FranzKafkaOverrated

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Tuesday, 12 February 2013

the "Paperman" problem

Posted on 20:55 by Unknown


This short, "Paperman," which originally preceded Disney's summer feature Wreck It Ralph, has earned a lot of praise, including an Oscar nomination. It is, indeed, a lovely short. But it's also a problem.

It's interesting that Alyssa Rosenberg cites "Paperman" in contrast to most romantic comedies, because I see in "Paperman" a perfect example of a basic problem with the genre. This problem was defined perfectly by The Onion: "Romantic Comedy Behavior Gets Real-Life Man Arrested." Think about the behavior here. The protagonist is very forward in pursuing a woman who he hasn't talked to at all. We know that there's mutual attraction, thanks to the nonverbal clues that we (as a disconnected audience) observe. In a Disney short, that's perfectly sufficient, and internal to the world of the movie, I find it sweet. In the real world, I think it's exactly the kind of behavior a lot of women are justifiably tired of. But our culture and media keep reinforcing it, and that contributes to unhappiness.

We are, I hope, slowly but surely moving out of a culture of routine street harassment and justification of rape. Part of that is redefining when it is and isn't okay to approach someone you're attracted to whom you don't know. At this point, I pretty much have a personal policy of not talking to any women who I don't know in some professional or social context. I wouldn't do what the guy from "Paperman" does, obviously, but I also wouldn't have asked for her number. Is that an overreaction to these changes? I don't know. I do know that I have read far too many women complaining about the obliviousness (and frequently, obnoxiousness) of men who approach them in public to want to risk being guilty of that sort of thing. So for me personally, it's out.

I'm not trying to speak for anyone else, and I recognize that this stance of mine is extreme. I'm too much of a romantic to say that a cold approach of this kind is always impermissible. What I want to point out is that the (I hope) increasing recognition that men are often far too aggressive and forward with women is necessarily going to lead to men being less likely to approach women who would actually like to be approached. Because we lack and will always lack perfect information about who is attracted to us. And as I will keep saying, it is precisely the awkwardness and lack of social graces that makes some men unattractive to some women that makes those self-same men incapable of correctly reading interest. Again, the manner in which we know, as the audience, that the female character is attracted to the guy is through a shared smile, a nervous laugh, a gaze-- all the sorts of things that socially awkward men have a very hard time reading, and can invent when it suits them. Indeed, what makes socially awkward men socially awkward-- and, in part, considered undesirable-- is exactly their inability to parse social cues and nonverbal messages. The notion that men who approach women who are "out of their league" or otherwise uninterested necessarily know that what they are doing is unappreciated is deeply wrongheaded in large part because it makes the problem seem easier than it is. If men always knew when women didn't want them to approach, we could at least speak about education and social norming against that behavior. But the problem is a bigger one because it stems from genuine ignorance.

And while we are of course responsible for our own behavior, and while there is a clear line between awkward or unfortunate approaches and outright harassment, I do have this sympathy for clueless men: our culture tells them incessantly that dogged pursuit is the key to romantic success. The importance of persistence as a key to romantic success as a heterosexual male is drilled into you by your culture pretty much constantly. Added to that is the common notion that what women want in a world of changing gender expectations is aggressive men-- a notion that can be hard to combat, because it is true of some women some of the time. The problem is that the sleazy, reductive world of sexual conquest advice speaks in universals and absolutes. Like any particular sexual or romantic preference, the desire to be pursued aggressively depends on the perceived attractiveness of the individual man. What we all want, at the end of the day, is to be approached by people we're attracted to and not by people we aren't. We also recognize this as an impossible request.

Moving towards a less sexually aggressive and more equitable social landscape is going to have consequences, and not all of them pleasant. That's adult life. For me, it seems as though the current reality of street harassment, the culture of rape, and assumed privilege of heterosexual men to approach any women makes it clear that we need to be far more careful about approaching strangers, and to require far more in the way of demonstrations of attraction before we decide to talk to women we don't know, particularly when they're alone. Perhaps that means that women who are interested in being approached will have to be somewhat more demonstrative of that in this future culture. I'm sure, though, that it will result in people not approaching and not being approached when they'd very much like that to happen. But like I said, progress always has difficult consequences.

I think I need the opinion of Phoebe Maltz Bovy on this.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • pacifism and intention
    Note: Because I am incompetent, I accidentally deleted this post, and I can't find any way to restore it through Blogger. I had to go in...
  • what I mean when I talk about empiricism and self-determination
    In my Bloggingheads appearance, I mentioned to Conor my prediction that the empirical case against the notion that you are mostly responsibl...
  • Randy Moss's unforgivable blackness
    I don't have a real rooting interest in the game tonight. But a part of me is rooting for the 49ers, only because I'd like to see a...
  • self-implication
    Adam Serwer points out , correctly, that liberal excuses for extrajudicial killing make their opposition to torture nonsensical. The questio...
  • Benghazi: the worst of both Republicans and Democrats
    This Benghazi mess is enough to make you really despair. For years now, liberals have pushed back against the "both sides do it!" ...
  • Sabermetricians, like all nerds, must accept that they've won
    I'm not going to excerpt too much, because its a paid subscription service, but today on his (excellent) daily baseball missive The Slur...
  • the backwards causation
    Since reading educational research changed from being an amateur interest of mine to being a daily professional commitment, nothing has been...
  • moral support necessitates moral distinctions
    Chris Hayes is in quite a bit of hot water online because he said that he was uncomfortable calling dead soldiers heroes. Since his show st...
  • Ms. 21st century
    I occasionally get emails from people who find my critique of the Internet generation cruel. Last week, I got an email that said point blank...
  • Slate's Rosetta Stone
    Hidden in this piece on hating the band The National, Carl Wilson unintentionally provides the key for understanding Slate: In the end, it ...

Categories

  • I'm mostly kidding (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (218)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (42)
    • ►  April (39)
    • ►  March (37)
    • ▼  February (35)
      • no reasons for pride
      • getting epistolary
      • bullshit social climber faux-antiracism
      • actually, the Onion's Tweet and McFarlane's jokes ...
      • pretty basic question re: Buzzfeed
      • there's lots of production in the post-work economy
      • Skyfall
      • ball's in your court, Erik
      • good question
      • an open letter to my Democrat friends
      • no thinking person should ever listen to what Will...
      • why we can't fix anything
      • Is Jacobin a political magazine?
      • the Pet Gazette
      • maybe everybody shouldn't abandon professionalism ...
      • links and such
      • jobs is spending is jobs
      • real talk about real talk
      • what people are made of
      • gating comments for awhile
      • ethical concerns make it really, really hard to do...
      • the "Paperman" problem
      • always try to be the talent
      • real and virtual
      • what I mean when I talk about empiricism and self-...
      • I'm not feeling reassured here
      • actual fascism
      • where the fuck is the IT department
      • the backwards causation
      • Randy Moss's unforgivable blackness
      • still tinkering
      • Thanks, Dr. K
      • the lobby goes looking for another scalp
      • liberating just one
      • a few addenda to the Bloggingheads talk
    • ►  January (43)
  • ►  2012 (139)
    • ►  December (26)
    • ►  November (26)
    • ►  October (15)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  June (13)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (7)
    • ►  February (11)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ►  2011 (143)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (12)
    • ►  October (18)
    • ►  September (11)
    • ►  August (23)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (12)
    • ►  May (21)
    • ►  April (27)
    • ►  March (7)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile