I'm not completely buying it

So it would seem that the women of The Talk issues an apology for their commentary last week about Catherine Kieu Becker allegedly drugging her husband, tying him to a bed, chopping off his penis, tossing it in the garbage disposal and turning it on, and then telling the cops "he deserved it". As you recall I was, not happy about that.

Well it looks like either enough people were also not happy about it or those women grew a conscience in the last week.

Here's a link to the apology. (Embedding is disabled.) It starts about about 1:15.

Simply put I'm not fully buying it. Yeah its nice they apologized but hear me out for a bit.

1. She couldn’t start the apology on her own because she was fighting off the urge to laugh, and the crowd was laughing with her. You’d think they ask the audience to be serious. But on the real if you start laughing before you even begin your apology you really shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

2. That apology was so generic you wouldn’t think they were laughing at it because it was a man despite Osbourne even saying that it was "different" because the alleged victim was a man. My money still says if that had been a woman that had her genitals mutilated that 4 minutes of laughter would not have happened in the first place. In fact I bet a few hosts of shows would have even done a "special episode" about domestic violence against women. As someone at NSWATM noted this line of logic basically means that making fun of female rape victims with the implication that rape against women is funny is bad only because you're joking about rape. The problem with their commentary wasn't just they were making fun of genital mutilation. The problem with their commentary was that they were acting under the notion that genital mutilation against men is funny because they're men. That is the conversation that needs to go down.

3. And speaking of that four minutes of laughter one of them gave a sob story about how hard it is to keep the conversation going on a live show. She also said they don’t always say the right thing all the time. Okay I understand no one’s perfect and we say the wrong thing at times but is that supposed to explain or excuse why they went on making fun of that man for FOUR MINUTES. Not 20-30sec, FOUR MINUTES. Can you imagine Dane Cook trying to defend his rape jokes by saying its hard to do live stand up for 10min. and sometimes the wrong thing comes out?

So while I do like that they apologized I'm just not feeling the love. Hopefully Beckers' alleged victim does.

But in the end it does show one thing. If this apology was the result of people sending in letters, complaints, facebook messages, and tweets then it means that there people out there that actually do care about men.

Still not funny...

I just posted this a short while ago at my place but I want to put it over here too (and April invited me to do so). Frankly I'm still heated about this and I'll be other people are too. If you don't feel like being nice about the commentary by all means bring your fire over to my place. But just because I'm giving you more leeway than April doesn't mean you have a blank check to say what you want. Be nice to April folks.

(This post is about the violent mutilation of a man's genitals and some horrible people that actually laugh at it, cheer about it, and joke about it. Tread carefully.)

For the last few days I've been following the case of Catherine Kieu Becker, the woman who allegedly drugged her husband, tied him to a bed, chopped off his penis, threw it the garbage disposal (and turned it on), called the cops then told the cops on the scene that deserved it. However on a count of spending my Friday night getting ready for the final Harry Potter movie and then being away from the net from Saturday morning til Sunday evening I missed out on the news about some rather offensive commentary about the case from the women who host the CBS day time talk show The Talk. I'm going to show you the horror that I'm about to talk about. Like I said above this is some terrible stuff. Oh and if you're a fan of Sharon Osbourne before and still are after viewing this then I'm pretty sure I will no longer respect you in any way shape or form.



From the 7-14-11 episode of The Talk on CBS
Simply put this is disgusting and disrespectful to say the very least. Sara Gilbert eventually mentions the double standard but Sharon Osbourne doesn't let that stop her from celebrating the violence that was committed against this man (and she also joked about having an altar for Lorena Bobbit). All around that was hard to watch. To not only see it happen but where it happened. These are not some random nameless faceless folk in the farthest reaches of 4Chan. No these women are known people and celebrities on a nationally broadcasted show on a major network talking this misandry.

At one point in the video one of them (the woman to the far left) comments that she can think of one instance where she would do cut off a man's genitals. But she won't go into it. Why? Because they are laughing and joking and the thing she's thinking about is not a laughing manner (my guess is she's talking about rape, although I've seen one other speculate child rape specifically). So that one thing is not a laughing manner but this is? No its not. I said a while back that violence against men is not funny. Rest assured nothing has happened in the last year and half that made it suddenly funny or okay.

