The Tinder Swindler and Why We Love to Hate Loving Women

“I think we like to believe that those women are stupid or greedy because to see them as otherwise; loving, caring, and trusting people who simply found the wrong person, would be to admit that the same thing could happen to us. ”

Last weekend, I watched the Tinder Swindler with my boyfriend. The documentary is two hours long, but the discussion we had around it took three hours. It mainly circled around victim blaming, and why as a collective culture we chose to so vehemently hate Cecilie Fjellhøy, Pernilla Sjöholm and Ayleen Charlotte for being conned into giving Shimon Hayut, or “Simon Leviev” all of their money.

What makes this comparison feel all the more stark is that the limited series "Inventing Anna" came out at the same time on Netflix. A show focused on unraveling Anna Sorokin, better known by her fake identity as German heiress, Anna Delvey. Inventing Anna follows journalist Vivian Kent – based on real-life journalist Jessica Pressler, whose 2018 The Cut article about Sorokin’s crimes inspired the series and uncovered the faux-socialites manipulative actions. However, followers of that show had only sympathy for the people that Anna defrauded; seeing them as unfortunate victims and loyal friends who were taken advantage of, rather than the opposite.

The response to both shows has been shocking, in particular because while essentially the situation is the same (master manipulator cons innocent victims out of thousands of dollars through deceit and by abusing their trust) the women that Hayut conned are seen as gold-diggers, shallow and greedy women who got what they deserved, while Anna's victims are seen as poor unsuspecting and overly generous kind-hearted individuals.

What is it about romantic scams that gives us permission to hate the women that fall for them? Why are we so quick to blame the women who are manipulated and abused into giving their life savings to a conman? To quote Cecilie Fjellhøy who gave over 100,000 pounds to Hayut, "if we were gold-diggers, we would be the worst ones in the world."

Historically, women haven't had access to financial independence until very recently. We haven't been able to own property, have our own bank account, and for a long time, we couldn't even control our own money. We were given allowances, or open accounts at certain stores where the men in our lives (our brothers, our fathers, our husbands) could carefully monitor what we spent money on. Futhermore, we weren't allowed to work, and so our value laid in what we could provide for our families, and namely, who we could marry. For a long time, women were a currency in a financial system that only valued (mainly, white) men as active participants. Our value lay in what sort of partner we could attract, and without access to our own money, it only made sense that we, or our parents, would look for a partner that could provide for us financially as much as possible. It's no wonder that we learned to value a man's wealth as a priority.

Hayut's victims were abused and attacked online for being gold-diggers, for only valuing his money over anything else. The documentary cruelly didn't focus on how long these women had been in romantic relationships with Hayut, some of them for over a year, in which he showered them with love and affection, and emotionally manipulated them into thinking he loved and cared for them. While many have said "it would be stupid to give money to a near stranger" wouldn't you think differently if it was your boyfriend who you've been seeing for 14 months? On top of that, the movie didn't do a good job of showing how psychologically challenging it can be to act rationally when you've been put into emergency mode, such as when Hayut told each of these women that he was in trouble, and that bad men were imminently out to get him. As women, we've been raised in this society to be carers, to value community and relationships. To try and turn off this innate responsibility in the midst of a crisis in which you think a loved one is in harm's way is nearly impossible.

I think we like to believe that those women are stupid or greedy because to see them as otherwise; loving, caring, and trusting people who simply found the wrong person, would be to admit that the same thing could happen to us. To punish and decry women for acting the exact way the way we are all supposed to act; to be loving to a romantic partner, to be trusting to someone they are in love with, is to say that we are stupid to trust our loved ones, or try to help them out when they're in need. It's saying that our kindness is a character flaw, and that our trust in people is a weakness.

What's ironic about this is that the men who are financially distrusting of women (assuming the women they are dating are just trying to take advantage of them, are trying to get their money etc.), who see romantic relationships as inherently suspicious and the kindness and cooperation required of relationships as a trap, will turn around and be bitter about women who embody the same characteristics. When a woman enters a relationship and is distrustful or cautious because she doesn't want to get scammed, she gets the #notallmen hashtag thrown in her face.

If a sex worker goes out and expects compensation for her time, her energy, and her body, she gets labeled a selfish, greedy, money-obsessed bitch. If a woman gets into a romantic relationship with someone who says that he loves and cares about her and needs her help, and she gives him money as a result, she's labeled a selfish, greedy, money-obsessed bitch. If she enters a romantic relationship with a man and as a result of her past trauma (or the learned trauma from other women's experiences) is slow to trust or reluctant to share financial responsibilities, she's labeled as a selfish, greedy, money-obsessed bitch. Whichever way, we can't win.

