The Secret Lives of Married Men--Now With Bingo Cards

Where am I again? Why, Tiger Beatdown:

I have not, temporally speaking, been doing this here ladybusiness for all that long. (Some would draw a facetious comparison, in fact, to the amount of time I have in fact been a lady, but as that number would vary between never and 37 years depending on whether you asked Germaine Greer or Kate Bornstein, I’ll just move on.)
Yet even that short time, the depressing amount of material that exists out in the lady-hating or lady-indifferent or just lady, get me a beer world can drag you down. Why, you say to yourself as you labor over your blog in a hot kitchen (well, I’m baking cookies, see…) should I address another MRA apologia, tear apart another straw-feminist, or deal with this week’s Exciting Variation on the Tone Argument. (I solve those by getting louder.)
But then, as Sady herself discovered, you come across something absolutely stunning in its bold sweep, all-encompassing douchery, and just plain ol’ damnfoolishness.

 Yosh!

Je Me Souviens

Today is the anniversary of the infamous École Polytechnique Massacre.

For those of you who don't know, here are the basics: on December 6, 1989, a gunman named Marc Lépine entered the École Polytechnique in Montreal, an engineering college. He entered a classroom, separated the men from the women, and then shot all nine of the women, killing six. He then began wandering the school, specifically targeting women, before taking his own life. He killed 14 women, wounded 10 others, and also wounded four men.

Before setting out on his mass murder, he had left a suicide note which mentioned that he specifically targeted "feminists" for ruining his life, and included a list of nineteen women he wanted to die because they were feminists.

Today is commemorated as National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Canada. Survivors of the massacre helped pass a gun control law that required the registration of all firearms--and which probably has helped reduce firearm-related violence against women.(Which is something to think about, O ye who criticize TDOR for being an ineffectual "pity party.")

And the response has been a serious consideration of how misogyny pervades our society, right? Or about how violence and especially armed violence is a plague, right? No. It seems lots of folks deny that what has to be one of the most brain-thuddingly obvious acts of violent misogyny in recent history...wasn't misogyny at all, no ma'am. Oh, and the Harper government wants to drop the gun registry. Nice commemoration, assholes.

CaitieCat on Shakesville has a poignant post on the subject today, and I highly recommend (and when was the last time you read a post from me with this sentiment?) the comments thread. The Toronto Star has an article about how the lives of the survivors have changed, and how many of them have fought to prevent further massacres, and for women's rights in general.

Je me souviens. Je ne oublierai jamais. Jamais encore.

General Francisco Franco Is Still Dead, and Hiram Montserrate Is Still A Douche

So the New York State Senate finally got around to voting on legalizing gay marriage today:

Marriage equality failed today in the New York Senate after a years-long battle to bring the issue to a vote. The final tally: 24 YES, 38 NO. Among the surprises was a "no" vote from Queens Democrat Sen. Hiram Monserrate, who had previously been a vocal supporter. In October, Monserrate narrowly escaped a felony assault conviction for slashing the face of his girlfriend with a broken glass. Monserrate's NYC office: (718) 205-3881. His Albany office: (518) 455-2529.

 Yes, it's our old friend Hiram Montserrate shocking nobody with a fucking brain that he once again turned out to be lying, devious jerk. We knew he hated women; now we know he hates gays: fortunately, the New York State Senate takes so few damn meaningful votes that we may have to go months before we find the next group Montserrate thinks is disposable.

And fuck, it sucks that NYS couldn't make this happen, although there is hope now for future votes (and primary challenges to the Democrats who voted No.)

Now Let Us Abhor Wicked Men

I haven't had much to say about the Rihanna incident--where for "incident", I invite and encourage you to read "vicious beating inflicted upon her by an depraved, jealous boyfriend." Like a lot of folks I was appalled at the light sentence he received, incensed that once again money and fame insulate men from the consequences of their actions (but said money and fame didn't do squat for Rihanna) and moved on to the latest outrage.

