Last week, a brief history of racism among participants in the Washington Post Magazine Date Lab inspired some spirited defenses of racial preferences in the boudoir—and some polite rejections of the idea that one's blind date is merely acceptable "for an Asian guy." Let's take a look!:

Kim Chi Ha says it's about preference, not ethnicity. (I say it's about preference for ethnicity! But I digress):

I really think it’s a matter of preference and not a matter of ethnicity. You’re attracted to who you’re attracted to. Some people prefer blondes, others prefer brunettes. It’s not discrimination. You can’t help what features you’re attracted to. Some people are attracted to Asians, some are attracted to whites, some are attracted to them all. Just because you have a preference on the basis of someone’s ethnicity, doesn’t make you racist. It’s like having a preference for someone who’s tall versus someone who’s short. If you’re going to prefer an Asian over someone who’s white, it’s probably because of the culmination of looks that tend to occur more among Asians.

Why does everything have to come down to being about racism?

Katie says it's not natural:

you can’t help who you’re attracted to, but you can help making blanket statements about entire races of people that are probably based on stereotypes and subconscious or overt racial discrimination (you being used generally here). We have to at least be willing to consider what informs our attitudes and ideals of what makes a person “attractive.” It’s not just genetics.

Kit-Kat says the daters are doing it wrong:

If it was really just about looks, that might be one thing–we’re attracted to what we’re attracted to. If I have a thing for dark skin, or blond hair, or green eyes, then I’m likely to find myself attracted to people from ethnic or racial groups in which those features are more common.

But (1) not all people in the same ethnic group look the same. There is a *huge* amount of variation in terms of hair color, skin color, facial features, etc. among Caucasians, Hispanics, African-Americans, Indians, Asians, etc., which makes a statement like “I don’t find Indians attractive” just stupid.

And (2) not all of these daters are speaking purely in terms of looks. Some of them are pretty open about their prejudices. Plus, to not even really give someone a chance because of their race is discrimination.

. . . My real objection though, is that it’s stupid dating behavior. Sometimes a good match for you is someone you are not initially head-over-heels for, or who doesn’t match your superficial checklist. Sometimes attraction grows over time, as you get to know someone. Sometimes looks become less important as deeper connections develop. Even if it’s not racist, it’s pretty shallow and self-limiting.

chris sets some ground rules:

Litmus test for whether something you’re saying is racist or not: Would you be willing to say it face-to-face to someone of the race/ethnicity you’re talking about? If not, it’s probably racist. If so, it might still be racist and you might be a colossal asshole. . . . protip: Saying “All x people always/never do y” is not really helping you look not-racist.

upk on the effects of bedroom racism:

. . . some people might be applying the idea that racism is a combination of prejudice and power. Even if they choose not to date a person because of his race, they are not depriving him of something he is legitimately entitled to (sex with them).

Matt is like, does being straight make me sexist? (In other news, commenter Matt is straight, everyone!):

Is it sexism if, as a heterosexual man, I don’t want to date a dude??? Give me a break!

Photo via George Eastman House

Last week, pornographer John "Buttman" Stagliano was tried on obscenity charges in D.C.—but the government fucked up its case so bad that the trial was dismissed before 14 Washingtonian jurors got the chance to weigh in on Stagliano's work. Sexist readers, for one, aren't too fond of the government prosecuting their milk enemas and squirting:

Barbara Booey sees art in the enema:

The very fact that Stagliano was put on trial is a miscarriage of justice. John Stagliano is the Kurosawa of dairy-product enema cinema.

Bart wonders if the government cares about his girlfriend's "actual dick with veins":

I’m young and ignorant of the law. I thought porn was legal in DC. I buy DVDs, I order in on Comcast. My girlfriend has a vibrator, and not a medical looking one but an actual dick with veins. What is he exactly on trial for and why are they wasting time when thugs, dealers, spies, BP execs, Republicans etc are running lose in this city?

Legba Carrefour on the government's insistence on releasing a porn performer witness' real name:

Fucking bizarre. Simultaneous to this, the federal government (through the Department of Health and Human Services) is investigating the leaking of personal records of two actresses who were STI tested by the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (AIM). The testing results are made available to producers, one of whom decided to leak the information to an industry blog. One of the major points of contention was the leaking of the actresses’ real names and social security numbers and addresses and medical records.

So the federal government is opening a criminal investigation into one outing of sex workers but actively pursuing the outing of sex workers in another case.

Aaron is impressed by the government's incompetence:

I’d be a lot more worried about modern obscenity trials if it didn’t so often turn out that the prosecution is utterly hapless. It seems kind of like how if you criticize somebody’s spelling or grammar on the Internet, you’ll invariably screw up your own? Like if you try to prosecute for obscenity, you’ll invariably trip over your own ass in front of the judge, or something like that.

Rover shares:

On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog with an enema fetish.

brian is looking for more variety in his enema porn:

i think they are missing an opportunity here, theres a whole drink market to consider…O.J., purple stuff, sunny D….maybe even diet cola and mentos.

Obscenity obscmenity. I probably spelled that wrong.

Typical DC BS asks where babies come from:

I hope the jury takes about 5 minutes to find this guy non guilty. Hard to believe an FBI agent was given the go-ahead to initiate and perform this investigation.

Maybe the FBI will also discover that sex is required to create babies and that the stork doesn’t really deliver them.

Photo via psd, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

This week, Courtney Stoker of From Austin to A&M and Joseph Hewitt of GearHead RPG graced us with their presence to discuss the problem of making dude-dominated subcultures more accessible to women. In the comments, you added your own tips:

Amy on refusing to GTFO:

Quote: “When looking for online communities, I tend only to join those that are either explicitly feminist or women-friendly.”

I find that very depressing. As a woman, I’ve never been bothered by whether a site/community is ‘feminist’ or not, or what proportion of it’s users are male or female.

To restrict your access to sites on these criteria seems like a recipe for letting the boys-only clubs be, and confining ourselves to a polite little enclave. Do you also suggest that women only apply to jobs in organisations that are already ‘women-friendly’?

I know the kind of reaction (BOOBIES!) women get in male-dominated areas on the internet, but hiding away in the feminist areas isn’t going to change anything, it’s going to make the idea of male-dominated areas seem *more* normal, as women voluntarily absent themselves.

grogette on self-preservation:

Or maybe it’s a means of self preservation. I tend to restrict my friends to feminists/progressives/antiracists/etc. Why would I hang out with a bunch of *ists and make myself miserable? Hanging out on sites (or with people) that are feminist/feminist friendly doesn’t mean someone doesn’t interact with the rest of the world that’s predominantly NOT feminist friendly.

Kit-Kat on moderation:

Decide what limits you want on your site, and then enforce them. Have a posted policy about your lack of toleration for sexist/racist/otherwise gratuitously nasty comments/whatever you don’t want on your site. Call out violators. If necessary, ban them from the site. Don’t just say it’s a safe space–make it one.

PD on picking your battles:

I don’t hang out in explicitly feminist or woman-friendly forums, but I do definitely avoid the ones where the misogyny is worst (4chan, Cracked, etc.) Some times the earth is just too salted to try and grow anything there. On forums where the environment is a little more inclusive, I use it as an opportunity to encourage equality when ignorant comments do pop up. It doesn’t always work on its intended target, but at least it gets it out there.

Cat on gaming machismo:

I’ve spent a lot of time in gaming communities and there’s a really nasty, pervasive insularity there which is focused around straight, white, Anglo-American male bonding. Men who would probably never harass a woman in real life feel that gaming communities are a special boys club where they get to degrade women, complain about female game characters not being hot enough and talking about raping opponents and making other players their bitches. Machismo abounds. I’ve left many sites not because I’m a crazy over-reacting feminist but because I have frequently had my concerns about negative attitudes dismissed.

“Nobody here is seriously sexist, it’s all in good fun.”

“Nobody really believes girls can’t play computer games.”

“There’s nothing wrong with female characters showing skin, you’re being over-sensitive.”

Unfortunately, if I want to enjoy gaming, I am faced with the painful reality that my knowledge, abilities and character will be constantly devalued and ignored by a lot of other players. I shouldn’t have to lurk behind a gender-neutral handle and watch forum members wax obnoxious about my gender. I shouldn’t have to see those individuals hiding behind forum administration who protect them and refuse to moderate.

Clarisse Thorn on getting women gamers engaged in the issue:

I used to work as a writer in the gaming field but stopped for several reasons, one of them being that I felt consistently objectified, etc. I had one experience where the biggest company I worked for asked for advice on how to make one of their games more female-friendly; I emailed a request for more specifics and never heard back, which makes me think that the question was more of a tossed-off “oh I guess we should be thinking about this” and less a sincere attempt to engage the question. So it’s heartening to see real attempts to address the question.

I would take a different angle with the “take women’s voices seriously” thing, though. I wouldn’t ask “what do you want us to change?” but rather “what are we doing right?” or “can you point to places that you consider more female-friendly?” or even “is it a priority for you that this space feel woman-friendly? please explain.” It’s easier to work from positive feedback, particularly positive examples. (Before someone leaps upon me screaming, please understand that I’m not saying negative feedback is bad. It’s just hard to work from.)

I do suspect that many if not most women who are already hanging out in gaming spaces feel that:

1) The situation “isn’t that bad”, for whatever reason.

2) They’re “willing to put up with it” and “don’t want to complain”.

Which makes this question hard to develop. Certainly, if you’d asked me while I was a game writer whether it bothered me that my employers were constantly hitting on me etc etc., I would very likely have been unwilling to get into it.

Photo via The Library of Congress

This week, Sexist commenters dared to answer the greatest philosophical question of our time: Are Ayn Rand devotees morally and intellectually superior beings, or are they actually just people who spend their time whining in the comments sections of feminist blogs when they could be daring to stamp the world with their boldly phallic architectural designs? Let's answer that question with the help of one Randian who has deigned to grace us with his presence.

In a comment thread largely dedicated to the brilliance of the 2005 Sci Fi Pictures original Mansquito, commenter Michael Hardesty writes:

All of the anti-Ayn Rand comments are moronic.
MORONIC. I’m dubious that a movie can do justice
to the greatest novel in world literature. It should
be a miniseries or a one year tv series.
Just read her works and ignore the statist-collectivist
retards who denigrate her.
They are zeroes and Rand will live forever while all of her critics are forgotten.
Check out the new book, The Vision Of Ayn Rand.

Laurel puts her inferior education on display:

My education in literature ended with PhD coursework, meaning I didn’t finish the degree; so I haven’t read everything. However, it’s odd that I was never required to read the greatest novel in world literature. Must be a plot by liberal academe to divert my attention from the one important author by making me waste my time on a bunch of hacks like Shakespeare, Cervantes, Twain and Aristophanes.

Nope, it’s because her writing is terrible–and I’d say that even if I embraced her “philosophy.

Michael Hardesty is an expert on clarity:

Laurel, Rand is the clearest, greatest writer ever.
Twain was a HACK as Vidal noted years ago.
Shakespeare was a great writer but had a terrible
malevolent metaphysics. Aristophanes and Cervantes
are ok but can’t touch Rand. Yes, your tiny little
mind went through the great liberal-socialist-communist
brainwashing machine during your typical college miseducation.
Why are there SO many stupid feemales on this thread ?

kza speaks up for feemales:

These comments need more
super smart maales
who
know
how to
write
paragraphs

Michael Hardesty is sensitive about the length of his paragraph:

Oh, get off it ! What I wrote is perfectly clear and the length of any given paragraph is purely arbitrary.

Photo via stuartwjones, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Last week on the Sexist, we payed tribute to the wedding industry's focus on women's "health," as evidenced through its tireless "BIG DAY" diet promotions, its images of women squeezing into too-small white dresses, and its total obsession with brides, not grooms. Commenters weighed in (GET IT?):

Shinobi on what wedding "health" looks like:

I remember one time a friend of mine was eating nothing but special K for two weeks before her wedding. (to fit into her dress, which she had purchased while on weight watchers.) Our conversations were pretty much limited to what she had eaten for the last two days, oh yeah, super interesting. When I failed to be particularly supportive she was all “Don’t you want me to be HEALTHY!?!?!?!?!”

And so I realized the error of my ways. The true road to health is crash dieting to fit into dresses.

Jess on the very healthy double standards of wedding "health":

I am getting married in October, and I cannot believe the amount of pressure I am getting from family and coworkers about my weight. I am a lifetime member of Weight Watchers, having met my goal a long time ago. I am a healthy weight for my height (5′9, 150lbs) and my wedding dress is a size 8. But all my coworkers and some annoying family members are telling me that I really should “tone up” or take off about 10 more lbs. Why? Why am I supposed to starve myself for a freaking wedding?! Not a chance!

Oh, and my fiance is about 25lbs overweight. No one has said a word to him about his weight and the wedding.

juicepockets on the beautiful moments that a focus on wedding "health" inspires between family members:

I was a fat bride three years ago (am still fat), and the amount of guff I got from my mom about it was alternately infuriating and heartbreaking. At one of my dress fittings, my mom looked at my reflection in the mirror and said sadly, “Your arms are so big.” Oh well, I wore the shit out of my sleeveless dress anyway!If you want an antitode to the People piece, take a look at the Museum of Fat Love.

Lesley of Fatshionista.com created the site to document ACTUAL EVIDENCE that fatties can and do find love and even sometimes GET MARRIED WHILE FAT. The gallery is full of adorable fatties in love.

PD on the media's helpful focus on wedding "health":

I was a fat bride two years ago. I’ve gotten fatter since—the back of my dress kept popping open because I’d put on a few pounds right before the wedding, and my husband shed blood trying to pin me back into it. Frankly, I think I looked great on my wedding day, probably better than I ever have in my life including my high school days, when I was definitely at my most fit.

No one who knows me personally—besides my mother, who does it all the time—suggested I try to lose weight in the two years I spent planning my wedding. I was, however, inundated with weight loss advice from the numerous wedding-related magazines and web sites I immersed myself in. Everywhere I looked I saw ads for “GET FIT FOR THE BIG DAY” schemes, and everyone on the internet was really, really invested, apparently, in making sure I was as trim and toned as possible before walking down the aisle. HOW DARE I be fat on my wedding day, when EVERYONE IN THE WORLD would see those pictures FOREVER? How dare I look at those pictures and think about how happy everyone was and what a great time we all had and how great the man I married is instead of focusing on how flabby my arms looked that day?

Listen, I’m like 70 pounds overweight, I know this is not great and it’s not healthy. I’m down with that. I’m also down with my own body—the body my husband has loved for 10 years, from 150 pounds to 230 pounds—even if the rest of the world is not. The wedding weight loss thing is, like pretty much everything else related to weddings, a scam to make money and make women feel like they have to conform to a certain standard of what brides should look like. I’m pretty sure your “bridal white” yoga mat costs twice as much as a regular one because someone screen-printed some doves and “FUTURE MRS. ____” on it or something.

Photo via sylvar, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Last week, we discussed a public masturbator operating on Metro's Orange Line. Commenters disagreed on how victims ought to react to a public sexual assault—and why they sometimes feel ashamed.

kza writes:

It’s important to report this to the police. A cop can actually do something unlike a regular citizen. I’m not quite sure how you could blame yourself or feel shame …

Emily WK writes:

kza, telling a victim of sexual assault what they should do afterward is in a general sense not very helpful at all. Neither is dismissing their very real and valid feelings of helplessness or shame. You might want to learn a little more about sexual assault and why people who have been victimized feel the way that they do before you start proclaiming what’s best and what each person should do in a particular instance.

Until then, you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

kza writes:

I think shame comes about after doing something shamefull. I don’t believe being a victim is a shamefull act. And I know I don’t know what I’m talking about here but I’m going to go out on a limb and say the women in these stories weren’t soliciting the guy so it’s not as if they are to blame…

Emily WK writes:

kza, try this.

That’s a start for what you might be able to find out about shame and why it isn’t always what you expect it to be. Human emotion, particularly when it relates to something like sexual assault, is a lot more complicated than “You have to do something shameful to feel shame.” You’re way over simplifying it.