My Sex is For-Profit, Just Not Yours

Our whole lives, women are taught to fear sex, sex work, and sexuality. Whether the message is given directly by our parents or indirectly by the society surrounding us, we learn it. Often, we don’t unlearn it. 

Cautionary anecdotes tell us that a woman who enjoys sex as a form of liberation is nasty or somehow lesser. While folktales remind us that a woman who relegates sex and family life to mere duties is virtuous and reverent. These stories are told to indoctrinate us into a world that would rather use female sexuality for profit without compensation. The problem is whether we are getting paid or not; women are constantly partaking in sex work. Not because we voluntarily entered into that field or even consciously chose to be sex workers, but because businesses and individual men alike continue to profit from the female form. It is a part of the unmonitored “market for sex and affection.” 

Our society doesn’t value female work; this goes beyond equal pay and touches on every aspect of women’s rights. The labor that goes into being beautiful, or even just presentable, goes uncompensated but not unutilized. This is the same with the work that goes into housekeeping and motherhood and speaks to why our society isn’t eager to pay for those tasks. They are a woman’s place - it is a duty, not a job. 

In a capitalist society, women are like nature; we hold no value unless we are broken down for profit. This manifests in the unconscious competition that plagues the female psyche. On top of that, the lingering knowledge that men are free to consume and discard women at will pours fuel onto the fire of female insecurity. 

Whether it is using women in advertising, free to enter clubs, or inviting us out to a party - the idea that women are products or currency is everywhere. This keeps us vying for attention and value at the expense of not just ourselves but for all women. In the eyes of the capitalist world that surrounds us, we are no better than a tree in essence. The only difference is that we can partake in the market, in so far as we can change ourselves to be more appealing - ripe for the taking. 

Ashley Mears, a prominent sociologist, and former model, thought of bodily capital when writing her first book and developed it even further in her second book, Very Important People. It is the sum of all the potential value we have to offer to this market. In an interview with Tyler from the Mercatus Center, Mears makes it clear that we can only access that value with the help (manipulation) of a third party - usually a man. She writes about how this plays out in the context of the high-end party scene where promoters recruit young, broke models from the streets of New York to be pretty near rich men. But this concept of needing a third party to manage or reap the (minor) benefits available to pretty women spills over into every other part of life. 

“Women can be gorgeous, but our society reinforces and maintains that beauty is worthless when she controls it. ”

We all need a “promoter,” someone who manages our beauty for us in some way, someone that unlocks its monetary value. If a woman is beautiful, she must pretend to be ugly or not comprehend her beauty. That way, a third party (a man, generally speaking) can explain to her the depth of her attractiveness. Not only does this put the man in control of her capital, but it distances her from understanding the underlying labor and value therein contained. 

When we are merely submissive participants, lame objects in this market, we forget how much value there is in that bodily capital, which we do have. 

That doesn’t mean we can’t reject this structure, but it does reframe how we can view sex and sexual relationships. Even if we can recognize all the micro and macro impacts of this invasion of capitalist logic on interpersonal, sexual, and friendly relationships, can our partners? 

Understanding the subtleties of a market system should make us question what it means to have respectful and healthy sexual relationships. 

Ornela, who works with the feminist organization FENA in Argentina, argues that we can’t be having good sexual relationships. Saying, when I spoke with her: “La relaciones sexo afectivas se han convertido en transacciones, sean capitalizado. Sean vuelto capitalistas” 

“Sexual and emotional relationships have become transactions; they have been taken advantage of. They have become capitalist currency.” 

Both in the sense that sex with powerful men gains women clout and in the sense that being seen with hot women gives men access, leverage, and power. The problem is that this power is not evenly distributed. Women don’t gain enough from these interactions for them to be fair, but oppression is built into the capitalist superstructure.

This extends beyond consensual sex. Part of the alluring nature of the superstructure is that it imbues the undeserving with power. When men hold all the tools to unlock the intrinsic value that is trapped within the female form, they are inclined to feel that they own it. That female sex, sexuality, and to an extent, labor is theirs for the taking. This leaves a gap in the system that turns sexual violence in all its forms into another malignant transaction. Yet another way that men can exert their unearned superiority. 

In a way, capitalism has come to pervert the act of sex on a whole. Making it a perpetual form of structural violence that forces women into a subservient role. The unpaid laborers upon which this market is built. Much like the arbitrary use of a fair trade label, “consensual” sex is a rubber stamp that negates the oppression that is embedded in this market. 

She goes on to say: “No estamos en relaciones sexo afectivas responsables y libres sino que las mujeres somos objetos de un mercado de consumo. Hablamos de un mercado sexo-afectivo donde los hombres son los que compran, los hombres son los que tienen poder, los que tienen la plata, son los que tienen mejores trabajos, [etc].”

“We are not in affectionate/sexual relations, responsible and free; instead, women are objects of a consumer market. We are talking about the market for sex and affection where the men are the ones who buy, the men are the ones that have the power, that have the money, that have better jobs, [etc.].” 

There is an undeniable truth to what she says. Men have access to better salaries, better jobs, more money, all of these things from which women are deliberately excluded. Everything about our various cultural understandings of the role of bodily capital in society predicates on a system in which men are the profiteers in this market. They hold all the power. 

When you apply this logic to relationships, as we have come to do, we can never have equal partnerships. Moreover, women are continually partaking in this unspoken sexual commerce - unwitting participants in this nuanced form of sex work. 

Ultimately, your sex is always for profit because someone is gaining something from your implicit oppression. 

---

Hayley is an emerging writer and journalist who works hard to create work that is fiercely feminist, anti racist and anti oppression on a whole. You can check out more of her work and content on her instagram @hayley.headley

Good Men and the Women They Haven’t Me Too’ed

“I know that there are monsters amongst us, lurking behind the grins manufactured by the same small town orthodontist we all share. ”

A few months ago, I was having a beer with an old friend. We were both in from our respective big cities, fleeing COVID and quarantine to visit our tiny, hometown tucked away in a forgotten mountain valley. We were reminiscing, rehashing old jokes and memories, and providing each other highlights of the years past and future plans. As old friends are always bound to do, we landed on relationships: past, present, and hopeful.

Since the kickoff of #MeToo, I’ve noticed that progressive men are very quick to bring ​it​ up. Constantly making sure I know they understand “Me Too.” Not harassment, or misuse of power in the workplace, sexist microaggressions, abuse, or rape. No, these ​good ​men always call ​it​ “Me Too,” like it’s a verb bored high school students conjugate in French class, “Je ne Me Too jamais les femmes,” or a noun, synonymous with an ancient curse or alien abduction, “Did you hear? Me Too came for him.” Every date. Every male co-worker. Every platonic friend. What do you want? A slow clap for not being the biggest prick in my life today? God forbid you men do the bare minimum in life and not assault women.

Photo by Marcus Herzberg from Pexels

So, this friend was like every other ​good​ man I know right now. He pulled out his rolodex of booty and let me know, to the best of his ability, that he has never Me Too’d a woman.

I asked, “How do you know?”

His answer was simple and respectful, “I asked.”

The night moved on. Other friends came and went around us, sitting down for awhile, dishing out quick one liners, than continuing on with the musical chairs of a small town bar scene, where everyone ​does​ know your name, as well as your address, your parents’ landline number, who your junior high school crush was, the color of your braces, how many kids your junior high crush has now, the number of MIPs you racked up, how many times your junior high crush has been to jail, who punched your v-card, oh and your junior high crush’s cell number, let’s text him and see if he’ll come out!

During this, someone sat down at our table that I didn’t recognize. He had the bland face of someone considered generally good looking, but not striking enough to be anything other than a long forgotten heart-scribble in a thrown away yearbook.

I leaned over to my friend and asked him, “Who is that?”

“John Doe” he said. “Oh. The rapist?” I asked.

My friend’s face immediately changed. Thunder struck his eyes. “Where did you hear that?”

“I don’t know. Everyone just knows.”

“Well I know you have a big mouth. So you better know what you’re talking about before you say shit about one of my best friends.”

I was confused to say the least. If the situation had been reversed, my reaction wouldn’t have been disbelief. Hurt maybe, but not disbelief. But then, as a woman, I know better. I know that there are monsters amongst us, lurking behind the grins manufactured by the same small town orthodontist we all share. But why was it that my friend, this ​good​ man, who I think so highly of and has always shown everyone profound respect, who not an hour before told me he understands what women go through and is self-conscious of his own actions, why is it that instead of approaching what I had said from a place of empathy, or curiosity at the very least, instead met it with incredulous anger?