In case you're thinking about defending it:

1. "But look at all the women who are abused/tortured/raped/killed everyday!"

Doesn't justify vigilante justice or lashing out in violence. Or should we just make the whole world "blind"?

2. "I'll bet he abused her. She was just fighting back.

Early signs say he was drugged and tied up so self-defense is a no go. But if you insist on going this route pulling a Mary Winkler will not cut it here. Her words alone are not evidence of self-defense. Motivation to go looking for actual evidence of self-defense but not self-defense on its own.

3. "But, patriarchy!!!!

If you think that applies then you're using it wrong and there may be no hope for you.

4. "But its different from when it happens to women.

Please explain how the difference in genitals makes this okay.

5. "But she said he deserved it."

Unless he was in the middle of attacking her no he didn't. Refer to point 2.

6. (Oh and if you dare try to use "institutional power", "privilege", or any other buzzwords to explain this away or minimize it I'm warning you now my Moderation Style will be swift and unyielding.)

7...

Point is there is absolutely NO reason that this man deserved to have this done to him.

And Sharon Osbourne should be ashamed of herself but it should be no surprise since just a few weeks ago she said, “I would have chopped his willy (penis) off. Arnie’s willy would have been down the disposal unit spinning around, that’s where it’d be – and I’d make her clean it up. That mop would have been wrapped around her head.” when commenting on the recent discovery of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s infidelity. Just plain awful. If anything Osbourne needs to lose her job on that show and since they were so happy about joking about this attack on national tv they should be able to apologize to him on national tv. So its time to ante up. I was planning on contacting someone about this and low and behold the nice folks at No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? has rounded up contact info already.

• At CBS’s website comment form, select “Complaint,” and then “The Talk” from the dropdown menu. Let them know exactly how you feel.


• Write CBS on Twitter.


• Write CBS on Facebook.


• Email CBS Investor Relations or call them at 877-227-0787. (Put your cursor over the link to get the email address from the bottom lower left of your browser window.) You might inform them that you will be contacting their advertisers to tell them what they implicitly supported, and considering boycotting the same. If you have any investments in CBS properties (directly or through retirement accounts, etc.), you should tell them you will be reconsidering those investments.


• File a complaint with the FCC.

I also received a link to a Youtube video covering the story a few days ago. When's the last time you saw a news station headline a male against female violence story with "Ouch!"?

Received a link to this via email earlier today.

Time to ante up!

Outing assholes on the internet

A while back, a girl made a Facebook page accusing a guy at her school of being a rapist.

A longer while back, the website Girl Don't Date Him was used not to post pictures of pink bras on large boobs or as a place to house articles (pink ones) about cheating men, but as a place where women could post stories, pictures, and full names of their terrible exes, as a sort of "we're in it together, sisters" warning to other women.

Legitimate guerrilla warfare against injustice, or terrible idea for a million possible reasons? Well, my answer depends partially on whether or not the accusations are true. If a guy gets drunk and turns into a violent psychopath and sprains his girlfriend's wrists and leaves her unable to walk for days and makes her fear for her life, I think he deserves to be called every goddamn name in the book, in public, with everyone imaginable given access to it and made to read it. I think he deserves to pay for his motherfucking terrible actions in all ways possible.

But if I don't know the victim, and I therefore have no reason to believe that either person is lying or telling the truth, I might respond with something like, "Well, this is a very bad idea. It could hurt the victim in court [in the case of rape, domestic assault/abuse, etc.], it could cause hostility toward the accused, who hasn't been convicted of a crime. And also, that's probably illegal in some way or another, as well it should be, if you can imagine being the 'asshole outed on the internet' who is actually innocent. The very nature of such a thing harms the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty."

But when I know the victim, that less vindictive, more rational, more practical side isn't very loud. And then, I only wish I knew how to make a kickass website that everyone would read with pictures and links and addresses and phone numbers and directions to houses.

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.)

Who comes up with this material?

Near the end of a post talking about a list of 21 Things Women Can Do That Men Can't April briefly mentions a list of 10 Things That Men Can Do That Women Can't. Like the list April goes after it pretty much depends on the gender roles that are forced on us based on mostly our biological make up. Here goes.