Nobody here posting thinks these women should feel shame. But when we live in a world where women are routinely blamed for being raped, what on earth reason do you think these women would have NOT to feel shame? Jeez, dude. Like, think for a few seconds.

kza writes:

Rape is different. People blame victims of rape so I can understand that of course. Anyone who blames the girls that had to forcibly watch some jerk off jackin off is a lunatic who should not be listened to. No person can blame them.

Emily WK writes:

You are willfully not trying to understand. Have a great day, kza, and enjoy your little bubble of ignorance. Hope it serves you well.

kza writes:

You know what Emily? I probably am wrong. I think that victims should not feel blame but in the society we live in it’s understandable that they feel that shame. I would love to live in a world where victims didn’t have to feel that way. Maybe figuring out a way to stop making victims feel blame could lead to more of them being able to take a stand and force police into actually stopping this shit. I just feel like the best way to combat sexual assualt is with 1st hand accounts. They have 0 responsibility to stop future assaults but I think they can do more to change people’s minds then people like me, a random male who gets outraged by assualts I read about online.

groggette writes:

kza, I think you’re wrong about that last part:

"I think they can do more to change people’s minds then people like me, a random male."

Whether we like it or not, men’s (or white people’s, straight people’s, able bodied, etc.) voices are heard more often then women. In general, people are more likely to listen to what you have to say on this, just because you are male. And I want to make it clear that I would never ask someone to do anything they perceive would put them in harms way, but if you see something like this going down and feel safe, you telling the creeper to stop is almost always going to be a hell of a lot more effective than the woman (who should have been paying more attention, shouldn’t have been wearing those shoes/that shirt/those earrings, is just looking to be offended, etc.) saying or doing anything.

And it’s not just with the assholes doing what the guy in the OP does. If your friends are always talking about how this or that woman (that they probably don’t even know) is a slut for whatever reason, call them out on it. Your words will carry more weight than the women they are talking about.

I agree with you that these women shouldn’t feel shame. But that doesn’t change the reality. Men calling out other men is just as effective (if not more than, at least for now) as women trying to call them out and sharing their stories.

Saurs writes:

kza and others like him are merely parroting the party line. Only in a misogynist culture can the majority of people (women) have to fight to get a powerful, vocal, furiously self-centered minority (men) to recognize that their experiences are valid and true. “Changing people’s minds” is a neat little code phrase for “getting men to appreciate that women know what they’re talking about when they talk about themselves and their lives.” It’s a nearly impossible task to actually pull off. Privileged dudes don’t recognize how fucking privileged they sound when they talk about the necessity of “changing people’s minds” or “educating people” – “people” not actually signifying people in this instance, but ignorant men who want desperately to stay ignorant.

Man becomes the default person, his point-of-view the default point of view. Women, who actually outnumber men, become a fringe group that out of necessity must work in a unified fashion to mold their opinions into something palatable for men, to work hard not to worry male insecurity, and placate their delicate, fragile world-views in order to be “believed.” Sometimes this requires that every woman a man has ever known profess the truth of some perspective; otherwise a complaint is not universal, and therefore not worthy of interest. Other times, like all paternalists, anti-feminist men need other men to explain to them why misogyny is awful; otherwise, it’s just a bunch of bitches crowing and clucking, and who the fuck cares what dumb whores think, anyway? The person of the messenger and the appearance of the packaging really become irrelevant, because they’re always lacking; women are always fucking up and making men ignore them and discount them.

Why men are the arbiter of truth and reality – those who constitute a group that must “be convinced” of something in order for it to be true – remains to be seen, as most have a vested and entirely selfish interest in disproving or ignoring sexual inequality. It’s frankly laughable why anyone should take anything a man says about sex and gender seriously. When anti-feminists feign dispassionate, would-be scientific skepticism about feminism, they’re being disingenuous; like all conservative counter-reactionaries, anti-feminist men are threatened by feminism and have every reason to be frightened of it. Women, meanwhile, have nothing left to lose. The opposite of a feminist world is the here and the now; things can’t get very much worse, comparatively speaking. The dominant culture in the United States is violent, woman-hating, racist, capitalistic, greedy, and very, very dumb. If we don’t succeed, we know what to expect because we’re living it, and each day we become more backwards and more subject to repressed, oppressive ways of thinking. Men, on the other hand, would very much like things to stay the same – barring bigger tits, more housewives, more houseboys, more male privilege. Most can probably barely fathom a world and a culture in which men do not have the final say, in which what constitutes progress is not decided and fashioned solely by men, in which the minor inconveniences they mistake for grievous injuries against themselves and all men are put into their proper proportion, in which they can actually muster up empathy.

It’s little wonder why a lot of men need “convincing,” but convincing men is probably not actually a worthwhile cause.

Photo via stevebott, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Last week, I wrote about how women with big boobs are perceived as inherently sluttier than those of us with minimal cleavage. In response, large-breasted women everywhere emerged to tell their stories. (I told you I was committed to blogging about boobs today.) Talk about your boobs in 3, 2, 1 . . .

PD is not trying to tantalize/horrify:

You have no idea how relevant this is to me. Basically, anything cut lower than a standard t-shirt is going to reveal my decolletage. I’ve had big breasts since I hit puberty, and thus have been dealing with trying to find clothes that fit, bras that fit, and ignoring all the stares and comments since I was a kid. I’m not trying to tantalize and/or horrify the general public with my tremendous, obscene, 38J milk bags. Nor am I willing to undergo surgery or resign myself to a life of Victorian-era necklines just because I’ve got big breasts and that makes other people uncomfortable.

This is my gift. This is my curse. Spiderman 3 was a terrible movie.

bellacocker is not giving men "ideas":

I used to have a nice, church lady of a boss who would stand over my desk, look down my shirt, and tell me that my clothing and breasts set a bad example for the staff under my supervision and gave men “ideas.” When I asked for a written copy of the dress code, in order to shop more appropriately, she said she didn’t want to limit her staff’s freedom like that and that we could wear anything as long as it was “professional.” Which meant, I could buy anything I wanted, but I wouldn’t know whether it was acceptable work clothing until I wore it in and had heard her opinion about it.

wisiti is wearing the appropriate level of cleavage for this situation:

I can’t wear anything lower than a scoop neck without showing off ample cleavage. Many shirts and/or dresses are not cut to cover my cleavage to the amount that I would prefer, but the only other option are high-necked shirts that make my boobs look even bigger! I hate that I’m constantly pulling up my shirts or worried about the amount of cleavage I’m showing (am I making that person uncomfortable? Is this the appropriate level of cleavage to show in this situation?) when there doesn’t really seem to be a solution to the problem. And, like the first commenter, I spent the majority of my high school years larger than most of my friends, with a (now seemingly small) size 32C, that were the focus of too much attention, from both my male and female friends. I’ve spent most of my life worried about my big boobs, when there has never really been anything I could do about them.

Melanie is wondering when a boy's legs are "slutty":

And then there’s the problem with dress codes. I work for an organisation whose current dress code amounts to boys, you can wear anything except earrings, girls, don’t show your slutty cleavage or slutty legs. I am trying to convince them that it might be a good idea to de-gender the dress code a little lest it be regarded as discriminatory.

Joliska has got a name, you know:

I have had large breasts for years. I guess I first noticed as a senior in high school when people would yell comments at me as we passed in the hallway. I also found out how people classified me: my name didn’t ring a bell, but when my breasts were mentioned, people knew.
for some reason, having bigger breasts (which wasn’t by choice, however) seemed to make people think they had permission to make comments and grab at them when they felt like it.

I don’t usually have a problem with shirts that expose more cleavage than I’m comfortable with, but I do have a problem finding bras that fit me, and I’m constantly having to readjust and try to mold them into the cups. I also have trouble finding shirts that are long enough if not wide enough. It doesn’t seem that clothing designers thought of my body type when they designed their clothes.

Em has learned how to karate-chop:

Big boobs are public domain. Like, not just ogling, I have had strangers effing GRAB at them. I’ve even evolved to have a karate-chop type maneuver to thwart them if I’m out at a club or a bar.

The way I look at it, it doesn’t matter what I wear, so I might as well look cute. Actually, I get the most attention in a fitted t-shirt–no cleavage, but it emphasizes that my boobs are quite large for my waist size and I inevitably get unwanted attention. I’ve definitely had my outfit called “slutty” (usually by women, who are damn judgemental about these things) when a less endowed friend was wearing much less and apparently not deemed slutty. That’s just how it is. Culture is threatened by big boobs, I think because they’re in-your-face-femininity…also because people make such a big deal about boobs in this country. To quote an international student I used to know, “What is the big deal about boobs in this country?”

Cindy disagrees:

I have large breasts and I do not agree that wearing them on display is some kind of god given right. Maybe this is a generational difference.

Photo via freeparking, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Some guys and gals in the Male Studies set, however, had questions for our kind. A feminist answers Male Studies' most burning queries, after the jump:

Since I can’t think more than one thought at the same time, and I get distracted easily due to my inherent brain defect caused by my penis, could I get your call on whether men bleed when pricked so I can have a certified opinion sanctioned by your division of the sisterhood?

No.

I know of no woman who is raped daily, do you?

Not personally, but in some countries, that's actually legal. However, if you believe that every woman must be raped daily in order for you to care about sexual assault . . . then you are probably a Male Studies scholar.

Are you drunk?

Often!

????? WTF? What does criminal law have to do with this. Are you asserting that women’s studies prevents rape? That male studies would promote rape? That you are clueless?

Women's Studies does help work to prevent rape, but I'm not sure Male Studies does anything other than complain that I have a blog and pave the way for the rise of something called "teleconferencing scholars."

Whose rape is made into a punchline?

Prisoners, among others. And feminists really don't support any of that, trust me.

Who isn’t taken seriously when they claim domestic violence or rape—conversely, who is shoved into prison and subjected to humiliating medical examinations, because women are automatically believed when they cry rape, truthfully or not?

Male rape victims are often not taken seriously (or not heard at all), and that is a serious problem. Also a serious problem? That female rape victims are not taken seriously. And that victims, male and female, are actually denied the right to receive a humiliating medical examination because they are automatically not believed when they cry rape.

Who is convicted more often, receives longer sentences, and with less chance of parole, for the same crimes as women?

Black men.

If you think you have it so hard why not trade places? Have the guys sit at home and play housewife while you get marched off to your death for god and country? Have the guys get in the lifeboats with the kids with you go down with the ship?

This feminist opposes war, the draft, God, and the outmoded gender roles upon which ship-sinking etiquette is based. That being said, I'm afraid that if we actually traded places, I would be forced to sit at a computer and file nonsensical blog comments expressing outrage at outmoded gender analogies that I am unwilling to work to deconstruct, for I am an anti-feminist blog troll, in this scenario. So yes, in this case, women do have it better.

Can you not see that, thanks to feminism, virtually everything is getting worse for EVERYONE except PUAs and people who do not want to be burdened with children!?

Since I fall into the natural category of "Pick-Up Artist and/or person who does not want to be burdened with children," I'm afraid I'm not able to objectively answer this question. Who would have thought that feminism would end up just benefiting me and the writers of misogynistic dating books? Oh well.

Do you really believe Male Studies was established to win the approval of women? You are an idiot. I sure hope you can do something useful, like cook. Because if you can’t, I can only imagine you’d make a lousy wife. What are you good at, anyway? Why don’t you post a picture of your tits?

I don't believe Male Studies was established to win the approval of women, but I do bake a mean zucchini bread, and I imagine I would make a lousy wife. The reason that I don't post a picture of my tits is that despite your stated support of women posting pictures of our tits, you guys actually really despise us when we do that shit voluntarily.

Who said we are here to listen to you? Do you really believe Male Studies was established so that we may listen to the voices of women? Good Lord, your imbecility is breathtaking.

I would never assume that you would come over to my blog in order to listen to me.

Why is it that when the topic is MEN’S issues, MEN’S experiences, and MEN’S lives we (men) are STILL being told to sit down, shut up, and listen?

Probably because the topic is always men's issues, experiences, and lives, seeing as your main argumentative tactic when presented with women's issues, experiences, and lives is to immediately change the subject back to men, and then assert that women aren't allowed to talk about that stuff, so that we ought to sit down and shut up.

Well, I wonder if this posting will make it past the censor?

Yes.

Is the washington city paper even real?

Yes.

Are there any good feminist blogs out there at all?

Oh, yes! I quite like the lady over at Tiger Beatdown. And the folks at Feministing, Feministe, and Jezebel also provide interesting feminist content on the regular. The Ch!cktionary and Scarleteen are always swell for 20-somethings and teenagers, respectively, and you might also enjoy the work of fantastic feminist bloggers like Jaclyn Friedman, S.E. Smith, Cara Kulwicki, Shark-Fu, and C.L. Minou. Thomas McAulay Millar and Hugo Schwyzer provide a much-needed male perspective, though you'll have to ask them if they're sufficiently "male as male." And the bloggers over at Feminist Law Professors may satisfy your obvious thirst for scholarship.

Is there a “Scrotum Dialogues” somewhere that has escaped my attention that just as bizarrely as its sister counterpart worships the male appendage, and which has similarly taken the world by storm that has men everywhere worshipping their dicks and shouting the word “prick” to declare their ownership of their masculinity?

A Google search reveals that a commenter on the blog Too Much Free Time wrote a short scene entitled the "Scrotum Dialogues" in a 2004 comment on a review of the television program Big Brother 5.

Do you consider male homosexuality to be something dirty or insulting, Amanda? If not, why are you imagining that your enemies are homosexuals or attempting to slander them by painting them as homosexuals?

Nope! I am not doing that!

It is unfortunate men have to start building its own collective unity, why where they left on the side of the road, did they not invent and build what constitute the foundation of civilization, did they not discover cures and treatments for diseases, did they not fight so all can live in a free world, they did not leave women and children to fetch for themselves. Why did men accept to be withdraw and denied credit from the same people who they have created a better world?

I have no idea what you're saying.

I think this article is an example of why men cant take feminists seriously. Are you kidding me?

Yes.

Do you wear a drool-cup?

No, I wear a CockBib.

Last week, in a discussion of how to not harass people on the street, a few commenters floated a possible harassment loophole: Isn't it okay to call out people on the street if you're just insisting that they turn that frown upside-down?

I have previously delicately explained why people on the street should refrain from asking me to smile for them ("Don't Fucking Tell Me To Smile, Baby"). This time around, let's hear an involved and eloquent dissection of "smile!" from commenter Saurs, who enumerates the many reasons why she is not going to be smiling for you. My name is Amanda Hess and I approve this message.

It’s really very simple, actually. Men like these believe they have the right to intrude on a woman’s time and space whenever they sense or hope doing so might increase their chances of pulling, irrespective of what that woman is doing or what she wants, subtle signals or obvious ones (like headphones) be damned. They don’t acknowledge that a woman has an intrinsic right to remain mired in her own thoughts in public without being harassed, questioned, propositioned, interrupted, approached, or otherwise bothered. They don’t respect her enough to leave her alone and they’re bull-headed enough to believe their childish need for attention trumps the wishes of everyone else. Shapely Prose and Yes Means Yes also have useful blogposts on the subject.

The same sense of entitlement informs men’s decisions to approach random female strangers in the street and demand that they “smile!” Because a woman’s job is to brighten your day and make you feel better, and to be “pretty” and “sweet” and “happy”! “Smile! It can’t be that bad!” Effectively informing you, because as a woman you exist in a perpetual state of ignorance until some random fuckwad comes round with an illuminating piece of homespun male wisdom, that your life is great because you’re female and pretty, so don’t take anything too seriously lest you harsh the temporary high he gets from harassing you, eyeing you up and down, and making it his business to tell you how lucky you are. You dumb, hysterical bitch.

I use public transport often, both on short day-trips and longer, cross-country trips. As a grown-up type person, I know I’m going to have to occupy myself during such trips, quietly and without disturbing my neighbors. Often I become deeply absorbed in the tasks I plan for myself, including reading and writing. I don’t enjoy being interrupted and I can’t imagine why anyone would. I know for a fact that the men who interrupt me do so not because I am so entrancing and they are so mesmerized by my beauty and so frightened at the possibility of never seeing me again that they simply must speak to me. I’m not that good-looking or fascinating. The men who bother me when I’m clearly engaged in a task of my own choosing do so because they’re bored, and they know, from socialization, that a demure, female creature is much more likely to put away the book or notebook she has at hand and devote herself for a few moments to the needs of any male creature in the near vicinity who needs immediate attention, regardless of whether or not she actually enjoys his facile charm, his meager intelligence, his limpid attempts at humor, his ludicrous compliments. I do not gladly suffer such fools. They are singularly exhausting, like children.

