Why the hostility?

So Daisy asks why I'm so hostile to feminism (Okay she didn't ask so much as wish I weren't so hostile to it and then I once again started asking myself that question).

Its a sensible question. Anyone that's ever read my posts, my comments at other blogs, seen where I both agree and disagree with feminists on a regular basis may be thinking that I'm a bit of a paradox when confronted with feminism. And that's not even counting the fact that I'm regularly contribute here, a feminist blog. How can a person who can see eye to eye with members of a movement have their hostility triggered so easily by members of that movement?

Its almost like there are two forces fighting for control of how Danny (yes I just referred to myself in the third person, love it) reacts to feminists.

On one hand I have no problem with interacting with them at places like No, Seriously What About Teh Menz ? and The Good Men Project. But on the other I can get into some pretty heated disagreements with them at those very same places (I go by "Danny" at both of those places BTW). There must be more to it.

Yes an X Factor. Something that when triggered has me fighting off the urge to dog feminists out for every bit I can with no thoughts of mercy or quarter (if it makes you feel any better this is not unique to feminism, its one of the parts of being a Scorpio that really sticks).

I have to figure what it is in order to deal with it. And on the bigger picture I know I'm not the only one with such hostility (and not just with feminists, I'm talking hostility with anyone that comes off a bit strong) and said hostility has to be confronted.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Dollhouse

[This show frequently addresses issues of rape, coercion of all stripes, and sexual violence, which will be discussed further here, so please be forewarned if this may be triggering for you.]

Since there's so much discussion 'round this part of Blogdonia about the feminism (or lack thereof) of Joss Whedon, I thought I'd give some of my own brief run-down, since having just finished the series a couple of weeks ago.  I'm intentionally avoiding reading any other critiques before writing this before giving my own opinions. 

A summary of the plot, from the site's Wikipedia page:

The story follows Echo (Eliza Dushku), a "doll" or "Active" for the Los Angeles "Dollhouse", one of several fictional facilities run by a company which hires out human beings to wealthy clients. These "engagements" range from romantic interludes to high-risk criminal enterprises. Each Active has their original memories wiped and exists in a child-like blank state until programmed via the insertion of new memories and personalities for each mission. Actives such as Echo are ostensibly volunteers who have surrendered their minds and bodies to the organization for five-year stints, during which their original personalities are saved on hard drives, in exchange for vast amounts of money and a solution to any other problematic circumstances in their lives. Echo is unique however in that she remembers small amounts even after personality "wipes", and gradually develops an increasingly cognizant self-awareness and personality. This concept allows the series to examine the notions of identity and personhood.

[SPOILERS AHEAD!]

Some thoughts on the differences between radical and third wave feminism

As far as feminist theory is concerned, I'd consider myself beyond 101 level, but having not taken any women's studies classes or having yet been involved in "real life" feminist organizations or movements, I figure I've got some things to learn. My introduction to feminism came as a result of seeking information about transgender issues, which led me pretty much directly into third wave feminist territory, much more so than radical feminism.

I was mostly interested in what made women and men different biologically, mentally, hormonally, emotionally, and how so-called masculine qualities were routinely privileged over so-called feminine qualities in my everyday life, and why. When I really got into feminism as a more serious pursuit, however, was after reading Inga Muscio's Cunt, and bell hooks' Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. The latter was the most accessible and poignant explanation of how oppression works in our society that I'd read, or had yet to read; the former made me feel angry and defiantly proud.

I found a lot of value in decidedly third-wave material as well; I read a couple of Naomi Wolf's books, and Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti's shorter, more humorous books. But then, happy with what I'd read so far, I got into some newer books by other established feminist authors, and others by the same ones. Like Full Frontal Feminism. And I know it's already been talked to death, but I'm one of the people that felt talked down to and irritated by the book. I also continually remind myself that it was written with people who are a bit younger than myself in mind, and I read it at 24, not 16. So while I hated it, I see the potential value in it. At the same time, I'm offended that we're so willing to let feminism sell out like that, and market itself as some kind of brand to consume instead of philosophy by which to live.

I figure I fall somewhere in the middle of radical feminist belief and third wave feminism, philosophically-speaking. My positions of "the issues" are split in a lot of ways: I fall in line with radical feminism on issues like a hesitance to immediately accept sex work as always being the same as any other job, and critiquing capitalism, for example (although more third-wavers seem to be critical of capitalism lately).  But I also believe "patriarchy" is an outdated and more or less inaccurate way of describing the way that power structures and systemic oppression affect people individually and collectively.  Kyriarchy is a better term for the way things work presently.

This past summer I went to a party called Frocktails with Kissie Catastrophe (everyone wears a dress; men are allowed, but only if they also wear a dress) and met all kinds of fun and interesting people, one of whom is a self-identified radical feminist. Kissie introduced us and mentioned to her that we blog together. She replied that she'd actually read ethecofem, but felt it was "a little too third-wavey" for her tastes. Ever since then, I've been thinking about what that term even means (the aforementioned new friend told me she sees the difference as primarily generational). With my previously noted limited background in the depths of academic feminist theory, I've tried to gather my own perceptions of the differences.  Of course, I encourage constructive criticism of these perceptions in the comments if you have a different understanding of some of the concepts I'm outlining.

Simply put, radical feminist theory focuses on the collective of women as one community, and third wave feminist theory centers itself -- and is reliant upon -- the experience of the individual (also see this list for some common third wave goals). The former is consistent with the anti-capitalist nature of radical and second wave feminism, and also with the third wave philosophies that are consistent with capitalist views (so long as they don't actively oppress anyone, personally... although where to draw that line has been hotly debated). 

An example of this difference is each group's position on sex work. A radical feminist is probably against sex work in all circumstances and believes that sex work is a perpetuation of rape culture and violence against women, and that the act itself is rape; a third wave feminist may or may not be open to sex work herself, but is probably of the opinion that sex work is legitimate work, like any other job, is not inherently good or bad, and should probably definitely be legalized on the federal level for the protection and de-stigmatization of sex workers. Both groups may advocate for the safety and human rights of sex workers, but rarely do they come together on this issue in terms of legalization or validity.

The radical feminist may also be concerned with the ways in which the sex worker herself is putting other women in danger by deliberately engaging in a system where it's perfectly acceptable that women's bodies are bought and sold. To perpetuate that, they say, is to put all women in danger of rape and sexual exploitation.  This is an example of how radical feminism often puts the perceived good of the community (all women, in this case) over the immediate, and sometimes even practical, needs of the individual.  Third-wave feminists would instead typically prioritize the immediate needs of the individual rather than place responsibility on her for the oppressive circumstances in which she is expected to navigate.  That responsibility, third-wavers argue, and most importantly, all blame associated with it, should fall squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator of the oppression the woman faces.

