Whut.

[Content Note: Rape culture; descriptions of fictional sexual assault depicted in a film.]

Actual Headline: Jennifer Aniston Fends Off Rapist in Gritty New Movie.

How is that a headline? How is that news, even entertainment news? Why is Aniston's rep working with garbage entertainment rag Us Weekly (that collusion is how these stories exist) to try to shore up Aniston's Serious Actress Credentials using "fends of rapist in gritty new movie," as if sexual violence is the hot new subject for totally trenchant actresses to tackle? And, by the way, she doesn't actually get raped like some dummy! She FENDS IT OFF!

(There is also, in my reading, some "rape is totes a compliment" shit going on here, in that we're supposed to understand that, at age 44, Aniston is still sexy and desirable enough to be raped. Because the mainstream film industry generally treats rape as a Very Sexy Thing that happens to Very Sexy Ladies. We'll come back to that.)

Actual Opening Paragraph: "Coming off the box office success of comedy We're the Millers in which she played a stripper-turned-housewife, Jennifer Aniston continues to make riskier choices in Daniel Schechter's Life of Crime—in which she fends off a would-be rapist. The flick will be the Toronto International Film Festival's Closing Night event on Sept. 14."

Playing a woman who "fends off a rapist" is a "risky choice" in the same way that playing a "stripper-turned-housewife" is. I don't even know how to begin to deconstruct everything terrible and wrong about that equivalency.

Actual Next Two Paragraphs:

Based on the novel Switch by the late Elmore Leonard (Justified, Get Shorty), the movie serves as a prequel to Jackie Brown, which was adapted for the screen by Quentin Tarantino in 1997. In Life of Crime, Aniston, 44, plays the wife of a wealthy Detroit developer who is kidnapped for ransom money by two ex-cons Ordell Robbie (Yasiin Bay) and Louis Gara (John Hawkes). Held against her will her character, Mickey Dawson, is forced to stave off harm and mistreatment at the hand of her captors.

In one particularly harrowing scene, she is nearly sexually assaulted by one of the villains, Richard (played by Mark Boone Junior); in the sequence, Junior rips off her bra, although Aniston stays covered up. Full of tension, the attack is unnverving to watch.

He rips off her bra (sexxxxxxy!), but no titties (boooooooo). WHAT IS THIS ARTICLE?

One interesting thing to note is that when I took screencaps of this horrendo nightmare article yesterday, the sentence about how "unnerving" the attack is to watch did not exist. So it read even more as strictly about how titillating the attempted rape scene is where her bra comes off.

Actual Final Paragraph: "According to multiple people close to the production, Aniston was game to shoot the disturbing scene, and make sure that it looked authentic. 'Being the level of actor that she is you would imagine that she would be closed off, but she was actually very giving and brave in the scene,' one production source tells Us Weekly. 'She wanted to get it right.'"

Gee, I can't imagine who the anonymous "production source" is that shared with Us Weekly how the HIGH LEVEL SUPERSTAR Jennifer Aniston was so AMAZINGLY BRAVE in trying to be authentically almost-raped in a sexy way before fending off her would-be rapist and definitely not showing her boobs because that would be distasteful.

Ahem.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Syria Update

Still fucked.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Open Thread

Hosted by purple heirloom tomatoes.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question of the Day

Setting aside all complicating realities—like fears of flying and financial considerations and lack of vacation time, as possible examples—what is your dream vacation destination?

If you've already been on holiday to your dream destination, that's okay (lucky you!) and please feel welcome to share whether it lived up to your expectations. If your dream destination is "at home, being unbothered," that's okay, too! No wrong answers.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Quote of the Day

"My idea of feminism is self-determination, and it's very open-ended: Every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do."—Ani DiFranco.

It's not a new quote; just an old favorite.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Juice Newton: "Queen of Hearts"

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Monday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by sand.

Recommended Reading:

Trudy on the term "misogynoir" and its use by whom.

Suzanne: "After Tiller" Tells the Stories Behind the Headlines [content note: discussion of hostility to agency]

Veronica: First Comes Love, Then Comes an Abortion?

Matt: Katee Sackhoff Rumored to Be in Talks to Play Captain Marvel

Andy: Anti-Gay Alternative to Boy Scouts Launches, with Bush Impersonator and Mike Huckabee [content note: homophobia]

Jamilah: 5 Takeaways From Pitchfork's Epic Janelle Monáe Story

Jess lays out where to go from here in Texas.

