[Content Note: Misogyny; rape culture; bullying.]
Despite feminists' reputation, and contra my own individual reputation cultivated over five years of public opinion-making, I am not a man-hater.
If I played by misogynists' rules, specifically the one that dictates it only takes one woman doing one Mean or Duplicitous or Disrespectful or Unlawful or otherwise Bad Thing to justify hatred of all women, I would have plenty of justification for hating men, if I were inclined to do that sort of thing.
Most of my threatening hate mail comes from men. The most unrelentingly trouble-making trolls have always been men. I've been cat-called and cow-called from moving vehicles countless times, and subjected to other forms of street harassment, and sexually harassed at work, always by men. I have been sexually assaulted—if one includes rape, attempted rape, unsolicited touching of breasts, buttocks, and/or genitals, nonconsensual frottage on public transportation, and flashing—by dozens of people during my lifetime, some known to me, some strangers, all men.
But I don't hate men, because I play by different rules. In fact, there are men in this world whom I love quite a lot.
There are also individual men in this world I would say I probably hate, or something close, men who I hold in unfathomable contempt, but it is not because they are men.
No, I don't hate men.
It would, however, be fair to say that I don't easily trust them.
My mistrust is not, as one might expect, primarily a result of the violent acts done on my body, nor the vicious humiliations done to my dignity. It is, instead, born of the multitude of mundane betrayals that mark my every relationship with a man—the casual rape joke, the use of a female slur, the careless demonization of the feminine in everyday conversation, the accusations of overreaction, the eyerolling and exasperated sighs in response to polite requests to please not use misogynist epithets in my presence or to please use non-gendered language ("humankind").
There are the insidious assumptions guiding our interactions—the supposition that I will regard being exceptionalized as a compliment ("you're not like those other women"), and the presumption that I am an ally against certain kinds of women. Surely, we're all in agreement that Britney Spears is a dirty slut who deserves nothing but a steady stream of misogynist vitriol whenever her name is mentioned, right? Always the subtle pressure to abandon my principles to trash this woman or that woman, as if I'll never twig to the reality that there's always a justification for unleashing the misogyny, for hating a woman in ways reserved only for women. I am exhorted to join in the cruel revelry, and when I refuse, suddenly the target is on my back. And so it goes.
There are the jokes about women, about wives, about mothers, about raising daughters, about female bosses. They are told in my presence by men who are meant to care about me, just to get a rise out of me, as though I am meant to find funny a reminder of my second-class status. I am meant to ignore that this is a bullying tactic, that the men telling these jokes derive their amusement specifically from knowing they upset me, piss me off, hurt me. They tell them and I can laugh, and they can thus feel superior, or I can not laugh, and they can thus feel superior. Heads they win, tails I lose. I am used as a prop in an ongoing game of patriarchal posturing, and then I am meant to believe it is true when some of the men who enjoy this sport, in which I am their pawn, tell me, "I love you." I love you, my daughter. I love you, my niece. I love you, my friend. I am meant to trust these words.
There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.
There is the perplexity at my fury that my life experience is not considered more relevant than the opinionated pronouncements of men who make a pastime of informal observation, like womanhood is an exotic locale which provides magnificent fodder for the amateur ethnographer. And there is the haughty dismissal of my assertion that being on the outside looking in doesn't make one more objective; it merely provides a different perspective.
There are the persistent, tiresome pronouncements of similitude between men's and women's experiences, the belligerent insistence that handsome men are objectified by women, too! that women pinch men's butts sometimes, too! that men are expected to look a certain way at work, too! that women rape, too! and other equivalencies that conveniently and stupidly ignore institutional inequities that mean X rarely equals Y. And there are the long-suffering groans that meet any attempt to contextualize sexism and refute the idea that such indignities, though grim they all may be, are not necessarily equally oppressive.
There are the stereotypes—oh, the abundant stereotypes!—about women, not me, of course, but other women, those women with their bad driving and their relentless shopping habits and their PMS and their disgusting vanity and their inability to stop talking and their disinterest in Important Things and their trying to trap men and their getting pregnant on purpose and their false rape accusations and their being bitches sluts whores cunts... And I am expected to nod in agreement, and I am nudged and admonished to agree. I am expected to say these things are not true of me, but are true of women (am I seceding from the union?); I am expected to put my stamp of token approval on the stereotypes. Yes, it's true. Between you and me, it's all true. That's what is wanted from me. Abdication of my principles and pride, in service to a patriarchal system that will only use my collusion to further subjugate me. This is a thing that is asked of me by men who purport to care for me.
