Fun with "Devil's Advocates"

Okay friendly readers, I have a debating experiment for you today:

Step 1: Witness a debate about gender and feminism.

Step 2: Witness a man jumping in with a statement like, “Look, I’m all for equality, but [insert anti-equality/anti-feminist statement]” or “I consider myself a feminist, but let me just play Devil’s Advocate here, [insert anti-equality/anti-feminist statement].”

Step 3: Respond by asking him what, specifically, tenets of feminism and equality for women he supports and what injustices primarily exist today for women. Like, ask him to actually delineate them for all to see.

Because, well, what I often find is that those men who feel compelled to both assert that they support equality/feminism while simultaneously articulating an anti-equality/anti-feminist statement often don’t actually have, when pressed, all that many pro-equality/pro-feminist opinions.  They’re like the “definitely not racist or anything, but” white people who will admit that slavery and saying the n-word are wrong, but when pressed those are pretty much the only two things that count as genuinely racist by their authority.

In fact, oftentimes, the majority of Devil’s-Advocate-Male contributions to conversations about gender and feminism are against equality and feminism.  The blubbering “I’m all for equality” intros are a diversion, whether intentional or not, meant to instill in feminist participants a glimmer of hope that he might, this time, be able to make reasonable contributions to the discourse that go beyond being there to “teach” and dismiss the female perspectives.

Recognize it for what it is. Put him on the spot to delineate his actual points of agreement and disagreement. From there, you can better ascertain the worth of engaging.

"Trolls," Online Civility and Political Agendas

In line with my ongoing interest in Internet civility (and the lack thereof), I've recently read the following articles - mostly about online misogyny.

At Jezebel, Lindy West aptly addresses the myth that Both Sides Are Just As Bad. "Both sides" here being women/feminists versus misogynists/anti-feminists. She writes:

"Broadly speaking, the type of violent, choreographed, overwhelming hate speech currently battering Creasy and Criado-Perez is directly aligned with our male-supremacist power structure (race is a deeply salient factor too, and unpacking that deserves its own article). I'm trying to think of an instance when anonymous women descended, spewing violent rape or castration threats, upon a man for expressing an opinion as innocuous as Criado-Perez's. I can think of instances of funny, political, retaliatory trolling—like when Twitter feminists co-opted the #INeedMasculismBecause hashtag, or when Rick Perry's Facebook page was deluged with questions about menses. But those are not examples of aggression, they are self-defense. They are not analogous to "I will rape you in an alley" or "Don't leave your phone at home, sweetie." They are reactions to misogyny—the same brand of misogyny that fuels internet trolling. They are women speaking to power—the same power structure that empowers and perpetuates anonymous trolls."

I've noted this false moral equation too, previously.

West also talks about the disproportionately positive responses that men often receive for acknowledging misogyny and rape culture when feminist women have been saying similar things for years whilst instead often receiving enormous amounts of aggression. I think that phenomenon puts feminist men and women in an awkward bind. I'm grateful for male allies, but it's also difficult to see feminist observations treated as more valid when they are uttered by men, rather than women.

On the flip side, about a year ago, I read Adrian Chen's article over at Gawker, unmasking a particularly notorious troll abusive Internet user. This particular user was a mass promoter of violence against women, a user of racial slurs, a promoter of anti-Semtism, and an advocate for sexualizing underage girls on Reddit.

Not surprising was his reliance on Reddit's Anything Goes/Free Speech policies, seemingly using those policies to push boundaries Just Because He Could.  Notably, though, the Free Speech Advocate, like so many of them, didn't use his free speech and Internet posting privileges to disparage and celebrate the victimization of white people or men, as a class.

That lends credence to the argument that the real agenda of many Internet abusers isn't the exercise of free speech but, rather, the re-affirmation of a status quo that privileges people like themselves and aims to threaten, demean, and silence everyone else, particularly women. For, even white men likely feel very differently about their precious free speech rights when they, as a group, are maybe on the receiving end of loads of harassment and threats (see also, on Privilege and Fear).

Turns out the guy also had a close behind-the-scenes connection to Reddit administrators, and was himself a moderator.

I mean, what could go wrong, really?

Finally, at Pandagon, Amanda Marcotte notes:

"West is right; it’s time to stop thinking of trolls as idiots who are just seeking attention, and see them for what they are: Misogynists with a political agenda. These are men that absolutely do not want to live in a society where women are treated equally, and they are obsessed with silencing the women online whose writings they rightfully fear are going to help push society in a more feminist direction. They want to harass feminists into silence. If we keep this understanding front and center and discard useless theories about “attention-seeking” or “lulz”, we can begin to have a more productive conversation about what the hell to do about the problem."

Interestingly, the Internet abuser from Reddit noted that he liked to come home from work at night, lay in bed, and post stuff just to get people riled up.  His claim there, however, seemed both more benign than what he was actually doing and inconsistent with his other protestations about free speech and how he was just posting what, in his mind at least, "many people" really thought but can no longer say in our PC Gone Awry culture.

I've said before and I'll re-iterate, for all their talk of free speech values and inclusion, Anything Goes forums are their own hivemind, and they're a hivemind of intimidation, threats, and exclusion. The cultivation of Internet civility is difficult, taking much thought and actual resources.

For instance, Reddit is one of the largest sites on Internet and the company employs 28 people.  Yet according to the Chen article, Reddit relies on about 20,000 volunteers to moderate its forums. Businesses and entities with social media presences could start including moderation costs, or more of them, into their budget line items.

Of course, that might imply that civility is an important goal for social media presences, rather than recognition, page views, and ad revenue.


