just how many professional and amateur male anti-LGBT advocates secretly watch and jerk off to lesbian pr0n?
I do.
Lest anyone be under the mistaken impression that this "lesbians are SO hawt" fetish means that lesbians have it totally easy compared to gay men (which yes, some gay men have actually said to me before), this bigot pseudo-acceptance mostly only applies to "conventionally attractive," gender-conforming, feminine cis women who make out with other "conventionally attractive," gender-conforming, feminine cis women solely to titillate, and then later have Real Sex with, heterosexual men.
Tip of the beret: PF.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
More MRA Incoherence
[Content note: MRA crap, misogyny]
Via the infinite coherence of the MRA "manosphere" we learn that that law student who had the temerity to testify, in public while woman, about birth control is, apparently, a mclesbo manhands who isn't even hawt but who, nonetheless, is a gigantic slut who wants other people to pay for the enormous amounts of penis-in-vagina sex with men she's having.
Sure.
Despite these bizarre contradictions, many MRAs nonetheless retain their unearned sense of intellectual superiority over women and feminists. Reading through various male MRA comments, I regularly see even somewhat-intelligent-seeming men lose all semblance of rationality when dealing with or talking about women they disagree with.
And aren't these "insults," these superficial ways some men try to cut down women, so telling about the men who utter them?
If they don't like what she says, they try to strip her of her attractiveness, her sexual appeal, her sanity, her dignity, her humor, her femininity, or her heterosexuality. As though they, as men, are perched on platforms of complete and total objectivity and, thus, are the Ultimate Arbiters of a woman's valueas a human being.
You can't even put "as a human being" on the end there.
Many MRAs and anti-feminists don't even think of women as human beings in the way that they think men are human beings. Men, to them, are the Real People. It's their world, they think, and women just live in it for, alternately, their amusement and annoyance. It's supremely self-centered, really.
Leftist Gender Warrior gives a hearty shake of the man-hands to reader John for passing this link along.
Via the infinite coherence of the MRA "manosphere" we learn that that law student who had the temerity to testify, in public while woman, about birth control is, apparently, a mclesbo manhands who isn't even hawt but who, nonetheless, is a gigantic slut who wants other people to pay for the enormous amounts of penis-in-vagina sex with men she's having.
Sure.
Despite these bizarre contradictions, many MRAs nonetheless retain their unearned sense of intellectual superiority over women and feminists. Reading through various male MRA comments, I regularly see even somewhat-intelligent-seeming men lose all semblance of rationality when dealing with or talking about women they disagree with.
And aren't these "insults," these superficial ways some men try to cut down women, so telling about the men who utter them?
If they don't like what she says, they try to strip her of her attractiveness, her sexual appeal, her sanity, her dignity, her humor, her femininity, or her heterosexuality. As though they, as men, are perched on platforms of complete and total objectivity and, thus, are the Ultimate Arbiters of a woman's value
You can't even put "as a human being" on the end there.
Many MRAs and anti-feminists don't even think of women as human beings in the way that they think men are human beings. Men, to them, are the Real People. It's their world, they think, and women just live in it for, alternately, their amusement and annoyance. It's supremely self-centered, really.
Leftist Gender Warrior gives a hearty shake of the man-hands to reader John for passing this link along.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Dreams
[Trigger/content warning: this post discusses a sexual assault threat]
Thought I'd share a dream I had this past weekend.
In it, I was playing in a women's basketball league. During a break, I went to use the bathroom. While I was in a stall and about to sit on the can, a male janitor came in with a mop and a bucket.
Not wanting him to be embarrassed about me being in there, I hollered, "Yoo-hoo, someone's in here!"
He stayed.
So, I shuffled my feet to make some noise and then I repeated myself.
A few seconds later, a second man came into the bathroom.
I stood up and exited the stall and said, "I'm in here, just so you guys know."
The men looked at each other, grinned, and one of them said, "It's not that safe for you to be in here with two men, you know." The man holding the mop began stroking its handle while making a gross, leering face at me.
Their intent clear, both men then began creeping toward me, keeping themselves between the door and me.
I thought about bolting for it, but I didn't. Trying to act nonchalant, I instead walked toward them confidently, being mindful of positioning myself so that I didn't end up in between them.
"You think?" I said, as I reached them.
They cockily nodded.
The second man began unbuckling his belt.
I was about a foot from the man with the mop now. He was swinging the handle from one hand to the other.
As it made its way from one hand to the next, I quickly reached out, grabbed the handle and ripped it from him before he could grab it. Wielding it like a bo staff, I jabbed it toward his face and said, "Try it, fucker."