There is the unwillingness to listen, a ferociously stubborn not getting it on so many things, so many important things. And the obdurate refusal to believe, to internalize, that my outrage is not manufactured and my injure not make-believe—an inflexible rejection of the possibility that my pain is authentic, in favor of the consolatory belief that I am angry because I'm a feminist (rather than the truth: that I'm a feminist because I'm angry).
And there is the denial about engaging in misogyny, even when it's evident, even when it's pointed out gently, softly, indulgently, carefully, with goodwill and the presumption that it was not intentional. There is the firm, fixed, unyielding denial—because it is better and easier to imply that I'm stupid or crazy, that I have imagined being insulted by someone about whom I care (just for the fun of it!), than it is to just admit a bloody mistake. Rather I am implied to be a hysteric than to say, simply, I'm sorry.
Not every man does all of these things, or even most of them, and certainly not all the time. But it only takes one, randomly and occasionally, exploding in a shower of cartoon stars like an unexpected punch in the nose, to send me staggering sideways, wondering what just happened.
Well. I certainly didn't see that coming...
These things, they are not the habits of deliberately, connivingly cruel men. They are, in fact, the habits of the men in this world I love quite a lot.
All of whom have given me reason to mistrust them, to use my distrust as a self-protection mechanism, as an essential tool to get through every day, because I never know when I might next get knocked off-kilter with something that puts me in the position, once again, of choosing between my dignity and the serenity of our relationship.
Swallow shit, or ruin the entire afternoon?
It can come out of nowhere, and usually does. Which leaves me mistrustful by both necessity and design. Not fearful; just resigned—and on my guard. More vulnerability than that allows for the possibility of wounds that do not heal. Wounds to our relationship, the sort of irreparable damage that leaves one unable to look in the eye someone that you loved once upon a time.
This, then, is the terrible bargain we have regretfully struck: Men are allowed the easy comfort of their unexamined privilege, but my regard will always be shot through with a steely, anxious bolt of caution.
A shitty bargain all around, really. But there it is.
There are men who will read this post and think, huffily, dismissively, that a person of color could write a post very much like this one about white people, about me. That's absolutely right. So could a lesbian, a gay man, a bisexual, an asexual. So could a trans or intersex person (which hardly makes a comprehensive list). I'm okay with that. I don't feel hated. I feel mistrusted—and I understand it; I respect it. It means, for me, I must be vigilant, must make myself trustworthy. Every day.
I hope those men will hear me when I say, again, I do not hate you. I mistrust you. You can tell yourselves that's a problem with me, some inherent flaw, some evidence that I am fucked up and broken and weird; you can choose to believe that the women in your lives are nothing like me.
Or you can be vigilant, can make yourselves trustworthy. Every day.
Just in case they're more like me than you think.
[This post was originally published August 14, 2009. It's being linked a lot again recently, no doubt in part because of the current feminist/womanist backlash in which we find ourselves, including and especially the escalating war on women and other people with uteri. I thought it would be useful to publish it again.]
The Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck
Quote of the Day
"I thought it was pretty funny. The school didn't think so; they thought it was inappropriate."—Indiana high school senior Austin Carroll, who was expelled from school for tweeting profanity from his own personal Twitter account on his personal computer at his home.
There are people in Indiana, ahem, who have a problem with public schools expelling students for using the f-word on their own time and question its legality.
But no worries! The Indiana State Legislature, aka the Conservative Legislation Lab, has a solution for that: "A bill that would allow schools to punish students for off-campus activities has advanced in the Indiana legislature, permitting schools to suspend or expel students for engaging in activities away from school and after hours that 'may reasonably be considered to be an interference with school purposes or an educational function'."
How using naughty-words "interferes with school purposes or an educational function" is beyond me, but I'm guessing it's the same reason that afros and mohawks were considered "classroom distractions" back when I was suffering through four years at an Indiana public high school.
[Image care of Shutterstock.]
BushQuotes!
[Content Note: Reproductive rights; rape culture.]
Chapter 1, page 9: "As I stood to take the oath of office and give my inaugural address, the sun broke through the clouds. The future of Texas is bright, I told the huge crowd gathered on the south lawn of the Texas Capitol. The next century would be one of great opportunity for Texas, so long as we pursued policies of free markets, free trade, low taxes, and limited government."
Texan scATX, earlier today, at KYBOOMU: "Those transvaginal ultrasounds everyone was worried about in VA. We've had them IN PRACTICE in TEXAS for FORTY NINE days. SEVEN WEEKS."
Bush's future Texas, now present.
Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by misty mornings.