Related:
On Avoiding the Comments
Online Game Tries Tribunal to Increase Civility

Some Minnesotans Have a Sad About Marriage Equality

“I can’t say we’re bitter. We’re disappointed. It’s people saying, ‘If it’s good for me, I don’t care about anyone else.’ There’s nothing that’s intrinsically evil anymore.”  

This quote's from an article entitled "Some Minnesotans are more sad than bitter over gay marriage," posted in the StarTribune, that has gathered and centered the perspectives of some people who are sad about marriage equality.

Womp wooooooooooooomp.

In addition to the state no longer symbolically saying that homosexuality is "intrinsically evil" (quite an admission there, isn't it?) to some of these citizens this law signals a "deteriorating society," a "disintegrating" "moral compass," and a devaluation of the word "love." One opponent noted that she has "homosexual friends" and that she'll just have to keep on waiting for them to appear willing to listen, to just really listen with an "open heart," to her beliefs about homosexuality being immoral and eventually..... magically not be gay anymore?

Another opponent claimed that with all the texting that happens nowadays:

“There’s no deep thinking anymore. No way to sit down and fully think through an issue.”

I was unaware that the entire campaign in Minnesota, as well as the related DOMA and Prop 8 Supreme Court cases, were conducted entirely by text message.

And, what is it that gives some equality opponents the biggest sad of all? From the article:

"What hurts them most about seeing society change around them? Being called bigots, they said. Feeling forced to accept something they believe is wrong."

Of course.

I like to call this the argumentum ad "I will call you and your lifestyle a symbol of the apocalypse and you must like me for it! 'cuz if you don't, you're SO mean!"

It's silly, really.  Being an actual gay person, I can understand why same-sex couples and queer people would be sad if a marriage equality measure did not pass in their state - you know, given that the denial actually impacts their actual lives.  But, what does it mean to be So Sad that one has "lost" a "right" to deny other people marriage?

To me, it seems as though some equality opponents are sad about marriage equality measures passing because it means they've kind of symbolically flipped positions with gay people in the eyes of the state and, perhaps, the majority of Americans in terms of morality.

Some opponents of equality (and many LGBT people and allies) view a state's failure to recognize same-sex marriage as the state suggesting that homosexuality is immoral (or, say, "intrinsically evil"), a state's recognition of marriage equality might suggest that to oppose homosexuality is, at the least, immoral and no longer socially condoned. Opposing marriage equality, and uttering the opinion that homosexuality is "evil" or "immoral," becomes less and less a thing that is said in polite company.

What some opponents of equality are really sad about, it seems, is that - the marginalization of their homobigoted views. They are free to express their opinions, of course, despite the false cries of "censorship" and so forth. However, they can no longer express their opinion about homosexuality and same-sex marriage whilst still receiving widespread assurance that the state, the legal system, and most people agree with them and think their position is nice, commonsensical, and true.

In more exciting news, lots of other people were happy about marriage equality in Minnesota. (And you can always count on lesbians to show up to a wedding in tie-dye!)

Frankly

In line with Friday's post on the impending end of Google Reader, I'm quite surprised any of you gals even know how to get on Internet .... without the use of this Special Lady Computer, that is. 

But seriously, in addition to one spokesman "insisting" that the product "isn't sexist," the following description tells us just about everything we need to know about it (because who cares about memory, hard drive, processor speed, screen size, or any of that technical mumbo-jumbo right?):

"The Tablet comes preloaded with applications so you can just turn it on and log in to cooking recipes or yoga," Mani Nair, Associate Vice President for Marketing at Eurostar Group, told the Jerusalem Post. "It makes a perfect gadget for a woman who might find difficulties in terms of downloading these applications and it is a quick reference."

I also saw some comments to the effect of how this product Just Shows How Backward the Middle-East is. You know, because pointlessly sex-segregated products based on stereotypes of men and women never happen here in the enlightened US.

Now, let's see.... if I could only find that whatsitmabop that tells me how to "publish" blog posts..... hold on a sec, let me ask my non-existent husband.... ah, there we go....

RSS Feed Alternatives and Stuff

Noooo! 

I don't want the blogs to go away!  Internet, please don't make them go away!

Okay, I'm fine. Really.

But who else uses Google Reader? What are you going to use, if anything, to manage your blog subscriptions after July 1?  Know of any good alternatives?

[Content note: MRA entitlement shit]


And secondly, as a general blogging note, since it's come up yet again in response to this post.... I'm not sure what, other than an incredible amount of asshole-ish entitlement, compels some male trolls to pop in here and suggest that I'm an entitled uppity bitch for having boundaries around what comments are and are not acceptable in this space.

In case there's confusion, the name of this blog is Fannie's Room.

I have created this blog and have been maintaining it and providing content to it for about 6 years. So, of course I get to say who is and isn't allowed to comment here and what comments get to be deleted.  Of course I don't have to engage MRA trolls if I don't want to. 

Why on earth would an MRA troll think otherwise?  Why on earth would he think it's some sort of "threat" that he's posted asinine comments that aren't 10% as brilliant as he thinks they are and taken "screen shots" of them? Is there, like, a Super Internet Court that I'm not aware of where someone is the Ultimate Decider about who a Winner is an Internet Conversation? Why would he go to different locations just to get around an IP address ban so he can continue commenting here, demanding that people interact with him, in a space in which neither he nor his comments are wanted?

(I realize the answer to most of these questions is "Oh, right, that whole MRA outlook")

So, I know this blog started out all simply like "Oh, RSS feeds la la la," and then I totally diverged.  But, you know, this comes up with relative frequency so I thought I'd just roll with these thoughts today.

Because my larger point is this, if a man is incapable of grasping the notion that a woman is of course entitled to have boundaries at her own blog, why would I ever think he would in any way treat my arguments or opinions seriously on any substantive, serious issues like hate crimes or rape against women?

