female of the species and an icky, creepy-crawly, substance-riddled ejactulation of desire.
After chatting with my husband, I eventually came to the conclusion that the article is not progressive and it’s not thoughtful. It was actually regressive. He was a bit miffed that all men were lumped into being cat callers. I was a bit miffed that it’s not a message of equality.
It’s ultimately about man-hating, and even women-hating too.
Oh, yet another sensationalized article that tells me why I ought to be on the constant lookout for those men, they might just be trying to make me smile or express a sincere sentiment, how dare I be okay with a man offering to buy me a drink in a bar. Ever.
I must be an insecure woman who feeds off the compliments of men in order to feel sexy, beautiful, and intelligent. I require external validation.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s appropriate and inappropriate interactions, but they are constantly evolving too. What message do we want to proliferate as women? What do we want to tell our younger women coming of age now? That they ought to fear all compliments and interactions initiated by men, they must not say or do anything when men make them feel uncomfortable, and that if they like how they feel when a man gives them attention that it’s wrong? That’s not only man-hating, it’s divisive for women too.
I have no problems with a man buying me a drink in a bar, offering me a compliment when he serves me coffee, or telling me I look nice.
I have no problems with a woman buying me a drink in a bar, offering me a compliment when she serves me coffee, or telling me I look nice.
Not all men are trying to take me home, ask me on a date, or get in my pants.
Not all women are trying to take me home, ask me on a date, or get in my pants.
Sometimes the momentary, fleeting human connection is beautiful enough.
How about we send out a more empowering message: yes, women, sometimes men will say things that will make you feel uncomfortable. We owe ourselves the time and practice to learn how to handle these situations in a way that doesn’t leave us feeling scarred. Sometimes though, if you’re open to them and looking for them, men might really be trying to connect with you. And not necessarily to get in your pants or up your shirts either.
And how about we stop for a minute to consider a male perspective (note I said “a” and not “the” there): some women like cat calls. Some women hate them. Some women have a strict line as to what is unwarranted and what is flattering. Some women want to have all the power of initiating contact. Some want none. Some have no idea what they want, and they erratically react to you. How possibly are the men who are genuinely interested in connecting supposed to get that sentiment out there? Is there a way anymore? This all sounds so hopeless to me. I feel bad for men somehow.
I am still put off by men who interact with women in a slimy way.
What motivates them? What do they accomplish? What do they think of the effect their actions have on some women? Really, I’d love to know.
And finally, my third point: logic
During our chats, my husband and I hashed out some of the logical consequences of this article, and others like it, and quickly got confused.
If there’s one thing the article got right, hammer to nail in one try, it’s the title. No, humans, you cannot avert the gaze of other humans. Ever. What makes women think that this is possible? Do men have special privileges to read our minds and know who likes attention and who doesn’t and where our boundaries are? Can you really stop someone from looking at you? Are we truly even able to control our gaze at all times?
If what we’re after is equality, then we cannot demand all the power.
We simply cannot have our cake and eat it too. And if we continue to put out indictments masquerading as science to feed into the hot topics and buzz of 24-hour news networks, we are debasing ourselves. We are slipping further away from manifesting a true desire for human equality.
When I studied abroad in Italy nearly a decade ago, a male of the species (because calling him a man, gentleman, or guy will bias you) dropped a “Ciao!” my way, and I smiled back. He said, “Ah, you are an American!” I paused in my walk and looked at him, puzzled. He replied:
I love you American girls, you always seem so happy. You always laugh and smile. You smile back at me, and it makes my day.
If I immediately averted my gaze and shut out this male, I would have missed out on an obviously memorable connection with a gentleman.
Bottom line: if we preach a message of building walls to protect ourselves, we live from fear. We also miss out on all the wonderful possibilities that being vulnerable permits us.