Recommended Reading:
Richard's got your live coverage as the Supreme Court debates "Obamacare."
moyazb: On Appropriate Victims: More on Trayvon Martin and Other Names You Need to Know
Soraya: Not a Joke: Personhood for Women
Matthew: Obama's Creepy Executive Order: Permanent War Economy
Helen: Firsts
Echidne: Hahah! Women Are the Richer Sex
Heben: Zoë Saldana on Hollywood and Race
Dougal: You Don't Read Women Authors, Do You?
Andy: Perpetual Motion Bulldog [video]
And the Angry Asian Man has a great round-up of links, too!
Trayvon Martin Updates
The above picture was tweeted by Miami Heat player LeBron James last Friday.
There's not a lot of news to share about the case itself, which is still being investigated by Florida state, the FBI, and the Department of Justice. George Zimmerman still remains free, and questions about the whereabouts of Trayvon's mobile phone remain unanswered. I do, however, want to pass on some recommended reading:
H. Samy Alim: Breaking the Silence Around Racial Abuse—"For many of us—and this is a point that has been ignored thus far—this case is a focal point because it is a way for us to tell our stories without exposing our own fear and vulnerability. We regularly silence our pain, ignore our fear, avoid dealing with the hurt. But in this case, because there appears to be so much evidence of racial abuse and misconduct, coupled with the fact that he was just a young boy, we feel empowered to speak out on behalf of Trayvon—even if we cannot yet speak out on behalf of ourselves. This is precisely my point. We are Trayvon Martin. So not only must we speak out when the victims can no longer speak for themselves, but by breaking the silence around racial abuse, we can begin a healing process that addresses our collective hurt and humiliation and restores our humanity."
Thanks to Shaker Checarina for passing along that piece. Those of us who are white need to read that piece and then answer this question: How am I going to create safe spaces for people of color to tell their stories of racial abuse, in which I am able to listen non-defensively? When people tell their stories, we need to STFU and hear them.
Francie Latour: A More Perfect Union for Trayvon—"Even with deeply unresolved racial divides, we have to find our common stake in this thing, and follow the instruction manual we were given: we the people, in order to form a more perfect union. ... I will never understand why a boy with a bag of candy and his entire future in front of him would need to be sacrificed for such an act or process to commence. But now that it has happened, perhaps we can begin to pry apart the fingers that seem to be stretched so tightly over America's closed eyes, and begin to see racism for what it is and what it does. Trayvon's parents are crying out for that, as are growing numbers of Americans rallying in support of them."
Maudlyne Ihejrika: Angela Bassett charges racism in Trayvon Martin's death—"We have a president from the South Side of Chicago. But we would be wrong to think that we have reached the promised land."
Incredibly, a headline saying "charges racism"—as opposed to, say, "highlights manifestly obvious racism"—is not, actually, the worst headline I've read today. That honor would go to the Washington Post for: "Trayvon Martin's death has put spotlight on perceptions about hoodies." Yes, let's keep talking about our national perceptions about hoodies.
And finally: After Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and others criticized President Obama for his statement on the case, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, who, to put it politely, no one has ever accused of racial tolerance, said this weekend: "We all know there's a racial component to this, and when the president highlights it, I don't think it adds a whole lot. But nobody suggests that the president's insensitive to the 17-year-old if he'd been white. I think the criticism by our guys was a little off-base." When Lindsay Graham obliquely calls your actions racist, you have derailed.
Please feel welcome and encouraged to leave additional links and recommendations in comments.
Primarily Dreadful
Congratulations, Rick Santorum! You have been found to be the least barfiest of all the candidates by Republican primary voters in Louisiana! GOOD FOR YOU!
It was, as the cool pundits call it, a "decisive victory" for Santorum, which means in horrified layperson's terms that there are a scary number of people who like Rick Santorum. Now, you might say: Hey, Ms. Snarkypants! There was low turnout in Louisiana! And you would be RIGHT! There WAS! But I would then challenge you to present a convincing argument that even three people in the United States of America voting for Rick Santorum (RICK FUCKING SANTORUM!) is not terrifying. GOOD LUCK!
Despite his DECISIVE VICTORY in Louisiana this weekend, the pressure is mounting for Rick Santorum to drop out of the race and let Mitt Romney ascend to his rightful position as future loser to President Barack Obama. But Santorum is having none of it! In fact, he spits in the eye of party unity and declares Mitt Romney to be "the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama." Ha ha good one, Rick! But I bet if we REALLY TRY, we can think of someone EVEN WORSE!
In spite of Romney's manifest awfulness, he's really racking up the endorsements now, as Republicans try to wrap this thing up. Senator Mike Lee of Utah, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, and prolly some other people you've never heard of endorsed Romney this weekend, but it doesn't really matter who they are, because you know what they say: As goes Mike Lee, so goes the country! (They definitely say that.)