Radical feminism also focuses more on "patriarchy," which is, according to radical feminists, the first oppression, and that which all other forms of oppression are based. Third wave feminism recognizes the individual needs of women and other marginalized groups on a meta level, deeming certain so-called patriarchal traditions (like a woman replacing her surname with her husband's upon marriage, leg-shaving, makeup, etc.) acceptable if they were unavoidable due to a problem caused by another institutionalized disadvantage under which she was oppressed (like familial or job-related pressure, respectively). 

Why do we have "waves," anyway? Every couple decades, a new group of women decides that the best and most effective way to end discrimination against us is [the end of pornography] [separatism] [capitalism] [Marxism] [having babies for Jesus] [IVF] [legalization of all jobs in sex industry]. We get a couple bills passed or change a few things in corporate culture, and new sets of values and ideals emerge, creating a new "wave."  And, for the most part, the "wave" system seems to work well; obviously, as time evolves, so do the issues we face.  Unfortunately, this often causes rifts within the feminist community with generational divides and other ideological differences.

Also unfortunately for radical feminism, many women have appropriated the "radical feminist" label (from here on referred to as "radfems," to differentiate from the more reasonable radical feminists with whom I respectfully disagree on a few points) after falling victim to paranoid delusions that cause them to believe that all trans women are trying to infiltrate and ruin women's liberation movements, co-opt womanhood, and they think that if you don't refuse PIV sex (you can't actually be female-bodied and like PIV sex, because it's always awful no matter what, and if you believe otherwise, you have simply been brainwashed by simple biology men rapists), then you are a male-centric "funfem" trying to earn "cookies" from your oppressors.  (Also, if you're a man, you're a rapist, duh.)  They also tend to believe not only that the decidedly third-wave emphasis on "choice" is invalid, and because they don't care to engage in dialog with anyone not exactly like themselves, they don't understand that no self-identified third-waver actually thinks that every single uncritical choice that a woman makes is "feminist."  Because, you know, that would be completely ridiculous.

Today's radfems also tend to believe that giving one iota of a piece of one's energy being concerned with the issues men face in our society means that we're "what about teh menzzz?!11??!" lost causes who are only interested in being skanks for the doodz.  I have a particular problem with this tenet of RadFemInc, because I understand that in a society in which gender essentialism is the norm, and in which gender is largely socially-constructed, men are also held to unreasonable gender-based expectations and roles that are similarly oppressive, even if "masculine" tendencies and behaviors are often privileged in our society over those deemed "feminine."

Thankfully, not all people who identify as radical feminists hold the views outlines above, but the radfems continue to give the rest of us a bad name by continuing to perpetuate an agenda that condescends to and patronizes other women, proudly and blatantly discriminates against other marginalized individuals, and pretends science is a phallic fairy tale.  But hey, what are ya gonna do?

That said, radical feminist theory seems to me to be a bit... outdated, if not on its way to being outdated.  We don't live in a world where all men dominate all women at all times.  This is an absurd notion with evidence to the contrary in front of our faces every time we engage with real people in the real world.  Circumstances matter, individuals matter, and yes, men matter, too.  Furthermore, radical feminism in practice has a tendency of giving neutral behaviors or institutions a gendered meaning that deems the practice or institution "unfeminist" or even arbitrarily misogynist, like marriage, or shaving, for example.  Marriage is only misogynist if your marriage is misogynist.  Shaving your legs is only unfeminist if you're of the belief that leg-shaving should be required for all women.  If that makes me less of "a feminist" in the eyes of the radfems, that's fine by me; I prefer "feminist" as an adjective rather than a label, anyway.  As soon as a word or movement graduates into "label" territory, you know it's gone for good.  Some fringe group of unreasonable, irrational, and radical assholes always end up taking being louder than everyone else, causing more division and fosters misunderstanding and ignorance.  Evangelicals hold up that end of Christianity, while radfems are in charge of ruining feminism for the rest of us.

Not that radfems hold a monopoly on obnoxious and probably detrimental interpretations of equality-based activism.  Third-wavers, alternately, seem inordinately obsessed with calling one another out (see every thread with more than 50 comments) on not properly owning one's privilege, not speaking or writing in such a way that includes the possibility that every single person the the planet will read it and expect to relate to it, or criticizing anything about anyone ever.  Third-wavers also seem to be primarily focused on finding new and unusual things to call "oppressed," as well, and while it's important to identify oppressive behaviors, much of the dialog that occurs within these feminist spaces tend to focus (mistakenly, in my opinion) on calling people out, rather than constructive dialog.

My conclusion: we all need to agree that everyone experiences negative effects from our capitalist, gender-essentialist, racist, classist societal structure, and move forward from there.  The third-wave philosophy tends to most closely embody this approach, which is why I stick around those parts.

(But seriously, radfems: your phobias and irrational hatred of transgender women [and patronizing attitude toward transgender men] is inconsistent and contradictory to any notion of equality and non-violence, and your misandry is just embarrassing.  And it's obvious that your constant queer-"critical" rants are a result of your own confusion -- when you can't neatly place someone in one box or another, it makes it pretty difficult to tell whether or not you should hate them-- hatred being, of course, one of your priorities. Knock it off, already.)

Courtney Martin on TED

Courtney Martin, author and writer for Feministing, on feminism, and the difference between her feminism and her mother's.

"Nice Guys," sex, and self-confidence

A few feminists have weighed in on Miguel's recent post about "nice guys," and the social roadblocks standing in the way of the Nice Guy and a satisfying sex life with women, who apparently only like assholes "socially dominant" men.  He begins by saying that 

It’s difficult to write about the sexual isolation of sensitive men without falling back on clichés. 

And it's true.  Men and sexuality is a topic that is difficult to discuss without cliches, and especially without resorting to misogyny or gender essentialism, for a myriad of reasons.  Not being a guy, I can't speak with any authority on the topic, but I don't imagine I'm wrong in noting that a combination of societal, gender-based expectations are the root of the problem, with a healthy side of understandable bitterness over said expectations.  As a feminist concerned with equality between men and women, and with an interest in eradicating all gender-based oppression, I take interest in this discussion, because I want to see it extended further, beyond the little section of the blogosphere and a few social circles.  Without people really talking about it, and listening, we won't see much in the way of improvement.

As far as Miguel's post is concerned, I found it to be inoffensive, personally.  I've read Miguel's work before (his blog's About page states that the blog is about feminism, "written from the perspective of a man who was involuntarily celibate for eight years" -- clearly, it's a blog that, at the very least, centers on his experiences) and he doesn't strike me as the type of "gender-thinker" (I hesitate to call people an MRA who I am not sure actually identify as such) who likes to blame women for his lack of success in dating them.  Miguel's approach  is wider and seemingly deliberately more focused on the structure rather than the individuals.  And he is, more often than not, not only respectful of women he writes about, but also of feminism-- a movement with which he clearly sympathizes.  Perhaps my standards for what should and should not be offensive to feminist sensibilities are lower than Hugo's and Amanda's due to my insistence on trying for honest, thorough conversation with presumed "opponents," but I personally see a lot of benefit to this piece, and those that are similar around the web, and wish the larger feminist community would be receptive to them in a more supportive way.

Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Schwyzer, conversely, take issue with Miguel's post.  I'm not sure if you will be able to see Hugo's comments and the ensuing discussion, because they took place on his Facebook page, but I'll try to summarize as best I can.  Hugo said that while he thinks Miguel is a good writer, he feels that he's wrong in his post.  I asked why, and added the following comment: 

There is a small but growing section of MRA-ish guys who accept most, if not all claims of mainstream feminism, but simply focus on the ways in which patriarchy harms men in their own lives or writing. Miguel strikes me as one of them, and not really an "enemy," for lack of a better term.

Some other people were quick to respond to me, but they were with arguments that I'm bored of having, like "feminism addresses men's issues perfectly fine; a man critiquing feminism is always wrong and bad!" types, so I didn't respond to them.  But Hugo's response:

April, when Miguel writes:  

"Even among men who are more “successful” sexually, I think a lot of young men who are sympathetic toward feminism feel they have to behave hypocritically – be a little bit pushy, arrogant, and entitled – in order to get laid."

The implication is that there is some sort of unspoken feminist disconnect going on, a bait and switch in which women claim to want X but in fact clearly want Y. I think that disconnect is oversold to the point of being illusory, and is part of a convenient narrative to suggest that women don't really know what the hell they want.

While I am intimately familiar with so-called Nice Guys (I gave a good example of one in the comments on Amanda's post), I don't see Miguel's post as having been written with the kind of feminist-baiting, Nice Guy mentality that he's being accused of.  I believe that Miguel was, as I failed to later address on Hugo's Facebook post, really trying to write a post about his experience in the dating pool, while being a guy who lacked what he believed women really looked for in a guy, and a disconnect that he experienced, and that his experiences shouldn't be what feminists have a problem with, but rather a misogynist or gender-essentialist perspective, which I don't feel Miguel had.  Miguel went out of his way on several occasions throughout the post to ensure that he wasn't generalizing all women or even speaking disparagingly about them, and to note that he was only speaking from experience and not trying to inappropriately extrapolate ("I can only speak from my experience and impressions, but I believe that what I have seen and experienced is not entirely hallucinatory.")  

Now, I did find some flawed logic in the post, and my opinion here aligns with what Amanda says about Nice Guys in general:

I submit to the jury that “socially dominant” is not the same thing as being abusive or even insensitive.  After all, by his own measure, Miguel appears to be proof of this.  He is on a pity trip because he’s not socially dominant, but he is quite clearly an insensitive prick. 

I would argue that it is true that women---and men---are quite often attracted to socially dominant, i.e. confident people.  “Socially dominant” is a deliberately ambiguous term, and Miguel is choosing it so as to conflate a bunch of disparate personality traits, such as self-confidence and popularity with being aggressive or cruel.  Which Miguel then proceeds to do, equating social dominance with “hyper-masculinity”, and blaming women’s biology.  Without this assumption that confidence is always coupled with aggression, that popularity is always coupled with abusiveness, that straightforwardness equals pushiness, his entire argument falls apart. 

Emphasis mine.  

A few years back, I wrote this long screed about so-called Nice Guys on my now-defunct MySpace blog that followed similar lines.  I was fed up with hearing them all whine so much, and confuse "assholes" with "confident, friendly people," so I attempted explaining the difference.  (Be warned; I wrote this in 2005, before I became much more aware of the implications of the language I was using.  I used strike-throughs to reflect which parts I wouldn't think of saying, these days.)  While my ultimate conclusion is a bit... lacking... ("just fake the confidence, dudes, and you'll be fine") ultimately, this is really the crux of it.  It's not so much that women are idiots who keep falling for abusive assholes and walk all over the "nice" guys; it's that just about everyone is probably going to be attracted to the more confident members of their preferred gender; at least, at first.

But, I digress.  The real issue here, for me, is that it continues to be difficult for men to write about the issues they have with their sexuality without either [a] resorting to misogynist and gender-essentialist conclusions or insults; or [b] women not giving them much of a fair chance at discussing it without falling into one of these tired old traps.  Sometimes, women try to do it for them, which, if done respectfully, can help bridge the gap between the understandably-skeptical feminists, and the men who are trying to have their experiences and feelings (the latter of which are notoriously frowned upon when it comes to men) heard... without resorting to misogyny and an abundance of bitterness.  On the other hand, of course, relying on a woman to try to do this on behalf of men, without allowing for the fact that she does not have experience in the matter, can be disastrous and disrespectful.  Clarisse Thorn, linked above, sums this up pretty well, while quoting a male friend of hers:

My “not into gender studies” friend once told me that although he frequently deconstructs problems of masculinity in the privacy of his own mind, he doesn’t like to publicly have those conversations because he doesn’t want to sound like an MRA. He said, “A lot of the time, men who want to think seriously about masculinity won’t talk about it aloud because we really don’t want to be that,” emphasizing “that” with loathing. He later added, “It’s very tricky to discuss masculinity yet avoid simply devolving into male entitlement. That’s the crux of the problem with the ‘Men’s Movement’ assholes — none of them are addressing the underlying problems of masculinity.  They’re just whining about not receiving the privileges their cultural conditioning tells them to expect.”

Hugo is also someone who's written extensively on the topic of the problems men face with their sexuality, and what social constructs have to do with their relationship to their masculinity, sexuality, and women.  One such piece was published today at The Frisky:

[G]rowing up with the right to be dirty goes hand-in-hand with the realization that many people find the male body repulsive. In sixth grade, the same year that puberty hit me with irrevocable force, I had an art teacher, Mr. Blake. (This dates me: few public middle schools have art teachers anymore.) I’ll never forget his solemn declaration that great artists all acknowledged that the female form was more beautiful than the male. He made a passing crack that “no one wants to see naked men, anyway”—and the whole class laughed. “Ewwww,” a girl sitting next to me said, evidently disgusted at the thought of a naked boy.

Emphasis mine.  Hugo goes on later to discuss the damaging consequences of this early socialization: 

Though our culture often teaches women that their bodies are also dirty (particularly because of menstruation), we also make it clear that men “naturally” crave and desire them. That creates a huge problem for women who have to navigate their way through a world that teaches them that their bodies have great power over men. By teaching women to focus on managing male desire, women are taught to ignore or suppress their own desires. That’s a loss for women, and it’s a loss for men. 

So many straight men have no experience of being wanted. So many straight men have no experience of sensing a gaze of outright longing. Even many men who are wise in the world and in relationships, who know that their wives or girlfriends love them, do not know what it is to be admired for their bodies and their looks. They may know what it is to be relied upon, they may know what it is to bring another to ecstasy with their touch, but they don’t know what it is to be found not only aesthetically pleasing to the eye, but worthy of longing.

Hugo, a feminist, doesn't try to demonize men's sexuality, and more importantly when discussing this from a feminist perspective, he doesn't blame women, or feminists, for this cultural trend.  

The very real hurt and rage that men often feel as a result of having no sense of their own attractiveness has very real and destructive consequences. It’s not women’s problem to solve; it’s not as if it’s women’s job to start stroking yet another aspect of the male ego.

