The Pathetic Anti-Feminist Woman

 [Content note: Um, wow, there's a lot going on in this piece but let's go with misogyny, violence, victim-blaming, misandry, and male supremacy]

The only type of woman more sad to me than a woman who bashes her entire gender for purposes of patriarchal head pats is a woman who bashes her entire gender in such an inadequate, illogical, and offensive way that even anti-feminist men are like, "Whoa! Even we think that's bad."


I'm not going to link to it because, wow, is the National Review Online publishing hack "theories" on the Newton killings just to get page views? (And if so, can I officially check out of the human race immediately?), but have you all read Charlotte Allen's "thinking" on the tragedy?

To summarize (and I wish I were creating a strawman here, but I'm really not), she points out that Sandy Hook was populated at the time by mostly women and children and asks us to just think about how things might have turned out differently if, say, there were a male janitor around to a "heave his bucket" at the killer or, you know, some "male teachers who had played high school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys" to "converge" on the killer and his semi-automatic weapons.

Her thesis, if it can be called that, was to bemoan a culture that has purportedly feminized schools and society.

Aside from the fact that, I don't know, maybe she's not familiar with the Ft. Hood murder, notice how her piece is, of course, offensive to both men and women, boys and girls. A Real Man (or even a "husky" pre-teen boy) stands ever-vigilant. Disposable as he is, he should be prepared to heave his bucket at men wielding semi-automatic weapons, in order to save the weak, passive women and girls. And, when women heroically throw themselves in front of bullets to save children, they're derided as "passive" and an example of everything that's wrong with our ultra-feminized, feminist society.

Sure.

Sure.

It's always interesting isn't it?  We live in an incredibly violent culture in which men commit the vast majority of violent crimes and we're still somehow living in a matriachal, feminized, feminist paradise?  And, well, I have my picture of what a feminist utopia is, and it sure as shit ain't this.

Doubling down and digging herself even deeper, Allen later "responded" to her critics in a separate piece and acted very hurt that even, like, conservative dudes such as Jonah Goldberg (accurately) accused her of victim-blaming.

She went on to add that there's a kernel of truth in her original piece. After all, Allen notes, Hanna Rosin once wrote a piece at Salon encouraging boys to play with Easy Bake ovens and OMG isn't that ridiculous for people to encourage boys to do girly sissy things?!  But wait! In the next breath, Allen asks:

Why aren’t there more men [teaching in schools]? Perhaps not enough want the job? But why? Because they are tacitly discouraged from careers in elementary education?

Yes, and just who the everloving fuck does Charlotte Allen think is discouraging men from doing girly sissy things like teaching?


Anti-feminists like her have a serious logical disconnect.


[ETA: An anti-feminist commenter below has taken it upon himself to comment extensively on this post. Unfortunately, when challenged with counter-arguments and expectations that he formulate clear, specific, and civil arguments, it seems he has chosen to delete his comments and place an "x" in each of his posts. Just letting readers know that I would have preferred to let the conversation stand as it was.]

Feminists, We Ruin Everything

Including Christmas movies that I generally enjoy. Like Love, Actually, which is apparently the Official Worst Christmas Movie Ever.

(Remember? We came to a consensus on this issue at the last meeting and added it to our Sooper Seekret Feminist Manifesto. Shhhhh, don't tell the MRAs!)

Now, I'm fully aware that I often have to shut down and compartmentalize my feminist brain if I'm to halfway enjoy most popular films, seeped as they are in male-centric, non-Bechdel-test-passing narratives.

But, I have long had a sentimental appreciation for Love, Actually, mostly because I'm a sucker for happy romantic endings. But, I also think this article criticizing the movie is pretty damn funny and accurate:

"With the exception of Bill Nighy’s witty plotline about an aging pop star’s attempt to secure the coveted Christmas No. 1 hit, every one of the 85 other stories in the movie involves some horrible lesson out of the battle of the sexes playbook. If you were an alien watching 'Love, Actually,' you would come to the conclusion that what human British men really, really want are hot chicks who fetch them tea, put up with their dalliances, and don’t speak English."

I've long been annoyed at the movie's lack of same-sex romantic storylines among the 85 other romantic storylines, but yeah wow, most of the storylines are like a straight guy's fantasy.

Blogging Update

As I've been blogging for more than 5 years, I've developed a strong interest in civility, the creation of online communities, and engaging in dialogue with those who have very different experiences, opinions, privileges, and backgrounds than I do.

The other day, I updated the folks at Family Scholars Blog that I will be taking a break from blogging there until a more specific civility policy is applied.  (I will, of course, still be blogging here in Fannie's Room).

As I wrote there, "I have concerns about that policy [which simply states, "...don't be mean,"] both in its content and its application.  I know that readers have also emailed me with concerns and confusion over what is and isn’t acceptable commentary in [there], who does and doesn’t get to be 'mean' [there], and whose commentary [there] is and isn’t open to critique."

I know from commentary to my piece, and to other pieces there, that some people are exasperated at the notion of a more specific civility policy that might give people more guidance than "don't be mean."  They seem to think it will interfere with people's free speech or that it might "stifle" dialogue.

Yet, I counter that argument by noting that, certainly on Internet, it is rarely a problem that people are being just too goshdarn nice and too aware of other people's experiences, feelings, and sensitivities when they talk about controversial topics. And, you know, there's a really big Internet out there and if people want to blast away without "censoring" themselves, countless forums exist to do so.

As a culture, we say we revere peacemakers and advocates of non-violence like Martin Luther King, Jr., and we wring our hands and cry "why?" when bullied kids commit suicide, and yet it's not lost on me that it's also simultaneously incredibly difficult to create intentional online spaces where civility, and having sincere conversations about what that even means, is a shared value.

Simply put, the norm in US culture, emanating from the top down, and coming from politicians, radio personalities, pundits, bloggers, and numerous commentators with powerful voices is.... to be mean.  It takes work, and it takes being mindful of this constant reinforcement to overcome this pervasive conditioning.

I still believe in what I think some of the folks at Family Scholars Blog are trying to do, which is create a space where people of varying beliefs, backgrounds, and experiences can have civil dialogue about contentious issues.

But, I have also been thinking a bit about the different power dynamics at play when people of relative privilege express exasperation at civility policies and when only some people have the power in different spaces to say what does and doesn't count as "mean" and "civil."

The resulting conversations can sometimes condone problematic behaviors and suggest that, in any conversation, it's just as mean to call out, say, bigotry as it is to actually be bigoted.

Over at Geek Feminism Blog, Tim Chevalier has written: 

"...adopting a laissez-faire 'free speech' policy in an organization is to take a political position: it means taking the position that existing power dynamics from the larger society will and must recreate themselves in your organization. To do nothing is to let bullies be bullies, because bullies always bully when they get the chance to and when there are no checks and balances against bullying.

So in reality, the choice isn’t between taking a laissez-faire, neutral position; and adopting a code of conduct that excludes some form of speech. The central conflict is:

Shall we implicitly exclude people in socially stigmatized minority groups, or shall we explicitly exclude people who cannot or will not behave with respect?"

I also find it interesting that advocates of civility are quite often suggested to be oversensitive, hysterical, or overreacting. They suggest that they themselves aren't easily offended as though they are "above" having feelings. This claim, we learn, can often quickly be proven false if we suggest that these same folks who purport to be "above" having feelings might be sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or showing any other sort of problematic behavior.

If we, even in relatively gentle ways, suggest that these folks might be problematic, the response is often a swift, "How dare you!?" and "How abusive of you to call me sexist!" before entire conversations get shut down for "lack of civility" on the part of people calling out problematic behavior.

To add to what Tim writes, unspoken rules of civility often mean that we are actually placing a premium on the feelings of relatively privileged folks to never have to feel uncomfortable, or as though they might be harboring problematic beliefs, in conversations while reinforcing dominant cultural narratives that make marginalized people uncomfortable but aren't readily recognized as problematic (like, having "friendly debates" over whether or not homosexuality or being transgender is pathological or immoral).

Many marginalized people will feel unsafe and uncomfortable participating in spaces where it is also not acceptable or "civil" to call out other people's problematic statements and patterns of engagement. Purported free speech proponents rarely express concern about the stifling of speech of these lost voices, however.

But Most Importantly Today

Here are 2012's worst words.

I guess I don't hang out in circles or social networks that use some of these words, but I agree with many of these.

Like the word "actually," also known as "the word that you use when you're actually saying, 'You are wrong, and I am right, and you are at least a little bit of an idiot.'"

