A thought experiment: Imagine how people might react if Taylor Swift released an album made up entirely of songs about wishing she could get back together with one of her exes.
We’d hear things like: “She can’t let go. She’s clingy. She’s irrational. She’s crazy.” Men would have a field day comparing her to their own “crazy” exes.
Yet when Robin Thicke released “Paula” – a plea for reconciliation with his ex-wife Paula Patton disguised as an LP — he was called incoherent, obsessed, heartfelt and, in particular, creepy.
But you didn’t hear men calling him “crazy” — even though he used it as the title of one of tracks.
No, “crazy” is typically held in reserve for women’s behavior. Men might be obsessed, driven, confused or upset. But we don’t get called “crazy” — at least not the way men reflexively label women as such.
“Crazy” is one of the five deadly words guys use to shame women into compliance. The others: Fat. Ugly. Slutty. Bitchy. They sum up the supposedly worst things a woman can be.
WHAT WE REALLY MEAN BY “CRAZY” IS: “SHE WAS UPSET, AND I DIDN’T WANT HER TO BE.”
“Crazy” is such a convenient word for men, perpetuating our sense of superiority. Men are logical; women are emotional. Emotion is the antithesis of logic. When women are too emotional, we say they are being irrational. Crazy. Wrong.
Women hear it all the time from men. “You’re overreacting,” we tell them. “Don’t worry about it so much, you’re over-thinking it.” “Don’t be so sensitive.” “Don’t be crazy.” It’s a form of gaslighting — telling women that their feelings are just wrong, that they don’t have the right to feel the way that they do. Minimizing somebody else’s feelings is a way of controlling them. If they no longer trust their own feelings and instincts, they come to rely on someone else to tell them how they’re supposed to feel.
Small wonder that abusers love to use this c-word. It’s a way of delegitimizing a woman’s authority over her own life.
Most men (#notallmen, #irony) aren’t abusers, but far too many of us reflexively call women crazy without thinking about it. We talk about how “crazy girl sex” is the best sex while we also warn men “don’t stick it in the crazy.” How I Met Your Mother warned us to watch out for “the crazy eyes” and how to process women on the “Crazy/Hot” scale. When we talk about why we broke up with our exes, we say, “She got crazy,” and our guy friends nod sagely, as if that explains everything.
Except what we’re really saying is: “She was upset, and I didn’t want her to be.”
Many men are socialized to be disconnected from our emotions — the only manly feelings we’re supposed to show are stoic silence or anger. We’re taught that to be emotional is to be feminine. As a result, we barely have a handle on our own emotions — meaning that we’re especially ill-equipped at dealing with someone else’s.
That’s where “crazy” comes in. It’s the all-purpose argument ender. Your girlfriend is upset that you didn’t call when you were going to be late? She’s being irrational. She wants you to spend time with her instead of out with the guys again? She’s being clingy. Your wife doesn’t like the long hours you’re spending with your attractive co-worker? She’s being oversensitive.
As soon as the “crazy” card is in play, women are put on the defensive. It derails the discussion from what she’s saying to how she’s saying it. We insist that someone can’t be emotional and rational at the same time, so she has to prove that she’s not being irrational. Anything she says to the contrary can just be used as evidence against her.
More often than not, I suspect, most men don’t realize what we’re saying when we call a woman crazy. Not only does it stigmatize people who have legitimate mental health issues, but it tells women that they don’t understand their own emotions, that their very real concerns and issues are secondary to men’s comfort. And it absolves men from having to take responsibility for how we make others feel.
In the professional world, we’ve had debates over labels like “bossy” and “brusque,” so often used to describe women, not men. In our interpersonal relationships and conversations, “crazy” is the adjective that needs to go.
Men really need to stop calling women crazy - Harris O’Malley (via quentintortellini)
Anonymous said: way to be condescending as fuck. i'm not a louis stan, at all, but you can't seriously say you think someone is unattractive and claim to be objective. re-read the definition of 'objective' pls.
Ooooookay, anon. Honestly, I thought I was approaching your message in a light-hearted way, considering we are literally talking about members of a boy band, rather than, you know, Really Important Shit. I’m sorry if you took it in a different way than it was intended (the internet can make that hard sometimes).
