Follow Up on Schrodinger's Rapist, and Equality by Reduction

I think I already linked to the Schrodinger's rapist post previously, but looking back on the comments that have appeared on that blog and others subsequently has been almost as interesting as the post itself.
If you want to read the debate, go read it, but I'm just going to quote one small passage from this blog

I think discomfort in inevitable in dismantling privilege. Guys are used to a lot of advantages that they don’t think of as advantages — they got to talk more in meetings, get interrupted less, and their views are not as easily dismissed. If those advantages go away, it “feels” unfair to them because they thought their privileged state was “normal.” And the longer term advantages of dismantling an unequal system are harder to see in the immediate term.

What cis het men see is the loss of the privilege to intrude on women’s solitude, and I think all the whinging is simply rationalization around reflexive defense of the privilege.

In fact, I think guys only come to grips with the loss of male privilege when they take a broader view of what is to be gained and lost. IME, either because they have self-interested reasons for thinking patriarchy sucks for everyone; or because they come face to face with what it does to women and can’t tolerate it. The latter is probably the easier sell, and that’s why exercises like getting high school boys to list the steps they take to walk to their car in a dark parking lot (and then hearing women’s lists — I got that from the Shapely Prose thread) are effective.

Beautifully put. And one of the biggest problems that feminists in this day and age face.

I also want to add another long quotation from this wonderful post here, about why respecting women's boundaries in this way is SO important.

If women are raised being told by parents, teachers, media, peers, and all surrounding social strata that:

• it is not okay to set solid and distinct boundaries and reinforce them immediately and dramatically when crossed (”mean bitch”)
• it is not okay to appear distraught or emotional (”crazy bitch”)
• it is not okay to make personal decisions that the adults or other peers in your life do not agree with, and it is not okay to refuse to explain those decisions to others (”stuck-up bitch”)
• it is not okay to refuse to agree with somebody, over and over and over again (”angry bitch”)
• it is not okay to have (or express) conflicted, fluid, or experimental feelings about yourself, your body, your sexuality, your desires, and your needs (”bitch got daddy issues”)
• it is not okay to use your physical strength (if you have it) to set physical boundaries (”dyke bitch”)
• it is not okay to raise your voice (”shrill bitch”)
• it is not okay to completely and utterly shut down somebody who obviously likes you (”mean dyke/frigid bitch”)

If we teach women that there are only certain ways they may acceptably behave, we should not be surprised when they behave in those ways.

And we should not be surprised when they behave these ways during attempted or completed rapes.

Women who are taught not to speak up too loudly or too forcefully or too adamantly or too demandingly are not going to shout “NO” at the top of their goddamn lungs just because some guy is getting uncomfortably close.

Women who are taught not to keep arguing are not going to keep saying “NO.”

Women who are taught that their needs and desires are not to be trusted, are fickle and wrong and are not to be interpreted by the woman herself, are not going to know how to argue with “but you liked kissing, I just thought…”

Women who are taught that physical confrontations make them look crazy will not start hitting, kicking, and screaming until it’s too late, if they do at all.

Women who are taught that a display of their emotional state will have them labeled hysterical and crazy (which is how their perception of events will be discounted) will not be willing to run from a room disheveled and screaming and crying.

Women who are taught that certain established boundaries are frowned upon as too rigid and unnecessary are going to find themselves in situations that move further faster before they realize that their first impression was right, and they are in a dangerous room with a dangerous person.

Women who are taught that refusing to flirt back results in an immediately hostile environment will continue to unwillingly and unhappily flirt with somebody who is invading their space and giving them creep alerts.

People wonder why women don’t “fight back,” but they don’t wonder about it when women back down in arguments, are interrupted, purposefully lower and modulate their voices to express less emotion, make obvious signals that they are uninterested in conversation or being in closer physical proximity and are ignored. They don’t wonder about all those daily social interactions in which women are quieter, ignored, or invisible, because those social interactions seem normal. They seem normal to women, and they seem normal to men, because we were all raised in the same cultural pond, drinking the same Kool-Aid. [...]

She didn’t fight back because you told her not to. Ever. Ever. You told her that was okay, and necessary, and right.

Please, please go and read the whole article. It's Here, just so's you don't have to scroll back up.

Oh, and another thing....

I would also like to add:

What kind of a f***ed up precedent is THAT going to set, if a guy can GET AWAY WITH CHILD RAPE because he was rich and famous??

Thank-you to all of you wonderful writers, artists, actors, directors etc, etc, etc who have NOT signed these stupid petitions, or have come out opposed to the whole thing (Yet another reason for me to love Neil Gaiman, and a reason for me to overlook, on this occasion, Chris Rock's annoying voice. - Seriously, great dude, I just have to listen to him in small chunks.) and believe that the artistic community should be held to the same legal standard as anyone else.

