Categotry Archives: oh no not teh menz

by

Letter to a Young Commentor, Part II

Categories: kyriarchy, mailbag, oh no not teh menz, vive le feminisme

Greetings, Ducks! Sorry I fell off the face of the earth for a bit. But while I was away, reader Tamogochi was kind enough to respond to my reply to his previous comments.

I would like to answer you on why I’m not outraged.

That is because I see mistreatment as universal problem in our world: it happens in families, at workplaces, due to gender, race, social status, religious differences and ultimately between nations. It begins when one side expresses some kind of want/need towards the other. For example some people of the white race wanted to have free labor and had enforced slavery on another race. Similarly some men had been oppressing towards individual or all women. For them it didn’t seem like a problem at all because they felt entitled to that (I think your term “privilege” might fit here). The other side wanted quite a different thing – not to be oppressed and equal rights. That seemed quite reasonable and fair to them but presented a real problem to the oppressors. And thus a conflict was born.

How can it be resolved? The easiest and the most popular way throughout the history has been by the use of force. The predator eats the prey and the strong enforces the weak. Men had been doing it for ages and they enjoyed the privilege they granted themselves even if they did not admit to having it. But there’s also another and a much better way – cooperation/symbiosis. It happens when parties peacefully agree: you provide us what we want and we provide you what you want. That way rights and responsibilities are born.

So far, I’m with you. I myself tend to believe that a more communalist society would probably work better than our current system that places so much emphasis on the individual, and specifically tends to value people by how much dominance they have acheived; it’s often quite subtle, but it’s a nearly-universal part of our society. Take, for example, how people who are highly talented and skilled at some kind of operation–programming computers, analyzing budgets, designing ad campaigns–are pressured to enter management (tellingly, to have people under them), where they will direct other people to do the things that they do instead of doing them themselves; and if they don’t go into management, they ultimately lack the respect and/or compensation of people who do go into management. Dominance, not necessarily talent, it what commands respect; the recent fiscal crisis has exposed just how little talent some of these people had.

And now we come to the issues of feminism. The way that I understand it is this: it’s an organization that focuses on the problems of women and tries to solve them. Whether actively standing for women rights when necessary or trying to encourage them to reach more and to realize their full potential. And here I see a fundamental problem: if you focus your attention only on one side of the conflict you become subjective and might start to mistreat others. Then it’s very easy to slip into a mode: you give us (women) what we want (rights, respect, power) and we don’t care about your (men) problems. And they can get away with it because now they have a real power of an organization at their side that no single man can oppose. The way of enforcement of privileges in other words and the very thing feminism swore to fight.

I’d not call feminism an organization. (It reminds me of Will Rogers’ famous line: “I don’t belong to an organized party; I’m a Democrat.”) Feminism is (or ought to be) a movement, but as part of that movement there will be many organizations, and many different points of view.

I think you are building a strawfeminist here. Somehow we are to suppose that by advocating for the rights of a specific oppressed majority (sorry, here in the US women are 51% of the population), you must ignore or even oppress another group: as if equality was a zero-sum game where you can only win if everybody loses.

I don’t believe that; I think that equality and freedom are things that can be shared with all people, and that taking away a privilege is not the same as oppressing people.

I also have a few issues with how you frame this paragraph. First, you have women asking to be given rights. Which isn’t the case at all, at least how I see it: women are demanding that their rights be respected. That is, the rights already belong to us; they can’t be given–only respected.

Second, isn’t telling that in a discussion of women’s rights you immediately start talking about how this affects men? I mean, for real? It’s so frustrating to time and time again bring up the troubles of an oppressed group, troubles that get ignored because the dominant group marginalizes all issues that don’t directly affect themselves, and then have the dominant group show up to make it all about themselves! (In the feminist blogosphere, this argument is called but what about teh menz?)

“But we don’t oppress men and only want to have certain rights and responsibilities for women” you might say. Is it too much to ask after all we do for them? We want to cooperate but men sometimes are not willing to participate and we have no other option than to fight.

There must have been a less sexist way to phrase that, don’t you think? Again: women aren’t asking for rights because we serve some social role well; we demand the rights that belong to us as human beings.

Let’s look at an example of what’s really happening: a problem of verbal abuse at the workplace. The conflict is obvious: men want to use certain sexually loaded words towards the other gender and women don’t want that happening (or to be more specific they want respect and equality for themselves). And the solution for it? Feminist movement gathers enough political strength and a law is passed that prohibits that kind of discrimination. A great victory for the human race. But is it really?