And a couple of Hugø $chwyz3r links [content note: sexual impropriety/coercion; harassment; racism; misogyny]:

Angus: Hugø $chwyz3r Was Sleeping With His Students All Along

Flavia: Outrage Fatigue and Tabloid Culture

Leave your links and recommendations in comments...

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

George Zimmerman: Still Terrible

[Content Note: Guns; violence.]

George Zimmerman, who was recently found not guilty of the murder of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, is being interviewed by police after reportedly threatening his estranged wife and her father with a gun.

Shellie Zimmerman called police shortly after 2 p.m. Monday, said Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell.

Zimmerman hasn't been arrested and officers were at the house trying to determine what happened, Bracknell said.

"We've only heard one side of the story so far," Bracknell said.

As you may recall, George Zimmerman was also not arrested after shooting and killing Martin, until national public outcry finally resulted in his arrest. Fortunately, Shellie Zimmerman is still alive to give her "side of the story" to police, unlike Trayvon Martin. Because there are definitely two totally equal sides in every story of George Zimmerman wielding a gun at someone.

Shellie Zimmerman filed for divorce from George Zimmerman last week. I was just talking to Jessica Luther about this latest incident, and Jess recalled that the news of Shellie filing a divorce petition was met with a lot of sneering at Shellie for only divorcing him now, without any trace of awareness that Shellie herself has almost certainly been abused by this violent, murderous fuck with a history of abusing women.

"Why didn't she leave him before or during the trial?" people questioned, levying their public judgment against her. Well, maybe she was hoping he'd get convicted, too. The most dangerous time for a woman who has been physically abused by a partner (meaning, the time a woman is most likely to be killed) is when she's trying to extricate herself from the relationship.

As @AuntB observed on Twitter: "He killed Trayvon Martin after fighting with his wife. I suspect he took out his anger at his wife on Martin."

He is a dangerous man. No living person is in a better position to understand precisely what that means than Shellie Zimmerman. Perhaps we could bear that in mind and can the judgy jokes.

UPDATE: Zimmerman's attorney says: "There was heightened emotion, and a disagreement took place." Which is a pretty great description of Iain and I bickering with one another about some stupid shit, and a pretty terrible description of someone brandishing a weapon designed to kill things at an estranged spouse.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Once More Unto the Breach

[Content Note: Rape culture; harassment.]

There has been another resurgence in interest in the series of posts documenting the Penny Arcade Dickwolves rape joke comic and subsequent fallout, after game designer Elizabeth Sampat wrote a piece last week called "Quit Fucking Going to PAX Already, What Is Wrong with You," which documents the many despicable fails of Mike "Gabe" Krahulik and Jerry "Tycho" Holkins, followed by a piece by Rachel Edidin at Wired entitled "Why I'm Never Going Back to Penny Arcade Expo," in which she documents what happened last Monday at the most recent Penny Arcade Expo (PAX):

[O]n Monday at PAX, in front of an audience of thousands, Krahulik told business manager Robert Khoo that he regretted pulling the Dickwolves merchandise from the Penny Arcade store — merchandise he had created as a "screw you" to rape survivors who had had the temerity to complain about a comic strip. While the audience burst into applause, Khoo nodded sagely and said that now they knew better; now they would just leave it and not engage.

Much has been written about this incident already, following the predictable scripts, and I don't have anything new to add about how Krahulik and Holkins are rape apologist assholes. That much has been evident, to anyone who wanted to acknowledge truth, for three years now.

I will, however, make this one observation: A lot of discussion about whether PAX is a safe place to be (separate from discussions about whether it's a decent place to be) has centered around Krahulik and Holkins personally. That's understandable given both the roles that they hold, as well as their personal influence over which way these sorts of conversations go, within their community.

But I keep coming back to "the audience burst into applause." The audience cheered for an expression of regret for showing the tiniest bit of compassion for survivors and/or anti-rape advocates.

Irrespective of Krahulik and Holkins, how safe should anyone feel at PAX amongst attendees who delight in belligerent hostility toward people who object to sexual violence?

The audience burst into applause.

That certainly does not come as a shock to me—nor, presumably, any other woman who's written about the Dickwolves debacle—given that Penny Arcade readers inundated me with violent rhetoric "from exhortions to kill myself to threatening emails and comments to a coordinated campaign against me and the blog...which explicitly encourage[d] Penny Arcade readers to stalk and rape me."

Presumably, some number of these dedicated Penny Arcade fans, who took time out of their lives to harass me for criticizing the authors of their favorite webcomic, are attendees at any PAX. It was never a safe space.

Realistically, no conference is ever totally safe. (Ahem.) The rape culture is insidious; predators are insidious. The best—but also the very least—any organizer of any conference can (and must) do is create clear and inflexible consent and safety guidelines, then model and enforce consent and safety. And expect consent and safety of their attendees.

Krahulik and Holkins didn't even bother to do that. And when the men (used advisedly) defining a culture, no matter how large or small, model hostility to anti-rape advocacy, consent and safety isn't going to spontaneously generate in contravention of what they're modeling.

Building safe spaces takes work, but, crucially, it takes leadership that is desirous of a safe space in the first place.

The audience burst into applause.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

I Write Letters: DC Comics Edition

[Content note: misogyny, rape culture, racism, suicide, homophobia, opposition to marriage equality]

To: DC Comics

From: Aphra Behn, Assistant Associate Professor of Historical Ladybusiness and Nerdstuff

Re: Upcoming job opening as Publisher

I write to you today in order to apply for the job of Publisher at DC Comics. I realize that Jim Lee and Dan Didio currently serve as co-publishers, but after the fan backlash against their pro-homophobe and anti-marriage equality stances, not to mention their continued inability to retain talent, I was thinking you might be hiring somebody new.

After all, it's really not so good to have your publishers insulting fans' intelligence. Fans can be pretty sharp; we've noticed that troubling racist bent to character re-inventions and team replacements. (When Aquaman becomes a star of the Justice League while Green Lantern John Stewart gets booted, it's hard to miss.) And there have been a few(!) complaints about the continued misogyny at DC, ranging from the percentage of female creators dropping from 12% to 1% with the Nu52 relaunch, to the appalling transformation of strong female heroes into monolithic porn stars, whose rape can be mislabeled "sex." Most recently, there's last week's call for aspiring DC artists to draw Harley Quinn committing suicide, naked. (Because nothing says sexyfuntimes like suicide? WHUT.) And a special shout-out to the anti-feminist reboot of the Amazons as murderous rapists who are too dim to even forge their own weapons.

Basically, when there's whole website dedicated to counting down how long it has been since DC did something cringe-worthy, I imagine you'll be hiring soon. That's where I come in.

Here is my primary qualification to be publisher: I am not an asshole.

I realize that this would mark a new and daring direction for DC, not seen since the days of Jenette Kahn, who, by most accounts, was not an asshole either. That seemed to work well for her, and for you.

But putting my qualifications in the negative is a bad way to start off an application, right? Okay, let me re-word that, and be more specific:

I will respect creators, old and new. Creators need clear and consistent communication; that communication should flow both down and up. For example, if I re-boot the entire universe, I pledge to have direction and co-ordination for major characters like Superman (you may have heard of him). But artists and writers also need creative freedom; they deserve to have input into the overall direction we're going with our comics. If I start losing creators who have been consistently very central to creating the universe, I want to know why. If I can't attract and keep new talent, I want to know why. If my teams aren't diverse in terms of race, gender, and sexuality, I want to know why. If people think DC is a shitty place to work, I want to know why. And once I know why, I want to work on fixing the problems.

I will respect fans, old and new. It's true that not all fan feedback is constructive. But fans deserve respectful communication, particularly when their criticisms are indeed thoughtful. Twitter condescension is not helpful. And when communication gets screwed up, I pledge to stop digging. And furthermore, I pledge to respect new fans, and potential fans as well. Those kids who fall in love with animated DC features? They should have reading options other than seeing their role models treated as sex objects. Don't get me wrong. I also want to continue DC's history of mature comics; fans deserve that. But the word "mature" is not a synonym for "turn ALL the women into sexxxxay pr0n." That's not edgy and cool; it's old as the hills. That's not clever or "realistic"; it's repetitive and one-dimensional. That's not adult; it's the snickering fantasy of an immature misogynist.

I will respect the characters, old, new and as-yet-uncreated. Look, I'm applying to you because I actually love the DC universe. I picked up Wonder Woman 234 when I could just barely read, and I haven't looked back. (Well, okay. I am looking back now that so many titles are starting to resemble crap stag films.) I've stayed with you for years and through many changes; heck, I even remember the days before Batman was dark and twisted. Gold, Silver, Bronze, Modern--I know the ages and own plenty of reprints from each (and not a few originals.) I know the difference between Crisis on Infinite Earths and Infinite Crisis. I can even properly identify the different Batwomen.

