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

Shorter Scott Adams: Men are naturally rapists, cheaters and dick-pic-texters (and maybe Scott Adams likes pegging?)

How I knew this post was going to be terrible:

1. It’s by Scott Adams.
2. It’s called “pegs and holes.”
3. You can probably guess who’s the peg and who’s the hole.
4. There’s a strained metaphor about zebras and lions and watering holes.
5. You can guess who’s the zebra and who’s the lion.
6. Hugh Hefner plays the Everyman.

So:

If you have a round peg that doesn’t fit in a square hole, do you blame the peg or the hole? You probably blame neither. We don’t assign blame to inanimate objects. But you might have some questions about the person who provided you with these mismatched items and set you up to fail.

If a lion and a zebra show up at the same watering hole, and the lion kills the zebra, whose fault is that? Maybe you say the lion is at fault for doing the killing. Maybe you say the zebra should have chosen a safer watering hole. But in the end, you probably conclude that both animals acted according to their natures, so no one is to blame. However, if this is your local zoo, you might have some questions about who put the lions with the zebras in the same habitat.

Now consider human males. No doubt you have noticed an alarming trend in the news. Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world. The current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior. That seems right. Obviously we shouldn’t blame the victims. I think we all agree on that point. Blame and shame are society’s tools for keeping things under control.

The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn’t ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, “Here’s your square hole”?

The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose. All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way. Things just drifted in that direction.

The “natural instincts” of men are to rape women and tweet photos of their dicks? That’s some jungle.

The rest of the post is just as bad, and is mostly a disturbing look into Scott Adams’ mind — he would apparently be raping up a storm if bitches ladies weren’t making him a slave to their laws and their rules and their morals. And he seems to be under the impression that men who sexually assault women are just finally giving in to the kinds of natural urges that all men have to force sex on unwilling females. Because all men, in Scott Adams’ head, are misogynist brutes who don’t see women as people and who basically view the female body as a semen recepticle over which they should have full rights. Scott Adams’ perception of men? REALLY BAD. The worst. Scott Adams kind of makes it sound like men should just be exiled to a private island where they can brutalize each other and text as many dick pictures as they want without harming women (women, of course, are gentle and moral creatures). Which makes Scott Adams a super-radical man-hating feminist, maybe? Welcome to the dark side, pal.

Florida: Targeting the poor, refusing to protect children

Two new laws on the books in Florida: One to require drug tests for welfare recipients, and one that makes it illegal for doctors to ask patients about their firearms. Interesting priorities.

Testing welfare recipients for drugs is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars, and a major privacy invasion. It’s been found unconstitutional in some circuits, since the 4th Amendment protects Americans against unreasonable searches. It’s a scary precedent to suggest that receiving public funds should leave you open to government invasion of your body. The argument in favor of drug testing seems to be, “Some people don’t deserve welfare.” Except, really, everyone deserves to eat and to have a roof over their heads — including drug users and addicts. If we want to help folks with addiction, the solution isn’t to make their lives harder and cut off their (already minimal) income source; it’s to fund social service programs for the poor, and make addiction treatment accessible and reasonable for low-income people. And as a practical point, if the goal is saving money, drug testing doesn’t do it — testing every welfare recipient is more expensive than maintaining aid without testing. But of course, this isn’t about saving money. It’s about targeting and punishing the poor.

Also on the Florida GOP target list? Children’s safety. Florida has passed a law preventing doctors from asking patients about their firearm ownership and use, which on its face sounds silly — why would your doctor ask you about your guns? — but is actually relatively important in pediatric care. As Dahlia Lithwick details:

The scuffle over “docs vs. Glocks” seems to have started when a pediatrician in Ocala asked the mother of a young child whether she kept guns in the home. She refused to answer because, as she put it, “whether I have a gun has nothing to do with the health of my child.” When the doctor told her to find another pediatrician, the women threatened to call a lawyer. Consider: According to a suit filed this week by the Brady Center, 65 children and teenagers are shot every day in America, and eight of them die; one-third of American homes with children under 18 have a firearms in them; and more than 40 percent of those households store their guns unlocked and a quarter of those homes store them loaded. What was it that mother said again? Oh, right, guns have nothing to do with the health of our children.

Pediatricians are trained—indeed, they are explicitly advised by the American Academy of Pediatrics—to inquire about the presence of open containers of bleach, swimming pools, balloons, and toilet locks in the homes of their patients. It’s part of their job to educate parents about potentially lethal dangers around the home. (Pediatricians have also been known to ask about menstruation, painful sex after childbirth, birth control, and the travails of potty training, all in the interest of patient well-being, by the way). So one might wonder why an inquiry about guns is the place to draw the line in the sand, the ultimate threat to personal privacy.

It’s not like pediatricians can take away your guns, but that’s what the NRA and the GOP seem to think — the NRA initially suggested that the punishment for violating the “no asking about guns” law should be prison time or a $5 million fine. Seems reasonable. I think we should institute the same punishment for wasting everyone’s time and money on stupid laws that actively harm the most vulnerable. The NRA alone could solve the U.S. debt crisis.

