Is Calling Michele Bachmann 'Crazy' Sexist?

Are we really asking this question?

No.
No.
Fucking seriously?
No!
You're making feminists look really stupid when you say this nonsense!

Women and Beer

Apparently, women make up only 17% of beer company Molson Coors' beer sales.  So what is the best way to get women to drink more beer?  Definitely don't try to figure out the real reasons why women don't like your tasteless swill.  Instead, dye it pink!  Everyone knows women only like stuff if it's pink.

If Molson Coors needed help rectifying this, instead of pinkwashing their product, they could have looked at recent marketing survey findings. The number one reason women said they don’t buy beer is because they’re put off by the “inherent sexism in [its] advertising and marketing.” Surprisingly, “beer is an ugly shade of yellow-brown” was nowhere to be found on the list of women’s hangups.

Will these idiots ever get a clue?  Between their over-the-top offensive ads to their utterly bewildering notions of what women want to drink (hint: it's probably not terribly different from what men want to drink, if you consider all related and socially-influenced circumstances, like the overwhelming fear of weight gain), you would think these beer company's marketing departments are staffed with Neandrathals who are just waiting for the perfect woman to drag by the hair into their caves.  

If I wanted to drink fruity pink crap, I'd buy some white zin, or perhaps a Cosmopolitan.  But since I never want to drink fruity pink crap, when I want an adult beverage, I buy beer.  Real beer that is neither pink nor fruity, and definitely not made by Molson Coors.  Because in addition to liking beer, I also like to drink things that don't taste like filtered pee.

Now, that's not to disparage pink fruity drinks, or non-beer drinks.  Hell, I'm not even really trying to disparage white zin, although it's highly likely that I will soon.  The great thing about cocktails is that they are virtually endless in their ability to cater to any and all tastes.  If I had a higher tolerance for hard liquor, I might try more of them.  

The only saving grace about this travesty of a beer is that I am positive it will sell horribly and be pulled from shelves very soon.  I'm sure the marketing team will be confused, since pink things are a sure bet, right?  But they'll get a clue, someday.  Hopefully they're familiar with the internet.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying a delicious 5 Barrel Pale Ale.  I'm into the hops lately.  And for your viewing pleasure:

Why Blogs Written by Susannah Breslin are Bad for Women

Ugh, and I'd almost forgotten about her, too.  In her latest post lamenting the existence of women who don't hate themselves as much as she does, titled Why Blogs for Women Are Bad for Women, Breslin starts:

BlogHer. CafeMom.Feministing. At some point, someone decided creating blogs dedicated to women was a good idea. Women blogs are empowering, they said.They’re a safe haven, they claimed. We need these spaces, they proclaimed.

The fact of the matter is that blogs for women do more harm than good.

I don't really read any of those blogs, but her examples intrigued me, because later in her rant, she mentions something interesting about why she thinks these blogs are bad:

Once upon a time, the feminist movement was about politics. It was about marching in the streets. It was about making change. It was about being a female superhero. These days, the so-called feminist movement has gone online*, and it’s practitioners greatest political act is writing a blog post. It’s about writing 200 words on that TV show last night that really pissed you off because the way it portrays women is not right in some way you can’t quite articulate. It’s about talking over and over again about how there’s not enough women in [FILL IN THE BLANK]. It’s about reclaiming the word “slut,” and then going on a SlutWalk**, and then having a discussion in which you talk about how you’re not a slut, but people said you were a slut, and that upset you, so you decided to call yourself a slut, because that way, well, at least you own it. The best thing that can be said about the feminist politics of blogs for women is that they are confused. 

* Has it, really?  It just went there?  Off the streets, and onto the internet, never to be seen in "the real world" again?
** Aha, no!  It's actually, um, in the streets now, isn't it?