The answer lies in creating a new vocabulary for desire, in empowering women as well as men to gaze, and in expanding our own sense of what is good and beautiful, aesthetically and erotically pleasing. That’s hard stuff, but it’s worth the effort. I know what it is to believe myself repulsive, and what it was to hear that not only was I wanted, but that I was desirable for how I appeared as well as how I acted. That was precious indeed, and far too few men have known it.

So, how do we discuss men's sexuality as it's constructed in our culture?  By ensuring that [a] women-- especially feminist women-- listen to men about their experiences with an open mind; and [b] men don't turn a negative experience that hurt them into a misogynist rant about how terrible women are, or how "evil" feminism is.

Ultimately, I think Miguel's critics are being a bit hard on him.  While he may have come off like a typical Nice Guy (as opposed to the un-capitalized nice guy) to some people, the reasoning behind his main point, addressing the disconnect between how feminists view Nice Guys and how Miguel describes some experiences of nice guys is solid:

Not only does it freeze out and sexually isolate a lot of shy young men, but it causes men who are otherwise sympathetic to feminism to conclude that, in the sexual realm, feminism isn’t telling the whole story.

Emphasis mine.  And feminism won't always tell the whole story, when it about men's experiences, because feminism is a movement which is largely, and understandably, focused on women.  But if we want to better understand what men go through (and, shouldn't we?), and what can aide in their potential journeys from "nice guy" to "Nice Guy" to "bitter misogynists," we are going to need more men to help us understand.  Because feminism doesn't spend a whole lot of time addressing these things in the mainstream, and if we want a truly egalitarian future, it is important that we start listening to more men when it comes to men's experiences... at least, it's important that we start listening to the genuine, non-misogynist men.  For all the rest, David's got them covered.

The latest in stupid Facebook memes

If I have curves, I'm fat. If I wear makeup, I'm fake. If I like to get dressed up, I'm boogie. If I say what I think, I'm a b****. If I cry sometimes, I'm weak. If I stand up for myself, I'm mouthy. Seems like you can't do anything now a days without being labeled.. So what, go ahead and label me, see if i give a crap. Repost this if you're proud of who you are!

This appears to be a confused attempt at addressing gender-based discrimination and double-standards.  Unfortunately, the implied solution to this nagging problem is not to call out sexist behavior, but to passive-aggressively own the "label" and say you're proud of it.

Whatever.

Your pets are stealing your identity.

There's this trend around the feminist blogosphere where people get writer's block and attempt curing it by writing about how everything from marriage to mousepads are tools (or remnants) of patriarchy.  Amanda Marcotte dug up an older one of these gems today from Slate's Double X: the kid-as-Mom's-Facebook-picture trend.  Says Katie Roiphe of these women: 

Many of these women work. Many of them are in book clubs. Many of them are involved in causes. But this is how they choose to represent themselves. The choice may seem trivial, but the whole idea behind Facebook is to create a social persona, an image of who you are projected into hundreds of bedrooms and cafes and offices across the country. Why would that image be of someone else, however closely bound they are to your life, genetically and otherwise? The choice seems to constitute a retreat to an older form of identity, to a time when women were called Mrs. John Smith, to a time when fresh scrubbed Vassar girls were losing their minds amidst vacuum cleaners and sandboxes. Which is not to say that I don’t understand the temptation to put a photograph of your beautiful child on Facebook, because I do. After all, it frees you of the burden of looking halfway decent for a picture, and of the whole excruciating business of being yourself. Your 3-year-old likes being in front of the camera. But still.

As a non-parent, it is difficult for me to weigh in on this trend and its perceived causes.  I also find it annoying when avowed child-free people write about the intricacies of parenthood and "what's wrong with mothers these days," but clearly, that trend isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  I know plenty of mothers who use their kids' picture as their Facebook profile picture, and I assure you, they all manage to remain fully independent, unique people-- they're just the kind of fully independent, unique people who are obsessed with how perfect and amazing their kids are.  Annoying?  To some people, sure.  Patriarchal and sexist?  Uhh... no.  Not really.  And especially not when compared to the shockingly still-ever-present practice of calling individual married women Mrs. His Name: 

Just as in the past and to an extent today, women are expected to show their love for their male partners by erasing their own identities and replacing them with his---going from Ms. My Name to Mrs. His Name---now there seems to be increasing pressure for women to “prove” they love their children through self-abasement. 

As a feminist married woman, I'm tempted to throw heavy, sharp objects at anyone who dares to refer to me as Mrs Husband's Full Name rather than Ms My Own Fucking Name.  I get upset.  I already get upset when people simply call me Mrs. His Original Last Name, because we are both Mr and Ms Our Hyphenated Last Names, dammit.  But your baby's picture?  As your main Facebook image?  As a reminder of sexist, patriarchal traditions?  Come on now.  That's a little... reaching, don't you think?  I mean, sure; for some women, their kids are their entire identities, and that's pretty depressing.  But is it really evidence of a trend?  And such a gendered and damaging one, at that?  I don't think so.  

As far as dangerous and threatening Facebook profile picture trends are concerned, I'm much more interested in the trend of using pictures of one's pets to represent them.  Just look at these friends of mine, all of whom were once completely intelligent, unique, independent men and women, before they got those attention- and identity-stealing dogs and cats.  Apparently, they have all thrown away years of education and experience by using these photos to represent who they are.

Our mom and dad used to be smart,
fun people... till we came along and
stole their identities!

I'm Delores, and I'm more important
than my dads.

Hi, this photo's prominent
 placement invalidates
my mom's math degree

You may have thought my mom was
a good photographer with a passion
for rescuing animals and
making me clothes, but UR RONG,
this picture renders her invisible!

I'm not sure what my dad does,
but it doesn't matter anymore,
because I'm his profile pic!

  

Curious, I looked through my Facebook friends' profile pics to see just how many of them actually did choose to put up picture of their children instead of themselves.  Of all 234 people, I came up with four.  Two of them are men.  Where are the articles about them losing their identities to their children's?  There are more pictures of my friends' domesticated animals in my Facebook news feed than there are of their children.  And I'm friends with a lot of parents.  A lot of parents with pets, even.  And I'm also friends with a lot of their actual pets, since they are all the type to create Facebook pages for their pets.

What represents a person on sites with avatars and user pics is clearly not only pictures of the person themselves.  It's pictures of them with their friends, family, dog, significant other, or other person, and it's also frequently other things, like cartoon images, a phrase or slogan, a baby, a dog, a cat, a building, a hamburger, or any number of other things.  If it's a part of someone's life, it can be used to represent them.  This complaint is really just snarky, more than it is insightful.

Women and Wine: A Feminist-Friendly Pairing?

by imnotme

This post is from Most Wine Is Good.

I'll answer the question first, and expound second.  Yes.  The world of wine is certainly an exemplary account of women breaking barriers and uniting for positive change.  The examples are numerous, and I'll get to some articles in a second which really flesh the issue out well, but I want to give an unusually informal mini-essay on the matter.