And "hehehe." No one is ever being nice when they laugh like that on Internet.

Anyone have any worst words of their own?

My addition would be "phenomenal," only because I see people so often using it to describe relatively mundane accomplishments, food, or events as though they're Exceedingly Epic*. I'm sure some readers of this blog would add gratuitous capitalization as an annoying stylistic habit.

Hehehe. Too bad.

(*Epic is also on the list)

What About the Menz?

[Content note: Gun violence]

On the recent mass murder in Connecticut, committed by yet another man, Melissa McEwan of Shakesville observes:

"There is one other subject that is off the discussion menu—and that is the fact that mass killings are committed by men almost exclusively. Of the 62 mass murders carried out with firearms across the US since 1982, 61 of them were committed by men. Forty-four of the killers were white men.

Every one of the men who picked up a gun—or multiple guns—and started shooting people was socialized in a patriarchal culture that encourages an aggressive masculinity one of the key expressions of which is meant to be violence.

That is not incidental. And you can bet your ass that if there was an epidemic of mass slaughters committed by women, their gender would be mentioned. How we raise girls would be examined. It would be talked about. Womanhood would be on the discussion menu."

I wonder if those who have created websites, blogs, and forums to discuss "men's rights" and "men's issues" are pondering these numbers and the media's general unwillingness to mention the elephant in the room here.

That so many so-called men's rights activists instead spend the bulk of their time bashing feminism and women, rather than thoughtfully exploring our culture's reinforcement of aggressive masculinity, is a further symptom of how this culture entitles men to be aggressive and consistently fails to demand any serious changes in behavior.

Here we have yet another unfortunate chance for those with influential voices, both within the "manosphere" and in the mainstream, to ask, Seriously, What About the Men? and the primary conversation topics people seem to want to instead talk about are putting "god" back in schools, giving teachers guns, and complaining about the irrelevant Westboro Baptist Church.

If it is "just" feminists noting the demographics of these murders, it is easy to dismiss the analyses as "misandry." After all, that's the alleged defining feature of feminism, isn't it?  Even though, if it were any other demographic group committing such heinous crimes, those demographics would not only be widely discussed but also put forth as a defining feature of the demographic group.

And, to be clear, I am not saying or implying that killing people is a defining feature of white men. Most white men don't kill people. I'm just making another observation wherein white men largely are demographically "invisible" as the norm and, as such, get to be seen as individuals.

Society, this message tells us, doesn't have an Angry White Male problem, we have lone, "insane" individuals.

Critical Opinions in the Abortion Debate

So, a friend of a friend of a friend snapped a photo on Facebook of a man dressed in a Santa costume, sitting on a stoop near a busy intersection, who was looking sad while holding up a sign that read, "Santa is out of a job because of abortion."

Yes, I know!

"Santa is out of a job because of abortion."

LOLOL.

It seems his intent was to use the sentimentality of Christmas to make people Think Twice about their beliefs on abortion, but..... what I really ended up wondering was, wow, what other critical abortion manpinions held by imaginary men is the public debate on abortion lacking?

Has anyone even polled Frosty the Snowman, Punxsutawney Phil, or Fred Flinstone to hear what they have to say about how granting women bodily autonomy might affect the imaginary lives of these imaginary men, hmmmmmm?

And then it hit me.

No, we probably haven't taken these critical perspective into account. We probably aren't getting the "bigger picture" here of the entire situation.

Feminists are SO unfair.

A Friday Cathartic Read

Sure, this message from Kate Harding to MRAs isn't the most.... "bridge-building."

However, my observation from my years as an Internet Feminist is that some people simply cannot handle a feminist gal speaking up about Problematic Gender Stuff regardless of whether she's saying a loud "fuck you" or uttering a tepid, "Hey, um... I don't think anyone here is necessarily sexist or anything heh heh heh, or like, being intentionally problematic... but... can we maybe have a conversation about that thing you just said?"

The latter tone is so often interpreted as the former, and we often learn through experience just how many people prioritize remaining entrenched in their unexamined privileges and biases over engaging them with an open mind.

Which, perhaps, speaks to a growing concern of mine that maybe it's better not to build bridges (let alone cross them) when bullies, whose capacity to be offensive is exceeded only by their capacity to become offended at being called out for it, are on the other side.

A snippet:

"By and large, American feminists are really into equality, involved fathers, justice for all, dismantling bullshit gender roles, and helping folks leave dangerous relationships. We would be the natural allies of MRAs, if MRAs were sincerely committed to the causes with which they claim to be chiefly concerned. But no, today's MRAs—unlike the 1970s movement that earnestly sought to free men, alongside women, from the constraints of gender stereotypes, or the 1980s branch that involved a lot of drum circles and crap poetry—are chiefly concerned with one thing, and one thing only: Putting feminists in their place."

Yep.

Ministerial Malpractice?

 Previously, I (and others) have suggested that the existence of ex-gay "conversion therapy," via its promotion of the idea that being lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) is "defective," is abusive to LGB people.

 Over at Religion Dispatches, Rev. Cody J. Sanders goes follows a similar way of thinking and argues for the coining of the concept of "Ministerial Malpractice":

"Violence against queer people runs much deeper than physical bullying, verbal harassment, or even hate-crime murder. It is a violence that takes place at the level of the psyche, the soul—at the very level at which our sense of “self” is constructed within our relation to society.

It is a type of violence that cannot be assessed by examining bruises. Violence against queer people in any form is an ideologically aggravated, theologically intensified violence—legitimated by a discourse about queer people that is already embedded in the lives of both attacker and victim.

....

 Of the three classic 'professions' (law, medicine, and divinity), we are well aware of malpractice in the medical and legal professions. But we don’t talk much about ministerial malpractice, aside from cases of criminal child sexual abuse that have come to light in myriad denominations.

By ministerial malpractice, I mean the negligent attitudes of clergy and congregations concerning the violence being enacted upon queer lives—not just the violence of bullying, but the persistent injury to the bodies, psyches, and souls of queer people.

By ministerial malpractice, I mean the youth minister who invites representatives of 'ex-gay' ministries to speak to teenagers because these “practices of love” are theologically responsible, despite evidence of their destructive power.

By ministerial malpractice, I mean the pastor who knows the realities of violence enacted upon queer lives and is deeply concerned, but who, nevertheless, avoids any mention of sexuality in the pulpit so as not to upset parishioners.

By ministerial malpractice, I mean the theological scholar who prevaricates in public when asked about concerns of justice for queer lives—not even out of a sense of personal conviction on the matter, but in order to protect a public career: speaking invitations, book deals.

By ministerial malpractice, I mean the congregation that skirts around open discussions of queer affirmation, inclusion, and justice because they don’t want to become a 'gay church' or (more liberally) they don’t want to be 'defined by that one issue.'”

 It's an idea certainly worthy of conversation and debate, especially given that many religious folks who hold anti-gay beliefs are reluctant to truly own those beliefs.

On Humor and Civility

In a previous post on our recurring topic of civility at Family Scholars Blog, I wrote:

"One of the biggest barriers to civil dialogue is, I believe, the failure to understand those with whom we disagree." 

I further cited theologian Karen Armstrong, who said:

“Try to put yourself in the position of the ‘other side’ ~ as the compassionate ethos demands ~ and ask yourself  ‘How much do I really know about their history of pain, achievement, oppression, disappointment, fear, idealism, and aspiration ~ all of which, on both sides, have contributed to this violence?’” 

As a preliminary matter, I would define a "mixed-company conversation" as, say, one between feminist women versus men who are not informed about feminism or gender studies. Or, for instance, heterosexual opponents of equality versus non-heterosexual people. I don't want to get too hung up on definitions here, but my basic gist is that a "mixed-company" conversation is one in which the parties involved often have different lived experiences, due to the fact that many people in society treat them differently based on their identities as, and prevailing stereotypes about, men, women, heterosexuals, and/or non-heterosexuals.

Within conversations where the goal is for civil dialogue to occur, I think we especially need to be mindful of attempts to use humor and facetiousness. Although it can be tempting to use humor to diffuse tensions, if it is not done with an awareness of the experiences of "the other side" it can come off as hostile. It can, and often does, actually escalate tensions with the very people one purports to want to engage in a civil manner.

I have taken issue here before with the "facetious," half-joking use of aggressive, over-the-top rhetoric to describe other people's political actions. And, most recently, I've also taken issue with a little snippet in one of Matthew's recent posts on "benevolent sexism." In order to facilitate the discussion, he linked to the controversial Charles Murray, saying:

"Charles Murray has some thoughts on a new study in Psychology of Women Quarterly that I don’t imagine are going to be popular in some circles.