When Woolf speaks of a woman’s need for a room to herself, that’s what she means; a physical and mental space wherein a woman can be the sole master of her own thoughts without interference from men she knows and from men she doesn’t know. It’s a sign of disrespect when a man intrudes upon a woman’s thoughts because he believes he is desperate need of her attention.

This is far different from people who have a mutual desire for conversation. I do this all the time on trains, with men and women. There are clear signs that we’re open to speak, to share a meal or a drink, to chat. We’re not wearing headphones, the books on our laps are closed, our pens are capped. It’s perfectly obvious when someone is interested in speaking to a stranger and when they aren’t. That men overwhelming choose to interrupt women when they’re engaged elsewhere and in other business in public is a clear example of men taking up mental and physical space and acting like pigs.

It also shouldn’t be difficult to see, acknowledge, and condemn the sexism in the casual exhortation of women to smile and look pretty. I’m forever being accosted and told to be happy, or, rather, to look happy, for the explicit gratification of my interlocutor. I generally walk down the street, for example, busying myself with my own thoughts, absorbed by a particular problem, flight of fancy, piece of recitation, something that interests and excites me. I don’t expect strangers to be interested in the contents of my mind, but neither do I expect them to demand that I neglect my own desires in favor of looking “pretty.” I don’t know from pretty. It may surprise some men to find that there are hordes of women who could not care less about looking pretty. When I’m in the midst of contemplating something that interests me, I don’t look pretty; I’ve probably got forehead wrinkles, I’m frowning in concentration, I might even go cross-eyed. I don’t care.

I happen to find surly, moody expressions attractive on men and women. Nevertheless, I don’t go round my neighborhood asking strangers to pout for me because I happen to like a good pout. It’s none of my business what expression a stranger chooses to don, consciously or unconsciously. And yet women’s bodies are constantly on display, constantly in a state of being judged, critiqued, and closely examined. Women’s physical selves are always in need of being checked, our expressions guarded, in order to please and gratify strangers by succumbing to certain conventions, like “prettiness,” a kind of passive, pleasing attractiveness that seems to delight some men. There are also some men who don’t care what a woman is actually feeling, so long as she masks those unattractive or complicated feelings by wearing a pleasing grin on her face, devoid of intelligence. Some men don’t want to acknowledge that women have inner lives that may not revolve around pleasing men. Even women who are not by convention good-looking, even ugly by convention, are still expected to “make an effort” towards conventional attractiveness — they are expected to wear make-up, care about their hairstyles, wear restrictive clothing, feign or adopt submissive, feminine mannerisms. Women are often found wanting, even by strangers.

The men who approach me and ask me to smile are being sexist. That some women also choose to engage in sexism by asking strangers to smile does not negate the sexism in their behavior. Some women like women. Some women treat other women like objects. This is no surprise.

Photo via Hendricks Photos.

Last week on the Sexist, readers sounded off on the new Kotex ad that isn't allowed to utter the sound "vuh-jahy-nuh," we parsed the difference between the "vulva" and the "vagina," and one commenter received some Very Special terminology instruction on the meaning of "tampon." Let's do this point-counterpoint style, shall we?

POINT: Censoring the word "vagina" is an absurd and sexist practice. Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten on the Post's history of not saying "vagina" in print:

On this subject, I’d like to reprise a Comment I once made in this very forum a few months ago:

Meanwhile, I’d like to share a story apropos of the argument about whether women “are” their body parts. Back in the 1990s I was editing a story by Laura Blumenfeld about the then-trendy topic of the female condom. When we were done with it, the story had to be approved by a top editor at the paper, because it was about sex, and The Post was very, very nervous about sex. The editor liked the story, but he asked us to take out the word “vagina,” which he found distasteful. (Er, he found the WORD distasteful.)

Laura and I argued strenuously that you cannot write a story about the female condom without indicating how it is used, and that it is absolutely impossible to explain this without using the v word. And that there is nothing wrong with the v word.

The editor got all huffy and declared that he would rewrite it himself, which he did. And so there appeared the following line in The Washington Post; it is still in the archives: “The female condom lines the inside of a woman.”

Voila! In trying to be tasteful and sensitive, this editor put into the Washington Post a line SPECIFICALLY equating a woman with her ladypart.

COUNTERPOINT: Censoring the word "vagina" is an absurd and sexist practice . . . inflicted against men by those danged feminist groups! Also, forget "vagina!" Why can't I say "pussy"? Jeff lays it all down for us:

Did you ever think that women will complain if the word vagina is used and the networks don’t want letters and calls from thousands of women. It’s why words for male genitals are used routinely throughout every show on TV, but you will never hear a slang word for female genitalia. I have heard balls, nuts, dick, pecker, prick, dickhead, and even cock during prime-time on all channels. Why can’t tits or pussy be used? It’s because of the backlash from women’s groups and many women in general.

Could you imagine how many letters and calls NBC would receive if the show Parks and Recreation used the word pussy. But I heard the word dick and balls during the last episode. It’s ok for mainstream media to be sexist and bash men, use words for male genitalia, portray men as bumbling idiots, but not women.

It’s even ok to show men nude in basic cable shows, but never women. Movies and cable shows even have started showing penises regularly, but a vagina is forbidden. It’s given an NC-17 if they try to show it. Only pubic hair or a boob is allowed because women think showing a vagina degrades them. Even the show Spartacus shows penises every episode, but they won’t show a vulva so they make the women wear merkins to cover them up.

So in the end, blame women and women’s groups for acting like a vagina is so vulgar.

Does "A Vagina Is Forbidden" sound like a catchphrase used to sell diamonds to anyone else? And speaking of the difference between the vagina and the vulva, I, too, am interested in basic cable showing more of the internal canal leading to a woman's uterus. Also, why aren't these ancient Roman women depicted with totally bald genitalia? Sexism!

When I was an 18-year-old freshman in college, I was running around some side-streets in a hilly neighborhood when a black SUV pulled up next to me. The driver rolled down his window and started a conversation.

"Hey, how are you?" he said. Friendly enough. He was driving slowly to match my running pace. I kept focusing on what I was doing—I was out of breath, kind of busy, and didn't feel like talking—but I responded neighborly out of politeness. "I'm fine. How are you?"

"I'm doing good. So do you live in the neighborhood?" I really wasn't interested in having this conversation. But I looked over at the guy, and he was a cop, in uniform, and I felt like I was required to be extra polite. I informed him that I did live in the neighborhood. I kept a steady pace and he kept the SUV slowly rolling up next to me.

Things quickly got weird.

"You look like you work out a lot," he told me. Arm hanging out the window. SUV slowly trailing me. It was the sort of comment that made me deeply uncomfortable but that I felt I couldn't really argue with. He was big, easily 20 years older than me, in a big car, and a cop. I was 18, new to the District, and inexperienced. So I just kept my eyes on the road, hoping he'd get the hint. He didn't. I tried lose him down a side street and he turned with me. There was no one else around. "Where do you live? I work out, too. Let's work out together. You look great. You really do." And on and on and on.

At no point did I respond like I was interested. I don't hide my emotions well, and it would have been written all over my face that this man was scaring the living shit out of me. I could feel my heart beating out of my chest, my breath thinning, my face flushing with heat. What if he followed me all the way back to my dorm? What if he stopped the car? What if I tired out and couldn't run away? What was I supposed to do—call the cops?

If you're reading this story, you might have some different questions for me: Like, what if you were just overreacting? He didn't say anything explicitly threatening, did he? Why don't you learn how to take a compliment?

Last week, I wrote a post praising Hollaback DC for raising awareness about the problem of street harassment in the District. And one commenter was concerned about what behaviors constitute "harassment" these days. He pointed to a recent post on Hollaback where a woman reported the following incident:

Out of nowhere, I hear “Yo, gorgeous!” and I turn in the direction where it came from. I see these two losers in a red and yellow truck smirking at me. Gross.

The truck pulls up further in traffic, and I catch up to it and snap a photo with my phone. . . . When I told them that they needed to do their jobs and not hit on women, they didn’t care. They continued to smirk and giggle. Passers-by made a comment about me and giggled, and I don’t know if they were laughing at me getting harassed or laughing at me giving the harassers an earful, but I just didn’t care. I felt like these harassers just ruined what was a good afternoon.

Commenter Stewart is skeptical:

I understand that everyone has their limit but one of the recent entries on the HollaBackDC site has me scratching my head. A woman claims her beautiful Spring-like day was “ruined” because a couple of guys in a truck yelled “Yo, Gorgeous” at her and had the temerity to keep looking at her too?

Really? Your day was “ruined” by that? Seriously? No lewd comments, no name calling, no following. “Yo, Gorgeous” is what passes for sexual harassment now? Geesh.

LeftSidePositive counters:

Stewart, I’m glad for you that you’ve clearly never had to be treated like a piece of meat, and that your appearance is not treated like public property to be commented on and stared at by total strangers. How lucky for you that you don’t have your privacy invaded, and how fortunate that you’re insulated from common human empathy.

Stewart replies:

Think what you want but I have plenty of empathy. And I have heard some horror stories about male harassment. In my humble opinion, this isn’t one of them; it’s not even in the same universe. But like I said in my first post, everyone has their limit. I guess the women I know have thicker skins than the woman who wrote this particular piece. Not that that’s right or wrong or good or bad, it just is what it is and reasonable minds can and will disagree.

LeftSidePositive writes:

Stewart––because someone got killed today, would that make it okay for me to punch you in the face?? “It’s not even in the same universe.”

What’s more, there is a LOT of power in being continually reminded by minor slights that add up that you are perceived as less than equal or public property.

And, no, you don’t have a lot of empathy. You think you can brush aside something that was upsetting or frustrating to someone just because you don’t think it was important enough.

Amanda Hess writes:

People do have different limits, triggers, and past life experiences. These things all affect what level and type of harassment they can handle before they speak up about it. Perhaps you weren’t previously aware that some women can feel threatened by something as simple as “Yo, gorgeous” followed by aggressive staring and open laughter. I don’t have trouble understanding this reaction; I experience this all the time. But you were left scratching your head.

Well, the great thing about Holla Back D.C. is that now you know that some women are upset by this, and that they do feel harassed by it. So, instead of denying this woman’s experience by insinuating that she’s too sensitive, why not take this as an opportunity to consider why this behavior might have been perceived as threatening to this woman? Why not consider the ways in which you personally might not fully understand this specific type of threat? Why not ask yourself why your female friends don’t discuss this low-level type of harassment with you? Is it because you would dismiss them as overly sensitive?

About the severity of the harassment: I’ve heard some horror stories about harassment, too … and they usually have much more long-lasting effects than just putting a damper on one day in a person’s life. That doesn’t mean that that one day of stress isn’t significant enough for one woman to talk about her experience on a blog.

Julia writes:

Agreed, having someone yell “hey gorgeous” out their car window doesn’t seem like a big deal. And if it happened to you, you might still not think it was a big deal. But I can’t even count the number of times a stranger has yelled out a comment like that AND THEN FOLLOWED ME. Usually when I am alone, in a big city, often at night. So when you hear “hey gorgeous” you might think, ‘oh a complement’. but when I hear the same line, I think, “oh I hope I don’t get followed home today.” And trust me, it happens on a quasi-regular basis, even after I explicitly tell the man to stop.

Exactly. When I got followed by the cop in the SUV, he didn't start by saying anything half as explicit as "yo, gorgeous!" He eased in, got me talking, and because I responded to him, he refused to let go. So he followed me. In his car. On an empty street. I eventually lost the guy by steering toward a pedestrian-only footpath and running for my life. Every time a guy hollers out a "compliment" to me on the street, I have to weigh whether responding politely is going to get me a new stalker. So don't tell me that I'm overreacting.

As for the woman who responded impolitely to the call of "Yo, gorgeous"—at least someone is taking her concerns seriously. On Hollaback, a commenter suggested that the woman call the name of the company listed on the side of the truck and report the employees. She did, and the company's general manager responded positively to her concerns. "He said that he’s 99.9% sure of who the offenders were by the description I gave, and that 'extreme action' will be taken against them," she writes. "He apologized profusely for their actions."

Photo via _STANGSTA_, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Last week on the Sexist, we discussed the contraceptive knowledge deficit among young men (and I got into the sex ed video business). Readers, bless 'em, chimed in with more "magical" birth control theories they've heard over the years—from both men and women.

Lizrd's mom is mystified:

As a nuva ring user, it rocks and I miss it now that I’ve been booted from my parents health care. But yeah, my boyfriend was probably a little mystified by the whole endeavor. The most resistance came from my mom, who seemed to think it “caught sperm” and told me, a freshman in college “well its your pregnancy to worry about” when I told her I was making the switch from daily pills.

Sarah has heard some bizarre tampon theories in her day:

I had a boyfriend in my early twenties who thought that tampons were the size of penises, which is how they ‘filled’ you (yep, his word). He didn’t understand how I could skip the sugar pills and still be safe the week after.

Then again, I went to university with a women who thought you urinated from your vagina (not uretha), and thus avoided tampons. How would she go to the toilet then?

She was a sexually-active 21 year old at Cambridge in England. Jesus.

Shannon's boyfriend knows best:

A college boyfriend once told me I couldn’t possibly have my period because it was too early in the month. He had interpreted “every 28 days” to mean that all women, everywhere, simultaneously got their periods on the 28th of the month. He also accused me of lying when I still had said period 5 days later. His biology textbook had informed him that periods only lasted 3 days. (You’ll be shocked to hear this relationship did not last very long.)

K's sex partner finally understands pills—hundreds of women later:

I am sleeping with a 27-year-old man who has had many, many partners before me (all women.) One night he wanted me to stay over, and I said I can’t, I forgot my pills and don’t want to take one late. He said, “That’s okay, I just won’t come in you this time.” As if the pills were like condoms, and you took one every day you might get pregnant.

I explained that to him that they didn’t work if I took them irregularly, and that they were like antibiotics: they wouldn’t work if I gave up half-way thru. He understands much better now, but how he got to 27 without this knowledge, when I know he’s slept with literally hundreds of women, is mind-boggling.

disgusted dude knows a guy who is disgusted by vaginas:

There’s a Simpsons episode in which Nelson Muntz eats contraceptive pills hidden in a box of mints. His resulting hormonal imbalance is a running gag throughout the show. Jokes based on the idea The Pill contains hormones date back to 16 Candles. I’m stunned by the idea there are guys watching that and having no idea what they’re laughing about.

Perhaps it’s because I grew up in the 80s and my life just happened to co-incide with Peak Sex Ed. Even in conservative Florida, they started teaching the biology of reproduction in 6th grade and eventually covered periods and hormones.

Due to the growing AIDs crisis/panic, my college was aggressive about teaching reproductive health in general and people were receptive. This conintued into my young adulthood – fighting AIDs had the side effect of making general information about “down there” a more common talking point.

On the other hand, an acquaintence my age was a person for whom no subject was too gross except ladyparts. Scatology was a big topic, but jokes or even mentioning the cycle made him put hands over his ears.

Jamie put a copper thing in her baby incubator:

I got a copper IUD inserted recently and the whole process freaked my boyfriend out. It took lots of explaining for him to wrap his head around it and I think it still makes him uncomfortable. I make sure he is aware of what my genitals are doing at all times, though, so he’s used to hearing about it.

As for girls being equally clueless, a girl I know (who attends an Ivy League school) asked me if “the uterus is where the baby lives for nine months.”

I'd love to revisit all of these comments—especially the one from the guy who wrote, "But make no mistake, The Scary Man will rape someone today just as sure as the lion will kill and eat the slow, sick wildebeest"—but alas, I only have so much space on this old Internet. So I'm going to highlight one particularly smart argument, from commenter Emily H., who somehow manages to make her point without comparing rape victims to infirm exotic animals.

She writes

You focus here on privilege, the fact that many people can’t afford to stay out of “bad” neighborhoods, and for most women, it’s hard to avoid doing “feminine” behaviors like adorning oneself/wearing makeup. I’d just want to emphasize that since these allegedly “risky” actions are legal and morally unobjectionable by themselves, they don’t need to be defended by pointing out that the person didn’t have any choice. Even if they had 100% free choice, it’s the criminal who committed a crime, not the victim who did something “stupid” by being victimized. For instance, let’s say I could afford to live in a nice neighborhood pretty easily, but I choose to live in a “bad” one because that’s where all my friends live/I’m saving up to go to Europe/I hate all the yuppie jerks who moved into my old neighborhood/whatever. That’s valid in its own way, and doesn’t make it less illegal to mug me on my block.

Similarly, I’m in a graduate English program & move in pretty enlightened circles, so I could probably get away with not acting “feminine,” without too many negative repercussions. (I know a lot of butch women who are popular and successful.) But I don’t want to — it’s fun for me to wear short skirts, heels & makeup, and dress “sexy,” so I do. The thought of doing things in a more utilitarian way doesn’t appeal. And I don’t think that makes it any less of a valid way to be. Just bringing this up because often, feminists defend sexiness & femininity solely by pointing out that “that’s how women are expected to act.” As if they were sort of necessary evils. Even if they were not at all necessary and totally avoidable, that doesn’t make them any more blameworthy.

Photo by arkadyrose, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

After Ruskowski was groped by a stranger in a Falls Church Metro parking garage last September, she attempted to report her grope to police as soon as she could get to safety. In fact, she contacted two different police departments on the night of the attack, but because of strange jurisdictional issues, wasn't able to file an actual report until the next day. Here's what happened:

I drove out of the garage, got home, (I didn't think driving while on the phone and shaking was a good idea) and called the Fairfax and Falls Church Police, who all said to call Metro Police the next day. So I did report it right away, but was told to talk to someone else the next day. Fairfax said I lived outside of their jurisdiction so they wouldn't send cops to my house to make a statement, and Falls Church said the metro wasn't their jurisdiction.

She adds: "Just wanted to be able to respond to the commenters who admonished me for not calling the police right away. Take that, commenters!"

Last week on the Sexist, we debuted our final groping instalment (yes, haters, it is really over). In the final column, Falls Church resident Emily Ruskowski is groped in a Metro parking garage, reports the assault the next day, and eventually helps to catch her assailant in a sting operation.

One reader complained that the story perpetuated a dangerous "myth" surrounding sexual violence: "that even moderate sexual violence is so traumatizing that the appropriate response is not to contact law enforcement immediately."

Sexual assault trauma: Fact or fiction? Discussed in this edition of Sexist comments of the week:

Rando writes in to de-bunk the myth:

Protip: When you are assaulted, sexually or otherwise, but physically unharmed, and you’re sitting in a locked car in a public space and the perp is walking away and making no threatening motions, and you have a cell phone, a good description of the perp, and his phone number, CALL 911. This persistent myth that even moderate sexual violence is so traumatizing that the appropriate response is not to contact law enforcement immediately does unbelievable harm to future victims of sexual violence. I’m sure I’ll be accused of blaming the victim here, but come on folks, we all need to remind each other that when bad things happen, CALL THE COPS IMMEDIATELY SO THEY CAN CATCH THE SCUMBAGS.

latecomer suggests that perhaps the lack of an immediate response to an assault is not a result of a "persistent myth" of trauma, but rather actual trauma:

@Rando When someone’s traumatized and processing what has happened to them they’re not necessarily able to act so immediately. It sounds like Emily did a great job considering what she went through. That was some pretty aggressive stalking there…

Not so fast: actual evidence of a person being traumatized by a sexual assault does not deter Rando from arguing that that person's real life experience has created a "myth":

Latecomer, that’s my point—stories like this reinforce the idea that even moderate assaults like this are so traumatizing that calling the cops just isn’t an option. We need to get past that myth that women are so emotionally fragile that we can’t handle making a 911 call and instead need to call a friend or family member for an hour or more of psychological stabilization before pressing 3 keys on our phones and telling the operator where we are and what the perp looks like.

To be clear, I’m not coming down on the writer personally here, more on CP for putting this story out there as model behavior with a happy ending.

L respectfully disagrees:

Oh, for fuck’s sake, Rando.

1) Clearly, this is not a myth. Clearly. The woman in the article was too traumatized to report right away. This may not be the case for every woman who experiences sexual violence. But being traumatized by sexual assault? That’s totally and completely normal. You’re an asshole for shaming women who feel traumatized after experiencing something traumatic.

2) Reporting or not reporting sexual assault does not cause sexual assault. The person committing sexual assault causes sexual assault. Don’t blame victims for things that really, REALLY aren’t their fault or within their control.

3) Calling the cops WAS an option in this story, because SHE DID CALL THE COPS. Therefore, this post is not promoting any sort of narrative that women are too “emotionally fragile” or whatever to call the police. Did you, by the way, notice how long it took her to get in touch with someone who would actually follow up on her report? The hour she spoke to her friend before calling 911 is nothing in comparison to how long it took her to get someone to pay attention. If there’s blame to be laid anywhere, it’s on the transit cops for not answering her phone calls.

To sum it up, stop being a mansplaining, victim-blaming dick, Rando.

Emily H. is concerned with Rando's myth that calling the cops immediately will resolve a groping case:

Rando — I hear where you’re coming from, and I agree telling women it’s somehow more appropriate or “normal” to be too freaked out to call the cops is a bad message. But one woman’s story doesn’t send that message, because it *is* just one woman’s story. It’s what really happened, not what society as a whole had decided should happen, and I’d much rather hear the truth.

Also: I was once attacked by a crazy guy while out jogging, and I called 911 as soon as I got away from him. The dude ran to his car and drove away. The cops showed up 20 minutes later (!), and the criminal was long gone. People don’t necessarily expect a quick or useful response from the police, because often they don’t get one.

An ally drops in to provide Rando's Defense:

Couple of points here in defense of Rando:

1. One person’s story = one person’s story. An article put out in the public space without comment = how myths get perpetuated.

2. 911 responses may be fast and efficient, or they may not be. That is no reason not to call the cops.

Miike snow is unsure exactly how this "myth" would be perpetuated in practice:

Rando, it seems like you just made up an imaginary problem. Nobody in these stories thinks of calling the police but then says, “Oh wait, I’m supposed to be traumatized.” They are just actually traumatized.

And none of these stories are saying your “supposed” to be traumatized. So, I don’t know where you’re getting this “myth” from, but I suspect you actually just have an agenda.

Illustration by Brooke Hatfield.

It seems as if my critique of last night's Superbowl ads struck a nerve with the most loyal fans of the Dodge Charger. These are their stories.

stann thinks that painting men as a bunch of emasculated wimps in order to sell a Dodge is just tellin' it like it is:

God forbid any commercial should be geared towards men, reflect the feelings of men or (worst yet) poke fun at women a little instead of making men look like idiots. The “Spine”, “Dodge Charger” and “You’re a man” commercials were some of my favorites and reflect what so many women don’t (or refuse) know about men. This may be why so many of them are divorced or can’t get a man.

gdmt is unconvinced:

stann, as a fellow heterosexual man, i think these commercials make men look totally pathetic. how can you relate to a commercial that makes men look resigned to spending miserable lives doing shit that they dont want to do all the time just so they can fuck a woman and drive a shitty dodge? maybe your life just sucks. sorry, stann.

stann insists that any man who doesn't like the Dodge Charger is either emasculated, or straight-up female:

gdmt: Any “man” who says a Dodge Charger sucks on anything but gas should just admit she’s really pretending to man so as to give some credibility to her point of view. It would be no surprise though, that complaints would come from the same emasculated men depicted in the commercials. Sorry to show you up to a mirror, but that’s life.

gdmt points out that that makes absolutely no sense, since "the same emasculated men depicted in the commercials" are the ones meant to be buying the fucking Charger. Therefore, if it is only the "emasculated men" who are complain about the Dodge Charger commercial, the Dodge Charger commercial has failed on its face:

stann: I’ll gladly be called emasculated if asserting my masculinity requires buying a dodge charger. also; those emasculated men depicted in the commercial are the ones driving the car i.e. you.

In last week's Sexist Beatdown, Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and I discussed the great social dilemma facing girls today. It concerns, of course, "The Fat Talk," a ritual that girls of every size practice in order to keep their self-esteem firmly in check. Behold, the "Fat Talk" Model of Female Friendship:

Girl 1: I am fat.

Girl 2: Me too.

So, girls: Do you cement your spot in the social hierarchy of girlhood by engaging in this self-destructive chatter about how fat, dumb, and ugly you are? Or do you risk being cast out of girlhood's good graces by holding yourself with confidence?

Commenters to the rescue!

Julia, too, is vexed by the incessant "fat talk" of women and girls:

Wait no! I need more practical tips on how to handle fat talk! It is absolutely RAMPANT among my friends, and I have no idea how to handle it in a constructive and healthy way. It doesn’t help matters that I’m thin, and so any objections I raise are usually met with “well you wouldn’t understand, anyway.” Actually, when I was younger that used to cut me deeply, because it felt like I was being ostracized for being thin, and I SO BADLY wanted to participate in fat talk with a level of authority. I don’t even want to think about how messed up that is… I was supposed to want to be thin, but then everyone [female] HATED me for being thin, so then I hated me for being thin, even though I supposedly possessed something praise-worthy. Which was/is confusing, to say the least.

Anyway! Point being, does anyone have ideas/stories about how they have successfully navigated the fat talk mine field? I for one freeze in fear every time the subject comes up. (Because even more than a decade later, it still signifies being left out, in my mind). How do I effectively communicate concern about body image issues without coming across as condescending or dismissive? I love my friends, I think they’re all beautiful, and I love that we don’t all look the same! Why does self-esteem have to be some sort of messed up self-sacrificial zero sum game?

Em suggests getting it all out over a couple of beers:

Julia, a friend and I successfully navigated this by just being honest. We were up late drinking one night and I honestly said what I thought for years, that I was really jealous of her 5′11, 120-pound frame. She laughed and said she had always been jealous of my curves! From then on out we’ve always discussed our INSECURITIES, not our supposedly awful, ugly bodies, knowing that we’re being ridiculous.

Of course, I only have this sort of candidness with one friend, so I don’t know if that’s a really group-wide solution. But for the girls you are really close to, I think it helps to think of the real reasons you engage in this kind of “fat contest” and then to be honest about it. It usually comes down to jealousy—I’ve had to explain to my boyfriend, men look at women to check them out, women look at women to compare. Constantly and exhuastively. If we talk about this pissing contest and we’re all aware of it, sometimes we can transcend above it.

Of course, this assumes the maturity of all parties. Ha.

b-bop notes how frighteningly pervasive the "fat talk" is:

I have a friend who is extremely gorgeous and always turns heads wherever she goes….she thinks her teeth are a major embarrassment because they’re “too pointy” and is sensitive about her age for some reason…

I have known girls who were size 0 and model height claim to be fat…

Affects everyone I suppose.

Frankie explains how "fat talk" works as a cover for all manner of "insufficient talk":

I have an awesome group of close female friends. I don’t think a single one of us is the same height, weight or shape and yet we’ve all engaged in this weird ‘fat talk’ thing, where by one of us gets to feel guilty for being the skinniest/lightest/curviest/tallest/shortest or whatever is deemed the most awesome trait of that five minutes whilst everyone else feels terrible for not winning the contest to be most beautiful right that second.

It’s ridiculous because there is no way that my gorgeous six foot tall friend should weigh the same as I do, or that my girlfriend should be both proud of and embarressed by her breasts because they are somehow both something to be envied and ashamed of at one and the same time. We all know this but still engage in this behaviour. So we’ve been trying something new, something my therapist suggested when I was being treated for Anorexia.

When any one of us says ‘I feel fat/ugly/whatever’ we do our best to make the time to sit down and talk about what is making us feel bad. It’s not ideal but it seems to be working, enough so that I’m more likely to get a call from a friend now saying she feels low and could do with a chat than I am to be asked to reassure her that she’s not hideous.

One thing we seem to have noticed is that nine times out of ten, something which is unrelated to looks is going on but our self esteem is so tied up in how we see our bodies that we translate feeling bad about anything into feeling bad about how we look. So for example, if I forget to do something important aswell as feeling terrible about forgetting I ALSO feel fat or ugly, even though there is no way the two have anything to do with each other. What’s more, I will feel so bad about feeling fat that I am more likely to mention that as the reason I am upset. I did used to think this was just because I had an eating disorder, but it turns out that the same is true to a greater or lesser degree for all my close female friends.

Photo by SantaRosa, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Last week's essay on groping in D.C., "Touch and Go: How Groping Happens," inspired several readers to write in with their own experiences being touched without their consent. More ways groping happens—from the unsolicited arm-over-the-shoulder to the assault from a new father-in-law, after the jump.

k writes about the unwanted touching that slips under the "groping" radar:

Can we also talk about dudes who put their arms around you, touching you in places that are pretty damn safe – shoulders, back, etc – but who are total strangers? I always find that weird – you’ll be sitting at the bar, and some guy just casually throws his arms over your shoulder. You look over, thinking it’s your friend, and then you realize you have no idea who this dude is. You shake him off, and then he’s mad—he didn’t GROPE you, per se, so why are you freaking?

Just another way in which women’s bodies are considered public property.

Last week, I published a cornucopia of rape cartoons drawn by Real World D.C. cast member Andrew Woods for his college newspaper, the Rocky Mountain Collegian. Woods' comic strip sparked plenty of on-campus controversy at Colorado State University while he was a student there; last week, the controversy over Woods' work hit national TV. On the first episode of the Real World D.C., Woods claimed that he was ultimately fired from the paper for "trying to offend women and lesbians and stuff like that." The sampling of rape cartoons penned by Woods drew both defenders and detractors. Thoughts on rape cartooning— from the "is it worse than Maxim?" rule to the crucial distinction between the humor of Dave Chappelle and Carlos Mencia—after the jump.

Bob applies the "is it worse than Maxim?" test:

Gee, lighten up. Like anything that college—college!—kid wrote is worse than what one would see in Maxim, or hell, the Onion.

Anne writes:

I'm told that "SARAH MCLACHLAN CAN DANCE CIRLCES AROUNF YOUR UGLY ASS" is Kabbalah for "You have hereby failed to keep it sufficiently real." I'm also pretty sure that "ANOOYING PIECE OF SHIT" is Canadian for "annoying piece of shit." Kabbalah.

The comment inspired me to Google investigate Sararh McLachlan's ties to Kabbalah, which, if they exist, appear to be secretive and underground. Publicly, McLachlan is still considered a "Catholic-influenced environmentalist feminist animal rights activist human rights activist humanist," of course. BONUS Sarah McLachlan Jesus video:

[youtube:v=ZgPuqHd1hAE]

SUPER BONUS shameless plug: Follow this ANOOYING PIECE OF SHIT on Twitter!

First, with the help of my Sexist Beatdown partner-in-crime Sady Doyle: a discussion about why men don't recognize themselves as victims of sexual assault, and instead dream up hilarious feline metaphors ("cheetahs"!) in order to discuss the phenomenon of predatory women. Then: a follow-up post on how we use anatomy to justify assaults against men (hint: an erection does not equal consent).

The examination of sexual assaults against men got an interesting response from some feminist commenters over on Sady's blog, Tiger Beatdown (Yes! This is a special guest edition of Sexist Comments of the Week!) Namely: Don't feed the MRA's!

MRAs, for the uninitiated, is shorthand for "Men's Rights Activists." These guys are kind of like feminists, only instead of focusing on reproductive rights, objectification of women, and sexual assault, they're more concerned with other systems of oppression—like divorce court, the Selective Service, and male circumcision. Because—say it with me—the patriarchy  oppresses men too, there's no reason that MRA's and feminists shouldn't get along. Except for one minor detail: MRA's tend to believe that feminism is the root of most of these problems that affect men, and we tend to see that's pretty much bullshit.

The unfortunate result of that divide is that feminists have sometimes discounted important issues to our movement—like violence and sexual assault against men—by relegating their discussion to the MRA community, where the issues can sometimes take on . . . interesting twists.

Kristyn wrote:

I think this article is very, very relevant, and totally true, but at the same time it definitely borders on the "fodder for MRAs" territory.

"See, you lying whore, you weren’t raped because WOMEN RAPE MEN!!! Like, ALL THE TIME!!! But men are just TOO AFRAID to say so because THE WOMEN have BULLIED THEM and WE ARE SO SCAARED like TIGER who got beaten BY A GOLF CLUB!!!! Who’s to say you horrible cheetahwomen aren’t going to HIT US with GOLF CLUBS because you HAVE MORE POWER blah blah blah blah WHITE GUYS ARE THE MOST OPPRESSED PEOPLE EVER blah blah people are too PC blah blah blah."

. . . So how can we talk about this type of thing WITHOUT breeding women-hating assholes who think all lady-people are sexually manipulative golf-club-wielding animal metaphors?

Helen added:

Further to what Kristyn said—Yes, and the legal system is going to take this meme and run with it re. proving any allegation of rape.

“M’lud. I put it to you that not only did Ms Z totally ask for whatever was coming to her by getting in a car with the defendant, but that she was planning to rape him.

Happy days.

Sady drafted a really well-reasoned and important response to those criticisms. I wanted to reproduce her thoughts here, because she really summed up my thoughts on this issue:

If we refuse to say things—things that we know to be true—because some MRA or whoever could take them and twist them into untruth, then we’re letting the opposition determine the terms of the debate for us. A particularly fringey and known-to-be-nuts variety of the opposition, at that.

This is actually something that drives me a wee bit up the wall, about feminist conversations: sometimes I’m afraid we oversimplify certain principles, or refuse to say certain things, because the actual complexities or truths at hand don’t feel “safe” or in line with our predetermined talking points and agreed-upon theories. Whereas it’s precisely those complexities and uncomfortable truths we should be focusing on, really, because that’s where we need to improve our understandings. We need to go out beyond the edges of what we already understand and feel comfortable with, in order to find anything new to say.

It seems like every time I write about some not-so-admirable thing that ladies do, someone weighs in to say that I’m not presenting the gender positively enough and/or giving aid to the enemy. And I don’t shitting care about that, to be totally blunt. For one, I don’t think The Enemy reads Tiger Beatdown, and for two, I care about writing the truth, because I don’t feel feminism is served or ever can be served by ignoring the truth and instead telling each other whatever is most uplifting or whatever we most want to hear. Writing this chat felt really vulnerable, for me, which I think is a good thing, because it was confirmation that I was being honest and that I wasn’t just repeating someone else’s lines throughout.

Plus, if some MRA ever decides that feminists. just. don’t. CAAAARE about bad stuff that happens to men, or will just never ever ever admit that women can be abusive, this is one concrete incidence – one of many – that someone can point to in order to prove them wrong. It won’t make a difference to them, of course, because they’ve already committed to ideology over reality. But for people who are committed to reality, it will be evidence against them.

Last week, we examined the Christian Side-Hug, an advanced chastity maintenance mechanism which allows people to hug one other without the fear of primary or secondary sex characteristics accidentally touching. The side-hug has been around since Mary wasn't full-frontaling Joseph, but Christian groups have only recently turned to aggressively marketing the move to youth in their own language ("rap").

But beware: The side-hug can come at you from many angles! A collection of various interpretations of the side-hug phenomenon, from faithful commenters and trollers alike, after the jump.

The fire hazard side-hug:

This side-hug thing seems like it’s acknowledging the (welcome or unwelcome) titillation that can come with a girl-boy hug (or girl-girl in some circumstances… I guess). As much as it seems silly, it also seems smarter. If you’re teaching the kids not to get burned, not playing with fire is a good idea. Not playing with matches is probably a good idea too?

—

Totally agreed, but you don’t take it far enough! They also shouldn’t stand in the sun or eat hot food either.

The sexual harassment side-hug:

I’ve been side-hugging for years.

There’s a technique where if you approach a lady from the left side, you can furtively cop a feel of the right one if done correctly.

The safe sex side hug:

Perhaps Amanda Hess should also blog about “atheist” or non-religious institutions like our public school systems banning hugs all together…

Last week, everyone's brain exploded over a couple of Newsweek Sarah Palin covers. One cover, which ran last week, was criticized for depicting the former Alaskan governor as too sexy (left). Another, which ran last year, was criticized for depicting the Republican vice-presidential candidate as not sexy enough (right).

The indignation accompanying the covers—"How dare Newsweek present Palin as overly sexy!" and "How dare Newsweek present Palin as having stray lip hairs!" respectively—miss the point. The problem doesn't lie in Palin's looks, people. The problem is Newsweek using Palin's looks as a stand-in for her political failures.

Take the headline tagged to last week's cover: "How do you solve a problem like Sarah? She's bad news for the GOP—and for everyone else too." Placed alongside a photo of Palin posing saucily in running shorts, the treatment implies that Palin's "problem" has got something to do with her killer bod. I think it has more to do with her radical right-wing political beliefs.

Last year's Palin cover contained a similar treatment: "She's one of the folks (and that's the problem)," the cover announced, next to a zoomed-in close-up of Palin's face. Some criticized Newsweek for unnecessarily exposing Palin's lip hairs, blemishes, pancake make-up, and fine lines to the world. The real trouble with the cover is that Newsweek, again, used Palin's physical appearance to represent her politics—this time, to illustrate that her "realness" is a "problem." Lacking political experience? That's a problem. Lip hairs? Not so much.

The comments sections on the stories produced such helpful commentary as "NEWS WEAK HA; SARAH PALIN HAS A VERY NICE FACE SHE IS NOT A PHONY NEWSWEAK HA" and "Only un-evolved Neanderthals find her attractive. She looks and acts like a $20 coke-head hooker on a Seattle street." Despite the deluge of body-snarking comments, I did find a bit of constructive commentary hidden between the cries of "hot!" and "not!":

Jennifer, on Newsweek's zoomed-in Palin face, writes:

I honestly think the response to the cover is more sexist than the cover itself.

There have been plenty of closeups of older men with skin full or wrinkles on the cover and no one claimed them to be ‘flaws’ that should have been hidden in order to somehow help him maintain his integrity. The fact that the people crying wolf attribute a woman’s looks to something that can ultimately be a ‘flaw’ in her and her overall appeal in, not a beauty contest, but a political election, shows you a lot about their view of women.

We are all humans, and what happens to humans when they get older is that their skin wrinkles. There is nothing ‘flawed’ about that.

Katie, on Newsweek's running-short body shot, writes:

I’m not sure calling her an ugly hooker is any vast improvement over whatever winking sexual antics she’s responsible for in the past. The whole point, as far as I’m concerned, is that her looks have nothing to do with anything. Or they shouldn’t. I really don’t think she has “baited” sexist behavior. She’s gotten it because she’s a woman. She absolutely deserves criticism for being a ridiculous joke of a candidate, a recklessly misleading author, and a general nutcase.

. . . she doesn’t deserve criticism for being a woman who has legs and long hair and posed for a running magazine picture…in runner’s clothes. I’m not saying that’s what you’re going for. But I don’t think the answer to unnecessarily glorifying Sarah Palin is unnecessarily denigrating her.

Last week, I wrote about some disturbing Internet comments posted in the wake of the Richmond gang rape that blamed the victim for drinking alcohol. The post inspired some really positive responses . . . and more disturbing Internet comments.

Alex makes the case for victim-blaming—at least girls will now know "the possible consequences of decisions." Decide to have a beer, maybe you'll get gang-raped: A valuable lesson for young girls:

In all fairness, just pointing out that she did not act in the most intelligent manner is NOT the same as saying she deserved it. You’re right, no one deserves to get raped, however, there IS the lesson here which is to be aware of your surroundings and of the possible consequences of decisions you make. Why SHOULDN’T this be used as a lesson. If one less girl decides maybe she shouldn’t have another drink or walk home alone because of this story, then at least we have gotten something out of this awful situation.

Joe commends Alex for his bravery, and agrees that one high school gang-rape ought to inspire women everywhere to stop drinking and never walk alone:

Yeah, I agree with the one brave person who pointed out that there is a difference between excusing criminals and blaming victims, on the one hand, and pointing out how to be safe, on the other. And you are not required to view everyone who comments as either feminist enough for you, or a hateful victim-blaming rapist-defender. Where is real life in this? In real life, unfortunately, we can’t just rail against the bad things people do and hope they will stop, we also have to conform our conduct to our knowledge that people do those bad things and are probably not going to stop. It is not excusing muggers to suggest someone stay out of the alley at 3 a.m. It is not excusing abusive cops to suggest someone cooperate with the police even when they have done nothing wrong. And it is not excusing rapists to suggest someone behave according to their knowledge that there are rapists.

Watch as BakinCookies inserts enough qualifying phrases to attempt to slide his or her victim-blaming past the censors:

Men need to learn how to respect Women better and with that said, Women also need to learn how to have respect for themselves and their bodies! This applies to this article in so many ways, im doubting it was consensual because she was beaten and robbed Therefore men should respect women more! But she could have been Flirting a little and tempting the men to force themselves on her. Either way someone or all of them were lacking respect in some way which totally sucks for the girl. But we will never know the whole truth cause people fabricate stories to fit their needs. Im not makin excuses for the boys im just sayin, Ladies respect yourselves And maybe men will respect you too.
Either way rape is rape and its not right!!

Jane, for one, doesn't see the difference between blaming the victim and blaming the perpetrators. Also, something about racism?

It’s funny how all the people who chide those who opportunistically use this terrible misfortune to lecture women on how to ‘behave’ themselves don’t hesitate to use this terrible misfortune to lecture others on how to raise boys, respect another gender, etc.

However, maybe this event had little to do with gender and respect for women. Maybe it had more to do with race. Maybe the attackers saw the victim mostly as a white person upon which to vent their hatred of whites. Likewise, maybe all of the people who walked by without care for the girl did so because they had no affinity with nor sympathy for a white person.

Maybe the lesson here isn’t how women should behave, or how boys should behave, but how minority groups (including whites among predominately black and latino persons) should be wary of those who aren’t their kind—because it’s all too for majority gangs to treat minorities as sub-humans unworthy of the most basic consideration and respect.

Of course, unlike the other moral instructions people are retrofitting to this event, one of race consciousness and caution isn’t a particularly trendy sermon to preach. So people instead will preach the sermons that will get them gold stars pasted on the foreheads by either their right-wing cohorts or their women’s studies professors.

Sarah suggests that rape can be solved with more rape:

I don’t know about anyone else, but at 15 I was drinking (mind you, at home, with my gal pals and my parents around). I don’t see anything wrong on her behalf. If these men (or were they her age?) get away with this, there is something seriously wrong with society and the judicial system. I hope (since I don’t pray) that she gets the best of mental health care to overcome this. And I hope those guys are anally raped by huge 12 inchers in prison thrice a day (:

B thinks the victim wanted it:

Rape is a crime, but girls are getting wild and boys will be boys no matter what. I know by fact that is part of the deal to be raped by all the gang member before you can get in!. Girls are playing strong games and now someone got hurt very bad and the news are not working with real facts. LETS GET THE FACTS FIRST! IS SHE CAPABLE TO SPEAK OUT AND FIND OUT MORE IF SHE WAS GOING TO BE PART OF THE GANG!! Our society is allowing to much violent shows on Television and part of that is the imitation of tv in real life.

And Johnny is sick of all of you people:

Why do you guys comment on this stuff? Why write long paragraphs about your supporting or differing opinions? It doesn’t do anything, it’s just a waste of time.

Photo via stevechasmar, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Last week, two stories on the Washington Post's gender treatment for a couple of transgender shoplifting suspects (Washington Post Cross-Dressing Shoplifting Story Misfires; Transgender Shoplifting Story's Absurd Corrections) inspired confusion, transphobia, and some helpful commentary!

The story: A couple of transgender women are caught shoplifting, and end up being shot by police after a botched getaway. In a medical examination, the suspects are revealed to have male genitalia. So: The Post first reported that the suspects were women, then reported that they were cross-dressing men, and finally issued a vague clarification that the suspects were still men dressed as women, but “were not in disguise.” Was the Post's treatment insensitive? Incorrect? Or the lone crusader for truth in a PC world?

Carisa Cunningham appreciates the teaching moment:

I don’t think we can just expect mainstream journalists, even those with good intentions, to know what to do, how to look at this, the correct terminology to use, etc,about what to them is unfamiliar territory if we don’t take the responsibility to reach out to them. An event like this is an opportunity for GLAAD, for example, to connect with Mr. Weil about terminology and about transgender issues generally. I accept at face value his explanations and would approach him in the same good faith. The world doesn’t change otherwise.

While TJ wants an apology:

The first thing that I thought about the article was, “That’s nice that you cleared it up.” But then I had this question: was this supposed to be a retraction of some sort? I understand that these two women are criminals, but were they issued some sort of apology? Clearly they considered themselves female based on what Renee Bailey said. And with names like Renee Bailey and Kelly Bright, how in the world would the police or anyone else think that these are men? WTF!

And william thinks that people with "confused sexuality" will naturally confuse others:

While confused sexuality may not be mysterious to those who identify as transgender—it is highly confusing to many others, including police. Give them, and the media a break. I happen to have personally met one of these suspects and can tell you “she” is living as a woman but physically appears to be very, very male. I left the meeting pretty confused myself and would have to consult an expert to properly categorize this person.

Gregory A Butler writes:

Cut out the politically correct bullshit—these were men in dresses. They may have had a mental delusion that they were “women”—but they had penises, and testicles, and Y chromosomes, and that makes them MEN, no matter how many skirts or wigs they put on!

Julia writes:

Thank you for writing this. The distinction between sex and gender is one that far too few people recognize, but you’d hope that major media outlets would at least try to get it right (it doesn’t take much research to see that cross-dressing isn’t the same as being transgendered). If they don’t, they deserve to be called out on it. And the fact that they can get it wrong probably means that the general public doesn’t have a good grasp of the issue either, which makes your detailed explanation all the more important.

Much ado 'bout nothing thinks we should all understand "the news biz" (instead of transgender people):

Shoplifters get caught is not news. Shoplifters get shot IS news. And so, when the police identify the shoplifters as female, and they turn out to have penises, that’s something that “advances the story,” as they say in the news biz. Not a correction, but a new fresh lede for the story. That’s how the news biz works.

The news biz, Amanda. Learn about it. It can help you gain perspective.

Matt C is afraid that these transgender women are suffering from our gender stereotyping:

What defines a female? Is it the type of clothes a person wears? Is it the type of general interests a person has? Or is it even the choice in sexual partners one prefers?

If you answered No (like I do) to the above questions then it would stand to reason that a man could share these same characteristics and still be considered a man.

Why then do some feel the need to ignore fact and incorrectly label either themselves or others with a stereotypical “gender identity” that defines ones sex by the way they dress & behave rather than their biological fact.

I applaud the Washington Post for getting the facts correct on this story and not letting political correctness cloud the truth.

While Gregory A Butler is back to clarify one point: Transgender women must choose between being referred to as women, and getting shot—or being called men, and not getting shot. Makes sense!:

Also, the real issue here is being lost.

These guys (and that’s what they are – GUYS) were Shot For Stealing A Dress.

That’s the REAL issue here – not what pronouns the Washington Post’s crime reporter uses!

I’m sure if you called these men “he” but Didn’t Shoot Them, they would prefer that to being called “she” and being shot over a dress!

This is one of the main reasons why Political Correctness is so destructive!

Illustration by Bonnie Kennedy

Every day in October, I'm been rollin' out the worst "sexy" Halloween costumes on the market this year. Now that we're two-thirds of our way to the big 31, the world's most offensive sexualized costumes have gained a few defenders. And they will be damned if I continue to insult their racist, sexist, and sizist pastimes! Let's hear what they have to say:

On the "Sexy Indian" costume:

Cara is concerned that pointing out racism may ruin Halloween for everyone (but particularly people who sell racist costumes!):

PLEASE! It’s halloween! Get over it! No one is trying to offend anyone, they are trying to sell costumes. Let it go and quit trying to bring down everyones holiday by disecting every stupid name and costume. If you don’t like it, don’t wear it.