No.10 - Go Topless
Sure, women can go topless on the beach, but we can do it whenever and wherever we please. Walking down the street? Off. Mowing the lawn? Off. Street ball? Skins. Rollerblading -- women can try it, but it might be painful. Still in doubt? What gender do you think is responsible for “No Shirts. No Shoes. No Service.”? Useless nipples and the lack of oversized sweat glands are the reasons for this entry on our list of things only men can do.
1. From what I understand women are free to go topless in many more places than people know.
2. As for the gender responsible its not a matter of gender but a matter of it being those at the top that can't handle the site of topless women (yes you can argue that most of those at the top are men but those very few do not represent us all so there is no need for the blanket, "Itz teh menz!").
3a. I don't know about other guys but my nipples aren't useless. They are quite useful in the realm of sexual pleasure.
3b. I don't have a pair but I'm pretty sure there more going on with women's beasts than sweat.

No.9 - Hold our liquor
Sorry ladies, we’re genetically wired to pack it away a lot better than you. Men produce more of the protective enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase, which breaks down alcohol. This ultimately means that while you’re buzzing off one Cosmo and saying “I love this song” for five songs straight, we can enjoy another two whisky sours and continue to debate whether or not the world can be saved from global warming.
Oh there is so much more to alcohol tolerance than biology. Hell I've met women half my size (and I mean that literally, I'm a big guy) that can out drink me. But this does setup the idea that when a woman hurls at the end of the night its shrugged off as being okay she's just a woman while men that hurl at the end of the night are clowned for not being able to hold their liquor (but without the referencing to being a woman mind you). I have two pieces of advice for drinking tolerance. First learn your body. Learn what you like and don't like. Learn what you can mix and can't mix (don't listen to people trying to tell you catchphrases, you need to learn for yourself what you can and can't do). Learn your limits and act accordingly (as in knowing when you can cut loose and when you need to cut back). Second stick to your guns. Don't let anyone talk you into drinking something you know you don't like or can't drink. Don't let anyone talk you into going beyond the limits you are comfortable with. To the devil with peer pressure.

No.8 - Manscape
The playoff beard, the love canal, the Fu Manchu, and the goatee are strictly male innovations, and growing them are things only men can do. Plus we can wear chest, underarm, leg, ear, and nose hair as proudly and loudly as we like. Women? Sure they can imitate our Sasquatch look, but like the Sasquatch, they might limit their survival to a small band of tree huggers, who also share their “natural” beauty.
There are indeed women that can grow facial hair. But here are two forces at work here. A woman that doesn't shave may her womanhood challenged (because she is "supposed to be" all pretty and hairless right?) and a man doesn't have facial hair may have his manhood challenged (because a man that doesn't have facial hair is a "boy/kid/babyface" aka not a "real man").

No.7 - Navigate spatially
Men are much better at seeing things as they really are -- in 3-D. True, the fact that we can see Spy Kids 3-D in focus is no reward, but our superior ability to see shapes also improves our abilities in geometry and math. This explains why more men are math geniuses than women. Sure, the journal Science declared otherwise in 2008 and we are socialized to believe girls are less competent in this realm, but tradition is a hard thing to beat.
Other than the stereotypes surrounding math (boys are good at it and girls are not, and woe be the soul that doesn't live up to their expectation) I'm not sure what the hell is going on here.

No.6 - Shave our heads
Sure, Natalie Portman, Sigourney Weaver and Demi Moore all sheared their locks for Hollywood, but as a true lifestyle choice in everyday society, guys have mastered the bald top. From Michael Jordan to David Beckham to Samuel L. Jackson guys wear bald better. Still need more proof? Just look at bald Britney. Result: Shaving our heads is something only men can do.
Okay I personally think that men do pull off the bald head better than women but I would not say its something that women simply cannot do. And besides I don't think my personal opinion should have much bearing on what anyone does for their hairstyle (because your personal opinion isn't going to stop me and my Fro).

No.5 - Play real sports
Be honest; which of these would you prefer to watch: WNBA or NBA? NHL or women’s hockey? NFL or women’s rugby? MLB or softball? We understand that women play plenty of sports and, yes, they are good athletes, but their sports are a snoozefest to watch. An example, in the WNBA a slam dunk stops the presses, while in the NBA, unless it’s a back reverse through three defenders, it’s just another two points.
That's a low blow there. Just as men/boys through out the ages have been pushed to partake in sports (even when they don't want to) women/girls have been pushed out of sports. But soccer (or football depending on where you're from) is one of the most popular sports in the world and on the World Cup front I really think the American Women's World Cup team could beat the American Men's World Cup team. And I the Canadian and American Women's Olympic Hockey teams from this past Winter Olympics were no joke.