Has Susannah even read any of the blogs she listed as examples?  Or gone to their web address and so much as glanced at the front pages?  As of this very second (5:37pm, Central time in the US), BlogHer is advertising stories about minority children using social media, downsizing in the housing industry, recipes for hamburgers with brie, the Congo rape epidemic, whether weed or Seventeen magazine is a preferable habit for your daughter to get into, and a whole bunch of other categories of items listen under the header that do not include any of the things she is complaining about.  CafeMom has a bunch of conversations listed as "popular" that also have nothing to do with any of the things Breslin mentioned.  And Feministing's front page is 100% political or related to recent Supreme Court cases.

Breslin's entire career consists of whining about feminists, and how feminists suck, and how most women actually pretty much suck, too, because we are allegedly unfocused and gossipy, among other things.  She hates when female bloggers dare to mention anything about women, even thought she writes a blog for Forbes.com called "THE PINK SLIP."  Which is about women.  And does she ever complain about blogs written for and by men?  God, no; men are much cooler than women, obviously, and their issues actually matter, and are relevant, right?

She's one of those women who does that whole "Gawd, I just hate girls so much.  I only get along with guys, because they're so drama free.  Why do girls have to be so... girlish?  Ick, I hate girls.  And anyway, I like things that guys like -- you know, cool things.  Srsly, fuck girls!" thing.  Which I hate.  And one of the many reasons I hate that shit is because I was that woman, not all that long ago, and I remember how hateful the whole attitude was.  And it's a really stupid, mean-spirited, confused, and self-loathing way to act and feel.  Breslin notes, however, the discomfort she feels writing for Forbes under the PINK SLIP title:

I’ve grown to sort of cringe at the idea of this blog being lumped in with ForbesWoman. Working the woman angle is a double-edged sword. Would I have been hired to blog for Forbes.com if I weren’t a woman? I don’t know. Does being put in a female ghetto make my skin crawl? Sometimes.

...Yet, she apparently sees no connection between her being tokenized, and "women's issues" being shoved into one special part of the website, rather than being integrated along with any other article written about anything else, and feminism.  She whines about the problems she encounters that feminists on blogs -- and even in person! -- talk about often, and then turns around and complains about how stupid and useless feminists and women-centric blogs are. 

Lady, you wish the world were less sexist toward women.  You complain about the "Pink Ghetto" you're stuck in.  And then you see other women confirming the shittiness of some of your experiences with their own, and your response is to insult them and essentially call them worthless.  You are the one who is confused.  No one's saying you need to embrace feminism, but seriously, open your fucking eyes.  Your painfully obvious self-loathing is making me sad.

Also, Jill wrote about it.

The racism of Andrew Breitbart and the Tea Party

By now, Andrew Breitbart is simply a laughingstock to the majority of the progressive world.  In the real world, you shouldn't be able to deceptively edit videos of your ideological opponents in order to further your own agenda, have your lies discovered, keep doing it, and then expect to receive the respect of the nation.  But, alas, he is respected in the world of Kool-Aid-drinking Tea Partiers who pretend that the Tea Party isn't filled with racist, homophobic Christianists.  In fact, he's so angry that people dare to call out the Tea Party's racism, sexism, and homophobia, that he has dedicated much of his time to retweeting so-called Leftist tweeps who use related slurs against him, in order to prove that it's the left that's full of bigotry, and not the right.  Naturally, he doesn't hesitate to use his own slurs as well, but, contrary to his intention in retweeting the bigoted slurs of his opponents, he doesn't seem to believe that words like "sand n*gger," "fag," and "pussy" are actually indicative of any kind of prejudice.  This isn't just an Andrew Breitbart problem, of course; much of the Tea Party, as well as many, if not most, far-right individuals (including, of course, Rush Limbaugh, who Breitbart seems to think has never uttered a single racist statement in all his time on the air) seem to believe similar, ridiculous things.  They repeat, endlessly, this tired and absurd notion that not only is there a war on white men in America, the left is actually orchestrating false attacks on the right wing for being racist, sexist, and homophobic, when they just aren't.

The problem isn't necessarily that these people are upset by being called racist, sexist, and homophobic; there are very few people who would welcome such an accusation, and it's expected that most people would fight back against it.  The problem is, of course, that Breitbart, Beck, Bachmann & Co. don't actually understand racism, sexism, or homophobia.  