Turns out, today everything old is new again! Because Chris Brown has kicked off his rehabilitation tour! (You know, the one where a douchebag guy goes on the talk shows, displays a vetted-level of contrition, promises to never do that again, mentions Jesus somewhere, and is immediately rehabilitated in public opinion so you never have to feel guilty about listening to/voting for/paying $12 bucks* to watch him again.)

Chris has hit upon an interesting rehab tactic, however: he claims he doesn't remember assaulting Rihanna:

King, whose interview airs on Wednesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live," asked Brown if he could remember the event, and the singer told him "no."

"I just look at it like, wow, I'm in shock, because, first of all, that's not who I am as a person, and that's not who I promise I want to be," Brown said in a video posted on CNN's website. "So when I look at the police reports or hear about the police reports, I just don't know what to think."

Hey, dude, guess what: that fucking is who you are as a person. A person who beats his girlfriend viciously and repeatedly. Even if you "can't remember" doing it.

Separately, Brown told People in a story for the issue on newsstands Friday that he still loves Rihanna. "I never fell out of love with her. That just wouldn't go away," Brown said.

Well, that seems to be the problem, since the assault started

...when Rihanna found a text message on Brown's phone from "a woman who Brown had a previous sexual relationship with," according to CNN's story.

Yeah, he never fell out of love with her, provided he could get some on the side. And when the woman he "loved" argued with him about that, he attacked her. He assaulted her. He choked her. He bit her.

Brown, 20, said he was distraught the night of the event and "broke down" after he told his mother, who herself was a victim of an abusive relationship.

His mom, Joyce Hawkins, told People that Brown's confession was "the most painful moment of my life," and sitting with her son on Larry King's program, she said she was "totally shocked."

"I know that Chris has never, ever been a violent person. Never," Hawkins said.

I'm supposed to say something sympathetic here about the cycle of abuse. And honestly, I am sympathetic--there's no question that children who are abused, or whose parents have an abusive relationship, are more likely to abuse other people. But that sympathy kind of sputters to an abrupt halt when it includes putting a horrific beatdown on a woman. One that you claim you love.

I mean, it's not like Chris Brown was without resources to help him get over the abuse he'd suffered.

As for Ms. Hawkins...well, see above. And below:

But a story accompanying CNN's video cites a probation report for Brown stating he and Rihanna had two other abusive incidents: one a verbal argument in which Rihanna slapped him and he shoved her, and a second in which he broke the windshields of a rented car while she was with him.

Yeah. Never violent at all.

Of course, the thing is...the thing is. Bloggers like me will write about this. Lots of women and well-thinking men will get outraged. People will be upset. Hell, Rihanna will even do a revenge song about Chris Brown.

And he'll probably go on ultimately like it never happened. And the next time some rich and powerful douchebag beats his girlfriend, he'll go on TV and do his contrition waltz and the rich and powerful douchebag interviewers will pronounce their absolution and it will all go on and on and on again.

Because they know they can wear us down with all the other outrages they throw at us every day, while their patience seems unlimited.

Now Let Us Praise Wicked Men

So dear friend of the blog Sady has a post up at Salon's Broadsheet about Sophie Tucker, whose career as a female singer who pushed gender boundaries in the early 20th century would normally make her a feminist icon--except that she also did blackface for a long time. And that, as well as the funeral of Senator Kennedy, has me thinking about bad people who did good things, or vice versa.

Of course, Teddy looms large in this calculus.

Liss at Shakesville has the most nuanced discussion of the senior senator from Massachusetts' career, I think:

Teddy, as he was known, was privileged, in every sense of the word. And he made liberal use of his privilege, in ways I admired and ways I did not. The terrible bargain we all seem to have made with Teddy is that we overlooked the occasions when he invoked his privilege as a powerful and well-connected man from a prominent family, because of the career he made using that same privilege to try to make the world a better place for the people dealt a different lot.

Twice, Teddy did despicable things with his privilege, very publicly.

...the two things being the horrific Chappaquiddick affair, and whatever role he helped play in getting his nephew, William Kennedy Smith off the hook for his (alleged, I have to say alleged) rape of a young woman.

Those are two pretty terrible things, by the way.

