BernieCon 2017

So, Bernie Sanders and his fans held an exclusive "People's Summit" in Chicago over the weekend.

Per the website, attendance was limited, so people had to "apply to register" and wait 7-10 days to see if they were approved to register.

Per the site's "Diversity and Inclusion" page, the aim with this process was to select for diversity and for attendees who reflected their "political vision," which a first come, first serve registration process would not achieve.

My observation about this process isn't a criticism. Event organizers can select attendees in any lawful manner they choose.

It's more an observation that an event purportedly for The People also seemed to have a political test, and one that at least from the website wasn't all that transparent. Judging by the hashtag on Twitter over the weekend, it looked like a predominately pro-Bernie/anti-Democrat space. In my experience interacting with very pro-Bernie people, they often present themselves as the vanguard of progressivism in the United States, yet use "support for Bernie" as a litmus test, rather than the issues themselves, as to whether someone else is truly a progressive.

I have serious disagreements with this approach.

In all likelihood, I agree with many Bernie fans on the issues probably, I'd say, 75-95% of the time.  Yet, I also believe that Bernie legitimately lost the Democratic Primary to Hillary Clinton. She simply had more votes than him.

I also believe that he never had a real plan for implementing his vision within the constraints and realities of Republican power and obstruction within our political system, as indicated by his disastrous New York Daily News interview over a year ago.

Simply put, his campaign also had flaws, flaws that are often not talked about because of his fans' intense need to continue believing that "the DNC" "rigged" the contest against him. Bernie Sanders could do a lot to unite the left right now, but the fact that he chooses to not shut this myth down or address the flaws of his campaign are probably within the top five impediments to progressive unity going forward.

Many progressives supported Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and yet are consistently erased or dismissed as uninformed shills. Many people, meanwhile, view Bernie as the leader of the leftist revolution, despite him having accomplished as of yet very little in his political career. Because he holds this place of prominence for some people, he could shut down some of the abuse that Clinton supporters continue to receive.

But, he chooses not to. And, because he chooses not to, as long as Bernie Sanders is hailed as the leader of "the revolution," the left will never be united. Indeed, from my perspective, he and his fans care more about trying to change the hearts of bigoted Trump supporters than they do about giving Hillary Clinton supporters any assumption of good faith or intelligence with respect to politics.

And holy shit, I can't believe I still have to talk about Bernie Sanders in June 2017 when an authoritarian shitlord is in power.

In conclusion, I storified my tweets about the Bernie convention over the weekend:

Quote of the Day: bell hooks

Bust recently ran an interview with bell hooks, discussing the 2016 Election and where we go from here. I'd recommend all of it, but would like to highlight a well-made critique of progressive institutions:

"Bernie Sanders isn’t saying anything about feminist politics. He’s not integrating any kind of feminist politics into his vision. I think the important thing is that we see this as the continuum of patriarchal power reasserting itself, and not as though Trump invented it or makes it possible—because it has been there. It’s been there, in Hillary Clinton’s husband and all of these men—except that Hillary Clinton’s husband and Barack Obama became the benevolent patriarchs. They’re the patriarchal men we can love."

I think this is what some Bernie fans don't get. Bernie is pro-choice and supports equal pay for women, but a deeper feminist, intersectional analysis seems to be largely missing as he focuses much of his discourse on railing against Wall Street and money in politics.

But.

Reproductive rights are an economic issue, in that both being pregnant and having a child have significant economic consequences for the person who is pregnant.

Running as an anti-establishment candidate and yet visiting the Pope in the midst of one's campaign, is an action with potential economic consequences for the women and LGBT people who are harmed by the validation of the Catholic Church's teachings on female subordination, leadership, and anti-LGBT bigotry.

Failing to connect with black voters while claiming to be starting a revolution, is an economic issue if if the revolution's leader does not consider that black voters might experience "revolution" differently than white voters.

Banking on unexamined white male privilege against a woman who was held to much higher standards than any man is an economic issue that many women experience in having to be vastly more qualified than male competitors in the job market.

Progressives celebrating the Barack/Joe "bromance" memes while refusing to see Hillary Clinton as anything other than History's Greatest Monster also represents an economic issue in that women seeking power are so rarely seen as likeable, which thus becomes a reason to deny us the position of power we seek.

Issues like these represent a fundamental divide on the left that won't go away just because people order other people to stop re-litigating the Democratic Primary.  It is a divide among those who understand that people with different identities often live under different conditions in society versus those who think there might be a universal solution to society's ills regardless of identity.

On the Perils of Being a Cool Girl

[Content note: Sexual assault, misogyny]


"From father's house to husband's house to a grave that still might not be her own, a woman acquiesces to male authority in order to gain some protection from male violence. She conforms, in order to be as safe as she can be." - Andrea Dworkin, Right-Wing Women (1983)

Dworkin, above, theorized that some women are anti-feminist/conservative because acquiescing to conservatism offers women protection from male violence. Men, this model of conservatism paradoxically teaches, are said to be naturally barbaric except to women with whom they are bonded by a parental or marital relationship. So, under this model, male protection is thought to come from, first, a woman's father and, second, her husband via marriage (once her ownership is transferred from dad to hubby). 

The system is implicitly upheld by conservative men who, purportedly, respect the boundaries of another man's property-female. Not for the woman's sake, mind you, but because to do otherwise would be a grave insult to the male-owner.

This model stands in contrast to, as Dworkin characterized, liberalism's promise of sexual access to all women all the time. To paraphrase, in order to be a cool liberal girl, a woman had to be sexually available at the whim of their enlightened liberal comrades. She further contrasted both models with feminism's constraint that sexual access actually ought to be dependent upon consent and reproductive freedom.

Bringing things to the present, we see that Trump, the nominee of the conservative/anti-feminist party in the US, represents a break in the bargain that some conservative women thought they had made with conservative men. In him, we have a man who on tape admitted to sexually assaulting women, whom women have come forward with allegations that Trump has assaulted them, and is being sued for allegedly sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl (is it weird that that isn't bigger news?).

And yet, conservative man after man after man has stood by Trump. His campaign appeals to and condones the basest misogynistic impulses of his supporters. And, at least some conservative women are rightly angry, as Amanda Carpenter writes in an oft-cited piece:

"Over the course of the GOP primary, it became clear that too many Republicans felt it was too politically risky to do anything that would offend the types of voters Trump was attracting in droves — the types who showed up at rallies wearing T-shirts that said, 'Trump that b—-' and 'She’s a c—, vote for Trump.'

Somehow, in some amorphous but unambiguous way, it was decided that appealing to those voters was more important than appealing to women.

....But not all men think this way. We’ve heard over and over again how privately anguished GOP leaders were, although not anguished enough to take any concrete steps to stop it."

It can be an odd position to be in, to be a progressive feminist woman who is sympathetic to the way conservative women - women are sometimes anti-choice, anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant - are treated. Like, why didn't they listen to us, feminists, that the men they ally themselves with are clusterfuck catastrophes of misogyny? Why now? Why does the misogyny matter to them now? Is it because they are just now realizing that while it is true that "their" men love chivalry, such men love male power even more?

And, despite our differences, I think many women could agree that when we are mistreated as women, in misogynistic ways, it's not acceptable and it harms all women. And, in such treatment, we have commonality. 

Lastly, I'm reminded of the cost of trying to play the "cool, exceptional girl" game. And by that I mean the girl or woman who's a liberal or conservative and who's also an avowed, loud-and-proud NON-FEMINIST who, you know, doesn't care that the guys in her fantasy football league threaten to "rape" their opponent each week or who take a certain pride in "not being friends with other women."

Such a woman might gain some temporary protection or points with guys, but it usually ends with a huge blow to the dignity. When you surround yourself with men who need you to play the cool girl game  because their masculinity so fragile, they'll eventually retreat to their boys-only locker room and remind you that there's a certain type of male bonding that is predicated on diminishing women and girls.

That will, in turn, remind you that yup, you may be cool, but you are, in fact, still a woman. Just a woman.

That Michael Moore Movie

As fawningly described by Richard Brody in The New Yorker:

Moore’s prime argument for Hillary is an argument from character. The first good thing that he can say about Hillary Clinton is that she likes him. He refers to the chapter “My Forbidden Love for Hillary” from his 1996 book “Downsize This!” and describes the White House dinner to which he was invited as a result—in particular, dwelling on the frank and surprisingly specific enthusiasm that Bill Clinton expressed for Moore’s work and the even greater show of enthusiasm with which Hillary followed it. The apparent element of vanity actually plays exactly in the opposite direction—what Moore’s doing here, deftly, is endowing Hillary with longstanding progressive bona fides, bringing her alongside him to share in his fan base. (emphasis added)

Oh god.

Okay, three things:

1)  I likely will not watch the movie. Why? I don't seem to be its target audience. I already like Hillary. I already think she is progressive. Why? Because I've listened to her and am informed about her. And, more to the point, I don't need a man to vouch for her in order for me to trust her.

2) Note "the first good thing" Michael Moore can say about Hillary Clinton: She likes him.

Jeeeeeeeeeesus.

And how does Richard Brody frame this "good thing" about Hillary Clinton? Well, I'll say this. Leave it to the male gaze to frame Michael Moore liking Hillary Clinton because she's ostensibly a Michael Moore fangirl as "deft" filmmaking rather than Trump-like narcissism.

3) But, if that wasn't clear enough for you, welcome to the *jazz hands* Michael Moore Show:

Some note it was my post in July, the 5 reasons Trump could win, that lit a fire under millions 2 take this seriously & get busy. Ur welcome https://t.co/el0W1ue6Nw

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) October 9, 2016

"Ur welcome."

Sure bro. If you say so.

In case there was any uncertainty as to why many feminists distrust leftier-than-thou "progressive" political figures in the US of the Sanders/Stein/brocialist vein, here is a clue. This attempted narrative that Michael Moore has uniquely "lit a fire" under people to take the US presidential election seriously erases the women, especially women of color, who comprise Hillary's base, who are and have been her most enthusiastic supporters, and who have trusted and backed her even when Moore was supporting Bernie Sanders over her. 

Many of us have always been taking this race seriously, viewing Trump not through the lens of abstraction or entertainment, but as a genuine threat to democracy, bodily autonomy, and human dignity.

This is not to say Moore has not had an impact, but man oh man. There is a saying women sometimes hear when people feel that we've gotten too uppity and it usually goes something like "get over yourself." I suggest that it might apply to Moore in this case, even though men are of course given far greater latitude than women to self-promote and exaggerate their influence, competence, and skills.

So, before we let him re-write history (before it's even been written I might add - are we all getting a leeeetle bit ahead of ourselves here with the Election 2016 post-mortems?), I'd like to give credit to some of the writers, public figures, and people in the TV/film industry who I think have been pretty darn impactful in terms of lighting fires under the populace (not a comprehensive list, so add to it if you will):

Shonda Rhimes, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders (...eventually, via his endorsement), Cecile Richards, Kerry Washington, Khizr Khan, Hillary Clinton's social media and Twitter team who have been on point all year, The Washington Post's Election 2016 Fact Checker, Melissa McEwan/Peter Daou and colleagues at Shareblue, the dozens of editors of major newspapers across the US who have officially endorsed Clinton, Lindy West, the Broad City gals, Ellen DeGeneres, Sarah Silverman, Kate McKinnon, and even whoever made that Shaquille O'Neal shimmy gif.

I mean how do you even end this list or sufficiently quantify it, really?

There are indeed so many people, too many people to name here, perhaps, but it's a start. The larger point is that I won't stand by while late-to-the-party Michael Moore writes his own Great Man Narrative about his own critical role in securing victory for our first female President.

Cool Revolution, Bros!

I don't want to dwell on Bernie Sanders, but it seems many feminists' spidey-sense was right with respect to him privileging his loyalty to the white male leaders he surrounded himself with over the concerns of the proles who largely supported, worked with, and volunteered for him.

The New York Times reports on recent events with his "Our Revolution" movement:

"A principal concern among backers of Mr. Sanders, whose condemnation of the campaign finance system was a pillar of his presidential bid, is that the group can draw from the pool of “dark money” that Mr. Sanders condemned for lacking transparency. 

The announcement of the group, which was live streamed on Wednesday night, also came as a majority of its staff resigned after the appointment last Monday of Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders’s former campaign manager, to lead the organization. 

Several people familiar with the organization said eight core staff members had stepped down. The group’s entire organizing department quit this week, along with people working in digital and data positions.

... 

At the heart of the issue, according to several people who left, was deep distrust of and frustration with Mr. Weaver, whom they accused of wasting money on television advertising during Mr. Sanders’s campaign; mismanaging campaign funds by failing to hire staff members or effectively target voters; and creating a hostile work environment by threatening to criticize staff members if they quit."

Weaver is the man who Debbie Wasserman Schultz called "an ass" in a now-leaked* email, a sentiment which both (a) is one many Sanders supporters seemingly agree with, and (b) apparently shows, at least to some, that the entire Democratic Primary was rigged against Sanders.

NBC has also reported that the board of this group now:

"consist[s] entirely of white men from Vermont (Weaver and two of Sanders' longtime friends and advisers), along with the campaign's lawyer -- a composition the former staffers found to be unrepresentative of the progressive movement."

Aww, was the Pope not available?


*I haven't read the leaked emails and I refuse to do so on principle, under the belief that Julian Assange is "an ass" and Wikileaks is unethical, particularly when the organization only concerns itself with posting leaked documents to harm one political party and not the other.  < /can of worms>

**FWIW, Jill Stein of the Green Party thinks Assange is "a hero." Because of course she does.< /can of worms>

Progressive Nonprofit Opposes New Overtime Law

As you may know, new federal regulations will go into effect which make more people eligible for overtime pay, specifically by increasing the threshold for eligibility to those who make $47,476 annually (compared to the previous threshold of $23,660).

The left-leaning (and Ralph Nader-founded) Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) has issued a statement opposing this new regulation, saying in part:

"Doubling the minimum salary to $47,476 is especially unrealistic for non-profit, cause-oriented organizations. Organizations like ours rely on small donations from individuals to pay the bills. We can’t expect those individuals to double the amount they donate. Rather, to cover higher staffing costs forced upon us under the rule, we will be forced to hire fewer staff and limit the hours those staff can work – all while the well-funded special interests that we're up against will simply spend more." (emphasis in original)

I am sympathetic to the argument that it will cause hardship for many nonprofits to comply with this new regulation, as by definition, nonprofits do not operate to create profit, they operate to implement a purported social benefit. They generally operate on revenue from donations, grants, and special events (and at times earned income).

However, I strongly disagree that nonprofits should be exempt. Many nonprofit employees already have lower salaries and fewer benefits than those working at for-profit entities, a state of affairs which workers choose to self-sacrificially accept for "the greater good." Yes, it's a somewhat dysfunctional model that nonprofit management also accepts, in some cases due to economic necessity and, in other cases, because they intentionally exploit workers.

Studies consistently show that women make up the majority of the nonprofit workforce, at around 70-75%, although men (of course) hold most of the top-level, highest-paying positions.  Any exemption of overtime pay for nonprofits would thus undoubtedly impact women to a greater degree than men.

Now, PIRG has been critiqued throughout the years before for its labor practices, with one employee who sued the organization calling the group the "Wal-mart of nonprofits."  Which, if true, seems appalling and profoundly hypocritical.

To speak more broadly, feminists have long said that "the personal is political."  For instance, those who deny that a wage gap exists or who explain it away as a result of "personal choices" ignore or do not understand that "personal choices" can never exist in a void.  Outside, institutional, and political forces usually at least partly influence personal problems and hardships, as well.

And yet, this simple slogan becomes relevant time and time again with respect to leftist movements, doesn't it?

The personal is often dismissed as subjective, irrational, and/or as "identity politics" - which is contrasted with the real, authentic, universal work of the movement, which is usually just whatever a majority within a movement or those with more power say the real, authentic, universal work is.

To argue that nonprofits should not have to pay overtime to their employees would impose upon those employees a personal economic hardship for a purported greater political good of allowing these nonprofits to fulfill their missions (in PIRG's case, combating special interests). We see, in other words, a compromise of sorts. A break in ideological progressive purity.

Political movements usually do have to make compromises, so my intention here is not to disparage compromise.  Compromise is often the only way to actually accomplish things in the real world. My point is, instead, to serve as a reminder to be on guard as to (a) how the greater good is being defined by any given movement and (b) who is continually being asked to compromise, to assume hardship, and to sacrifice for this greater good.

Atlantic Writer: Women's Prison Show Should Be More About Men

[Content note: Discussions of violence, threats]


This story is probably old news in Internet Time, but did you all hear that, according to The Atlantic's Noah Berlatsky, a show that's based on a woman's memoir of being incarcerated in a women's prison is "irresponsible" for not including more male prisoners:

"Orange Is the New Black [OITNB] has been justly praised for its representation of groups who are often either marginalized or completely invisible in most mainstream media. The show has prominent, complex roles for black women, Latinas, lesbian and bisexual women, and perhaps the first major role for a trans woman played by a trans woman, the wonderful Laverne Cox. There remains, however, one important group that the show barely, and inadequately, represents. 

That group is men. 

This may seem like a silly complaint. "

May seem?

Look. Can't we have one show, one. fucking. show. in the entire world, that actually has a well-rounded ensemble cast of diverse women, in which male characters are not centered and dominant?  I mean, hell, Orange still has about a half dozen regular male characters who evoke varying levels of sympathy, which is more than we can say about how most male-centric shows and movies treat women.

I mean, I see so much wrong with Berlatsky's piece, it's hard to know where to start: Should Piper Kerman have written her memoir about a men's prison, just for the sake of talking about men more?  Like, a woman can't even tell her own story without a man barging in and telling her it's not enough about men?

Should we discuss Berlatsky's selective interpretation of the characters' adorable widdle criminal backgrounds or, ironically, his Deep Concern that the show is, in his opinion, condescending to women?

Should we talk about him taking issue with the male prisoner who's presented as a sexual predator, when in fact in real life, some male prisoners actually are sexual predators?

Or, how about his simplistic, bogus claim that the show presents female inmates as "innocent victims" and men as "super-predators" even though multiple female characters act in a predatory manner. Alex Vause, for instance, threatens to rape another female inmate and Piper almost beats another woman to death in Season 1.  I could easily rattle off more examples that would burst Berlatsky's subtext that claims the show is just one more gender propaganda piece about how men are violent and women aren't.

In fact, one might think that, in some ways, OITNB would be an anti-feminist/MRA's dream as it actually does depict female violence, an issue these men really want the world to know about. Although, they probably take big time issue with the fact that, in order to do so, the show has to also be about women. Oh, such a conundrum in the life of the anti-feminist/MRA!

Reading Berlatsky's article, well.... you know how someone can just rattle off their opinions in like 10 minutes (misandry! reverse sexism! feminists say all men are rapists!), but it takes much, much longer to do a decent job of deconstructing those opinions? Seriously rebutting all of his points would be like 3 hours of my life I would never get back.

So what I mostly want to say is: OITNB is about women, fucking deal with it.

Thankfully, most people in the comments rightly took issue with Berlatsky's piece, and did so quite well (see, for instance). He did not defend his points well, either, when he did reply to people's comments.

But, because Noah Berlatsky has his own column at The Atlantic, he got to dig down and defend himself further, introducing his readers to the concept of Mens' Rights in a separate article, with the aid of a male "scholar of gender studies" who he interviewed who claims to be especially critical and skeptical of the way many variants of feminism focus on, in his words, "females."

How nice for them.

Consider my post a meta-observation of some men's apparent discomfort with women writing narratives that de-center men from any and all conversations, TV shows, movies, books, articles, and courses of scholarship.

And also, given the extraordinary women writers and thinkers that I'm aware of who are capable of writing very well about gender, I find it contemptible that so many male dipshits continue to have paid writing gigs in major media outlets where they get to amplify their opinions about gender just for clicks and giggles.

Related: 

Another Mainstream Journalist Discovers MRAs

ABC Story on MRA Aggression Sparks MRA Aggression in Comments

Preferably a Boy

I've seen a lot of people post this article on various social networking sites.

In it, Ben Shapiro takes issue with the Christian anti-vaccine crowd. Or something, I stopped reading after this:

"If Fred Phelps wants to believe that vaccines violate the word of God, thats fine. It's no skin off my back if the evangelical community wants to believe that God doesn't trust them with their own bodies. The problem for me is that someday I plan on impregnating a woman with my penis. Nine months later, we’ll be blessed with a little wriggly child (preferably a boy), and I want to make sure that he grows up big and strong and doesn’t accidently contract an old disease—especially one that most doctors don’t know how to treat anymore—because my neighbors decide not to vaccinate their child."

Too bad for his daughter, I guess, if she ever googles her dad's name and reads about his child preferences.

I actually did read the entire article, and found it mostly bad. Like maybe he thinks he's a lot of funnier than he actually is by, say, erroneously or willfully conflating autism with mental retardation.

To a larger point here, anti-religion dudes often paint religious women as being stupid and duped for being a part of sexist religions.

But, really, how many non-religious men and male critics of religion offer women ways of thinking about gender that are significantly better?

On Hitchens

Reading the various reactions to Christopher Hitchens' death has been interesting, both within and outside the feminist blogosphere.

I've seen klassy Christians dance on his grave. I've seen some, including a feminist, talk about what a fun drinking bud he was. I've seen some argue that he was a great rhetorician, and others that he was a lousy rhetorician who hid his poor arguments in fancy words.

What is interesting is that I haven't seen anyone suggest that Hitchens should be kicked out of the atheist club, along with all of his writings, because of his flawed humanity. I'm not suggesting he should be. I'm making an observation that people seem willing to accept imperfection in male non-feminist thinkers, while demanding perfection from feminist thinkers.

However, when feminist theologian Mary Daly died, non-feminists took it as a given that her views were "misandrist" and therefore everything she ever wrote was flawed. One dude even kicked her and her works out of feminism entirely. Feminist bloggers, including myself, were quick to add "I of course don't agree with everything she ever said" disclaimers on our posts about her passing.

My view is that we should recognize and use ideas and arguments that are valid, while rejecting and calling out those that are problematic. Unfortunately, it seems as though a feminist's intellectual and person failings are used to discredit her (and it's usually a her) entire body of work.

Is this done on any large scale, across the political spectrum, with male non-feminist thinkers?

I don't think so. And I wonder why this is? Is it because their flaws as thinkers aren't readily recognized as flaws? When Christopher Hitchens wrote that women aren't funny, was he seen as just courageously telling it like it really is? Despite his reputation for being a courageous truth-teller, Hitchens seemed to lazily accept his culture's biases and stereotypes about gender. But I don't see someone's perpetuation of, and complicity in, such biases as brave.

Katha Pollit makes an observation:

"So far, most of the eulogies of Christopher have come from men, and there’s a reason for that. He moved in a masculine world, and for someone who prided himself on his wide-ranging interests, he had virtually no interest in women’s writing or women’s lives or perspectives. I never got the impression from anything he wrote about women that he had bothered to do the most basic kinds of reading and thinking, let alone interviewing or reporting—the sort of workup he would do before writing about, say, G.K. Chesterton, or Scientology or Kurdistan. It all came off the top of his head, or the depths of his id. Women aren’t funny. Women shouldn’t need to/want to/get to have a job. The Dixie Chicks were 'fucking fat slags' (not 'sluts,' as he misremembered later). And then of course there was his 1989 column in which he attacked legal abortionand his cartoon version of feminism as 'possessive individualism.' I don’t suppose I ever really forgave Christopher for that."

I don't have much to say about Hitchens' passing, but I hope he is in peace.

I say that as someone who stopped being a fan of his after his women aren't funny piece, a piece that helped open my eyes to how many men within the atheist/skeptic movement have serious male privilege/sexism issues and that those who dominate such movements don't appear to have a genuine concern about inclusion.

I suppose Christopher Hitchens is partly responsible for my burgeoning feminism. This might seem like an appropriate place to express gratitude for that, but what's better than awakening someone's feminism is not being sexist in the first place.

Conversations About Civility, Part I

[content/trigger warning: this post contains an example of a misogynistic/transphobic slur, fat shaming, and references to threats]

I had a hunch that my post over at Family Scholars Blog (FSB) advocating for civility on both sides of the Gay Culture Wars might result in some pushback from QUILTBAG allies. I speculate that some of the comments would have been different, and my motives questioned less, had I only published the post here in Fannie's Room, rather than at FSB as well.

While I am somewhat used to having anti-QUILTBAG types assume all kinds of things about me, my personal life, and my beliefs based solely on my "avowed" sexual orientation, it is a more rare experience to have allies make very personal, and very wrong, assumptions about me and my motivations. The experience and the conversation generated, however, did raise some important points regarding civility, dialogue, and internet communication:

1. Internet Privacy

One gay male commenter (and I note his gender and orientation because it becomes relevant) tried to pressure me into using my real name in blogging. Even after I requested that he respect my choice to use a pseudonym, which I did not make lightly and that was in response to threats that I, and other feminist bloggers, regularly receive, he (wrongly) assumed that I was closeted about my sexual orientation in my "real life," that my choice was a "disservice" to gay people, and that I was dishonest. He said that he has been threatened and assaulted in his life too but that didn't stop him from using his real name in one comment, suggesting that therefore I too should reveal personal information about myself on the Internet.

Feminist bloggers, especially those more prominent than I, regularly write about threats they receive in response to their blogging. In light of that, and for other reasons, I see many legitimate and valid reasons for people to use pseudonymity and anonymity in Internet interaction and blogging. Even if gay men (or anyone else) are threatened, harassed, and assaulted, I question the appropriateness of them equating their experiences with those of women and then auditing the choices and risk management strategies that we (or anyone else) make to stay safe online and in our daily lives.

2. "Concern Troll"

Another commenter said that I was "concern trolling" - as though I were merely posing as a pro-LGBT commentator(!) and arguing that LGBT people just need to be less "shrill" about asking for equality. Another found it "amusing" that my first post at the "homophobic" FSB "scold[ed] gay people."

Now, I know there are many gay men who are feminists and allies to feminists and women. But, I will articulate my frustration with the many gay men who are ignorant of basically the entire feminist blogosphere, even though the feminist blogosphere is incredibly supportive of equal rights for gay men. Like, I didn't just spring forth from the aether on November 1, 2011, the day of my first FSB post. I've been blogging almost every day since 2007, oftentimes about LGBT rights. Because I'm a lesbian who supports LGBT rights.

Secondly, given the number of times I have been told I need to Watch My Tone, the first dude's comment just made me LOL. Seriously, I'm basically an expert in having dudes tell me to chill out about rape culture, misogyny, and sexism. For instance, ironically, a different LGBT rights dude in that very same comment thread made a sexist comment about, what he referred to as, my post and comments' "listen to mother," "scolding," and "uncivil" tone and later that I deserved his comment because I "make feminism part of [my] blogging identity" (LOLWUT?).

I contend that what really bothered more than a few Team Tolerance members was that I was assertively arguing with men while being a woman. How dare I. Funny thing is, once you scratch the surface of a so-called liberal/progressive man's sexist slip-up, one often finds that bigger ones are revealed. The "little things" are often based upon pretty large *clears throat* problematic worldviews.

See, the "listen to mother" guy then tried to explain himself by saying that women and men just have different communication styles, and that men in social movements are direct and aggressive, while women are "passive-aggressive" and "scolding."

Although, he kind of slunk away after Internet's Gender Genie said that I actually communicate like a man and that he communicates like a woman. Whooops!

So anyway, believe me, I think it's incredibly important to make the distinction between statements that are (a) assertive arguments against inequality and "isms" being mislabeled "shrill" or "aggressive" and (b) an "ism"-based personal attack on an opponent (or ally), such as calling Ann Coulter a "hot tranny mess," accurately being called out as hostile.

My piece was intended to be the latter. We're just not being honest as LGBT people and advocates if we can't admit that people on "our side" are sometimes out of line and capable of harm. There have been, in fact, times I think my tone harsh or my words uncivil. Yet, there have also been times when opponents have inaccurately called my tone or words uncivil as a silencing tactic. It is crucial for those involved in contentious debates, on all sides, to be able to accurately discern when the former and the latter are happening.

Anyway, there's a lot to digest here, so I'll continue this post tomorrow.

Like I Said

Well, despite the fact that Prop 8 witness David Blankenhorn recently admitted to me that he "never felt physically threatened" by giving his testimony, Charles Cooper (who is the attorney for the "marriage defense" side) recently claimed, once again, that releasing tapes of the Prop 8 trial would cause his witnesses to become too scared to testify in the Prop 8 appeal.

While Judge Ware, on September 19, had ordered the recordings to be released, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ordered them to remain sealed for now.

Via SFGate (see that link I included? How courteous of me!), Cooper claimed:

"Ware's ruling 'threatens deep and lasting harm to the integrity and credibility of the federal judiciary,' Charles Cooper, lawyer for Prop. 8's sponsors, said in asking the appeals court for an emergency stay.

Unsealing the recordings would expose pro-Prop. 8 witnesses to 'a serious and well-substantiated risk of harassment or worse' and would cause them to refuse to testify at any future proceedings, Cooper said.

He did not present any supporting statements from the witnesses. Prop. 8's opponents, on the other hand, are circulating a comment from the sponsors' chief witness, traditional marriage advocate David Blankenhorn, who said in an online exchange last week that he 'never felt physically threatened' by the presence of cameras at the trial. (emphasis added)."

So, yeah. That "online exchange" bit?

So, yeah, that online exchange was with me. And, I totally reported that tidbit already. Last week. Twice.

I mean, sure, the more important fact is that Charles Cooper's little narrative about how scared the Prop 8 witnesses are (and David Blankenhorn is one out of two of them) is looking more and more disingenuous every day, but... still.

Would it have been difficult to include a link to my article?

I mean, Blankenhorn's admission is a Big Deal. It undercuts the argument that the Prop 8 witnesses are Very Scared Of The Big Bad Gay Meanies- because if the witnesses aren't actually scared like the "marriage defenders" say they are, there's no actual reason to keep the Prop 8 trial recordings sealed. Indeed, in our conversation, Mr. Blankenhorn didn't even seem to be aware of the fact that he was supposed to be scared of marriage equality advocates. When he expressed ignorance regarding the whole sealing-of-the-tapes matter, I had to fill him on that little detail.

Really, I'm surprised more people haven't picked up on my conversation with Blankenhorn, particularly in the LGBT political blogosphere.

But then again, I'm not that surprised.

The "LGBT" blogosphere is dominated, with a few exceptions, by cis, white gay men who are deemed (or deem themselves) the spokesmen for "LGBT" rights. While many feminist blogs regularly cover and advocate for LGBT issues, I have not experienced a parity of reciprocity with some of the more popular gay bloggers covering feminist or gender issues. Some are even outright hostile to feminism while, ironically, having their work regularly promoted at some feminist blogs.

Everyone has the right to set their own agenda at their own blogs, so my point is that Mainstream Gay is missing out analyses and observations from feminism and the feminist blogosphere that could really push LGBT rights forward.

For instance, a person simply cannot understand, much less rebut, the "gender complementarist" argument against same-sex marriage, without thinking about gender on more than a superficial level. At one blog, I once saw a gay man fumble his way through a "rebuttal" at an anti-gay blog where he tried to insist that same-sex couples were "complementary" like how men and women supposedly are because there's usually one butch and one femme in a same-sex relationship.

LULZ. Sure.

When one only considers same-sex marriage from the prism of how unfair marriage bans are to The Gays, one doesn't often pick up on the fact that many narratives about "traditional marriage" are also incredibly sexist, misandric, and misogynistic.

Like, if more Americans knew what version of "traditional marriage" they were "defending," maybe they wouldn't be so eager to defend it.