I know that my comment probably came off as flip and I know that it was shocking news for my friend to hear. And he was right. I didn’t have all the answers. I didn’t know the full story. I didn’t know who was involved. But I knew enough. I knew through the women’s ​whisper network​ to stay away from him. I can’t even pinpoint for how long I’ve known. I did my best to explain this to my friend. And while I didn’t know every factoid of the situation, I attempted to convey that this is what women in town said about John and what they said wasn’t gossip, but a warning. This is what women whisper in your ear in the bathroom if they saw him flirting with you at the bar. This is what women whisper in your ear when they see him walking down Main Street hand-in-hand with a young girl you hope will be okay.

I don’t think I did a good job of explaining this. I was mad, he was mad, and we were both about seven beers in. At one point, he wasn’t sitting next to me anymore, and I can’t even remember if we said goodbye to each other that night.

This night continues to bother me and scratch at my bone marrow. I talked with other girlfriends about my outrage at the hypocrisy of the good​ men in our lives and feeling powerless at my inability to find the words to convey how I felt in the moment. Then the other day, during my morning shit scroll, I saw it. ​A photo of a woman with a sign at a protest was going viral ​and it summed up everything I was unable to verbalize that night. “Why does every woman know another woman that has been raped but no man knows a rapist?” Doesn’t add up, does it? I

don’t think my friend is a bad man. I think he’s actually pretty great. I just need the men in my life to start doing the math.

---

Originally from Wyoming, Emma is a former Democratic political operative turned writer. Since leaving politics, she can be found mouthing off, watching baseball, and reading Stephen King. Follow her at @enlaurent on Twitter.

Stop Saying ‘People’ When You Really Mean ‘Men’

“Humanity doesn’t have a violence problem, we have a male violence problem.”

Humanity doesn’t have a violence problem, we have a male violence problem. It sounds confronting when you hear it put in such clear terms, but denying reality won’t change reality, whereas accepting and discussing it might.

The numbers don’t lie.

Some women are violent, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the majority of violence, whether against women or men, is perpetrated by men.

For those few of you who’ve been living in an alternate universe, I’ve included links at the bottom citing what we already know. Men are a lot more violent than women, across the board. Men throughout all cultures, ethnicities, men of all colours, creeds, and religions are much more violent than women—to each other and to women.

Men are the main instigators of war, commit at least 90% of all violent crime, and behave as though raping women in wartime is an aperitif.

Allow me to pause here for a second to allow the ‘not-all-menners’ to step away from the keyboard. If you’re not a violent man, you’re not under discussion, nor are my fiance, my son, or my brothers. Just as you know when you read an article about scientists searching for a cure for cancer they don’t mean all scientists, you already know “men” doesn’t mean “all men.”

How did this happen?

Nobody knows.

You can posit whatever theories you like, and they are plentiful. All we truly know is that somewhere humanity took a wrong turn. Some men, at some point, decided that the simplest way to get what they wanted was to use violence to get it. And they did that because they could.

Somewhere, at some time, physically stronger men decided that it was okay to harm others if their immediate whims were satisfied. Somewhere, somewhen, men started suppressing the knowledge that women are human too. Other men quickly learned they had to be violent to have their whims satisfied, too.

Women began being taught that defending themselves could lead to being beaten raped and murdered. Of course, women not defending themselves leads to them being beaten raped and murdered too, so women being taught to be subservient just makes it easier for violent men to harm women. But when you live in a society shaped by the most violent men (and we do) that sort of clear thinking logic is difficult to apply.

“It’s tempting to assume male dominance is the natural state of human society. It isn’t.”

We can apply all the theories we want. But the truth is, it doesn’t really matter why we have ended up living in such a dangerous, violent world run by dangerous, violent men. The reality is, we unfortunately do.

Sugar and spice and all things nice—men just can’t help it.

If we all woke up tomorrow and women were just as physically strong as men, many of your cherished myths about what is “natural” female behaviour would be dispersed fast. I know I’ve never remotely resembled a submissive or placid little doll who’d be happy to let you stomp on her rights. But that’s irrelevant because we won’t wake up in that world tomorrow.

However, what is relevant is that violent men are, for the most part, choosing to be violent men.

How many times have you seen the man who just snapped and couldn’t help himself from assaulting or murdering a woman at the local supermarket, church, school run, PTA meeting—or even the local pub? You haven’t. And if you claim to have seen this, you’re in the tiny minority. Even in a place where alcohol is regularly consumed, it is almost unheard of for men to “just snap.”

They wait until the woman is unprotected and choose to assault her away from protective eyes.

On almost every occasion violence occurs, men are choosing that violence. It is a choice. It starts as a choice to use violent language and moves into violent behaviour which ends, a lot more often than it should, in the rape and death of women by men.

Make the link.

