Tag: feminism

Fighting Words

Sigel Phoenix
[Hey everyone! My name is Dora/Sigel Phoenix and Tekanji recently invited me over here to guest blog. I have a personal/political blog on LiveJournal. I’m a college student majoring in English and Women Studies, and my interests include gender, race, and all things geeky. Nice to meet you all!]

I’m lucky in the people I geek out with, because it’s a mixed-gender group, mostly socially aware, and made up of generally good people. I don’t have to worry about guys telling me I can’t play something because I’m female, or looking down on what I’m interested in.

But I never hear the word “bitch” so often as in the middle of a tense battle in a game.

I hardly have the worst gaming experience, I know. Even the language I hear isn’t the worst – it’s nothing like the “cocksucking whores” or “stupid cunts” I’ve heard, and heard about, in the more anonymous forum of online gaming (yes, Counter-Strike, I’m looking at you). And most of the people I encounter while gaming actually try to not be sexist.

But there’s something about gaming that inspires honesty. I’d guess it has something to do with adrenaline, stress, and excitement – triggered by things like a major boss fight when you forgot to save, or that moment when you really really need to roll a 20. In any case, gaming tends to make us drop our pretenses – to help us shed our social niceties and polite talk. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t engaged in some violent smack talk during particularly exciting battles, never mind how you normally speak. I hear it in groups of any size, whether the medium is tabletop or electronic, an FPS or an RPG. And in such a fast-paced and high-stress environment, people often resort to the lowest common denominator in language, words that are fast and simple in getting your meaning across.

So when I hear people use “female” insults like this – words that refer specifically to women or characteristics of women – I can’t believe that they’re “just” words. Saying a word means that you believe something about it – something about what it means, and what a listener will understand through its usage. That’s why we usually don’t swear in the workplace, or reference inside jokes with people we don’t know; why we make our vocabulary more or less complex depending on what we’re trying to do (make an argument versus giving directions, etc.). I wouldn’t use “geek” with mundanes – at least, not in the same sense as I do with my friends – because it means different things to different groups of people.

So when we use words like “pussy” or “cocksucker” to describe the on-screen boss or our opponent in a fighting game, what do we mean? What do we believe the words mean? What kind of impression are we trying to give a listener?

I can tell you one thing: we mean something different than when we use non-gendered or even “male” insults. Sure, “asshole” and “dick” are often insults. But I often hear these words used in a light-hearted manner to describe people of any gender. That’s because the connotations of these words are somewhat positive – being a dick means that you’re rude and inconsiderate, but that’s because you’re assertive, you take no shit, you’re “ballsy.” And those characteristics are good. People will call themselves these terms – shrugging, maybe sheepish but usually laughing, admitting their own insolence and boorishness with little remorse.

In contrast, take a look at the tone of “female” insults. What makes someone a “pussy” or a “bitch,” or any other similar terms? Acting scared, or maybe being sneaky and cheating. Being underhanded instead of confronting something face-to-face “like a man.” In another sense of “bitch,” it’s being “hysterical” (which is another gendered insult, though less easy to recognize) and “overreacting,” usually because of “hormones.” Or it could mean that you were made into someone’s “bitch” because you got beaten in the game. In all senses: it’s about being weak.

How many people do you know who let others call them these words? Who consider these a source of pride? (The reclamatory usage of “bitch” is something different, and doesn’t count here.) I certainly don’t know any. I especially don’t know any men who would accept them. That’s because these identities lack the desirable characteristics of, say, an asshole. “Asshole” is almost a title, because of the way we revere aggressive (read: manly) behavior. It can indicate respect, or inclusion when it’s used among a group of peers. But “pussy”? That’s not a title; it’s a label. It’s a way of subordinating someone and showing your disdain.

Yes, this is misogynist. Even though these terms are used on people of any gender – often by people of any gender – there is a real, sexist power dynamic at work. Regardless of who says the words, the message that everyone gets is that it’s bad to be called them – and because these words are associated with female characteristics, it’s bad to be like a woman. These insults are simply shorthand versions of the common admonishments, “Don’t be such a girl” or, “Take it like a man.” Both versions maintain the old hierarchy of manly = good, girly = bad, which go beyond the game or whatever social situation in which they’re used.

The damage isn’t equal between men and women. Certainly these insults can hurt men, especially when they’re used as a method of social ostracization – something which geeks are all too familiar with. The message to men is: You’re acting like a woman, and that makes you bad. To women, however, the message is: It doesn’t matter how you act, what you are is bad. For women, these words tap into deeper and longer-standing rejection, degradation, and humiliation – into a sexism that spans social status, that spans history.

It doesn’t matter how many men are also insulted in this way. Under the current system, in which men and masculinity are valued more than women and femininity, “equal” treatment in this arena hits women harder. Would you bet the other two Little Pigs went to Mr. Brick House and said, “Oh, it’s okay, the Big Bad Wolf is blowing just as hard on your house as on ours”? Nah, it was more like, “I’m tired of vulnerability, and I want in on that protection!”

Maybe people who use these words don’t think about all of this. Certainly they don’t go through a detailed analysis like this one, every time they throw out a word. To bring it back to gaming, I know that people focusing on a video game aren’t taking the time to dissect the meaning of their language. However, like I said, people in these situations are looking for fast and simple – what will express their thoughts quickly and easily to whoever’s listening. So when we use these words, we know full well what they mean, and how other people will hear them. We’re searching for an insult, and we know exactly where to look. We can’t pretend ignorance. We can only profess conformity to the status quo, and what it says about gender and power.

