Bruce Everett: “the faux-masculine shibboleths that I’m expected to observe”

I didn’t get it, and I haven’t got it for most of the time. I’m only just getting it – the faux-masculine shibboleths that I’m expected to observe, in order to be ‘one of the guys’.

Especially the degradation of women as rite of passage.

Don’t get me wrong…

I’m nobody’s knight in shining armour (I think this will be the last time I repeat this for some time), and I don’t believe in chivalry towards women – chivalry, as opposed to decency, assumes that women are frail objects to be protected like delicate porcelain in a world they’re not equipped to deal with. Women are no such thing.

I’ve got an interest in this. If pseudo, and actual misogyny, are used as defining criteria for what it is to be masculine, then I consider that an imposture. I don’t want that group identity lumbered on me, and moreover, I’m willing, if imposed upon, to fight for my stake in masculine culture to the exclusion of other men.

Gentlemen, if you’re going to make an asshole out of yourself in the first instance, I’m not going to take much notice when you make squeals of indignation, when you get a little comeuppance. That is unless, I find it justifiable, useful, and entertaining, to laugh at you.

Seriously though, some men really shit me. The things that some of you expect me to take on board as normal, or healthy, or unappealing-but-otherwise-not-rebarbative.

And so Bruce begins.

I’ve wondered about this. I’ve seen the way seemingly “nice” guys act when they’re around each other. They don’t act like that when it’s one on one with me, but get them in a group and all bets seem to be off. When questioned later about it, they deny feeling that way, and yet, in those instances when I’ve been present,  I’ve never heard any of them call the others out for sexist language and outright misogyny. And I’ve wondered, doesn’t it bother them? If they say they’re not like that, how can they let that stuff slide?

And I wonder about the guys who don’t feel this way and what going along to get along does to them deep inside.

Bruce gives me a bit of a window. Better, he tells me what he’s going to do about it.

Go. Read. 

“Allowable exceptions” or “Why I will continue to speak out against misogyny directed at Palin or Bachmann even though I despise their politics.”

Liss. Again. 

The sexual objectification of a woman in order to demean her is indefensibly misogynist, and it doesn’t matter whether that women is likable, or kind, or herself willing to engage in sexism. If one is to be a feminist, or an ally to feminists, and if one is interested in human rights and social justice, then sexist and dehumanizing rhetoric and imagery is off the table.

[ . . . ]

As long as there are “allowable exceptions” against whom misogyny and dehumanization can be wielded, any women knows, from a lifetime of experience, that the target can easily end up on her own back, if one day her alliance to the in-group who defines the boundaries of acceptable misogyny is suddenly deemed insufficient.

Rick Santorum supports the double victimization of raped women

What Liss said.

Let me be blunt: Rick Santorum is suggesting that after a man violates my body without my consent, sticks his penis in my vagina without my consent, ejaculates into my body without my consent, impregnates me without my consent, that he, Rick Santorum, should then have the right to force me to submit my body for nine months to a pregnancy I do not want, force me to submit my body to all that pregnancy can entail, from morning sickness to milk-engorged breasts to stretch marks to potentially life-threatening complications, and then force me to push out a baby I did not consent to conceive through the same vagina that was raped nine months earlier, and then decide whether to parent my rapist’s child or give up my child for adoption.

I had hoped it wasn’t him

PZ Myers just moved up quite a few more notches in my book. Richard Dawkins? While I can respect his body of work, I’ll never look at him the same again. How very, very disappointing.

PZ:

I’m taking one last stab at explaining this. Imagine that Richard Dawkins meets a particularly persistent fan who insists on standing uncomfortably close to him, and Richard asks him to stand back a little bit; when he continues, he says to the rest of the crowd that that is rather rude behavior, and could everyone give him a little breathing space? Which then leads to many members of the crowd loudly defending the rudeness by declaring that since the guy wasn’t assaulting him, he should be allowed to keep doing that, and hey, how dare Richard Dawkins accuse everyone present of trying to mug him!

That’s exactly analogous to Rebecca Watson’s situation. She did not make these hysterical accusations everyone is claiming, she did not compare herself to the oppressed women of the third world, she did not demonize the clumsy sap in the elevator — she asked for some simple common courtesy, and for that she gets pilloried.

Sorry, people, but that sends a very clear signal to women that calm requests for respect will be met with jeers by a significant subset of the atheist community, and that’s not right.

Second Take

In case any of my readers are interested in One More Post in the blogosphere about this topic . . .

I know that there are many, many more things that we need to be focusing on, but no, this incident isn’t “just a distraction.”  The shitty thing about the whole mess is that, with few exceptions, the conversation that’s going on about this is completely missing the point.

It’s been a couple of weeks since the story broke. As I wrote earlier, I was willing to give Anthony Weiner more than the benefit of the doubt, especially when considering that the source of the story was none other than Andrew Breitbart. So when Weiner came clean and admitted to not merely sending the original photo that started it all, but to having engaged in this kind of behavior for years, I was taken aback by his bald-faced lies about hacking and his efforts to ‘get to the bottom of it’ and all that nonsense.  The non-denial denials and hemming and hawing left me, one who had held him in high esteem, totally disgusted at his stupidity and arrogance.

Then more information came out. The transcripts of some of his interactions were stunning and made me think, “Wow, just another frat boy. And, man, has he got some issues with women.” Once again, I thought, we progressive women have been had.  I still bounce between “Gawd, what a stupid, arrogant fool!” and “Gawd, what a sexist jerk!”

Most appalling to me has been the reaction from many on the so-called left, women included, that in essence amounts to “boys will be boys” or “hey, that’s between him and his wife” or “what about the Republicans? They’re worse! Look how hypocritical they are!”  I even heard stuff like “Well, we don’t know what’s going on at home, so, let’s not judge” as though somehow this might (or must) be his wife’s fault because, you know, if she’d been putting out as much as he wanted, he wouldn’t need to do this. And finally, “Anthony Weiner is such a great progressive, he should be excused!” 

I think this last excuse galls me the most.   

Finally, I was just squicked out by it all. After all, he used his public Twitter and Facebook accounts to do all this. These accounts were part of his Congressional public face, and he used them for his own masturbatory pleasure? Really?  Yes, really.

Sherry Wolf has put into words what I’ve been feeling, but not quite able to express. 

 A Radical’s View of the Weiner Scandal (SherryTalksBack)

Weiner is a posterguy for misogyny in its postmodern form. What else can we call a man incapable of sustaining a serious political interaction with a woman without steering the relationship toward the sexual?

[ . . . ]

Setting aside the lingo used to describe the waitress and her gait (“provocative,” “flounced”), it’s notable that a U.S. Congressman thought it perfectly appropriate to behave like a sexist jerk in front of a reporter from the paper of record. To Weiner, his visual drooling was just normal, healthy male behavior. And that’s exactly my point.

When men act like this toward women, it’s not flattering, it’s demeaning. Accounts of how he met the recipients of his lascivious tweets are telling. The women made political comments on his Facebook wall, often about health care policy or the dangers of the far right. After initially engaging them in political chatter, he’d degenerate suddenly, and from all accounts without solicitation, into sexual come-ons.

Sherry inserts a personal story (please click through to read) and then concludes

I’m no wilting flower, nor was I back then. In fact, to most people I appear to have a surplus of confidence, and maybe it’s enduring crap like that that makes a gal a bit of a badass. But dozens of small and not-so-small encounters like that one leave women questioning whether certain men actually respect what they say and think or if they’re just humoring us like that old professor.

I can imagine that some young women entering politics through a Congressman’s Facebook wall only to encounter sexting and lewd pictures in response will enter the ranks of women who continue to ask, does what I say have value, or is this guy just interested in my tits?

What Weiner did was help stoke anxiety and insecurity in a bunch of women who respected him for his ideas and got none of that in return. I can only hope that he inadvertently created a few badasses along the way, too.

This. Ever so much. This.

I hope Weiner’s therapy helps him figure out not only why he would engage in the kind of behavior that would put both his marriage and his career at risk, but more imporantly, why he appears to have little to no respect for half the human race. Maybe he’ll come out on the other side a better person. We’ll see. His actions will have to inform us though. After all, we now know what a cool liar he is.

Honestly, this shit doesn’t surprise me any more

It horrifies me, but it doesn’t surprise me. And how is this crap any different from those in other countries who stone rape victims? 

Nope, not surprised at all. Victim blaming. Nothing new. Covering up for sports “heroes.” Also nothing new.

Beyond jaw-dropping.