I’m just going to leave this here and run in the other direction…"

While all of the comments pertaining to Matthew's joke have been deleted by the admin here (not at my request*), I had initially asked Matthew why he wrote that "run in the other direction" bit. My point wasn't to make a big deal about it. I thought he was just trying to make a joke and likely didn't even know that that's a problematic pattern of behavior men often engage in when they try to talk about gender issues with women and feminists.

In my decades of experience as a feminist, I've found that it's pretty common for men in "mixed-company" with female feminists to precede their statements on gender with something along the lines of, "You're going to clobber me for saying this, but," or "I'm going to get killed here, but," or, the Internet version: which is for men to make some, what they deem "politically incorrect," argument and then follow it with a "*ducks*" as though they're dodging a punch that a woman is throwing at them in response.

Given that Matthew noted that the study he was citing wasn't "going to be popular in some circles" and that he's a man venturing into talking about sexism against women, I interpreted his "I'm just going to leave this here and run in the other direction" as a similar precursor to his article.

Now, I don't expect everyone to agree with me on the point that his "joke" wasn't funny. I don't expect everyone to agree with me that the precursor was, no matter how it was intended, rude. And, I don't even expect all women or all feminists to agree with me here.

On the civility front, though, I would find it reasonable for conversation participants to at least try to understand my argument and where I'm coming from, rather than reflexively dismissing or trivializing it. I would also expect people to acknowledge that humor is a subjective experience, and that what's funny to some people isn't funny to all people, and that people might have legitimate reasons for not thinking that something is funny.

When one, for instance, understands that a common stereotype of feminists is that we're hysterical, oversensitive man-haters who can't take a joke, one might better understand why feminists who show up to engage in civil dialogue might not chuckle at a man's "joke" that uh-oh, he better run away after he posts a link, a statement that "half-jokingly" implies that he might be physically or verbally assaulted at some point within the conversation. Simply put, the joke does not assume good faith on the part of other participants that they'll be able to react non-aggressively.
  
Indeed, in one of the comments that the admin deleted, a different man suggested that Matthew felt "hurt" by my argument and, simultaneously, that other people "felt" they had to "walk on eggshells around" me because I point stuff like this out. But, well, it does become apparent though, especially with respect to humor, part of civility is accepting that maybe all participants in mixed-company conversation need to do a little eggshell-walking-on. 

I  know some folks take a certain pride in being "un-PC," but in my experience such people are oftentimes quite prickly themselves when their own sensitivities are on the line in some way. For instance, in this forum, I recognize that cursing isn't "PC" and is, in fact, banned, so I respect that rule because to not respect it would impede the goal of having civil conversation here. And, the fact that Matthew included his joke at all in his piece certainly made me wonder, wow, but can I actually disagree with him without him feeling super threatened? How delicately do I have to put any sort of disagreement for him to not feel abused at the hands of Angry Feminists?

I would further suggest that responses to my argument, an argument in which I did not once utter the word "sexist" or say that I thought Matthew was being intentionally rude, that I would see as evidence of authentic openness to engage would be something along the lines of, "Fannie, I'm new to this and am not sure I understand what your complaint is, can you explain it further?"

Less thoughtful responses to jokes that don't go over super well would include exasperated statements along the lines of, "Oh good grief! I was being facetious," other people jumping in to assume the role of "neutral third party" who think that just because they don't see anything offensive then nothing offensive exists, and comments like, "Keep the jokes comin'! Most people like jokes!"

Because, well, most people do like jokes. I certainly do. In fact, I used to write for a popular lesbian humor website, writing all sorts of self-deprecating jokes about queer women for queer women and we'd all laugh at ourselves.

However, by the end of this particular conversation, a conversation in mixed-company about a serious topic, we weren't all laughing together. Which I think speaks to the fact that if a joke in such a context doesn't go over super well, maybe the joke-teller could think about why that is and ask some clarifying questions.

Sure, I get that it's everyone's right to say whatever they want to say and to laugh at whatever they want to laugh at. And if that's folks' prerogative to do that in mixed-company conversations, okay. But then I would argue that we should also not pretend that such approaches constitute civility or attempts at understanding.

I'll end by noting that if men can't handle the little things in a civil manner, like a woman suggesting that it's problematic for a man to "joke" that he better run away from the conversation participants after he posts a controversial article, do they really expect women to trust that they're capable of participating in the bigger conversations- about rape, abortion, and autonomy- in a civil manner?


See also: Feminism 101: Helpful Hints For Dudes, Part 7
Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog

(*I'm not challenging the comment deletions, I'm just letting people know that the referenced conversation was deleted and that I wasn't the person who deleted it.)

Well, That Sounds Like a Great Reason!

A friend sent me this ad she saw in a newspaper:



I can understand why people who are larger and not that flexible might be uncomfortable taking yoga in a class full of people who are smaller and more flexible.

But, to gender the situation in this way plays into the uninspired tropes about authentic masculinity being "large" and authentic femininity being "small."

What if someone's a woman who's interested in yoga but feels self-conscious about being large and inflexible, can she take Man Yoga?

Or, is the male ego so uniquely frail that it's incapable of withstanding the dishonor of doing a physical activity in the same space as women who might appear physically better at it than they are.

I'm not sure if this ad is more insulting to women or to men.

On a final note, my knowledge of yoga is limited, but I do think the philosophical underpinnings of many forms of yoga would find this obvious catering to the ego to be problematic. Americanized versions of practices that have Asian roots continue to amuse me. As a practitioner of a traditional Asian practice, I don't think mind-body-spirit practices from Asia should never be altered. I think they can be thoughtfully and mindfully modified, but it's sad to me when they become infused with some of the worst, ego-driven aspects of American society.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "Buddhist" Temple For Dudes somewhere where they crush beer cans on their heads upon entering, and then hang them on the door to keep out the taint of Woman from entering.

*cricket cricket cricket*

So, I recently saw a man on Internet claim:

"Well, that [article on "benevolent sexism"] was all pretty interesting. And strengthens me in the view that much of what goes under the name of cultural liberalism and feminism, is really indescribably silly."

I was pretty excited to learn all about this guy's gender credentials, given his no doubt completely objective ability to dismiss a whole entire subject with one mere bark of a blog comment! 

I was like, wow, I read lots of feminist blogs and authors, but it's not often I randomly and gratuitously come across an expert in feminism who is so very renowned, so genuinely informed and familiar with the entirety (oh, I'm sorry "much") of the feminist canon that he feels confident dismissing it in such a fair, impartial and cocksure manner!

Such an expert would undoubtedly make a great potential guest blogger here in Fannie's Room, don't you think, where he could possibly share expert, commonsensical nuggets of wisdom like:

"Protective paternalism is the benevolent aspect of paternalistic ideology, which states that because of their greater authority, power, and physical strength, men should serve as protectors and providers for women. This protectiveness is particularly strong toward women on whom men are dyadically dependent or over whom they feel a sense of 'ownership' (e.g. , wives, mothers, daughters). 

Well, yes, that seems like just common sense to me. "

And, I don't know, if we're lucky maybe he'd even be willing to do an advice column for the property- er, I mean, ladies.

Anyway, my point is that I got all excited about this prospect since we're always looking for Dudes Who Know Things here in Fannie's Room! So, I asked him:

"Since you’re dismissing 'academic liberal feminism' and 'feminism' as silly, I’m hoping you can shed some light on your specific experiences, expertise, and familiarity with feminism. 

Specifically, what courses in academic feminism have you personally taken that would grant you first-hand evidence to dismiss the entirety of the field? 

What specific books written by actual feminists have you read? Can you tell us anything specific you take issue with the writings of bell hooks? Catherine MacKinnon? Angela Davis? Simone de Beauvoir? Virginia Woolf? Susan Faludi? Naomi Wolf? Kate Millet? Alice Walker? Octavia Butler? 

What feminist blogs, magazines, or other periodicals have you read or do you regularly read that would inform your opinion on the 'silliness' of feminism? Not a fan of Feministing? Shakesville? Skepchick? The Mary Sue? 

I’m not talking about your familiarity with cherry-picked quotes that critics of feminism often cite, and I’m not asking if you’re familiar with the writings of critics of feminism like, say, Rush Limbaugh and his caricatures of all feminists. 

I’m asking what your experience is in actually engaging actual, specific feminist ideas is.Since you have sweepingly dismissed the entire field, is it correct to assume you have direct, first-hand knowledge of pretty much the entire field and body of work?"

Too bad for all of us, he hasn't responded.  