So what’s left for us to use? What do we say when we’re gaming and we want to express frustration or anger?

Well, we have to say what we mean. We can’t resort to the easy shorthand when it’s destructive like this. Yeah, it’s hard; we might have to pause and think, or even (gasp!) use more words. But there’s no point in whining how difficult political correctness makes life. It’s always harder to think and break out of society’s ingrained biases. In this case, all we have to do is drop a few terms from our vocabulary. In doing so, we might start to make the point to those around us that we don’t care for the sexist value judgments that try to insinuate themselves into everything we do.

Alpha Males, Calling Out, and Frown Power

jfpbookworm

In the comments of my earlier post on the idea of alpha males jeffliveshere asks:

What would be an example of a man calling another man on sexism that doesn’t also fall into the problem of domination hierarchies–if, indeed, we (men, women and those of other genders) find ourselves steeped in them like fish swim in water?

The Problem of Domination Hierarchies

Feminist men calling other men out on sexism are invariably going to be employing forms of privilege. Simply by virtue of being male, they are going to provoke a different reaction than women would – often this is going to mean that they are paid more attention to, either because their audience is prone to dismissing women or because it’s not seen to be in a man’s self-interest to call out sexism. This privilege is, in fact, one of the main reasons why it’s so important that men as well as women call out sexism.

When fighting sexism, is there a difference between using one’s status as a man to be listened to and using one’s status in a dominance hierarchy? Should we consider it acceptable to use forms of persuasion that we would otherwise consider abusive, because they’re being used for subversive ends? I’m not sure on this one – I can’t decide whether some uses of patriarchal institutions to fight sexism do more good than harm.

Confrontation and Personality

Hugo Schwyzer weighs in on the alpha males confronting sexism issue as well, saying (among other things), that our personality influences our feminism:

And then there’s the other obvious issue, one which Jeff and others have addressed, of personality differences. Not all feminist men are the same! To use Myers-Briggs language, those of us who are Es (extroverts, I’m ENFP) are going to meet challenges differently than I’s (introverts). I doubt anyone has done a typology of feminist men to discover if those of us active in the movement have personality characteristics different from the population at large! I’m certain, and indeed, I know from experience that feminist men have widely varying degrees of comfort with issues like public speaking, leadership, and confrontation.

Somehow, feminist men have to be committed to putting that belief into action. But the actions we take, particularly in our relationships with others, are going to be largely congruent not only with our politics but with our personalities.

I’m pleased to hear this coming from Hugo, who in the past has failed to acknowledge that we’re not all as gregarious as he. And I concur completely, and disagree with the argument that “beta males” can’t be feminist because their personalities and their politics would conflict. I think there are plenty ways to tailor one’s fighting of patriarchy to one’s personality without compromising effectiveness.

So, getting back to jeffliveshere’s question: what are ways that feminist men can confront sexism that (a) don’t reinforce a domination hierarchy; and (b) don’t rely on a feminist man being strongly extroverted and confrontational?

Frown Power

One way to fight sexism (and racism, classism, or any abuse of privilege) without resorting to is through the use of “frown power.” The idea is credited to Stetson Kennedy, and it’s a simple one – pointedly frown at people who are being sexist. I usually say something as well along the lines of “dude, not cool” (in my best Jorge Garcia impression). The idea is to express social disapproval of the act (not the person, which is another reason to add the vocal component). This doesn’t reinforce a dominance hierarchy because the message is one of peer disapproval rather than of asserting dominance, and it’s a lot less taxing on the introvert than a long tirade.

Not relying on a hierarchy of dominance also means that I can call out sexism in situations that would otherwise raise some troubling intersection problems. One of the places I encounter overt sexism most often (or am at least most aware of it) is when I’m riding on the bus. Most of the time it’s coming from either kids on their way to the mall, or factory workers returning from a shift. Neither group is going to listen to a lecture from the white guy in dress shirt and slacks, but if I react as their peer, the message might not be so easily dismissed.

The other advantage of “frown power” is that there’s really no way to fight it without looking like a fool. If I’ve expressed myself with merely a frown and and a “not cool” in psst-your-fly-is-open tones, what response is there? Arguments, threats, etc. make them the one who’s overreacting. If they argue that their sexism “is too cool,” they look dumb – as we all know, coolness is like humor in that if you have to explain it, it’s not there.

The Temptation of Passivity

Returning to Hugo’s post:

Feminist men must avoid several temptations: the temptation to passivity as well as the temptation to play the role of the “white knight” chief among them! Based on personality traits, some men will find it difficult to summon the courage to speak out; others will find it difficult not to fall into traditional masculine roles like that of the Hero or the Rescuer. Most of us will make mistakes along the way, but learning to be as gentle and harmless as doves — while retaining “serpent wisdom” — is a good place to start.

There is certainly a potential criticism in “frown power” that it creates the “temptation of passivity” – that because it’s easier for some of us to simply frown at people, we’ll forgo more direct confrontation even when it’s called for. I don’t believe this is a big problem – I think it’ll encourage more people to act for equality, and that in turn will encourage the people to more directly confront these issues, knowing that society’s got their back.

More Ideas?

What ways do you all call out sexism in your life? What have you found works (for whatever definition of “works” you care to use), and what doesn’t?

"Alpha" and "Beta" Males

jfpbookworm

Jeff over at Feminist Allies has a series of posts up on the intersection between feminism and “alpha males.” In his latest post (part three of the series), he writes:

The first prominent train of thought in this regard is along the lines of “the term “alpha male” is just too fuzzy a term (or is an inappropriate term, or is the out-and-out wrong term to use here)” to the point that, rather than helping us understand the realationships between men (and women, and those of other various genders) and feminism, it actually gets in the way.

