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

…And Try Not to Stand Up Too Fast.

piny

(Sigh)

I’m watching the recorded Oscars countdown, and some stuffed mike on the red carpet just asked Rachel Weisz if her obstetrician had any special advice for what she should do for Oscars night. Because she’s seven months pregnant, which means she could go at any moment.

51 thoughts on …And Try Not to Stand Up Too Fast.

  1. Because when your pregnant, the world owns your body. Seriously, imagine some interviewe approaching a celeb and saying, ‘about your Irritable Bowel Syndrome, what did your gastroenterologist recommend to make sure you don’t get the runs on this special night?’

    Ladies, don’t you ever forget, your uterus is never your own.

  2. Can I just say —-

    I enjoyed “Hustle and Flow” and thought it was an engaging though pretty conventional “show biz” “rags to riches” kind of movie. I liked the individual characters, and how they showed some growth, and how the film ended up.

    That said, the song “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” just makes me grit my teeth.

    It’s a good song, better than the other 2 nominees, and for that reason it deserved a win, in a year with pretty minimal competition.

    But WHAT THE FUCK???? It’s hard out here for a pimp? Oh, man, it’s really hard to be a pimp out here, when I have all the aggravation of dealing with the women I’m victimizing!! It’s really hard to be a pimp, them bitches and ho’s are so hard to keep in line, they’re fuckin’ BLEEDING on me when I beat them, dammit.

    sorry…just needed to say it.

  4. Because when your pregnant, the world owns your body. Seriously, imagine some interviewe approaching a celeb and saying, ‘about your Irritable Bowel Syndrome, what did your gastroenterologist recommend to make sure you don’t get the runs on this special night?’

    Ladies, don’t you ever forget, your uterus is never your own.

    That and the whole, “Wow, she’s about to pop!” thing. Has he never encountered a pregnancy before?

  5. Because when your pregnant, the world owns your body.

    I hate to break up the whole “ooh evil Patriarchy” thing, but the world owns your body when you have *any* visible deviation from medical equilibrium. “How’d you end up like that?” “how far does your wheelchair go on a charge?” “have you always been that short?” “have you seen a doctor about that?” “y’know, a weightlifting regimen could do wonders for …” “I heard about this hormone shot that …”. Just be glad the public spectacle only lasts nine months for you, instead of being a life sentence, day in and day out.

  6. You know, I really feel for all the pimps out there.

    Yes, it’s catchy. Yes, I have a secret thing for 36 Mafia. But no.

  7. Thanks, Gordon K! We women didn’t realize that, because our bodies are *only* female and *never* short or fat or disabled. Thank you so much for enlightening us.

    We are SO LUCKY that pregnany only lasts nine months. Because, y’know, the sense of entitlement demonstrated everytime someone walks right up to a pregnant woman and starts patting her stomach without even asking the permission you would ask of a dog’s owner has NOTHING to do with the entitlement felt by men who think nothing of squeezing some stranger’s behind on the subway or cat-calling at her because they believe that women’s asses have been put on god’s green earth for the grabbing.

    Fucktard.

  8. HissyCat, I’m not saying there isn’t a problem. And I’m not saying that women aren’t harassed all the time. In fact, rereading my post, I didn’t say anything of the kind.

    But the interest in pregnancy? I doubt it has as much to do with the fact that you’re female as it does with, “ooh, a body that looks way different than what I usually see”. Why else is it that men who wouldn’t dream of squeezing a stranger’s ass or cat-calling at her suddenly turn into idiots when they see a pregnant woman, and want to know every little detail? If it was acceptable to walk up to women in public and say, “I know the name of a great plastic surgeon. Let me give you his card.” then you might have a point.

    There is a difference between sexual harassment and an invasion of your medical privacy. Both suck, but you can’t lump them into the same bag. And no, feminists don’t always realize that, because while some women are short or fat or disabled, not all are – just as men don’t always realize it because not all of them are.