Why would I think he's here on anything other than a "gotcha" MRA mission?  Why would I think he's here to do anything other than Teach The Lady Feminists?

"Don't Threaten Me For Saying This, But...."

Since I wrote this post on the way some men precede their conversations with feminists with a "joke" along the lines of, "Don't kill me for saying this, but...", I've seen men engage that "joke" about a handful of times on Internet.

When the problematic nature of that "joke" has been pointed out to them, they've either remained silent or insisted that they had only good intentions in saying it.  Which, while I think they may have thought they had good intentions in making the "joke," I question the accuracy of that description given that the very crux of the "joke" is to assume that the feminist woman one is speaking is on the verge of reacting violently to whatever it is the man is about to say.

Since some men are incapable of centering the perspective of other people when considering the problematic aspect of this joke, let me help illustrate it in a way that might hit home for them.

What if, from now on, when conversing with avowed anti-feminist and non-feminist men, I preceded all of my arguments with, "Don't threaten to rape me for saying this, but...."?

How might that play into pre-existing narratives about men?  Not so funny and harmless anymore is it?

And, actually, I reckon that in the real world, as opposed to the cartoon world in which all feminists are violent man-hating harpies, feminist women receive such threats far more often than non-feminist men are "killed" by feminists for saying non-feminist things.

I Don't Generally Speak in Absolutes Here

But holy shit I will never never never go on a cruise.

Not that that's ever been appealing to me anyway given my propensity to seasickness and my dislike of being stuck in large crowds of gluttonous Americans.

The Inventor and "His Wife"

From a computer networking book I've been reading:

"Len Bosak and his wife Sandy Lerner were working at Stanford University when they had the idea to build and sell Internet routers to research and academic institutions, the primary adopters of the Internet at the time. Sandy Lerner came up with the name Cisco (an abbreviation for San Francisco), and she also designed the company's bridge logo."

And Len, we are to presume, took care of all the technical mumbo-jumbo?

But seriously, that paragraph stuck in my craw. Notice how it centers Len, with Sandy being referenced only by her relationship to him, as "his wife." A less male-centric way to phrase it would have been, "Len Bosak and Sandy Lerner were working at Stanford University when they had the idea to..." Or, if they felt the pressing need to mention their personal relationship, they could have said, "Married couple Len and Sandy were working..."

In actuality, these events took place in the early 1980s and Sandy had multiple Master's degrees, including one in Computer Science from Stanford University. She was working as the Director of Computer Facilities at Stanford when she and Len purportedly developed the concept of the router.

Although, other sources say that the development was actually more of a group effort.

But whatever.

America loves its Great Man and his Little Assistant stories, doesn't it?

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.

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.)

OMG SO Funny!

(This isn't actually funny)

I'm with Liss, I can't stand pranks.

Mostly because I think they're cruel and, oftentimes, straight-up bullying, except "because it's just a joke, geeeeeez" it isn't usually socially acceptable for the target of the prank to be angry about it. The "prankster" wants to manipulate a person into feeling fear or some level of trauma, but then the prankster considers it a first-class human rights violation if the person being pranked instead responds with one's own authentic emotions of, say, anger or a state of not-being-amused.

So, you can imagine what I think of this cutesey-fartsy marriage proposal:

"It was a marriage proposal prank that could have gone down in flames.

Last February, pilot Ryan Thompson, during a sightseeing flight over the city in a small plane, told his girlfriend the aircraft controls were not responding, before he revealed it was all part of a ruse to ask for her hand in marriage."

Now, in addition to being a lesbian who isn't in a Real Marriage with my partner, I realize that I'm also a No Fun Feminist In All Of NoFunLand, but I think that's a pretty fucked-up "prank" to "play" on someone a person purportedly loves.

Inspiring in someone a flash of imminent death and then asking them a life-changing question while they might be a bit emotionally-vulnerable strikes me as, I don't know.... insecure? Mean? Not funny?

All of the above?

Wut?

Unless a person is, like, Ann Coulter, how does one lone article even manage to be sexist toward men, stereotyping and offensive toward gay people, offensive to straight people, erasing of non-male members of the group "the gays,"erasing of a great majority of male members of the group "the gays," fat hating, body shaming, gender essentialist, and trivializing of the reality that, hey, there's this whole other group of people who exist in the world, many of whom also tend to have lots of body image issues: women.

I mean, wow, to seriously address all that's wrong with that article would take me an estimated 10 solid hours of work only to result in a "Geez, I was just kidding, can't people take a joke?!" retort from the author and his supporters.

Thus, I have only this to say to privileged cis gay men who think they are the default gay whose experiences are not only representative of all "the gays" everywhere but are the sun around which all other oppressions and legitimate issues revolve, try getting out of your kyriachical bubble of unexamined privilege from time to time. There's a whole Internet out there to learn about stuff.

Good gawd.

Men Need MAN FOOD! (Part 3,021,472)

[TW/content note: Gender essentialism, gender policing, sexism]

Wut?

"Called 'The Man Aisle,' the space stocks stereotypically male items like beer, cereal, soda, beef jerky, hot sauces, barbecue sauces, condoms, and oh, Chock Full o'Nuts coffee.

'People rarely cater to men in the supermarket,' COO Ian Joskowitz told us over the phone. 'So I thought let’s do something fun, get people talking, something guys would like. So we started discussion, and it’s funny because most of us came up with a very similar list.'

People rarely cater to men in the supermarket?

What an incredibly strange statement to make. Are men really so different from women that they are incapable of obtaining adequate fuel sources for their bodies' sustenance needs when they go shopping? Are their minds so different that they are unable to figure out how to read aisle signs, place items in a shopping cart, and then stand in line to purchase these items? Like, they have to be specially-catered to, or they can't figure it out?

And, do women, all women, dislike beer and beef jerky? Are they repulsed by/repelled from the Man Aisle by virtue of being women?

In this way are men in the unusual position of being framed as Other within a space. Such framing sometimes occurs in female-coded occupations and spaces as, here, the supermarket representative frames women as the default supermarket consumer while framing men as perpetual frat guy types with poor eating habits.

Or.... maybe not. The cited article ends:

"Now if only we had a woman's aisle full of tissues, romantic comedies, tampons, and chocolate. And also, maybe a survival guide telling us to pat ourselves on the back for cooking dinner."

Sigh. Yes, hahahahahaha, only if! 

/barf

How on earth would we ever get anything done in life if we weren't constantly reminded that we're men or women, rather than people with overlapping likes, dislikes, appetites, and needs.


Related:

Men Need Man Food

Man Food, Again

Boys Need Boy Food

Happy Barfentine's Day!

[Content/Trigger Warning: fat shaming, gender policing]


I think what's most amusing about conservative men who advocate for "traditional gender roles" is how utterly corny, trite, and "one size fits all" their ideas of Heterosexual Romance are.

Which makes sense.

When dude thinks most men are inherently non-romantic juvenile sex fiends and that most women are sexually-repressed mommy-wives whose idea of the Perfect Valentine's Day is to receive chocolates, a card, and flowers followed by a night of cuddles by candlelight, there just aren't many narratives available for him to come up with something more... tailored to actual people's actual interests.

Not that the above scenario is unappealing to all women. But to think that's what all, or even most, women want just because they're women and that's what women want? Kind of clueless and lazy.

See, when a man is limited by his own refusal to recognize the reality that few people's hopes, desires, sex drives, and ideas of romance fit tidily into "pink" and "blue" boxes, his advice by necessity is going to be "one size fits all." But, in reality, one size never fits all.

So what ends up happening is that dude tries to write an advice column to The Ladies that ends up being as resonate as a group of drunk, white Republican men engaging in what the kids call "rapping" on stage at cocktail hour after their panel on "blah" people and welfare.

Take our friend Playful Walrus (PW), who took a break from pecking out another anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-union, anti-poor, pro-rich, pro-corporate screeds (Just Like Jesus Would Do!) to write a "handy-dandy" guide on how the [heterosexual married] ladies can make Valentine's Day enjoyable for their husbands, all of whom apparently hate the holiday.

He begins, by of course explaining things to the ladypeople:

"There are many reasons why most men do not enjoy Valentine's Day.

Men tend to be practical when it comes to money. You expect him to blow money on overpriced chocolates, flowers, jewelry, gifts, dinners in crowded restaurants, hotel rooms, etc."

Oh we do, do we?

Scratch that. Of course PW isn't talking about women like me. (Whisper: The homosexualist kind). He's talking about The Real Women. The heterosexuals.

That being said, here's a little newsflash: Banal marketing aimed at women during Valentine's Day isn't necessarily a reflection of women's actual expectations surrounding this holiday.

He continues, not only are all women apparently entitled, superficial gold-diggers, we're fat, and therefore don't deserve chocolate anyway:

"Chocolates? They'll be gone soon, and frankly, most American women don't need the extra calories. That's a fact, since 2/3rds are overweight and half of those are obese."

Indeed, a man's just better off buying his bride from overseas. Where the women don't sit around eating whole boxes of chocolates all day long while he's at work. And as for flowers?

"They'll be dried and withered soon."

*sad trombone*

Speaking of things that are suddenly "dried and withered" after reading this post, PW's views on sexual obligations sound... really... swell (#Ohdearhispoorwife):

"Men show they love their woman year-round by paying the bills, by protecting her, and by doing many other things, often including lifting heavy objects, opening things, reaching for things, removing scary things, doing fix-its on the home and vehicles. Do you show your love for him by respecting him, keeping yourself together, keeping his stomach full, making love to him as often as he wants it without dropping things he enjoys off of the menu, being a smart shopper, and doing domestic chores (if he is the breadwinner)? These things may not be important to you, but they are likely important to him." (emphasis added)

Okay. Gross.

The more unthinking accounts and "how-to guides" of "traditional marriage" I read, the more they sound like planted PR campaigns against marriage and heterosexuality.

Under PW's view of proper hetero relations, men essentially buy sex and housekeeping from their wives by being the "breadwinner." PW tosses the word "love" around, but he doesn't seem to be talking about love. What he is talking about is a commercial exchange of goods and services.

Under this view of marriage, a man doesn't want in equal partner in life, he wants a domestic/sex worker who he deserves things from because of all his hard work. Andrea Dworkin famously noted that, "[Right-wing women] see that traditional marriage means selling [sex] to one man, not hundreds: the better deal." PW's version of marriage seems to be a case in point of marriage as an exchange rather than a partnership.

Happy Valentine's Day! *Swoon*

You know, in my experience interacting with conservatives, many of them have a certain worldview regarding How The World Is that they insist is some sort of "universally generalizable" truth for all people for all of history. This view often posits that men are the breadwinners who pay bills, protect their wives, lift heavy stuff and, in return, deserve blow jobs from their no-fun wives whenever they get boners.

Any actual women, men, and relationships in the real world who deviate from this worldview- gay men, lesbians, trans* people, heterosexuals in egalitarian relationships, gender non-conformists- are dismissed as strange anomalies from reality, too few in number to count. Inauthentic. If one points out the existence of these "deviations" from the conservative worldview, one is frequently accused of making these experiences up as part of a Marxist-Feminist plot against "reality." As though our very existences are not a part of reality.

It's quite something, really. To deny and erase the existence and experiences of millions of people who have different experiences with gender and marriage just because it doesn't fit into one's romanticized narrative of how the world is and how amaaaaaaaayzing man-woman marriage is for all people everywhere ever in history.

I mean, I have no doubt that for some people, these "traditional" performances of gender and marriage work and exist. But I am equally confident that that for lots of other people, this traditional gender narrative is completely subverted, completely abusive, and that there's lots of gray area in between. And that's okay to acknowledge. People don't have to have the same experience with marriage and gender. How is it even reasonable to insist or expect that they would?

Why acknowledging that reality is met with such resistance I have no idea.

Anyway.

For some reason, PW puts a parting shot in very small print and parentheses at the end of his post. Like he doesn't have the courage to fully commit to the assholery it contains:

"(There are unfeminine women reading this scoffing that anyone still believes in gender roles. I guarantee you they are not making any man's Valentine's Day enjoyable.)"

LOL. Okay, playa.

Like many an anti-feminist, PW does not seem to understand his ideological opponents. He certainly doesn't understand feminist critique. Therefore, it's understandable as to why he would think that only "unfeminine" women would be "scoffing" at his post, as opposed to, say, lots of women of varying degrees of femininity. I laugh at the strawdyke version of his critics that must be dancing around his uninspired noggin.

His ignorance also explains why he can't even articulate what it is that his critics would "scoff" at regarding his post. What does it even mean to "believe in gender roles"? He thinks we don't "believe in" them? We're not talking about Santa Claus here. Sigh.

Lastly, his ignorance allows him to operate under the assumption that his critics, presumably feminists, would think it's a Big Time Insult to be told that we're not sufficiently enjoyable, feminine, and hawt to heterosexual men.

As though he, via Internet Telepathy, can not only ascertain our femininity levels, beauty, sexual skillz, and worth as human beings, but that he is also the Big Decider of what is and isn't enjoyable to all men on Earth.

Sure.

The biggest failing of so many anti-feminists isn't that they're assholes, which many of them indeed are, but that they so utterly fail at understanding feminism or what it is they're even objecting so strenuously to.

What's Better Than Winning The Beauty Contest?

Not being forced into it in the first place.


[Content/Trigger Warning: body shaming, gender policing]

I've written before on the various body-shaming, gender-policing memes, often spread on sites like Facebook, that go something along the lines of "real women have curves, not the body of a 12-year-old boy."

A more recent version of this meme depicts various famous women who are skinny, contrasts them with other famous women (like Marilyn Monroe) who have have curvier bodies, and says some variation of: "this [arrow pointing to curvier-bodied women] is more attractive than this [arrow pointing to skinnier-bodied women]."

So, yeah. Gross.

What this body-shaming reminds me of are those memes where conservative women denigrate the looks of liberal/feminist women in order to prop up their own status, stripping other women of their beauty and reinforcing the notion that a woman's most important feature is her sexual appeal to men.

Likewise do these Skinny Women Are Ugly memes arbitrarily strip some women of their beauty in order to enhance the standing of a different group of women.

Both instances accept, rather than reject, the premises that (a) a woman's most important feature are her looks and (b) that there is one true way to a beautiful real woman.

Via Jenny David at at Cyborgology, discussing the Skinny Women meme:

"As Heather Cromarty posted over at Sociological images, these memes pit women against each other in antagonistic comparison, and reinforce male approval as the pinnacle of female success. Rather than escape the male gaze, these attempts at feminist liberation work only to reformulate the desirable ends towards which women control their bodies. In short, the female body continues to be an apparatus of (heterosexual)male pleasure."

I can appreciate fat acceptance and the rejection of conventional beauty standards. Unfortunately, that's not what is going on with the Skinny Women Are Ugly memes.

Rather, the meme has always struck me as instances of uncritical, approval-seeking "You go girl!" fauxminism designed not to empower women, but to divide us and cement our status as the submissive sex class. The big take-away from such narratives, especially when they collide with the pervasive fat-shaming narratives circulating in society, is that if you are a woman and you have a body, you can never be good enough, authentic enough, beautiful enough, thin enough, curvy enough, or pleasing enough to the all-important hetero male gaze.

No thanks.

On Aspirin-Gate*

So, there was this:

"I get such a chuckle when these things come out. Here we have millions of our fellow Americans unemployed, we have jihadist camps being set up in Latin America, which Rick has been warning about, and people seem to be so preoccupied with sex. I think that says something about our culture. We maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues are. And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s such inexpensive. Back in my days, they usedBayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”

So said Foster Friess, some rich white dude I've never heard of who's supporting Rick Santorum for President.

You know, when I first heard about this "joke," I was reminded of some of my embarrassing older male relatives who are utterly oblivious to the fact that, These Days, the public and political spheres are somewhat-more inhabited by people other than straight white men who still think racist, sexist, and homophobic jokes are awesome displays of humor, supremacy, and intellectual prowess.

It's like, dudes, we're not staring silently at you with our WTF-faces on in response to your "jokes" because OMG PC Gone Awry! We're not laughing because your "jokes" just... aren't funny.

As the wonderful Jane Espenson has said:

"Racist/sexist/homophobic jokes in fact tend NOT to be funny not only because they cause pain, but because they are bombs instead of scalpels. A joke that pokes fun at a person is sharpest, funniest, when it finds that perfect detail, the most subtle observation of what sets that person apart. Someone’s race or gender is unlikely to be the most subtle thing about them, and certainly it’s not the most specific."

I think, actually, what is kind of a funny "scalpel" is when corny "jokes" like Friess' backfire. As in, well, I didn't immediately get the joke when I first heard it because [*turning head sideways and pondering*] I'm pretty sure both sex and pregnancy can still occur if a woman has an aspirin between her legs.

What makes it funny isn't that he's a man and he's wrong, but that he's a man who's made himself the big arbiter of what is and isn't an important issue for women to talk and care about while being wrong about the very issue he's so dismissive and flippant about. #LOLMANSPLAINFAIL

Also funny is watching Santorum scramble to say he's "not responsible" for Friess' "humor" in light of this article a few days before Friess' gaffe, that highlights How Hilarious Rick Santorum Thinks His Buddy-Bud Foster Friess Is:

"Sporting a Santorum sweater vest, Friess peppered his brief remarks [at a Santorum rally] with jokes and delivered a ringing endorsement of Santorum's candidacy.

'Life is so much fun and filled with humor,' Friess began, smiling widely. 'There is a little bar a couple doors down, and recently a conservative, a liberal and moderate walk into the bar. The bartender says "Hi, Mitt."' The crowd gave Friess a rousing round of applause....

Santorum began his own speech by saying he wouldn't try to compete with Friess on the humor front. 'Foster cornered the market on that,' Santorum said."

Oh ho ho ho whoooops!

But more to the point, people seem to really be highlighting the aspiring-between-the-knees aspect of the "joke." But, well, what about that contention that birth control is just a silly little issue, one that deserves to be "chuckled" at, in light of other Real Issues like jihadist camps and unemployment?

If birth control were such a non-issue, so trivial, and so very unimportant, I reckon so many powerful men wouldn't be so intent on controlling women's access to it.


[*Yep, I added "-gate" there. It's campaign season! That's what we do!]

Involuntary Procedures and Local Power

[content/trigger warning: This post seems like it needs some sort of content warning, but I'm not sure exactly what. Maybe, involuntary medical procedures?]


Via Femonomics, we learn of a white American doctor who wrote about his involvement in the involuntary sterilization of a woman with 5 children in Tanzania.

Apparently, there was an issue with the epidural injection the woman received and she stopped breathing. The doctor describes doing chest compressions (and describes hearing the pop of one of her ribs cracking). While doing compressions, the doctor heard another doctor working inside the woman say, "I am tying her tubes. I think she does not need another baby after this."

Describing the aftermath, the American doctor notes that the woman later noted that her chest was hurting and the other doctor told her not to worry about it. She was also not told that she had been sterilized or that her heart had stopped beating. The American doctor described the other doctor's tube-tying actions as heroic.

So.

Suffice it to say, I firmly believe that a person, even a poor person who already has children, has the right to choose whether or not to undergo a medical procedure that will result in sterilization. It is unbelievably problematically paternalistic for men (or anyone, but in this case the choice was made by men) to make that decision for another person. Even if bearing additional children would have put the woman's life at risk or would have made her life more difficult financially, it was her decision to make.

Interestingly, the doctor showed up at Femonomics with a retort to the blogger's critique (either before or after deleting his blogpost bragging about the medical procedure):

"Thank you for posting my story on your blog, but like most colonial thinking individuals, your higher moral thinking has little or nothing to do with the realities of survival in remote areas of the world. In short, you didn't think this one out very well. While we weren't attempting to 'tame' anyone, the decision to tie the woman's tubes came from sound medical judgement. If this woman got pregnant again, there was a greater than 50% chance she would die during or before childbirth. (this not even dealing with the economic reality that she couldn't even afford to feed the 5 children she had.) You are out of line here and off-kilter with your point. It appears to be an angry reaction to your own views of men rather than a well thought argument dealing with the facts. My advice is to go live in the bush for a while and then come talk to me about necessity and choice."

So, first off, this is why it's a bad idea for people who provide professional services to blog about specific cases they've handled. They open the door to severe criticism and they often reveal some pretty problematic assumptions and thinking.

Like this bullshit:

"It appears to be an angry reaction to your own views of men rather than a well thought argument dealing with the facts."

Note how the doctor frames his critic as a raging, irrational, man-hating feminazi. In this way does he attempt to erase his critic's concern about the personal autonomy and integrity of a woman in Tanzania, and in so doing, of the woman herself.

I continue to be amazed that otherwise-intelligent people still think "you just hate men" somehow rebuts a feminist's argument or is, like, a creative or accurate thing to say. Whenever I hear that "man-hating" accusation it's a big red flag that tells me I'm probably not dealing with a person who deals with feminists (and possibly women) rationally and fairly.

And then, well, oh the irony of a white American man who was complicit in the performance of an involuntary medical procedure on an African woman calling someone else a "colonial thinking individual."

But, it's an interesting claim. It is made with some regularity with respect to Western feminists' critiques of non-Western practices that are oppressive to women (other times, feminists are told that we don't care enough about the stuff that happens to Other Women in Other Cultures. See also, What About The Muslim Women?!).

Nonetheless, it is interesting when men argue that bad things that are done to women in some societies must be respected because they are local things.

Context, of course, matters with respect to such arguments. The devil is indeed in the details. But I generally defer to Catherine MacKinnon*:

"Defenses of local differences, as they are called, are often simply a defense of male power in its local guise. Male power virtually always appears in local guises; one might hazard a guess that there are nothing but local guises for male power. The fact that they are local does not improve them."

*From, Are Women Human?: And Other International Dialogues

Men: How Not To Do Feminism

[TW: Rape culture, threats]

Oh. Yay. A fledgling Nice Guy.

Because why wouldn't an 18-year-old young man get his very own forum in a newspaper to set the feminist agenda and order women to watch their tone? I mean, if there's one flaw I see in modern feminism it's that we just don't have enough Dudely Devil's Advocates. Lulz.

He begins:

"Do I consider myself a feminist? Absolutely."

Years of hearing men preface shmarmy, entitled, and privileged pontifications with this question (and answer) have conditioned me to brace myself whenever I hear this beginning. Indeed, after admirably stating that he agrees that women can be doctors, lawyers, and whatever else arouses our adorable passions "just as all human beings should" be able to, he bemoans:

"However, being a feminist is tough these days."

Tell me about it, brother. We're always assumed to be feminists only because we're fat, ugly lesbians who don't shave our legs and have had, like 15 abortions (with the assumption that these are all bad things, of course).

For caring about stuff like sexual harassment and rape jokes, we're constantly told we Ruin Everyone's Fun, Have No Sense Of Humor, and Are the PC Police.

For advocating against rape culture, dudes regularly threaten feminist bloggers with rape and others forms of violence.

Even though social conservatives create narratives that men are violent rapists, a stereotype many feminists are working to counter, feminsts are nonetheless blamed for the creation and perpetuation of this stereotype and then assumed to be man-haters.

A movement with creepy, aggressive, and eliminationist elements exists with the sole purpose of categorizing feminists as "parasites" and eradicating feminism/feminists.

Misogynists and their anti-feminist ilk accuse male feminists of being man-ginas (because vaginas, gross!) and of Only Being In It To Score With the Ladies.

Surely, these are some of the tough things of which our Young Feminist Man (YFM) is referring, right?

He continues:

"One minute I'm being reprimanded for referring to a female as an 'actress' and the next I'm being interrogated about whether I support breast cancer awareness. Let me explain."

Let's not.

In fact, allow me. See, YFM isn't actually talking about how hard it is to be a feminist, but how hard it is to be sexist around feminists.

For one, YFM finds it hypocritical that, on the one hand, Woman objects to gendered terms like "actress," but on the other hand, she also embraces the cultural phenomenon of associating pink with breast cancer.

Yes, dear readers, YFM has apparently not yet learned that the categories "women" and "feminist" consist of multiple persons, all with widely diverging views about stuff and so he mistakenly thinks that if one feminist, say, opposes gendered words like "actress" but another feminist embraces pink shit, then the entirety of feminism has just 'asploded from hypocrisy and inconsistency (ker-pow!). Thus, Daddy's Little Mansplainer writes as though his Logical ManBrain is here to objectively observe and point out our womanly feminist silliness.

It's understandable, really. He's merely taking a cue from our larger society which puts forth these "truths" on a daily basis. So, like I said, why wouldn't he get his own forum in a newspaper to echo the Common Sense?

His second complaint is that he found a recent Facebook phenomenon where women promoted breast cancer awareness by posting where they put their handbags (Sample- "I like it on the table") to be "coarse" and "juvenile." Indeed, this crass tone almost made him be totally against breast cancer awareness. But in the end, he decided to still be for it. Because he's "absolutely" a feminist. But still:

"[The campaign] causes me to hesitate the next time I support the promotion of breast cancer awareness, even if it is for only a moment....

There is no winning for males in a world where calling a woman an actor or actress can result in being labeled a sexist, nor a world where men must take breast cancer awareness completely seriously, while some women downplay its importance with crass insinuations."

Note that he appears less concerned with how and why gendered words like "actress" might be sexist and more concerned with his own discomfort at being called out for using words like "actress." So, do we really expect him to pick up on the fact that these Facebook women are merely reflecting the double-bind that our society puts women in: Hey ladies, your ability to sexually titillate men gets you validation and attention! Hey ladies, how do you expect us to take you seriously when you're dressed like that?!

So, in a fit of hyper-defensive angst, he throws his hands up into the air, taking another cue from the larger society by blaming this situation on the irrationality of Woman, what does she want anyway, whaddaryagunnado?:

"Many [women] are sympathetic to my pleas for some rationality in modern feminism, which has overcompensated to pose men as the eternal antagonist. This should not be an issue of solidarity against men. Women do not need to unite against men. They need to unite with men, especially with those who support ideals of equality and social and economic freedom."

Let me suggest that, due to the subject matter of YFM's post, he might not be thinking rationally about the topic of "modern feminism." For, a rational person might concede that persons who "absolutely" identified as feminists would not suggest that the way men and women could best unite to "support ideals of equality" would be for feminists to stop labeling sexism when they see it because it makes lots of men uncomfortable.

They also might familiarize themselves with modern feminism enough to know that most of us don't, actually, see or "pose men as the eternal antagonist." And, well, they might save their condescending pleas for "unity," when what they're really talking about is Women Being Sufficiently Smiley About Sexist Stuff.

But alas. The way YFM sees it, it's he who's being treated unfairly by the irrational feminazis:

"A certain percentage of women think I am a sexist."

Oh, a "certain" percentage. Lulz. How very... informative. He continues:

"Perhaps it is because I am white, male and aggressive in my demeanor."

Nah, I'd go with your It's Worse For Women To Call Me Sexist Than It Is For Me To Be Sexist bit or your Treating Feminism Like Its Primary Concern Is Men's Feelings. (Anyone else wondering what he means by "aggressive in demeanor"? Let me guess. Men are entitled to aggression. We ladies need to watch our tone.) He continues:

"So, I apologize in advance if I accidentally call you an actress when you prefer actor, or if I forget to steal one of my sister's headbands for the next 'Pink Out.' All I ask is that you cut men a break and make the world a little friendlier for the male feminist."

