In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

On Sex & Compromise

I’m a huge advocate for the principle and practice of enthusiastic consent. In fact, it’s one of the main things I talk about whenever I open my mouth. For a whole range of reasons, I firmly believe that some baseline “willingness” is not enough: you should only interact with someone sexually if they’re actively psyched about what’s happening.

Which is why this new post on AlterNet by Greta Christina is giving me pause. She’s writing about libidinally mismatched couples – you know, when you’re in a long-term relationship and either you or your partner wants sex waaaaaaaaayyyyy more than the other partner does. It’s a tough spot when you love someone, as I know from first-hand experience. You don’t want to break up over it, because there’s so much other good stuff happening in the relationship. But it can get pretty awful for both parties. In the relationship I’m thinking of, I felt constantly rejected, like I wasn’t sexually desirable (which played into a lot of body image and performance issues for me), and like my desire was a problem. Like every time I felt sexual want, I felt an immediate internal response: oh, no! Please go away. It’s not the most healthy way to relate to your sexuality, let me tell you.

On the other hand, my partner told me he felt constantly pressured, which made him want sex even less. Which? I totally get. If you don’t feel like you can freely decide, if you feel like someone else’s desire is more important or more overwhelming than your own, it’s not a very sexy feeling, is it?

Needless to say, I felt terrible. Given all my activism for healthy sexuality, the last thing I wanted to do was make my own partner feel pressured and bad. It was a vicious downward spiral.

So, I totally appreciate where Christina is coming from in writing the piece. Couples with this problem are desperate for help. And some of her suggestions are good: Re-defining sex. Re-thinking the circumstances in which you have sex. Considering non-monogamy. Trying couples counseling. These are all great, creative approaches that could, depending on the individuals involved, release some of the pressure that builds up in sexually mismatched pairs and make room for a healthier, happier sex life for everyone involved.

It’s these two that worry me:

1. Scheduling sex. I’ve written about this before. Many, many, many times, in fact. But I’m not sure I’ve ever written about it as a solution to this particular problem. So here goes: Scheduling sex isn’t just a solution for tired or stressed or over-scheduled couples. It can also be a solution for couples with mis-matched libidos. Oftentimes, in mis-matched- libido couples, the partner who wants sex more frequently will feel rejected and unwanted: if you’re the one who always makes the first move, and if you’re getting shot down more often than not, it can be very demoralizing. And the partner who wants sex less frequently can often feel pressured and inadequate. (All of which can lead to some nasty vicious circles/ self-fulfilling prophecies: nothing kills a libido faster than feeling like sex is an obligation.) But if you schedule at least some of your sex life ahead of time, instead of relying on spur- of- the- moment impulses and advances, it can cut through a lot of these unfortunate dynamics. Sex becomes something you’re planning together, something you’re partnering in… rather than something one person is always asking for and the other is either accepting or shooting down. (It also makes some of the other solutions I’m proposing — like compromising, and re-thinking the circumstances under which you have sex — a whole lot more feasible.)

4. Compromising. If you like sex twice a week, and your partner likes twice a month… maybe you can compromise. Have sex every week so. It won’t be perfect for either of you… but being involved with someone who’s unhappy about sex is pretty darned far from perfect, too. Having sex somewhat less often than you’d really like — or somewhat more often — may not be what you’d pick if you could pick your perfect sex life. But presumably, if you love someone, you want them to be happy too, and you want them to have a sex life that’s good for them. Almost as much as you want a sex life that’s good for you. And even from a purely selfish perspective, being involved with a sad, disgruntled, sexually frustrated partner is ten pounds of suck in a five pound bag. So while a compromise, by definition, isn’t going to be perfect, it may well be a whole better than a dissatisfying sex life. For both of you.

Do you see what I see? I just… where is the enthusiasm here? How does it ever help for the partner who wants it less to have it more anyhow? What if you schedule it and one or more person isn’t in the mood when the time comes? How is hitting a quota sexy? And how does this approach not create a situation in which the less-libidinous partner is “doing it” out of obligation, not enthusiasm? Over time, won’t this cause resentment and send both partners dangerous messages about sex: that it’s owed?

Relationships are hard and complex and, being single in my late 30’s, I certainly don’t claim to have mastered them. Maybe I’m missing something here. But I can’t let go of feeling this advice flies in the face of the principle of enthusiastic consent, and therefore can only lead to dangerous sexual dynamics. What do you think?

(cross-posted at Yes Means Yes)

Look! Black People Are Totally Racist Too!

Fox News dropped this bombshell in the early hours of July 20 (or the late night of July 19, as it is for me). Apparently someone was able to dig up a video of a black USDA worker telling an audience of other black people about having to help a white farmer keep his land when so many black people had lost their land, and how she “didn’t give him the full force of what [she] could do”. She states that he was “trying to show [her] he was superior to [her]”. As Fox admits, this is a short clip of a much longer speech that is not available, apparently in which “she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races”. It’s not as if that makes it right for her to abuse her government position like that, however it does put some context behind the story — it’s not like it’s some kind of gathering where a bunch of black people are sharing stories of how they stuck it to the Man.

Of course this is being used as the “SEE! THE NAACP IS FULL OF RACISTS TOO!” card to counter the relatively tame NAACP’s passing of “a resolution to condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party“. Although I thought that racist letter to Abraham Lincoln was what the Tea Party was using to counter that resolution. Of course her not giving her all to help a white farmer keep his land when you’re a government worker charged with doing just that is wrong, not just because she did it because he was white and acting superior, but because that’s supposed to be her JOB. Her motivations are the least of it. This reminds me of the 2008 campaign, when the Republicans busted out Reverend Wright to make Obama look like a racial separatist. You can always find some example of black people saying foolish things if you dig far enough. Unfortunately you don’t have to dig too far to find examples of Tea Party racism.

Maybe I’ve got this all wrong, though. Perhaps by highlighting this incident of individual bias against a white farmer by a black USDA worker, The Tea Partiers may be clumsily trying to start a dialogue about the years of racial discrimination against black farmers by the USDA. I’m sure they really mean to protest the delay in payment of racial bias settlements awarded to black farmers in the Pigford case. Surely that’s what’s behind this, and it’s not just a pathetic attempt at crying “reverse racism” to discredit the NAACP.

It’s going to take more than a video of one black woman telling a story about not giving 110% to help a white farmer to counter the months of viciously racist sentiments expressed by Tea Party leaders and followers. Show me some video of a black person spitting on a white Congressman. Tell me when a group of black protesters start screaming “cracker” at white Representatives. Yes, she didn’t do a great job. But that doesn’t mean the Tea Party doesn’t have a whole lot of racists in its ranks. Spend some time tending your own yard before you try shitting in ours.

A lesson re-learned on gender and space

I’ve recently returned from a holiday in Melbourne (a city in southern Australia). It’s a gorgeous city; you can read about some of what I did and see a few pictures from the trip here. But just now I want to tell you a small story about the flight.

My friend E and I, after an eventful train ride to the airport, finally made it to the departure lounge. We dragged our luggage along, looking for two seats side by side. We found one seat. The seat next to this one was occupied by a single water bottle. The seat next to that one was occupied by a man. We rolled up and paused, waiting for the man to remove his bottle. He did not. Well, okay, a minor rudeness. I said ‘excuse me, can you move your water bottle?’ And he did. E and I sat down and waited for out flight to be called.

There’s an announcement from the airline staff: they’re calling for pre-boarding for disabled and young folk who can’t get on planes so easily. The first two people to march up were two young blokes in business suits. Now, I guess they could both have needed accommodations and I just wasn’t reading them that way, which would be fair enough. It’s really more about what they represented to E and me, the trend rather than the individual. We stayed back and wait for the line to shorten and then we made our way onto the plane.

On the plane, we were seated next to a young man; he was the one with the window seat, lucky creature. I was very excited to see all the clouds outside the plane window, having not done this flying gig since I was a girl! As we were getting ready to leave, he angled his leg so it was obscuring a good part of the window. Through the flight, the man next to us burst into peels of laughter over whatever he was listening to on his earphones.

Towards the end of the flight, I felt a tug at my seatbelt. I turned around and ask the guy behind me to take his foot off the base of my seatbelt, which he did pretty promptly.

Off the plane, we made it to where we were staying and decided to have a look around. We were walking down the street when the man walking in front of us slowed down and I didn’t. We bumped into each other. It was mostly my fault, but he apologised profusely. I made a small acknowledgement and E and I were surprised into silence.

Men take up space, lots of space. They’re taught to spread arms and legs all over the place, make wide gestures, power through crowds. They’re taught to expect everyone to get out of their way and be affronted when that doesn’t happen. I, a woman, have learned to shrink and move aside and squeeze myself to be as small as possible, feel bad for taking up the space I need.

Futher reading: See Jet Silver’s untitled poem on gender and space.

Well, hello there.

Fine readers of Feministe, thanks for having me! I’m Jaclyn (sometimes Jac, never, ever Jackie) and I’m tickled and, well, kinda nervous and excited to be joining the fray here for the next two weeks.

About me: I’m a white Jewish queer able-bodied fat cisgender femme from the real Jersey Shore. I’m founder and executive director of Women, Action & the Media, a charter member of CounterQuo (a coalition dedicated to changing the ways we respond to sexual violence), and an editor of Yes Means Yes, a fine volume which includes essays from Jill & Cara as well as tons of other smartypants-type folks. I’ll mostly be mouthing off about sexuality, sexual violence, body image and media, because those are the things I perseverate on all day anyhow, but who knows what else I might stick my nose into. If you want to, you can get a sense of my writing here and here (forgive the cheesy, sorta broken-down website, it’s being totally redesigned as we speak), and follow my erratic (and only occasionally erotic) tweeting here.

On the housekeeping front, I’m not going to tolerate personal attacks, hate speech, unfounded assumptions, opinion presented as fact, or derailments in the comments, but as long as you stick to the subject at hand, back up your assertions, and challenge each others’ ideas, not identities, we’ll probably be good. I reserve the right to amend that as we go, I haven’t moderated comments this active very often. I’ll also be cross-posting many of my posts to the Yes Means Yes Blog, so please do check out the conversations over there, too. I’ll ‘fess up front that I’m a little unsure about when trigger warnings are useful, so I’m going to work hard on getting them right but if you see something that needs one that I missed, or you think I’m erring too far in the other direction, I welcome that feedback.

Lessseee… what else? OK: if you want me to write about anything in particular, let me know – I can’t make promises, but I’m definitely open to requests. There’s hardly anything you can ask me that’s too personal if it’s asked respectfully – talking about some of the most personal parts of my life is part of my activism, in that I try to model the rejection of shame, blame and fear that I preach. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and alla that. A side effect of that is that I can get a little sentimental at times, so consider yourself warned. To wit: flash mobs make me cry.

Alright, enough of this. I’ll be back in the next day or two with a real post, in the meantime, please do check out my piece at TheNation.com today on the media’s dangerous and irresponsible mishandling of the Gore sexual assault allegations. (Mild trigger warning if you haven’t read her account of what happened before.)

Thanks again for having me – can’t wait to get started.

When You Have To Say It: Tea Party Racism (Again) and You?

Why I continue to follow links relating to the Tea Party and whatever problematic tripe they’re spewing on that particular day, I don’t know. I only have a certain amount of anxiety medication allotted each month and I can’t afford to waste it. When I saw that the NAACP called the Tea Party a bunch of racists — oh wait, excuse me, when their delegates “passed a resolution to condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party, calling on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches“, my first thought was “here we go”. Because whenever a person of color — usually a black person, let’s get real — brings up race and the Tea Party, Tea Party members go straight to their first line of defense: deny vehemently that they’re racist, and then call the black person reverse racist and ungrateful. Oh, and “WHY DON’T YOU LOVE ABRAHAM LINCOLN? He freed the slaves, you know. Or did you like being slaves? I guess you did, because you don’t love freedom like we do.”

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could probably see this coming ten miles away so they disassociated themselves real quick, as did Benjamin Jealous (really bad name to have in this case, dude, sorry), president of the NAACP. But it was too late. Something awful had to spew forth from a Tea Partier’s fingers onto their keyboard; that’s just how it works. This time, it took the form of a letter written by Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams, and it of course involves Abraham Lincoln. I’ll let you read it here, in its entirety:

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person”

So the “National Tea Party Federation“, a group that apparently represents the Tea Partiers, (but I thought this group did that? And this one?) responded to Williams’ letter by kicking his Tea Party Express group out of their sandbox. What impact this has on Williams, I don’t know, since the Tea Party doesn’t appear to be centralized. As far as I know, he can go on writing hateful, racist letters in the voice of a plantation slave under the Tea Party banner until the end of time. That’s the beauty of decentralization, right? States’ rights and all.

How does this screw-up by their self-appointed leaders help the “Yep, I’m a Racist” ground troops who are trying so hard to convince us they’re not racist that they willingly call themselves racist? Well, if anyone believed them in the first place it’d make them look pretty bad. But no one does believe them, because they’re so obviously lying to themselves and to the public, and they probably don’t even think about it. Because as I’ve always said, when a white person has to tell you they’re not racist, they’re probably really fucking racist.

And finally, to bring it home, what can white feminists learn from this? If a white feminist has to tell me they’re my ally, they’re probably not really my ally. In fact they probably just did me some harm. Not to harsh your mellow after chewing on that meaty bit of obvious racism, just to bring you back to earth. Because you’re always walking that fine line when you have white privilege. You have to work to be anti-racist. It’s not always as easy to point out the racism in things. Sometimes you have to look hard, and sometimes you have to look inward.

But I’m sure I didn’t need to remind you lovely folks of that.

The Master’s Publishing House

[UPDATE: I will not be submitting the anthology to Seal Press, so the question asked in this post has been answered. Read the comments for more details.]

In working on the anthology I’m editing/contributing to, Occupied Bodies: Women of Color Speak on Self-Image, an issue has come up over whether or not I should include a particular independent publisher who has had serious problems with issues involving POC on my list of publishers to solicit for publication. I had heard about certain issues with this publisher before, but I decided to go ahead and submit to them, because I was interested in how they’d respond since they’d expressed negativity towards the marketability of WOC anthologies before.

Recently, I expressed my intention to include this particular publisher on the list to a potential writer, who was wary of the idea. I wondered why, although I did already know about the negativity expressed, I figured there must be something else because she was very put off. So I did some research and found that there had been a particularly offensive incident involving a popular white feminist blogger’s book that was published by them and racist imagery that had been used in the book (without the author’s instruction). In addition, this blog was involved. I wasn’t really surprised, because I’m never surprised anymore when white feminists and white feminist groups who claim to be allies “go rogue” and do something that harms women of color. In any case, I decided that I wouldn’t submit to them if it was going to scare off writers.

Since I made that statement, I’ve been mulling it around in my head, and talking to other WOC bloggers, and now I’m really not sure what to do. I don’t want to reopen old wounds, but am I limiting the ability of this work — which I consider important, because women of color’s voices need to be heard on this topic — to get to publication by limiting who I send it to? Does it matter in the end who publishes it as long as our voices get out there? Should I take the moral high ground and risk losing our chance to disseminate the work into the mainstream? When do you forgive and forget?

I feel like, in these spaces that are dominated by white feminists, we as women of color are expected to overlook a LOT. We’re given apologies that are half-assed and we’re supposed to accept them. We get slighted on a regular basis and we’re supposed to give that a pass because it wasn’t intentional. A large feminist blog with say, 12 white contributors adds one of color and we’re supposed to hail “representation”. When do we stop overlooking things? And when do we continue overlooking because it’s necessary for OUR success?

It’s important to me to get this anthology to print, but I don’t want to support racism that happens again and again. Should I take that high ground when it hurts me more than it hurts them? In taking that high ground, am I really doing them a disservice at all or am I making it easier on them? I’m full of questions and short on answers.

What do you think?

What I Wish Rachel Maddow Would Say to David Vitter

***TRIGGER WARNING: Descriptions of homophobic and transphobic violence***

It’s come to light that noted misogynist David Vitter, the Senator who protected his women’s rights staffer after he slashed his girlfriend with a knife and threatened to kill her and who doesn’t think abortion is a “women’s issue,” is also a raging homophobe. I know, I was shocked too – I’ll give you a minute to pick your jaw up off the floor.

This episode of “Saw That Coming From 100 Miles Away” involves Vitter’s comments on a right-wing radio show this morning about MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and her high school yearbook photo, which has been making the rounds on the internet. Vitter commented the photo “must have been a long time ago” because Maddow was then “looking like a woman.”

All the mainstream media I’ve seen on the incident shies away from using the “H-word” (HOMOPHOBIA), instead taking the cowardly route of assuming their readers will know why this is wrong and worthy of comment. This is shameful.