No.4 - Fertilize eggs
Call it mankind, humankind or peoplekind, we have fertilized history. Yes, our swimmers are under siege from early scientific studies that show women can create sperm from their own bone marrow. And of course, studies are also underway to grow babies out of the womb. Are these studies headed by lesbians? Anyway, until our offspring are named 1765A and 1766B, our tadpoles will continue to hit the target.
This is a biological cop out just like women claiming that they can handle pain better than men and then mention childbirth. This is pretty much trying to hold biology over the other gender's head. But no need to knock the lesbians though.

No.3 - Pee standing up
Full bladder, but there’s a line for the urinal? Just step outside and pee behind a dumpster. On a camping trip? Pee and lean against a tree to steady your flow. While women have to unzip, pull down and crouch before they can go, our process is pretty simple: Find some cover, unzip and go. And if we want to write our name in the snow, we can see exactly what we’re doing.
This is a matter of biology, not gender. The advantage of peeing while standing leans toward people who have penises but all penis carriers aren't men. And there are products cropping up all the time that allow for those that don't to do it as well.

No.2 - F*** things
Yep, we can stick ourselves into the middle of things better than anything else. Of course, some of us can do it better than others, but no amount of plastic pegs, rods or mambas can come close to our natural technique.
But those with vaginas can envelope things. And from what I hear it can be quite pleasurable. Well that and there is more to fucking that penises and vaginas. And from what I hear many of those options can be quite pleasurable as well. When you really get to it both men and women can Fuck things. And from what I hear it can be quite pleasurable.

No.1 - Age well
Sorry ladies, all your creams, moisturizers and youth-in-a-bottle remedies have nothing on us. Our male hormones give us thicker skin, which means we get fewer wrinkles and our skin stays younger longer. While women have Joan Rivers to look forward to, we have Sean Connery. Keith Richards? Well, we’ll just count him as a genetic anomaly.
Do you really think that's true?

Well now stuff like this doesn't make a good case for "men's publications" not does it?

Why I hate advertising, pt. 4986

Thanks to my chemistry-nerd husband, I now have a better understanding of the chemical makeup of... makeup. Anti-aging creams, in particular. Allow me to attempt paraphrasing this newfound knowledge:

For the most part, products that claim to "erase wrinkles" or "invigorate" the skin for the purpose of decreasing the signs of aging, are creating a temporary illusion of skin tightness. The astringent qualities of the product tighten pores, creating a more even, youthful appearance, and a waxy or oily substance remains on the skin, allowing the effects to remain in the skin until it's worn or washed off, hours later.

I shamefully bought an undereye revitalizer... thing, the other day. I never thought it would happen to me, but since I turned 26, I've been preoccupied with the fear of looking "old." I'm self-conscious about undereye circles and "bags," and I noticed a mouth wrinkle, omg. So I actually bought a product that promised to lessen the appearance of undereye "puffiness" and circles.

I went home and read the instructions. It said to apply to a clean, dry face in the morning (and you can wear it under makeup, it says!) and at night, before bed.

I used the stuff this morning after I showered, before work, keeping in mind my newfound chemistry knowledge. It did, in fact, "burn" a little, in the way that suggests something medicinal, which I guess we're supposed to find reassuring. The instructions said to "pat" the area until it was absorbed. The thing is, after using the recommended amount of product on my "eye area," there was so much that I could pat for 20 minutes without making much of a difference. So I resorted to light rubbing, and then eventually started to just spread the stuff a little outside the prescribed "eye area."

Anyway, my eyes were less puffy, and for the rest of the day, I felt a slight pulling at the corners of my eyes. It was the waxy coating that the eye crap left behind.

What really gets me is not that it's just an illusion, but rather the fact that they instruct the user to apply is in the morning and at night. We've already established that the results are temporary and dependent on the product remaining intact on a person's face. The product does not work like Zoloft; it's not released throughout the bloodstream at intervals and dependent on a regular schedule of consumption. The cream works until it's washed or worn off. If you tell someone to wash their face, and then (quick!) put some more stuff on, the user will only continue to see the results of the product. Even though it's useless to wear while sleeping, as the further instructions are to use morning and night, on a clean face. So, that would require you to wash your face in the morning before reapplying it.