Daisy over at Daisy's Dead Air does her best to speak for the dead:

I will mourn the working woman who was forgotten, as the actual circumstances of her death were covered up by a powerful family, who then arbitrarily assigned her slut status.

Imagine slowly, slowly drowning, water enveloping you inch by inch as you drown, waiting for the person to rescue you that never arrives.

Sorry, folks. Some things, I do not excuse.

Mary Jo represents all the nobody-women killed (or allowed to die, if you want to quibble over my terms) by all the powerful, rich men, because they were "evidence"--because they got in the way.

And yet, and yet--he fought hard for people who weren't able to fight as hard for themselves--the Americans With Disabilities Act, fighting apartheid, even helping Jews escape the Soviet Union. He never let up on the universal healthcare fight. He blocked Robert Bork from the Supreme Court. And he did all those things largely in part by using his name, his wealth, and his reputation to accomplish things other people might not have.

And he let a woman slowly drown. And he helped an (alleged, ok? alleged.) rapist avoid punishment.

Lots of--let's not say heroes--icons have feet of clay. Martin Luther King had affairs. Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves. And lots of wicked people do great things: Napoleon spread the rule of law, the ideals of the French Revolution, and death, death, death throughout Europe; Wagner wrote some of the most complex (and occasionally even beautiful) music in history and was a dead-beat, adulterer, and depraved anti-Semite. Julia Child was frequently homophobic. And so it goes.

How do we judge? Is it only time that allows us to be dispassionate? What are the morals of admiring the Declaration of Independence or the ADA when you know that they are the results of men who did despicable deeds?

I'm not sure I know. I mean, I'm glad for the Declaration and (well, sometimes) Tristan und Isolde and the millions of people that Senator Kennedy helped. I am aware of the enormous good that has been wrought by flawed men and women.

But I still can't shake the thought of that woman drowning, or that woman screaming on the beach where nobody could hear her.

It's a Crime

Richard Cohen, writing on Tuesday, had this to say about James von Brunn, the man who attacked the Holocaust museum earlier this year:

He also proves the stupidity of hate-crime laws. A prime justification for such laws is that some crimes really affect a class of people. The hate-crimes bill recently passed by the Senate puts it this way: "A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim . . . but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected." No doubt. But how is this crime different from most other crimes?

First, let us consider the question of which "community" von Brunn was allegedly attempting to devastate. He rushed the Holocaust museum, which memorializes the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis and their enablers. There could be no more poignant symbol for the Jewish community. Yet von Brunn killed not a Jew but an African American -- security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns.

So which community was affected by this weird, virtually suicidal act? Was it the Jewish community or the black community? Since von Brunn hated both, you could argue that it does not matter. But since I would guess that neither community now gives the incident much thought, the answer might well be "neither one." So what is the point of piling on hate crimes to what von Brunn has allegedly done? Beats me. He already faces -- at age 89, remember -- a life sentence and, possibly, the death penalty.

The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. -- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or speech.

Actually, the real purpose of hate crime laws is to punish terrorism.

Yes, I used the t-word. A hate crime is one where the victim was a target only because of membership in some group (frequently a disprivileged or discriminated against group.) Hate crimes have the effect (even if the intention is not always so far-reaching) of terrorizing that group; of reminding them that they are in danger by virtue of who they are; of reminding them that violence remains the prerogative of the powerful.

Cohen sarcastically asks, "which group was terrorized?" which seems so disingenuous coming from a Jewish person. Can he not see that one of the effects of von Brunn's attack was to remind people that just being at a Jewish cultural institution is dangerous? If even one person decides not to go to the Holocaust Museum because of von Brunn's actions, doesn't that make what he did terrorism?

People forget, I think, what the purpose of terrorism is: it's not to kill people. September 11th remains the worst terrorist act in history, and the casualty count would barely make the list of interesting battles of the American Civil War. No. The point of terrorism is terror: the use of asymnetric violence to break the morale of a militarily superior society; to make all people, not just soldiers in combat, afraid of violent death; to cause people to change they way they live, to bring the battle home to them.

