Shooting zombies in the face with a side order of racism and sexism, please.

A couple of months ago a friend of mine picked me up a copy of Left 4 Dead for my birthday. Given my love of video games, and the fact that I loathe the undead, it seemed like a perfect match. As far as the game itself goes, I think it's pretty solid. It's a lot of fun most of the time, despite a few bugs and the controversy around the announcement of Left 4 Dead 2.

For those unfamiliar with the game:
Left 4 Dead is presented as being sort of a cinematic experience. You play a campaign in 5 acts. The AI controlling enemy behavior and item drops is called the Director. The game takes cues from film in the way that it alerts players to changing events--when a mob of zombies is about to come running onto the scene you get specific "zombie mob" cue music. When there are boss zombies around, they have special theme music alerting you to their presence. That kind of thing.

Every campaign follows the same four survivors trying to go from Point A to point B in an effort to escape to a safe zone free of zombie infection. They do so by traveling from safe-house to safe-house. The game does a very good job of creating atmosphere and mood--the safe-houses are filled with the scrawled graffiti of past survivors, and you sometimes come across the bodies of former survivors who died trying to escape, or houses/buildings where survivors attempted to make a stand but fled.

The game is generally pretty light on story, being mostly focused on presenting an engaging multiplayer experience, so we don't get a whole lot of backstory about the survivors, except through the things they say to each other, or the dialogue they have throughout the game. Zoey, Francis, Bill, and Louis.

I have a few groups of people that I usually end up playing with, and most of the time, if I limit myself to those people, it's fine. But if I start playing with random groups, I get treated to constant bickering about Zoey and Louis. See, Zoey is a woman, and Louis is a black man.

Louis gets pounced by a zombie? Oh, it's because he's black.
Louis wanders off alone? Yeah, he's black.
Louis makes a comment about finding weapons in another room? Of course he did... he's black.

A male player plays Zoey? "I always knew you were really a girl."
Zoey gets attacked by the smoker? "Even the zombies want to rape Zoey!" Yeah. For real.

It's at the point where I refuse to play on random servers because I just cannot stomach the level of hate and bigotry on display. The other day I was treated to ten minutes of listening to a back and forth about how gay various players were, before I finally quit. I've tried calling people on it, but, it doesn't seem to help.

Mostly this is just a rant, because I'm fed up with it. It's too bad, because if you get rid of all the complete assholes, L4D is a pretty fun co-op game. When you pull of a really well coordinated attack, or fight through a particularly tough episode as the survivors, it's a ton of fun. Unfortunately, you always risk the complete assholes.
*sigh*

Wait... you mean belching *detracts* from your "hot" factor?

Oh, wait, no.
It only matters if you're a woman, I forgot.

I know I shouldn't be surprised about an article like this. I mean, it's on men.style.com. What can you really expect there?

And there's so much obviously wrong with the article. I mean, really?

It would be one thing if these female Shreks were cut from the same cloth as Roseanne Barr or Rosie O'Donnell. But the trouble is they're all smoking hot. It's their job to primp and preen and push stuff up to look sexy—what's the point of putting in all that effort if you're only going to undermine the whole operation with gruesome behavior?

Really?

Weirdly enough, I think that some of us have come to the bizarre conclusion- and bear with me, because I know that this is really advanced thinking here- that women have roles, desires, and purposes that extend beyond and sometimes don't even include "being hot for men".

Woooaah. Hold on, I think I'm getting dizzy. It's such radical thought, my mind might be blown.

I'm just tired of seeing the same old "women's purpose in life is get all hotified for men. Unless you're fat or ugly. Then it's okay for you to be vulgar."

And it's such a blatant double-standard. It's cool for men to be vulgar and obnoxious because it's funny. But women? No, no, no. They've got to be prim and proper and sexed up.

I have to say, I'm also tired of total dolts like this guy being seen as the voice of Manhood. I know that I'm not the only one who feels this way, either. How many times do we need some idiot half-brain telling us what we should and shouldn't find hot? How many times do we need some magazine puppet telling us that we should only find women like Model X attractive, and that women like Model Y? Well, there's clearly something wrong with you if you find that hot.