Firstly, I want to impress upon the reader that I am deeply concerned with social justice, and in the pursuit of a meaningless college degree I have had ample opportunity to study and analyze major issues and events which the United States has seen.  Slavery, freedom of religion/speech, capitalism (it wasn't the only option on the table), sexual equality, temperance, gay rights, etc., etc.  I've also had the honor of studying women's issues under the former National Women's Studies Association president, Judith Roy.  So the context I'm framing this whole issue from is one of historical struggles and triumphs.  (NERD ALERT: skip this post and read THIS instead... more facts)

With that said, wine was once a gentleman's club.  Actually, even that generalization is too modern.  Wine was once a disgusting, muddy, tart and somewhat rancid indulgence.  The refinement of which finally saw the courts of kings.  With financial backing from these kings, wine-makers began perfecting methods of producing more pleasurable and elegant wines.  As wine became a full blown commodity, monasteries grew eager (ctrl+F : monks ) to realize some of the profits, and began introducing wine-making as one potential life path for monks.  Since monastic life provided an abundance of time and a devoted workforce, monasteries began informing wine-making methods in general and came to produce some of the most sought after vintages.  Even though monasteries are strictly inhabited by men, this would certainly not be the peak of wine's patriarchal days.

Skipping ahead, grape vines from all over the world began traveling.  News of the greatness of a particular vine and it's geo-climate needs would spread and, with money, so would cuttings of the vine.  If successful, these traveling cuttings would yield brave new worlds in terms of blended wines and wines that could cellar longer due to increasing acidity levels and better fermentation practices.  As humankind around the globe began to clash and civilize, wine came to rule supreme (beer makes a comeback in the mid-1700's).

Colonial forces, primarily British, are somewhat to thank (though in no sense of nobility) for the further cultivation of what were becoming increasingly "fine wines".  I credit the British colonialists hesitantly as this occurs during a particularly dreadful time for the British in terms of human rights violations and all-out greed.  Their Empire ever-expanding, the British aimed to bring fine wine to any place Her Royal Army should lay base (this generously parallel's with the history of Tea and black pepper, to name a few).  This promulgation of wine across the British empire was the peak of wine's patriarchal days.

That we now have a Robinson for antiquity's Parker is clearer than a windsock indicating the feminist winds that have blown in since the dark days of male dominated wine-making.  In fact, vocal and respected female wine critics are more of a symptom than a condition.  The overall trend in wine today is that of a veritable takeover.  Some of the most important wineries in the world are run and maintained by powerful women.  Over recent decades women have become so influential in the world of wine that marketers now see that they have no choice but to bring on top paid female executives.  Women in today's wine industry can fill any role they desire with enough hard work (sure, maybe even harder work than men put in, but there's only anecdotal evidence of this), yet the wave only crests there, the full expanse of the social body of said wave is depicted very well in this article published by Food & Wine.

While it's true that women have proven to be both effective and innovative in the world of wine-making, evaluating and selling - like all other struggles women are currently engaged in, there is still a distance to travel to flat equality.  The nature of the struggle will likely vary by setting, but in each setting there will undoubtedly be a struggle.  For example, males and females in my local market are equally open to wine suggestions from either male or female retailers (exceptions exist), yet male servers (in restaurants or bars) are seen as having less culinary/wine-pairing authority as their female counterparts (exceptions exist).  Additionally, males tend to act as though price is less of a concern when choosing a wine than females.  Females are typically quick to name a price point and are usually suspicious of bottles costing more than $30, while males respond positively to higher priced wines and hesitate to name their cost-ceiling.

Those last couple of examples are fairly porous, but I trust you can see the point.  How men and women interact varies by setting, and this invariably affects the speed at which social roles change, as well as the impetuses that can cause such changes.  All things considered... make no mistake: women have an upward momentum in wine that is reaching a stronghold, and I think that's fantastic.  We've heard enough from men who declare sentiments such as, "Pinotage is as untenable as child rape (ctrl+F : pinotage)".

If I'm off on my historical lineage, citation or analysis, by all means email me at mostwineisgood@gmail.com.  I'll happily give you credit for any corrections I make, and would rather not have a public argument over it.  My take is: if your research is better, let's go with that!

Douthat abortion fail

Aside from the other critiques around the blogosphere today of Ross Douthat's head-bangingly frustrating column, I also found some glaring inconsistencies, and rather problematic themes he’s got going on. I appreciated his arguably (and rather surprisingly) compassionate response to the MTV special, but he goes on to discuss issues that are either wholly unrelated to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, or off-base in terms of quality of analysis. For example,

In every era, there’s been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.

Some of this shift reflects the growing acceptance of single parenting. But some of it reflects the impact of Roe v. Wade. Since 1973, countless lives that might have been welcomed into families like Thernstrom’s — which looked into adoption, and gave it up as hopeless — have been cut short in utero instead.

Leaving aside for now the point that it’s no woman’s responsibility to provide children for infertile couples, he’s forgetting that giving up a baby for adoption — after the birth mother spent at least 9 months gestating it, feeling it move, kick, bond with it, etc. — is no easy feat.

He’s also neglecting the reality that “acceptance of single parenting” is hardly a celebration of it. What else should we do to single parents? Abuse them? Deny their existence? Blame them for their situation? Also forgetting that many single parents — primarily women — who are blamed for not giving their children an ideal household are not doing so by their own choice. Their husbands can abandon the family, die, or even just leave the vast majority of involved parenting up to the other parent, without their say. Or vice versa. It’s not always about a casual decision to get married and have kids, or an equally as casual decision to not make that work out as planned.

Supporting single parents and maintaining his stance that a dual-parent household is ideal for raising and nurturing a child don’t have to be mutually exclusive. He has shown time and time again that he believes the best way to discourage behaviors that are contrary to the common idea (or his idea) of what is ideal, like two-parent households, preventing unplanned pregnancies, "traditional" marriage, and now abortion, is to alienate, criminalize, or just outright ignore the existence of the people who are engaging in, or directly affected by these issues. Clearly, the state, or society at large, acting in this manner in the past caused such joys as women dying of botched illegal abortions, forced pregnancy, poverty, marginalization... I can go on.

There is a reason why people continue to fight ideologues like Douthat. It's not because we're hostile to the ideals they set forth, but because we want to avoid the consequences of forcing such ideals on unwilling -- or unable -- participants.

(...Nearly the entirety of this blog post was originally a comment over at The Innocent Smith Journal. InnocentSmith has also responded to Jill and Amanda's critiques here.)

Can porn be feminist?

by Kissie Catastrophe

Since this is my first official post, I figured I may as well start off with an issue that people hold very strong opinions on: PORNOGRAPHY!

As a feminist, I find the current state of mainstream (and most non-mainstream) pornography to be abhorrent. Most feminists would agree on the same “problems”: women are objectified and often degraded, sex is not portrayed in a way that is conducive to women’s enjoyment, all scenes and actions are clearly designed for the benefit of straight men, these scenes/actions teach men how to be selfish- sometimes cruel- partners, porn perpetuates negative beauty/body standards, it is heteronormative and dismissive of all sorts of varieties/tastes/preferences in an individual’s sexuality, it is too fake. The list goes on and on and on.

