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

Month: June 2011

Online Dating: The Most Depressing, or Only As Depressing As Regular Dating?

This article about online dating is really depressing! See, for example:

Some research has suggested that it is men, more than women, who yearn for marriage, but this may be merely a case of stated preference. Men want someone who will take care of them, make them look good, and have sex with them—not necessarily in that order. It may be that this is all that women really want, too, but they are better at disguising or obscuring it. They deal in calculus, while men, for the most part, traffic in simple sums.

A common observation, about both the Internet dating world and the world at large, is that there is an apparent surplus of available women, especially in their thirties and beyond, and a shortage of recommendable men. The explanation for this asymmetry, which isn’t exactly news, is that men can and usually do pursue younger women, and that often the men who are single are exactly the ones who prefer them. For women surveying a landscape of banished husbands or perpetual boys, the biological rationale offers little solace. Neither does the Internet.

Everyone these days seems to have an online-dating story or a friend with online-dating stories. Pervasiveness has helped to chip away at the stigma; people no longer think of online dating as a last resort for desperadoes and creeps. The success story is a standard of the genre. But anyone who has spent a lot of time dating online, and not just dabbling, has his or her share of horror stories, too.

I entered the world of online dating a little over a year ago, spent some time on one of the more popular websites (OK Cupid, duh), eventually got bored and haven’t bothered checking my messages in about three months. Maybe I’m an outlier here, but it was generally fine. I got a lot of stupid, sleazy and/or borderline-illiterate messages which I deleted after circulating to friends for laughs, but the handful of dudes I actually met in real life (which to be fair was a grand total of like 5 dudes, so small sample size) were all totally nice and normal and I’ve remained friendly with a few, even if I didn’t end up wanting to boyfriend any of them. The non-internet dates I’ve gone on have been far worse — like the guy who got jealous and yelled at me because I responded to a question from a homeless man (“I don’t want to interrupt the little talk between you and your boyfriend here”), or the guy who told me he identified as bisexual and really only enjoyed sleeping with men but he wanted to marry a woman so he could have a house in the suburbs and two kids and a golden retriever (and he wanted it soon), or the guy who regaled me with stories about his bitch of an ex-wife and the time he pooped his pants on the Jenny Jones Show. On the other side of things, they’ve also been far better, given that so far all of my serious relationships have come out of “real life” connections.

What’s particularly nice about online dating, though, is the ability to auto-eliminate the people who you definitely are not going to get along with. He lists The Da Vinci Code as his favorite book? Rejected. Are those wrap-around Oakleys? Rejected. Really, Creed? Rejected. Shirtless photo? Rejected. “I like to have fun and hang out with my friends.” Original! Rejected. Did he really not spell-check this thing? Rejected. Etc etc.

Online dating makes it easier to be a judgmental bitch, I guess is what I’m saying. And in matters of the heart, I think being a judgmental bitch is a pretty good idea. That doesn’t mean rejecting people for any perceived flaw — the thing about people is that everyone is terribly flawed, and the trick is finding someone whose flaws are tolerable and maybe even kind of endearing, or at least not entirely soul-crushing — but it does mean knowing what you can’t deal with, and not involving yourself with someone out of a sense of obligation or desperation or “I’m a nice person”-ness. Straight women especially are often told that we’re too picky, and if we ever want to get married we should accept the overtures of any Good Men who cross out paths. That is ridiculous. Be picky and end up with someone you actually like.

Anyway, back to the article. The basic point is “Internet Dating: Kind of Depressing.” Which is also the case with Real Dating, I think? I have no idea, the last date I went on was yesterday, and it was with my roommate, and I made her steak while she drank wine and played with our cat. That was pretty great. I didn’t meet her on the internet.

Men’s rights advocates promote terrorism

The right-wing blogosphere is rallying around Thomas Ball, a man who committed suicide outside of a courthouse apparently in protest of being forced to pay $3,000 in child support. Amanda notes that abusers routinely use threats of suicide to control their victims, and that given Ball’s suggestion that men team up to hurl Molotov cocktails at police stations and prosecutors’ offices, he’s maybe not the best dude to step out and support. Nevertheless, conservative bloggers are comparing Amanda to the whore of Babylon (seriously, they actually say that, and it is kind of awesome) and praising Ball as a “warrior” who just got fed up.

So how was Ball unfairly maligned by the system? Allow him to tell you in his own words.

My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. While putting my four year old daughter to bed, she began licking my hand. After giving her three verbal warnings I slapped her. She got a cut lip. My wife asked me to leave to calm things down.

Who hasn’t slapped a four-year-old across the face hard enough to cut her lip open because she licked your hand? I also like the phrasing here — “she got a cut lip.” She didn’t get a cut, you hit her hard enough to drive her teeth through her lip. Totally upstanding guy. Definitely a good dad. Nothing here to indicate that he’s at all abusive.

When then a man is arrested for domestic violence, one of two things can happen. If they are only dating and have separate apartments, then he can head home. But if they are living together, then this fellow has a real problem. Bail conditions and then a possible protective or restraining order prevent him from being with her. So he needs to find a new place to live, at least until the charges are resolved. The King of his Castle is no longer allowed into his castle.

So unfair that a man who beats his wife shouldn’t be allowed to return to “his” home immediately.

He continues to detail the indignity of getting divorced and being told to pay child support, and is particularly upset at the fact that he was sent to mandatory counseling before he could get custody of his kids. He refused to go on the grounds that he isn’t actually unstable (obviously people who set themselves on fire after writing 10,000-word letters to the local paper promoting terrorism are totally level and should be permitted to care for small children). He argues that divorce apparently equals homelessness, and that 25% of the adult U.S. population is homeless (or maybe 72 million people, it’s unclear). He warns that it’ll be 50% soon. And he compares men who are arrested for domestic violence to Jews in Germany during the Holocaust. And then he suggests a plan:

So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. The Second Set of Books originated in Washington. But the dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges. These are the people we pay good money to protect us and our families. And what do we get for our tax money? Collaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War. All because they go along to get along. They are an embarrassment, the whole lot of them. And they need to be held accountable. So burn them out.

He explains that most police stations in New England have wooden roofs which can be set ablaze, and explains how to construct a Molotov cocktail. He continues:

There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.

Now, nobody wants to get killed. But let us look at your life. You are broke after paying child support. She and the kids are not doing any better. None of you are middle class any more. You have no say in the kids education, their health treatment, you may not even have visitation with your sons and daughters. And everything you thought you knew to be true-the rule of law, the sanctity of the of the family, the belief that government was there to nurture your brood-all turned out to be a lie. Face it boys, we are no longer fathers. We are just piggy banks.

So you are not losing anything by picking up the Molotov cocktail.

And then he encourages men to abuse:

When a man batters or kills, there is no excuse. When a woman commits the same act, there is nothing but excuses. Simple though inaccurate. But there is one redeeming aspect to men being demonized. Now we men can act like devils. And we do not even need to apologize for it. Men are going to start acting just like they made us out to be. As an old high school semi-punk I can assure you boys of one thing. This is going to be fun. You guys are going to end up laughing like hyenas.

There’s really no question that he’s advocating terrorism here — he says, about lawmakers, “If they think Al Qaeda is a pain in the ass, wait to they see what Americans can do once their fuse is lit.”

Don’t get me wrong, it’s very sad that this man committed suicide. But rallying behind him, and casting him as someone who was legitimately “frustrated” with the system when in fact his own letter indicates that he was a violent, disturbed individual who promotes terrorism as a solution to his personal grievances? Does not do much for your cause.

Banning abortion after 20 weeks

An excellent article in the Times about the push to ban abortion after 20 weeks, and how bans are based on mostly made-up “facts” about fetal pain but pro-choice groups can’t fight them because the current Supreme Court is fairly hostile to abortion rights. As a result, women aren’t able to get abortions when they need them:

Last fall, Danielle and Robb Deaver of Grand Island, Neb., found that their state’s new law intruded in a wrenching personal decision. Ms. Deaver, 35, a registered nurse, was pregnant with a daughter in a wanted pregnancy, she said. She and her husband were devastated when her water broke at 22 weeks and her amniotic fluid did not rebuild.

Her doctors said that the lung and limb development of the fetus had stopped, that it had a remote chance of being born alive or able to breathe, and that she faced a chance of serious infection.

In what might have been a routine if painful choice in the past, Ms. Deaver and her husband decided to seek induced labor rather than wait for the fetus to die or emerge. But inducing labor, if it is not to save the life of the fetus, is legally defined as abortion, and doctors and hospital lawyers concluded that the procedure would be illegal under Nebraska’s new law.

After 10 days of frustration and anguish, Ms. Deaver went into labor naturally; the baby died within 15 minutes and Ms. Deaver had to be treated with intravenous antibiotics for an infection that developed.

Very few abortions occur after 20 weeks — only 1.5% of all abortions performed in the United States. Most of them are for medical emergencies. But the drafters of the anti-abortion bills are careful to outlaw any abortions other than those to avert death or “serious physical impairment of a major bodily function” of the pregnant woman. Physical impairments that are not “serious” enough, or that don’t impair a major bodily function? Not good enough. Infections that can damage your fertility or your kidneys apparently may not qualify as “serious physical impairments.” The psychological anguish of being forced to carry a pregnancy where the fetus has no hope for survival and the lasting trauma of being legally compelled to give birth to a dead or dying baby definitely doesn’t qualify.

These regulations aren’t saving fetal lives. But they certainly are injuring women.

Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

Post a short description of something you’ve written this week, along with a link. Make it specific – don’t just link your whole blog.

Americans prefer boys to girls

For the past 70 years, Americans have indicated a preference for boy babies over girl babies.

A recent Gallup poll asked Americans which sex they would prefer if they could have only one child. About 40 percent said they would prefer a boy and 28 percent would prefer a girl, with the rest saying they had no preference or opinion on the question.

Gallup has asked some version of this question 10 times since 1941, and the results always indicated a preference for boys.

Men prefer boys more strongly than women do. Conservatives and Republicans are also more likely to say they want boys than Democrats and liberals.

Banning Circumcision in San Francisco

There’s a proposed measure in San Francisco, California to ban the circumcising of boys under the age of 18. Various Jewish and Muslim groups and individuals have filed suit, asking the judge to remove the initiative from the November ballot. Supporters of the ban argue that circumcision is genital mutilation that shouldn’t be imposed on a minor child without consent; opponents argue that, first, only the state can make laws restricting medical procedures and, second, circumcision bans are unconstitutional and violate religious liberties.

They might be right about the state law issue, but I’m not so sure they have a great constitutional argument here. Eugene Volokh gets into it.

Where are the lady rappers?

Nicki Minaj
This piece is so good.

Mini-controversies go down practically every minute on the rap internet, beef and battles inherent to the genre, so this one blew over within a matter of weeks. But it illustrated a deeper problem within the music industry. BET felt like it had to stretch for nominees because there is a constant dearth of space for female rappers. Since the heyday of strong, powerful, positive and feminist MCs piqued in the late ‘80s/early ‘90s — with Queen Latifah, Salt n Pepa, MC Lyte and YoYo at the helm — at any given time there have only been three or so female rappers topping the industry.

Missy Elliott and Lauryn Hill remain the gold standards, and Lil Kim, Foxy Brown and Eve had their day. But before Nicki Minaj stomped and snarled her way into mass consciousness, arguably the last female rapper to gain as much industry respect and recognition as her male counterparts was Remy Ma — who’s been incarcerated since 2008 after shooting her best friend in a Manhattan parking lot.

“Since ‘97 it’s really just been Kim, Foxy and Missy, and then a rotating feature of crazy ladies,” says Judnick Mayard, rap and R&B columnist at Fader’s Suite903. “But they were never included or even paid attention to unless they could at least stand a bit on the level of those top three. If you’re a female rapper, you have to prove yourself on so many levels and be so many different things.”

And there are a ton of super-talented female rappers beyond Kim, Foxy and Missy (and Kreayshawn, jesus). Read the whole piece, because it is excellent, and Julianne is one of the best music journalists out there.