DC has an amazing range of characters, including some of the most interesting female heroes in the business. Those characters deserve better than to be treated with scorn by people who don't seem to like them in the first place. Characters definitely need changes to keep going. They need their continuities cleaned up. They need dramatic twists and turns and thrilling surprises in their stories, and they ALWAYS need kickass action. Their characters need to grow and change with their experiences. But the core of each character does not need to be treated as disposable or interchangeable. Wonder Woman doesn't need to become Lois Lane. Superman doesn't need to become Batman. If we want a Kryptonian who is like Batman, then we can bloody well invent a new one.

The characters deserve respect for their distinctive personality and histories; I don't believe in ridiculous cookie-cutter rules like "no superhero can be married because they must all set their personal lives aside." That's silly. Some will be single, some married, some dating, some asexual. Some will make great romantic decisions, others crap ones. Some will be drawn to teams; others will insist on being loners. Some characters will think there is no hope for humanity, some will be optimistic, and some won't give a damn as long as they're making money. Turning all your characters into grim, tortured Byronic figures (the ones you don't reduce to sex objects, that is) has to be the dullest concept I've ever heard of. Vive le difference.

And speaking of difference: I understand that wounding, killing off, or "retiring" characters from marginalized groups is very different from doing the same to cis white, male, straight characters. Sideline Plastic Man, and your white male fans will still have plenty of white male dudes to look up to. Sideline Black Lightning, and you shrink a pool of Black heroes that is already pretty small. Cancelling Jaimie Reyes' run as Blue Beetle is not the same as doing it to Ted Kord. Retconning Donna Troy out of existence is not comparable to doing the same to Wally West. Being opposed to the marriage of straight characters is not the same as opposing the marriage of lesbian and gay characters, precisely because the world does not treat those marriages equally. Pretending otherwise is bullshit, and I don't intend to truck in that. It doesn't expand the fan base, and it tends to stink up the office.

I am a geek and a lover of the DC universe. I understand that a commercial enterprise needs to grow, to expand, and to make money. I believe that respect, diversity and creativity are the best ways to keep old readers and reach new ones.

But mostly? I am not an asshole.

[Commenting note for new readers: the comment policy and all of Feminism 101, conveniently linked above, are required for commenting. You are encouraged to read all the links in the piece before commenting.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Breaking Bad Open Thread

[Content Note: Violence. Spoilers are jonesing for the blue stuff herein.]

Remember in Season One of Breaking Bad when we got a glimpse of Jesse Pinkman's failing chemistry test on which Mr. White had admonished him in red ink to APPLY HIMSELF? Ha ha Jesse has finally decided to APPLY HIMSELF, and he is APPLYING HIMSELF 100% to nailing Walt's ass to the wall! GOOD DECISION, JESSE! Jesse is not generally known for good decisions, but this is one decision of which we can all approve, for sure!

I don't know about y'all, but I basically need a tranquilizer after every episode of Breaking Bad now, because EVERYTHING IS SO INTENSE! There are only three episodes left, and it will be a miracle if I get through them without succumbing to anxiety!

So, Jesse is working with Hank to take down Walt, WHO IS SO TERRIBLE OMG WALT YOU ARE THE WOOOOOORST, and Marie is going to explode into a shower of purple stars if Walt is not held accountable for ALL THE THINGS, and Skylar has gone all in with Walt in stubborn resistance of viewing herself as his victim, and Todd and Lydia are nightmares, and Saul is losing it, and Walt Jr. hopes you have an A-1 day!

In last night's episode, we find out that Todd can't cook the meth as pure or as blue as Walt could, because his brainpan is too clogged with murderous instincts and urges to creep on Lydia for there to be any space left for SCIENCE. Lydia tells him to get his shit together, but he doesn't have time to worry about the boss lady's dissatisfaction, because Walt sends up the MURDER SIGNAL and tells Todd he needs his uncle's white supremacist gang to murder Jesse tout de suite!

NOOOOOOOOOOO JESSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Luckily, Jesse remains in the loving embrace of Hank, who doesn't actually care if Jesse gets murdered, as long as he gets Walt. Which is because he only knows Jesse as a junky murderer who shot someone in the face, and doesn't appreciate his tortured soul and adorable face like we do. STOP REMINDING US THAT JESSE IS A MURDERER, HANK! Ya jerk!

Hank and his BFF Gomey realize that they still need to get evidence on Walt. (Wait—don't they work for the United States government? Evidence schmevidence!) So they cook up a plan that involves a fake picture of Jesse playing dead next to bloody brains procured from a butcher, convincing Huell that Walt's fixing to kill him, and another fake picture of Walt's buried monies.