To most of Mainstream America, racism, sexism, and homophobia are defined by simply the overt and blatant hatred of people who are not white, are women, or are LGBT.  Since BBB&Co subscribe to said definition, they are bewildered at where the accusations come from.  After all, Palin and Bachmann are the Tea Party stars; how could the Tea Party be sexist?!  Also, many of them have black friends, or even know a gay person or two who don't mind that their Tea Partier friends don't think they should get to marry their partners!  Clearly, no bigotry exists within the Tea Party!

The problem, of course, is that racism and other forms of oppression are much more than this image of the hooded white men we grew up associating with the term "racist."  It's more than simply saying you don't like X person because of their gender, race, or sexual orientation.  Isms are rooted in stereotypes, misinformation, and ignorance-- all of which Tea Partiers like Breitbart tend to carry in abundance.

A good list of different ways in which racism manifests itself has been making the blogosphere rounds, and it applies to any and all other -isms:

• Aware/Blatant Racism: Outright racists that, without apology or confusion, tell people of color, that because of their color, they “don’t appeal to them.”
• Aware/Covert Racism: When racists are being racist but just not saying it. For instance, upon seeing that a potential tenant is Indian, rather than saying it directly, a landlord will pull the apartment “off the market” without providing an explanation.
• Unaware/Unintentional Racism: “With the best of intentions, the best of educations, and the greatest generosity of heart, whites, operating on the misinformation fed to them from day one, will behave in ways that are racist, will perpetuate racism by being ‘nice’ the way we’re taught to be nice.”
• Unaware/Self-Righteous Racism: “The ‘good white’ racist attempts to shame Blacks into being blacker, scorns Japanese-Americans who don’t speak Japanese, and knows more about the Chicano/a community than the folks who make up the community.”
• Internalized Racism: Stereotypes and attitudes of the white hegemonic system are internalized by members of oppressed groups and peoples and taken for truth or inform the ways they think about themselves and others from similar backgrounds or cultures.

I'd like to expand on the third type of racism, the unaware/unintentional type, because, if I am being generous, it is how I would describe BBB&Co's racism.  People who are unintentionally racist and unaware of their racism are the people whose stereotypical understanding of people who are different from them informs their ideological viewpoints, their interactions with those people, and/or the things they say about those people.  Calling President Obama "articulate," for example, is one way in which many people (including Vice President Biden*) have used this type of racism.  Clearly, the intent was not to insult Barack Obama because of his race; it was to compliment him.  But when does anyone take special care to describe a white presidential candidate as "articulate"?  They don't.  Most people who said he was articulate said so because they still believe in the stereotype about black people that they are not articulate, that black people are uneducated, or, apparently, unshowered (see Biden link).  They think that, because they assume those things to be true, that "articulate" and "clean" are compliments; ones that they often wouldn't think to give to a white person.  An articulate white person surprises no one, and an inarticulate white person is not seen as representative of the entire white population.  This is not the case for people who are not white.  This really isn't disputable.

I don't personally personally believe that the majority of the Tea Party is Racist Type #1.  I agree with them, when using their own presumed definitions of racism, that they are largely not racist.  I don't think the Tea Party and conservatives hate black people.  The majority don't necessarily even hate women-- they just don't understand how mentioning a potential Supreme Court Justice's inevitable menstruation is sexist.  And as far as their alleged homophobia, well... well... okay, I really cannot be convinced that the majority of the conservatives and Tea Partiers who are the loudest and actually in power are not homophobic, because that's just, well, not true.  They definitely are.  


Not actively hating someone because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation is not enough to be free of the bigot label.


Of course, none of this matters.  "Racism = prejudice + power" is not a paradigm the right would be at all willing to entertain.  Because socialism.  Duh.