Anyway, I know I'm being vague in my accusations here, and that's intentional. I'm not trying to stir up a blog shitstorm. I'm just encouraging more prominent gay bloggers to be better allies. For the sake of social justice, I think Mainstream Gay would do better if it popped the Everything Gay bubble and broadened the blogrolls.

Why I'm A Feminist

So, I can relate to this.

Long story short: A man follows a woman, Rebecca Watson, into an elevator at 4 a.m. after she has just spoken at a conference in which she discussed misogyny in the atheism movement. The woman posts a video on her blog, wherein she asks men not to do that. Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins, and a multitude of commenters, asserts that there are Far More Important Things for people to worry about than this and Will Somebody Please Think Of The Muslim Women?

Sexism, you see, is a thing that Other Men Do. And, well, us Western Ladies should just STFU and be incredibly grateful that our men let us vote and work and go to school.

Of her experience, Rebecca Watson notes:

"When I started this site, I didn’t call myself a feminist. I had a hazy idea that feminism was a good thing, but it was something that other people worried about, not me. I was living in a time and culture that had transcended the need for feminism, because in my world we were all rational atheists who had thrown off our religious indoctrination so that I could freely make rape jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped.

...So here we are today. I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier."

I am a small fry in the world of blogging. Yet I, like Watson, did not start this blog strongly identifying as a feminist or with the intentions of this blog turning into a platform where I would "talk about feminism. A lot."

As late as 2007, I think I was still operating under the assumption that Most Decent Left-Leaning Folks were feminists or, if not explicitly identifying themselves as feminists, would deal with sexism and misogyny allegations with grace, self-reflection, and good intentions.

Lulz, I know, right?

I am a feminist, like Rebecca, because skeptics and atheists made me one.

As did conservatives, obviously, but also liberals, Democrats, libertarians, communists, socialists, gay male bloggers, anti-racist bloggers, and other people I previously had assumed were "natural allies" to feminism who would at least be receptive to, or hell even willing to engage with, feminist arguments.

Whether liberal guys were declaring breast ogling to be non-problematic for women, telling women to watch their tone with how they respond to rape culture, or bailing Julian Assange out of jail whilst ordering feminists to not be "naive" about "official" narratives, I quickly learned as a blogger that, for many people within these movements, gender issues were subordinate to the Real Issues.

I became a feminist because many men (and some women) within male-dominated political and social movements are united in their belief that women's and gender issues drag down "their" movements- a reflection of an anxious worldview wherein feminism mostly represents a hysterical, hyper-politically-correct war on men, boys, and masculinity.

I have no idea what the numbers are of those within left-leaning movements who are also feminists. Yet, judging by the many responses in left-leaning spaces that feminists regularly get when we bring up sexism, rape, or misogyny in spaces that do not regularly address these topics, a substantial chorus seems to believe that because Women In Certain (Usually Muslim) Hellholes Have Things So Much Worse, feminism is irrelevant to the Western World.

And yet, when we consider what happened, these taunters only demonstrate feminism's necessity. Remember, all Watson said was that she didn't want men to proposition her in elevators at 4 a.m. after she had just given a lecture about misogyny.

She was attempting to set a clear boundary, asking men to respect that boundary.

It was a small thing, really. A simple request, and an important one to the woman who made it.

But for that, non-feminists within the atheist movement angrily exaggerated her position and ridiculed her. People trivialized her experience and, in various forms, expressed the opinion that women can't or shouldn't expect to have their boundaries respected, that it's unrealistic, or self-centered, or man-hating, or what-have-you.

Given that many people who dominate the left cannot handle the small things, how on earth do they expect us, the so-called special interests, to trust them with the Big Things their movements purport to address?

Anti-Feminists Condemn Feminists For Condemning Maher's Sexism

Grab your barf bags everyone, a Concerned Woman For America is telling her FoxNews audience that The Feminists do not adequately defend Sarah Palin from sexism. Penny Young Nance, CEO of the rightwing anti-feminist Concerned Women For America (CWA), writes:

"It takes a really weak, insecure, and spineless man to attack a woman on television. It takes an even weaker 'feminist' movement to play down such attacks.
In a recent episode of 'Somebody, Please Notice Me,' also known as 'Real Time with Bill Maher' on HBO, the show’s host may have hit rock bottom with his latest rhetorical bomb by referring to Sarah Palin with a vulgarity exceedingly offensive to women. Far more noticeable, and certainly more noteworthy, was the backhanded 'defense' of Palin from radical feminists and their clearly misnamed organizations.

National Organization for Women communications director Lisa Bennett, after days of silence, sounded more as if she didn’t want to be bothered: 'Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media.'”

Two things.

First, Nance frames this alleged feminist failure to counter sexism as being worse ("far more noticeable, and certainly more noteworthy") than actual sexism. Maher calls a woman a "twat" on his show, and that's bad. But what's worse big is that feminists have apparently not adequately responded, which then provides cover for the rightwing woman-haters' club to use Maher's slur to further their smear campaign against feminism.

Two, on that point, Nance selectively includes only a very small portion of Lisa Bennett's response which can easily be found at the NOW Blog, a portion that conveniently omits Bennett's condemnation of misogynistic slurs. Bennett writes:

"Listen, supposedly progressive men (ok, and women, too): Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don't like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs. OK? Can you do that, please? If you think someone's an idiot or a danger to the country, feel free to say so, but try to keep their sex out of it. Sexist insults have an impact on all women."

Not that this easily-found post stops Nance from tossing ping-pong balls into the Making Shit Up Bucket of Bozo the Clown's Grand Prize Game. In her zeal to undercut feminism, she goes on to claim that this alleged "silence" from the "radical feminists" is part of some sort of trend, a double-standard, that makes feminists "delusional," "clueless," and "irrelevant." Thus, she advises:

"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..."

No shit, Sherlock.

Also, what NOW said. Although, why does Nance say it's only up to women to speak out against these slurs? Oh right, let's not upset Daddy by holding men to the same basic standard of civility that we hold women to, eh Nance?

For, look who else likes to jump on the anti-feminist anti-woman bandwagon: A male FoxNews ignoramus/ignorer of feminism, who wrote in his column that of course it's too much to expect NOW to "man up" and denounce Maher.

Get it? Get. It? An organization of women can't "man up" and be expected to Do The Right Thing.

Hmmm, do you think Nance is going to call her anti-feminist bro out for that sexism? To borrow that nifty soundbite from Nance's anti-feminist screed: Let's cue the proverbial crickets.

See, the thing about Nance is that while I agree with her on the point about how we must denounce sexist attacks on all women, in the very next clause of her sentence she's either being a mendacious liar or an ignorant fool with a large platform. Acting like the ego-centric 3-year-old who closes her eyes and thinks that just because she can't see anyone else then no one else can see her, she claims:

"...[T]he prevailing view among radical feminists seems to be that conservative women either don’t exist or are merely female impersonators. They don’t deserve to be defended when attacked because, after all, real women don’t hold conservative views.

So if you’re a woman leader with conservative positions on the issues, and you’re active in your church and speak out about matters of faith, and you get demeaned, demonized, slurred, or smeared, the radical feminist attitude toward you is, 'You get what you deserve, because we, frankly, have the same opinion of you.'”

Nope.

In the real world governed by real things that really happen, it is an observable and demonstrated fact that feminists regularly call for all people to speak out against sexist attacks against all women. But, even demonstrated instances of condemnation are not enough to those determined to denounce feminists as hyprocrites. Inevitably, feminist condemnations of sexism directed at conservative women are framed as too slow, too insincere, or not loud enough.

And so here I wonder if Nance actually reads feminist work or feminist blogs. Because, in my humble experience of actually reading many feminist blogs on a daily basis, I cannot think of one that even remotely has the attitude that it's acceptable to call conservative women "cunts" and "twats." I wonder too, if that little fact even matters to people like Nance.

Yet, feminists regularly condemn sexist attacks on women even if when it's not politically expedient to do so and even when doing so turns us into the BonerBuzzKills of liberal and progressive movements. The thing is, unlike Nance, we don't usually get a platform on FoxNews or Bill Maher's show to do so.

And on that point, do a find and replace and look at the serious projection that's revealed:

"If you're a feminist and you get demeaned, demonized, slurred, or smeared, the mainstream, liberal, and conservative attitude toward you is 'You get what you deserve, because we, frankly, have the same opinion of you."