    And my “9 month” comment was obviously sarcastic. Fucktard yourself.

  9. Yup, those evil, evil Tools of the Patriarchy. Couldn’t be that they have an innate concern for the welfare of pregnant women, maybe even on a genetic level? I mean, after all, there is NO WAY that evolutionary biology could come up with a plausible reason why a built-in concern for and desire to protect and nurture visibly pregnant women could be an advantage, could it?

    And woe to any society that would encourage such behavior. We all know that women in pregnancy, especially toward the end of one, have no special needs, suffer no physical changes or limitations, nor need no special consideration from society at large, or indivisuals in particular.

    Please, people, is *everything* evidence for the evils of the Patriarchy?

  11. Couldn’t be that they have an innate concern for the welfare of pregnant women, maybe even on a genetic level?

    When are you creeps going to realize that your pop evolutionary psychology books do not give you an excuse to be an asshole?

    I think Gordon is probably right that there’s a relationship between the condescending, infantalizing “concern” that people show for pregnant women and the condescending, infantalizing “concern” they show for disabled people. It makes sense, when you think about it, because our society tends to pathologize female anatomy and treat pregnancy (and to a lesser degree menstruation) as a sort of disability. There are real differences, too, in that there’s the whole problem of looking at pregnant women as fetus-incubators whose bodies should be subject to control because the fetus take precedence over the woman. But I don’t think Gordon is totally off base, and I don’t see any reason to pounce on him.

    But hey, I’m probably a fucktard, too.

  12. Yup, those evil, evil Tools of the Patriarchy. Couldn’t be that they have an innate concern for the welfare of pregnant women, maybe even on a genetic level? I mean, after all, there is NO WAY that evolutionary biology could come up with a plausible reason why a built-in concern for and desire to protect and nurture visibly pregnant women could be an advantage, could it?

    Couldn’t you come up with an evo-psych explanation for whatever notice any given man took of a woman’s pregnancy, from solicitous concern to inappropriate touching to vicious assault?

    What does equating the third trimester with a burst appendix have to do with nurturing? Do you think Ms. Weisz is helped by this treatment, or does it stress and annoy her?

    The stuffed mike probably has a brain, right? And that brain would allow him to distinguish between stupid impulses, however hardwired, and carefully thought-out actions, right? That means that he is perfectly capable of treating a pregnant woman sensibly, with an eye to her actual needs. There’s no excuse for infantilizing her, asking invasive questions, or treating her pregnancy like a ticking time bomb. He’s an adult human being, not a freaking whelk.

  13. But I don’t think Gordon is totally off base, and I don’t see any reason to pounce on him.

    I think it was the “Quitcher bitching” implications that got some backs up. And the idea that someone posting about a feminist issue on a feminist blog is necessarily in need of education about other, similar problems because they didn’t reference them.

  14. I enjoyed “Hustle and Flow” and thought it was an engaging though pretty conventional “show biz” “rags to riches” kind of movie. I liked the individual characters, and how they showed some growth, and how the film ended up.

    That said, the song “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” just makes me grit my teeth.

    It’s a good song, better than the other 2 nominees, and for that reason it deserved a win, in a year with pretty minimal competition.

    But WHAT THE FUCK???? It’s hard out here for a pimp? Oh, man, it’s really hard to be a pimp out here, when I have all the aggravation of dealing with the women I’m victimizing!! It’s really hard to be a pimp, them bitches and ho’s are so hard to keep in line, they’re fuckin’ BLEEDING on me when I beat them, dammit.

    sorry…just needed to say it.

    What do you mean a conventional “rags to riches” story? The guy ends up digging his demo tape from a toilet before serving a 12-month bid in prison. Sure, he gets some radio play, but by the time he gets paroled, it’ll be old news–just another has-been rap rhyme.