If you think that you're ever going to find a partner who never burps or farts, I think you're really in for a rude awakening at some point. But thanks, John, for reminding me (as if I needed it) some of the things I really dislike about typical "men's" magazines.

The only really good thing about the page is the comments section. As of right now, there are 17 comments, and it looks like most of them are actually calling the guy on his stupid article. Maybe there's some hope.

And I thought McCain's "I'm like Teddy" comments were bad...

h/t Latoya at Racialicious

So, let's play a game...

One of these things is not like the others.

Joe Francis is making my blood boil again, this time from the pages of a GQ men.style.com feature. How is it that, even from fucking prison, this jackass just can't shut up? The good news is that this article makes it even clearer, if that's possible, just how completely relentless his assholery is.

There's a particularly amusing bit where he's talking about his time in jail, and how it's not what he expected. He talks about how he's "a god" on the inside- that he's revered like a rock star because of his association with Girls Gone Wild. But, he continues: "The one thing I fear is one of these fucking people showing up at my house. I’m a different class. They’re dumb. They’re the people you see on Cops. Those are the people you see in jail."

Hey, Francis, speaking of "dumb"?

You're in jail, too.

Twit.

Still, that passage is really significant, in my mind. Not just because it's quickly followed by his making an incredibly inappropriate remark towards a female guard (who, according to the author, "gives him that disapproving-but-flattered half frown."), but because I think it's a strong message about how we treat and view people like Francis. Here's a man who has made a name for himself by being a violent, abusive maniac. Oh, yes, Girls Gone Wild is what started it all, but it's not GGW that made him a public figure- there are thousands of pornographers who never gain a fraction of the notoriety that Francis has.

Why?

Because Francis goes out of his way to abuse, humiliate, and intimidate everyone he comes in contact with. The Times article was the first time I really started to learn about who this guy was, and every interview he gives, every appearence he makes just further cements the perosna he's cultivated. Even the GQ article mentions it a few times- he's portrayed and plays up this image of being "a 15-year-old boy who just can't help himself". He's the very image of "boys will be boys", grown up.

If ever there was somebody who more purely embodied that ideal, and just how dangerous it is, it's Francis. Even the GQ article, which seems at times weirdly sympathetic towards Francis, makes note of how manic the guy is, and how it'd probably be good for society if jail broke him a little bit. We ought not tolerate a 15-year-old acting like Francis does. The lack of self control would be enough to get most of us in trouble at that age. And Francis isn't 15. He's over twice that.

But Francis's personal douchebaggery is only part of the problem... and not even the biggest part. That Francis is an asshole is a personal failing, and it should be enough to get him ostracized, and has clearly been enough to get him in trouble with the law. But the sad fact is that it's also made him a celeb. As he points out, he's "a god" in prison. These are people he despises- he calls them idiots, and does everything he can to avoid them, but they still treat him like a rock star?

Latoya quotes the most impressive display of clueless assholery from Francis over at Racialicious, and I think it's worth repeating. It comes on page four, when Francis begins talking about the people he considers enemies:

His enemies list has grown as he sits in jail, and it was recently expanded to include Access Hollywood reporter Maria Menounos, who did an interview Francis didn’t like. “She called me the ‘ever defiant Joe Francis,’ ” he howls. “Fuck yeah, I’m defiant! It’s like that defiant Rosa Parks won’t give up her seat. Fuck you, Maria. The ever defiant Nelson Mandela just can’t stand apartheid. The ever defiant Martin Luther King. The ever defiant Jesus Christ. You fucking stupid whore. If I saw Maria Menounos, I’d punch her in the face.”

As the tirade ends, he quietly starts repairing the phone he busted by banging it against the glass. “I’m not comparing myself to Rosa Parks or Jesus Christ. I’m comparing myself to someone standing up for their rights,” he says. “I’m just saying you can have an unpopular person who is criminalized and demonized. Jesus Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate at my age. He was not a popular guy.”