I’m all aboard this train of thought; I’m never exactly sure what “alpha male” means at any given time. Sometimes it seems to be an application of observations about animal behavior to humans (the “evo-psych definition”); other times it seems to be more a way of dividing people up into “winners” and “losers” (the “ranking definition”).

The Evo-Psych Definition

The evo-psych definition is adapted from whatever other animals fit the speaker’s stereotypes; the Wikipedia entry on the subject refers to chimpanzees and canines.

I think one of the most telling aspects of evolutionary psychology is how we often compare different genders to different species. Men are compared to wolves; women are compared to birds; both are compared to whatever species of primate supports the author’s point.

The Ranking Definition

More often, though, “alpha male” is simply used in a loose sense to denote a set of traits which are loosely correlated at best. This is the conventional definition that people, even those who don’t buy into the evo-psych basis, throw around. Alpha males are rich, powerful, strong, confident, good-looking, extroverted, popular, aggressive, attractive leaders. “Beta males,” by inference, lack these qualities.

Jeff writes:

And yet–we do have to consider that people throw this term around as if it does mean something definite, as if it were something simple and easy to recognize (or create in yourself).

I don’t agree that because people use the term, there’s something to it. By lumping disparate characteristics into a single category, associations between them are supported or fabricated. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: we expect men who meet a few of these standards to meet the rest, and so we assume the qualities that aren’t there. Also implicit in this definition (and reinforced by the overtones of Brave New World) is the idea of a hierarchy – alpha males are seen as superior to beta males, and beta males are expected to aspire to become alpha males. Alpha males are “winners”; beta males are “losers”. Who wants to be a loser?

“Alpha Males” and Feminism

The context of these discussions is how the categories of “alpha male” and feminist intersect. Jeff’s point in his first post was that the two categories are incompatible insofar as “alpha male” establishes a hierarchy of domination:

Given the flavors of feminism that I tend to embrace, the very notion of the ‘alpha male’–here used in a loose way, like most people use it, I think–can be seen as anti-feminist inasmuch as one’s feminism embraces non-dominance/hierarchic thinking and one’s alpha male-ness embraces domanance/hierarchy.

I think it’s no coincidence that a Google search for “alpha male” turns up a lot of “seduction” sites, often explicitly anti-feminist, telling men how to procure the attention, affection, and bodies of women by acting like an “alpha male.” The idea of “alpha male,” no matter whether we’re using an evo-psych or ranking definition, is inextricably tied up in anti-feminist ideas of access and entitlement to women. It’s also implicit in a lot of the denials of male privilege out there – the claim is that male privilege is reserved for the “alphas”, and therefore isn’t really about gender at all.

Over on Alas, Stentor turns the argument around and asks can “beta males” be pro-feminists? His argument:

Looking at the feminist and (pro)feminist responses to the alpha male question, though, it seems that it’s alpha male (pro)feminists whose existence is unproblematic. Indeed, the paradigm case of (pro)feminist action — boldly calling out another man on his sexist behavior — is also a classically alpha male act. So perhaps we should be asking whether it’s possible for beta males to be (pro)feminists.

It’s an interesting comeback, but not one I can support. For one thing, it’s very rooted in extrovert privilege; while feminism is typically going to involve men abandoning a comfortable status quo, and shyness is not an excuse to condone sexism, I don’t believe it should be required for introverts to act like extroverts to be accepted as feminists. For another, it’s a fallacy to think that the only way one can call another man out on sexism is with “alpha male” tactics. And, of course, it still perpetuates the alpha/beta hierarchy, which to my mind is incompatible with feminism.

It’s been proposed that, instead of distinguishing between “alpha” and “beta”, we focus on the distinction between “aggressive” and “assertive.” I like this distinction better insofar as it focuses on classifying behaviors rather than people.

Using Privilege to Make the Oppressed Look Like the Oppressors

tekanji

And here I am talking about race… again. I have all these beautiful posts on gaming started, but then I see things like nubian’s interview over at feministing and I feel like I have to say something. Whenever posts from feminists of colour talking about their experiences as feminists of colour get linked, invariably at least one person (sometimes another feminist, sometimes not) turns it into how the feminist of colour is mean, bad, racist, whatever.

I’m ashamed to admit it, but it still surprises me how easily the tables get turned on the feminist of colour. How easy their righteous rage, their justified anger, is presented — and accepted! — as them unfairly attacking white feminists/women/men. I just see the smooth 180 and it boggles my mind. Does no one besides the women being attacked see the ridiculousness of privileged people crying, “help, help, I’m being oppressed!’? Does no one see how it’s used to derail the thread from productive conversations?

In the interest of time (and my sanity) I’m just going to examine two of the many ways this happens, using the feministing thread as a case study. But don’t be fooled — nubian may be the most recent victim of this phenomenon, but she is far from the only one.

I. Rage Versus Oppression

I’m sorry Nubian, I have just one word for you:

Hypocrite.

[From Nubian: Blogging While Black, comment by MsJane]

MsJane calls nubian a hypocrite for expressing anger towards white feminists — anger that we don’t get the same hatred heaped on us and anger at the way we often ignore the very real, and very important, experiences of people of colour. In the course of the comment, MsJane uses the same harsh language that she faults nubian for, using words like “pompous,” “nasty,” and very condescendingly saying that she’s “sad” that nubian ‘chooses’ to “create divisions and make mocking statements.” Not to mention using the passive agressive method of saying that some people (ie. nubian) have to grow up. Come on, now.