    And how can you “like the song” [your words] but also add that it “makes me grit my teeth” [again, your words]? That’s odd. Songs I like usually don’t wear on my tooth enamel. But if you like the beat but hate the lyrics, see if you can find an instrumental version. That way, you can drive down the road and hum along, or even make up your own lyrics.

    Personally, I think I it was a great movie. I grew up not too far from Memphis, so it was refreshing to see a change from the Boyz-in-the-Hood/Colors/Menace 2 Society/Everybody-gets-shot-during-the-climax “gangsta” flicks that are always filmed and based in Southern California.

    The facts of the characters’ circumstances may difficult for some people to accept, especially white people who have have never lived anywhere near shit like that, but it’s a fairly accurate portrayal, in my opinion.

  15. The facts of the characters’ circumstances may difficult for some people to accept, especially white people who have have never lived anywhere near shit like that, but it’s a fairly accurate portrayal, in my opinion.

    Is there something racist or ignorant about complaining about valorizing men who make their living renting out women?

  16. Sally,
    I’ll see your asshole and raise you a fucktard (that was funny, BTW).
    First of all, no one should be surprised that a “journalist” covering the Oscars would ask an annoying, juvenile, dumb-ass, invasive question – of ANYONE about ANYTHING.
    Are people rude and invasive of pregnant women? Hell, yes! I have five kids; trust me, even *I* get annoyed after a while. But I also notice that it is far more likely that a woman come over and ask questions and share insights from her own experience more than anything else (although my wife, Deeper THought, gets pretty tired of the “I was in labor for 17 days!” schtick). Seems less like Tools of the Patriarchy and more like Sharing the Feminine Mysteries (TM) to me.
    BTW, piny – I really like how we went from dim questions to inappropriate touches and then BAM! you crank it up to *physical assualt* or pregnant women! Way to go on the escalation of rhetoric!
    Face it, folks, most people who comment to obviously pregnant women aren’t doing it because she’s “weird lookin'”, nor to oppress her; they have motives of concern. Simple, shallow, ignorant concern that is used as an excuse for sim-witted actions, sure; but it isn’t malice.

  17. BTW, piny – I really like how we went from dim questions to inappropriate touches and then BAM! you crank it up to *physical assualt* or pregnant women! Way to go on the escalation of rhetoric!

    Sadly, no. I was pointing out that evo-psych “reasoning” along the lines you managed could be used to justify any reaction to a pregnant woman up to and including vicious assault. For example: wouldn’t it make sense, evolutionarily speaking, to eliminate some other dude’s progeny given the opportunity? I did not imply that this guy assaulted this woman, or that he would do so. Like I said, he’s an adult human being, not a dumb animal.

    But now that you mention it, any evo-psych theory of reactions to pregnant women would have to take assault into account. Pregnant women are not always treated with solicitous concern. They are attacked. You can’t argue that one impulse is the result of evolutionary biology and the other one isn’t.

    Face it, folks, most people who comment to obviously pregnant women aren’t doing it because she’s “weird lookin’”, nor to oppress her; they have motives of concern. Simple, shallow, ignorant concern that is used as an excuse for sim-witted actions, sure; but it isn’t malice.

    Infantilizing concern and sexist bullshit are not and have never been mutually exclusive. You know that old saying about how there’s sweet fuck-all correlation between good intentions and good outcome?

  18. Pregnant women are not always treated with solicitous concern. They are attacked.

    And homicide is the number one cause of death for pregnant women.

  19. piny,
    i used the term ‘rhetoric’ on purpose: I was being sarcastic above, not making anything close to a “real” evo-psych statement.

    And my point remains – some people are trying to say that the motivation for this are oppressive. I am discussing motivations, not outcomes. Sorry if I was less than clear on that.

  20. And my point remains – some people are trying to say that the motivation for this are oppressive. I am discussing motivations, not outcomes. Sorry if I was less than clear on that.

    I think you’re misreading the “some people” here as talking about motivations and not outcomes.