What most tend to overlook is that it has really solved the problem only for one side of the conflict. Men did not have a problem of verbal abuse from women so the law solves nothing for them. And did anyone care to listen to what they really wanted? What has caused them to be sexually abusive in the first place? Nobody was interested in that. It was much easier to put a label “animals”, “primates” and not to care at all. What took place afterwards is that men pushed their unsolved problems deeper and it has resulted in a more sophisticated and undetectable ways to discriminate women. The women once again retaliated. And now I, as a man, am viewed as a potential abuser everywhere I go – like I am responsible for what others of my gender had done in the past. I constantly hear things “men are pigs, aggressive, insensitive, uncaring, unemotional, bloodthirsty” and so on. This passive form of discrimination hurts me and makes me feel like a second rate human even if I’ve never done an abusive thing towards women. Come to think of it I too might easily become outraged because of this. I might even go as far as join a movement of masculinists who fight feminists. But what another senseless war would ever accomplish?

There really must have been a less sexist way to put that. Sigh. Let’s start from the beginning.

I’d love to have some real sympathy for how you feel. And in fact, I do: I don’t like it when anyone is called names, or anyone has assumptions made about them because of how they look. But. In the specific case you cite–give me a break. If you think it’s hard to be called a predator, try actually being the prey. You forget, perhaps, who you are talking to. I am a trans woman. I’ve walked down dark streets as a man, as a cross-dresser, and as a woman. I’ve been called a faggot, whistled at, had lewd suggestions made to me on the street. I’m a double target: first for being a woman, and then for being trans; for many women like me, rape is only the starting point.

You clearly don’t understand that. I won’t say can’t, because I think you can–I think anyone with a conscience and the willingness to listen to other peoples’ stories can gain an understanding of what it is like to feel constantly targeted.

And I have to ask the question: why are you angry at me, at feminists, at women for demanding that predatory behavior–even things as seemingly trivial as being called names–be punished? Why are you angry at us, instead of them–the predatory guys, the jerks, the ones who benefit from the threat of violence and violation that constantly surrounds women in this society? Don’t act like you don’t have a stake in this fight; you’ve already shown that you do, because you’re complaining about the results.

I mean, why be angry about the last century of slow, very incremental female empowerment and not pissed off about the hundreds of centuries of female oppression? Why not take on the assholes who are ruining it for the rest of you?

I don’t think it’s fair that people are calling you names and making unfounded accusations. I also don’t think it’s fair that you’re comparing what’s happening to you to the kind of toxic environments that harrassing speech such as the kind that is prohibited by law, because that can be much, much worse. I don’t think it’s fair to compare the “outrage” you might feel about your treatment to the outrageous way that women continue to be treated throughout the world. As if because you don’t get outraged over name-calling, I shouldn’t be outraged over how one in four women in South Africa is raped before she even turns 16.

I don’t get outraged because of name-calling; I get outraged about hate speech that damages men by making them think that it’s okay to denigrate women, that it’s okay to look upon women as things or objects, that it’s okay to continue the fundamental inequality of the human race.

It could have been a much different outcome if both sides listened – men and women cooperated towards solving their shared problems. Maybe what was best in
the situation was not to punish the abusers but to provide them help in dealing with their emotional problems? Maybe what needs to be done is to change how women treat men (in removing that passive discrimination I spoke about) and how are they up-brought by their mothers by teaching them a value of empathy and compassion? If we really thought about it we would have probably came to even better ideas than that.

How was what happened not cooperation? I mean, the last time I checked, there’s not a legislative body anywhere in the United States that isn’t majority male, so somebody cooperated to write the laws. And why shouldn’t we punish people for breaking the law? You won’t get an argument from me that many laws (drug violations, for example) might benefit from alternatives to incarceration, but people don’t generally go to jail for sexual harrassment. Instead, the company and individuals have to pay a person for causing her damage; it’s a matter of civil, not criminal law.

I think you’re the first person I’ve encountered who feels that girls aren’t brought up to feel empathy. I mean, isn’t that the stereotype? Guys aren’t allowed to have feelings, but girls are supposed to be so good at them?

And again, seriously: if these are shared problems (they are), then why do so few dudes care about them?

That’s why I feel being outraged is not good – it hinders our ability to listen and see the situation clearly and invites us to mistreat other people just as we have been mistreated ourselves. I don’t consider myself feminist or masculinist – I would rather be humanist.

Well, I disagree–I think the natural response to seeing people being oppressed should be outrage, and that my outrage helps me, inspires me, keeps me working on helping people.