As for the concept of “objective,” here’s the definition:
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
So maybe “that’s how I feel” wasn’t the right way to start the sentence, but it’s one of those linguistic things that I just so happen to repeat a lot, both in verbal and written communication. Let’s look at the whole sentence again. (Tip: Here’s where I actually become condescending. Are you ready?)
But that’s how I feel, and I think I’m being pretty objective considering I don’t really care if any of them are attractive or not.
Let’s take that first clause out for a minute. It’s also hard to judge one’s own objectivity because one will always be biased, since the person attempting to act objective is the only one who is 100% certain of his/her own motives. So let’s remove the “and I think” as well. And throw in the modifier (“pretty”) for good measure.
But that’s how I feel, and I thinkI’m being prettyobjective considering I don’t really care if any of them are attractive or not.
If you’d like, you can make the argument that physical attraction is not something that anyone can be objective about. I, however, would disagree on a social/colloquial level. If I were to describe a man as “objectively attractive,” I believe everyone in our society (let’s say everyone in America, for this argument’s sake) would have an idea of what that means. Perhaps some people would prefer to say that “objectively attractive” is really another way of saying a person is attractive in a “socially acceptable” way. That’s fine, too. For a woman, this might mean slender figure, perfect skin, blonde hair, big eyes, etc. For a man, this might mean a chiseled jaw, well-defined muscles, broad shoulder, etc. Basically, saying someone is “objectively attractive” does, in fact, make sense when you are talking about someone like Amber Heard or Matt Bomer, or pretty much anyone who has ever been cast as Clark Kent. I believe I’ve heard it used when referencing Zayn Malik, though in that case, I can’t put my finger on what it is that makes him so goddamn pretty, so maybe it isn’t as objective as it might seem (even though it seems widely agreed upon).
I’m not saying I don’t find people attractive in an unobjective way. I’m super into Jesse Eisenberg, and that’s not an objective thing by any means. It has a lot to do with how the things he says make me feel, and how I personally like his little quirks. I fully recognize he’s not a “total babe.” He’s not going to be a supermodel. He’s not going to be universally desired by millions of men and woman the way that someone objectively more attractive would be. Objectively, many might say he’s not attractive at all. (I can’t be objective on this matter, so I won’t even try.)
When it comes to One Direction, as I said, I don’t care if they are attractive or not. I like their music well enough (sometimes a girl just wants cheesy lyrics and a catchy beat when she’s driving), but I have no real feelings for them. (Full disclosure: I was a little obsessed with Niall’s goofiness for a few weeks last year. I’m pretty much over it now.) So there is no reason why I would like Louis for the way he smiles or laughs or repeats a particular phrase in interviews, or anything else an actual fan may like him for. At the same time, I don’t revile One Direction for being a boy band; I don’t begrudge them their fans or their fame. Therefore, I believe I’m more objective than others might be when it comes to this matter. Louis is objectively not attractive, and objectively he is probably the least attractive.
That was my point, and I stand by it. I also stand by my now-clarified point that a person can be objective about another person’s level of physical attractiveness.
TL;DR - If you want condescending, I’ll give it to you. But you can’t handle the truth. (And the cold, hard truth is, Louis isn’t attractive.) And, I don’t even care about Louis as much as I care about the idea that I don’t understand the word “objective.”
Anonymous said: current louis? not exactly anything to write home about. neither is current liam, tho. late 2011/2012/early 2013 louis? fuckin' pretty.
anon, honey, you CRAY.
trust me, I have seen young Louis. he is and always has been the least attractive by a very large margin. I will concede that he has only recently actually become creepy looking (he really should not have facial hair).
Sorry, baby. I’m sure he’s a great person or whatever so if you are (and I assume you must be) a Louis stan, I don’t want to make you sad/mad.
But that’s how I feel, and I think I’m being pretty objective considering I don’t really care if any of them are attractive or not?
don’t hate meeeeee I love you bye
Girl A xx
arent boybands supposed to have that //one ugly member// what the hell happened to one direction
Did Louis die? My condolences.