OK, so porn, as we know it, right this minute, is pretty bad.

Here’s where I diverge from many other feminists: I don’t think it has to be bad.

I don’t think that pornography is inherently bad for women, or for anyone. Sure, it totally sucks now- but the same things can pretty much be said for all forms of media that involve visual representation of sex acts in particular or gender in general. Now, that’s no excuse to tolerate it, it’s just puts porn on the list of things that could use some revolutionizing, in my opinion. And, I would argue, that creating a space for “feminist” porn could even have a bigger value than say, feminist TV or mainstream movies.

And now, you radfem readers are probably pulling your hair out screaming “WHAAA???”

Give me a second, I’ll explain:

Why the importance? Sex is very intrinsic to nearly EVERYONE’S EVERYDAY LIVES. Yeah, you won’t die from lack of sex, certainly not lack of porn, sex is up there in the priorities like food and friends and housing for most people. And here’s the thing- people of all genders are empowered by having a healthy understanding of their sexuality(ies). This is something that I should hope, all feminists can agree on. So porn, as a concept, could be considered a tool that would help everyone learn how to embrace and enjoy sex.

What if porn attempted to teach us some different lessons?  Instead of learning that we should have breast implants and need to fake orgasms, we were actually learning the kind of awesome stuff “Our Bodies Ourselves” was putting out there…just in video form?

It stands to reason, that if pornographic material somehow magically became totally egalitarian/inclusive and started showing us real people having really good sex that they were actually enjoying themselves that then….wait for it…people would learn to be better, more honest lovers of others and themselves. And imagine what could happen if suddenly it presented diverse bodies, ethnicities, and ages WITHOUT the insulting characterizations we currently get (see: granny/fatty films)? Maybe, just maybe, we could shift societal beauty standards and help people of all shapes/types believe that they deserve to have sexual fulfillment as well! I know, call me crazy…

So, I guess I’m just asking a lot of dangerous questions here, but I’d love to hear some constructive suggestions and answers- and please- without any hate or judgment, K?

"My liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman."

[ted id=1031]

How to make your relationship better: pretend you live in the 1950's!

As women have begun to be more present in high-earning careers such as business and law, among others, more and more articles are published about how (heterosexual) women can't find men to form relationships with who aren't intimidated, or made to feel inadequate by, the woman's financial success compared to their own. In one such article, Katrin Bennhold of the New York Times wonders, "is female empowerment killing romance?"

Sexual attraction in the 21st century, it seems, still feeds on 20th-century stereotypes. Now, as more women match or overtake men in education and the labor market, they are also turning traditional gender roles on their head, with some profound consequences for relationship dynamics.

There is a growing army of successful women in their 30s who have trouble finding a mate and have been immortalized in S.A.T.C. and the Bridget Jones novels. There are the alpha-women who end up with alpha-men but then decide to put career second when the babies come. But there is also a third group: a small but growing number of women who out-earn their partners, giving rise to an assortment of behavioral contortions aimed at keeping the appearance of traditional gender roles intact.

So, does female empowerment kill romance? Sure, so long as we define "romance" as men financially supporting women. Which most of us don't, and all of us shouldn't.

Let's explore the reasons why there might be a problem. The women cited in the article are making more money than their male partners, and those men feel insecure and inadequate as a result, because they're used to high salaries being the marker of what a good human is, an honor that was once, not too long ago, bestowed primarily upon men. Now the possibility that a woman -- a person who was once relegated to the home, subsisting on whatever money her husband was willing or able to provide to the family -- may now overtake him in terms of her wages or salary. How do they remedy the situation? Well, they could, together, understand that the feelings of inadequacy are irrational, and that they need to be worked through and eventually eliminated, because women having access to the same means of earning a lot of money is a good thing, and not worthy of feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. They could also take a broader look at their relationship to see what they really want from it, and what they value and contribute. Earning money isn't the only way that a person contributes to a relationship, be it a casual dating relationship, or a long-term marriage or partnership.

But no,

Ms. Domscheit-Berg, who is also active in the European Women’s Management Development International Network, has three bits of advice for well-paid women: Leave the snazzy company car at home on the first date; find your life partner in your 20s, rather than your 30s, before you’ve become too successful. And go after men who draw their confidence from sources other than money, like academics and artists.

“The more different their activity from your own, the better,” said Ms. Domscheit-Berg, “because that makes an immediate comparison harder.”

Instead, women should hide their financial success from men in order to trick them into a relationship -- or get them into a relationship before letting on an intent to be financially successful -- or they should hide their financial success in public in order to maintain the perception of sexist traditions whose slow elimination have made it possible for women to gain access to the financial success in the first place.

Couples can, will, and do compromise on a number of issues in order to maintain a harmonious relationship. For example,

Anne-Laure Kiechel is an investment banker in Paris who makes more than five times more than her boyfriend, a communications consultant. She keeps watch on their finances and pays for all big invisible expenses, like vacations.

But in public, it is he who insists on pulling out his credit card to avoid, he said, looking like a “gigolo.”

“It makes me laugh,” Ms. Kiechel said. “But if it pleases him, that’s fine.” (Not long ago, he asked her to book hotels in his name because he doesn’t like being referred to as “Mr. Kiechel” upon arrival; future bookings would be made in both names, she said.)

Timothy Eustis, once a teacher in New York City, is a proud stay-at-home dad and occasional wine consultant, who moved to France with his wife, Sarah, when she was offered a senior management post at the French lingerie brand Etam. Neither has a problem that she is the breadwinner and her salary aliments the joint account. But both cherish what he calls “those little traditions” to keep the romantic spark alive.

“I make an effort to hold the door, I almost always drive the car, and when it’s time to pay the bill, I pay the bill,” he said. “Sarah probably intentionally lets me do these things because she thinks it benefits the relationship.”

Working out arrangements where the man is the one to hand the debit or credit card from the the joint account that the woman largely finances to the server at a nice restaurant seems a small and harmless concession for many people. The larger issue, of course, fails to be addressed.

What also remains unaddressed is the implication that these small moves toward equality between women and men are largely women's responsibility. We've "won" access to high-paying careers (leaving aside the misogyny still rampant in many high-paying fields, making climbing any kind of career ladder more difficult for women than it is for men), but we have to be the ones to make sure that our male partners are comfortable with this change?

I'm sympathetic to the men in these stories. I'm sure that such a change from cultural norms that have been instilled in us from birth is difficult, and the societal reactions to a woman being the sole earner, or the half of the couple who earns the most, can be brutal to men. Wanting to avoid the potential social punishment for not having enough money to financially support your wife or girlfriend is understandable. It's not helpful, though, to instruct women to maintain the facade of an outdated, sexist tradition-- especially when she is expected to do so by publicly denying a part of her identity. Where are the articles instructing men on how to feel less intimidated, how to accept that moves toward equality are good things, how they might go about making themselves feel more comfortable with their wives' financial success? Why is the responsibility on women to do it for them? What is the man's responsibility here? As of now, it doesn't appear that he has any, unless remembering to act macho in the face of public scrutiny is one of them.