And I’m a humanist as well; I don’t think there’s a need to be either a feminist or a humanist. My advocacy for one part of the human race doesn’t diminish my advocacy for the rest of it; it just shows where my main interest lies.

Thank you again for responding–I know English isn’t your first language. I do hope you continue to think about these things.

Very best,

C.L. Minou

by

Why I Blog, Part Wev

Categories: oh no not teh menz, why i blog, Your RDA of Outrage

Howdy, ducks! In today’s exciting installment of The Second Awakening, we learn that I learned how to set up Google news alerts! Fabulous–or is it? See below for the exciting answer.

Starting a blog is an odd thing to do: you have to believe that a) you have something to say, and b) other people will actually give a good god-damn about what you have to say. If you’re starting a feminist blog, you have to add c) that you understand feminism well enough to say something about it, and d) that what you’re saying hasn’t been pummeled to death like a very unlucky horse. But Ghu help you if you’re trans and starting a feminist blog: then you have to worry about e-z) who the hell do you think you are to talk about being a woman, let alone feminism.

So I’m quite happy to have several wonderful blogs out there that have helped me learn enough to launch this endeavor, and keep teaching me every day.

For example, Sady over at Tiger Beatdown has this provocative post about Andrea Dworkin and radical feminism that’s sparked an excellent discussion–to which, Maude save me, I’ve actually contributed. (I’ll note in passing–for it truly requires a longer post to discuss fully–that I tend to cringe at the words “radical feminism,” and probably unfairly; but given that some very, very vocal people who describe them that way have gone out of their way to let people like me know we’re not really women.)

Then there’s Liss, at Shakesville who offers up this post which might as well be another mission statement for what I want to do here:

Masculinity has defined itself exclusively in contradistinction to the feminine for so long that a serious challenge to the idea of inherent male superiority has left millions of American men floundering—and the best answer most of them have found for the question “What is my role if not a keeper of women?” is “I am a victim of oppression by women.” Femininity has become the center-pin around which masculinity pivots—on one side there is dominion; on the other side, subjugation.

What American men are lacking is a vision of equality.

Women had to change the rules, because we were told “You can’t,” because we had seemingly unnavigable barriers put in our way by people who didn’t want us to succeed, because, if we had played by The Rules (as dictated by The Patriarchy), we never would have gotten where are—because The Rules were designed so that we fail. For many of us, the odds have been against us our whole lives; everything we’ve ever done has been in defiance of the distinct likelihood—and expectation—that we would settle for less than we wanted.

The whole post is really good and a wonderful takedown of yet another Dooood’s carping “what about teh menz?’

Wait! Like I said, I finally set up some news readers–basic stuff, one for “feminism” and the other for “transgender.” (Understand that this is a work in progress.) And guess what popped up in the transgender feed? Have you guessed? Did you say–transphobia? Because Google sure did! (warning: links are triggery)

Now, do you see why people don’t want to see transsexuals and the transgendered covered in laws against discrimination?

Some discrimination needs to happen, if you’re business is going to survive. Discrimination at clubs goes on every single day, when pretty girls and celebrities go to the beginning of the line and right into the club, while others wait in line outside. Discrimination and the exclusion of freaks is the club way of life. And there’s nothing illegal about it. It’s business.

No-one wants a freak poisoning their establishment. No-one sinks their life savings into a business for the sake of social and contra-biological experimentation.

I know! What’s better is, I know about this case! helen boyd blogged about it a few months ago–she teaches up in Appleton, Wisconsin; the incident occurred right after she arrived in January.

And just when I thought I’d heard enough–and trust me, that was enough–of this Debbie Schlussel person….you know what’s funny? In a hate-filled, oh-my-god-I-can’t-believe-it way? She wrote her own post on the article Liss blogged about:

Still, the facts and figures he cites are telling. As America continues its push toward a matriarchy, pushing men out of the way in favor of artificial insemination, single mother households, etc., it is one more step in the way of America’s demise and our continuing quest to emulate Europe. As we honor Governors who abandon their families to Mr. Moms, while they pursue political careers and while their own daughters father babies out of wedlock and shut the fathers of their babies out of their kids’ lives, we must ask ourselves what are the benefits of that. Why are we applauding those who behave this way?

As men are cast off to the wayside as obsolete, ask yourself if you want America to be the international equivalent of the WNBA or a NOW meeting?