Meanwhile, Walt agrees to COOK THE BLUE SHIT one last time in exchange for the Swastika-necks murdering the fuck out of Jesse (WIN-WIN FOR EVERYONE!), and tries to outmaneuver both Hank and Jesse, who he doesn't realize are working together, by getting Brock's mom to call Jesse, because everyone knows that Jesse the Murderer has a soft spot for kids which is adorable HANK. But Hank intercepts the message, thus preventing Jesse from careening directly into Walt's trap, and Hank says, "Nice try, asshole," which makes me laugh only slightly less than I do when Gomey refers to Jesse as "Timmy Dipshit."

TIMMY DIPSHIT! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Also! There was a very excellent scene of Walt talking to Saul with a Better Call Saul billboard in the background. And Saul told Walt, Jr.: "Don't drink and drive. But if you do, call me!" Saul is the best.

Anyway! Jesse texts the fake pic of Walt's monies to him and tells him to get the fuck to the desert before he burns it all. Walt goes running out of the carwash, where Skylar is worriedly pacing about whether Jesse is DEAD YET GEEZ, and it's interesting to get a glimpse of how Skylar isn't pure evil (like her terrible husband who is the worst), but instead sees Jesse Pinkman, quite rightly, as the guy who tried to burn her house down. It's another brilliant Breaking Bad THING, one of those THINGS at which the writers of Breaking Bad are SO GREAT, that Skylar's hardline on Jesse resides firmly in her fear that he will hurt her children, when her children are the last people that Jesse would ever hurt.

And Walt knows this. But he would never tell her. None of which is explicitly spelled out in the show, but it's just there, waiting for us to think about it and appreciate how brilliant it is.

So Walt drives out to the desert, screaming into the phone at Jesse all the murdery terrible things he's done, and telling Jesse that he did all of them to protect Jesse, a classic abuser move, and all of us scream at the television OH MY FUCKING GAWD HE IS ADMITTING EVERYTHING PLEASE JESUS JONES LET HANK BE RECORDING THIS PHONE CALL!!! or something proximate.

And then Walt gets to the desert, the site of their first ever cook in the RV, scene of the flying pants, and his money is undisturbed, and he realizes the gig is up. OR IS IT? He calls his white supremacist friends and tells them Jesse's coming to kill him and gives them the coordinates of his location, but then tells them NO DON'T COME DON'T COME! when Jesse shows up with Hank and Gomey SHIIIIIIIIT!

IT IS SO TENSE AND DRAMATIC as Walt drops his handgun and gives himself up and is handcuffed by Hank. HAAAAAAAAAAANK!!! Hank reads him his rights, and Walt stares at Jesse, and then snarls at him: "Coward." Jesse spits in his face and IT IS AWESOME. And then Hank puts Walt in the backseat of the SUV and Gomey puts Jesse in Walt's muscle car, and Hank calls Marie and tells her he loves her and FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK VINCE GILLIGAN DEFINITELY WANTS ME TO THINK HANK IS GONNA DIE and no sooner am I building up ten metric fucktons of panic than the Swastika-necks show up and they so don't give a fuck that Walt's in the SUV whooooooooooooops and there is so much shooting and THEN IT ENDS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?! Is Hank dead?! Is Gomez dead?! Gomez is definitely dead, right? Or is Hank dead, and Gomez is alive, and he's going to make Hank a posthumous hero? ARE THEY BOTH DEAD?! They can't both be dead!!! Is Jesse dead?! How is Jesse going to get out of there?! Is he going to be able to sneak out and get Walt's discarded handgun and then take Walt hostage so the Swastika-necks don't kill him?! Is he not getting out of there at all?! We know Walt gets out of there SOMEHOW, but DOES ANYONE GET OUT OF THERE WITH HIM?! AHHHHHHHHHH! THIS SHOW!

I love the pacing of this season. I am also super glad the show is ending, not just because my constitution can't take any more stress but because it's ending when it should—when I am excited for it to end in an amazing race to the finish. Bryan Cranston said the show ending now is like retiring right after winning the Super Bowl, and while American football metaphors are the worst, he is correct.

Discuss.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Daily Dose of Cute

lol this dog.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today!

Serena Williams won the US Open in an epic battle, because she is awesome. It's her 17th (!) Grand Slam title. She is everything and I love her and that is all.

Patrick Stewart got married and the ceremony was officiated by a wizard!