    And I read you as sarcastic. That was why I read this statement:

    Yup, those evil, evil Tools of the Patriarchy. Couldn’t be that they have an innate concern for the welfare of pregnant women, maybe even on a genetic level? I mean, after all, there is NO WAY that evolutionary biology could come up with a plausible reason why a built-in concern for and desire to protect and nurture visibly pregnant women could be an advantage, could it?

    as implying some sort of positive protective impulse on the part of this interviewer that could at least arguably be traced to evolutionary biology.

  21. And my point remains – some people are trying to say that the motivation for this are oppressive. I am discussing motivations, not outcomes. Sorry if I was less than clear on that.

    Oh, and–sorry if we aren’t spelling it out carefully enough–there’s nothing contradictory about having concern for someone and seeing them as less capable or less deserving of autonomy or privacy. Precisely the opposite.

  22. Who cares about the motives? The actions are annoying. You know, when we’re pregnant, we’re aware that our abdomens protrude enough to qualify as traffic hazards; we know we’ve contracted Swelling Boob Disease; we have heard of labor, and even, oddly enough, of the aftermath thereof. We just don’t need to be pestered about it.

  23. I think it was the “Quitcher bitching” implications that got some backs up. And the idea that someone posting about a feminist issue on a feminist blog is necessarily in need of education about other, similar problems because they didn’t reference them.

    But I think the education *is* necessary. If it’s not in your interests (and I would argue that not pissing off allies is always in one’s best interests), then in mine. I’d hate to think that we will somehow rid the world of men who patronize pregnant women while completely ignoring all of the pathologizing and patronization aimed at the disabled and chronically ill when the two issues are so close that it makes perfect sense to work on them together. And you’ll notice that HissyCat, in the first post, brought up IBS and implied that such patronization wouldn’t be tolerated; that’s not true. If you or she are going to argue the issue by claiming it is, then that is going to cause problems for me, so of course I’m going to speak up.

  24. I’d hate to think that we will somehow rid the world of men who patronize pregnant women while completely ignoring all of the pathologizing and patronization aimed at the disabled and chronically ill when the two issues are so close that it makes perfect sense to work on them together.

    Really, now? Because I’d think it would be both obnoxious and ignorant to show up on a disability-rights blog and start nattering on about pregnancy in a post about being humiliated and ignored by a bank teller because the poster uses a wheelchair.

    These issues are close and the comparisons are pertinent in some contexts, but that doesn’t mean there’s no value in narrow focus. It also doesn’t mean that hijacking isn’t possible from both sides.

    And you’ll notice that HissyCat, in the first post, brought up IBS and implied that such patronization wouldn’t be tolerated; that’s not true.

    While it would be extremely naive of me to say that someone living with a disability would not expect countless invasions of his or her privacy, I think it is true that people accord greater dignity and attendant privacy to some medical conditions than others. Depending on whose IBS we’re talking about, HissyCat’s comparison is valid. No one asked Robert Altman how his prostate’s getting along, for example. Pregnant women lose privacy and dignity because of the way our society defines both gender and disability; the interviewer’s treatment of Weisz was gendered.

    I think HissyCat’s IBS reference was also meant to point out how little disabling pregnancy is. I read her as implying that viewing pregnancy as a serious medical affliction such that the interviewer would worry about a pregnant woman’s ability to attend an awards ceremony is related to a sexist conception of women’s bodies and their functions as abnormal, pathological, and incapacitating.

  26. I don’t care if you bring it up every single time. In fact, I was fine with your post as it was. But HC’s IBS comparison was a bad one, and implied that pregnancy was the only medical state that causes you to lose privacy and dignity.

    As for pregnancy being “little disabling” … most disabilities wouldn’t prevent you from attending the Oscars either.

  27. As for pregnancy being “little disabling” … most disabilities wouldn’t prevent you from attending the Oscars either.

    Again with the, “if you don’t explicitly state it, you must not believe it.”

    You’re conflating several different issues.