Maybe all that Hugo Schwyer hubbub has soured him on feminism (understandable, am I right?!). Or, maybe he had a bad experience while engaging in an intra-feminist debate about pornography, sex work, and choice. Yeah, I'll bet that's it.

Mmm-hmmm, sure.

Related: So, You Want To Teach the Lady Feminists?

Deep Thought of the Day

1. Consider a religious congregation that worship a male deity, where only men can be priests because they're more like this god than women are, and in which the leadership opposes women's bodily autonomy.

2. Consider a religious congregation that worships a female deity, where only women can be priests because they're more like this god than men are, and in which the leadership opposes men's bodily autonomy.

3. Consider another religious congregation that worships gender neutral deity, where people of any gender can be priests, and that generally supports the bodily autonomy of people of all genders.

When some folks talk about the "War on Men," what they never seem to be talking about is situation number 2. To be general, they seem more to be referring to situation number 3. When such people reference a "War on Men" they're actually referencing a war on unearned male privilege and entitlement.


[ETA: An anti-feminist commenter below has taken it upon himself to comment extensively on this post. Unfortunately, when challenged with counter-arguments and expectations that he formulate clear, specific, and civil arguments, it seems he has chosen to delete his comments and place an "x" in each of his posts. Just letting readers know that I would have preferred to let the conversation stand as it was.]

Thoughts On Being An Ally

[content note: cissexism]

As I navigate various online spaces in which I have both more and less relative privilege than other participants in forums, I've been thinking lately about what it means to be a good ally.

So far, I like Heina at Skepchick's thinking:

"Don’t get in front of me and talk for me. Don’t stand off to the side and do nothing. Back me up."

Recently, following a post I wrote on gay "conversion therapy," I was in a conversation in which I, a cis woman, was discussing "conversion therapy" amongst several non-queer men, several of whom are also generally against equal rights for LGBT people and/or believe homosexuality to be a "sin." The conversation took a turn when one of these men began, in a pretty uninformed manner, trying to relate gay "conversion therapy" to gender reassigment/sex affirmation surgery for trans* people and demanding that people explain how it's morally consistent to oppose one while supporting the other.

While the very question itself evidences a certain level of ignorance, his additional commentary and general descriptions of a trans* experience, to me, suggested that he likely doesn't have a great deal of knowledge about either topic and wasn't too interested in learning. Rather, it looked as though he was more trying to make a point that it's inconsistent and possibly hypocritical for people to oppose gay "conversion therapy" while supporting people's right to choose gender reassignment/sex affirmation surgery.

It did not feel appropriate for me, as a cis person with limited knowledge and experience myself, to turn the conversation into a Trans* 101 forum as that, to my knowledge, would have been a conversation about trans* people's autonomy and experiences that was taking place without actual trans* people's voices. So, I tried to steer the conversation back to the original topic of my post, which was the abusive nature of gay "conversion therapy" itself.

My thinking was that, as someone trying to be an ally to trans* people, I wanted to say something to let this guy know that maybe he wasn't the most informed about trans* issues, but that I also didn't want to try to speak for trans* people or to suggest that I was okay with trans* people's experiences being reduced to an uninformed man's abstract, intellectual exercise or game of "gotcha." (Well, all of that, plus my belief that Debating Gender with anti- and nonfeminists can be like gargling with matches and gasoline. I mean really, how many times do I have to entertain the argument that "But but but men and women are just different. Even a toddler knows that" as though it's a genius contribution to the gender discourse?)

And yet, problematically, I also found that the men within the conversation did not grant my voice, as the author of the original piece and as an actual gay woman the piece intimately affects, the same sort of deference and respect as that of fellow feminist and equality-minded (and non-queer male) blogger, Barry, within the conversation.

Although I had explained that I wanted to steer the conversation following my article about "conversion therapy" more toward the topic of gay "conversion therapy," the male participants lauded Barry for, unlike me, being respectful and "model[ing] a correct response" for continuing to respond to the commenter who instead wanted everyone to talk about the Consistency Of Opposing Conversion Therapy While Supporting Trans* People's Rights to Have Surgery They Want To Have. 

One of the commenters called me "abusive" and "dehumanizing" for assuming one of the other commenters was not transgender, even though from my previous experience with the commenter in question I know that he contributes to an anti-LGBT blog whose participants have a history of deliberately mis-gendering trans* people, who opposes equality, and who refers to trans* people as "they" rather than "we."

You know..... this is no Startling Revelation, but it's almost like if a woman's being assertive, people who don't tend to think critically about gender can't help but see her as an abusive bitch who is inflicting severe human rights violations upon them by not demurely agreeing with everything they say and not dropping everything she's doing to read their half dozen linked articles and answer their resulting barrage of uninformed poorly-written questions, while they simultaneously give a man who might be disagreeing with them big time props for merely Not Being An Asshole in a conversation.

(And I mean no offense to Barry, he's great! My point here is to note the disparate ways two generally civil people are viewed by others, a disparate view that I speculate might be based upon our different genders. As Julia Serrano has noted in her book Whipping Girl, she could engage in the exact same behavior and people would categorize her behavior very differently depending upon whether she was presenting as a man or a woman).

I'm not sure if I have a big huge point to make here, other than to spark a discussion on what people think being a good ally consists of, both on Internet and in non-Internet interactions. Because, you know, it can be surreal to experience both relative privilege and marginalization within the same conversation. That can be... I don't know, tricky and frustrating to navigate, and for white cis men who are heterosexual, wow, I think it must be pretty cool to be operating under the assumption in so many conversations that one is somehow Standing Above the Fry and has an especially-objective, neutral take on so many situations.

(I've noted a tendency, for instance, for some privileged folks to bark things like, "You're wrong" as though of course they're just stating an objective fact, as opposed to a, "I think you're wrong," a statement acknowledging that the declaration is emanating from an actual person that might have actual biases and misconceptions.)

To end here, I'll note that I get many private emails from folks saying they admire the way I engage with people who are really hostile, indicating that many people read comment threads and see people being abusive but who nonetheless remain silent. Even as I understand that sometimes people have entirely reasonable reasons for not engaging, I admit that I have at times felt frustrated by the silence of the crowds, those Internet "bystanders" to abusive, sexist, racist, cissexist, transphobic, and other problematic behavior in various forums.
  
What I think is important for people of relative privilege who are trying to be allies to be mindful of is that, by virtue of not being members of the particular marginalized group we're allied with, our voices are often seen by outsiders as more objective, more civil, and carrying more authority.  I also think it's important to know that our voices are not, actually, more objective, more civil, and possessive of more authority on the topic at hand.

If someone tells us that, unlike that big mean marginalized person, we are being So Thoughtful, maybe think about that and use our privilege to suggest that maybe the person who thinks that needs to rethink their perceptions of the other person. Back people up.

Okay Then

 [Content note: Homobigotry, reference to child abuse]

Anti-gay advocates, professional and amateur alike, can often be found making up their own strange, scary-sounding lingo in order to advance their cause of opposing anything and everything gay.

Writing at the Americans For Truth [sic] About Homosexuality (AFTAH) blog*, Matt Barber writes about how he's not a happy camper about recent efforts to ban the "conversion therapy" that purports to turn gay, bisexual, and lesbian people into heterosexuals:

"Recently, on our nationally syndicated radio program 'Faith & Freedom,' Mat Staver and I discussed the degree to which such bans, or 'Sandusky Laws,' come between counselor and client, hurt children, and trample the rights of religious freedom and sexual self-determination.

Despite intense, politically motivated denials from many on the left, research has established the astonishing frequency to which a 'gay identity' or 'sexual orientation' stems from childhood sexual abuse.  Sandusky Laws abuse these children all over again." [emphasis added]

Oh ree-hee-heeally. Sandusky Laws, eh? We're calling that a thing now, are we?

Sure.

"Sandusky Law" seems to be a moniker that Team Homobigot has invented in order to associate bans on "conversion therapy" with convicted child molestor Jerry Sandusky. Mat Staver "explains" in the AFTAH article:

"'Under SB 1172, a young boy sexually molested by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky who develops an identity crisis, emotional stress and who begins to experience unwanted same-sex attractions will be further hurt by a law that deprives him and his family of the option of receiving counsel that aligns with their religious and moral beliefs.'"

Barber goes ahead and drops the term "Sandusky Law" into the article several more times, like if it's repeated enough times people might start to think of bans on "conversion therapy" as a Really Bad Thing.