Clearly, they are attempting to simply make you believe that there are benefits to using this product more often than (you know to be) "necessary" so that you will use more of their product, and therefore have to buy it more often. And using it at night, as they needlessly suggest, will cause the user to think that the product is really making a long-term and sustained difference, as promised.

Their clever little advertising tricks drive me up a wall. It's the epitome of manipulation for personal gain, and it's infuriating.

Obligatory Superbowl Ad Post

Only, I'm going to talk about the ones I did like.



In this commercial, you have a group of women meeting for their book club. The host's husband comes downstairs and says goodbye, as he's off to do something more fun than a girly book club, until he sees that the ladies have Bud Light! So in order to get some Bud Light (these commercials act as though these people can never just go get their own), husband sticks around and pretends to be into the book club. Oh, look at how much he's willing to sacrifice -- acting like a girl! -- to get some Bud Light! Must be great beer... Not to mention, he's got a one-track mind, like all men. Beer, and ladies! Those are the desires that drive him, he just can't help it.

That's the obvious, run-of-the-mill sexism. What I liked was that the women were not portrayed as superficial airheads, and they were drinking beer. Not beer that was blatantly advertised as "girly," not beer that over-emphasized it's lack of carbs or calories, but just beer.

Beer companies never advertise to women! Ever! It's as though they believe that women are naturally born to loathe anything that doesn't taste like a strawberry filled with high fructose corn syrup.

Anyway. This pleased me.

And the next:



Once again, Bud Light FTW! I have exactly the same thing to say about this one as the last. There's the constant reinforcement that men are reckless, one-track-minded idiots, but there's a non-condescending, non-degrading portrayal of the women in the ad. The woman is the one who is trying to get them off the island, and succeeding in her specialized knowledge of electronics, and she's not portrayed as un-feminine (to be un-feminine, of course, would mean that she is unattractive and unpleasant).

Well, thanks, Bud Light, for noticing that not only are women not stupid, and not only do we not exist simply as an object of drunk men's desires, but that we also like beer!

...And next year, can you please try to show men being at least halfway human, as well?

3 Options

http://www.truthout.org/12110911

Reading the very interesting linked article reminded me of a line of thinking I was pursuing with some fellow arm chair philosophers. It adds a degree of poignance that was lacking in my case to the others.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the Bush administration is everything my most lefty friends might have characterized them as... imperialist, fascist torturing [insert your favorite disparging noun here] who demolished any semblence of civil rights we enjoyed in the States. I don't want to get tangled up in the validity of that, we're just accepting that as a hypothetical.

That would lead me to belive one of the three must be true about the Obama administration:

1. They are complicit in the numerous acts of villainy. Now in full possession of all knowledge of the former administrations dark deeds, they do nothing. Perhaps even continuing the deplorable acts.

2. They are powerless against the [insert favorite secret society or other shadow government here]. The reason the current administration cannot pursue the crimes of the former administration is that whoever really possesses power is preventing them from doing so.

3.  It is not politically expedient to pursue those issues. There is an economy to fix and that is the first and foremost issue. It wouldn't be possible to succeed so why diminish the chance of a second term? There are plenty of reasons why it may not be politically expedient. But if we're hypothetically talking about fascist, imperialist war criminals doesn't morality demand that action be taken regardless of what's convenient?

Granted this is a substantial over simplification, but that iss exactly what this is... a hypothetical model simplified to get to the core of the idea: How do we characterized the current administration's action relative to its rhetoric?

I'm always the "Socratic Agnostic", so don't look for me for any answers. What do you think?

N

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.

Double-standard?

Who's 17? Edward is a 108-year-old vampire, and the actor who plays him is 23.

...Just sayin'.

"Doofy Husbands"

Sarah Haskins of Target Women fame has a video up about Doofy Husbands. As usual, it is absolutely hilarious. And, it touches on an interesting figure in pop culture: The incompetent, unintelligent, overweight man, who can hardly manage his own life without the help of his overly-responsible and under-appreciated wife. Danny wrote a recent post about fatphobia directed at fat men in particular that touches on this current trend (a long-lasting one too, I might add) in pop culture and every day life.