[Content Note: Hostility to agency] The Iowa Board of Health [sic] voted to ban "the nation's largest telemedicine abortion program last Friday, effectively limiting reproductive health access to thousands of rural women. ...Iowa's telemedicine abortion program allows women to consult with doctors through video technology before being prescribed the abortion-inducing pill and has been heralded as a safe and effective form of reproductive health care since its implementation five years ago." So, obviously, let's get rid of it! You know, to PROTECT WOMEN!!!

[CN: Transphobia] A new report details the discrimination faced by trans* workers in the US.

Cory Doctorow proposes a way to foil NSA sabotage, but I'm really recommended this article because I find it interesting that two clever women, Jessamyn West and Nico Sell, pioneered the "watch for the lack of this notice" strategy.

NAACP President and CEO Ben Jealous will step down at the end of the year after five years. Good luck, Mr. Jealous!

Something something Anthony Weiner. That fucking guy.

And finally! Senator Elizabeth Warren continues to be awesome, giving a speech on the opening day of the AFL-CIO convention in which she called the US Supreme Court a garbage nightmare of corporate kissassery. I am paraphrasing. But only slightly.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Rape, the Academy, and "Chants Misogynistic"

[Content note: rape, rape culture, suicide, hazing]

Last Thursday, news broke about a pro-rape chant performed during frosh week at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The chant, which has been in circulation since at least 2009, celebrates the SMU men who "like them young"; in the process of spelling out "young," the chant includes lines like "U is for underage" and "N is for no consent."

There are many problematic issues to address in this story. The fact that many media outlets, including CBC, are referring in their headlines to this as an "underage sex" reference, rather than to rape. (Nope!) The fact that a nearly identical pro-rape chant also surfaced at the University of British Columbia's frosh week, where students were told that the chant was fine, as long as it was kept out of the public eye. (Nope!) The fact that the defenders of these chants still think, in the year 2013, that rape is hilarious. (Nope!)

As an academic, however, what troubles me most is the apparent inability of the chant-defenders to draw the connections between the song they're defending and actual rapes. With the gang rape, and subsequent suicide, of Rehtaeh Parsons. With Steubenville and Richmond. With the appalling facts of university rape, where 1 in 5 women (perhaps as many as 1 in 4) will experience rape or attempted rape during their time as undergraduate students. With surveys that find six percent of college men will openly admit to rape or attempted rape. (Some studies report even more appalling statistics.) In short, I am deeply concerned that academic culture, dedicated to learning and thought, is still addressing rape culture so ineffectively.

In response to the chant, Saint Mary's professor Dr. Peter Twohig addressed the wider social context of this incident on Twitter and in his classroom, on the very first day of class. (Full disclosure: Peter is a friend; I have previously posted links to his humor blog, Weird Shit in Historic Newspapers, in this space.) In a blog post at Atlantic Canada Studies, he described his attempts to help students make those connections, and called the frosh week songs part of the larger "chants misogynistic" our society employs against women and girls:

The chant misogynistic was not the product of a few individual "student leaders" (and I am using the term lightly), although I am personally glad to see them go. There were lots of people participating and I am sure many of them regret this. But in the aftermath of the chant misogynistic, I still heard students defending it as no big deal, funny, or harmless. We could choose to vilify these students. We could say, as some have, that it was simply "stupid students behaving in a stupid fashion." Or we could instead ask why university-calibre students lack the consciousness to think about what they are saying, to understand the power of their words and the harm that they could do.

The chant misogynistic is the product of a culture that routinely objectifies and denigrates women and children, that tolerates violence against women, and is ambivalent about women's equality. Until that changes, the chant misogynistic will go on -- maybe not on a football field in the heart of a university campus -- but it will continue to be whispered.

(The whole thing is worth a read.)

Saint Mary's President Colin Dodds has announced the formation of a a task force on the problem of sexual violence on the SMU campus. I believe he is honest in his efforts, and I sincerely hope the task force is effective. It would be wonderful if St. Mary's led the way in addressing a problem that many other schools have consistently fumbled. It would be nice if St. Mary's could show Princeton how it's done. But based on the rather dismal record of North American universities in aggregate, I cannot be optimistic. And that is a problem.