Just to refresh everyone's memory, as I wrote about last week, here is what happens at "conversion therapy":

"The [Southern Poverty Law Center's] complaint, which can be found here (PDF), details the bases of conversion therapy and methods purported to prevent and cure homosexuality including having boys shower with their fathers, having boys beat a pillow 'meant to represent the patient's mother,' having clients removing their clothing during individual and group therapy sessions, cuddling others of the same sex, and being 'subjected to ridicule as 'faggots' and 'homos' in mock locker room and gym class scenarios.'"

Gosh, it's almost like, well, given the descriptions of the abusive and psychologically damaging methods of "conversion therapy," it seems like if anything warrants being associated with Sandusky that something is "conversion therapy."

But alas, Matt Barber, proponent of "conversion therapy" and Acclaimed Definitely Not A Bigot, doesn't seem to get it. He asks:

"What kind of person politicizes the lives of children, treating them as throwaway pawns in a cynical game of political chess?"

 What kind indeed.


*Note: I'm purposefully not linking to AFTAH's odious website, but the article in question can be easily found by copying and pasting the quotes I've provided into an Internet search engine.

On Owning One's Religious Beliefs

"What history can do is show that people have to take responsibility for what they activate out of their [religious] tradition. It's not just a given thing one slavlishly follows. You have to be accountable."
-Karen King, Professor of Divinity at Harvard, quoted in "The Gospel According to King, The Smithsonian

One of my biggest frustrations over the years in interacting with some religious folks has been their complete unwillingess to own their religious beliefs and consequent rhetoric.

If you tell them they're anti-gay or anti-woman, for instance, because they think homosexualiy is immoral or that the ordination of women shouldn't be allowed, a response I sometimes get is, "It's not me who thinks that, it's God. It's just the Truth."

Well, okay.

But if a person's going to make these moral conclusions with such utter conviction, conclusions that at once hurt actual people and are completely unprovable, yeah, I think religious people who activate these particular beliefs from their religion, out of all the beliefs that could be activated and amplified in the world, need to step up and own it.

If the god your promote and revere is anti-gay and anti-woman, maybe you are too.

ACLU Women in Combat Suit: A Guide For Gender Traditionalists

The ACLU is suing the US Department of Defense for its exclusion of women in combat roles in the military.

Let me just summarize the suit and pre-emptively rebut gender traditionalists' responses that they'll undoubtedly render without even reading the complaint (PDF) or knowing any other details of this suit (all quotations are from the cited complaint):

• "The battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan lack any clear boundaries or front lines..... As a result, servicewomen across the Armed Forces, including the Plaintiffs, have risked their lives and continue to risk their lives serving in combat in our nation's active theatres of war."

• One of the plaintiffs successfully completed a military training program "widely regarded as one of the most physically and mentally demanding forms of training offered to military personnel." She completed rescue missions and was involved in ground combat, ultimately being awarded a Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross with a Valor Device.

• Another plaintiff went on missions in Afghanistan with male combat arms soldiers, usually serving as the only woman. "[T]hey were dropped off together by helicopter in the mountains, and they wore the same body armor and carried the same weapons."

• Another plaintiff, a Marine, "lived and worked with" male infantry Marines in the same living and working conditions, managing the same lack of privacy, and going on daily patrols with the men while wearing the same body armor, carrying the same weapons, and encountering ground combat. In order to accommodate the Dept. of Defense's combat exclusion policy, the women "were often taken out of crucial missions" and "were forced to travel to and from the base on dangerous roads," artificially and unnecessarily putting male and female servicemembers at risk for the sake of compliance.

There we go.

I believe these facts rebut "women don't even want to fight in war," "women are incapable of fighting in war," "women on the front lines will harm troop cohesion," and "the physical standards would have to be lowered, resulting in a weaker military."

See, the funny thing is, women aren't a monolithic group, and accordingly don't all have the exact same wants, desires, life goals, attributes, and physical and mental capacities. I mean, it's weird to have to, like, explain that to people as though it's a Startling Revelation, but some people seem truly boggled by the concept of women being individuals.

And, accordingly, even though some financial op-ed reporter can't imagine his little girls ever wanting to serve in the military and seems to think that having daughters makes him a Gender Expert qualified to speak on all women's wants and competencies, the other funny thing is, women already are serving in combat roles.

They just aren't getting credit for it.

And they're not getting credit for their service on the sole basis of their gender, rather than a lack of ability or lack of service. Which, when you think about it beyond bumper sticker gender stereotype slogans, is pretty unfair, as perhaps the most prominent cohesiveness that is apt to be warped by officially recognizing the work that women are already doing is the uninspired black-and-white, toddler-esque view on What Men And Women Are Truly Like that so many people are apparently unable to unstick from their otherwise rational minds.

I hate this saying, but "BOOM."

Sweden Toy Store Offers Gender-Neutral Catalog

A toy store in Sweden has published a gender-neutral toy catalog. From the Wall Street Journal:

"On some pages, girls brandish toy guns and boys wield blow-dryers and cuddle dolls. Top-Toy, a privately-held company, published 12 million catalogs and owns the BR Toys chain, with 303 stores in Northern Europe."

The store has also trained employees to avoid gender stereotypes. As a salesperson explains:

"If someone asks for a present for a 5-year-old girl, we don't automatically take them to the dolls sectio. Instead, we ask them what her interests are." 

Well, yes, that would be the logical thing to do, wouldn't it? But, let's just go ahead and cue the fainting couch cries of "political correctness gone awry!!" (Annnnnnd, yep, read the WSJ comments. Or not.)

When I was about 5, my mother brought home a He-Man toy for me that she had picked up from a garage sale. When she gave it to me, I said something along the lines of, "That's for boys!" When she told me that it was okay for girls to play with "boys'" toys (not to be confused with boy-toys), it was like a whole new world opened up for me right then and there.

Up until then, I was playing only with "girl" toys because I thought those were the only toys girls were, like, legally "allowed" to play with. After this belief was revealed to be a myth, my gaggle of childhood friends and I had made our toys have many cross-GI Joe/Barbie/Popple/Transformers adventures, wars, and romances.

That's apparently really scary to defenders of "traditional gender roles." 

SPLC Sues Conversion Therapy Provider

“People who are told repeatedly that they are innately defective are being abused and traumatized. The cost of conversion therapy to gay men and lesbians may be nothing less than emotional devastation. They may spend years recovering from the trauma inflicted upon them.” -Laura Booker, LCSW

Booker was quoted in a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) article announcing that the SPLC has filed a lawsuit charging Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) of violating New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act for providing "conversion therapy" to lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients.

The SPLC's complaint, which can be found here (PDF), details the bases of conversion therapy and methods purported to prevent and cure homosexuality including having boys shower with their fathers, having boys beat a pillow "meant to represent the patient's mother," having clients removing their clothing during individual and group therapy sessions, cuddling others of the same sex, and being "subjected to ridicule as 'faggots' and 'homos' in mock locker room and gym class scenarios."

One of the plaintiffs, a former client, alleges that he suffered depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and other emotional harm both as a result of the therapy itself and when he was subsequently unable to change his sexual orientation after using these services.

In addition to restitution to the plaintiffs, SPLC is requesting the revocation of JONAH's business license.

Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog

Playing At Logic

I guess I'm on a women's ordination kick this week, so here we go. 

Following this article about Mormon and Catholic women seeking ordination, I encountered a number of mansplainy comments absolutely brimming with unquestioned male supremacy. (Not surprising, really, as I would posit that one's tendency to mansplain correlates highly with one's belief, whether implicit or explicit, that men possess superior reasoning faculties).

One in particular stood out as being both condescending and telling. It begins:

“My brothers and I used to 'play priest' when we were growing up. As there is no such thing as a women Catholic bishop, priest or deacon, these women are merely playing too. If a horse is standing in a field and I go up to it and hang a sign around its neck that reads 'cow,' it remains just a horse! Giving a woman a name 'bishop,' 'priest,' or 'deacon' and claiming that she is validly ordained in the Catholic Church is no different. Blessed Pope John Paul II closed the door on this entire issue in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on 5/22/94, confirmed on 10/28/95 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Responsum to a Dubium...."

The first general theme of note here is that, apparently, if enough people believe that a very important man says that something is true than that something is, indeed, true, even if that something is in no way provable and is, in fact, a human construction. In this case, the commenter notes that only men can be priests because some other man said that only men can be priests.

I guess where "faith" comes in, is where the faithful collectively ignore the circular reasoning process involved and believe that it's not "just a man" proclaiming this truth, it's The Importantest Man Of All who is proclaiming this truth.