On the "Sexy Anorexia" costume:

Cara is back to say that sexy costumes aren't even sexy—and also that you are all jealous of just how sexy they are:

I don’t really know what all the fuss is about. As much as I understand the Anna-rexia costume being absurd and wrong, you can’t judge these costumes as being slutty until you try them on. The costumes that the models are wearing are always made tighter, or shorter so they look ‘better’ in the photograph.

It sounds like someone is a little jealous. If you have a problem with the way these costumes look, why don’t you make something for yourself. Like a Moo Moo?

Even he "Sexy Fat Arab" costume has its defenders!

OverIt believes that the get-up serves a valuable public health function:

Perhaps if more people laughed at the morbidly obese, the United States wouldn’t be in the disgustingly fat shape it is now.

Cara, tireless defender of offensive holiday sexiness, insists that people don't wear racist costumes to be racist—they wear them to be funny!

I honestly think you blow things way out of proportion. I truly doubt the ‘racist’ guy is going to wear this. You are way over thinking all of these costumes.

Why would someone wear it? Because it looks funny, a guy in a fat suit.

I have seen frat guys wear costumes like this, and they do it to make there friends laugh, not to show their racist colors and bring down society. Why don’t you just live in a cave and never come out. Speaking of which, what are you going to be for Halloween? A skeloten is ’slutty’ and ‘anorexic.’ An indian (what my 5 year old niece wants to be, I guess shes racist). Would a ghost be disrespectful to the spirit world? How about a witch, or would we offend old people who live alone? How about a fruit, would that hurt the gays?

I mean, this is getting a little ridiculous.

DirkJohanson writes:

Amanda, it appears to want to find bad deeds by guys targeted at women everywhere, but its not just all about gender. Guys are targets of The Douche Bag Who Honks, too.

I’m a guy that can in no way be visually mistaken for a woman, and very straight-looking males, often in pickup trucks, have honked at me on numerous occasions, often in combination with screaming out the window. They always do this when my back is turned to them, so as to startle me. It has nothing to do with gender, other than, in my experience, the gender of the offender has almost always been male.

That having been said, I am going to try to bring some truth to your post. I am sending out an alert on my blog, The Balls Monologues, asking my readership to stop honking at guys. After all, if guys are going to falsely accused of targeting women for misdeeds, a good deterrent to the false accusations is to actually start targeting the very misdeeds dreamt up about us. Hopefully the douche bags who honk will listen.

Victor writes:

I honestly don’t understand this at all.

I’m completely baffled. Why bother performing this action, which one would assume is instigated by a guy’s desire for the woman in question, when you just drive off in the end? I mean, even on the off chance that the woman was just standing there, thinking to herself “I’m gonna have sex with the next guy who honks at me”, he’s driven off by the time he’s finished honking.

My only conclusion is that the honkers are actually gay, and in fact do NOT want to have sex with women. The honk is just an attempt at making those around them assume they are straight. Guys that actually want to have sex would at least harrass women in person, where there’s that imaginary chance of success. Its only polite.

DirkJohanson writes:

Women aren’t the only ones targeted in public because of their gender. Just last Sunday, I was repeatedly harassed on Ocean Drive in South Beach as a result of my gender. As I passed virtually each restaurant, one hot chick after another stuck an advertcard practically in my face and verbally tried to coerce me into eating at the restaurants they were hostessing for. The cards were stuck in my face, not my date’s face. She wasn’t approached by a single one. The hostesses probably assumed, correctly, that I was the one paying, and also probably assumed, incorrectly in this instance(my date is very bi and had just shared two other women with me the night before), that I would be more swayed by being approached by a hot chick.

I was approached and harassed before I ate, and I was approached and harassed after I ate. I even thought that next time I go down there, I am going to wear a sticker or carry a sign that says, “I already ate.”

In fact, of course, a sign that says, “I already ate” is really the same thing as a woman wearing a wedding or engagement ring – it, in effect, says, “your time and energy is better expended elsewhere.”

As far as what to do about guys waving at you from construction sites – why does that bother you so much, anyway?

Magnetic Crow writes:

Yup, you guys keep whining about how unfair the world is to you. Meanwhile, those of us who have to experience this kind of crap almost every time we go out in a public space will continue to discuss it constructively.

Victor writes:

I don’t think the world is unfair to me. I’m tall, white and male with an upper-tier education. I think I was very lucky.

But that doesn’t give others free license to make illogical assertions. Dirk seems to like to whine, with an interspersal of “look at me” statements. His constant whining about paying for stuff can get very tiring, I agree. You don’t want to pay, don’t ask a girl out. To ask a girl out and whine about paying is a passive aggressive move which no one with any self-esteem would put up with for any length of time. Hell, I can barely stand it. The statement “grow a set” comes to mind.

DirkJohanson writes:

Victor, growing a set isn’t the issue – at least not for me, since I’m not the one trying to deflect criticism to another guy.

That having been said, growing tall is definitely an issue – a huge issue. If you’re not tall – and I’m not – most women these days expect you to pay for their virtually every move. There was an excellent study reported by the New York Times a year or two ago which found that, on average, a woman willing to be with a guy 6′ tall making $65K would require a guy 5′9″ to make over $200K to compensate.

As an example from my life, my date tonight, who I went out with once, has been flat-out asking me to wire money for days now. I can blow her off, and face the exact same thing from another broad soon enough, so what’s the difference? I’m not 6′ tall, have never done felony time, I like hot chicks, and I don’t have a job where I’m the boss and can fuck women in my office, so I am going to pay for it one way or another – that’s not whining, just reality.

. . .If speaking truth to female empowerment is considered whining, I’m happy to say I’m whining my balls off – even when I’m not. You should, too, before you retreat by dumping on fellow guys after you make good points merely because some whiney woman describes your good points as whining.

Victor writes:

Dirk – Drawing attention to an action = whining. You’re acting like some poor stereotype of a jewish mother listing off all the things she’s done for her son. You are short… and as such probably don’t deserve to date. But that’s another issue… The issue at hand is that you have created an exchange with some women which works for you. To assume that this exchange is the same deal all of us guys work out, is silly. And to keep drawing attention to the “poor deal” you got, is whining. I don’t see anyone else constantly bringing up the various concessions they may have to make in their relationships.

jules writes:

UGH, stop making comments that are more than 5 lines long! No one wants to read that shit!

DirkJohanson writes:

Victor, As patently clear from my post, I make no such assumptions – I, myself, went out with a girl less than half my age last year who insisted on spending more money on me than vice versa. I do, however, deal in dominant trends.

And, for the record, I’m not short – I’m just not tall – I’m 69″, which is one inch shorter than the average American guy.

Victor writes:

Dirk… Less than 6′ is too short for a male. You’re 3 full inches short of that. That means you’re short and you whine.

(how’s that Jules?)

DirkJohanson writes:

Victor, The night before the harassment incidents on South Beach I mentioned in one of my posts above I had sex with four women. How many were you with that night?

Victor writes:

Ah Dirk… First, even if I were inclined to believe you (and through the years, I’ve learned to only believe about 1/4 of what short guys say… so that makes, maybe one woman)… all that does is make you a short guy who had sex with 4 women that night. See how that doesn’t change your height at all? You’re not going to drag me into any “how many, where, how much” competition. I was a tall bartender in a popular dance club for a few years. I had my fun. I have no problem with you having fun too, I don’t even have any problem with you paying for it (as you’ve admitted in the past)… I just find your incessant whining tiresome.

Freaking short guys.

Christina writes:

I understand the frustration of non-male harrasers feeling accused but unless you’ve walked/biked around as a woman in this city you’re not really going emotionally understand the point of all these harrasers blog entries. I’m basing this statement off the responses I’m seeing.

For last week's paper, I wrote a story about a group of Beta Theta Pi fraternity brothers at the George Washington University who are working to eliminate homophobia from campus Greek life. Judging by the comments section, they have quite a way to go!

Larry gets the ball rolling:

Fuckin' fags!

While Clay voices concern about the persecution of homophobes on campus:

I don’t agree with Molldrem that “weeding out the homophobes with the hungry” is a good strategy for Fraternity recruitment. The goal should not be to exclude segments of the student body, as doing so would make his organization equally guilty of discrimination. Providing food or dinners for recruitment is not masculine food porn and offering Maryland blue crabs certainly isn’t “typical.” The point is that Freshmen are on a budget and offering a nice meal is a good way to get a large turnout at an event- regardless of attendees sexuality. The Fraternities can THEN speak to attendees about Greek Life at GW, debunk myths, and talk about what the organizations are about.

Offering an event entitled “Frat vs. Fraternity: Myths Debunked” will not attract anyone who isn’t already interested in pledging a Fraternity and will never provide the opportunity for Beta to change the misguided perceptions and stereotypes of Greek Life possessed by many Freshmen who base their opinions off rumors and television. I believe Beta’s strategy here is counterproductive to the rest of the Greek Community at GW. It would be nice if Beta could be more accepting of all diversity as it would provide them an opportunity to break down barriers and educate as many people as possible about tolerance, instead of just catering to those who “get it” and “weeding out” everyone else.

Greg is mostly concerned about Larry's campus presence:

I graduated from GW 18 years ago, was active in the gay students’ group, and had many friends in fraternities (Kappa Sig especially) who had no problems with me or my friends, even in the late 80s/early 90s. I was glad to see this article linked to the beloved City Paper from TowleRoad.com, and judging by the range of comments, it seems that GW is still pretty much filled/associated with a wide variety of people who are basically live and let live …

Except for Larry, who reminds me of the people the campus mobilized against in the fall of 1989 following the last time the NAMES Project Quilt was displayed in its entirety on the mall … we were called pedophiles for being gay and the student community wouldn’t stand for that or for the LGBT community being condemned to death from AIDS based on pure homophobia and hate. As we said at the time, people who think like this are threatened and tortured inside by sexual insecurity and, oddly, an inability to spell correctly.

Larry counters:

Greg I think i remember you, you were the ass muncher that got caught giving head to the basketball team in the gelman bathroom. have you made the move to san francisco or are u still scraping your knees and walking bowlegged from the black queens in dupont circle?

Greg responds:

Wow, Larry. You really seem to have the pulse on gay life at GW … I didn’t know the basketball team hung out in the bathrooms in Gelman Library, considering that they play in the Smith Center. Maybe you just play in Gelman and with the black queens in Dupont who, no doubt, would turn you out and upside your head. You’re projecting so badly and loudly that it is causing traffic up here in Connecticut. At least you used spell check this time.

this is stupid lives up to his name:

there is no room for homosexuals in greek life. end of story.

Conrad Davis:

With well supported and reasoned arguments like that, how could anyone disagree?

Thanks for highlighting greek life’s commitment to intellectual excellence!

. . . The last comment was snide, but truthfully in my mind there’s a very strong correlation between Greek life and the stupid. This article, more than anything I’ve read in a long while, has changed that opinion.

And Robert Loggia wants his money back from the free newspaper he didn't buy:

This is an utterly ludicrous, insipid, waste of time and effort. Whoever believes this is news is not thinking clearly. I do not understand why Beta feels the need to publicize something like this. If they were in such support of diminishing homophobic stereotypes pertaining to Greek Life, why don’t they actually concentrate on recruiting high quality individuals? How is this article supposed to make homosexual individuals who are rushing Beta or wherever feel? It was mentioned that homosexuals don’t want special attention and just want to be accepted. This article seems counterproductive. If people and fraternities are good matches, then that should be good enough, regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity, what have you.

This is trash and I will be writing an additional letter to the editor demanding some sort of compensation for the time I wasted reading this slop and writing this response.

Pssssst, Robert, you can try to rack up the cash by writing that letter to the editor here. Note: Authors published in the Washington City Paper comments section may not receive financial compensation for their work. But they can rest assured that they're wasting my time, too!

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

In "Weed Culture Is Boob Culture," I argued that women feel alienated from the pot advocacy movement because female stoners are marketed as objects (above) instead of heroes (every pot movie ever). Yes, boobs are used to sell everything from beer to hamburgers, but it's particularly depressing when misogyny rears its ugly head in the counter-culture.

Even as a woman, I don't need any special badge to drink beer or eat a hamburger—these consumption habits are, in fact, difficult to avoid in mainstream America. But if there's one thing America likes more than beer and burgers, it's boobs. Boobs are used to sell beer and hamburgers because mainstream America's ideal subject—the person those advertisements are speaking to—is a red-meat-eatin', six-pack-guzzlin', butt-rock-blastin' heterosexual male. Now, people who don't fit that ideal American subject—women, gays, vegans, people who reject pandering, etc.—turn to the counter-culture, where they can be given space to create their own subjective experiences.

Theoretically. Because time and again, women have knocked on the door of the counter-culture—the comic book authors, the emo kids, and yes, the marijuana users—only to be shut out of the conversation. And so, even in pot culture, an effective ad shows a woman laying naked, covered in marijuana, staring coyly back at you and not smoking. Again, the ideal smoker is a heterosexual male.

Discuss:

Booby writes:

It seems like everywhere I look, boobs are advertising EVERYTHING, not just fake weed and crappy vaporizers. Yes, our whole mainstream culture is sexist. Do I need remind you about the Coors girls?

The counterculture as whole, however, is much more feminist and progressive, especially when compared to mainstream culture. Hippies really don’t care what you look like, which is awesome. Any culture that supports hairy legs and armpits isn’t sexist.

Dunlap writes:

Sorry to say but this article is misguided. The key fact here is this – Correlation does not imply Causation. That is to say; the 18-25 year old males like weed. They also like tits. This does not mean that the two are related in any way.

The pictures you posted were all from one site, not that I doubt you could find others elsewhere, I’m just saying. legalbuds.com does not sound like a “weed culture” site at all. In fact, they probably don’t want weed legalized, considering the fact that if something that actually got you high were legal, they’d probably go out of business in a heartbeat. This is marketing – and we all know that sex sells.

Now, again, I’m not at all denying that guys, and especially stoned guys, like tits. This is a given. But to say that it dominates the culture any more than anywhere else, to say that “Weed culture is dude culture” is totally unfair.

Hunter writes:

It was images like these that made me stop buying “High Times.” And it wasn’t just advertisements that were sexist; they were pictures (including covers) published from HT. When a woman wrote to the editor and complained about it, the editorial staff were total assholes – they told her to loosen up from her “repressed sexuality.” Finding images such as these offensive means you have a repressed, distorted sexuality? Please. I really didn’t want to support that magazine anymore. I do think using these types of images will aleniate some women (and some more progressive men) from some avenues to support the movement. (Note: it was quite a while ago; probably 7 or 8 years ago).

Kim writes:

As a female cannabis activist, I too am put off by the sexism. Even the local smoke shop down the street has huge posters all over the store of half dressed babes selling papers, pipes, vaporizers, whatever. They don’t get any business from me. It’s uncomfortable. And they obviously don’t care how I feel.

Old Corporate Boys Club…even here. Sad.

Numismatics writes:

Whether you accept it or not, the constant message that our ass is what matters is alienating, disappointing, and isolating. And it is UBIQUITOUS. Not only that, it really hammers home the message that this is not a woman’s domain-it discourages us from achieving. I’m not saying this because I am an angry feminist who hates men (I am an angry feminist who LOVES men!) but I am really surprised at how some men can NOT understand some of the mindfucks women go through (not that you don’t get your share, too) and then it occurs to me that many don’t seem to care, and many just constantly parrot “There’s no sexism anymore! It’s all better now!” Well, if that helps them sleep at night….

Ads that have this sort of advertising (and, more specifically, AN OVERREPRESENTATION of this sort of advertising) are really being blatant about the role women have to play in this context, and frankly, that’s a message many of us have heard enough of. I know it’s marketing; I know sex sells, but to me, boobs aren’t sex. And yet I am supposed to read them as such, everywhere I see them. Like, is that supposed to turn me on, too? (Don’t answer that.) Getting to define ’sexy’ is a power I would like to have, too. But I am not encouraged to do so–I am encouraged to cover my face with paint and keep my body as thin as possible. Sex being used to sell has a lot of pernicious effects on our minds and bodies, and by ‘our’ I mean both men and women.

