Responses to feminist critique are ANGRY!

Source: http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1444

Settle in for a long post.

My least favorite comments from today's NYT article about US sexual assault survey

Here's the article if you haven't seen it already. Now... onto making fun of people's dumb opinions! (Underlined emphasis is mine.) Oh, and this is just from the first page of comments...

Colin:
"What is a crime unlike any other crime, and worst than any other crime, is a false accusation of rape and the subsequent wrongful conviction of an innocent man."

Really? The WORST crime of all?

-------------------------------------------

Mos:
"It is terrifying how blindly PC America is when it comes to rape and sexual assault. The idea that 20% of women have been raped or have suffered through an attempted rape is ludicrous simply based on numbers.

Just flip that around and say that 20% of the male population are rapists, and yet somehow manage to steer free of any other crime, and presumably do not rape multiple women, and it doesn't even pass the most basic logical questions."

Bro, don't talk about logic and all that shit when you can't do math. Also, most rapists DO rape mulitple women. So again, don't base your argument on what you incorrectly "presume" and then talk like you have the logical upper hand.

------------------------------------------- 

Katherine said:
"I'd wager that there are legions of women who have experienced the grey-area violation that I think of as relentless pursuit. It goes approximately like this:

[extended conversation between a woman and a man, where the woman refuses the man's advances multiple times before finally saying "okay, if I do this one time will you leave me alone?"]

This is not consensual, but some would argue that it's not strictly rape either. It's more like a dog chasing a deer until the deer is so exhausted that it can't run anymore. It's a crappy substitute for courting, but the fine art of gentlemanly conduct isn't well known these days.

It would be helpful it teenage boys were taught that no-means-no-so-quit-asking. Instead they are taught not to take no for an answer. And girls are taught to be accomodating, helpful, and not cause a scene, but maybe they need to learn some self-defense moves that say no in a more physical way if words are insufficient."

MH responded:
"Women who are elusive are more attractive/valued to men. Men who are persistent are more likely to succeed and win over the valued female. This is of course natural selection at its best.

A man trying to win over a woman, either by asking once or 10 times is not a crime, it is life."

What a great life for men, and a shitty life for women! Does that not bother you at all? Do you even pretend to yourself that you're a decent person if you're okay with that?

MT also responded:
"I'm sorry, but in your example, any sexual activity that results from these exchanges is, indeed, consensual. Your own wording makes this plain as day: "if I say okay".

Here's the point: If you in fact say "okay", or imply it through your actions, then you have indeed consented! You cannot later claim that you did not consent. You were not under duress. You were not duped. Regret after the fact, or claiming that you were nagged, does not retroactively negate your consent.

From an individual perspective, no one likes or wants to be nagged, whether a male or a female attempts it. If you are already being nagged (for sex, money, favors, or anything else), the best response is to walk away."

Duress... I do not think that word means what you think it means. And walking away... have you ever tried to do that to someone who is harassing you or physically intimidating you? Try it sometime, and see how it goes.

-------------------------------------------

Paul B.:
"I seriously doubt this number. Nothing to stop women from exagerrating in a survey, or being vindicative, And what do they call rape, a little pressure n the bedroom? Lets count the men who are assaulted verbally by women in their life time, would be 90%, And many men are physically assaulted by women, but dont even count it"

No emphasis needed here -- your entire comment reeks of horrible. People like you are the absolute worst; at least you appear to be forthcoming enough about your hatred of women that none of us are likely to be around you long enough to experience the adverse effects of your proximity.

Doublethink

There is a pretty consistent rhetoric that is inexorably present in mass media coverage of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment cases, which is that the "incident" itself is but a moment in time, therefore short-lived and easily brushed aside; meanwhile, the accusation itself of committing such an atrocity follows the unfortunate soul throughout the rest of his/her life, branding them for all of society to scorn and dismiss them at will.

This argument makes no sense.

In order for the latter to be true, that is, that being accused of such a crime carries with it the implication that the person may have done something unforgivable, the former must not be true. In other words, if being raped, or sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed is not a big deal, then being accused of rape, or sexual assault, or sexual harassment should also be not a big deal, because the crime itself is not a big deal.

This is rape culture.

This is the type of cognitive dissonance that we absorb and dispense when we treat victims of these crimes as if they are the true criminals for having the gall to accuse someone of harming them.

I'm slacking! But here's a song.

It's not exactly the case that I don't have a lot to write about. I've read a lot of interesting things in the past few weeks that I have a lot of thoughts on, but I do worry that at least one of those posts would be pretty heavy overall for the general tone of this blog. And then once I would start writing about some of the other stuff that's tangentially related, it would seem like a Pretty Heavy Week on Charming Wholesomeness. So I'll probably just send you off into the world with a link to the most important article, tell you it's feminism and sexual violence related, and you can decide for yourself if you care to read it. It's pretty well-written so honestly anything additional I'd write would probably be redundant. So, here's the pretty appalling story of Hannah, a sophomore at Howard University in Washington DC.

Outside of that, I've been gearing up for Coachella this weekend (STOKED!) and doing some heavy listening to choice artists that I know are going to be there and who I obviously want to see. One of said artists is Major Lazer, the collaboration between heavy-hitters Diplo and Switch. The inspiration behind the album?