Whose Rights?

[TW: Gender policing]

Timothy Kincaid at gay blog Box Turtle Bulletin doesn't appreciate how some in the LGBT community are going about trying to win "his" gay rights. Of a protest for marriage equality involving drag queens and led by Queer Rising in Manhattan, he writes:

"...[D]rag has nothing to do with marriage or our community’s quest for marriage equality. In fact, when it comes to marriage, the last thing we want is for those who are listening to our legitimate grievances to start thinking that gay people are just ‘men who like to parade around in women’s clothes’ or that we don’t take our own inequalities and indignities seriously.

Which is why it was really incredibly stupid and counterproductive for Queer Rising – an organization of queer activists and 'drag queen activists' – to block the intersection of Manhattan’s 42nd Street and Sixth Avenue this morning with a banner protesting marriage inequality in fright wigs and faux fur. This protest was a lot less about marriage than it was about 'look at me!'”

Now, since it is a tenent of our legal system to treat likes alike and unalikes unalike, the culture war narratives follow accordingly and breed this sort of internal intolerance and alienation. In order to win equality, LGBT people are pigeonholed into having to prove that We're Just Like Straight People (even if some of us aren't), that Our Relationships Are Just Like Heterosexual Relationships (eve if some are not), and that we therefore deserve equal rights.

So, rather than challenging the notion that there's something undignified, unserious, or undeserving-of-equality about "men who like to parade around in women's clothes," many gender-conforming queers get their knickers in a wad over the more radical members of our community who Ruin Shit For "All" Of "Us." Or, as Kincaid's title commands:

"When protesting for my rights, please try not to be incredibly stupid and counterproductive."

Now, I don't doubt that lots of gay people are just like straight people. But, lots of gay people, oh and transgender people and lesbians and and queers and bisexual people and drag queens too, are not. Many people perform gender and sexuality in different ways for many different reasons, few of which involve a "look at me" desire to be the center of attention on a Manhattan street.

So, I think herein lies a big question of what, exactly, the LGBT movement (if it can even be called that) is fighting for. I mean, what exactly are the big priorities of the Homosexual Agenda and who gets to set them?

Is the struggle primarily about marriage equality? Or, is our struggle something greater than what some cisgender gender-conforming gay men think they require for "their" liberation? Is marriage equality worth having if it means shaming members of the LGBT community in the process and mandating gender conformity at public events and protests? Is this gay "equality" worth having if we're leaving in place pervasive misogyny (and racism and biphobia and other -isms) within the LGBT community?

I'm not trying to start a blog shitstorm or writing this post just to say "look at me," but, rather, because when I read something like the following quote, as a lady, I don't feel exactly liberated. In response to a drag queen saying she wanted people to take their protest seriously, Kincaid asks:

"Serious? Really? You want morning commuters to take you serious in your purple eye-shadow and stiletto heels?"

Purple eye-shadow and stiletto heels. On a man. Like, what a woman would wear. Rather than critiquing how and why these symbols of femininity so degrade the wearer's credibility, Kincaid participates in the degradation, taking it as a given that of course purple eye-shadow and stiletto heals indicate that a person doesn't have serious things to say about equality.

Fun fact: The same day Kincaid posted this commentary, a couple of guys hanging out at his blog joked in the comments to another post about how a particular anti-equality female politician supposedly looks like "a drag queen."

A drag queen. You know, those people we can't expect people to take seriously.

See how I don't bring this stuff up just for shits and giggles? It's all related.

When men are seen as looking ridiculous, unserious, and self-absorbed in women's clothes because of the incongruity between masculinity and femininity, what does it say about women, as a class, that these accoutrements are a supposed perfect fit? Indeed, how does a BTB commenter retort to my taking issue with his sexism? By barking:

"@fannie, get over yourself"

Natch.

Here we see, once again, the minimization by those with the relative privilege of sexual orientation being their only major axis of oppression of those who are oppressed based on other aspects of their identity. While such folks undoubtedly view the oppression of gay men as a Very Big Deal, and it is, some unfortunately dismiss, ignore, or minimize other people's experiences of oppression because, perhaps, they don't think it's as legit as the so-called Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.

Yet, marriage equality on the condition that we parade in our figurative and gender-conforming Sunday Best might be fine and dandy for some, but we can and should do better than turn ourselves into the American (Homosexual) Family Association just so we can get into the cool kids' marriage club. One wonders how many of "us" would be left once people are done throwing others under the bus in order to obtain "their" rights. One wonders what the new hierarchies would be and which crusty patriarchal ones would remain.

Kincaid ends by admonishing the drag queen:

"Instead, perhaps it is you who should be taking our community and our rights seriously."

With all due respect, I believe she is. If one is using a a broader definition of "our community" and "our rights," of course.


[Related- College Journalist: Flamboyant Gays to Blame For Suicides]

On Threats

[TW: Threats; Harassment; Apologism; Sexual Assault]

I pulled this from the neverending-comment-thread because I think it deserves highlighting for purposes of making a larger point. Commenter EDB5fold aptly noted:

For a frightening number of people (mostly men, who are more often than women socialized to respond to things they don't like with violence), identifying yourself as a feminist, or saying something that's ideologically in line with some part of feminism, is considered sufficient grounds for threatening your life. I won't separate some amorphous public concept of feminism from the lived realities of feminists.

To which I responded:

I'm very glad you brought this up because it is so common, so much a part of our lives, that I think it often gets overlooked. Rape/death threats are a fact of life for most feminist bloggers, especially high-traffic bloggers. I have received them in comment threads and via email, and nearly every feminist blogger I read has received them.

From what I have seen, this is not a phenomenon that MRAs experience, at least to the degree that feminists do. That, I think, underscores a lot of the male aggression entitlement issues that I have been talking about. The status quo in a rape culture is male violence against women.

Catherine Mackinnon has written, to paraphrase, that some wrongs are so common they are sometimes thought of as too common to be atrocious. And likewise, some wrongs are so atrocious they are assumed to be uncommon.

I guess I'm reminded of how sucky it is that rape/death threats are so casually treated by mainstream society as Just An Expected Part of Feminist Blogging. Maybe it's our just deserts for "hating men"?

[TW: Suicide, threats]

Indeed, when I first started blogging, an anti-feminist man sent me a few incredibly creepy emails encouraging me to commit suicide and outlining various ways I could do it. When I mentioned that at an anti-feminist, anti-gay blog, a commenter noted, 'Well, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar,' implying that I brought the threats upon myself.

Let's talk about this.

I am of course speaking from my own experience and from what I see as both a writer and reader of many feminist blogs and as a reader of MRA/anti-feminist/non-feminist blogs, but it's not often that I hear of feminists making veiled threats to MRA bloggers where we fantasize about them getting "rape[d] in the dead of night."

Indeed, I'm just not seeing large numbers of feminists going to MRA and other anti-feminist sites and celebrating, encouraging, and joking about sexual assault and violence against male and anti-feminist bloggers.

Many feminists would rightly be appalled at and condemn that sort of violent speech.

Yet, when people do it to feminist, such threats are so expected that it's often treated as unremarkable. That is the status quo.

What's the reason for this? Well, what does a feminist expect if she's going to espouse "man-hating" views, right?

If we think of some of the stereotypes of feminists, it becomes apparent that these caricatures exist not only to minimize feminist arguments, but to silence us and further justify the status quo of male violence against women. They perpetuate a culture where it's okay for some types of people to violate another type of people's boundaries.

Framing feminists as loud-mouthed screechy man-hating cunts, and that is indeed how we are widely framed in non-feminist circles, makes it easier for people to believe that we are somehow responsible for real or threatened acts of violence against us. Even if people condemn theats against feminists, many of them still say, well, honey + vinegar, remember ladies? Better watch your tone and make sure you are sufficiently non-offensive to hyper-defensive men who are, themselves, quite okay with aggression as long as they're the ones dishing it out.