1. When you attempt to point out a similarity between yourself or your situation, and someone like Rosa Parks or Jesus Christ and their situations, you are, in fact, comparing yourself to them. When you suggest that your legal troubles and the fight you've picked are somehow similar to Martin Luther King Jr.'s fight, you are, in fact, comparing yourself to him.
And you, sir, are no Martin Luther King Jr.
2. You're an unpopular person because you're an asshole, a liar, a rapist, and a violent maniac. There's a very significant difference between being an unpopular person because you're challenging the status quo in the pursuit of equal rights, and being an unpopular person because you're a violent rapist asshole who cheated on his taxes. Oddly enough, I find myself seriously lacking in sympathy for the second.

The article is disturbing, and I think that the author misses the mark when he tries to claim that Francis's "real passion is dominating other men." It may be true that he has a passion for that, as well, but his disregard and hatred of women is so thick, you'd need a machete to get through it.

And, seriously? He spent a year in a detention center that let him order pizza?!
*sigh*

Yeah, that's justice.

In which my brain makes connections that may or may not exist...

I'm coming to the table late, but for those who don't know, we're four days into the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence. I've been rather lax in blogging (which happens sometimes), but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it, and point to a few of the really great articles out there you should be reading.

First of all, Cara has a really amazing post about promoting rape that you should be checking out.

Holly, guest blogging at feministe, has a really powerful story up about Transgender Day of Remembrance, and her feelings on it, as well as what happened this year. It's a really heartbreaking story, and it's hard to read it without getting angry but also severely saddened. Check it out.

Baby221 is royally pissed off about the Megan Meier case. It is, as she points out, some fucked up shit.

What do these stories have in common? They're just a few of the many faces that violence against women take. When we think of violence against women, it's almost always in two contexts: spousal/partner abuse, or rape. But, the reality is that violence against women takes dozens and dozens of forms. As Cara points out, those products promote violence against women- by minimizing and mocking the seriousness of rape, and by presenting it as something funny. Violence against transgendered women is still violence against women, and we ought to care about it more than one day a year. And yet, even as they're facing the threat of transphobic violence at the hands of the authorities and random people on the street, trans-women face violence from within the feminist community, too. The suicide, and the contributing factors leading up to it, of Megan Meier is a terrible tragedy. She was a young girl who was, by most accounts, facing a lot of social pressures and was really unhappy. An adult used her fears against her, and betrayed her trust.

And, of course, Holly's post and baby221's post aren't what we typically think of when we think of violence against women, and there are factors that were "more important" to the situations than their statuses as women, but it seems to me that there's overlap there. I think that their femaleness isn't irrelevent to the situations being described. Certainly, Heart's reaction to trans-women is very much about the status of women. And most of the stories I've read about the Meier case talk about the social factors that she was facing, which have been described in very gendered terms. If being a woman wasn't the primary factor in the actual violence, it was almost certainly a factor in the ways that people treated them, and in the events leading up to the violence.

Or maybe I'm over-analyzing and seeing connections where they don't exist? I suppose that's a possibility. Regardless, read the stories. They're important.

Character Assassin's Creed... More Misogyny in Gaming

I really want to post something good about gaming.

I really do.

Instead, I'm forced to keep pointing out the failings of games and gaming culture. The problem is that, despite my love for games, gaming culture remains a pretty awful place in a lot of ways. It's bad enough that gaming itself is treated like male hobby, despite the many, many, many examples to the contrary. But, when I read a story like this one, from feministe, it's enough to make me scream.

I admit that I might be late on this one- much of my online time is spent at work, and I don't read much gaming news (if they've even touched this story), but for those even more behind than I am: Jade Raymond is a producer for Ubisoft, and her latest game, Assassin's Creed, came out recently. By most counts, it's supposed to be a pretty awesome game. You'd think this is good news, right?

Not so much.

See, there are two problems.
1. Raymond has a vagina.
2. Raymond works in a field that is seen as male territory. She makes products typically made by and for men.