Major Lazer is, according to the press release, “a Jamaican commando who lost his arm in the secret Zombie War of 1984”, and now, fitted with a lazer-shooter for an arm courtesy of the US military, is “a renegade soldier for a rogue government operating in secrecy underneath the watch of M5 and the CIA”. How does he achieve his stealthy objectives? By posing as the owner of a dancehall nightclub. (popmatters)

So obviously I was a huge fan right off the bat. Jamaican/reggae dance beats and... zombies? Sign me up!

The best-known song is probably the single "Pod de Floor," but I'm going to post two other bits off the album "Guns Don't Kill People... Lazers Do" (funny, right?) The first is what's definitely the most traditional reggae song that appears on the disc, but I just love its simplicity and the overall melody.



The second is actually just a short interlude between songs, but I'm posting it here because it's a quick sample of the obvious sense of humor that permeates the album. I crack up every time I hear it.

A two-and-a-half hour long WTF moment

Last night I was with a group of people, one of whom put on the movie Perfume: The Story of a Murderer saying that his brother had recommended it to him. I should note that the last time this happened to me, specifically where a family member recommended a dark-themed movie to one of my friends, I ended up seeing Kids in the GPhi TV room with Michelle. And that was the most disturbing film I'd ever seen -- right up there with Requiem for a Dream, except that I found Requiem to be less exploitative and therefore, to me, more acceptable.

The comparison turned out to be pretty on par. I hated Perfume. The Cliff's Notes version of the story is this: the protagonist is an orphan, sold into slavery. He is blessed with an exceptional nose that can detect any aroma/scent/fragrance/odor for (the film would have you believe) miles, and his gift lands him working for a perfumist (not the correct term, but I don't care) in Paris. Within the first 20 minutes, he comes across the most delightful smell he's ever encountered: the smell of a girl walking down the street. He creepily stalks behind her and sniffs her; when she is frightened and tries to escape, he holds her down and ends up strangling her. He's devastated when, upon her death, her scent evaporates and is lost. This experience causes him through is work in the perfume labs to want to be able to capture any scent forever.

So time goes by (over an hour) and he finds out how to capture the scent of a woman, but the catch is, they have to be dead, and he has to immediately wrap their bodies in cheesecloth soaked in animal fat to catch the scents before the leave the corpses. So he goes on a killing spree, bottling the fragrances of as many beautiful girls as he thinks it will take to make the perfect perfume.

For the sake of you reading this whose curiosity might just drive you to actually see this movie, I'll not tell you what happens at the end. I'll simply note that when I was watching it, I said "This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen, and that includes the Paris Hilton sorority movie." Which is pretty much true. In different ways, the two films were equally offensive to me.

I had heard of the film before, but I hadn't heard much about what people thought of it. So after my loathing reaction last night, I took to the internet to find out what kind of mass consumer appeal it had. As it turns out, it's one of those love-it-or-hate-it types of films where the people who hate it don't understand how anyone could love it (me) and the people who love it think the people who hate it just don't understand art. And sure, I could see that the way it was filmed was artistically pleasing - it took great care to paint stunning visual images in every scene. It had a magical realism vibe to it, which in and of itself does frequently seem to lend an aura of creativity to films and books that utilize it.

But in the end, I just couldn't get over the disgusting misogyny of the story. Thirteen women die in the film so that he can make an otherworldly perfume, disposable women who we intentionally are given very little background about because we're not supposed to care if they die. I saw this argument made on some IMDB boards that I was perusing to read other people's thoughts on it, and a lot of the comments against the argument were singing the tune of "You're missing the point," "You're making a big deal out of nothing," "It's just a movie, it's not supposed to reflect reality," and "It was creatively done, and everyone knows it's not possible, it's just for the story." I just can't disagree more. This movie, for me, was no different than a stupid slasher movie with some dude going around killing girls (but even slasher movies slay the occasional guy.) Just because you throw some sepia-tone on the film and the background motive of trying to create something beautiful, it doesn't justify the plethora of stories in cinema that do little else other than to perpetuate the notion that violence against women makes for worthwhile entertainment.

The one thing that kills me, because the truth hurts, is that something I read over and over on RT.com from established critics is that this movie is the type that "love it or hate it, it stays with you." That's the truth - I can't stop thinking about it. It's on my mind enough that I wrote a lengthy blog post on it, even though the sardonic bit of me would like to believe that the freaking 2.5 hours I spent watching the movie were a huge waste and I'd rather not waste more time thinking about it. I guess then, that's one area in which the movie is a huge success. You can love it, love the provocative story, and want to recommend it, or you can hate it, hate the provocative story, but find yourself unable to forget it.

It's Kids all over again.

Nearly speechless.

I'm sure this is breaking nationally as we speak, especially on the heels of the murder of Annie Le, a graduate student at Yale University.

Another female student in critical condition after she was attacked in the lab today by a male student. Where? Oh, actually it happened at UCLA.

I'm stunned.

Who's to blame?