Yet, what I've come to learn over the years is that while men are expected, encouraged, and entitled to be aggressive and angry and foaming at the mouth about anything from politics to traffic to football games, no political argument coming from a female feminist will ever be deemed sufficiently pleasant, accomodating, smiley, giggly, or civil enough if it's an argument against rape culture, patriarchy, or misogyny. Usually what happens is that criticisms of these wrongs are deemed much worse than the object of the feminist criticism.

And if, goddess forbid, a feminist actually shows anger, the non/anti-feminist will exaggerate it so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that's ultimately used to discredit hir.

It is no coincidence that these stereotypes about what feminists are like, and how responsible we are for threats and violence against us also parallel rape apologist narratives like "what was she doing drinking so much, anyway?"

Both preserve the status quo of "victim" being viewed as just an essential characteristic of women. Both preserve the status quo that some people's boundaries don't matter.

The feminist starting point is that our arguments are met with threats of violence from those along the political spectrum. The non/anti-feminist and MRA position is not, which underscorse the perversity of MRAs so often leeching the language of feminist equality to advance their so-often-resoundingly-anti-feminist agenda.

Accepting the proposition that feminism and non/anti-feminism are just two different-but-equally-legitimate ways of seeing things means accepting the propostion that pervasive violence and threats against women are just as legitimate as non-violence against women and respecting our boundaries.

"There is no neutral in rape culture."

Non-feminism is anti-feminism.

United They Stand

[TW: Sexual assault, harassment]

Feminism and "women's issues," in case you had any doubt, are seen by many men within politics as special interests that drag down their male-dominated movements. This is true of the left and the right. (And also the "center," however that happens to be defined at any given moment in time.)

Despite how men feel about the suckiness, or not, of Wikileaks and Assange's role in it, many of them are quite certain that the so-called feminazi fury which has been aimed at Julian Assange and/or the sexual misconduct allegations leveled against him are, quite simply, bullshit. Men of all political stripes, those who are not feminists anyway, unite around this self-evident-to-them truth.

On the far left, David Walsh, writing for the World Socialist Web Site, claims:

"The sexual assault charges against Assange in Sweden are part of an orchestrated effort to divert public attention from the content of the WikiLeaks exposures—the duplicity, hypocrisy and criminality of American and world imperialism—and bury the important revelations in a pile of scandalous garbage. [Nation writer Katha] Pollitt has eagerly lent a hand to that effort.

Such a development was predictable, given the history of the journalist and the publication, but that does not make it any less reprehensible… or educational. The arguments employed by Pollitt shed further light on the politically rotten character of contemporary feminism and identity politics generally."

Okay. Feminists are actively working for the man. At best, we're just useful idiots to a capitalistic machine we don't fully understand. Got it.

On the left, Keith Olbermann (in)famously took his Twitter and went home after feminist blogger Sady Doyle criticized him for downplaying the accusations leveled against Assange. Olbermann then re-tweeted a source that claimed that one of Assange's "'rape'" (sarcasticquotes retained from original Tweet) accusers has "CIA ties."

Okay. Feminists are too dumb to realize we're perpetuating a CIA plot. Got it.

On the right, The Other McCain mocks the "feminist meltdown" regarding Assange and gets quite aroused over the "fatwa of feminist fury" that was unleashed upon Assange-bailer-outer Michael Moore, who acted like a rape apologist (before ultimately apologizing.)

McCain then asserts that feminists are part of "the Left," just like Assange, his accusers, and the ones making death threats against his accusers. Got it.

In sum, feminism, as defined by men who pay little attention to feminism and see it as a movement largely irrelevant to their More Important Concerns, is a leftwing, rightwing, corporate, CIA, and government phenomenon. All at once.

Our days are busy.

In reality, feminism, defined as liberating all people from gender role stereotyping, stopping the devaluation of femininity, and dismantling rape culture, threatens men who see such liberation, stopping, and dismantling as a zero-sum game that dismantles only male privileges and supremacy. To such men, who of course can hold political persuasions of any type, feminism is a monstrous bogeyman into which they pour their anxieties about impending male losses in a post-feminist world.

These men seek liberation from corporations, the government, capitalism, leftwing ideology, commies, rightwingers, homophobia, welfare queens, religion, and basically anything other than one of the most, if not the most pervasive and enduring prisons of all- the notion that the gender binary tells us everything we need to know about each "half" of the human race.

Thus, every now and then, you will see such men set aside their differences and unite around the unspoken principle that there is nothing More Important in the world than maintaining male supremacy. This revelation is Assange's most disturbing, and certain to be overlooked, leak of all.

A Different Kind of Crime

[TW: Sexual assault, harassment]

Feminist Naomi Wolf is advocating an end to anonymous rape accusations, arguing that such accusations are unethical and ultimately damaging to women.

There is much to unpack in her piece, but we can examine the key flaw by examining this paragraph:

"Feminists have long argued that rape must be treated like any other crime. But in no other crime are accusers' identities hidden. Treating rape differently serves only to maintain its mischaracterisation as a 'different' kind of crime, loaded with cultural baggage."

It's one of the oldest "gotchas" in the anti-feminist playbook to use the concept of "equal treatment" against women. One of the bases of our legal system rests in treating likes alike and unalikes unalike. Thus, Wolf asserts that a crime is a crime is a crime; they are all alike and isn't that what the feminists wanted all along, to be treated just like men?

Well, ok. But the thing is, rape is a different kind of crime. To categorize it as a crime just like any other elides these distinctions which justify different treatment. What Wolf minimizes as "cultural baggage" is that:

Unlike burglarly or murder or carjacking, women are 5 times as likely as men to be raped (PDF) and it is almost always men who are the rapist (PDF).

Unlike burglarly or murder or carjacking, the majority of rapes (60%) are never reported to the police.

Unlike burglarly or murder or carjacking, rape culture narratives tell us that the survivors of rape asked for it, are lying about it, agreed to it, deserved it, and/or liked it. These narratives are both widely believed and help explain the preceding statistic regarding the non-reportage of rapes.

Rape is different because rape culture narratives tell us that the mass rape of women as a weapon of war is a "women's rights" issue, rather than a human rights one, because unlike more readily-recognizable (that is, masculinized) human rights violations like water-boarding, rape happens mostly to women.

Rape is different because rape culture narratives put the onus for rape prevention on women while also telling women that such empowerment is dangerous because men might be harmed by our newfound skills.

Rape is different because rape culture narratives tell us that men are entitled to sexual access to women and it is a violation of men's rights to put limits upon that access. Indeed, hell can unleash no fury like that which is unleashed upon women, feminists, and feminist bloggers who question that access. And so, Melissa at Shakesville writes:

"I'll simply note that [Wolf's] premise is intrinsically flawed as it's based on the erroneous assumption that we shield accusers because of some antiquated notion that rape is shameful. We do not. We shield accusers because survivors are routinely revictimized by rape apologists."

Item: When Keith Olbermann shared the link to the name of one of Julian Assange's accusers with his 166,533 Twitter followers, he not only contributed to the receipt of death threats by Assange's accusers, but to the receipt of death and rape threats of the STFU-because-women's-"pussies"-belong-to-men type targeting feminist bloggers who criticized Olbermann's actions.

Until all of the above circumstances change, it would be unwarranted, unwise, and unsafe to follow Wolf's brand of rape-is-just-like-any-other crime equality feminism which mandates that if men don't need something like anonymity in rape accusations (or don't imagine they will ever need it), then nobody gets it.*


*Tip o' the beret to Catharine MacKinnon.

The Anti-Feminist Deception

[TW: Gender-based violence]

Making its rounds in the MRA/woman-hating circuit is this article by Caroline Glick which deigns to expose feminism as a "fraud." I know the MRA crowd has been figuratively jerking off to this partiuclar article, since roughly a third of the articles I regularly receive via my Google Alert for "feminism" would more accurately be categorized as "anti-feminism."

In this article, Glick first begins by mocking a group of "manly looking women" who "would likely all describe themselves as feminists" who appear on youtube taking a political stand in support of Palestine. It is not clear on what other basis Glick determines that these women are feminists, perhaps because they appear "manly" to her, but she then concludes that "if these anti-Israel female protesters are feminists, then feminism is dead." Glick continues by claiming that Secretary of State Clinton has singled out Israel for its poor treatment of women "while keeping nearly mum on the institutionalized, structural oppression of women and girls throughout the Muslim world."

