How much time should sexually active heterosexual men get in prison?

OMG you guys.  You won't even believe what I just found.  My eyes have been opened, and I am now enlightened.  I've known for a while now that a fringe group of women consider all instances of a penis inside a vagina to be rape, but I laughed it off, thinking the idea was obviously preposterous.  I even shamefully went so far as to believe that, unless I was being forced or coerced into sex, that I wasn't being raped.  Thankfully, Clarissa linked to a post written by Twisty of I Blame the Patriarchy, who explains thoroughly how and why all PIV sex is rape:

...[I]n a patriarchy, “consensual sex” (between women and dudes) doesn’t even exist. This is because, in a patriarchy, agency is not conferred equally upon women and dudes. This untoward circumstance creates a contingency wherein the notion of consent is, for women, entirely non-substantive, a figment, a desperate fantasy invented to obscure the true nature of women’s status as the sex class. The true nature of our status as the sex class is, by the way, that we are imprisoned in a rape continuum. This continuum ranges from the “voluntary” performance of femininity (which quantifies women’s usefulness to men), to compulsory heterosexuality (which ensures availability to men), to pornography (which eroticizes inequality), to violent sexual assault (which is at the apex of the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women).

Almighty Dworkin, consider me saved.  Who knew that all along, in the years I've been sexually active, that I wasn't really having sex, but being repeatedly raped?!  This whole time, I thought that I wanted to have sex.  Who knew that I was really just brainwashed into believing it?  Those orgasms were pretty damn convincing, too, but no; I was just being tricked by men's intrinsic desire to use me as a toilet, because men usually ejaculate into toilets when there aren't any non-consenting vaginas around to forcefully enter.  Damn patriarchy got me again!

The issue of consent — or, more precisely, the idea that women are considered by both custom and law to abide in a persistent state of always having given consent — is the absolute crux, nub, hub, axis, polestar, and epicenter of women’s oppression. The thing is, women can’t freely give consent because women can’t freely withhold it. “Consent” is a meaningless concept in the context of women’s reality.

Ahh.  Got it.  And thank goodness, too, because for a while there, I was under the impression that when I said "no" and my partner at the time was gracious enough to not have sex with me in spite of my lack of consent, that that meant he was respecting my lack of desire to have sex.  That must have been some weird anomaly, though, because since I can never consent because I can never withhold consent, then every single time I've had sex, it's been non-consensual.  It logically follows, then, that all heterosexual men are perpetual and constant rapists every single time they have sex with a woman, without exception.

I'm so thankful for this lesson, but I have one question: when should I start the court proceedings for the men I've had sex with?  Rape is obviously a serious crime that should not go unpunished; Twisty and I agree on that, for sure.  So, since I apparently never gave consent to any of the men with whom I thought I was enthusiastically consenting to sex, that obviously means they're rapists, and rapists deserve to be in prison.  So what do you think?  How much time should all these men get?  I admit, I'll probably feel a little bad telling my former sexual partners -- not to mention my husband! -- that I'm turning them in for rape, but hey, they were the ones who had the nerve to follow through with sexual intercourse that I (thought I) wanted to have with them!  They deserve it.  And if they don't get appropriate prison sentences?  Well, we can just lock them up and use them as our sex slaves, because real sexual slavery is a great way to combat theoretical sexual slavery!

Suits

I love business suits.  I think they look sharp and fantastic on everyone who wears them, and even though I have no place to wear one, I really, really want one.  Both a pants and a skirt version.  So far, I've acquired a cheaply-made blazer (with shoulder pads!), which I wear all the time and love to pieces. 

Bema hijacked this post to add these ilfy pictures of Jamie Dornan.
But we're not starting the "ilf" thing all over again.

It was recently suggested to me, though, that such clothing is a symbol of power and dominance, which peaceniks, feminists of many stripes, and socialists alike are wont to oppose.  I am, however, completely unwilling to stop thinking they look fantastic.  Perhaps I've been brainwashed by the culture at large and am merely seduced by the appearance of power, and envy it for myself.

What are your thoughts on suits, and what they represent?  

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.

What's wrong with MRAs?

A recent article on Slate's women-specific DoubleX sounds the alarm about how men's rights groups have become "frighteningly effective." The article was referenced on many mainstream feminist blogs, and brings to light a question: What, exactly, is wrong with men's rights groups?

In any mainstream feminist community, one only need mention "MRA" to see mass eye-rolls and heavy sighs. Men's Rights Advocates, or MRAs, are men who, well, advocate for the rights of men. Much like primary objectives of feminism, MRAs focus on issues specifically related eradicating gender-based oppression, only they focus on the male experiences of such oppression, such as unfairness in child custody rulings, child support laws, and fair reporting and legislation for domestic abuse and assault. They cite that men are disproportionately the victims of assault and murder; men are less likely to be awarded custody of their children in a custody battle, usually regardless of the child(ren)'s mother's parenting capabilities; if the draft were to go into effect, men are the only citizens called upon for duty; male victims of rape are rarely taken seriously (if not outright ridiculed), especially if the perpetrator is female, and the resources for male rape victims are pathetically few.