Great Art does not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card. Would you have excused Hitler if he'd been a slightly better painter?*




*Actually, my theory on this one is that if he'd been a good painter, he might have got laid a bit more, and not had to go into politics and become a "mass-murdering f**khead" (in the words of Eddie Izzard) - but then I'm being a bit facetious at the moment...

Frothing at the mouth

I kid you not, my Dad actually referred to me as a "Rabid Feminist" the other day.
Rabid? Really? Must have missed that fox bite last time I was on the continent. And I was wondering why I seemed to be going insane and frothing at the mouth a lot.

Oh no wait, that last one must be because of all the stuff I'm reading.
I've just discovered the people at Feministing and The Sexist, and am having a big ol read. And because I'm female, when I read, my brain tends to overheat and explode*.

And in some cases this is a good thing - like when I suddenly discover that contributor "Courtney" is the same one who wrote the book I've just finished reading - Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters.

In other cases, it's more stuff that I wish I could include my PhD to cover (but can't because at this rate it'd never be done...) such as the idea of "Force Fantasy" and why women of today don't buy it.

Also a track-back (ish?) to my post of 17th August about men who get rejected and then decide that appropriate countermeasures include escalating the war-of-the-sexes to actual violence. Here's another collection of them. With a title that just wouldn't be the same without the exclamation point.

An interesting question (with responses, which are sound, accessible, and frankly essential reading if you're in this situation) about how to explain male privilage to an intelligent man. (Also why there's no such thing as "Female Privilage", at the wonderfully named Finally Feminism 101)
And a tongue in cheek article about how to teach your daughter about feminism.
And a post about why we still need feminism at all.

Also, until today I had not realised what this word literally means. Or rather, I knew what a douche was, but hadn't actually connected the dots. And on that note... another example of "But I WANNA Ice-cream!" logic (I will explain if anyone ever posts a comment what I mean by that last statement.)

And finally, because I think this has been quite a long enough round-up, I want this hat.



*As a consequence of the content of the reading material, not the quality of my brain. The management refuses to accept claims that female brains are more shoddily constructed, or are more prone to overheating, and instead suggest that the user is at fault for operating a female brain in close proximity to a patriarchal society. Such operational conditions can frequently cause female brains running at high levels to overheat, explode or start a blog.

Yes, I know it's from the Daily Fail...

... but this article pisses me off.

I've ranted before about the inequalities caused by women having to pay for things like childcare (because God forbid they have a househusband to deal with that...) thus decreasing their effective earning potential compared to men, who often have wives who are prepared to support them at home. Now I get another chance to rant at how even when women find innovative solutions to this problem, they're penalized by a government completely unsympathetic to their needs (because parliament's full of men) who, by upholding the letter rather than the spirit of the law, are attempting to be politically correct, and end up offending more people than if they'd let it go. Not to mention destroying the working lives of the two women involved.


However, because this is the Daily Fail, I also have to point out the amusing irony (not sure if it's really irony, but it's in that general ballpark) of the comment by one Canadian reader:
All I can say is, "wow"! It's beyond belief some of the stories I read in this newspaper. People of the UK - you really need to rise up against this kind of fanatical governmental interference in everyday life. Absolutely ridiculous!
It is absolutely beyond belief... but not for the reasons you think!

Why so young?

There's not much more I can add to this...

Round Up

I Actually started this post about half-way down, but then I read this link and decided it should have Prominence.

This Should Be Our Manifesto.
"Let us name the problem for what it is, without insisting that we acknowledge you."

It is one of the most insulting and patronising things, for me, as a feminist, when I try and tell men about the kind of atrocities committed by men on a daily basis, and they respond "But we're not all like that".
I know. Otherwise I wouldn't be talking to you - I'd be out there with a gun destroying every Y chromosome on the face of the planet. If I didn't genuinely believe that there were good men out there, that men are not irredeemable scum one and all, then honest to God I would be trying to rid the world of them, not convince them to stand up with me and help me do something about the ones who give all the others a bad name.

Don't blame me for bringing the problem elements of your gender to your attention - blame those members of your gender who have made the problem in the first place.

I can get it that you might be feeling a bit insecure - you have, after all, just had a large, intelligent feminist vehemently and accurately degrading a large portion of your gender in front of you for five minutes - but please don't try and dismiss the problem because you aren't part of it. By doing so, you make yourself part of it.

Please realise that I'm not stupid. I'm not lumping you in with the problem elements. If I was, like I said, my reaction would be different. I'm asking you to help me, to get angry with me. I'm not yelling at you. I'm inviting you to yell with me.

Remember: ALL IT TAKES FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING.

***

And here's another collection of things that are bugging me at the minute:

Man shoots women at gym because he couldn't get a girlfriend

Article showing how our misogynist culture implicitly condones him

***

Two Articles about "pick-up artists" and the kind of culture that believes
a) women are stupid and can be tricked into having sex with you, if you know the right moves, and
b) it's ok to "blame all of womankind for viewing our bodies and lives as for ourselves, instead of for the pleasure of men."