Now, the media declares feminism dead on pretty much an hourly basis and Glick does nothing new here by observing the actions of a few "feminists" and then naively believing that these "feminists" represent the entirety of feminism, a movement which is, apparently, a monolithic thing.

I've addressed that "why are feminists focusing on x, when there are women in the Middle East who have it so much worse" argumentation before as it's one that is steeped in ignorance. While people who level this charge condemn western feminists for supposedly not caring enough about Muslim women, the only women these folks seem to care about are Muslim ones. It's as though if western feminists are devoting 100% of their time and energy toward solving the plight of Muslim women, the whole entire feminist movement Isn't Doing Any Good At All.

Unlike many rightwing ideologues, many feminists approach Middle Eastern politics with nuance, not particularly eager to replace one patriarchal One True God religion and violent male-dominated theocracy in a region with another. And that, I believe, is why rightwing ideologues hate feminism so much. We see through the concern trolling.

Politics, especially politics that serve male dominance, are often games of projection and reversals, whether intended or not. And so it is that we observe Glick's claim that feminism is a leftwing conspiracy to impose "the Left’s social and political agenda against Western societies." (And yes, by mistaking "the Left" for a feminist movement, Glick shows even more ignorance of modern western feminism).

But I digress.

It's funny that Glick would make this accusation about feminism being a tool of a leftwing plot to conquer the world, because don't you often get the feeling that anti-feminists' criticism of the Muslim Treatment of Women inevitably serves the higher purpose of trying to advance the western Right's social, political, corporate, religious, and sexist agenda against Muslim societies?

As a case in point, I offer the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010, a bill "that would ensure that child marriage is recognized as a human rights violation, and develop comprehensive strategies to prevent such marriages around the world." Child marriage is a problem in the Middle East, including in some Muslim countries.

Only 12 Republicans supported this bill and, therefore, the House of Representatives failed to pass it. Republicans opposed this bill because they thought it was too expensive and, although the language says nothing about abortion, they thought it might still somehow allow girls whose bodies might be torn apart in childbirth to get abortions.

The western Right cares about Muslim women alright. Well, at least they do if western feminists can be demonized or if it's not too expensive to actually do something about the plight of women or if taking action that would help girls doesn't conflict with the right to control a girl's reproduction.

And we're supposed to ally ourselves with these rightwing ideologues?

Please.

And, natch, we'll all wait for the rightwing or MRA criticism and Republicanism-is-dead heralding that is sure to be leveled at the Republicans for this failure to properly defend girls and women.

(Crickets)

Odds 'N Ends

1. Writing in Religious Dispatches, Mark Berger writes of the problem of sexual abuse in Orthodox Jewish communities:

There’s nothing to suggest that sexual abuse is any more or less prevalent in the Orthodox community than anywhere else; but there are a number of peculiarities to Orthodox Jewish life that have made the reporting of abuse less common than in society at large.

'I think the subject of abuse is probably the same in any religious community,' says Michael Salomon, a Long Island psychiatrist, who has just finished working on an as-yet-unpublished book about sexual abuse in the Orthodox world.

'Different religions use different justifications for not reporting,' he says. 'But it comes down to the theory that religious issues should be handled within the religious community, even though the powers that be within the community do not have the power to investigate and to prosecute.'”

Berger continues by noting similarities in the way the Catholic Church and the Orthodox community have handled abuse allegations:

"Both are closed, conservative communities. Both have a hierarchy and an infrastructure built around the idea that they are responsible for policing themselves. And both are deeply suspicious of the outside world and its values. Catholic and Orthodox officials even joined forces last year to block a bill in the New York State legislature that would have temporarily lifted the statute of limitations on abuse claims."

Of course, the Catholic Church and Orthodox Judaism have another key similarity, their respective woman problems, not that Berger mentions that. As more abuse is exposed within these and similar patriarchal religious communities, perhaps a national conversation will begun to be had about how, when men make themselves god, they will preserve and prioritize that dominance above all else. Yes, even the children.


2. So "progressive" hero Michael Moore has posted bail for Julian Assange. Like a couple of male commenters who popped up here to tell us wacky feminists that they Just Know Assange's accusers are lying about the sex crime allegations against him as part of a sinister government conspiracy, Michael Moore joins the rape apologist chorus:

"For those of you who think it’s wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he’s being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please — never, ever believe the 'official story.' And regardless of Assange’s guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself."

Yep, he does have the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. And sure, he admits uncertainty over "Assange's guilt or innocence." But by telling those who are troubled by all of the rape apologist narratives going on right now that we are just naive, he implies that Assange is, actually, innocent and that we just Don't Know How Things Work by, you know, actually believing a woman who says a powerful man might have raped her.

Sady at Tiger Beatdown has started a Twitter campaign to pressure Moore to explain his fauxgressive stance on sexual assault. Consider joining in if you Tweet.


3. 5 gender essentialist myths, busted.

In Which Gay = Male, Again

Silly me for thinking that when former President Jimmy Carter said we might be ready for a gay president, we were actually talking about a president that could be either male or female.

Maureen Dowd, and those she cites, confirms yet again that in cultural narratives about "gay" rights, the default gay is still a gay man. She writes:

"Others feel we’re not ready for a gay president, citing the fear and loathing unleashed by the election of the first black president. 'Can you imagine how much a gay president would have to overcompensate to please the macho ninnies who control our national debate?' Bill Maher told me. 'Women like Hillary have to do it, Obama had to do it because he’s black and liberal, but a gay president? He’d have to nuke something the first week.'”

I called Barney Frank, assuming the gay pioneer would be optimistic. He wasn’t. 'It’s one thing to have a gay person in the abstract,' he said. 'It’s another to see that person as part of a living, breathing couple. How would a gay presidential candidate have a celebratory kiss with his partner after winning the New Hampshire primary? The sight of two women kissing has not been as distressful to people as the sight of two men kissing.'”

Gay men often cite that "straight dudes love watching ladies kiss" rule as proof that the public isn't as "distressed" by queer women as they are by gay men. What they fail to consider is that the above rule usually only holds true if the two women's looks are in compliance with conventional standards of beauty. That is, if they're hot according to, not just the straight male eye, but the queer male eye as well. But more on that in a minute.

The gay-male centricity in this narrative about whether we're ready for a gay president perhaps illustrates that the thought of a woman president, any woman president, is still too unimagineable for some to even hypothetically consider.

Yet oddly, Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign told Maureen Dowd: "[A] lesbian would have a better shot at the presidency than a gay man. 'People are more comfortable with women than they are with men because of stereotypes with gay men about hypersexuality,' he said."

You know, as a real life lesbian myself, I've found that once you scratch the surface of someone's homophobia and remind them that queer women exist too, we often find that people aren't actually more comfortable with queer women. We are an afterthought, mostly. But still a deviant, immoral, and/or ridicule-worthy one in many people's eyes.

Someone named Andre Leon Talley, who is apparently a "Vogue visionary," adds his two cents by basically demonstrating that some gay dudes (or maybe just him) don't really take the idea of a female president seriously. What would be most important about a lady president would be, natch, her outfits:

"[He] pictures a lesbian president who looks like Julie Andrews and dresses to meet heads of state in 'ankle-length skirts, grazing the Manolo Blahnik kitten heels.' She would save her 'butch trouser suit for weekends at Camp David and vacation hikes in Yellowstone. No plaid lumberjack shirts at any time.'”

Har har har-wait a minute, I thought stereotyping was wrong. Oh, that rule only applies to "gays"?

But seriously, after Dowd gives us quote after quote about how it is unfair to gay men that negative stereotypes define them as oversexed sissies (and it is unfair), we learn from these men that (a) being a lesbian is so much easier and (b) that a lesbian president would be subject to some serious fashion policing, this time grounded in the lesbian lumberjack stereotype, effectively demonstrating that contrary to popular gay male opinion and no matter her sexual orientation, a female president's campaign for the highest office in our land would be no fucking walk in the park.

Male privilege FAIL.