Cohen understands this, even if he doesn't seem to appreciate it--maybe because he doesn't think his example affects him:

If there's a murder in a park, I'll stay out of it for months. If there's a rape, women will stay out of the park. If there's another and another, women will know that a real hater is loose. Rape, though, is not a hate crime. Why not?

Indeed, why not? as Liss at Shakesville ponders. Especially in light of a story like this:

Four people are confirmed dead and nine others were wounded when a gunman opened fire inside the L.A. Fitness in Collier Township Tuesday night.

The shooting happened shortly after 8 p.m.

The county coroner's office has identified the gunman as 48-year-old George Sodini from Scott Township. [...] Sodini was keeping an online diary where it appears as if he was planning the shooting for about nine months. He also detailed on the site how he attempted to carry out the shooting once before, but backed out.

Right now, there's at least one woman worried about going to the gym because she might be cornered there and shot simply because she's a woman. (I know that for sure, because she is me.) This isn't a random crime, or an act of desperation by a criminal: this is a cold-blooded act of mass murder, an act of "revenge" for a mythical wrong, a crime designed to make a whole group of people feel afraid.

It's terrorism. And we shouldn't stand for it.

Letter to a Young Commentor

Greetings, ducks! In today's edition, I answer comments, specifically this comment from new reader Tamogochi! Hello, Tamo--let's hear what you have to say:

I've followed to your blog from INFJ forum. It seems that feminism is quite a big portion of your life and the article you cited is indeed stupid.

You are correct on both counts--I congratulate you on your perspicacity!

My comment is more on the general topic.

Uh-oh. Nothing good ever follows a lead-in like that.

What I don't get about that whole feminist attitude is why are you so infuriated (as it's in a subtitle of your site)? The aggressive feminism worked a 100 years ago, but now is quite outdated.

Why am I so mad?

Well, first, am I all that mad? I don't think I come across as indiscriminately angry. No. I choose my words (or try to) with great care, and there's a reason I chose infuriated. For me, my fury is a low-grade, constant resentment of how messed up the world remains, of how we continue to play primate dominance games imported out of our misty prehistory, of how our culture plays lip service to the ideas of equality, justice, and change while trying to keep everything the same.

That is the source of my fury, as I documented previously, here and here, and it is why I am an implacable foe of unearned privilege.

Also, we live in a world where an ESPN reporter is filmed changing inside her hotel room and it gets thrown all around the internet (and the coverage never fails to note that But She's Totes Hot and Playboyz Luvz Her so she kinda was asking for it, right?) and you're telling me that my fury is out of date? That I shouldn't be outraged a lot? That given the racist, sexist, classist imagery spoon-fed to us every day on television and radio and the internet that I shouldn't be--I dunno, upset?

Perhaps this will clear a few things up:

That aggressiveness is the very thing that turns men away instead of trying to help women with their problems. It actually acts as an excuse. And a lame one.

Oh, Tamo.

It's amazing what you managed to do there--pack so much privilege into a few short sentences. You are to be commended!

OK. First. Women aren't asking men to "help them with their problems," as if feminist concerns are issues that apply only to women. Feminism is not the "Sanitary Aids" aisle at the supermarket; it--or at least, the feminism I believe in--is a movement that must by its very nature try to bring true freedom and equality to all humanity, male and female. Feminist women need the help of feminist men, sure--we need everyone to realize they are trapped in a system that is forever geared towards generating inequality and systemic discrimination. But feminists are not begging for help, not wheedling like a 50s sitcom character trying to get her husband to buy her a new dress. Feminists are standing up as proud activists trying to realize their dream.

Second--seriously, dude, weak is just as good a four-letter word, conveys the same sense, and doesn't offend anybody. Using lame is pretty weak.

(See how easy that was?)

How can you ever achieve anything genuinely positive if you just fight for one side and treat the other as disposable objects? That seems so wrong to me because feminists repeat the same old mistakes of patriarchalism. The only thing different is that roles are reversed now.

And how are we supposed to achieve anything genuinely positive if we hide our anger, stay meek and demure, and never demand anything? How the hell are we supposed to become equal if we stay subservient?