Because if universities – places where, in theory, thoughtfulness and learning are encouraged — cannot meaningfully challenge the culture of sexual assault, then where else can we expect to address it? If universities continue to treat rape culture and rape as mere PR problems, rather than as violations of their students' basic human rights, then how can we expect rape culture to change in sports, in entertainment, and in the military? If campus rapists are tacitly told during the very first week of school that their attitudes are normal and their crimes "just fun," then what do university authorities expect other than continued rapes and sexual assaults? If first-year women learn in that same week that their right to bodily autonomy may be the price of their degree, then why pretend that women have equal access to higher education?

I expect more.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Welp, I Guess We'd Better Talk About Syria

[Content Note: War; death; rape.]

So, here's a very brief recap of where things stand at the moment: On August 21, chemical weapons were used in an attack on Syrian people in Damascus, following President Barack Obama having drawn a "red line" defining that the use of chemical or biological weapons in the ongoing civil war would necessitate US military intervention. Someone in Syria called his bluff, and the US government and intelligence community believes that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is responsible. Assad denies it. In a familiar refrain, President Obama says he has "high confidence" that Assad's regime was behind the attack, despite having released no hard evidence, and Secretary of State John Kerry says that "declassifying any more information could endanger 'sources and methods' of US intelligence gathering."

Congress is divided over striking Syria in response, and the war-fatigued US public isn't behind it: "The CNN/ORC International poll released Monday shows that even though eight in 10 Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against it. More than seven in 10 say such a strike would not achieve significant goals for the US and a similar amount say it's not in the national interest for the US to get involved in Syria's bloody two-year-long civil war."

Secretary Kerry is now saying Assad "has one week to hand over his entire stock of chemical weapons to avoid a military attack [but] added that he had no expectation that the Syrian leader would comply." Assad, meanwhile, says that if the US does strike Syria, "the United States 'should expect everything' and that it will 'pay the price' for its actions."

So that's where we are. A couple points:

1. We've now added a terrific new nightmare doctrine to the garbage disaster that is our foreign policy: Kill as many people as you like with guns! Kill millions! Just don't use chemical weapons, because that we will not abide! (Something something oil.) To put into perspective the cruel absurdity of this threshold for (ostensibly) humanitarian response, nearly half a million women and girls were raped in DR Congo in the span of one year, and we didn't give an infinitesimal fuck (and still don't, as it continues), but a small-scale chemical attack with no definitive proof of responsibility warrants an immediate military intervention. Whut.

2. I am rageful and sad about the chemical attack in Syria. I'm not sure how to draw the line on interventions, and I'm not sure how to answer tough questions about whether the US can or should be the world police. (Ha ha yes I do we shouldn't.) But I do think whether we can or should is a discussion that needs to happen in balance with a discussion of our own needs as a nation. I don't know if President Obama has noticed, but the US is kinda fucked up at the moment. You know in the airplane safety spiels, they always tell you to put on your own oxygen mask before trying to help anyone else? It's kinda one of those deals. We won't be much use to anyone ever if we carry on like we've got an endless capacity to spend resources until we collapse like a flan in a cupboard.

In conclusion: Fuck.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Open Thread

Hosted by an Ebb Tide Rose.

We're back! Hi, everyone!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

We're Taking a Little Break

So, I need a break. Like, a total break. Not a "we'll still have open threads and they'll still be moderated and I'm still accountable for anything that goes sideways, so I'm never really on vacation" kind of a break, but a real break where I am really detached and really away. Because I am beyond burned out; I am utterly depleted of resources to keep going without some time away.

And the contributors and moderators, who volunteer their time to this community with a fierce and abundant generosity, could use a break, too.

So we are taking the next two weeks off.

I realize that this community is a central part of a lot of people's lives, and that shutting down completely means disconnection from daily support on which a lot of people rely, so I am genuinely sorry that my needing time to engage in some self-care causes a temporary disruption in the community. There is no good way to reconcile that.

All I can say is that getting my head out of this space—and all the attendant personal stuff it requires my navigating behind the scenes—for awhile is a good investment for this community in the long term.

Take care and see you soon.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

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!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

I'll Sit With You

Last night, Dudley crawled up next to my outstretched legs on the sofa, tucking his body behind them, and rested his chin on my ankle with a contented sigh.

When Dudley first came to live with us, in April of 2010, he was so desperately frightened of my touching him that he would roll onto his side and pee on himself if I got near him. I spent long hours lying on the floor beside his crate, where he felt safe, synchronizing my breathing to his, quiet and still. Not looking at him, just being there, to reassure him I would never hurt him.

One day, he tentatively emerged, and he laid down beside me on the floor. I put my hand on his side, across a long scar the origins of which we do not know, and matched him breath for breath. There we laid, until he let me know he needed to go out, and I put on his leash without making him fearful for the first time.