What. The. Fuck. Why does it matter AT ALL that they might have thought this child to be “older” than she actually was? What the hell difference does THAT make? 18 plus adult men raped one lone female. Held her hostage. Filmed it and passed it around.  That she is eleven is horrific, but would it have been any better if she’d been 18 or 28? 

And the townspeople have the nerve to ask: Where was HER mother? To blame the child because she dressed “older” than her age? Are you fucking kidding me?

Where the hell were these “boys” mothers?

I am shaking.

But the fact that they held off on making arrests until after the the sports tournament so as not to jeopardize a possible prize for the school’s trophy case doesn’t actually surprise me.   Who can forget this?

In 1991, Wanda Holloway asked her ex-brother-in-law to hire a hitman to kill the mother of a girl who was competing with her daughter for a spot on their junior high school’s cheerleading squad. Holloway wanted the mother killed because she determined that the competing girl would be so devastated by her mother’s death that she would drop out of the competition, thereby giving Holloway’s daughter the coveted spot on the cheerleading squad. Both girls were thirteen at the time.

In Texas, high school sports (especially football) and everything that goes with it are the de facto state  religion. Don’t let the fact that there are churches on every corner fool you.

Cultural change at the barrel of a gun?

Peter Daou’s heart is in the right place when he tweets:

Negative reaction from (male) liberal peers when I suggest oppression, rape & slaughter of women/girls might justify military intervention

And:

Keep getting asked if we should also consider intervention to save raped and ravaged women/girls in Congo and elsewhere. Answer: of course.

I understand where Daou is coming from. He is arguably the the most committed male champion of women’s rights I’ve seen in my lifetime. Unfortunately, military intervention solely on the behalf of women is just not what happens. Ever.

I’m torn over the current Time cover. On the one hand, I know that this issue must be made real to the rest of the world and images like this one assist in that goal. On the other hand, the use of the image to imply that ending our military operations in Afganistan will lead to more Aisha’s is beyond the pale. We must stay in Afghanistan, we are told, or terrible things will happen to women!

When I look at the cover, I see what has been done so many times: women being used as pawns, as currency, as bargaining chips. Their bodies are being used to manipulate our emotions and to fan the flames of war.

But there is an elision here between these women’s oppression and what the U.S. military presence can and should do about it, which in turn simplifies the complexities of the debate and turns it into, “Well, do you want to help Aisha or not?”

How is this any better than using the fear of another 9/11 (or worse!) to both dampen dissent on one side and to gain public support for the case for invading Iraq on the other? This woman’s image is being used as cover for our continued military presence in Afghanistan, pure and simple.

Abuse of women, physical and psychological is a global fact. I don’t write this saying I have a solution since atrocities against Afghani women are deplorable and it has yet to be seen if we can support the women of Afghanistan the way we would want to or would be the most effective. But I do take issue with the consistent practice in Western media to use women’s bodies to prove a point, because it creates a fantasy about what our motives are, obscuring the politics that are at play.

We must stay to protect the women, we are told. Really? Our military is already there and their presence did nothing to save Aisha.

The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband’s house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn’t run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha’s brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.

This didn’t happen 10 years ago, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It happened last year.

Short of giving every woman and girl a military escort, and one that be with her 24/7, how do we protect all the Afghani from the culture they swim in? The culture that sees women as not human, as property, as deserving of having their ears and noses slashed off for disobeying their husband? Does anyone see this culture changing at the barrel of a gun, or the bomb from a drone?

A gun is useful to stop a thief or murderer. I’ve never seen a bullet cause a genuine change of heart. Would that they could. I’d take up arms to make it happen.

I don’t have an answer. Just saying my piece.

RQ: “Be the random guy”

The Red Queen speaks (and I concur):

I don’t have to imagine too hard how relieved a non het person might be sitting in that office and hearing someone who is not them calling out a douchebag on their douchebaggery. I think if some random dude ever told a street harraser that it’s not my job to smile on command for them, or said ‘hey chill with the fucking not funny sexist posts on facebook’ or maybe even just ‘ugh not another crappy apatow flickwhere all the men are loveable assholes and all the women are shrews’ i’d bake him a fucking cake. Seriously. It’s never happened. Not once. Actually, that’s not true. Deeks done it once or twice. But never a random guy.

Be the random guy (or white person or hetero person,etc.) Show a little courage, suffer a little bit of anger, and be a real ally.