*See?!  You might say, in regards to the above-mentioned fact that Democratic Vice President Joe Biden was responsible for a pretty racist, albeit well-intentioned, statement about then-candidate Barack Obama.  Of course, it was racist.  No one said anything about white Democrats and other "leftists" being free of any racial stereotypes and racist assumptions.  But look! Breitbart obviously has a point when he retweets all of these leftists' racism!  Sure, and I get that point.  He wants to show everyone that, not only is the Tea Party and the rightwing not the bigots we paint them to be, but we're actually just as bad, if not worse!  And anyway, it's not as if Biden, or anyone else on the left for that matter, gets away with this kind of thing on the level that the right does with their own party.  Have you read any page of the progressive blogosphere?  There was that whole #MooreandMe campaign that Sady Doyle started a few months ago, in which lefties all over pushed Michael Moore for an apology over what he said about Julian Assange's alleged victims.  The point is that racism persists in American culture, and while Biden and many other progressives are just as likely as conservatives to be unintentionally racist, progressives tend to at least champion policies that will help overcome racism, sexism, and homophobia, among other institutionalized bigotry.  Conservatives are not.  Conservatives pretend that marginalized people bring it on themselves, and that if they'd just get some bootstraps or something, they'd be just fine.

So, it's Equal Pay Day.

(via)

The whole wage gap thing is still controversial, with one side saying women are paid less than men for equal work, which, if true, would be blatantly unjust, and the other side saying that women are paid less than men because of non-systemic factors, such as choices they make to work in less dangerous fields, to stay home and be a full-time parent rather than a full-time currency-earner, or a lack of negotiation skills.

Whatever.

It makes me angry that the numbers -- that women earn only $0.77 for every $1.00 men make -- are presented in such a way that it leads people to believe that this is a reflection of men and women with equal skills and education doing identical work, when those numbers instead account for all male and female full-time employees, period, regardless of what they do for a living.  It also makes me angry that those who think that the wage gap is strictly a myth blatantly refuse to admit that the "choices" women make to enter lower-paying careers, stay home with the kids, or be bad negotiators do not exist in a vacuum.

I'm happy to accept that women and men earn different wages and salaries simply by choice-- once we are able to reasonably prove that there is no such thing as systemic and insidious sexism that affects both women's and men's employment decisions.

And I'm not ready to buy that just yet, sorry.

A rant about dudes, language, & stereotypes

I've had a craptastic day filled with those really obnoxious bureaucratic problems that no one doesn't hate, like calling 12 different automated systems and hearing things from untrained support staff that don't make any sense, getting hung up on by the phone company who really doesn't want to help you, and sent to various voicemails of various people I'd actually like to speak with.  So, now, I'm just an angry little ball of pre-menstral irritability and automated-system-induced fury.

The day started like any other, where I roll over in bed, grab my phone, and immediately check my email, Facebook, Twitter, Google Reader, blog comments, and anything else I possibly can, before I go right back to sleep and forget all about what I just read, leaving myself with a nagging sense of anxiety over responding to said electronic communication that I don't remember the contents of very well.

But I was stopped on Twitter, seeing all the International Women's Day Tweets, and then this one from Jezebel:

The article is whatever.  It's a Jezebel article about some dumbass advice columnist, and like the majority of their other shit, it's essentially just a pseudo-feminist piece of filler garbage intended to make you click ads.  The irritating part:

It's not like we haven't ripped into Santos before. But he's about due again, after his most recent column, "Why Men Prefer Innocent Girls to Bad Girls." Some of the reasons he gives? Because men don't like overly confident women—apparently the characteristic of a bad girl—and men "don't necessarily want to be in bed with a girl who knows more than they do." Here's the thing, though: I think he's sort of right here. He should stay away from women who are confident and experienced—mostly because they wouldn't want him to touch them with a ten-inch pole, even if said pole was his peen. Chicks like that don't like insecure pussies who don't know how to properly go down on a woman. (emphasis mine)

GAH!  Motherfucking WHAT?!  Why?  Why the fuck was that necessary?  I thought it was common knowledge that if you are going to try to sell everyone on your fucking "feminist cred," you make it a point to not use female genitalia as a fucking insult to men.

Whatever.  Like I said, it's fucking Jezebel.  Like anyone expects (or should expect) any better.  Fuck 'em.