In other Republican Primary news, Newt Gingrich blah blah and something something Ron Paul. Two terrible people who I am obliged to mention by virtue of their steadfast refusals to drop the fuck out, etc.
In Democratic Primary news, President Obama, who is not facing a primary challenge, told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in regard to missile defense: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Whooooooops! We all know it's true that presidents can't have principles until their second terms, but it's still pretty AMAZING to hear it said so bluntly like that! Presidents say the darnedest things when they think their microphones aren't still on!
In other Obama news, one of the things that could hurt him in the upcoming election is that "Women aren't faring as well as other groups in the job market's recovery ... [They] are the only group for whom employment growth lagged behind population growth from 2009 to 2011." Hmm, it's a real mystery why that is. I am definitely sure it has nothing to do with the fact that bailouts and stimuli have been directed almost exclusively at male-dominated industries, though. That is SHEER COINCIDENCE!
Of course, if women actually want access to contraception and abortion, then they can't vote for the other guy, whichever Mitt Romney he will be. Not that President Obama's exactly been a champion on reproductive rights AHEM.
So it'll be another fun game of Vote for One of These Two Dudes Who Don't Give a Comprehensive Fuck About Women or Don't Vote At All this election! THANK MAUDE! If I actually had a real choice while exercising the franchise for which our mothers and aunts and grandmothers worked so hard to secure, I don't know what I'd do with myself!
Next Stops: D.C., Maryland, and Wisconsin! You lucky devils!
Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.
Open Thread
This week's open threads have been brought to you by old time radio hosts.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
And don't forget to tip your bartender!
Tweet of the Day
My own son just wrote to say he's ashamed of my position re hoodies-still I feel parents must do whatever they can to keep their kids safe
— Geraldo Rivera (@GeraldoRivera) March 23, 2012
Good job, junior.
As to senior's contention that "parents must do whatever they can to keep their kids safe," in addition to its vile victim-blaming, the belief that it is parents' responsibility to "keep their kids safe" from violent racists is predicated on the fantasy that the hoodie is not just the current symbol being used to justify the slaughter of a young man on the basis of nothing other than the color of his skin.
Hoodie, saggy pants, cornrows, picks, bandanas, Air Jordans... I have heard each of these things in my lifetime (and many more) used to justify the "accidental" killing of a young black man by his neighbor, by a stranger, by a cop. It's a constantly moving target by design. Because the whole point is for there to always, always, be something that the dead kid in the street should have done differently, something his parents should have warned him about, as if any of that shit matters to the George Zimmermans of the world.
LULZ
Video Description: President Obama is walking along a line of people at a campaign event in Oklahoma earlier today. He's shaking hands and saying hi to the people who want to see him. "Good to see you! Good to see you guys!" he says cheerfully, as he reaches for people's outstretched hands. "How are you? Thank you so much." Shake shake shake. A woman excitedly tells him that she was born in the same Hawaiian hospital he was. "Were ya?" he asks. "We're Hawaiian, you and me?" He points at her. "You have your birth certificate?" Everyone in the area hollers and laughs.
Related Reading: Obama at the White House Correspondents' Dinner; The Obama Made in the USA Mug; and President Obama's Birthday Greeting to Betty White.
[Via.]
Daily Dose of Cute
BushQuotes!
Chapter 1, page 8: "The minister talked of visiting Yellowstone with his family. They joined a crowd gathered around Old Faithful, waiting and watching expectantly. He joined in as they counted down—five-four-three-two-one—and was surprised to feel tears welling in hie eyes as he joined in the cheers for the erupting geyser. 'And then I realized I had just clapped for a geyser,' Mark Craig said, the crowd in the church joining in agreeable laughter at the absurdity of the scene. 'What on earth moves people to applaud with tears in their eyes for cascading water?' he asked, then answered his own question: 'Faithfulness. People are starved for faithfulness.'"
That would be a nice story, if it were about any kind of faithfulness other than straight-up Jesus-belief. You know, like a story about having faith in your fellow humans to be kind to each other, or some nefarious atheist crap like that. But nope! Immediately after that anecdote, he launches into some garbage about Moses that implies he's just like him, naturally.
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by rain.
Recommended Reading:
Helen: I Am Trans [Video description: Trans women and men speaking about what they are, e.g. "I am a painter, a daughter, an activist, and I am a trans woman."]
Angus: Dharun Ravi, in First Interview, Says Tyler Clementi "Didn't Care" about His Spying [Content Note: The post at this link includes reference to Ravi's violence, homophobia, and concern trolling.]