What also remains unaddressed is the continued acceptance that money is the only way of measuring "success." This leaves out entire segments of people who contribute a great deal to society, like artists, musicians, teachers, local law enforcement, and scores of other people in low-paid, but eternally necessary, fields.

Now, I'm writing about this without having ever really been affected by the issue, myself. I've never placed any importance on money when it comes to relationships. This could be due to my own interests and extra-curricular activities of choice not requiring a lot of money, or my (usually) inexpensive taste. It could also be due to my amusing history of finding boyfriends at workplaces, where I can expect that me and my mate are probably making the same amount of money. Essentially, the only requirement I've ever really made in terms of partners and income is that I don't have to be responsible for any of their financial obligations. I don't want to be in a position where I'm paying someone's rent or their car payment, or buying them groceries. I just require that my partner be self-sufficient, and how that self-sufficiency happens is largely irrelevant, as long as nothing that I consider immoral or unethical is happening. And if I want to do something fun that costs money, I'm always happy to foot the bill. It's the other person's obligations that I don't want. Not too much to ask for.

Interestingly, I, too, would feel uncomfortable with a partner making a significantly higher amount of money than me. The reason, I've gathered, is due to the fear that the man in question would think that I was only interested in the relationship with him because of his income. Don't get me wrong; if my husband's music career were to take off, or if he were to become a high-paid college professor or author, I'd be more than happy with the increase in income. He would remember, though, that I didn't seek out a relationship with him when he had that money; we started dating seriously when he was a couch-surfing, unemployed student, which was much more endearing than anything. The fear that he thinks I'm only in it for the money wouldn't exist.

I'd like to see fewer articles telling women how to make their insecure male partners feel better, and more about how men can fix their problem with this increasing equality themselves, or how couples can work together to both be more comfortable with changing relationship dynamics.

Also check out Jill's take on this article over at Feministe.

A Strongly Worded Letter

by Kristi

What could be the cataclysmic events that cause this woman, while catching her own reflection in a window, to clutch her sweatshirt around her and pull the hood up tightly around her face? Both shame and the need for more physical coverage occurring simultaneously are unusual partners in the vulnerability of this unfortunate young woman. Is she the victim of a sudden and brutal cold front blowing through town, just as she ponders the devastation unfolding because of her torrid affair with her sister’s husband? And what about that other young lady who, even though she just showered, suddenly realizes that she isn’t clean and fresh at all? How awful. Did she just shit herself while drying off because of a few too many bites of Aunt Nina’s bad potato salad? The viewer only needs to hang in there past the first seven seconds of each of these television commercials to find out what these two tortured women have in common, what the real problem is, what horrifying realization they have both come to. They have vaginas, and their vaginas most certainly smell foul….because, after all, they are vaginas, and vaginas smell bad, right? Thank God these feminine products are available to combat whatever odor is wafting from our vaginas. Yeah, right. I find these commercials offensive and degrading, but I feel even more so about the very existence of these products."

I decided to tell the people responsible for these products how I felt.

Dear (insert proper noun that represents the product makers who believe it’s okay to make money by using archaic myths about women’s bodies in order to hemorrhage their self-esteem and passive aggressively feed patriarchal superiority views. Hint: they rhyme with Fagisil and Bummer’s Sleeve),

On behalf of all the women I know and love, our vaginas don’t stink. If our Vaginas begin to smell bad, we will seek medical attention from a health care professional immediately. Your advertisements seem to insinuate that vaginas just smell funny, and we should be ashamed enough of that odor, to run out and buy a product to make our vaginas smell like flowers, soap, or clean sheets.

Women’s bodies are made to be self cleaning, and maintain a natural balance. Use of your products actually disrupts the natural chemical balance of the vagina, and therefore causes the very problems your product is made to overcome…not a coincidence. Our normal, healthy vaginas smell like sex. This is a far more attractive and stimulating scent than flowers, soap, or clean sheets. Our normal, healthy vaginas taste like sex and honey, a far more savory taste than flowers, soap, or clean sheets.

I realize that women make for easy targets when it comes to convincing someone they could be better, smell better. I’m asking you not to take the easy way out anymore. Especially for all the young women out there, please leave us and our vaginal self-image alone. Perhaps you could take all your laboratory technology and create a potent strawberry elixir for men to drink so their cum doesn’t taste like salty lotion.

Most sincerely, Kristi

Okay, let me digress just a moment to explain that last line about the taste of cum. That might have been a cheap shot, but, I figured there are probably a fair number of men at these companies, and I wanted them to know how it felt to have someone criticize their sexual output. Saying that male cum isn’t the best tasting stuff in the world isn’t exactly unfair. A refreshingly honest, female friend of mine told me that during her young, sexually curious period, she thought that she must be a lesbian because, in her personal assessment of sexual fluids, women tasted sweet and delicious, and men tasted salty and bitter. She went on to say, that a few years and several relationships later, she realized that this taste preference for women in itself didn't mean she was a lesbian, it only meant her taste buds worked.

Obviously, there are situations where a vagina can get pretty rank. Those are medical conditions which require a medical solution. At no point, should that solution include trying to “perfume up” the vagina. When we’re rearing our little girls, we have to make a special point of teaching them not to get soap in their potty hole or vagina when bathing. We explain in easy terms that this will hurt and it’s not good for any of their girl parts to get covered in soap. What doesn’t help, is when they see television commercials that tell them the exact opposite. The afore-mentioned humiliated woman appears on the screen, and the crystal clear message is, drown that vagina in clean smelling chemicals to clean that dirty vagina. My dream is to create a public service message to run immediately after these commercials. Something that says; Your vagina smells exactly as it should, lovely, sexual, intoxicating, alluring, natural, and individual. And while I’m at it, I’m tempted to add; and so does your pubic hair, so before shaving it all off, you might think twice about succumbing to the ideal of looking like a seven year old.

"Schrödinger’s Rapist"? That's you!

The guest post on Shapely Prose about "Schrödinger’s Rapist," although written fairly recently, has already become one of those blog posts or websites whose content is universal enough to have already become widely-read and well known. The first time I read it, I found myself nodding and silently cheering. I get it! I get it! Score another point for "male-privilege-gotcha"!

Several more read-overs, though, and I started to have some problems.

For readers unfamiliar, I urge you to go read the post. Regardless of any criticisms I may give it and no matter how many times I am about to ridicule it to shreds in the following paragraphs, it is a good piece worth taking in, especially for men who are new to the experiences of women and how that relates to gender equality, the Patriarchy, and rape culture. That said, though, the author makes several errors in judgment in both her tone and the implications of her post.

The guest author, Phaedra Starling, begins her post by addressing her intended audience, the Nice Guy(tm):

Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines. You respect women. You like women. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her.