As for repeating the mistakes of patriarchalism--speak for yourself. That's not the kind of feminism I support and advocate for, and it never has been on the short history of this blog. I firmly believe we have to tear down the entire privilege system and find something better--and soon, before the human race lurches into its final chapter.

And seriously, roles reversed? Are you saying women are more powerful than men? Cause that might actually make me mad.

Given the horrors our mad world continues to lurch through--the endemic poverty, the billions who are hunger, the millions who are starving, given how the First World continues to support itself on the slavery of the Third, given how even here in the Wonderful West we are plagued with massive amounts of sexism, racism, religious bigotry, looksism, and countless other oppressions, I think the question isn't: why am I outraged?

It really should be, why aren't you?

Headesk Is A Verb

Greetings, ducks! Sorry about the delay since yesterday's post, but I had to call a carpenter in--it seems my (quirky, writerly, rolltop) desk had developed a mysterious dent ever since I started using Google Reader to search for stories with the keyword "feminism." Oddly enough, the dent seemed to fit my forehead perfectly, and got deeper after each one of the mysterious headaches I seem to be suffering from--strange.

However, in any case, I now have a nice shiny new desktop, and it's time to take a look at what Google brought me today--oh. Oh, dear. Something titled "Hating Feminism."

Well, let's not be hasty; maybe it's a feminist response to people who hate feminists! My heart leaps! See, it starts well:

I know to a degree where she’s coming from. A lot of the feminist-bashing is nothing more than people taking their personal problems and putting a political spin on it. But, of course, NOW is not responsible if you can’t get sex or can’t get your wife to respect you.

Well, not great, but not bad.

We’ve all seen those people. All their stories are about someone taking advantage of them. But even before the stories started, we knew just by looking at them that we are about to deal with a loser.

But that doesn’t negate that feminism has become a cancer. Many of the complaints against the feminists are the same as against Civil Rights warriors.

Oh dear.

Women will acknowledge that a big, tall man who’s in great shape is stronger than they are. What they don’t realize is that a 5-foot-3 110 pound high school boy is still vastly stronger than any woman who’s not taking steroids (aka male hormones).

Riiight...I forgot, that high school kid can whup Laila Ali one hand behind his back--because he's stronger than every woman in the world.

Women get into an aggressive pose if you ever say that they can’t do something as well. But of course you can’t do some things as well, and you can’t do anything on an exceptional level (historic inventions, Nobel prizes).

Even when you look at things that women do much more than men (write poetry, cook, design clothes), almost all the great ones are male.

Right, because of ten millenia of denying women access to education, devaluing all work they do, and institutional sexism wherever people (read: men) do work for money that women traditionally have done for free, that in no way invalidates your argument. It's all about the biology, right? I can take comfort in that, scientifically proven....wait a second.

I'm not exactly all about the biology, you know.

The worst outrage (other than the claim by feminists in Sweden that men should be forced by law to sit on toilets like women rather than stand) is the feminist demand that all men’s room become unisex while the women’s bathrooms remain for females only. The logic is that women always have to wait in line and men don’t, so that’s just unfair.

Okay, seriously? Do not take a trans person on about the bathroom.

No society treated women as well as the West. White men didn’t put you in wooden shoes to make your feet unnaturally small, didn’t cut off your clitoris, didn’t “Honor Kill” women for being rape victims. Whether a white woman chose to be a nun or a prostitute or anything in between, she was treated with at least some level of respect.

I'm going to laugh here. Because this has to be satire, right? Because we all know how well prostitutes are treated in our society, right? I mean, they have respect, which is why so many upper-class women have traditionally turned to prostitution; you know, Victorian gentlemen went on the Grand Tour, Victorian ladies went On the Job.

Is there any way you could make your satire richer?

(Update after this was already written: I was originally thinking of writing “whore” instead of “prostitute”, but decided not to because I thought people would react to it negatively. Upon re-reading this, I realized that this in and of itself made my point – Westerners do not accept gratuitous degradation of even the lowest class women.)

I think...I think you need to, I don't know--I was going to say "take a women's studies course" but I think I'll start with, "meet a woman."

I'll just...just read a little more...I'm feeling woozy...