I will be the first to admit that the balance between anger and viciousness is a hard one to find. We’ve all stepped over the line at some point, but I honestly believe that this case is different. What nubian, and every other feminist blogger of colour I’ve read, are being lambasted for in these instances is really that they call us out on our privilege and we don’t like that.

These days, it seems like whenever nubian’s name comes up, someone has to step up to the plate and start whining about how nubian said something mean. It turns nubian into the bad person. I’ve seen it happen with other bloggers of colour, like the time Jenn was practically called a race traitor because she dared to speak about sexism in the Asian American community.

I don’t see this being any different than when I rant about the “boy’s club” of video games, or comics, or whatever. I get men who want to do anything except for question their privilege coming over and calling me names, calling me a hypocrite, doing anything they can to discourage me from posting more on the issue.

Suddenly, I’ve become the bad one and they are the wronged party. Wait… what? I’m the one who has to see her gender objectified, who has to put up with being sexy first and a geek second, who has to deal with a hostile environment trying to keep me away from doing something I love. All they have to put up with is a woman huritng their feelings by being angry at her lot, which is only a momentary annoyance before they go back to the culture that caters to them.

But, I’ll admit that it’s a great method for derailing the thread — instead of talking about the subject, the thread is inundated with people defending or supporting what amounts to ad hominem attacks.

II. When A Compliment Isn’t Really A Compliment

I’m tired of people writing, “I’m a White feminist and I’m learning so much from you.” And I want to write back and be like, “I’m not here to teach you!”

[From Nubian: Blogging While Black, quote from nubian]

MsJane, who I referenced in the previous section, also takes issue with this. She brings out the “we are all teachers” argument, which is all fine and dandy if you don’t mind having privileged people come up to you and say, “Show me the oppression!” Even times and places where I’ve chosen that role I get tired by the assumption that I’m somehow responsible for thinking for them. Being a good ally involves not trying to foist responsibility onto the oppressed group with weasely phrases like, “we’re all teachers,” when it’s clear that the onus is disproportionately on the individual and/or group you’re talking to.

Furthermore, given her tone, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the impression I got from what she said was that she was more affronted that nubian dared to slap white feminists’ wrists for trying to say something nice. And, hey, the first moment that I read what nubian wrote I was like, “Why’s she complaining about taking a compliment?!”

But I took the time to read it again, read it in context, to think about what I know about nubian and her blog. And I realized that getting angry that she’s tired of being patted on the head by white feminists for being a good little token is just as condescending, if not moreso, than when guys force their chivalry on me (without my wanting it) and then expect me to be thankful. Fuck that shit.

Instead of getting angry at nubian for calling us out, we need to be truthful with ourselves: if we’re turning bloggers of colour into The Teacher on racial issues, we’re doing something wrong. If we tell her that we’ve “learned so much” from her and then expect her not to be angry, then maybe we haven’t actually learned that much at all.

III. Conclusion

True equality requires giving something up: our privilege. Until we’re ready to do that, forget equal wages or any other equality.

[From Nubian: Blogging While Black, comment by luci33]

There is a fundamental difference between a person speaking as a minority, on a minority issue, and being angry about it and a person speaking as a privileged person, from a position of privilege, being angry about a minority issue.

Power.

Privileged people have it and we use it, mercilessly, in order to prevent any conversations that may lead to us losing it. We use it to take a critique and turn it on the head; after all, it’s much easier for us to rally people against that oh-so-mean minority who isn’t being the proper token than it is for us to turn the harsh critique into something we can use to fight against a privilege-based culture.

I fully believe that we, as feminists, have a responsibility to see “oppressed as oppressor” line of thinking for what it is and not engage in it ourselves.

In Which I Call A Truce on the "Sex Wars" Thing

tekanji

Dear Feminists:

I’d like to propose a truce on this whole “sex wars” thing. It’s a battle that’s been raging since before my time, but that doesn’t mean it has to go on forever. No matter how we define ourselves, at the core of it we all want women to be treated as people, right? We want to end oppression, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, but if feminism had to be summed up in one sentence it would be fair to say that feminists “seek to end oppression” perhaps throwing in a comment on how feminism’s focus tends to be on gender.

So why do we have to tear into each other when it comes to… well, everything, really. But, talking about the sex wars, why is it when one of us makes a post on the sex work industry, it all too often is addressed to the “opposing side” which isn’t, as one would think, the industry itself, but rather the feminists who take a different approach?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that women shouldn’t be the focus of this battle. And by that I mean we shouldn’t target them — we should target the sex work industry. When talking to feminists outside of our particular mindset, what’s to be gained by dragging the conversation down into the pros/cons of being a sex worker, or watching porn, or whatever? All it does is make it personal, therefore obscuring any useful conversation that could have taken place about the human rights abuses that do happen.

Listen, when it comes down to it, whether or not women should do sex work is a theoretical debate. The fact is, for good or ill, women do. And, even if you believe that no woman would freely choose that, it’s an ending point, not a starting one. If we want to stop the oppression, we gotta start with the begining, and it’s one I think we can all agree on: our sexual culture is hostile to women. Before we do anything, we have to change that.

So, are we going to sit here complaining about women and each other, or are we going to look into ways of changing the sexual culture so that the sex work industry can’t degrade, dehumanize, and traffic in the women unfortunate enough to not have a choice in how they work? Are we going to address pornography, not in terms of ban/not-ban, but rather in terms of critiquing content and treatment of the actors? What about looking at how popular culture feeds into and is influenced by sexual culture, and how that culture has a different standard for women than for men?