Steven writes:

Your arguments are unfounded and from what I have read of your blog thus far, often taken out of context. You’re not helping the movement at all, whether that be for the females or the female pot smokers. Dunlap really covered most of it but to simplify things, we can assume from the marketing that more men are going to read high times or the ads in the back than women. Perhaps more guys are interested in Legal Buds than women are. So the companies are correctly marketing as such. But to say that weed culture is dude culture or imply that the movement or the culture in itself is inherently sexist is simply not backed up at all.

There’s plenty of sexist things you can fight against in this country. If Legal Buds, Coors Light and Carl’s Junior want to market their products towards men, they have every right to. Men respond to images of the female body and sex. That’s what we like. Leave pot and pot culture out of this debate.

Also, have you ever been to a pot rally? Anecdotally, I know just as many female stoners and activists as male ones. Do some research before you make these claims, I’m glad you’ve received the comments you have, this simply is not good journalism.

Cash writes:

It is really telling, when reading through the comments, that most of the commentators who think this is a nonissue are men, and the ones who say this DOES have an impact are women. Its just interesting how women come out and say “I am put off by this kind of advertising. It does have an effect on me, and on the women I know” and then the men come here to basically say “No it doesn’t! I don’t see sexism anywhere! You’re wrong!”

When I wrote yesterday's post on the Hofstra University rape allegation, "False Rape Accusations and Rape Culture," I was hoping that we might all be able to find a common ground, and fight together against both rape and false rape accusations. Then I read the comments. Silly me! The comments of the week are after the jump (since y'all talk too much, most have been abridged).

recursiveparadox is oddly prescient:

I think what it largely comes down to is that a lot of these folks don’t care about stopping the rape culture at all, or even know about it consciously.

They hate false accusations of rape because it’s something that could happen to them (you’ll notice it’s mostly guys flipping out on this) not because it is caused by rape culture.

And for the ones that simply don’t realize that the rape culture trains women to follow the coercion/innocence paradigm of sex, they aren’t making the connection when they engage in “slut shaming” and criticism of personal sexual choice. So they’re really just shooting themselves in the foot, because their actions contribute to false accusations.

. . . This paradigm infects our culture very deeply and I imagine a lot of these folks have absolutely no clue what is going on when they pull this shit about these stories. They only make it all worse.

As if on cue, Anon credits me with coining the term "rape culture":

Rape culture? That sounds pretty vague, and pretty harsh. You honestly think we have a culture that promotes rape? I cannot take anything you say seriously after that. It sounds a lot like the all powerful, yet amorphous and incorporeal patriarchy. What if I went around talking about having to live in a “Princess Entitlement Culture” or a “Female Moral Superiority Culture”. Was your father, and his father, all part of this “Rape Culture”. Is the boogey man still in your closet secretly oppressing you through fear and intimidation?! Grow up.

Bob weighs in with some blogger-shaming:

How dare you Ms. Hess! In nearly the same breath you indict these innocent men of being mere pigs who bamboozled a young girl into having sex with all of them at the same time while saying that there is a “rape culture” out there that tells women that they are bad when they have sexual desires. HYPOCRITE!!!!

You assume that they were happy because they all gang banged a girl. How totaly calous and demeaning to these men! They were locked up in jail facing 20 years in jail and now that they are happy to be out they are a bunch of dogs for beeing happy about it? Seriously.

Now ask yourself what kind of culture we actually live in a “Rape Culture” or perhaps a “False Rape Culture.” An interesting and valid question given the events. But one that I am sure to be damned for asking.

Sarah TX counters:

I’ve never thought of false accusations in this light, but it makes a lot of sense. It also really reveals the deep hypocrisy of commentators who gleefully dig up every single case where a woman recants her testimony about being raped (even though the actual percentages of false rape claims are extremely low, especially compared to the number of legitimate rape cases that are never prosecuted).

Paul Elam writes:

I enjoyed the dreamlike quality of this piece.

I wonder if Ms. Hess notices that all the social and legal instruments in place, including rape shield laws, men in prison for the crime, special victim crime units, zealous prosecutors, a number of awareness campaigns and the like point to the reality that we live in an “anti-rape culture,” not the other way around.

Could it be any more obvious, or is there secret rape societies somewhere operated by the Illuminati?

Piece of Advice attempts to bring everyone back on topic:

When railing against “typical feminists” and “misandry” you should probably at least TRY to hide your hateful attitudes toward women. I mean, I know this is a some sort of pat-on-the-back-athon from Men’s Daily News but you could TRY to cut out the ad hominem attacks, baseless attributions of thought and motive and disguise of opinion as fact.

But it can't stop slwerner from informing sluts how slutty they are, and then telling those sluts to stop complaining about everyone calling them sluts:

Well the simple answer is that she didn’t want her boyfriend to find out that she IS A SLUT, and did cheat on him, and will likely cheat on him again.

. . . Of course she’s a slut. If we were to decide that all slut’s needed psychological counseling, we would need to increase the number of practicing psychologists ten-fold (at least).

I couldn’t stomach all of Amanda Hess’s steaming pile, but from what i did read, she attribute false rapes to the patriarchy “forcing” women to lie about their sexuality. Apparently women fear “slut-shaming”.

So, let me get this straight: women don’t need men (per se), but they do need men to “validate” their promiscuity?

Fat chance! There are perfectly valid reasons for men to reject promiscuous women as relationship partners. If women want to be sluts, they need to “own it”.

And, when they start to whine about how men don’t suffer from “slut-shaming”, they need to come to grips with the reality that it is WOMEN who do not reject promiscuous men (but, rather admire them as proven sex partners – women admire “studs” far, far more than do other men). In fact, the shaming men will more often get from women is for being (older) virgins.

Oh, well. Better luck next time?

Photo by robin.elaine

Last week, Jimi Izrael wrote an essay on the Root telling black women to "get real," give up the search for their own Barack, and stop valuing their educations so much. Since I'm not into sexist drivel disguised as relationship advice, I disagreed—and commenters weighed in with their own thoughts on education, elitism, and "bitches." Plus, commenters call my education level "fluffy" (B.A. English, '07), my disagreement with Izrael "so sensitive," and me? "Amy."

The comments of the week, on "Why Black Women Shouldn't Go to College":

Victor says:

Not to ask a stupid question, but why does he assume black women have to limit their choices to black men? It seems a bit antiquated to me, as pairing off has become more and more based on education and career ambitions than race these days.

The days of an educated man wanting to settle down with a high-school educated waitress are long gone. I wouldn’t even consider dating a woman without an advanced degree, in a real field (read: history and english are fluffy and do not command respect).

This only seems like an issue if:
1 – you refuse to date outside your race
2 – You’re uneducated, black and male and you have issues with potential partners being successful.

Bitter Elitist writes:

Victor: As a SBW-attorney #2 is his problem. #1 is NOT mine.

There were 5-6 black women, for every black man at my law school. Seems like black women aren’t/don’t have a problem.

kza writes:

Victor. You realize that people can be intelligent without a advanced degree right? You come off as pretty elitest there.

Victor writes:

kza – yeah… so?

I didn’t say that I was using education as a proxy for intelligence. I stated that I take educational level (and have a minimum set) in to account. I happen to also require intelligence, and an entire bevy of other variables. In fact, I’m extraordinarily lucky to have found someone who fits my myriad requirements.

Whats your point?

Jennifer writes:

I wish to God somebody would bring this article to Mrs. Obama’s attention and she would denounce it as the trash it is. And what’s with this “love came first” crap? Last I checked, Michelle Obama had a helluva career before and all during her marriage to the president – including now, as the First Lady.

Usually Jimi’s “bitches ain’t shit” manifestos at least make sense. This one was obviously written after he got yet another child support court over, because it’s even longer and more incoherent than usual.

furious_styles writes:

Did we read the same article?

I didn’t hear him suggesting that black women have ruined the race by the act of going to college or getting careers. It’s not that black men don’t want women who are educated and successful (as a black man that is what I have been used to in my past partners). But being a successful black woman doesn’t automatically make you marriageable if you , at one extreme, are too damn goal-oriented and mercenary and see a black man as an item on the checklist along with the house, car, and big-screen tv, or at the other, have a chip on your shoulder. That’s just for any person.

jimi izrael writes:

Last week, "Semen Facials Are Like Weddings" was the perfect storm of Sexist comments. The facial ejaculation rant drew comments from feminists wanting to blame the patriarchy, feminists wanting to defend sex-positivity, and dudes who like to describe jizzing on their sex partners' faces on the Internet. The really weird part, though? Nobody spoke up in defense of weddings.

Anyway, here are your best facial comments. (I've excerpted most of them, because you all just had too much to say).

Katie says:

It’s not good for feminists to play sexual thought police, or to instill guilt in someone who likes to do someone else might find degrading. Isn’t it more progressive and feminist to say, “This is how *I* want to get off”, than to shame women by saying the things they desire sexually are anti-feminist? Shouldn’t we allow for some diversity? Different strokes, as they say.

DirkJohanson says:

I have better orgasms when I cum on a girl’s face since I know I am free to blow my load to my heart’s content, whereas when a girl asks me to cum on her tits but not on her face, I am always worried that I might not have the best aim and will end up cumming on her face, too. Since this often happens, I hold back when I cum on tits and don’t cum with as much force and often feel like, and still actually have, another load in me waiting to imminently come out. Simply put, when I cum on tits, I don’t feel nearly as finished as when I cum on a face or when a girl wants me to cum in her mouth. And I feel genuinely badly when I cum in a girl’s eye because it stings so badly.

Amanda Marcotte says:

Facials are best compared to spitting in someone’s face. That’s how they function in porn. The woman has been sexually available, and therefore is degraded, and so after getting off with her body, a man should reaffirm the patriarchal loathing of the sexual female by showing his contempt for a woman by spitting in her face. With his cock. In some porn, the facial became too obscure because of eager rationalizations, so instead they literally spit in a woman’s face or fling money at her while kicking her to the curb. The main thing is making sure the message is sent—a woman who fucks is scum and should be treated as such.

Thus it’s not “anti-sex” to criticize the facial. The facial is anti-sex. The facial says that women who have sex deserve to have men spit in their faces. Fuck that.

YB says:

I just wanted to question the validity of your spitting/ejaculation comparison. Granted, both are acts of expelling fluid from the body, but it seems to me that that is where the similarity ends. At least I hope it does – spitting, after all, is a socially constructed concept, which is how it acquires its negative meaning. Who would advocate for ejaculation to have a negative meaning? When a man ejaculates into a woman’s vagina no one considers it “spitting” at her vagina. Or, is it more “ok” to “spit” at/in a woman’s vagina than her face? Because the face is so much more “proper” than a vagina, therefore “spitting” at a face is not ok but spitting at the vile dirty vagina is?

Victor says:

Just to add a little “fact check”, I believe the external shot was originally added to movies more as an indication of the ending of a scene. Think about it, as a viewer, what else is there? a bunch of panting, sweating and grunting. I suspect they started this external shot to prove more that the guy was actually getting off. Granted, now it has been used in a number of different ways.

nic writes:

note to doodz commenting on this post: NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN THE DETAILS OF YOUR SEX LIVES. i know this is hard to understand when all of western culture is devoted to glorifying the masculine sex drive, but seriously, cut it out. your privilege is showing.

Kay writes:

you fucking fail at life. this is so illogical, and you expect us to accept hypocrisy because it’s convenient.

Photo by peasap

Allegations of Discrimination at Tastee Diner, Silver Spring MD from Tastee Diner on Vimeo.

Last week, two women staged a "kiss-in" protest at Silver Spring's Tastee Diner after being ejected from the restaurant, they say, for hugging. In response, Tastee Diner released this grainy security video of the incident in an attempt to prove that the couple was not just hugging—that Aiyi’nah Ford and Torian Brown were "engaged in behavior that is normally considered inappropriate regardless of gender or sexual orientation," including one "burying her face in the other’s breasts." The video (above) was so blurry, it allowed both supporters and detractors to see whatever they wanted to see:

whaddya know wrote:

Seriously, if an establishment asked you to please stop putting your face in your partner’s breast at the front of the restaurant (seen in the video, for more than 10 seconds), would you allege discrimination, or would you think that maybe there is an etiquette issue you aren’t sensing, that might be worth thinking about?

anonymous wrote:

I have a lot of gay friends but I knew from the get-go that this story was NOT as it was written. I’m glad the restaurant had video to defend themselves. I’ve been to that place for 20 years with gay friends and while customers might say something they thought was funny but wasn’t here and there and one time a waitress basically refused to serve us pie for some unknown reason, I felt pretty sure that in 2009 someone would have to have gone over the edge to elicit such a reaction. It’s clear from the video that this couple was engaged in a significant tight embrace for way way longer than is culturally acceptable in the USA. Sorry, but Tastee Diner 1, indignant couple 0.

TJ wrote:

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! I’ve been saying since I heard this story that there had to be more to it. I lived in Georgian Towers, which is less than a block away, for years and I never had a problem there with my girlfriend. There were times when they were extremely slow, but that would annoy anyone. NO ONE ever gave me or my girlfriend a problem. I think, at this point, that most people understand that there is great sensitivity surrounding the LGBT community when it comes to being discriminated against, but if the management of the restaurant asked you to cool it, then COOL IT! They weren’t asked to leave until after the first refusal to stop. I’m sure it was embarrassing to have been asked to leave, but don’t make matters worse. Frivolous claims of discrimination do not further our cause.

Aiyi'nah Ford wrote:

Let me be clear that I am in no way upset by the aforementioned commentary. I knew when we decided to protest that we opened ourselves to the public’s response {both negative and positive}. The video is indeed blurry however Torian’s head was not “in my breast”. Please note my arms around her as we embrace. She was sitting and I was standing therefore she was chest level. But you can clearly see her head leaned on my shoulder. Torian and I have been consistent in our statements regarding this story however Tastee Diner has been unable to do the same. I welcome you to read the story done by the Silver Spring Penguin that includes statements from the Tastee Diner staff involved completely contradicting the “claims” they note on Youtube. If Tastee Diner hadn’t made a different claim to every different media source and the video actually showed something “x-rated” as the establishment is quoted as saying then I could understand…But really? Furthermore, Torian and I asked for nothing more than a simple apology. We aren’t trying to sue them for the $400,000 the city awarded them to move their discriminatory cyst pool 3 blocks. We also have additional statements from former employees and patrons who have made discrimination claims. Ultimately. the MCHR will decide as we have completed the intake process and they (MCHR) felt it was substantial evidence to proceed with an investigation.

Supporter of the Truth wrote:

Everyone is going to have an opinion on this. I believe that if someone truly felt like they were discriminated against, for whatever reason, has the right to have it proven and at least an apology. I agree with Aiyi’nah, all they are asking for is an apology. If that is the case, then why is Tastee Diner trying to make them look like they were doing something inappropriate by releasing a grainy video. Also, if this has never happened before, why did the employee apologize to them after they left saying “they’ve done this before”? Hopefully, the MCHR will be able to get to the bottom of this and justice will be served.

Jen August wrote:

I’m shocked at the comments shown above. I watched the video expecting to see what I’ve seen at diners and other public places (especially late night) all the time – “get-a-room type behavior”. But, lo and behold, what do I see – two tired women leaning on each other (hands on shoulders and head on chest/shoulder once or twice). Are you kidding me? This is inappropriate?? This is sexual?? I’m dumfounded, absolutely dumfounded. Especially at Tastee’s ignorant handling of this. Get a PR rep and get a lawyer, quick. Get a new manager and general manager while you are at it. I don’t know any of the parties involved here, but I’ll never eat at Tastee Diner again and will tell everyone I know to do the same. (p.s. I’m still shocked that Tastee didn’t hide this video far in the cellar as opposed to thinking it was supportive of their position. Come on!) Ms. Ford, go get them.