Her intention is to help aid these apparently naive little boys in their quest for a fulfilling romantic relationship with a female. She concedes that they are probably nice, well-intentioned guys, and just wants to help them out, by explaining the shockingly terrifying world that females manage to navigate through, day in and day out. The trials and tribulations, the fears, the tears, and the pain. She wants you to understand that, no matter how rough you think your life, quiet and sheltered as you are, may be, it will never, ever, ever be as terrifically horrifying as the world that all presumed to have a vagina exist within.

So, you want to meet a nice girl? You don't work with any, and you don't have classes with any? You probably want to meet one, though, huh? Well, I see that you are left with public spaces. But-- WATCH OUT!!-- approaching a female in public is very, very difficult. You must approach her with great respect, as though she is made of only the finest, most ancient alabaster. Because she is. And if if you didn't even touch her, if she breaks, it's your fault!

So, go forth with caution.

Starling introduces Naive Boy to Oppressed and Scared Woman:

Now, you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

She is dealing with challenges. And it's true; women have to go through a whole lot of different and probably surprising (to men) shit just to go about a normal day. The Male Privilege Checklist already has it pretty well covered. But the women that you, Poow Wittle Boy, are about to encounter in public are different. They are uberoppressed! Starling explains:

When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?

She can't even go on a date without making sure that she properly prepares for her own murder! That's some heavy shit. And, just so you know, this is exactly what she's expecting you to do to her on your first date; rape and/or murder her.

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist?

Fair point, Starling. The "one in six" statistic is actually rather modest, compared to the "one in four" stat I'm used to. The majority of women I know have told me about at least one sexual assault that they have been the victim of in their lifetime thus far. These are woman between 16 and 60 in age. An unbelievably huge number of women have been sexually assaulted. At least one in your "friend group," I guarantee it. More than likely, more than one of your close girlfriends has been the victim of sexual assault.

What's also true, though, is that in wartime, men are more likely to be seen (and treated) as combatants, rather than innocent civilians. No, Schrödinger’s Rapist isn't about wartime, but it's easy to see how this plays out in every day life. Men are more likely to be targeted as victims of random physical assault than women are. Are we, as women, likely to walk down the street and be raped or murdered? No. It's been established that the majority of female rape and murder victims are raped or murdered by someone they've known for a long time, or someone with whom they are in a romantic relationship. But men are just as likely to be victims of random physical assault as women are of being raped or abused by their domestic partner.

Well, shit, what now? Should we try to talk about how being raped by people close to us is worse than being randomly assaulted and possibly murdered by a stranger? Well... no... that wouldn't be very productive now, would it? Should we suggest we nevermind the stats about male-on-male assault? How about we just blame it on men being men and villianize all the men? Tell them to deal with it themselves, in-between stopping male-on-female violence? Wait, that doesn't sound terribly productive, either.

But, now that we know that both men and women face scary challenges just by walking out the door in the morning, what do we do? How do we face life, and how do we treat the people around us, that we come in contact with every day?

Let's start by summarizing the basic, hard to disagree with rules:

I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm... you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.

What are our ideas of a potential threat? Probably everything about you. I mean, that's what you have to think, because the way that Starling frames her argument, every single thing that a woman can possibly be afraid of is definitely something to be legitimately afraid of, all the time, and whether she's correct or inaccurate, she's definitely right, and you just have to deal with that. Sorry, but you're a rapist. You just are. At least for now. RAPIST!

This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold. That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of solitude, but I suggest you start with internet dating, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a woman who will appreciate them.

Unless you're Preppy Dude from the Burbs or Wall Street, just go online to date. You won't make it in this big, bad, raping world. (RAPIST!) Good luck.

Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a strange woman.

If you wear a tee shirt that has a rape joke on it, no one should need to tell you that you're unworthy of affection. No; I'm actually serious. You're a fucking idiot if you own a shirt with a rape joke on it. You're a fucking worthless moron if you wear it, and you're exceptionally stupid if you try to hit on a female while wearing it. Problem is, though, some women are also exceptionally idiotic and will not only allow you to hit on her while wearing a rape-joke-shirt, but she might laugh at the rape joke, then reciprocate your flirtations. But we can't blame them; they're just poor, helpless, blameless victims of the Patriarchy who aren't yet aware of their precious victimhood.

The third point: Women are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you.

You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.

Hear that? Don't Talk To The Woman! Just DON'T! Unless she's looking you right in the eye, smiling, and commenting on your shoes, don't talk to her! And even if she is doing all of those things, it doesn't mean she wants to talk to you! Just DON'T TALK TO HER! NEVER SPEAK TO THE WOMAN!!!

If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.

This, though, is the truth. It's really fucking obvious when someone isn't interested in you. Don't make them give you 12 hints before finally reluctantly moseying away. Seriously. Because you do make yourself the problem at that point.

...Here's the thing about that, though. I've rarely met a "normal" guy who doesn't know how to take a hint. The people that I meet that can't take a hint 15 times are the random assholes who are literally on a drug and alcohol binge in the middle of downtown on a Saturday night. They're the random two guys at the party who no one can remember inviting, coked out of their minds, talking to everyone in the most obnoxious manner possible. In other words, they are the exact people one would assume to be that fucking clueless. Doesn't give them a pass, but it also doesn't make every male worthy of this assumption.

Starling ends with a very poignant and relevant point:

The fifth and last point: Don’t rape. Nor should you commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t grope. Don’t constrain. Don’t brandish. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence.

Shouldn’t this go without saying? Of course it should. Sadly, that’s not the world I live in. You may be beginning to realize that it’s not the world you live in, either.

Got it, then? I'm sure, though, knowing the audience Starling is speaking to, you're obviously not the type to do any of that bullshit. And Starling probably knows that, because she already said so, in the first couple paragraphs of her blog post. So, too, do I, and the vast majority of women I know. So, too, do the vast majority of women you know. You're not a damn rapist; none of us actually believes you are. But some rapists don't look like what we'd normally picture rapists to look like, so there needed to be this post, where Starling speaks for all women and calls you all RAPISTS!!!

You are. I mean, obviously... we presume you have a dick, and if you have a dick, you probably want to rape us with it. All of us, all the time. And if you're not a rapist, you should feel as guilty as one anyway, because we're not going to bother treating you as though you aren't a rapist (even though the vast majority of you actually aren't, statistically), because it's easier for us that way.

To be serious for a moment, though, to presume that all women really go through all this shit, all the time, and to insist that all males willingly accept the label of "potential rapist" every time they meet a woman? Who the hell...? Are you kidding? This is ridiculous. And I assure you, falsely accusing all men, the majority of whom are innocent, of rape is not something I am particularly interested in being a part of. No. Just, no.

So, in sum: All men are rapists, and all women believe they're going to be raped ALL.THE.TIME.NO.MATTER.WHAT.

Happy dating!

(RAPIST!!)


Just saw this; you may be interested in CA NOW's "official" response to the original post.