Both men fell backwards, startled. Scared.
I threw the mop to the ground and then ran out the bathroom door knowing the two men would be hot on my heels.
Down the hall I went, quickly making my way back to the gym, where about 50 women were playing and watching basketball. There, I ran into the middle of the court and, just as the men entered the gym, I pointed and yelled, "Those two men tried to rape me!"
50 women, all of them now holding basketballs, softballs, and dodgeballs (I don't know, it's a dream, just go with it), starting hurling the balls toward the men.
And then I woke up.
When I did, I didn't feel scared, traumatized, or disturbed, although it certainly had the potential to provoke such reactions. Instead, I chuckled for a second, thinking to myself, "Really?"
As I tried to process it, I kept thinking that perhaps it's a symbol for what feminist blogging feels like for me sometimes.
As in non-Internet life, some men are violent, aggressive, entitled assholes on Internet, but there is something empowering and satisfying about creating and cultivating different online feminist communities to name that aggression, call it out, and question rape culture's rule that it's women's god-given role in life to always have to cater to and live in fear of that aggression.
Thought I'd share a dream I had this past weekend.
In it, I was playing in a women's basketball league. During a break, I went to use the bathroom. While I was in a stall and about to sit on the can, a male janitor came in with a mop and a bucket.
Not wanting him to be embarrassed about me being in there, I hollered, "Yoo-hoo, someone's in here!"
He stayed.
So, I shuffled my feet to make some noise and then I repeated myself.
A few seconds later, a second man came into the bathroom.
I stood up and exited the stall and said, "I'm in here, just so you guys know."
The men looked at each other, grinned, and one of them said, "It's not that safe for you to be in here with two men, you know." The man holding the mop began stroking its handle while making a gross, leering face at me.
Their intent clear, both men then began creeping toward me, keeping themselves between the door and me.
I thought about bolting for it, but I didn't. Trying to act nonchalant, I instead walked toward them confidently, being mindful of positioning myself so that I didn't end up in between them.
"You think?" I said, as I reached them.
They cockily nodded.
The second man began unbuckling his belt.
I was about a foot from the man with the mop now. He was swinging the handle from one hand to the other.
As it made its way from one hand to the next, I quickly reached out, grabbed the handle and ripped it from him before he could grab it. Wielding it like a bo staff, I jabbed it toward his face and said, "Try it, fucker."
Both men fell backwards, startled. Scared.
I threw the mop to the ground and then ran out the bathroom door knowing the two men would be hot on my heels.
Down the hall I went, quickly making my way back to the gym, where about 50 women were playing and watching basketball. There, I ran into the middle of the court and, just as the men entered the gym, I pointed and yelled, "Those two men tried to rape me!"
50 women, all of them now holding basketballs, softballs, and dodgeballs (I don't know, it's a dream, just go with it), starting hurling the balls toward the men.
And then I woke up.
When I did, I didn't feel scared, traumatized, or disturbed, although it certainly had the potential to provoke such reactions. Instead, I chuckled for a second, thinking to myself, "Really?"
As I tried to process it, I kept thinking that perhaps it's a symbol for what feminist blogging feels like for me sometimes.
As in non-Internet life, some men are violent, aggressive, entitled assholes on Internet, but there is something empowering and satisfying about creating and cultivating different online feminist communities to name that aggression, call it out, and question rape culture's rule that it's women's god-given role in life to always have to cater to and live in fear of that aggression.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Dear Internetz
Can people please, for the love of gawd, learn what an ad hominem argument is and isn't before accusing someone of engaging in that particular fallacy?
There seems to be a general consensus on Internet, and a new fallacy in and of itself, that an ad hom attack means "you said something mean to me, therefore you're wrong and illogical."
Nope. Sometimes people on Internet are assholes, but that doesn't necessarily make their arguments wrong.
Meanwhile, and ironically, the person accusing others of making "ad homs" will then go on to say something like, "Sorry, I can't take that scholar seriously, she's a Marxist."
Sigh.
Talk about whatever today. Especially if it involves argumentation, fallacies, and corgis.
There seems to be a general consensus on Internet, and a new fallacy in and of itself, that an ad hom attack means "you said something mean to me, therefore you're wrong and illogical."
Nope. Sometimes people on Internet are assholes, but that doesn't necessarily make their arguments wrong.
Meanwhile, and ironically, the person accusing others of making "ad homs" will then go on to say something like, "Sorry, I can't take that scholar seriously, she's a Marxist."
Sigh.
