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

Tag: feminists

Bless You, Times Select

Because you put your columnists behind a subscription wall, I don’t have to court high blood pressure by coming across stuff like this:

New York Times (subscription required): David Brooks opines that differences in male and female brain chemistry mean that humans are happier with gender roles “that nature and evolution laid down long, long ago.” Unfortunately, he writes, “some feminists still argue that talking about biological differences between the sexes is akin to talking about biological differences between the races.” We tried to be outraged, but just found ourselves fatigued. Brooks needs to mix it up a little more.

I just buy the dead-tree edition on Mondays for Krugman and Herbert, and Fridays for Krugman again, and everybody’s happy.

Scott Writes a Post So I Don’t Have To

Lucky for me, as I’m swamped with work today.

Self-appointed upholder of academic standards Harvey Mansfield, in a column arguing that universities should become depoliticized by adopting a whole bundle of reactionary bromides familiar to anyone who’s seen The O’Reilly Factor, recycles this bit of abject nonsense:

The feminists at Harvard seek to remove every vestige of patriarchy in America, but they have said almost [using the word “almost” here is the kind of skill that’s important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals. Except the weasel.–ed.] nothing about the complete dismissal of women’s rights by radical Islam. To do so would be to attack Islamic culture, and according to multiculturalism, every culture is equal and none is evil. They forsake women in societies that repudiate women’s rights and direct their complaints to societies that believe in women’s rights. Of course it’s easier to complain to someone who listens to you and doesn’t immediately proceed to slit your throat. No sign of any rethinking of feminism has appeared in the universities where it flourishes.

The idea that feminists have ignored the plight of women outside of North America is simply a complete falsehood. The tensions between “multiculturalism” and women’s rights and feminism and the struggles of women outside of liberal democracies have of course been the subject of extensive debate and analysis among feminists, but Mansfield cannot be aware of it because he knows exceptionally little about feminist thought. The idea that it’s illegitimate to criticize unjust practices if there are worse practices embedded elsewhere is, of course, a classic technique of those who oppose progressive goals while preferring not to engage arguments on the merits. And the stuff about “re-thinking feminism” is just a non-sequitur; even of feminists should be paying more attention to international rather than domestic issues, this calls for a wider application of feminists principles, not a re-thinking of them.

Read, as they say, the whole thing. Scott’s got his righteous on.

Harvey Mansfield, you may remember, wrote “Manliness.” Watch this hunk of man meat discuss his book with Stephen Colbert here. He also thinks that the warrantless surveillance of Americans is A-OK! because our boy George said so, thinks Teddy Roosevelt was more manly than you (don’t tell him TR thought women should be considered equal to men), thinks manliness is mandatory to fight those feminists and their man-becoming ways, and quakes in his bootsies because those academic wimmins at Harvard are so darn mean and intimidating.

Intimate Partner Violence Looks Like This

It looks like egalia’s daugther.

The tactic egalia employs here — outing the man who did this to her baby, naming and shaming him — is one that I first read about in Cunt, by Inga Muscio. Muscio suggests using the naming-and-shaming against rapists: If a you or a friend are raped, post pictures of the rapist around town, with the word “RAPIST” in big letters. Put his name on it. Post a sign outside his house. Let everyone know what he did. In a culture that too often condones rape and that too often fails to bring justice to the victim, publicizing a crime can, at the very least, help other women to avoid these men, and remind other men that actions are not without consequences.

Obviously, this tactic is debatable, and there are certainly feminists out there who won’t support it. Luckily, I don’t speak for all feminists, and I say when a person beats, rapes, or otherwise injures another, you splash the fucker’s face all over the front page. So way to go, egalia.

(And for the record, no, I don’t agree with the statement that men are scum unless proven otherwise — but I can sure as hell see how someone would feel that way after a man beat up their child, and after observing a worldwide epidemic of violence and rape perpetuated mostly by men).

The Feminist Destruction of the World

Yes, feminists, you’ve really gone and done it this time — you’ve destroyed manhood, attacked womanhood, encouraged drug use, raised the teen pregnancy rate, and killed babies. Nice work ladies — clearly, you’ve been effectively multi-tasking.

There was a time when women deserved respect-because we are mothers, because of our natural softness and tender feelings, because we have been the ones who raised up righteous leaders of good nations for centuries now.

This is from the soft, tender, feelings-oriented woman who calls herself the War Chick.

Read More…Read More…

Not Getting It

Slate’s defense of that Forbes article: It’s gender-neutral, we swear!

The blogs entries collected by Technorati accuse Forbes of culling the academic literature for fodder that will shove women back into the kitchen; send them back to the 1950s; and force them to put their buns in the oven and get their buns in bed.

But I’ve yet to read a blog item or a protesting e-mail from a reader that convinces me that the article—as opposed to the deliberately provocative headline—really insults women, career or otherwise.

Point one: The headline. “Don’t marry a career woman” sounds fairly insulting to career women — it says that there’s something sufficiently wrong with them to avoid marriage. If the article were titled, for example, “Don’t marry Jack Shafer,” I could see why Jack Shafer would find it insulting, even if the reasons given for not marrying Jack Shafer could apply to all Slate employees, or all journalists, or all people.

Some of the sensational findings presented in the Forbes piece appear to be gender-neutral and hence don’t bait feminists at all. For instance, Noer holds that the literature indicates that “highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex,” and “individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.” So, if career women are bad marriage bets, so are career men. It’s a wash.

Well, no. Because the article wasn’t about how career people are bad marriage bets. It was specifically about how career women are bad marriage bets, even if the reasons that it gave to support that assertion could be applied just as easily to men. I would even argue that the fact that the statistics behind the author’s assumptions are applicable to working people in general underlies feminists’ point that the article is deeply sexist — the writer takes what are often gender-neutral findings and applies them only to women, as evidence for why men should avoid us. That does bait feminists, and it is misogynist.