Now, onto the next order of business:

DUDES!  Specifically, DUDES WHO ARE DECENT AND OTHERWISE COOL AND RESPECTFUL THAT I CALL MY FRIENDS!  Will you PLEASE for the love of whoeverthefuck, STOP CALLING WOMEN BITCHES!  And hoes!  And whores!  And broads!  And GIRLS*!  For fuck's sake!  

I know, I get it.  We vote similarly and all hate Michele Bachmann and you're properly liberal and respectful enough that I should totally get that you're just being ironical, L-O-FUCKING-L.  And sometimes (sometimes) using irony can be a funny way to address fucked up stereotypes.  Sometimes.  When isn't it funny?  When it's constant.  Do you, dudes to whom I address this post, think you are the first and only dude with the wit to think of ironic sexism?  I assure you, you aren't.  And it's starting to get really boring to keep hearing about how we should make sandwiches and be barefoot and pregnant in kitchens, even though we know you're just trying to make fun of the idiots who really feel that way.  And I will totally pick on one friend in particular who I just had this Gchat conversation with, who we will call Guy.  I flipped around a couple of the responses so that they flowed logically, because you know how it works with chat logs.  (The conversation started about this article):

Guy: that dude is wrong

 me: What dude?

 Guy: "split the bill"

  me and my bitch do that, but with a big group? No way

  you get that server to break up the checks

3:45 PM it ain't that hard

 Guy: and I'll usually throw a little tip on top if they can pull that off without whining.me: Your bitch? Gross, Guy.

 me: But yeah. It's not hard.

 Guy: heh. It's just a word.

  I don't like the way "girlfriend" sounds

 me: Hahaha, "bitch" is better than "girlfriend"?

 Guy: yeah, sounds more respectful to my ears

  She's not a girlme: Like the choices are between "girl" and "bitch"Guy: "partner" makes it sound like I'm gay"bitch" is the regional term in my neighborhood ;)

3:46 PM me: I won't give you shit as soon as I hear you use sililarly offensive terms to refer to your male friends

 Guy: well, just listen to me sometime

  I call them "bro," "douche," etc

3:47 PM me: "bro" isn't anymore offensive than "sis." Which isn't offensive. "douche," used a pejoritve, is perfectly appropriate, considering how completely awful they are for vaginas

  Just sayin', yo.

 Guy: mdh

  If I didn't like her and respect her, I wouldn't be in a relationship with her.

 me: Don't be all dudebro about it. I'm giving you shit.

 Guy: I just like the way "mah bitch" sounds.

3:48 PM me: Yeah, it's kind of funny, depending on who's saying it. But it's still dumb and makes many people cringe and makes other people take you seriously and go on calling women bitches unironically

I know, PC language is such a drag.  Bah, whatever.  It's important.  Little, insidious things we say every day have an impact on who we are and how we see ourselves, and how we see and treat other people.  If you think I'm overreacting or that it's a stupid thing to care about, please imagine that you go your entire life hearing people make daily comments that rely on the assumption that, because of your gender, you are weak, stupid, insecure, annoying, weak, wimpy, slutty, worthless, and a sexual object, to name a few.  And I get it, a lot of people call men dicks.  I don't.  And I'm not talking about that right now.  

Stop saying "pussy" when you mean to say "gutless."  Stop saying "bitch" when you mean to say "girlfriend," "wife," "partner," or "significant other."  Stop saying "girl" when the female in question is an adult.  Stop saying "man" when you mean "human" or "people."  Don't address a letter to "sirs" unless you know that only men are going to read it.

It is not that fucking hard!  

I stopped saying "retarded" and "lame," and I don't remember if I ever used "gay" as an insult, but I sure as hell don't say it now.  And I promise, I have yet to run out of creative and effective ways to tell people that they suck.