Respecting women starts with respecting each other.

On The Feminist Carnival, Privilege, and Objectivity

tekanji

Reading blac[k]ademic, as I am known to do, I came across this excellent post by nubian, did i hurt your feelings?, on (white) feminism and (not) respecting minority spaces. First of all, I’m telling you all to put my post on hold and go read it. Now, not later.

Have you read nubian’s post yet? Yes? Good.

So, aside from thinking that I want to include it in my How to be a Real Nice Guy post, I was struck by this line:

the really upsetting part about this, is that the posting by nio was linked in the (white) carnival of feminists

“White carnival of feminsts??” I cried. Then my mind started inventing all these reasons why Niobium’s post would have been included in the carnival. The one I settled on was that the Feminist Carnival has a duty to be objective. It should include all of the feminisms, even the ones that contradict each other.

But… is that true? Is that true objectivity, and even if it is, is objectivity really useful in a carnival by feminists, for feminists?

I. My Privilege is Showing

I will admit it to the world right now: reading nubian’s blog makes me uncomfortable. I have raged in private about how wrong I think she is on this or that topic. Why have y’all never seen it? Simply put: because I was wrong. Because I knew I was wrong, even when I was saying how right I was. So, it came as no surprise when I saw her criticize the carnival for being primarily by and for white feminists that I jumped headlong into denial mode.

Mind you, I agreed with what nubian was saying in her post. That shit is “Minority Spaces 101”. It’s not even that I have so great an investment in the Feminist Carnival that I felt it could Do No Wrong (please, I criticize everything — including things I like). I was cheering her on through every criticism she made about white feminism, white culture, etc. And then, because I wasn’t expecting it, I got smacked in the face with her “(white) carnival of feminists” jab.

Without knowing how the carnival put Niobium’s post in context, or even having read her post, I had already made up my mind. Nubian was just wrong. Women of colour had hosted the carnival before, and they often got included… Because, you know, I — as a white feminist blogger who really hasn’t given the issue much thought before now — am a better judge about token minorities, exclusionary tactics, and the racial problems with the carnival than a person of colour. Right.

II. ‘Objectivity’ as a Privileged Stance

So, once I got off of one idiot thought train, I jumped right onto another. I started waxing poetically about how the Carnival had a duty to be objective and include all forms of feminism, even the ones that were at odds with each other. I wouldn’t want to be exluded if I wrote a post on sex positive feminism, so why should Niobium be excluded because of her form of feminism?

Of course, I was buying into the same broken logic that the The “What About the Mens?” Phallusy does — assuming that “objective” means giving inequal arguments equal weight. Furthermore, if we look at the carnival page, we’ll see that the two arguments were not presented the same; Niobium’s was given more focus.

Going with the latter point first, here is how nubian’s post was introduced:

Kactus at Super Babymama writes in Space about Women of Colour, their right to their own space without, in nubian’s words, having to “appease white guilt”, and how white feminists can find this hard, despite feeling that they shouldn’t.

Her post inspired two other bloggers to talk about the issue, but yet her link is what amounts to a mere footnote to Kactus’ post. Not only that, but they have been framed to focus once more on the majority: appeasing “white guilt” and how white feminists can find this hard despite their feelings to the contrary. Isn’t this exactly the kind of marginalization that feminists of colour have been blogging about since, like, forever? Why does the struggle of white people get all the press when the real topic — the colonization of people of colour’s spaces — get no mention? Seriously, this isn’t rocket science here.

To add insult to injury, Niobium not only gets her own explanation, but also an excerpt about her post. I shouldn’t have to tell you that having a quote draws more attention, and gives more weight, than not having a quote. First of all, the person reading the carnival has a sample of the linked person’s writing right there. If they like it, chances are they’ll like the post, so they’re more inclined to click on it than they would just a paraphrased link. Secondly, quotes draw the eye because they are different than the rest of the text, separated from the endless summary/link dynamic. And, lastly, having a quote devotes more space to the argument, thus making the implicit connection that it’s more important.

As for the relative equality of the subject matter of the two posts… I really didn’t want to get into Niobium’s post because I know this is going to start a shitstorm, but I think I have to. Having read it, it starts off with the “can’t we all just get along” type argument, but then devolves into the “reverse racism” myth that stems from the privilege not to understand the difference between a minority space and an exclusionary space. The thing is, what Niobium’s post is challenging is the very ability for minority spaces to exist — and I believe that that is a fundamental concept to any oppression work, including feminism.

IV. Conclusion

Nubian’s original post on the issue was a perfect example of the way majority groups colonize minority spaces. She talks about well meaning white people derailing the conversation, minimizing the experience (and even the humanity) of people of colour, and basically hindering the important conversations about race relations today and in the past.

People, this is huge. No, it’s not novel. No, it’s not new. But this dynamic is fundamental to understanding privilege, and understanding privilege is fundamental to fighting oppression. In America, overt oppression has taken a back seat to a more subtle network of cultural traditions, ways of thinking, and allowed ignorance that those who do anti-oppression work have come to call privilege. This privilege exists in all of us, no matter how hard we fight against what it stands for. To deny this — as Niobium was doing with her “reverse racism” take on minority spaces — is to discredit the very foundations of what we, as feminists, stand for.