Two, notice how the commenter compares women priests to children playing at being priests. Compare this statement to the reasoning process for excluding women from the priesthood that posits that, unlike women, men possess the same kind of body that Jesus had and that, therefore, men are uniquely closer to god than women are.

Both notions infantalize women, suggesting that women are not full human beings in the way that men are. Unlike men, we are told we lack certain things (or a certain super special something?) that preclude us from positions of leadership and authority.

I think back to the way so many conversations with men, about abortion, have gone in my life. They often, but not always, carry a quite different tone than my conversations with women about the issue.

Many "pro-life" religious men, when speaking at women about the issue, speak as though they are uniquely qualified to render information, advice, and opinions about the bodies of people with uterii. They assume their words, and silly, uterus-negating moral analogies like "if someone owes me a debt, I can't just kill him," carry an extra special weight of authority in the conversation. I sense this assumption when they become genuinely befuddled to find they are engaging in a debate with a woman for whom A Man Said It, I Believe It isn't an operating philosophy of life.
 
My point here is that I reckon that a religion's tendencies to infantilize women, even if it pretends to pedestalize women, is likely related to its tendency to reject the notion that women are full human beings, with actual, full reasoning powers and the right to retain autonomy of our own bodies.

Superior Bigots In Need of Protections

As a critic of male supremacist religions, I have been following the Church of England's recent decision to reject the introduction of female bishops. For some background, the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy approved the measure, but the House of Laity did not garner the required 2/3 vote to approve the measure.

Yes, in 2012, people are still having this quaint little debate about Women In Religious Leadership and are warning of Very Dire (yet unspecified) Things happening as a result of women's increased leadership.

Some of the reasons put forth for rejecting female bishops have been frustratingly amusing. From the BBC:

"The key concerns of opponents within the Church are over provisions for traditionalist parishes opposed to women bishops to request supervision by a stand-in male bishop.

Critics of the legislation said it did not provide enough safeguards for the objectors."

Safeguards.

I find that amusing because, so rarely, do we see people so explicitly admit how fragile the notion of men being the super-duper-est, most special gender is and how, due to this fragility, this notion of allegedly inherent male superiority needs to be very carefully protected from the competing notion that women are not, actually, second-class creations.

I'm reminded of that high school kid in Iowa who refused to wrestle his female high school opponent in the state tournament. In his case, I somewhat excused his behavior on account of his age, suggesting that he was likely echoing his religion and society's teachings about the "proper" roles of boys and girls-- which doesn't make it okay, but does give him a benefit of the doubt that he hasn't had much opportunity yet to think critically about gender.

I do not grant the same benefit of the doubt to the adults who willfully and consciously reject women in leadership positions- whether secular or religions. Such people reject the class of all women from various positions, and they do so not because of the content of our character, intellect, or actual ability, but because we are women. Just women. And that, apparently, tells them all they need to know about our capabilities.

This treatment of women, we are to believe, is still okay, moral, commonsensical, true, and righteous. In 2012.

Whatever.

The lackadaisical acceptance of male supremacy under the banner of religious freedom, unity, and tolerance is why I am increasingly frustrated by newfangled "feminist"/gender egalitarian claims that "men and women are oppressed in equal and opposite ways." In seeking to attract men to feminism, I fear we sometimes concede far too much.

"Everyone" Will Support Marriage Equality By 2030

Wait, everyone?

Sure, why not.  It's Friday, I'm feeling okay with absolutes. Or Absolut.

Whatever.

My point is that this article kind of posits that Willow and Tara are largely responsible for the Millenial generation's acceptance of same-sex marriage in particular and homosexuality in general.

I swear this is not a drunk post. I think I'm mostly experiencing end-of-election-cycle fatigue where I don't have any spare ounces of sooper seriousness left in me at the moment, if you can believe it.

Talk about stuff now.  Preferably stuff like our favorite fictional and non-fictional lesbian and bisexual women on television. In general, I miss Willow and Tara being on TV, and I'm still not okay with how that all turned out.

Fun With Shopping

So I was browsing through the J. Crew catalog that inexplicably gets delivered to us and I became fascinated by the the varied names of clothing colors. (I get this way with respect to wall paint colors as well).

Did you know that men's pants come in a color called "charcoal herringbone," a color which I interpret to be "dark grey," and that in the women's pants section seems to be called "dark charcoal"?

Other favorite "men's colors" that were entirely missing from the women's pants color selection include "raw steel" and "grey crow's foot." OMG, so manly!

But don't worry, the women get "bright poppy" and "vibrant fuchsia" to make up for it.

All of these colors, by the way, are totally fine in my opinion. It's just a reflection of prevailing gender stereotypes that these colors get segregated into separate men's and women's sections and that simple colors like "pink" and "grey" likewise get paired with "masculine" and "feminine" qualities like steel and flowers.

And can we also talk about "boyfriend shirts" and "boyfriend pants" for a minute?

I don't get it.

So.... we, like, buy these items of clothing and pretend they are our "boyfriend's" clothes? They seem to be, I don't know, "girly versions" of man clothes that women can wear and still dress mostly adhere to the proper standards of femininity.  Will the fashion police arrest me if I buy "boyfriend pants" even though I don't have a boyfriend?  What if a gal wants to shop from the men's section, can she still do that?

And, is it okay if boys wear these "boyfriend" clothes?

Shopping is hard.

Tips For Hostile Internet Emailers

Just as a helpful hint for the day, here's how commenters who think I'm a Very Bad Person can have more productive offline conversations with me.

First, and most importantly, it would be extremely helpful if one operates from the assumption that I'm operating from a place of good faith and that we, therefore, might be having a miscommunication issue rather than a "Fannie is SO mean" issue.

Since that's an assumption that some people are utterly incapable of granting to anyone not in their cadre of like-minded folks, preferring instead to see villains and monsters in every simple Internet disagreement, let's continue.

When writing one's email tirade to me, one must remember that it's simply not an omen of good things to come when the command "don't be offended" prefaces one's commentary. When I see that order, I just know someone's about to say some really mean shit.

Secondly, when writing one's email tirade, also be aware that I rarely think (or care) about all the minute details of Internet conversations that are, say, more than a week old.  No, I don't remember what "H" said at 4:52 pm 2 months ago and how when "R" responded at 5:07 pm that was totally mean but I didn't even say anything about that mean comment when I called out "S's" comment at 3:34.  

It's like, at some point, you just have to move on with life, you know, and let things go.

A month is like 12 years in Internet time and while dude might remember every real and imagined harm that has ever happened to him on Internet, the truth is, I don't exist to Answer For his Totally Objective belief that my boundary-setting statements about his particular boorish behavior are "distasteful" and unfairly applied to him while I purportedly let "everyone else" off the hook for doing "the same thing." (Hint: It's probably not the "same thing," actually).

When I see particularly asshole-ish behavior I often will call it out, and if I don't call out other crappy behavior happening on the same forum or even my own blog, well I'm not sure what to say other than that I'm not, like, the Hall Monitor of Internet, I don't get paid for any of this, and I can't and won't "catch" every instance of People Being Mean On Internet and, hell, I won't even try to do so just for the sake of being morally consistent.

I don't have the time, I don't have the energy, and I actually do have other things to do in life. 

If dude wants to start paying me a salary to do that, I might consider it, but until then, I don't know, maybe he can start his own blog and come up with, like, the Perfect Commend Moderation System and tell us all what the secret to being perfect is.

Along those lines, I'm also not interested in reading line-by-line, bold-faced, and bracketed accusations, "rebuttals," and paranoid responses to my weeks'-old comments, especially if he, in emails to me, shifts from condescendingly writing about me in the 3rd person rather than to me.  That's such a strange phenomenon I've encountered other times on the Internet. Some bigoted men will, without further ado, stop directly talking with me in a comment thread and instead start talking about me, as though they're Totally Objective Observers having a private monologue moment about me to "the audience."

It's very bizarre and entitled behavior to just shut out a person from a conversation within a conversation about that person's rights.

Anyway, I do think this particular dude, the Angry Emailer that is, is kind of new to Internet conversations and blogging, so I'm deliberately not linking to the forum in which this weeks-old convo took place. It would feel kind of like making fun of a toddler who is still in that self-centric phase where ze thinks that covering hir eyes means that other people can't see hir.  It also seems like lots of people, including myself at one point, just kinda have to go through that "I think someone is wrong on Internet and if I don't rebut each and every point I think that person is wrong about, no matter how trivial, I might die!!!" phase.