Sexting is now a national scandal

This is a pretty solid summary of the Weiner press conference last night. I am still unclear on (1) why anyone cares, and (2) why Weiner didn’t just come out from the beginning and say, “Yeah, I sent some sexy photos to women on the internet, which was hugely stupid and has now bitten me in the ass.”

Yes, Weiner cheated, even if he never met the women he had “relash- communications” with. And cheating is bad. But Weiner isn’t a Defense of Marriage conservative who seeks to police everyone else’s sex lives. There isn’t the same kind of hypocrisy here as we see from anti-choice anti-gay politicians who get caught with their pants down.

And the whole thing is just kind of… sad:

During an extraordinary 27-minute appearance, Mr. Weiner went on to describe a side of his life that he had kept secret from his closest confidants and family members, befriending young female admirers over the Internet and engaging in intimate sexual banter with them, sometimes sending them racy self portraits taken with his BlackBerry.

Oh, Weiner.

But also? It’s weird behavior. It’s not clear to me that the women on the receiving end of the Weiner pics actually asked for them, or that there was ongoing banter before Weiner sent his sexy photos (having seen a handful of the photos, I use the term “sexy” loosely here). If these were ongoing relationships, I understand it a little more. But if they were largely unsolicited dick pics? That’s another basket of weasels.

I won’t even speculate how this would have been received if it were a female politician sending photos of herself in her underwear, even to someone with whom she was romantically involved.

“Forty Beads; The Simple, Sexy Secret for Transforming Your Marriage” is not what it sounds like.

Yes, the book Forty Beads; The Simple, Sexy Secret for Transforming Your Marriage does involve forty beads as a way to improve your sex life. However, none of them go into anyone’s orifices. Fooled me!

Carolyn Evans’ book Forty Beads; The Simple, Sexy Secret for Transforming Your Marriage proposes that married couples save (or merely improve) their relationships by using a token system. According to Evans’ method, the man is given 40 beads which he distributes, one bead at a time, to his wife. Each bead means he’s in the mood, and the wife has 24 hours to respond with sex. One couple interviewed on Today this morning actually said that they love the 40 beads game because, “It’s an easy way without having to communicate.” The process will improve couples’ lives because, as Evans naively points, out, “There’s nothing to fight about when everybody is happy with their sexual situation.”

Oh, man. I can’t wait to get married and just never talk to my husband. Communicating with beads is so much sexier.

Posted in Sex

Things to sext other than dick pics

In the aftermath of the Anthony Weiner weiner-scandal, the Washington Post asks women what kind of sexts (as they kids say) they’d appreciate receiving. Women ™ say:

“I would like a photo of a made bed,” says Kathryn Roberts, who works at a law firm in Washington. “I would take rose petals, but I want them on top of a made bed.” And not that fake kind of made, either, where the comforter is smooth but the sheets are a jumbled mess.

“Or laundry,” adds her friend Andrea Neurohr.

“Folded laundry,” elaborates Roberts. “Maybe in a wicker basket.”

Cindy Meston directs the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin. She is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health. If there is something you want to know about what turns women on, she is the person you call.

“We spent six years of research on why women have sex,” Meston says. They compiled 237 reasons. Duty sex. Revenge sex. Pity sex. Bored sex, engaged in because women simply had nothing better to do. “Of the 237 reasons why women have sex,” Meston says, “not one was looking at a man’s genitals.”

Get it? Cleaning is so important to women it’s basically pornography! Haha oh women, with their clean laundry and their distaste for sexual pleasure and the male body. But they’ll have sex out of duty, revenge, pity or because they’re bored. Not once because they wanted to see some dick. Science!

To be fair, texting someone dick pictures is kind of… yuck. Which is also how I feel about up-close vulva pictures. Leave the low-quality close-ups for the anatomy books! But if you wanted to send me the photo version of this D’Angelo video, I’d be ok with that:

.

What do you want a sext of? DO NOT SAY LAUNDRY.

Why Wearing Mini-Skirts is a Feminist Issue

Last weekend, I sat on the subway, thumbing through a magazine and grumbling about how the train is so slow. As I sat there, more and more people got on the train. Then two pairs of feet caught my attention — one was manicured with bright red polish and strapped into a sky high silver sandals, the other was in electric blue stilettos. Both pairs of ankles were attached to long bare legs, as their owners awkwardly sat down across from me. They were wearing skirts so short that I could almost see their underwear. It seemed like any moment, one — or maybe both — of them would open her knees a little too wide and I’d be forced to catch a glimpse of her baby-maker. “What are you looking at?” one of them snapped at a man who leered at them.

These girls were tarted up. It was only 8 p.m.

Watching them attempt to cross their legs, and then try to just squeeze their knees together, I felt adrenaline rush through me. I felt like I should do something. But what? Throw a pair of sweatpants at them? These are adults. They’re just having fun, I thought. They can take care of themselves.

But then another part of me thought: how naive.

No good was going to come to these two women that night. Best case scenario: one of them would walk above a subway grate and the world would see what kind of bikini wax she was rocking, and her stiletto would inevitably catch (those subway grates are a real bitch on skinny heels) and she’d twist her ankle and end up in the emergency room. Worst case scenario: Some a-hole would take one look at them and sense an easy target.

The more I think about sluttly clothing and its relationship to sexual assault, the more I am convinced that mini-skirts are a feminist issue—one that young women in the U.S. need to think about in addition to more obvious issues like equal pay for equal work, better access to gynecological care, and the need for more women representing us in government. Extremely revealing clothing —the kind we see on “Jersey Shore,” the kind we know women wear on college campuses all across the country, the kind we see around us in bars on weekend nights, the kind that fueled “Charlie’s Angels,” the kind that inspires all those “last night, I looked so hot” stories that people like to tell—regularly puts women in danger in the name of a good time.

In an ideal world, rape wouldn’t exist. In an ideal world, it wouldn’t matter how much a woman had to drink, what she was wearing, or what overtures she had given—no man would ever consider sex without explicit consent and would recognize that a short skirt isn’t an invitation to rape. But we don’t live in that world. Unfortunately, short of some Herculean sensitivity raising effort, we do not have control over what men, drunk or sober, will do when presented with our bare legs. What we do have control over is our side of the equation — how much we decide to show.

____________________________________________________________

So right about now you’re probably like, Hold up. Did I get lost on the internet, because this is some bullshit right here. And you would be right! That is some bullshit right there. It’s exactly the kind of bullshit that’s currently being crapped out in this post, “Why Being Drunk is a Feminist Issue” (I would suggest skipping the comments, which appear to be a gathering place for the Least Intelligent People on the Internet). The piece is basically word for word what I wrote above, except about drinking instead of mini-skirts. And it’s Feminist, of course, because it’s about Helping Women.

Read More…Read More…

Non-white people make some headway; white people freak out.

White people

The New York Times asks, “Is Anti-White Bias on the Rise?” Which, if I were the headline-writer, I would change to, “Are White People Stupid, Selfish or Both?”

Just kidding you guys, I love white people! I’m a white person! My slogan for white people goes like this: White people. Some of them are so great!

But oh god some white people are so terrible. Like all of the white people who apparently think that anti-white bias is on the rise, and is now more prominent than anti-black bias? (Also there are apparently only two biases — anti-black or anti-white). These are definitely the white people who are like, “It’s not fair that black people can use the n-word and I cannot, and also one time someone called me a honky and that’s just as bad.”

I am sorry, white people who say that, but that is not just as bad. And you are not the victim of “bias” because the n-word is the one thing in your entire life that you are not allowed to say.

As usual, Patricia J. Williams’ reaction to the piece is spot-on:

The finding that white Americans see blacks’ progress as an insult or a diminishment of their status is not entirely surprising. Zero-sum formulations of prejudice tend to emerge in lean economic times, fueling cultural or historical rivalries of all sorts.

I have a hunch that if the study had included questions about whether whites feel threatened by “reverse racism” among Asians, Latinos and immigrants, the results would be much the same. Those perceptions notwithstanding, data show that white Americans remain the most privileged human beings on the planet.

Her whole take is worth a read. Paul Butler, too, reminds white people that we’re doing pretty ok:

But, lest anyone worry, white folks, comparatively speaking, are doing just fine. Blacks are twice as likely to be unemployed. Six African-Americans head Fortune 500 companies. Of those businesses, 480 are run by whites. We have one black president, and almost one million black people in prison.

White people, let’s all take a deep breath. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE FINE.

Things I Have Never Done That I Would Like To Do Before the World Ends

illustration of god's giant hand

So, the bad news is that we’re all going to die. The good news is that we know when we’re going to die, so we can blow our life savings this week to do all the things we’ve always wanted to do.

Unfortunately, my life savings is somewhere in the low four figures (and my debts hover in the six figures), so, no trips to Antarctica for me. But! There are free and relatively (relative to my impending death) cheap things that I have never done, but which can be done in the next few days before the world ends. My top seven apocalypse-is-nigh to-do list:

1. Heroin.

Read More…Read More…

Bros Editing Bros

Photo of AC Slater

You know who really doesn’t get enough attention these days? Dudes. And you know what’s really noteworthy and unusual? The fact that dudes (and mostly white dudes, weird) edit most of the major magazines and newspapers in the United States. Glad Women’s Wear Daily is on top of it.

NEW YORK — A few weeks ago, Bon Appétit editor in chief Adam Rapoport and New York Times Magazine editor Hugo Lindgren went out to dinner at Veritas with Times food critic Sam Sifton and Random House editor Andy Ward. It was, in Rapoport’s words, a “very dude dinner.”

Once the waitress came around to take drink orders, Lindgren made the great faux pas of ordering a sparkling wine.

“I was like ‘Dude! What? You want a sparkler?’” said Rapoport.

Sh-t talk began. The other dudes had ordered vodka and bourbons.

Sparkling wine?! Haha. It’s just more interesting from there.

God bless Ann Friedman for giving us the lady version.