And that is why I don’t buy my original line of argument about “objectivity”. It is no more objective, in my mind, to give equal airtime to the rape of men than it is to give equal airtime to the argument that minority spaces aren’t needed. Both of these arguments ignore the fact that they don’t exist on an equal playing field — men are not raped nearly as much as women, and minority spaces exist because minorities do not get equal airtime in “default” spaces.

'Offensive' is Not a Feminist Value

tekanji

For the record, I don’t think that not giving a shit if you’re offensive to other feminists is something to be proud of, or something to admire. I don’t think that being trollish is something to be proud of, especially when one is trolling one’s own community. There’s a difference between examining an issue and advocating your morality as the only correct path, and frankly the latter does not encourage the former.

And, you know what? I’m really, really sick of the way that the A-list feminist bloggers shit on our community. I know saying that makes me sound like a bitter nobody. And, hey, I am a bitter nobody. But I’m not out there pulling a Hirshman by telling women what they (should) want. And I’m certainly not out there repackaging the “it’s just a joke” defence as “playing devil’s advocate” in order to excuse the real hurt that a fellow feminist blogger has done to the women out there who don’t feel the same as she does.

And by posting this I’m being angry, and I’m being divisive, and I’m sorry. I really am. But, damnit, people! I love this community. I love all the good work we do. I love the way that we support each other against the seemingly endless tide of misogynist trolls who want to destroy us because we scare them. And when I see women hating on each other rather than hating on the institution that oppresses us, it kills me.

Just One Month…

tekanji

I want one month in the feminist blogsphere in which none of us attack each other because someone engages in an activity that we personally don’t like. I want one month in which feminists who have differing views on porn, BDSM, and other sexual practices can come together and have a civil conversation that examines the patriarchy’s role in all this instead of flinging shit at each other. I want one month in which we don’t privilege one set of oppression over another, but rather realize that the dynamics of oppression creates a complex and interconnecting web that needs to be tackled both as a whole as well as one thread at a time. I want one month in which the need to be the sole arbiter of Truth is less important than creating a community in which we listen to each other and realize that every person takes a different path to happiness. I want one month for us to celebrate our differences instead of using them to divide us.

For one month. Just one. Fucking. Month. I want us to blame the patriarchy instead of blaming women.

Why isn’t that possible?

Pimp Your/My Oppression

Luke
[First a big shout-out to Tekanji, Lake Desire and Shrub.com for giving me the chance to guest blog! My name is Luke and I rushed this post out to press once I read jfpbookworm’s great post below that I think is a good branch-off point. I warn, however, that this post is a real behemoth in length. The more I went back to it, the more I added on so you might want to pack a ham-sandwich before diving in or something. Anyways, i’d love to get your feedback, thoughts, comments, criticisms, etc.]

We’ve all seen them.

It’s some night-owl hour and in-between reruns of Roseanne and ElimiDate you see for 30 seconds the uniquely American bazaar of young, thin, often blonde women with flowing hair and large breasts: In some form, you see “The Yes Girls.”

All-too-discreetly advertising itself as none other than a phone-sex line for men where young women dressed (or undressed, for that matter) in lace and satin seductively grasp their phones, bodies supine with eyes gazed towards the camera whispering lines of “We always say ‘yes’” like they know exactly what customers of the phone-sex line would want to hear in some meta-rape fantasy sort of way.

But phone-sex lines aren’t by any means some taboo cultural anomaly servicing the closet desires of perverts or deviants. Rather, their persistent popularity speaks largely to the ways in which men’s (and women’s) sexual identities are shaped—let’s make it “warped”—by what they’re told their fantasies are and in turn reinforced to fantasize again and again.

So placed between Roseanne, perhaps the lone television representation ever of a working-class white America with a stereotypically unattractive and wholly uncompromising woman actress at the helm who articulated a big “fuck off, Dan Quayle” season after award-winning season and ElimiDate, the “reality-TV” hit where petite, scantily clad women compete in a lascivious macho fantasy for the attention and affection of a man, usually tall, white, muscular and unable to hold a non-sex ridden conversation, in order to avoid getting “eliminated” each round, watching The Yes Girls gives us a jump-off point as to how men specifically are taught/cultured/socialized to think about women and sex. The two seemingly become synonymous if you begin to imagine what such commercials essentially say to men: “They’ll do anything…they never say no…they only wants sex…I must have her…I must have them…I must have sex.”

Even as I’m writing this, I’m hearing about how yet another season of The Bachelor is coming to ABC. Forget that every, and I mean EVERY relationship post-Bachelor has crumbled, forget that there is hardly a gender-equality of male and female bachelors and bachelorettes (didn’t ABC only make ONE The Bachelorette?) people love to see not just the paternalistic Cinderella chivalry fantasy anymore, they want to see one pimped out for the new age.

So if that’s what men are conditioned to want, to see as the ideal fantasy and to revolve their sexual and gender identities around, how do they go about achieving a constant state of sex with young women (who are often white, Latina, or mixed race)? If that’s the fantasy, then what’s the situation of the reality and what men are advised and told to do about it and how to go about it?

Based on the flurry of men’s “how to get women” books published largely in the past several years, you sense that what was once the immediate concern of meeting a soulmate, a wife, a husband, a life-partner has become one centered on men meeting and sleeping with as many “girls,” “bitches” or “chicks” as possible.