One wonderful comment on the first article says:

"Having sex with ANYONE is not my, nor any other person’s, “price” for staying alive, for being female, for being attractive, for going to the gym, for wearing “slutty” clothing and/or high heels, for ANYTHING. Furthermore, I am not a sex worker, but if I were, I would have the right of any businessperson to refuse service (in compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws, etc.)

Seriously, do we have to print up T-shirts with the above statement? I hear NoSweat’s got a sale going on."

***

Moving from that to discussions of "the game" and PUAs in general; specifically the idea of "the neg" (criticizing a woman you're interested in, in order to get her to sleep with you; sounds counter intuitive, I know)

One person on there (also called Alex, sadly) mentions that:
"isn't the idea that the "neg" is some sort of device that exploits natural female vulnerability kind of sexist in itself? That most women are so insecure and dependent on the opinions of strangers that a passing mild insult from a stranger in a bar is enough to drive them into said strangers bed?"

Well, yes it is. But the problem isn't that it's a woman's "natural female vulnerability" which is being exploited - it isn't natural at all. It's the product of a culture which is based on "negging"
women, making them feel incomplete without a man, and suggests that their self-worth should be based on their ability to attract the opposite sex.

And talking of Alexes (kind of)
A beautiful comment on the first neg-article by another "Alessandra"

"Degrading a woman and breaking down her confidence is an easy way to gain power and influence over her. This has been done for centuries, albeit with a bit more rape and violence. Old habits never die.

If the object of the “Dating Game” is to screw as many women as possible, then yes, his technique works well. If it’s a matter of “conquering” women, like you do enemies or rogue countries, then anything you can do to break them is a win.

People who think with anything other than their genitals find other things to hope for"

***

A beautiful, if short, article, spoiled by the last two lines. And something that I promise to talk about later. The interaction of religion and feminism is something that's been building up for me as a while, and I think it's going to all come out soon.

***

And Finally, a little gallows-humour light relief.

How is this Liberation?

Too. Damn. Angry. To. Speak.

Couldn't have put it better Myself.

Seriously, criticize Harriet Harman for the mess that is the NHS, but don't knock her on this one. Honestly, the one thing that would ever EVER tempt me back to voting Labour would be if she was heading the party.

Sorry it's been a while, but...

Oh my sweet God in Heaven, this is bloody marvelous.

God Bless Robert Peston for having the brains to work it out, and the guts to say it despite his Y Chromosome.

I won't go into it further at the moment, because I don't want to spoil the big grin running all over my face right now...

:D

Reading between the lines

Ok, just a brief one (at least intentionally, but these things tend to grow...) to point out a particular piece of reportage

Now, just to clarify, I don't want to comment on the whole Labour CTD* issue. I' just commenting on this particular article.

Firstly I'm concerned about an accusation that women in the Cabinet are "Window dressing" (Flint's words not mine) which, considering she herself has recently been involved in a photo shoot for some glossy fashion magazine (unspecified), plus the official reason for her resignation was that she didn't feel she was trusted by Brown, does seem to have a scary ring of truth about it. Are our female ministers just vote-winning "window dressing"? hmm.... Now you can accuse me of having watched too much Yes Minister recently, but it would be worrying if absolutely nothing has actually changed in politics, whilst at the same time the illusion has been created that some things have moved on...

Secondly, I'm concerned at this section:

"The week had also seen the resignations of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Communities Secretary Hazel Blears and some other ministers before Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell walked out on Thursday evening with an open call for Mr Brown to quit.

This was widely seen as part of coordinated attempt to challenge Mr Brown's position as Labour leader, but Ms Flint said she was not part of any plotting.

She said "negative briefings" from Downing Street had wrongly attempted to suggest she was part of a group of senior Labour women ministers wanting to unseat Mr Brown."

I'm sorry, a conspiracy of women? Who form considerably less than 20% of the government? Being able to de-stabilize the PM? Surely not.

I've been looking, and can't at the minute find a comprehensive list of all the people who've resigned from Labour over the past few weeks, but looking at the quote above, I'm starting to worry that it's not disproportionately the women who have been leaving. If it is actually them making a decision to leave, then fine, it almost suggests that they have principles, but if it's them being forced out, made into a convenient scapegoat (and isn't it telling that both Blears and Smith are out - the two most prominent (powerful?) female politicians that we had...) and quietly got rid of in order to preserve this lovely little boys-club that is parliament...

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but it's at least as likely as saying there's a plot against the PM coming from "senior women ministers". I'm not going to draw any firm conclusions at the minute, but as the facts stand, we have a lot of senior women in government "resigning", one amid an acusation that women in parliament are merely "window dressing" and that the PM doesn't trust them. Is it too much of a leap to suggest that maybe women in government aren't particulalrly welcomed by their male collegues?

*Old doctor-slang.