Talk about whatever today. Especially if it involves argumentation, fallacies, and corgis.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
On the Law School Scam
So, have you heard about all of those law schools that are being sued for allegedly inflating their post-graduation employment statistics? From The National Law Journal:
As an attorney, I'm glad to see these suits happening and garnering some attention.
I don't expect sympathy from the general non-lawyer public, though, which tends to have a general dislike of lawyers. Sadly, I think part of this dislike is due to the misperception that most of us are working at gigantic law firms making six-figure salaries so WTF are we complaining about anyway?
The reality, as the above article notes, is that many law graduates have six-figure student loan debts that, unlike mortgages and other types of debt, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. And, due to the combo of this mortgage-sized debt and relatively-modest salaries, many are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
Sure, I can hear people saying that law grads Knew What They Were Getting Into when they went to law school, but what's kind of the point of the lawsuits is that, no, actually many students didn't know what they were getting into, employment-wise, because law schools have lied about, misrepresented, and/or have not been totally candid about their stated employment statistics of their graduates for years.
Paul Campos, one of the few law professors who publicly speaks out about what's become known as the "law school scam," has noted that while almost all ABA-approved law schools report that 90% of graduates are employed within 9 months of graduation, that number drops to 62.9% if we exclude those employed in non-legal and part-time jobs. (Campos still believes that this 62.9% figure is too high, because it does not exclude people in temporary positions).
When I was thinking about law school more than a decade ago, I certainly relied on this employment data to make my choice. Back then, I believed the statistics the schools were presenting and made my choice accordingly. Upon graduation, I would estimate that less than half of my class had solid job prospects. I remember thinking that Career Services, professors, and deans were of little to no help in this regard and, rather than feeling like part of a "vast network of legal professionals," many of us felt like we were totally on our own once we graduated.
After all, the school already had our tuition. What more did they want with us or from us?
Anyway, these lawsuits, I believe, are only the tip of the iceberg. Graduates of other programs and schools will (and already are) filing similar suits.
We hear a lot about how higher education is one way we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. For many people, that's a myth. Although, unfortunately, when education is treated like a market commodity rather than a basic right, it seems like a good way a select few can pull themselves up by their bootstraps is by selling that myth.
[Cross-posted: Alas]
The plaintiffs’ attorneys who have already launched class actions targeting 14 law schools announced on March 14 that they were suing an additional 20 schools in 10 states, including some of the most highly regarded in the country.
The move was not unexpected. After the attorneys sued 12 schools in early February, they announced their intention to file suit against 20 to 25 additional schools every several months. They allege that the targets committed fraud by inflating or misrepresenting their postgraduate employment data to lure students.
In a press release, the plaintiffs’ attorneys said the average debt load for graduates of the 20 schools was almost $115,000.
As an attorney, I'm glad to see these suits happening and garnering some attention.
I don't expect sympathy from the general non-lawyer public, though, which tends to have a general dislike of lawyers. Sadly, I think part of this dislike is due to the misperception that most of us are working at gigantic law firms making six-figure salaries so WTF are we complaining about anyway?
The reality, as the above article notes, is that many law graduates have six-figure student loan debts that, unlike mortgages and other types of debt, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. And, due to the combo of this mortgage-sized debt and relatively-modest salaries, many are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
Sure, I can hear people saying that law grads Knew What They Were Getting Into when they went to law school, but what's kind of the point of the lawsuits is that, no, actually many students didn't know what they were getting into, employment-wise, because law schools have lied about, misrepresented, and/or have not been totally candid about their stated employment statistics of their graduates for years.
Paul Campos, one of the few law professors who publicly speaks out about what's become known as the "law school scam," has noted that while almost all ABA-approved law schools report that 90% of graduates are employed within 9 months of graduation, that number drops to 62.9% if we exclude those employed in non-legal and part-time jobs. (Campos still believes that this 62.9% figure is too high, because it does not exclude people in temporary positions).
When I was thinking about law school more than a decade ago, I certainly relied on this employment data to make my choice. Back then, I believed the statistics the schools were presenting and made my choice accordingly. Upon graduation, I would estimate that less than half of my class had solid job prospects. I remember thinking that Career Services, professors, and deans were of little to no help in this regard and, rather than feeling like part of a "vast network of legal professionals," many of us felt like we were totally on our own once we graduated.
After all, the school already had our tuition. What more did they want with us or from us?
Anyway, these lawsuits, I believe, are only the tip of the iceberg. Graduates of other programs and schools will (and already are) filing similar suits.