Like Samantha Jones drawing on the so-called liberating power of no-strings-attached sex (or “sex like a man”), the goal of “getting laid” then comes at a cost of women being seen as new hybrid of animal-commodity. That is, “animal” in the sense that these men’s advice books weave an intricately bullshit guide which adheres to the beliefs that #1, the behavior of women, like animals, is by nature predictable which involves a lot (and I mean a lot of animal watching), and #2, women’s bodies are the only things valued that one must possess through the consummation of sex—and I mean a lot of sex. And “commodity” in the sense that women, reduced simply to women’s bodies, are seen as goods that exchange hands through “purchase” by way of deception, backhanded-coercion and manipulation by men under the guise of having “skills” with women.

Just read the titles of some of these books that have boldly emerged recently in a symbol of immediately impressive yet ultimately fleeting macho bravado based identity:

–What Really Works With Women: Do What Works, Get What Matters To You (2005)
–The Complete A**hole’s Guide to Handling Chicks (2003)
–The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (2005)
–The Layguide: How to Seduce Women More Beautiful Than You Ever Dreamed Possible No Matter What You Look Like or How Much You Make (2004)
–How To Succeed With Women (1998)
–Seduce Me! What Women Really Want (2003)
–How To Get The Women You Desire Into Bed (1992)
–The System: How To Get Laid Today! (2003)

The covers alone of many of these books tell a story in itself. On the cover of The Complete A**hole’s Guide to Handling Chicks, we have the classic macho trucker/truck mud flap decal and sticker of a caricatured large-breasted woman with hair flowing in the wind.

In The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, we see another silhouette this time of women sprawled out in sexual stripper poses while the shape of a man twice their size stands proudly drawing upon celebrations of pimps and the prostitution of women.

Perhaps most ridiculously in The System: How To Get Laid Today! is a drawing of a young woman dressed in a corset, leather thigh-highs and cat-ears on knees and elbows seductively drinking a large bowl of what appears to be milk.

Dare venture into the book descriptions and you’ll find the animal-commodity storytelling continues flavored with the old “nuts and sluts” mentality made famous during the Kobe Bryant rape trial:

“We’ll take you from the day you’re born to the day you die and show you how women can be manipulated, frustrated, and ultimately dominated throughout the course of a man’s life. By illustrating the insanity of the female mind, we’ll show you why the flawed chick psyche causes them to continuously fall for the a**hole, no matter how many times they get burned.” – From the book description of A Complete A**hole’s Guide to Handling Chicks

Or you check out similar-themed websites like FastSeduction.com where you see things like:

“You have to be the MAN who has all the sexual power. And when a woman (no matter how hot) sees and feels the presence of a man whom she recognizes as the dominant one while SHE isn’t, she does what every woman does – that is SURRENDERS to the more powerful being. And all that acting like she’s hot and knows she’s the stuff and all those other “head up in the air” tricks are just a test and a way to weed out all the men who are less powerful than her and don’t know their role as a MAN.” – FastSeduction.com’s “Be the Alpha/Dominant Male”

Ultimately, these books provide a crude and patriarchal and thus attractive-to-men analysis of why, if they haven’t “gotten any,” the women they want aren’t attracted to them. Of course it’s the same spiel that’s been revolving in pornography for year and only now seen in the forms of Eminem’s celebrity and the pandemic spread of “pimp” in the American lexicon: Women must like being treated terribly and that’s why they deserve what they get. Women must like bad-boys. Good-guys and nice-guys “finish” last.

To women, of course, the message then becomes that they should validate and be attracted to these images. Women must like being objectified and degraded, why else would they allow themselves to be put on a meat-rack on shows like ElimiDate? Why else would women like the delinquent Mark characters or the abusive Fischer characters on Roseanne and why else would women send love letters to convicted killers like Scott Peterson. He’s a bad-boy misunderstood with a soft-spot inside, really. Women, remember, it’s your job to change him and take away the beastly exterior. Or in other words, be like Belle before he runs out of rose petals and runs out on you, right?

Read the back-pages of any so-called “Magazines for Men” like GQ, Maxim, FHM, or Stuff and you see it’s older cousins in shady black-and-white rectangle ads: “Pheromones proven to drive women wild!…100 pick-up lines guaranteed to work with the hottest girls.” Listen to any recent episodes of Tom Leykis and you’ll hear “Leykis 101” in which men are taught specifically how to “bang chicks” through deception and macho posturing.

The message is clear: This is how you get that and we know this works because they instinctively respond to it—it’s in their DNA. You’d almost think you were learning how to catch Sockeye salmon off the Alaska coast. What lure do I use? Where do I go? When do I know to “go in for the kill”?

Head off into Amazon’s “Bestsellers” or autobiography section and you find the hugely popular I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell by Tucker Max. Max, a Duke law-school grad who writes about his supposed true-life escapades, proclaims proudly

“My name is Tucker Max, and I am an asshole. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers, sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable, and just generally act like a raging dickhead. But, I do contribute to humanity in one very important way: I share my adventures with the world.”

Again, even more telling than the subject of controversy itself is often the cultural response to it. Read any of the many five-star reviews in which men and women have bought, read and proudly promote the book to others and the attitude of praise and dismissal of any criticism of such praise is unbridled:

“Make no mistake, Tucker Max is a vile vile person, but his own admittance. And if you try not to think to much about his victims…er…marks…er… girlfriends/hook-ups, then this is a hilarious book.” – Jake Mckee

“For the people who think that he’s some terrible person who has sex with poor innocent girls, give me a break. It takes 2 to tango as they say. As my wife put it, if there weren’t so many whores in the world he’d have a lot less to write about.” – Travis Stroud

“Tucker Max is pure genius. An excellent writer, and even better comedian, he has Michael Jordan’s bball skills when it comes to women, and an eclectic, highly exciting group of friends and adventures he chronicles in this absolute must-read book.” – Michelle Park