It wasn't until almost two years later that he initiated an intimate snuggle with me, after Zelda gave him an appreciation for seeking out a cuddle with Two-Legs.

Now, just past our three-year anniversary of finding one another, there is no trace of the frightened dog who arrived.

His foster dad, J, who is also president of the rescue, told me just today when I sent him this picture, that Dudley's progress "astounds me. His may be the greatest transformation I have seen."

Not long ago, J asked me if he could give my contact information to a couple who had rescued another "spooky" greyhound, C. C wasn't as shy and scared as Dudley had been, but still having problems, and his guardians were seeking advice. Naturally I said yes. I spoke to one-half of the couple, S, and listened to the issues they were having with C, and I recommended a few things, including the exercise of lying on the floor beside C, matching his breathing, being there. S thanked me and said they'd give it a try.

A few days later, I got an email from S, telling me that they were already seeing improvements. C was starting to trust them. A dog who they'd been told would never take treats from human hands was eating from their hands. A few days later, another email, detailing even more improvements. They started calling C their "miracle dog." I got pictures of C, looking happy and confident in the backyard of his new home. All the blubs.

The things my dog has taught me. He has taught me how to run at someone's side; he has taught me how to be there, still and patient, to make a safe space.

As his whiskers tickled the skin on the top of my foot, I was overwhelmed with gratitude that this gentle creature came into my life. And I resolved to remember, always, that he could only trust me because I made myself trustworthy first.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

And Also

[Content Note: Rape culture; violent misogyny.]

Anna North has a piece in Salon about why journalism's elite corps is still overwhelmingly dominated by men, and her theory (or one theory, among others) is that famous male journalists get that way by stoking controversy, which is much more dangerous for women to do.

But there's another thing you need to do to become the next Andrew Sullivan: stoke controversy. The most successful branded journalists stake out provocative claims frequently and aggressively, without worrying too much about whether they'll eventually be proved wrong. And this is much riskier for women than it is for men.

There's no question that men who take controversial positions in the media come in for loud and vigorous criticism. Women who do so, however, can expect rape threats. They can expect to be told that they are too fat or ugly to have a valid opinion on anything. They can expect the suggestion that instead of speaking, they might prefer to fellate their male readers. If they are nonwhite, they can expect other, racialized forms of abuse.

So while controversy can be a rough-and-tumble game for some male commentators, for women it's a decision to put their mental health — and sometimes their physical safety — on the line. For a female journalist, doing careful, reasoned work that raises interesting questions — and waiting till you have everything ironclad before you publish anything — can be a lot safer than taking strong, brash stands right out of the gate. Women who do this may not be able to avoid harassment entirely, but they're more likely to escape the worst of it.

...It's easy to say that the solution to this is simply for women to step up, to marshal that bravery and charge into the space dominated by men, consequences be damned. I would love to see more women do this. But I also know it is not necessarily a rational choice. Nearly everything in society is set up to reward women who are conciliatory and punish women who are not. Nice women may not get their own editorial operations at ESPN, but they are more likely to get the approval of their peers. Confrontational women get pictures of their beaten-up faces posted on the Internet.

All of that, yes. Although I will note that even women whose only "controversial" position is being a woman are targeted by violent misogynists, too.

Which brings me to the observation that being a female writer who is routinely threatened, and who is routinely told that she is too fat and ugly to have a valid opinion, creates additional concerns for people in editorial positions when they're considering whom to hire.

If I'm known as a writer who comes with the baggage of determined silencers who lob rape threats at me every time I publish something, editors for online spaces will weigh whatever cachet I bring to their publication against whatever fuckery I bring to their comments section.

Any halfway competent editor for any publication which tries to maintain even the most cursory appearance of "civil debate" knows that hiring a "controversial" female writer who's incessantly targeted by violent misogyny will necessitate additional moderating resources. And many of them will end up calculating it's just easier to hire a dude.

I publish a high volume of content every day; I do not hesitate to take "strong, brash stands" on controversial subjects; I am not intimidated by the "rough-and-tumble" of it all; I'm not afraid to put myself out there, and be confrontational, and risk not being seen as "nice." But I can be the kind of writer who gets premiere commentary jobs all day every day for the rest of my life, and it's not going to make a damn bit of difference if there aren't editors who are willing to invest in me because I'm the target of harassment.

The truth is, there are plenty of female writers with the stomach for it. I'm just not sure the same can be said about editorial decision-makers who prefer to crown kings.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!