We hear a lot about how higher education is one way we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. For many people, that's a myth. Although, unfortunately, when education is treated like a market commodity rather than a basic right, it seems like a good way a select few can pull themselves up by their bootstraps is by selling that myth.
[Cross-posted: Alas]
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Transgender Woman Suing Police For Mistreatment
[Content note/trigger warning: Trans*bigotry, violence]
A transgender woman in the Chicago area is suing the town of Cicero and two police officers who she says harassed her because of her gender identity. From the Chicago Tribune:
Anecdotally, these types of run-ins with the police are not single, isolated events. While Gay Inc tends to push for hate crimes laws under the assumption that the criminal justice system is "our" protector, some in the LGBT community view the criminal justice system as an intrusive purveyor of violence and harassment. As the woman filing the lawsuit states:
I also think it bears mentioning that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), which the Tribune cites as evidence of strides made by the LGBT community, did not change the US military's policy of prohibiting transgender people from serving. The military considers Gender Identity Disorder, a controversial diagnosis in itself, to be a disqualifying condition.
Gay Inc doesn't tend to mention that very much either.
A transgender woman in the Chicago area is suing the town of Cicero and two police officers who she says harassed her because of her gender identity. From the Chicago Tribune:
"According to the suit, police verbally abused her, accusing her of being a prostitute because she is a transgender woman. They also refused to accept her state-issued ID, which identified her as a woman, the suit says.
'One of the defendant officers threatened to punch Ms. Feliciano, take her to jail and lock her up for fraud because her ID said she is female,' the lawsuit states. The officers 'repeatedly ridiculed and denied Ms. Feliciano's gender identity by stating that she was a man, referring to her with male pronouns and calling her by her former name.'
Advocates say Feliciano's case underscores the growing debate surrounding the treatment of transgender people by police. Although the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has made strides in recent years with the repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' military policy and the expansion of hate crimes laws to include attacks on gender identity, transgender individuals such as Feliciano continue to suffer discrimination and abuse at the hands of police, they say.
Anecdotally, these types of run-ins with the police are not single, isolated events. While Gay Inc tends to push for hate crimes laws under the assumption that the criminal justice system is "our" protector, some in the LGBT community view the criminal justice system as an intrusive purveyor of violence and harassment. As the woman filing the lawsuit states:
"The police are supposed to protect you, but there are a lot of transsexuals who are afraid to call the police."
I also think it bears mentioning that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), which the Tribune cites as evidence of strides made by the LGBT community, did not change the US military's policy of prohibiting transgender people from serving. The military considers Gender Identity Disorder, a controversial diagnosis in itself, to be a disqualifying condition.
Gay Inc doesn't tend to mention that very much either.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
SPLC Notes Misogynistic Sites
Via the Spring 2012 Intelligence Report of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC):
Cited in the report were several MRA sites and other anti-woman/anti-feminist sites, some of whom I've written about before.
I found this report surprising and interesting. On the blogs I read, SPLC is famous/notorious mostly for listing anti-LGBT hate groups. This report is the first I've heard of the organization taking note of sites with alleged misogynistic content.
Also included in the report is a longer piece on the men's and father's rights movement:
Of course, feminist women, who are often on the receiving end of all of this vitriol, have been noting this misogyny for years (men call us things) (although, the SPLC report only cited the male-run "Manboobz" blog as calling these sites out).
Nonetheless, I'm sure this report will provoke a shitstorm of a reaction among MRAs and pick-up artists, with them creating their own "complementary" lists of feminist/misandric "hate sites."
"The so-called 'manosphere' is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general. Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their arguments with facts, they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express."
Cited in the report were several MRA sites and other anti-woman/anti-feminist sites, some of whom I've written about before.
I found this report surprising and interesting. On the blogs I read, SPLC is famous/notorious mostly for listing anti-LGBT hate groups. This report is the first I've heard of the organization taking note of sites with alleged misogynistic content.
Also included in the report is a longer piece on the men's and father's rights movement:
"There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones) — the so-called 'manosphere,' which now also includes a tribute page for Tom Ball ('He Died For Our Children'). While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many. Women are routinely maligned as sluts, gold-diggers, temptresses and worse; overly sympathetic men are dubbed 'manginas'; and police and other officials are called their armed enablers."
Of course, feminist women, who are often on the receiving end of all of this vitriol, have been noting this misogyny for years (men call us things) (although, the SPLC report only cited the male-run "Manboobz" blog as calling these sites out).
Nonetheless, I'm sure this report will provoke a shitstorm of a reaction among MRAs and pick-up artists, with them creating their own "complementary" lists of feminist/misandric "hate sites."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)