Oh Zbornak! I should have stuck with the New York Post.

by

Bromantically Linked

Categories: douchebaggery, media tool kit, oh no not teh menz

Hello ducks! If you are like me, you watch television. (Actually, if you are like me, you watch too much television–stop it! It’s keeping you from doing better things, like read this blog!) And if, like me, you watch too much TV, then you’ve probably seen commercials for the next great man-child movie, The Hangover.

Of course, it may be difficult to pick out this new film from the constant swirl of frattish comedies–after all, it’s Judd Apatow’s world now, we just live in it. Never fear, though, ducks! The New York Times, in its ongoing mission of reminding us that all the news fit to print is by, for, and about men, has an article about The Hangover‘s creator, Todd Phillips.

In fact, the article makes Mr. Phillips out to be some sort of seer to the doucheoisie, a sort of guru of the frat boy picture. (In fact, one of his first movies was called, um, Frat House.) Mr. Phillips, in case you didn’t know, is the auteur behind Old School, Road Trip, and Starsky and Hutch. (Disclosure: I actually enjoyed the last one for the chemistry between Stiller and Wilson. I’m not perfect, ducks.) All in all, he has a portfolio that makes him the Apatow-lite, a secondary purveyor of the immature bromance.

Never fear, though: The Times breathlessly reports:

That doesn’t mean “The Hangover” can’t aspire to be the most grown-up work in Mr. Phillips’s unapologetically immature portfolio.

Well, that’s a relief–not the least because he doesn’t apologize for his movies! No, Todd Phillips is proud of his films! He wants you to squirm while watching–that is, if you are not an immature man-child (or at least aspire to be one.)

But wait! He’s not content for simple metaphysical torture–at least, where his actors are concerned:

Mr. Phillips does not always get his way. For a scene in which a police officer tests his stun gun on the guys, the director wanted his actors to be shot with a live Taser. “He goes, ‘Look at these clips on YouTube,’ ” Mr. Galifianakissaid. “ ‘It doesn’t hurt that much.’ And then the Warner Brothers lawyers stepped in, thank God.”

Well, there’s always next time–and given advances in technology, perhaps within a few years he’ll be able to tase the audience as well! Oh, think of the laughter we’ll have! Between the blackouts, that is.

Let’s give the last word to Todd, before he uses that darn taser again:

…[W]hen he tries to describe the plots of his films concisely, Mr. Phillips said recently, “the one-liners on my movies sound really retarded.” He chuckled briefly at his own analysis. “The movies, ideally, are better than they sound,” he added.

Speak for yourself, Mr. Phillips.

by

Notes From Underprivileged

Categories: media tool kit, oh no not teh menz, your rda of misogyny

Greetings Ducks! Many apologies for the lacuna of posts–I had a houseguest for the weekend and one thing pushed out another! Still, while I was away, asshattery was, as ever, on the march, as shown by the following…

Item: Women are unhappy despite liberation, or so argues new NY Times columnist Ross Douthat. Ross, you are to be congratulated! It takes most conservatives years to achieve full-on douchebaggery in the Times–you’ve taken just a few weeks! I haven’t read the study he describes–it’s not free–but I wonder: did anyone ask women why they don’t feel happy? Or would that be too much bother? Isn’t it more fun to speculate on them? Yes, if you write for the Times.

Item: Sonia Sotomayor is mean! This seems to be the first arrow in the coming perfect-storm backlash! On WNYC’s Brian Lehrer show, the host asked for comments from people who had appeared in Judge Sotomayor’s court. One lawyer (you can listen in at about 35:00 on the link) said that he found that she “made gratuitous comments that were abusive.” This apparently was caused by an incident where she told a different–ah, yes, your friend, right–attorney that his brief was the worst she’d read in 20 years and he should rethink his career choice. Because no male Federal judge has ever been that mean! And even if he was, they’d just have a beer after. Which you can’t do with Judge Sotomayor–on account of her vagina!

Item: California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8. No jokes here, just disappointment. My houseguest is a Californian, and we read the story on an iPhone while sitting in a park. Interestingly, all 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place before Prop 8 are still legal. This just in: California Supreme Court rules all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

by

Won’t Somebody Think Of The Menz!

Categories: oh no not teh menz, supremely sexist

My goodness, duckies! President Obama might nominate another woman to the Supreme Court, and the media gasbags are all in a dither that he might not pick the most qualified candidate because of that! Since, obviously, the most qualified candidate by definition could not be a woman, queer, or a person of color.

I guess I can understand that: I mean, if he appoints another woman, the Supreme Court will tie its previous high for number of women on the Court. With two.