Just as blacks have a very special way of looking at things (black-dominated NBA is good, but white-dominated swimming is an outrage), so too do the feminists. That they dominate the Angry Bitch Studies and departments like Sociology is just taken for granted, but all hell breaks loose every time feminazis find out that engineering or physics departments are mostly male.

*thump*

Wow, look at that--there's already a new dent in my desk.

I think I better keep that carpenter on speed-dial.

I Feel Pretty, I Feel...Coerced Into Being Co-Opted By the Patriarchalist Beauty Myth

I wear makeup. Almost everyday. In fact, I'm writing this from a nail salon, where some nice ladies are tackling my feet with a belt sander.

Now, when I say makeup, I mean just any old cosmetic. Most days, it's just some lipstick, and long-wear stuff at that, so I don't have to touch it up during the day; when I have to do a client visit, or am going out on the town, I'll add some blush and eye makeup. The whole deal takes about five minutes.

I wasn't always so minimalist. When I first began to present as female outside of my apartment, I wore a lot of makeup. Some of it was by necessity: beard shadow is tough to hide, so heavy foundation was usually called for. Some of it, of course, was just wanting to wear makeup, because most of the time I didn't allow myself to.

Since those days, I've done various things (like electrolysis) to make my life easier. Yet I still wear makeup, and as I am an introspective feminist, I wonder about what it says about me that I do.

Part of the reason is definitely to avoid any "OMGITSADOOODLOLZ". The last time I went out of the house without wearing lipstick (about a year ago) I got "clocked" (picked out as trans) rather nastily. At six a.m. Before I'd had any coffee.

Such trouble, I don't need.

Another reason is that I actually like to wear makeup, at least some of the time. I like the way it makes me look. I like the way that liking the way I look makes me feel, just as I like how I feel when I think I'm wearing a nice-looking outfit.

This is obviously a bit more problematic.

Because there's no doubt that doing so feeds into negative stereotypes of how a woman is supposed to look, dress, and act. There's little doubt in my mind that most of these are patriarchalist; that many are demeaning to women; that they constitute an ongoing backlash against women who dared be more than adjuncts to male sexuality.

I mean, hey, I've read Naomi Wolfe, I get all that.

But in my case it's even more complicated. Because, you see, I never had a girlhood; I didn't spend my childhood having lessons about what is proper or popular drummed into my head; and because of that, my relationship to fashion and cosmetics is a lot less complicated than most women my age.

I'm a bit like my friend Joanna. (Not that it matters, but she's not trans.) She didn't spend her high school or even early-adult years worrying that much about the latest clothes, the hippest trends. But around the time that I began to become interested in finding clothes I thought made me look good, instead of clothes that just made me look like a woman, she became interested in fashion. And she's now one of the most fashionable people I know, though not trendy or consumed with a passion for the next unattainable fashion accessory.

For both of us, our clothes, our makeup, our appearance is a lot more about the pleasure we get from it than a pressure to fit in. I won't deny that pressure exists--of course it does; but we both feel a lot more comfortable resisting it.

Or like I said before, we dress the way we do because of how it makes us feel, not because of how we feel we have to.

Ariel Levy said something in Female Chauvinist Pigs that I think gets at what I'm saying:

Monitoring her appearance and measuring the response to it have been her focal point. If her looks were a kind of hobby--if dressing and grooming and working out were things she did for pleasure--then the process would be its own reward. But she spoke of her pursuit as a kind of Sisyphean duty, one that many of her friends had charged themselves with as well.

I guess what I'm saying is that I definitely don't feel the Sisyphean duty part of that equation.

But by the same token, I can't help thinking about exactly how much I'm co-opted with the use of standards of beauty to repress women, that I can't help but think that while I may feel good for wearing certain clothes, that's only because the patriarchal culture around me tells me that I should, that these shoes/skirts/jeans make you feel good, and those (comfortable) shoes/(not-tight) skirts/(loose enough to breathe in) jeans won't. It's hard to sort out and the only thing that comforts me is that a lot of other women my age struggle to sort it out too.

But I'm still going to wear lipstick. Because more than one "LOLZURAGUYYYY" is too much. Hell, one was already too much.