You know, aside from being skeptical of the notion that hoards feminists give two shits about whether or not YFM dons his sister's pink headband, the thing about these tsk-tsk tone arguments is that there's always that implicit (and oftentimes, explicit) threat. Watch it ladies, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Like, men can't be feminists just because it's the right thing to do. A man's feminism has to be contingent on women coddling him and never calling out sexist stuff that makes him uncomfortable, a tact that, when you think about it, is somewhat self-defeating to the goals of feminism, no? I mean, if dude can't handle the "actor/actress" thing, how in hades is he going to handle the radical concept that even though he's (a) a man and (b) thinks he's a feminist, he might still have a lot to learn about feminism and male privilege?

I strongly believe men can be, must be, and often are, part of the solution. But fellas, if you're looking for a primer on how not to be, I daresay we've just witnessed it.

Concerned Women [For Some of] America

[TW: Body shaming]

"It takes a really weak, insecure, and spineless man to attack a woman on television....All women, regardless of their political persuasions need to speak out against these kinds of attacks because they harm everyone who is female from age 2 – 92." -Penny Young Nance, CEO, Concerned Women for America (CWA), writing of Bill Maher's sexist attack on Sarah Palin

Quick! Somebody alert the Concerned Women for America (CWA) that their buddy bud Glenn Beck, Famous Mormon Dude, recently attacked a woman on his radio show. And by attack I mean, in response to a skin cancer public service announcement featuring Meghan McCain visibly naked from the shoulders up, Beck reacted by pretending to repeatedly and violently vomit. And, as a presumed dig at her weight, Beck and his pals repeatedly called her "luscious."

I guess Beck doesn't find McCain, who supports same-sex marriage, sufficiently human or conservative enough to be treated with respect.

Other than supporting my maxim that patriarchy exists to give men, attractive and otherwise, the authority to declare women Obectively Out Of Compliance With What Constitutes True Beauty, Beck's display mostly provides evidence of his own immaturity, incivility, and sexism. And, well, no big surprise there. Keeping women in the sex class is basically the point of the religion and politics that men like Beck subscribe to.

I condemn Beck's actions and place the blame solely and squarely on his shoulders. As Naomi Wolf observed in The Beauty Myth, our society's Skinny Mandate for women parallels eating trends in developing countries where food is reserved for the most important members of society- boys and men. Nothing pisses off misogynists in the US more than a woman who unapologetically refuses to starve herself.

At the same time, unfortunately, the prevailing view among female collaborators in patriarchy, sexism, and misogyny- that would be, organizations like CWA- is that some women don't deserve to be defended. Indeed, unlike liberal and progressive feminists who regularly take liberal and "progressive" misogynists to task, those so-called Conservative Feminists who are BFFs to male anti-feminists are usually nowhere to be when their male political allies are sexist.

We get the message loud and clear, ladies. Some of us don't deserve to be defended because we really are ugly or fat or queer or liberal or leftist or socialist or pro-choice or what-have-you, and so the attacks inflicted upon us because of our gender or sex are deserved. And, being attacked for our looks is fair game because, of course, a woman's looks are the most important feature about her.

McCain herself, puts it well, in responding to Beck, many women- including Beck's daughters- "are probably dealing with the sexist, body-obsessed media environment that is difficult for all women. Is this really the legacy you want to be leaving for yourself?"

Another Bad Abortion Analogy

Male conservative anti-feminists sometimes make bizarrely bad analogies about abortion.

What makes these analogies so poor is that they often totally eradicate the perspective of uterus-humans, a perspective one might believe to be a tiny bit relevant given certain reproductive truths. By failing to take into account the fact that babies do not spring forth from the aether fully-formed, that is, they gestate inside the uterus of another human being, these folks fail to render adequately-parallel analogies.

For instance, one fellow put forth that a woman having an abortion was just like a drunk driver getting into a car and killing someone. In his analogy, a woman was the drunk driver and the fetus was the drunk driver's victim. So, okay. If we're going to go the slut-shamey route, that analogy would almost work. That is, up until we consider the third element of the analogy: the uterus, and its analog, the vehicle through which the "murder" is committed.

But, is a car really sufficiently similar to a uterus to make the analogy work?

When we consider the differences between a car, something one can enter and leave at will, and a human uterus- something that is inside a person- indeed that is part of a person, we see that the analogy becomes much weaker. For, might the pregnant person that is harboring the uterus that is harboring the fetus have rights that factor into the moral equation that, say, a car does not?

The abortion/drunk driving analogy would work only if a driver and the car were inseparable in the way that a human and the uterus are.

Nonetheless, the bad-ass shades-wearing bros of anti-feminism tend to inexplicably applaud each others' woman-eradicating, fetus-centric abortion analogies as genius.

Case in point: Over at his (mis-named) "Self-Evident Truths" blog, "Euripides" bemoans:

"It's a felony to steal or damage bald eagle eggs. Human babies don't get the same respect."

So, Euripides doesn't actually mean "human babies" here. By "human babies," he means either a zygote, embryo, or fetus that is inside a human person's uterus (words, they have meanings!). Notice how it's only by eradicating the female perspective that the rather large difference in location between a human baby (different developmental stage/outside someone's body!) and the zygote/embryo/fetus (different developmental stage/inside someone's body!) become irrelevant.

In Euripides' analogy, a bird's nest is a human's body, the bird's egg is the zygote/embryo/fetus, and the hatching process is the human gestation process.

Yet, in what ways might relevant differences exist between these three features of his analogy? Sure, I can buy that a bird's egg is somewhat similar to a human embryo. But, is the egg hatching process sufficiently similar to the human gestation process for the analogy to work? Can, say, a pregnant woman just leave the embryo at home when she feels like flying around looking for prey?

And then, well, starting from the radical proposition that a human person with a uterus might have more rights than an eagle would be a helpful beginning point from which Euripides can observe his rhetorical weaknesses.