Marianne: Dear White Fat People
H. Hoover: Sign of the Times
Recommended reading on the Trayvon Martin murder [content note: racism and violence, for all of the posts in this section]:
Pam: A Rant, Because I Need One
Joyce: How Does It Feel to Be a Problem? A Reflection on Trayvon Martin
Shayera: Geraldo Rivera's Victim-Blaming
Pam: More on Geraldo Rivera's Victim-Blaming
And Andy has video of the president's statement earlier today.
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
On "Senseless" Crime
[Content Note: Violence; racism.]
Referring to the murder of Trayvon Martin as "senseless" has come up in comments a few times this week, so I figured it warrants a front-page post.
To speak of these crimes as "senseless," while I do understand what is meant by it, masks the reality that in a frame of racist eliminationism, a crime like this absolutely "make sense."
This crime "made sense" to George Zimmerman, to the local police who failed to arrest him, to the state legislature who passed the law by which this killing might not be criminal, and to every person who has spoken out in Zimmerman's defense. Zimmerman has tons of institutional and cultural support.
Unequivocally, the sensibilities by which such a crime not only "makes sense" but is considered eminently reasonable, or even heroic, is racist, violent, eliminationist, and vile.
But we can't pretend that particular brand of sense-making doesn't exist.
That's just another flavor of the lone crazy gunman in a void narrative. No sense can be made of this tragedy! But we can indeed make sense of it, by staring white supremacy in its ugly fucking face, and being realistic about how "Stand Your Ground" laws empower bigoted bullies, and getting honest about how systemic active racism abetted by the endemic passive racism of apathy central to unexamined white privilege makes crimes like the murder of Trayvon Martin a logical and predictable inevitability, not a random and senseless tragedy.
It's not at all that this murder was "senseless." It's that it wasn't.
And we can't ever meaningfully subvert that detestable sensibility if we fail to acknowledge its existence.
Rinse and repeat for every bias against every oppressed class.
Trayvon Martin Updates
President Obama just gave a brief statement in the Rose Garden, which he prefaced by saying he had to be careful so as not to influence the investigation. He said he was thinking about Trayvon's parents, and that the case made him think about his own children—and that, if he had a son, that son would look like Trayvon Martin.
He said Trayvon Martin's parents are right to expect that this case should be taken seriously, and that he's glad the Justice Department is looking into the case, because it is imperative that every aspect be investigated.
He also said: "I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this happened."
The President did have to be careful, for more reasons of course than merely influencing the investigation, and it was an excellent statement in my estimation. It will, it should, make a difference for privileged USians to hear their president say that something like this could happen to his child.
* * *
MSNBC:
Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday that they had appointed a new prosecutor to investigate the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and would appoint a committee on citizen safety that would examine the state's "Stand Your Ground" law. Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, was killed by a self-described neighborhood watch guard in February.That's an interesting choice of words: "The right to feel protected and safe." Surely, people have a right to be safe, but lots of people who actually are safe nonetheless do not feel safe. Lots of people imagine that they are going to be hurt by someone not like them, some terrorist, some gang member, some random teenage boy walking down the sidewalk with iced tea and Skittles in his hands.
In a statement, Scott called for the task force "to investigate how to make sure a tragedy such as this does not occur in the future, while at the same time, protecting the fundamental rights of all our citizens – especially the right to feel protected and safe in our state."
Feeling safe—or not feeling safe—is at the very center of this case: George Zimmerman did not feel safe, even though he was, entirely so.
On the other hand, Trayvon Martin certainly did not feel safe—and he wasn't.
Are African-Americans, black Cuban-Americans, and other dark-skinned people in Florida going to feel safe, ever, after this incident (and others like it which have received less attention)?
Whose feelings of safety are really being privileged here?
The most pointed problem with "Stand Your Ground" laws is that people who feel unsafe, irrespective of whether they have a legitimate reason to feel unsafe, implicitly have their fears justified. The laws intrinsically convey people are trying to hurt you and there's something scary out there and you should feel afraid, always afraid. So, ironically, these laws do not in any way encourage feelings of safety and security in fearful people. They entrench fear.
And that makes the world a very dangerous place for the people they're afraid of. People like Trayvon Martin.
* * *
Other stuff worth reading:
MSNBC: Survivor of 'shoot first' incident tells his tale. "He meant for me to be dead and he never called 911."
Think Progress: Sanford Commissioners Who Voted In Support Of Police Chief To Face Recall. "Two Sanford city commissioners who, amidst widespread outrage at the police investigation of Trayvon Martin's death, sided with police chief Bill Lee at a meeting last night, will soon face a recall."