Ben August wrote:

Wow – if that’s inappropriate behavior then PDA is outlawed for everyone everywhere. To me, that was sweet mild affection that we should encourage in this icky world! I’ve seen millions of couples engage in this type of conduct. It’s pretty standard coupleness. In fact, Barack Obama and Michelle Obama have done similar on TV! I think Tastee has a problem with head-on-chest simply because one of them has a large/nice chest. I’ve put my head on my girlfriend’s chest a million times. It’s a coined move by tired couples. Wow. Notably, the manager is watching the couple bizarrely well before any head on chest resting occurs. He just didn’t like them, because they are black and/or gay. It’s so obvious. Tastee’s response is shameful. The response should have been to immediately fire the manager and welcome the couple back. I guess I better not be tired and lean on my girlfriend anywhere in public, because apparently this standard should be applied to heterosexuals and gays alike. Wow wow wow.

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/24/sexist-comments-of-the-week-hugging-or-breast-burying-edition/feed/ 0 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/17/sexist-comments-of-the-week-goat-cheese-alpha-edition/ http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/17/sexist-comments-of-the-week-goat-cheese-alpha-edition/#comments Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:06:34 +0000 Amanda Hess http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=5938 This week on the Sexist, a post about pick-up artistry revealed what women really want: a man who "knows how to refuse to compromise on goat cheese." Or do they really just want some sausage? (Personally, I prefer pineapple). The pizza-as-indicator-of-manliness debate gets heated in the comments:

From Plethora of Pinatas:

You don’t like goat cheese on your pizza at Two Amys? While a beta would keep quiet and acquiese in order to appease his date, an alpha would refuse to order it. The difference between an alpha and a weirdo is that the alpha knows how to refuse to compromise on goat cheese and make her laugh about it at the same time.

From jules:

Right. Order whatever you fucking want on your pizza. But be fucking nice to me. I never said I wanted a fucking doormat.

From Plethora of Pinatas:

Haha, thanks for being so honest Jules! Now I won’t have to waste any money or time with you over dinner just to find out you’re a frigid bitch in bed.

From Darrow Montgomery:

Everyone should order their own pizza at 2Amy’s and some starters, which may be shared.

From jules:

right. missionary only. I hope you come quickly because I’ve never had an orgasm in my life and I don’t want to waste much time. Thnx.

From Plethora of Pinatas:

See Jules, you made my point. You don’t want a nice guy, you want someone who will tell you like it is. I insult you and you tell me to make it quick. Can I still try for your first orgasm though?

From Mrs. D:

If a guy ever flat-out refused to take a suggestion of mine without even a discussion of compromise (referring to the goat cheese incident), I would drop him like a bad habit. Just to pose a hypothetical: what if she suggested goat cheese, and you vetoed that, but then you suggested sausage, and she said she didn’t like sausage? I’m willing to bet you would ignore that, as well, and get the sausage anyway (probably promising her that she’ll like it, like a mom does to her 6-year-old). Life is about compromise, not being a selfish prick. And that’s what you self-proclaimed “pick-up artists” are, selfish pricks.

Photo by foodistablog

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/17/sexist-comments-of-the-week-goat-cheese-alpha-edition/feed/ 24 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/10/comments-of-the-week-mike-riggs-edition/ http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/10/comments-of-the-week-mike-riggs-edition/#comments Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:00:36 +0000 Amanda Hess http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=5787
Also: These women are considered "fat"? I give up.

Last week, while I was busy exploring the rich Northern Idaho social scene (so much homophobia, you guys—more on that later), Mike Riggs offered to man The Sexist in my stead. And man he did. But it's over now! And thankfully, some brave commenters waded into the fray to say what I was probably thinking. Let's hear it:

On More to Love: Sending the Wrong Message, in which Riggsy helpfully refers to fat women as "addicts" who are victims of "rationalized over-eating and sedentary lifestyles":

From alix:

Yikes. How is fat-hate feminist? How much help is promoting the message that to fall in love, women need to change themselves as opposed to finding men who are attracted to them just as they are?

Not that I’m defending the show—but to say that fat people should only be allowed on TV when they’re trying to lose weight? Fuck you.

Do you think that if there was less fixation on weight, and more fixation on health (how the FUCK do you know that these women overeat/ get no physical exercise?), we’d have a healthier society?

I think you need to spend a bit of time at Shapely Prose (http://kateharding.net), and then report back.

From Mike Riggs:

Hey Alix, thanks for commenting today! (Before I get started, I’d like to point out that you’re the second person to criticize this post without first watching the show. Would it help y’all to provide some Hulu links?)

Re your points:

How much help is promoting the message that to fall in love, women need to change themselves as opposed to finding men who are attracted to them just as they are?

I didn’t write that. In essence (that seems to be what you’re referencing–the “essence” of my argument), I’m disappointed that the contestants, from what we’ve seen so far, think that exercise is exclusively for trying to get skinny; that a positive attitude about their body is a substitute for a realistic attitude about their health; and that there’s a nostalgic treatment of over-eating. One woman even remarked (paraphrasing here) that she was tired of getting up in the morning to diet and be skinny. So, to you I say, How is promoting an addiction feminist?

but to say that fat people should only be allowed on TV when they’re trying to lose weight? Fuck you.

Didn’t write that either. I made an offhand reference to the biggest weight-related reality TV show currently on the air in an effort to show that I THINK IT’S OK FOR A REALITY TV SHOW TO REVOLVE AROUND HEAVY PEOPLE. It’s kind of stupid to hate on me when there aren’t any other reality TV shows about heavy people (unless you want to count that brief series A&E did about morbidly obese people).

From thedrymock:

It’s great that you think it’s okay for a reality show to revolve around heavy people, but I think you’re missing Alix’s point. Please do take a look around at Shapely Prose (www.kateharding.net). You might want to start with this post: http://kateharding.net/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/

Leaving aside the show itself for the moment, you’re making a lot of basic assumptions in your post, including:
1) Fat people are all fat because they overeat and don’t exercise
2) Being overweight or obese necessarily causes health problems
3) Losing weight in and of itself (independent of the health benefits of exercising and eating healthy foods) improves health
4) It is possible for most people to lose weight and keep it off

Even if 1-3 were true (and please check out the post I linked for refutation of those), 4 clearly isn’t — as you sort of acknowledge when you admit that “evidence suggests that some people are genetically predisposed to obesity or plain old chubbiness.” The fact is that 95% of people who lose weight regain it (and often some extra for good measure) within 5 years. If those women have “the conviction that fatness is forever,” as you put it, it’s because every single one of them has tried NOT to be fat, has probably spent a huge amount of time and energy on that effort, and it hasn’t worked for them. (And in the process of trying to lose weight, they’ve quite possibly made themselves less healthy overall by losing and regaining weight multiple times.)

But the most ridiculously wrong assertion you make is that “we’re not supposed to comment on or disapprove of fatness.” I don’t know if you are or have ever been fat, but I’ll be shocked if you have been and can still make that assertion. Being fat is almost universally seen as a moral failure, and fat people — especially women (and from what I’ve heard you can see that gender differential in the show) — take all kinds of shit just for existing. Why do you think the women in this show have dealt with so much “weight-related anxiety, depression, isolation, and rejection”? You seem conscious that women especially do suffer from these things because of their weight, but somehow you haven’t put two and two together there.

Your point that it’s ridiculous to think that finding a lover is a panacea for all ills is well taken, but I think you are underestimating how rare that is for fat women and how much better it can make you feel about yourself to be with someone who really doesn’t think you need to spend the rest of your life eating 800 calories a day in order to be good enough for them. Clearly, going on a dating show like this is probably not the way to do that, but given that the Bachelor/ette and other similar dating shows have the exact same premise, I’m not sure why you’re making that criticism of this show and not the others.

Lastly, you keep talking about “addiction,” and I cannot figure out what you’re referring to. It sounds like you’re saying that all fat people overeat and that overeating counts as an addiction. There is such a thing as compulsive overeating, but it’s extremely unlikely that most of the contestants on this show suffer from that. It’s an eating disorder, and it is a serious problem — but the same goes for anorexia, which somehow I doubt you’d refer to as an addiction.

I’m sorry if you feel “hated on,” and I’m trying to be polite here, but you posted on a feminist site about how fat people (and fat women in particular, as there are 20x as many of them on this show as fat men) just need to be criticized more and then they’ll lose weight. You’re gonna get some backlash.

From brie:

Do you think you’re being some badass rebel or something talking about this when “we’re not supposed to comment on or disapprove of fatness”? Do you think you’re being transgressive or smarter than everyone else or something?

Because you’re not. Being fat isn’t (like you say) something that’s not “openly maligned.” Have you ever been to celebrity gossip website? Or a girl’s locker room? (Actually, I’m sure you haven’t actually experienced the last one, which may explain why you’re so insensitive about this.) I’d like you to name me a place where it’s okay or not maligned to be fat (and NOT this show, which is just as manipulative and exploitative as the rest of the cesspool that is reality TV).

But I’ve got to hand it to you: your reasoning is flawless. All fat people are “addicts”? Even if you’re only talking about the people on the show, I think you’d be hard-pressed to prove that they’re all compulsive over-eaters. But, no, don’t worry about it, let’s all lump them together. They’re like cattle anyway, right? Size-wise? You’re sooooo rebellious!

I bet you write this stuff without thinking about, but you’re what gives millions of girls (of all ages) across this country eating disorders. When you write off people like this or even comment on this exploitative trash, you’re furthering a way of thought (whether you’re doing it on purpose or not) that causes girls to think that stick-think is the only way to be attractive or even vaguely human.

How can you feel good about doing that, just look like some smartass rebel or make some pointless point about a stupid show? How can you run such rancid anti-woman bile in a feminist column?

It’s not dumb, outwardly ignorant people who are the problem; it’s people like you, loud white men who pretend like they can be sensitive and empathize women and gays and lesbians and different races all while spewing this same stupid shit. People like you who pretend they get it but don’t have a clue.

Yeah . . . I'm with the commenters on this one.

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/10/comments-of-the-week-mike-riggs-edition/feed/ 3 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/24/sexist-comments-of-the-week-6/ http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/24/sexist-comments-of-the-week-6/#comments Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:15:44 +0000 Amanda Hess http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=5234

My first foray into Sexist Art History took a look at some sexist interpretations of Judith Leyster's 400-year-old The Proposal (pictured).  Some historians saw the painting as "a powerful image of temptation and resistance." I see it as "a rapey dude in a mustache and a fur hat who ain't gettin' anywhere." What did you see, dear commenters?

kza says:

How is he rapey? Just becase he got turned down? Many women have declined my offers for money in exchange for sex but I never raped any of them. Stop being racist against johns!

Amanda Hess says:

Racist?

mdesus says:

can’t a girl just be coy anymore?

kza says:

Yes. The race of guys who go ‘hookin. We’re a different breed. Don’t player hate on us.

Dave says:

Can’t a guy buy some needlepoint in a dingy pub anymore?

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/24/sexist-comments-of-the-week-6/feed/ 0 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/16/sexist-comments-of-the-week-nimby-edition/ http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/16/sexist-comments-of-the-week-nimby-edition/#comments Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:31:18 +0000 Amanda Hess http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=5085

Eckington and surrounding neighborhoods are all atwitter over "The Dog Ate My Domestic Violence Shelter," a collection of the neighborhood's common arguments against domestic violence shelters (photo unrelated). Ready for even more arguments against domestic violence shelters? The Sexist comments of the week are after the jump:

EckingtonRes, who probably isn't aware that I live in Eckington, says:

Amanda – I don’t think that you have much perspective of the situation in Eckington. For the last few years there has been an significant decrease in ultra-violent crime on a daily basis, only to be reduced to the occasional murder, shooting or ADW. Residents are finally allowing themselves to breathe – those of us that bought houses recently are no longer questioning the purchase, crime is down and things are looking up. However adding homeless shelters, liquor stores, the DASH project etc have become too much for one neighborhood. We are already host to the Emry men’s shelter, and the St. Martin’s transitional home. From what I understand there are even more subsidized, high risk, transitional housing projects packed into Eckington. What your readers also should know is that Eckington is not large. Bordered by Florida Ave on the south, Rhode Island on the north, N. Capitol on the west and 4th St NE, the area is at most 20 sq blocks and home to its more than fair share of (insert negative urban keyword). We are simply trying to protect and save what is left, not allow deterioration of hard fought gains against blight and destructive forces in our neighborhood.

TruxtonCircleRes, who proposes a new acronym, says:

I think what people dont realize is the number of these social programs already in our neighborhood. It is not a case of NIMBY, but already IMBY. How about yours?? It’s not that we are against them, but we feel they should be distributed through ALL the wards. On my block alone I have an apartment building for homeless women and SOME and most of my block is empty due to the old unused school.

The park that we would like converted to a dog park and not a parking lot has a lot to do with safety concerns. I dont even have a pet, but I know that a dog park would get people out in the neighborhood. I also think its silly that they would need a huge parking lost when there are a ton of bus lines on that block.

jules, who isn't getting in on the fun, says:

This makes me really sad :( I’m a social worker and I know how much some women depend on DASH to get on their feet after leaving an abuser. Most of the women I know who are living there have jobs, and are hard working, responsible people. They are sweet, lovely, and brave. They are good neighbors.

What these NIMBYs don’t understand is that DASH is incredibly selective with the women they allow to move into their housing: they must have goal plans, be looking for work or working, be drug free, etc etc… DASH creates really beautiful spaces for these women, and has places all over the city.

Honestly, there are probably people living next door to DASH housing who aren’t even aware that it is a D.V. shelter.

Anyway, off my soapbox now…

Ward 5 residents ready to assume jules' soapbox can make their positions known here.

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/16/sexist-comments-of-the-week-nimby-edition/feed/ 2 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/07/sexist-comments-of-the-week-rape-joke-edition/ http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/07/sexist-comments-of-the-week-rape-joke-edition/#comments Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:46:41 +0000 Amanda Hess http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=4898

Ever notice how explaining why a joke is funny never fails to make the joke not funny? Sorry, guys. But hey, what's bad for America's leading fake news humorist is good for getting to the bottom of this whole "rape joke" thing. In The Onion's Best and Worst Rape Jokes, I argued that the difference between funny-rape-joke and not-funny-rape-joke often comes down to the motive behind the joke: A gratuitous rape reference or a laugh at the expense of rape victims isn't funny; a laugh at the expense of people who downplay or discount rape can be. But as these commenters suggest, the real target of a rape joke can be extremely difficult to parse:

Alan says:

Amanda, you completely forgot about “US Troops Pull Out of Viatnamese Peasant Girl.” It’s in Our Dumb Century.

Anna says:

I appreciate your analysis on this, and I thought it was extremely well-done; however, I have a slightly different opinion on the last one.

I don’t think it’s a cheerleader joke with rape thrown in. I think the last sentence about the football-playing rapist is what cinches the actual point: even when we as a society can provide support to rape victims instead of shame, the fact remains that punishments for rapists, especially young or first-time offenders, tend to be extremely lax. It plays into the idea that “boys will be boys,” especially athletically gifted young men who are seen as competitive “alpha males” with a bright future. It is often seen as a one-off mistake that someone so charming and popular would commit rape, but a less well-liked young man would receive a much harsher penalty for the same crime; the same goes for a less wholesome woman, who might receive a less enthusiastic outpouring of sympathy. Sorry this is kind of long-winded, but I just wanted to share my opinion.

Kati says:

I side with Anna as well. I read it as being a small dig at the constant pep of cheerleaders but being more about how athletics simply look over poor behaviours simply because someone is a part of the team. Everything is swept under the rug and teammates and cheerleaders alike are expected to put on their game faces for appearance’s sake.

Davey says:

On a pure humor level, there’s a significant drop-off from Onion print stories to their forays into video news. With the former, you can just skim the headline (which is 90% of the humor right there), but in the latter, the joke just goes on and on, with actors of variable quality. The Harry Potter story suffers not because the Scholastic publicist is creepy, but because he’s creepy and mugging and not a recognizable caricature of any publicist, just a grinning pedophile.

I also think the “Candidate Turns to Focus Group for Position on Rape” isn’t funny because it’s a dull cliche about spineless politicians. If you’re going to tread on a subject as inflammatory as rape, you shouldn’t use it for something that could come out of the Joke-a-matic 3000.

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/07/sexist-comments-of-the-week-rape-joke-edition/feed/ 0