My point is that I hope in time people like this guy learn that, believe it or not, lots of people who participate in blogging don't exist solely, or even at all, to be mean to people like him. It's actually quite self-centered to think that I sit around thinking of ways to be so unfair to him, or to anyone really, through my blogging and commentary. And, it's just not productive to continually assume the worst about other people's motives on Internet. 

On a related note about vilifying one's political opponents, I'm still figuring out ways to effectively engage with those who are unable to see their opponents as anything but aggressive villains.  The other day, for instance, I had the experience of telling an opponent of same-sex marriage that his argument was confusing to me, asking him to clarify, and then asking him if he could provide some practical solutions to his stated concerns.

I shit you not, this guy described my comment as a "new line of attack" and dropped a couple names of logical fallacies that he thought I was"committing"  by.... asking him to clarify his position because I didn't understand his argument.

It can be difficult to even know what to say to that, really, other than, "Wut?

I've learned that it's far easier for some people to accuse rather than to engage. To engage means that one sees one's political opponents as human, and however imperfect, worthy of dialoguing with. If one insists on accusing, no matter how much evidence of good faith the other person renders, one is quite literally acting obstinately devoted to one's own opinions and prejudices about what kind of person the political opponent is.

Dare I say it, it's the very definition of bigotry.

Giving Him Airs

I was reading an article in The Smithsonian the other day and came across the following description:

"Amone, a tall, bespectacled physician with a baritone voice and an air of quiet authority...."

An air of quiet authority.

I see that phrase sometimes in various novels, articles, and descriptions of people and am never sure what it means. I think it's a lazy phrase, if I may nitpick. A writer or reporter should show the person being quietly authoritative rather than just telling us that this person has a mysterious, amorphous, and unspecified air of quiet authority about him and expecting us to take the writer/reporter's word on that.

And yes, I've never actually seen a woman, or a person with, say, a soprano voice, described as having an air of quiet authority.

Julia Serrano, in her book Whipping Girl, talks extensively about how even though she acted the same way before and after she transitioned from male to female, people treated her much differently based on her gender presentation. She writes, "[As a woman my] behaviors are still the same; it is only the context of my body (whether people see me as female or male) that has changed."

Likewise, I would reckon that when most people say that a person has an air of quiet authority, that air of quiet authority is less a thing that a person has and more of perception that other people have of him. It is something that is granted to him, if you will, not primarily because of things he actually does, but primarily because of his maleness, and particular physical traits and characteristics that he possesses in conjunction with that.

Will the Demographics of the Republican Base Change?

During the run-up to this year's election and afterwards, I've read many articles suggesting that, due to the US's changing demographics, the Republican party will not be able to be successful in the future if it continually relies on primarily catering to its base of white (male, I would add) voters.

For one instance of this argument, see Thomas Edsall in The New York Times opinion blogs:

"The demographic threat to the Republican Party grows out of the fact that every four years the electorate becomes roughly two percent less white and two percent more minority, primarily as a result of the increase in the Hispanic and Asian-American populations and the relatively low birth rate among whites. By my computation, this translates into a modest 0.85 percentage point gain for Democrats and 0.85 percentage point loss for Republicans every four years. In other words, the changing composition of the electorate gives Democrats an additional built-in advantage of 1.7 percentage points every four years."

Any theories, predictors, or thoughts on who the Republicans will try to recruit to make up for the loss of those white fonts of unexamined privilege (at best) and dignity-denying moralizers who comprise its base?

What strategies will Republicans employ to attract new voters?

'Member when they tried to capture the lady vote in 2008 with the Sarah Palin schtick? I predict something similarly tacky and out of touch. Maybe an increase in dorky white guys rapping at political rallies or, on a more sinister level, the creation of more divisions between marginalized groups that the white Republican base has traditionally not given a shit about and, in fact, whose rights they have historically opposed.

Relatedly, I've seen many post-election incarnations of white homophobic, anti-feminist conservative dudes squawking statements like, "The end/armageddon/judgment/apocalypse is near!!" and "That's it, I'm checking out. This country is on its own!" which I think is just downright hilarious. (I also think Internet is calling it the Democalypse?) 

The message there is that if a white base no longer controls who gets elected, a black guy gets re-elected, and if white guys check out of the system, then women, people of color, immigrants, LGBT people, and other Others will of course be so incompetent at running things that the Entire System will collapse. White guys created their own formal and informal affirmative action programs in the public sphere for themselves throughout much of US history, and now many of them are still operating under the assumption that this historical dominance of white men was due primarily to them.... actually being superior at public sphere stuff than women and people of color.

They really think highly of themselves, some of these white male (and some female) Republicans.

The end of their gender, race, and class privileges are possibly nearing, sure, and that's a good thing.
Unfortunately, some of these guys are so mired in fauxbjective egocentricity that they can't help mistaking their impending loss of unearned privilege for a worldwide cataclysm for all people everywhere.

And then, others are so out of touch and hellbent on preserving their privilege that they seem to think the Republicans' Big Problem is that they just weren't homophobic, xenophobic, anti-woman, and anti-choice enough!

Sure, players, go with that strategy in 2016. Or better yet, keep shrugging yourselves, and your supremacist opinions, into indifference and irrelevancy.

Just A Thought

If a straight person really truly "doesn't care" what out lesbian, gay, and bisexual politicians, leaders, and celebrities "do in their bedrooms," then one likewise doesn't get all huffy-puffy resentful of the fact that they talk openly about being lesbian, gay, or bisexual and publicly identify as such.

It seriously grates on my "I don't even see race" nerves when people act like they "don't even care about people's sexual orientation" when (a) they so obviously can't handle being reminded of non-heterosexuality's existence and (b) the fact is, lots of people do still care, and not in a good way, that some people are not heterosexual and they would love nothing more than for us to either become 100% hetero, become "ex-gay," die out, or retreat silently and defeated back into the closet.

Leftist Gender Warrior gives a special lesbian fist bump to Tammy Baldwin:



Talk about the election today, or whatevs.

On "Genderless Institution"

Circling back to yesterday's post, I want to talk today about that strange phrase "genderless institution," that some anti-equality advocates have invented to describe same-sex marriage.

(This phrase is similar to the less-frequently used "neutered marriage" that the inhabitants of one marginal, bizarre "marriage defense" blog use).

The reasoning behind "genderless institution" seems to be that same-sex marriage will purportedly demonstrate that "gender doesn't matter" with respect to marriage and that, quite possibly, the persons within the institution are or could become devoid of gender.  And, on one point, I somewhat agree: Same-sex marriage being legal does demonstrate that gender doesn't matter as much as many traditionalists and gender essentialists claim it does.

Most biological sex differences between men and women have been greatly exaggerated, and women are certainly not the "opposite" of men. Indeed, given that I would question if even two people are truly complete opposites or complements, how strange it is that humanity is so thoughtlessly treated as though any random woman will be the opposite/complement of any random man by sheer virtue of their purportedly Inherent Gender Essences.

This point is not to say that all people are or should be inherently androgynous, but that society needs to become more accepting of the reality that lots of different ways exist to be authentic men and women- including identifying outside of that binary - and that some of us who do identify as men or women can simultaneously differentiate for ourselves when and how much "gender matters" or doesn't matter in different contexts of our lives.

I mean, wow, that seems weird to have to articulate that people have different experiences of gender, but I also know that concept is difficult for sound-bitey thinkers who insist that one has to choose one, and only one, totally-concordant, grand, sweeping theory about gender wherein either "gender always matters, therefore men and women are total opposites" or "gender never matters, therefore we must live in a gender neutral society."

I guess it's difficult for some to acknowledge that reality is not often neatly-contained and summarized by bumper sticker phrases and uninspired gender stereotypes.

So, where was I?

Oh, right. Here's the thing about "genderless institution." The phrase suggests that same-sex marriage is an institution devoid of gender- as though if a woman marries a woman, then the institution is androgynous, and as though "gender" is a thing that is created only by a combination of a man and woman, and that therefore a group of women or a group of men by themselves do not have genders.

I guess that kind of conclusion is a logical result when one thinks of men and women as opposites wherein men and women, apparently, only find meaning in being a man or a woman in terms of how that identity relates to, and is above or below, the "opposite" gender." Under this thinking, men and women are not identities that stand on their own terms, they are relational identities, always dependent upon the existence of an "opposite."

Basically, my point here is to say that I just don't think the anti-SSM folks have really thought this "genderless institution" thing through.

I mean, if they're going to be all, "words like marriage mean things," then the least Team Ultimate Word Deciders could do is stop making up words that aren't even accurate.