Some might find it questionable how this particular trend-- the one that plays on stereotypes and not only perpetuates, but encourages the idea that men are stupid and worthless-- has anything to do with advertisements that market to women in a way that perpetuates and encourages poor body image and low self esteem (which is the basis for Target Women).

Well, that's because it kind of doesn't have anything to do with women-- other than the fact that without women, these men would probably be dead or living in a box somewhere. Or so we're led to believe.

There's the standard argument that this portrayal is rooted in misogyny. How could it be, for this particular trend? Well, women are supposed to work extra hard and accept their husbands for just what they are... or, they don't mind being under-appreciated... or... no, I can't find an actual argument that makes any kind of sense. I actually thought I was going to be able to.

Anyway, needless to say, I disagree. But the reason why I disagree is not only because the trend is actually something negative about men, and not having much of anything to do with women, it is overshadowed by what I think is more relevant:

It seems as though the writers of these commercials and television shows like King of Queens or Home Improvement (among so many countless others) are writing these female characters as Smart & Capable Woman vs. Slow & Incompetent Man in order to make up for all of the past roles women were given where they were constantly portrayed as weak, helpless, and usually unintelligent. Their version of responding to the feminist movement. Instead of writing leading male and female characters who both have strengths and weaknesses that are equally celebrated and also made fun of in the name of humor, they do the opposite and create an illusion that women are actually the rulers of the world, only in our own little under-appreciated and uncompensated mini-world where the men actually end up getting all the credit, and we stand back, proud of ourselves, shaking our heads and chuckling about the way it all turned out.

It's not helping either gender with breaking out of harmful stereotypes and unrealistic expectations based on our gender. It's only creating new ones where women rule the world, and men are just humble, dumb servants. It obfuscates the point, which is that we should all be treated equally and not judged on our gender alone. Women don't need overcompensation for past oppressive media representations. We don't need to switch roles and have power instead. And when it comes to media, we just need to be accurately and respectfully portrayed.

Really, that's all.

Painting men to be lazy, fat idiots, homely, and otherwise undesirable doesn't do any justice to anyone. It takes the negative representation off of women and places it, instead, on men. The goal of feminism is not for women to someday take over the world; it's to fight for the equality of men and women, in a society where women are currently, in general, at a disadvantage to men.

Furthermore, as a writer for any of these shows, do you ever notice how in the attempt to make women look powerful and intelligent, you're still perpetuating unrealistic expectations of women? While the woman is supposedly all-knowing, capable, and "really" the head of the household, they are still stick-thin, conventionally attractive, and doting mothers? Are we still not able to show an average-looking female that we can take seriously on television? While non-"conventionally attractive" men are still frequently portrayed as stupid, unattractive, and unmasculine, there are still roles available for overweight, homely, male actors where their characters are meant to be taken seriously and respected.

It's just... ridiculous. All across the board. And it's still popular! I don't understand. There isn't a person alive who shouldn't have a problem with this. I guess it's easier to just turn off criticism and laugh.

Sexist morning show hosts and the stupid things that come out of their mouths

Disclaimer: I know, I know. It's waaaay too easy to pick on people, and opinions, like the ones I'm about to rip on. But... this one touched a nerve.

I'm not sure what "morning shows" are like in other areas, but here in the Twin Cities, they tend to be comprised of a group of DJs, headed by a 30- or 40-something dude, with two or three 20-something dudes to laugh and "yeah" at the 30- or 40-year-old's diberately offensive jokes, and a token 20-something chick, to get repeatedly interrupted by the dudes, and apparently satisfy a quota of some kind. They spend 4 of the wee morning hours bantering about absolutely nothing of any relevance and spouting off opinions about any number of things that they aren't qualified to accurately analyze.

One of the morning shows I am referring to is the Dave Ryan Show at KDWB (the local Top 40 station). There's Dave, the main dude who's been hosting the show for like, a century; and Lena, the latest in revolving 20-something, quota-fulfilling chicks who appears to be second in command or something, as I tend to hear her "yeah, like, I think that [totally bigoted nonsense opinion, related in some way or another to pop culture and news headlines]" almost as often as I hear Dave say, "Seriously? I know way better than these other people because I know better than they do."