Another male friend of mine updated his status to say that, in celebration of International Women's Day, he was going to get lost driving around downtown.  Because I get lost nearly every time I drive downtown, I admit, I chuckled.  But refrained from "liking" said status update on principle.  And while we're on the topic, here's the thing about the tired "women are bad drivers" jokes:

I am a perfectly reasonable driver, and the only accident I've ever been in in my 11 years of licensed driving was the fault of the asshole who T-boned me at a notoriously hazardous 4-way stop, several years ago.  Yes, I drive slowly because I'm a cautious (read: paranoid) person.  Yes, I remember landmarks better than street names, but christ, I live in the suburbs, where street names don't make sense.  But everything else?  Parking tickets.  The end.  I'm a fine driver!

You wouldn't know this by being my passenger, though, especially if you're a dude.  Because after years of hearing about how I am such a distracted, slow, inattentive, whatever else driver by dudes with several DWIs, speeding tickets and accidents on their records who text and update their Facebook status while driving, I'm an anxious wreck every time I drive a dude anywhere.  See, insidious.

So, to summarize: ironic sexism can be funny, but due to overuse by entitled hipster dudes, it's increasingly rare that it is.  


And it's your fault that I'm a bad driver.




*I don't see how "girlfriend" is any more offensive than "boyfriend."  Juvenile-sounding, sure; offensive?  Meh.  

The nitty and gritty of male geeks

While reading April's latest post (which doesn't seem to be generating quite the wild fire I expected, not sure if that's good or bad) I was reminded of one I did near the start of the year. Unlike the current topic of nice guys mine is more about geek guys and the hard times they dish out and receive. Enjoy.

I consider myself a geek and since I'm male that would make me a male geek. One of the topics that's been pretty hot these days is how male geeks treat female geeks that try to get into the various types of geekdom (games, Star Wars, computers, etc...). Something I see are often long posts about how male geeks are so horrible to female geeks and how those male geeks are so terrible for their misogyny. One thing I don't see a lot is exactly where that treatment comes from. Well some might talk about it but I don't think its being brought up enough to be effective. So why don't I just throw in my two cents.

Short and sweet do you know what led to a lot of males to get into geekiness? Being socially awkward can be quite painful when confronted by "normal people". There's only so much abuse one can take from the "normal guys and girls" before you just leave for greener grass. As a way to carve out their own piece of existence they went off to make their geek communities. Dungeons and Dragons, Star Trek, interest in math and science, etc... Finally these guys had their own slice of heaven where they could not just exist but live without being harassed.

Well after a while girls started to show interest in some of those same things and, like any person who is looking for people with similar interests, tried to work their way in with those male geeks. While there are plenty of guy geeks who have no problem with this (either because they are hoping for romance/sex or because they are extremely excited to have someone to share interests with or whatever) there are those who don't take kindly to the "invasion of their space".

Hold up a bit. I think this needs a bit of explaining. You see to an extent I think some of that apprehension toward female geeks may be justified. Think about it like this. A lot of male geeks are heterosexual and are therefore interested in girls/women. Thing is they may be taking interest in "normal girls". You know the ones that probably had a hand in ostracizing those male geeks and driving them off to their own slice of heaven to start with. So when they see girls coming in they feel threatened. The very fact that they are girls is probably triggering something. Triggering something that doesn't go off with other guys coming in (because guys don't match their sexual orientation).

Now I'm sure that someone, somewhere, is flying off the handle because I'm not damning male geeks for their horrible treatment of female geeks, whining about male privilege, or some other easy score for points. Well fuck them because they aren't paying attention.

The reason I want to flesh this shit out is because if people really care about female geeks not being harassed by male geeks then let's actually get to why they do it rather than writing them off as woman haters. Despite the way I've been done by women in my life I don't want them to be excluded from the geekdoms they want to get into for such sexist reasons. I'm not trying to excuse their behavior. I'm trying to figure it out because how can you stop something if you don't know how and why it happens?

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.

Ali Carr-Chellman On Re-engaging Boys In Learning

I'll admit at first I had a pretty evil thought about this video but after letting that pass I concluded that there is some good stuff going on here and a lot that I agree with. Damn shame it doesn't get more attention.

So what do you think?

(Borrowed from Pelle Billing.)

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?

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.

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.