    (1) It’s offensive to imply that any given condition–pregnancy included–is disabling, that is, something that would prevent someone from doing things like enjoying a night out at the Oscars.

    (2) It’s offensive to assume that someone else’s condition, however it might affect their lives, is a fit subject for open debate.

    (3) There’s a tendency to deprive women of that kind of privacy in particular, particularly when the medical matter in question is related to their reproductive systems.

    (4) There’s a tendency to see pregnancy as an incapacitating disease, such that Rachel Weisz’s ability to attend the Oscars cannot be assumed.

  28. And upon further scrolling:

    I don’t care if you bring it up every single time. In fact, I was fine with your post as it was.

    You certainly didn’t sound like it:

    I hate to break up the whole “ooh evil Patriarchy” thing, but the world owns your body when you have *any* visible deviation from medical equilibrium.

    You didn’t reference HC specifically, and you were very derisive.

    Then you went on to dismiss out of hand the idea that treatment of pregnancy might be related to both anti-people-with-disabilities prejudice and sexism:

    But the interest in pregnancy? I doubt it has as much to do with the fact that you’re female as it does with, “ooh, a body that looks way different than what I usually see”.

    Oh, and? I just saw this:

    If it was acceptable to walk up to women in public and say, “I know the name of a great plastic surgeon. Let me give you his card.” then you might have a point.

    Are you seriously implying that women who aren’t pregnant are never subject to public comment on their appearance and the shape of their bodies?

  29. As for pregnancy being “little disabling” … most disabilities wouldn’t prevent you from attending the Oscars either.

    Did anybody ask Mark Zupan idiotic questions about his disability?

  30. Within recent memory, both Annette Bening and Catherine Zeta-Jones showed up on Oscar night being closer to term than Ms. Weisz is today. CZJ won, and managed to go up onto the stage unassisted.

  32. I dunno. HC’s first post rubbed me the wrong way, too. I don’t think that anyone would be asked about IBS, because I don’t think it’s generally common knowledge that someone has IBS. If you’ve got a visible disability, people do ask you intrusive, rude questions, the same way that people ask visibly pregnant women intrusive, rude questions. I don’t think that people’s rudeness to pregnant women is *only* an extension of their general rudeness to people whom they see as medical subjects, but that’s part of it.

    Did anybody ask Mark Zupan idiotic questions about his disability?

    I’d be surprised if the folks on the red carpet asked him questions about anything.

  33. OK, piny, if you must.

    Evo Psych can be construed to show that the protection of pregnant humans is an evolutionary advantage, regardless of their nature as parented by you/someone else. This is consistent with the fact that females show similar behavior to men. Your contention that this is could support physcial assault of pregnant women does not seem to be supported within this context. While there are examples of pregnant women being attacked, they are within rather narrow social boundaries and far from universal.

    Further, it is a biological fact that pregnant women, especially women at the stage where the pregnancy is casually obvious, *are* physically inhibited somewhat. They have limits to their mobility, reductions in endurance and strength, etc. It is harder for them to travel and get comfortable, too.

    So… is a little solicitous questioning out of line (will you need an extra pillow, ma’am?; DO you have any special requirements?)? I do not think so. THis isn’t pity, its the acknowledgement of a temporary reduction in capacity.

    And before I am read the riot act, let me give you a touch of background. I am a big, strapping guy – who happens to be disabled. Can’t tell by looking at me, and I get odd looks when I make those “odd requests”. Maybe I am at the other end of the spectrum from my own experiences….

  34. Did anybody ask Mark Zupan idiotic questions about his disability?

    “Does ‘it’ still work” is a common one, as pointed out in the movie. “How do you drive” is one I hear all the time. Was he asked any questions on the red carpet? Not that I saw. But if not for the fact that those questions were answered in the movie, they would’ve been the first ones asked if he had been.

  35. Evo Psych can be construed to show that the protection of pregnant humans is an evolutionary advantage, regardless of their nature as parented by you/someone else. This is consistent with the fact that females show similar behavior to men. Your contention that this is could support physcial assault of pregnant women does not seem to be supported within this context. While there are examples of pregnant women being attacked, they are within rather narrow social boundaries and far from universal.

    Didn’t you say just a few posts above that you were being sarcastic about the whole evo-psych thing, that you didn’t really mean it and thought it was kind of dumb?

    If I must? My whole point was as follows: This is a stupid fucking argument. The best explanation for treating pregnant women like disabled children is sexism, full stop. The reason a seven-months-pregnant woman would be asked whether her doctor had any special instructions related to sitting in attendance at an awards ceremony is because we see women as weak, women’s bodies as more falliable, and therefore pregnancy as incapacitating to a degree that has nothing to do with reality. Women who are seven months pregnant can work full-time; attending the Academy Awards is not a decision that a pregnant woman needs to run by her physician.

  36. If it was acceptable to walk up to women in public and say, “I know the name of a great plastic surgeon. Let me give you his card.” then you might have a point.

    Are you seriously implying that women who aren’t pregnant are never subject to public comment on their appearance and the shape of their bodies?

    Hah…Just to back Piny up here, I have a friend who was all of 6 months pregnant with her fourth child when someone handed her a curves card and told her to call them when she delivered. Having been pregnant several times myself, I can attest that the general public seems to have a hard time grasping the concept of privacy or tact. Since when is it acceptable to touch another person’s body without their permission? Yet, when you’re pregnant, everyone in the world feels like they have the right to feel your stomach whenever they so desire. I have yet to see anyone do that to one of the clients I work with, all of whom are severely developmentally disabled. I am also short and heavy to begin with, but yet it’s only when I’m expecting that people think it’s completely ok to remark on my weight. Oh, and at 7 months pregnant with my daughter, I was still working 70 something hours a week at a job that required much being on my feet and job related stress. The Oscars would have been a relaxing night out and my doctor’s advice would have been “Have a good time, make sure you take lots of pictures”. It’s an absolutely idiotic question.

  37. Evo Psych can be construed to show that the protection of pregnant humans is an evolutionary advantage, regardless of their nature

    This whole Evo-Psych line of argument is making my eyes roll back into my head. What you’re arguing is really group selection and altruism for there is no evo-psych advantage to the person conferring the attention onto the pregnant female. Give that person a stake in the outcome and the argument gains merit. As to the group selection, the criteria are quite tightly bounded. It’s inappropriate to apply seat of the pants EP analysis to this situation.

    Since when is it acceptable to touch another person’s body without their permission?

    SInce when is it acceptable to ask a person you’ve just met what they do for a living? That’s a very instrusive question. However, these are socially defined customs and that’s why they are perpetuated and accepted by this culture. Find a culture that hides pregnant women from public viewing and you’ll probably also find a culture that severely frowns upon strangers touching the pregnant woman.

  38. SInce when is it acceptable to ask a person you’ve just met what they do for a living? That’s a very instrusive question. However, these are socially defined customs and that’s why they are perpetuated and accepted by this culture. Find a culture that hides pregnant women from public viewing and you’ll probably also find a culture that severely frowns upon strangers touching the pregnant woman.

    Ok, I will actually grant you that it is intrusive. However, the person in question doesn’t have to answer. If you ask me that, I have several options… I can tell you I work as a developmental disabilities specialist (the truth), I can make up something, I can just not answer you OR I can tell you to go screw yourself. When a complete stranger just comes up and rubs your stomach without your permission that’s a huge invasion of privacy and personal space. And while it may be looked upon favorably by the culture, I have yet to meet a pregnant woman besides my mother who doesn’t feel extremely put off by it. So, when it’s pretty much accepted by everyone but those of us who have to deal with it. I have to say that it’s a pretty crappy tradition. (And just for the record, I understand that people enjoy rubbing the stomachs of pregnant women, and a lot of people think it’s pretty cool to feel a baby moving/kicking, etc…I for one, am usually pretty cool about letting friends and family molest my stomach as they so desire… I just have a real problem with people I don’t know acting like my body is suddenly public property simply because I am pregnant)

  39. Since when is it acceptable to touch another person’s body without their permission?

    SInce when is it acceptable to ask a person you’ve just met what they do for a living? That’s a very instrusive question. However, these are socially defined customs and that’s why they are perpetuated and accepted by this culture. Find a culture that hides pregnant women from public viewing and you’ll probably also find a culture that severely frowns upon strangers touching the pregnant woman.

    TangoMan, what is your point? That it’s ok to touch pregnant women without their permission? That it should be ok? Seriously, what are you saying?

  40. Seriously, I’m not likely to be pregnant again, but if I am, someone’s likely to be nursing a broken wrist. I’ve had it about up to HERE with people thinking my belly is the equivalent of one of those statues you rub for good luck.

    I can run a pretty direct comparison between the kind of attention pregnant women get and people with other visible disabilities. At least in my experience, those with disabilities are likely to be ignored, condescended to, or asked annoying, intrusive and/or dumb questions. In most cases, though, perfect strangers are not inclined to violate their body space. There are some exceptions to this, but they are (again in my experience) pretty darned rare – and mostly seemed to be directed towards small female disabled people. Nobody grabs the 6’2″ blind guy’s arm to guide him across the street without asking. Happens to the 5’4″ blind lady all the time. I would also say that most of the unrequested touching I’ve seen with the disabled occurs because the person involved wants to “help”, and it doesn’t seem to occur to them to ask first.

    People don’t rub a pregnant woman’s belly because they want to help her. In fact if it seems likely that she actually might need help they’re far more likely to back away than otherwise. About the only time I was ever left alone in a public space with my second pregnancy was when I was hauling ass across an airport carrying three pieces of luggage and a cranky two-year old at seven months pregnant. Nobody came within ten feet of me.

    I did learn a lovely trick with pregnancy #1 though. I ran significantly overdue, and discovered that nothing, but nothing made people back off faster then answering the question “When are you due?” with “Last Saturday.” Since I blew up to convincing enough size by the end of month 6 with pregnancy 2, this made life much easier.

  41. Julie & HC,

    What I’m saying is that this practice is common because people let it become common. To grin and bear it or simply complain about it in a forum has no change value – the more women that forcefully rebuke it, so that they inflict a memorable scolding or embarassment upon the perpetrator, whether a kind little old lady or acquaintances, the wider the message will spread that people shouldn’t risk public rubbing for fear of earning another rebuke. Women have to be willing to suffer the image of being scolders to well-meaning belly rubbers otherwise there’ll be no change.

    This didn’t spring from nowhere – it slowly became acceptable. The same happened in social discourse with inquiring about a person’s job or profession. That used to be considered the height of rudeness and now that information is exchanged within the first minutes of meeting someone.

  42. Then consider this my public rebukement of you, TangoMan for the asstarditude of telling women that the reason it’s ok for strangers to touch them without permission is because women allow them to. There’s nothing ‘well-meaning’ about entering a feminist forum and telling the women there that their conversation has no “change value,” so you can take your condescension and your irrelevancy and shove it up your arsehole.

    Is that what you had in mind?

  43. piny and TangoMan,
    Yes, the evo-psych thing is lame; I knew it was lame, meant it to be lame. Since piny kept referring back to it, I dragged it back out. Meh.

    piny, I have bad news for you. Pregnant women do, in fact, often have special needs because of their condition. Your entire “…best explanation for treating pregnant women like disabled children is sexism, full stop.” bit ignores this entirely. Like I said earlier, my own situation may make me more sensitive to these issues, but I think that in general being solicitous of pregnant women is motivated by genuine courtesy much more than sexism.