I am a woman. As is my partner. We both have a gender, and that remains true even though we are married to each other and not to men. Neither our partnership, nor the institution that recognizes it, is "genderless."

Parallels in Invisibility

From a recent New York Times article about gays in Pakistan:

"Homosexual acts remain illegal in Pakistan, based on laws constructed by the British during colonial rule. No civil rights legislation exists to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination.

 

But the reality is far more complex, more akin to 'don’t ask, don’t tell' than a state-sponsored witch hunt. For a long time, the state’s willful blindness has provided space enough for gays and lesbians. They socialize, organize, date and even live together as couples, though discreetly.

 

One journalist, in his early 40s, has been living as a gay man in Pakistan for almost two decades. 'It’s very easy being gay here, to be honest,' he said, though he and several others interviewed did not want their names used for fear of the social and legal repercussions. 'You can live without being hassled about it,' he said, 'as long as you are not wearing a pink tutu and running down the street carrying a rainbow flag.'”

As I read this article, I kept thinking that all of the anti-gay rhetoric I've encountered over the years suggests that many people in the US would like to see a society much like what's described herein. 

Some people want to see gay sex re-criminalized. Some are resentful of gay pride parades and can't stand it when the reality that homosexuality, and non-heterosexual people, exist in the real world is "shoved down their throats" by, say, two men or two women walking hand in hand or being represented in school textbooks like how Regular People are represented in textbooks.

Anti-SSM campaigns often trade on this resentment and desire to invisibilize lives.

For instance, the anti-SSM Maryland Marriage Alliance's "Consequences of Redefining Marriage" list warns:

"Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution. In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in class."

Aside from the strange lingo "genderless institution," this dire warning, which was also used extensively in California's Prop 8 battle in 2008, suggests that merely learning about the existence of gay marriage is some sort of threat to children and to society.  And, well, I'm not sure what the appropriate compromise on this point would even be. Would these opponents be more willing to support SSM if they could be assured that its existence would never be referenced or acknowledged in public schools?

 

What I find to be rather remarkable is that it's often opponents of equality who lambast liberal so-called "political correctness" that purportedly prevents people from talking about the truth and reality, yet here is an actual political campaign seeking to prevent people from talking about the truth and reality.

With recent court trends showing a judicial willingness to acknowledge animus-based motivations for anti-equality laws, propositions, and amendments, a big post-Prop-8 anti-SSM talking point has been that opponents of SSM are not bigots and that they like gay people well enough. 

 

If that's the case, they might want to consider how denigrating to one's dignity it can be, and how bigoted it appears, to suggest that children and society are better off if homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and/or lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are discreet, invisible, and erased from reality.

[Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog]

Pssst, ladies....

Doesn't this pamphlet totally convince you not to vote?



In case this image is difficult to read, here's a transcript (emphases in original, obvi):

"Vote NO On Woman Suffrage

BECAUSE 90% of the women either do not want it, or do not care.

BECAUSE it means competition of women with men instead of co-operation.

BECAUSE 80% of the women eligible to vote are married and can only double or annul their husbands' votes.

BECAUSE it can be of no benefit commensurate with the additional expense involved.

BECAUSE in some States more voting women than voting men will place the Government under petticoat rule.

BECAUSE it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur."

Now, dear readers, all of these "reasons" are gems, aren't they? From the sooper-sciuntific percentages that definitely bolster this document's credibility, to the still-used-today reason that we shan't grant rights to minorities because because because... VeRy BaD ThInGs might happen down the road!

What's most interesting, I think, is the contradictory overall tone of the piece wherein allowing women to vote is at once No Big Deal since women can "only" double or annul the vote of their hubbies and yet allowing women the vote is Very Dangerous because it will place the government under Petticoat Rule!!

It's like, the folks who wrote this pamphlet were incredibly threatened at the prospect of women gaining this basic democratic right, but they were trying to act like they weren't threatened at all.


Fun Fact: In 1874, the Supreme Court of the United States implicitly found that women were neither "persons" nor full "citizens" under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

In Minor v. Happersett, the Court cited the 14th Amendment's order that:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws."

After a lengthy and (in my opinion unnecessary, given their determination to affirm their already-held view on suffrage) discussion of citizenship, the men of the Supreme Court unanimously said out of one side of their collective mouth that women were citizens, and out of the other side of their mouth they "explained" that women just weren't the types of citizens who got to vote.

That is, they weren't the right types of "persons" that the 14th Amendment actually granted important rights to.

Fun times.

Christian Men on Marginal Females

So I got into a Facebook convo with a fresh-from-undergrad 20-something-year-old Christian guy who has Big Ideas about how to stop abortion. Namely, he thinks "we" should tell people not to have sex if they don't want to get pregnant, and abortions will mostly stop.

I wish that were a straw version of his argument, but that's really it.

This font of unparalleled wisdom likewise suggested this public health strategy to two very intelligent women at least a decade older than him who also devote pretty much every day of their lives to gender issues and social justice, as though he had lots to teach these women about the abortion debate.

So, as you can imagine, this dude quickly became my favorite!

During this conversation, he continually referred to men as men and to women as "females," as though females, rather than "women," were the proper equivalent to the word "men."

Now, you may notice that I made note of this guy's religion- Christianity. He is a friend of a friend, but his Facebook profile suggested that this guy is Evangelical. His profile picture is of himself and his wife. In the photo, he is centered and she is standing behind him, a bit to the... margin.

I didn't delve into this analysis on Facebook in my conversation with him. For, in my experience, even suggesting that a non-feminist Christian man's worldview of himself possessing intellectual and objective superiority over women might be a bit biased by his male-centric religion, and that this worldview is likewise reflected in his, say, photos and language usage mostly brings about reflexive, projecty "yeah well you're the real sexist" accusations.

As we all know, pointing out how some men are male supremacist and sexist is actually worse than them being male supremacist and sexist.

So, naturally, I turn to the wonderful denizens of Internet Feminism to engage my analysis.

It's indicative, right, of seriously problematic (dare I say? yep!) patriarchal views when a man calls men "men" while calling women "females," especially in a debate in which he is opposing women's right to control their own bodies?

Indeed, I contend that this guy's clinical labeling of women suggests a worldview in which men are autonomous, uniquely-enlightened, and central beings with Sooper Dooper Big Ideas under which "females," in our zoo-animal-like non-autonomous-consent-lacking state, must submit.

Picture of the Day

My second favorite thing about this picture of two women (of whatevs actual sexual orientation) kissing in front of people at an anti-gay rally in France is the pearl-clutching, ass-over-heels-on-the-fainting-couch faces of those in the background who look like they're thinking (or possibly saying), "Well, I never!"

Except for that one lady who's all secretly like, "Now that's what I'm talking 'bout."

Awkward Book Review of the Day

So, I just had the awkward experience of excitedly buying my first lesbian fictional novel in years, Meredith Maran's A Theory of Small Earthquakes, only to find that it has perhaps the most unlikable protagonist I've met in a long time.

The premise of this book is that the protagonist goes to college, is lonely, has a crappy family life, and ends up meeting and falling in love with another female student. Who she met in a Women's Studies course. Taught by a caricature of a radical feminist lesbian and attended by other caricatures of radical feminists. Who she makes fun of.

But I digress, the main plot is that the protagonist and her girlfriend stay together for many years and then *spoiler alert* (is it a spoiler alert if the following Big Plot Reveal is explicitly stated within the Amazon summary of the book?) the protagonist cheats on her partner with a man, promptly has a baby with him, and ends up leaving the Lesbian Lifestyle specifically so she can have a more Normal Life (and why does living as a gay person always constitute living a "lifestyle," but those who live in heterosexual relationships are making a "life"?).

Anyway, so the premise of such a book is fine. Women leaving women for men, women leaving men for women- whatever, it all happens in real life and portraying that is fine.

What I found unlikable about the protagonist wasn't that she left her partner for a man, but that she took so many actions and had so many thoughts throughout the book that were incredibly homophobic, ashamed, anti-feminist, entitled, and self-centered. So much so that I consciously found myself rooting against her and rooting for all of the people she was hurting throughout the book-- her former partner, her boyfriend, and her child.

So, I guess this is more of an open thread.

What does one do when one reads a book that centers around such an unlikable character? Continue reading the book? I did, and finished it!  But that's mostly because I'm stubborn and persistent, not because I felt super compelled to Find Out What Happens. In fact, by the time *spoiler alert* the protagonist had convinced her ex-girlfriend to risk her health and become a surrogate for protagonist and her boyfriend, I cringed my way through the book with a "what the hell is she going to do next?" attitude.