Then there's Steve-O and Crisco, whose main purposes seem to be chiming in every so often as the (still terrible and wildly offensive) Voice of Reason when Dave or Lena says something completely over the top. Oh, and their incessant paid advertisements about how they used to be fat, but as a result of spending lots of money on a manufactured diet product, now they're not!! So you should buy it.

Anyway.

So, I work in an office setting, where we're able to have radios at low volume or use headphones, as long as we can still hear the dreaded phone ring, so I take advantage of this and have gotten what I listen to, and when, down to a science. My favorite thing to listen to while at work is talk radio. I start by listening to the Dave Ryan show when I get in at 8, and usually switch to NPR once the boring shows end, between 9 and 10. The thing is, I understand that when they say their usual offensive crap, it's mostly exaggerated and mostly for ratings. I get that it's entertainment and not a news and serious commentary show. I expect that most people are reasonable and not hateful. I can ignore it well enough and just pay attention to the parts that are entertaining to me. But man, sometimes someone just goes over the top, and sounds way too genuine for comfort.

This morning, Dave was discussing Chris Brown's recent profanity-laced Twitter updates about how Wal-Mart was supposedly blacklisting him because they didn't have his new album in stock.* Chris Brown apparently went nuts about it, all over the internet, complete with all kinds of swear words and a plethora of other garbage for one to roll their eyes about.

Today, it was discovered that Wal-Mart does, in fact, carry the album; they were simply sold out of them at the time that Chris Brown visited their particular location.

Right, he's an idiot. Forgettable recording artist gets mad because he assumes that the reason that people don't want to buy his terrible CD is because he beat up his girlfriend at the time, Rihanna. Turns out, while he should have been right, he wasn't, and so now he looks stupid.

Dave Ryan then begins to discuss Chris Brown's dumbassery, and then further elaborates about how he feels that women's rights groups haven't adequately -- or ever -- addressed the issue of Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna, and then surmises that this could possibly be because all we feminists think Chris Brown is just so cute. What's wrong with these women? A high-profile guy beats up his high-profile girlfriend, it's all over the news, and these feminists have nothing to say about it! Must be because they think he's hot!! Also, Dave Ryan is ashamed that we aren't outside of Wal-Mart, calling for nationwide boycotts.

No, Dave Ryan, you fucking moron. You're wrong. And you clearly pay absolutely no attention whatsoever to women's rights activists or any feminist community. Know how I know this?

Here, Dave Ryan, let me Google that for you.

Or, we could be a little easier on you. Maybe the words "feminist" and "response" are too much for you to handle. Hell, we don't even have to type a complete phrase in order to find scores of relevant hits about feminist and women's rights activists responses to Chris Brown beating Rhiann.

If you go to the hugely popular feminist blog Feministing, and type "Chris Brown" into their search bar, the first page alone has 24 relevant hits.

Also, Dave Ryan, have you ever heard of that little organization called NOW? You know, the National Organization for Women, that one organization that likes to talk about silly lady stuff like gender equality and misogyny? How about the president of NOW, Terry O'Neill, whose been vocal and up-front about her history as a survivor of domestic violence? Have you heard of her? I assume you may have heard of NOW, considering the fact that you care so much about women who are victims of domestic abuse. And how much of a supporter you are of women's rights. Interesting, how, if you Google "NOW president," the fourth hit is "NOW president Terri O'Neill on Chris Brown."

Wasn't that exactly what it was you were claiming didn't exist? Because I'm pretty sure that the president of the nation's leading women's right's organization made a public statement about Chris Brown.

Also, Dave Ryan? NOW has a lot more to be concerned about than celebrities with entitlement issues. Like equal access to abortion, and other serious women's rights issues all over the news right now. Picketing local Sam Goodys? Not at the top of the priority list. But if you're so concerned, we'd be happy to cheer you on as you start a movement about something that you're so clearly passionate about.

So, Dave Ryan, and Lena Svenson, and your deliberately oblivious cohorts, could you please at least attempt to know what the fuck you're talking about before you spout off a bunch of inaccurate nonsense all over the airwaves? Women who don't give a fuck about what Chris Brown looks like will be grateful.

Thanks.

*I tried to find an audio clip of the segment of the morning show that I was referencing, but was unable to. Once/If I find one, I'll update the post with the link.