Noer also cautions against marrying career women because it’s “financially devastating.” “[D]ivorced people see their overall net worth drop an average of 77%.” But if your overall net worth is going to drop an average of 77 percent, wouldn’t you want your net worth to be higher, which it could be if you marry a career woman, as opposed lower with a non-career woman?

Um, yeah. But he uses that as another reason why you shouldn’t marry a career woman. And this is where Shafer misses the boat through the rest of his piece. He’s making a lot of the same arguments that feminists are — that the Forbes article sites studies that could be interpreted in lots of different ways, and that the reasons they give for not marrying career women aren’t very good at all. Shafter seems to think that this somehow delegitimizes feminist anger over the piece, when in fact feminists are angry because it’s yet another article that reinstates traditional gender roles and seeks to remind us that if we’re successful or employed or at all independent, men won’t want us. It emphasizes the idea that male approval is the most important goal for women. And it takes, as Shafer points out, relatively gender-neutral observations and uses them as weapons against women in particular. That’s why it’s sexist, and that’s why we’re angry.

I’m also irritated at Shafer’s condescending tone and use of the word “careerist,” but that’s another matter. I should probably stop typing now, as I wouldn’t want to break a nail.

How wrong can one article be?

Witness the conservative reaction to the ongoing FDA/emergency contraception ordeal:

After resisting for years feminists determined to make high-dosagesteroids available to women and girls without a prescription, it seems that the Bush Administration is about to cave in to political pressure and make the morning-after pill (MAP) accessible over the counter to those over 18.

Glad that the Bush administration is finally willing to cave to that political pressure on an issue that they should have absolutely no say over. This should be the FDA’s call, and the FDA should operate independent of partisan politics. But it’s nice to see an admission that on this issue, they certainly aren’t.

Read More…Read More…

From the Special Moderation Queue

MRA edition. This one’s just so perfect, because it hits every! single! point! in the MRA agenda.

I have no problem with women working. Although I do have a problem with paying child support and alimony to ex-wives that no longer put out, or do anything for their ex husbands. It is a waste when that money should go to support the new children and wife in the next relationship. Children should automatically go to the father, and our famous feminist bitches would figure out a way to save the marriage. Perhaps she would cook more, put out more, do the duties of a good wife, more, etc.

Nowadays having the children go to those who can least afford it, is, well a complete disaster. Men are being treated like sperm donors and wallets, I’m sick of it. I want a bitch that is loyal to me, and the family. Not a woman that just needs a sperm donor, or a wallet. To me that is heartless, despite the fact said behavior happens with reckless abandon.

I just can’t imagine why his wife left him.

Though he does lack a certain flair. But maybe our friend who wanted to cut off feminists’ “tittes” set too high a bar.

Let This Chalice Pass From Me

(This is my submission to the next Carnival of Feminists, Wednesday over at Amber’s place (final link will go up when it does). One of the available essay topics was male allies in feminism, and this seemed appropriate.)

(I’ve been meaning to finish this post for a while now, which is why the first link is so old.)

Over at Alas, FurryCatHerder and I got into a fairly interesting discussion about feminist transition (not actually a contradiction in terms). The back-and-forth started with a comment by Angiportus:

When a local library acquired some guides to transitioning, I was startled by how limited and utterly stereotyped was the ideal that the trans-t0-be was urged to shooot for. Just another pigeonhole.
That was 10 or so years back, but newer guides have not yet appeared. Keep up the good work and maybe they will.

I pointed out that most people these days go online when they can: it’s sometimes cheaper, it frequently affords more anonymity, and it offers a much broader range of information than a single book can.

FurryCatHerder responded thusly:

I find that the modern on-line community is a disaster. There’s a lot of emphasis on passing though an uncritical embrace of highly stereotyped behaviors.

I’m bi (like, Kinsey 5.9 🙂 ), but I mostly date women and in the lesbian community there is no shortage of women who are called “Sir” on a regular basis. The women that happens to understand why it happens and aren’t anywhere near as offended as transsexual and transgender women are when someone calls them “Sir”.

So, yeah, while there is an on-line trans universe, I don’t think it’s providing helpful or particularly feminist information to people contemplating a sex change.

I’m going to try to spell out my thoughts here.

Read More…Read More…

Why Do I Bother?

For once, just for once, I wanted to try to have a discussion about a woman getting raped and murdered that DIDN’T devolve into an extended rehash of the same goddamn argument we always seem to have whenever a rape and/or murder of a woman is discussed: Namely, we start out on topic, then someone has to come in and blame the victim (she was drunk! doesn’t she know there were consequences! she was dressed like a hoochie! she was a stripper! she must be lying! what was she doing alone at night? what was she doing trusting a man?) and we’re off to the races.

And inevitably, in all the talk about what the victim did or didn’t do and whether the natural consequence of having a few too many and making some poor parking decisions is to be abducted, raped, murdered and your body left in a dumpster, someone disappears.

And that person is the rapist/murderer.

Why does this man always disappear in these discussions? It’s as if he had no role at all. Even those of us who are feminists and fight victim-blaming tend to, as hexy pointed out, ignore the perp.

What need do we have to make him disappear? Do we not want to think about the fact that regardless of what we do or don’t do, we can’t always know who will harm us or who poses a danger to us? Do we need to believe that by analyzing what the victim did or didn’t do, or did or didn’t have every right to do, we’ll somehow be insulated from what befell her?

Sometimes I wonder why I bother writing about any of these crimes. The same discussion, always heated, always follows. And we never advance the ball.