So you know how when you go to college and they do the safety/sexual assault talk, they're always basically talking to the girls? There are all of these tips that they give women to reduce the likelihood that they'll be assaulted or raped. They run the gamut from common sense to rather insulting, and some ideas are the kind that seem like innocuous safety givens but actually do set up the victims to be blamed for their assaults.

We're told not to walk alone at night, not to ever put our drinks down, not to drink too much in general, not to wear clothes that are too revealing, not to have a lot of [consensual] sex (because then people will think you're a slut who secretly wanted it), the list goes on and on. We hear some of these things so much that as advice it becomes second nature, and we never really stop to ask ourselves why we are responsible for preventing rape or assault against ourselves, when the whole point of something like rape or assault is that it is non-consensual -- if there was some kind of fail-safe method of blocking a victim from an attacker, EVERYONE would employ it. But there isn't.

So imagine my joy when I found this great list of "Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!" (reprinted from No Not You blog):

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.
2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!
3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!
4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.
5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!
6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.
7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.
8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.
9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!
10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.

And, ALWAYS REMEMBER: if you didn’t ask permission and then respect the answer the first time, you are committing a crime- no matter how “into it” others appear to be.

Good stuff, right? If you made it this far, let me make it perfectly clear that I understand that in this day and age there isn't the right kind of attention focused on the actions of the actual attacker (rather than the extensive list of things the victim supposedly "did wrong" that left her vulnerable to attack) so I would never advise AGAINST basic safety tips. In my mind, I think everyone - men and women - could benefit from the buddy system at night, and I always guard my drinks carefully so that I don't run the risk of getting drugged. But I'll be damned before I re-evaluate an outfit or my alcohol intake specifically because of the concern that it will be my fault that some poor boy just won't be able to handle himself and he'll feel compelled to take advantage of me. That's bullshit.

Boys Gone Wild

...doesn't exist.

Unless, of course, it's boys not being able to handle rejection.

I already wrote briefly on my feelings about George Sodini, the murderer who opened fire on women in a gym. Here's another story about a young man who didn't like being told "no":

Daniel Floyd Williams, 18, has been charged with second-degree murder. After Bayshore [High School]'s football game Friday, Thompson and three other girls were in a car when Williams approached them, asked for sex, walked away, waved a gun and fired, hitting Thompson, deputies said.

It really upsets me that this is the world we live in, where women are killed because men think they're entitled to sex. Re-reading that, it seems too fantastical, like I just made that up. Women are killed because they reject men's sexual advances. And this is in the United States, a country that is supposedly eons ahead of -- for instance -- countries governed by fundamentalist Arabic ideals in women's rights.

I used to have the same neutral-at-best mentality that most women in the US seem to have toward feminism, the f-word. In an effort to not be lumped into a category of shrill, hairy, man-hating harpies, a lot of us remain willfully ignorant of the ways that we still truly are treated as the inferior gender, nearly a century after gaining the right to vote and decades after the second wave of feminists tried to fight the obvious oppression women experienced (see Mad Men for a pretty realistic portrayal.) In the past few years I've opened my eyes and realized that a lot of the discomfort, unfairness, and anger I felt in certain situations wasn't always just the result of general awkwardness or random hindrances -- a lot of my feelings were rooted in straight up, good old-fashioned sexism.

No one really claims that they are sexist, just like no one really claims that they are racist. But a lot of people fail to recognize sexism -- even really obvious examples -- and even worse, many people get defensive when sexism is pointed out to them. That's what's tricky about feminism. It's really easy for everyone to say, "Yes, absolutely I agree that men and women should be treated as equals in all aspects of life." It's not so easy for people to hear that something they say, do, or are involved in, is a little bit sexist. I think that's a big part of why people don't like feminists: they don't like being criticized. So feminists have to endure the criticism that they are too easily offended, humorless, and sexist against men.

If any part of this post confused or angered you, but you're still curious about what I'm trying to say, I highly encourage reading this post. It's a bit long, but I think that a lot of women can identify with something written in that article, even if they haven't previously identified as feminist.

There is ... the obdurate refusal to believe, to internalize, that my outrage is not manufactured and my injure not make-believe—an inflexible rejection of the possibility that my pain is authentic, in favor of the consolatory belief that I am angry because I'm a feminist (rather than the truth: that I'm a feminist because I'm angry).

Women -- when those guys in the bar won't leave you alone, even after you've said no? That's objectification, power play... that's sexism. When certain activities (shopping, spa treatments, et) are relegated almost exclusively to women and thereafter considered to be frivolous and generally stupid, while other things (barbecuing, interest in sports, outdoor activities) that are generally considered masculine are usually painted as "better"? That's sexism. It doesn't matter that tons of women may love doing those "manly" things - it doesn't change those activities' profiles to be non-preferentially considered by both genders; it just makes the (vast number of) women participants less of "girly girls." (And that one's a two-fer because it demeans men that are interested in traditionally "feminine" activities and robs them of their "manliness.") When representations of your gender in the movies are usually one-dimensional, and generally never truly happy until they have a handsome man in their lives? That's sexism too. When your merit as a mother is called into question because you spend a lot of time working, but the father never receives the same kind of scrutiny? I think you know what I'm going to say.

♫♫