I’d bet the first journalist in the MSM to take this on will be Rachel Maddow herself, who has a history of taking on ridiculous criticism with humor and grace and at the same time, packing a powerful political punch. I’m a huge fan of Rachel Maddow and have devoted hours of my life wishing I could write for her show. If I did, here’s what she would say to Senator Vitter:

“It’s come to my attention that Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, made a funny on the radio by suggesting that my high school yearbook photo must have been taken a long time ago because in it, I look like a woman. I can only assume he’s referring to my short haircut and business suits, which don’t fit into his personal idea of what a woman should look like. Senator Vitter, I’m not one to make this accusation lightly but your comment on the radio was an attempt to get a cheap laugh on the fact that I am a lesbian. It was a political play to your constituents, who you evidently believe vote based on hate and bigotry. This, I think, is incredibly disrespectful to the good folks of Louisiana.

I think I’ve proved on this show that I have a sense of humor but this time I’m not laughing. For many people in this country and around the world, failing to fit into a random individual’s profile of what a man or woman should look like is no joke. For many, it is the difference between getting a job or not, the difference between getting into and remaining at their educational institution of choice or not, the difference between being able to safely use a public bathroom or not. For many, not fitting neatly into a gender category is a matter of life and death.

Senator Vitter, I’d like to tell you a story about a young woman named Sakia Gunn. Like me, Sakia Gunn had short hair and dressed in a more masculine way than, inferring from your comment, you’d think is appropriate for a woman. In 2005, fifteen year-old Sakia and her friends were waiting for a bus in Newark, New Jersey when they were approached by a group of men who made sexual advances toward them. When the women refused, stating they were lesbians, the men pulled out knives and started yelling homophobic slurs. Sakia was stabbed in the chest and she bled to death, in the arms of her best friend, in the middle of the street.

Let me tell you another story, Senator, about an eighteen year-old transgender woman named Angie Zapata. Again inferring from your comment, Angie Zapata, with her long hair and form-fitting clothes, fit the bill in terms of what you think a woman should look like. At her murder trial, Allen Ray Andrade’s lawyers claimed that since Angie looked like a woman their client just couldn’t help beating her to death with a fire extinguisher when it was revealed she was born biologically male. Angie Zapata wasn’t brutally killed because she looked like a woman; she was a woman. No, she was savagely beaten to death because of the type of hate you’re peddling, the kind that says a person’s gender expression, how they choose to dress and present themselves, and by extension, a person’s gender identity, how they choose to identify regardless of their gender at birth, are reasons to see someone as less deserving of respect, as less than human.

Senator Vitter, I’m not addressing you personally tonight because I was offended by your joke. I’m addressing you because your type of hate impacts the lives of thousands of Americans who do not, without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity, fit into capricious standards of what it means to look “male” or “female.” It’s time to toss these standards out the window because they are meaningless, destructive and sometimes, deadly. Moreover, it’s time to legislate against the hate bred by these standards by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, known as ENDA and currently proposed in the Senate, that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which includes appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.

I received your apology this afternoon, Senator, and your explanation that you were simply joining in on a joke made by the radio hosts. I accept your apology, sir, but not your excuse: you are a United States Senator and as such you have a responsibility to stand up and correct anyone making bigoted slurs against American citizens. It’s to the American public, not me, sir, that you still owe an apology – and actions that make good on it.”

**This post was edited by the author on July 17th to add a trigger warning for depictions of homophobic and transphobic violence.

So moustachioed dads are funny and all, but…

I just can’t really bring myself to find this whole thing very entertaining. An eleven-year-old girl is being harassed on the internet; strangers are calling her a whore and threatening her with rape and assault and all kinds of disgusting things that no eleven-year-old should have to hear about; and her home address, telephone number, real name and other contact information are being given out so that online harassers can “go get her.” But yeah, her dad got mad and he has a funny moustache and an accent that is associated with being low-class, and in his anger he says a few things about the internet that all of us young hip kids know are ridiculous. Because, you know, he was yelling at the people who are threatening to rape his daughter and who have his home address. Who are talking about showing up at his house. Who have sent pizzas and made phone calls and are talking about posting the info on Craig’s List, or at least sending Craig’s List sex workers. While his daughter has a sobbing break-down next to him.

HILARIOUS. NEW MEME. MOUSTACHE!

Seriously, internet, an eleven-year-old girl?