The social and civil problems that men face are numerous; likely too numerous for me, as a female, to cover extensively here. But it seems clear enough to me that these complaints are valid. These are real and present inequalities that men are the victims of, and real ways in which men are oppressed. The structure out of which these oppressive practices are born is the oft-cited patriarchy.

The patriarchy, as it is commonly referred by feminists and most equal-rights and social justice activists, is the (often invisible) structure that we exist within (US- and western-centric here). The patriarchy, in a nutshell, can be described as a social system where (usually heterosexual, white) men are the dominant group and others are seen as "other," and oppressed as a result. Patriarchy is where traditionally masculine qualities are valued, and feminine qualities are believed to be --however unconsciously-- inferior. Laws, media, social constructs, to name a few, are structured accordingly. However, the patriarchal structure does not benefit only men, and does not oppress only women and other oppressed minorities, but positively and negatively affects everyone existing within the structure.

For example, many male complaints of oppression involve discrimination for behaving in traditionally "feminine" ways: crying and showing emotions other than anger or lust (stereotypically male emotions); having claims of rape not taken seriously because a man should be able to fight off an attacker, especially if the perpetrator is female (ditto for domestic abuse), to name a couple. Most insults directed at men involve directly or indirectly referencing femininity. "Sissy," "you throw like a girl," "don't be a fuckin' chick about it," "pussy," etc. This is indicative of the devaluing of femininity and the overarching value of masculinity. While these comments may be directed at women and girls as well, they're likely to be light-hearted and innocent in tone, while they are aggressive and threatening when directed at men and boys, because it's acceptable for a woman or girl to show traits of femininity, but not a man or boy. The reverse, women showing masculine traits, is not viewed negatively in comparison, but is instead often encouraged. Masculinity is something to be desired or attained for women and girls, while femininity is not to be displayed if one is not female.

While women bear the brunt of the oppression caused by the patriarchy (although it depends on how heavily one weighs certain oppressions), they benefit from it as well. When women are the victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence, there are a plethora of resources available to help them (of course, in order to benefit from these privileges, a woman must first be the victim of gender-based violence or oppression, but we'll leave that alone for now). Women are generally protected in society from physical harm, and do not have to serve in the military if the draft is enforced. Women have the benefit of being seen as capable parents if the custody of their children is in question, as a default. As a result, however, women are often expected to be natural caregivers and mothers.

So, what's the problem, then? Men are fighting back at the negative ways that their gender is portrayed in the media and the social and legal oppressions they face. What could be threatening about that?

Nothing. In theory.

The problem is that MRAs -- the outspoken ones, anyway -- aren't focusing on fighting the system that oppresses them. They're not fighting against sexism against males. They're complaining about how much feminism has ruined their lives. They paint feminism as the problem, rather than the larger structure under which gender-based oppression affects their lives. Feminism exists not to eradicate men, but to eradicate misogyny.

There is no reason why MRAs and feminists should be in such stark opposition. Both groups, theoretically, are fighting for gender equality. Feminists need to stop whining about men fighting for their legal and social rights, and MRAs need to stop whining about how women, especially feminist women, are evil bitches out to squander their masculinity, or worse, emasculate them.

...As a side note, we really need to stop using words like "emasculate." That word only serves to further perpetuate the belief that anything less than traditional masculinity, when displayed by a male, is a bad thing. This forces men to act as "manly" as possible, regardless of his natural inclinations, or face harassment, ridicule, and potential violence, and keeps women in the position of "less than" in comparison to men. It's a stupid word and implies stupid things and we should really just stop using it. Instead, we can substitute it with "humiliation," "belittlement," or a host of other synonyms that are gender-neutral in order to avoid negatively stereotyping both men and women. It's what is really meant by the word, so let's just be accurate and avoid assigning gender to it, shall we?

Anyway, with MRAs using their platform to yell about how feminism is terrible and single-handedly destroying the world, they are missing the point and just pissing everyone off. A large group of angry, bitter men attacking women who are fighting to end misogyny is obviously going to cause feminist women to go on the defense simply because of the method used in their arguments. Tone is an important thing, truly, for anyone fighting for the rights they deserve. For feminists, for MRAs, for anyone else.

It is possible to work together to achieve gender equality. We don't need to resort to playground "boys vs. girls" tactics. Men and women are all rightfully pissed off that we are confined to strict and impossible gender roles; name-calling and blaming each other is clearly not aiding in the eradication of gender-based discrimination on either side. Let's respectfully allow each other to do what we can to raise awareness about the issues affecting all of us. MRAs, this means you need to stop blaming feminists for all of your problems, and attack the larger structure that keeps you oppressed. Fellow feminists, this means we need to stop acting as though men aren't also oppressed. This shouldn't be too difficult, right?

...Right?

edit: After following links from some of the comments to this post, I came across this post that so thoroughly and patiently goes over why feminists aren't to blame for the parts of the patriarchy that put men at a disadvantage. I recommend checking it out.