The Make The Link Organisation discusses the link between sexist jokes, speech, and behaviours, and more violent behaviours. Turning a blind eye to ugly slurs and insults means you are turning a blind eye to potentially dangerous men.

Please don’t pretend you don’t already know that men who speak in foul terms about women are dangerous men. There is a direct link between sexist or misogynistic behaviours and “jokes” and more dangerous behaviours.

Why It Matters.

Language shapes attitudes. Attitudes shape behaviour. We police ourselves.

Our ape brains accept what the society of other apes accepts as normality. The majority of the time we naked apes will go along with the majority consensus. Blame evolution. Only when we actually make the effort to remove a behaviour from society do we see real change.

Remember when women weren’t allowed the human right of voting? Remember when people smoked everywhere, planes trains and automobiles? Remember the hardened believers telling everyone they couldn’t change anything, it was just the way it was and always would be?

And yet change things we did.

The vast majority of behaviours complied with by societal agreement are not policed by any outside source. It would be an unmanageable system. Without being aware of it consciously, we agree to social terms when approved by the majority, and for the most part, as social apes do, we go along to get along.

And male violence is taught to children, normalised, accepted and winked at, at every level of society. From kindy to the grave we make excuses for and turn away from male violence. The why of that isn’t really the issue. The issue is that we can change this.

And one easy way to start that change is to remove the bubble wrap around speaking about male violence. Stop worrying about hurting men’s feelings. Start thinking about pushing back and changing things for the better.

When reporting the news, commenting on an article, writing a post on Facebook, or out in the real world, indeed anywhere at all, if discussing male violence and male crimes, say so.

Say men kill women. Say men kill men. Say men are responsible for at least 90% of all violent crime. Say men start wars. Say men murder one another in horrific amounts. Say the word men if you are talking about men.

Violence didn’t kill her. A man killed her. Do not use the word people if you mean men.

If you imagine we already do this, I’m afraid you’d be wrong. Really look at the words people use and the headlines. Read things critically. Then name the problem. Let “people” see the extent of the problem the world has with male violence.

A First Step

The first step to forcing those men responsible for most of the violence in the world is to actually speak about their violence as being unacceptable in a loud clear voice. If we make the effort, as “people” to state the facts about male violence clearly, if we call out men for their violent behaviour instead of hiding behind the word people, we drag the problem into the light.

We can only do that by naming the problem. The problem is not human violence. The problem is male violence.

Once in the light, the second step should be speaking up loudly, often and regularly (when safe to do so) on how it is totally unacceptable that these men are so violent. Never victim-blaming. Never pontificating. Simply stating that violent men are disgusting men, they are choosing to be violent, and we want them to stop it. Make it clear that these men should and must stop it.

Shame As A Societal Tool

Shame violent men into being less violent. Shame is a well-studied tool, and it works.

There will always be a small core of resistant psychopaths, those with cognitive issues, and anti-social deviants. But if you bother to make a behaviour unacceptable (as we have in no way done with male violence) over a relatively short time all but the most hardened recalcitrants will, at worst, minimise their behaviour, and at best, stop it.

“Through the lens of evolutionary biology, shame evolved to encourage adherence to beneficial social norms. This is backed up by the fact that shame is more prevalent in collectivist societies where people spend little to no time alone than it is in individualistic societies where people live more isolated lives.”

Not only don’t we shame violent men, but we also glorify them. We glorify them in the media, in our speech, in our leaders. And then we hide male violence behind the word “people.”

The third step—who knows what that might look like. If we can all, collectively, agree to steps one and two, we can collectively find a third step to move forward.

Make the first step. You can do one thing differently. One thing that matters.

Please stop saying people when you mean men. Because the truth, for some, could be a matter of life and death.

---

Sources:

• https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831740-400-the-origins-of-sexism-how-men-came-to-rule-12000-years-ago/

• https://makethelink.org.au/make-the-link/whymakethelink/

• https://fs.blog/2020/01/positive-side-of-shame/

• https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

• https://www.ourwatch.org.au/quick-facts/

• https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2018001/article/54978/02-eng.htm

• https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/

• https://ncadv.org/statistics

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4628110/

---

Alison Tennent is Scottish by birth, bloodline and temperament, and Australian since 2002 by citizenship ceremony. She’s worked as a counsellor (Grief and Loss), and in disability and mental health for many years. She is an outspoken advocate for de-stigmatising mental health disorders and challenges, and resides in Queensland, Australia, where the weather offers sunshine one day, cyclones the next. You can find a link to her Medium work here: https://medium.com/@besomandbletherskite