“This stuff can make you laugh until you pee your pants, but I would only recommend it for those who can take racist, sexist, and despicable jokes lightly for that seems to be the life of Tucker Max. In other words, this book is beautiful.” – Samantha Miller

“I loved this book. The stories are funny and remind me of my college days. Good times, good times.” – Jeff White

So the response then isn’t that his behavior lacks repulsive qualities deserving of unflinching dismissal but rather that his life is humorous to women and men and a cause-of-envy to young men in particular. Like he says, summoning all the bad-boy machismo he can, “I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell.” He knows he’s going to hell (well, assuming one believes in it) and that’s why he couldn’t care less. He’s a bad-boy and a “rebel” engaging in behavior so supposedly gutsy that it is suggestively a this-is-how-I-did-it guide as to having “success” with women. Why else would many aspiring sports-athletes read biographies and autobiographies about Michael Jordan, Brett Favre or Tiger Woods? “Know the legend, be the legend” as the saying goes?

But this type of macho posing behavior isn’t new and Tucker Max, as much as I hate to say it, doesn’t deserve all the blame. Look at what he probably grew up watching. Films like Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds, Old School, Road Trip, American Pie and National Lampoon’s Van Wilder all celebrate the stereotypical prime of sexual masculinity through the oppression of women: have as much sex with as many women as possible regardless of consequences, engage in high-risk drinking and drugs without any negative repercussions, feel no emotions, display little conscience and give the middle-finger while yelling “feminazi man-hating pussy faggot!” to anyone who says different. It’s college and that’s what you’re supposed to do in college, right? Or, as the Sean Michael Scott character in Road Trip says with his famous Stifler charm “Think about it Josh, you’re in college. The window of opportunity to drink and do drugs and take advantage of young girls is getting smaller by the day.”

The unfiltered Virginia Slims message here is the same. To women and young girls, this says that there’s a proper way to act as women and to have fun, to have some sort of an authentic experience. Worse yet, the message is that the only thing they have going for them is their bodies and by extension, the approval from men of their bodies and the use of those bodies for sex.

But to men, the message isn’t as closely examined or seen as having any sort of significance. Just as women are taught in this way to self-hate and reduce their own human being to an ass, breasts and vagina while validating so called “bad-boys,” the message to men is that this is what men do, this is what an authentic manhood looks like and this is what you want…this is how you’ll be happy. To so-called “nice guys,” the imagery leads to some dumbassed and disturbing deductions: “women like to be objectified, degraded and essentially treated like shit so even though I know something aint right, there’s no moral dilemma if I’m going to objectify, degrade and treat women like shit. Hey, at least I’m not a bad guy!”

So it’s clear then that young men are buying into these books and misogynistic attitudes in hopes of navigating the social scenes with some sense of direction in terms of women. And that I think is where a significant amount of unseen danger is. Not only does this supremely hurt women through yet again another form of men’s oppression of women, but it also denies men and young boys the ability to engage responsibly, honestly and freely.

We’ve all seen this. This reinforced sexist, homophobic and racist socially constructed cultural norm to nurture men simply as emotionally, physically, and sexually abusive whose only purpose is to engage in macho high-risk behavior, see women as animal-commodities and to have misogynist meta-rape fantasies by removing feeling any sort of personal human emotion, all sorts of attachment or desire for more in things like sex or relationships.

And this, to deprive men (and women) from living real lives and identities of free-choice without inflicting pain and suffering on others…to me nothing is more anti-male, man-hating or male-bashing than that.

The virtues of being mouthy, talking back, etc…

tekanji

I think this is the first time I’ve chosen to take a theme for a feminist carnival head on. When I first found out Bitch|Lab was hosting the next one, I was all set to write on sex positive feminism. First because this blog hasn’t had what can be considered an “upbeat” post in a while, and also because it’s an excuse to write on a subject that I don’t actually write about a lot. But her suggested theme about writing on the virtues of being mouthy caught my eye. I am, without a doubt, a mouthy author. Sometimes to the point where I have to put up an apology because my mouthiness crossed the line into viciousness.

Being mouthy is both liberating and infuriating. I say what I feel, how I feel it, but because it’s threatening — especially coming from a woman — it also means that, regardless of how right or wrong I am on an issue, I get hatred poured on me. There are times when I think it’s a virtue, there are times when I think it’s a curse, but, ultimately it’s just me.

This is who I am. I can no more change this about myself than I could stop breathing. And, furthermore, I’m proud of who I am. Even when it causes me pain to deal with the harassment I get, even when it causes me pain that I get called a facist because I don’t let people vomit all over my blog with their bile, even when I think to myself that this is what my life will be: an endless round of being smacked down by people who don’t like what I say and how I say it. Even then, I know myself. I know that I have to do what I think is right. And I know that it isn’t all about the bad.

I know there are people out there struggling the same way I do. Dealing with what I do. Maybe they’re stronger than me. Maybe they’re not. But if I didn’t fight, then how could I come to know these wonderful people? Blogging has brought me some of my best friends, it has brought me together with people who believe in doing what they believe is right. We’re all mouthy in our own ways. We don’t always agree. But this is a community we’re building. A solitary mouthy person is just one voice against the crushing tide of people who want to silence voices they don’t like, but a community of us is not so easily silenced.

And that, I think, is where the virtue lies. Call me what you like — mouthy, bitch, man-hater, etc. — but know that there’s nothing you can say to me to change who I am. I’m an outspoken feminist who believes in advocating for what she sees right. And I’m not the only one.