  44. Pregnant women do, in fact, often have special needs because of their condition. Your entire “…best explanation for treating pregnant women like disabled children is sexism, full stop.” bit ignores this entirely.

    Pregnant women have a special need to have people grope their bellies? Gosh. I must be missing something about how pregnancy works.

    I guess I just don’t see how asking a woman stupid, intrusive questions about her private interactions with her doctor (and in this case asking them on national T.V.) is in any way “solicitous.” Seriously: how is that supposed to help her? No matter how clueless you assume the person doing the asking was, it’s hard for me to see this as misplaced altruism.

  45. piny and TangoMan,
    Yes, the evo-psych thing is lame; I knew it was lame, meant it to be lame. Since piny kept referring back to it, I dragged it back out. Meh.

    I kept referring to it as stupid, stupid, and stupid.

    piny, I have bad news for you. Pregnant women do, in fact, often have special needs because of their condition. Your entire “…best explanation for treating pregnant women like disabled children is sexism, full stop.” bit ignores this entirely. Like I said earlier, my own situation may make me more sensitive to these issues, but I think that in general being solicitous of pregnant women is motivated by genuine courtesy much more than sexism.

    For the umpteenth time, there’s no conflict between being concerned for a woman and feeling compelled to patronize her and invade her privacy. All those impulses dovetail very smoothly in a sexist society.

    You are ignoring entirely the difference between helpful concern and overblown, annoying concern. Asking a seven-months pregnant woman if her doctor has any special advice on how best she may attend the Oscars falls into the latter category. It’s invasive. It’s rude. And it’s sexist.

  46. In most cases, though, perfect strangers are not inclined to violate their body space.

    Tapetum, I don’t know what experience you have with the disabled, but mine (as a wheelchair user with multiple other disabilities) is the exact opposite. My head gets rubbed all the time by older people, and men and women of all ages still don’t get that my wheelchair is part of my body, and not something to lean on. Nor do they understand that the basket on the front is equivalent to a handbag, so they should neither take things from it nor place things in it, even if they know I’m about to do so.

  47. This didn’t spring from nowhere – it slowly became acceptable. The same happened in social discourse with inquiring about a person’s job or profession. That used to be considered the height of rudeness and now that information is exchanged within the first minutes of meeting someone.

    TangoMan, you’ve never read much Jane Austen, have you? Because way back when, in 1803 or so, Austen was writing about people who not only asked what others did for a living, but they also asked how much of an income various members of their social circle had. At the same time, pregnant women were confined and no one would dream of touching them.

  48. This didn’t spring from nowhere – it slowly became acceptable. The same happened in social discourse with inquiring about a person’s job or profession. That used to be considered the height of rudeness and now that information is exchanged within the first minutes of meeting someone.

    TangoMan, you’ve never read much Jane Austen, have you? Because way back when, in 1803 or so, Austen was writing about people who not only asked what others did for a living, but they also asked how much of an income various members of their social circle had. At the same time, pregnant women were confined and no one would dream of touching them.

  49. Gorden K – my experience comes from working as a PCA and Home Health Aide, and from friends with various disabilities, rather than from a disability of my own, so I would defer to your experience on this one. Though I wonder if area of the country might have something to do with it? Or possibly the presence of a PCA? The friend I have who spends the most time in her wheelchair has her personal space violated rarely enough that each individual instance is worthy of a strong response, while reacting to all the times she’s ignored, condescended to, or asked rude questions would leave her no time for living.

  50. piny,
    I finally see the disconnect. I was speaking in general. it seems you missed above where I said that no one should be surprised that an entertainment reporter is a dingleberry.

  51. No, I didn’t miss that. I guess you missed the part where we all started responding to your suggestion that this kind of “solicitous” interference is helpful, kind, or motivated by concern and not sexism in general.

    Please, people, is *everything* evidence for the evils of the Patriarchy?

    I think this is the disconnect. You’re arguing that there’s nothing sexist about these kinds of comments; I think you’re wrong.

Comments are currently closed.