Now, really, neither of these are actually the problem. The real problem is that there are some assholes out there who see the fact that they find her attractive or that she's a woman in a "male field" to be justification for treating her like shit.

It started with comments about hot she is on sites like Kotaku and in other gaming publications. Who cares that she's working on one of the hottest games of the year, a title that people have been clamoring for since the first video trailers were shown, a title that's graced magazine covers and had gamers drooling for months and months now... she's hot, and that's all that matters. It's much more important to hear about how fuckable she is, or how much people wish they could meet her or find a "girl" as hot as her.

And the really sad thing is that these sorts of comments? They barely register anymore. They're so common in the gaming world- the constant objectification of women associated with gaming- that they're easy to miss. They don't even appear as blips on the radar to most people. It'd almost be more noteworthy if the forums and boards weren't filled with sexist bile. I can't speak for my fellow bloggers, but on the rare occasions that I do go onto a non-feminist gaming site looking for news or information, I know that I can't stay too long or pay too much attention, because the level of sexism and misogyny tends towards "extreme".

If it had stopped with mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers lamenting how they wish they could touch her and how hawt she is, most nongamers probably wouldn't be reading about Raymond, because... well... that's status quo. We're at a state right now where about the best you can expect is that any woman associated with gaming is going to be put on display and talked about like she's a piece of meat. Gamer forums are going to be filled with disgusting posts about her body. If woman plays or makes games, she's seen as public property on gaming forums, and they'll endlessly debate how hot she is.

And the fact that I've come to expect that level of misogyny makes me beyond sad.

But, of course, it didn't stop there. It didn't stop with those types of comments and it didn't stop with hoax postings about her posing for Maxim. Instead, World Class Asshole and All Around Class Act Dave Cheung decided to up the ante and created a pornographic comic depicticting Raymond as a bikini-wearing idiot who services fan-boys.

*sigh*

Nevermind that this is one of the major creative forces behind Assassin's Creed. Nevermind her degree in computer science. Nevermind all the hard work she's put in. Because a bunch of gamers have decided she's the hotness, she's depicted as a fan-servicing moron who can't even pronounce "creative".

As Holly points out, the typical sexist apologism has already started and is in full swing:

People can say whatever they want because of free speech! (Wow, congratulations on being lucky enough to have rights. Now stop using them to be an asshole, why don’t you.) It’s all Ubisoft’s fault for exploiting her as a poster girl! (Which is why it’s OK to treat her, personally, that way? Also, it’s part of her job.) Who does she think she is, wearing a cute top like that and standing in front of the other Assassin’s Creed developers? (Serious shades of Sweatergate right there.) It’s not her game and I bet she didn’t even do any of the real development!

Raymond and Ubisoft have been fighting back- a cease and desist letter was sent to Something Awful, and while I fully support her fighting to get the comic removed, I recognize how hard that's going to be- these things tend to become viral very quickly, and it's going to be hard, if not impossible, to find all of the comics and remove them. And, of course, even as she fights to assert her rights, she's demonized for it. The creator of the comic is taking her fighting back as a sign of "victory" of a sort- he's put a "Made Jade Cry" notice on his site. Classy, right?

This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm going to be talking about at WAM!

This is just one of many reasons why women end up feeling threatened and intimidated by traditional "male" careers and industries. You read stories like this, or the Kathy Sierra story, and you have to ask yourself, "if I knew going into my career that people were going to try to humiliate me and harass me and post disgusting, potentially threatening comments about the things they'd like to do to me, just because of my gonads, would I still want to get involved in that career?"

I wouldn't.

And if you show even an ounce of compassion, prepare to hear at least a few people comment about how she deserved it in some way:

Poor taste, but then Ubisoft must be fairly naive if they think they can capitalise on a hot woman in front of a bunch of undersexed geeks and get away with it. - fire&wings

The same stupid argument has been trotted out over in the thread on feministe, too. How dare Ubisoft present the producer of the game as the public face for inteviews! It's simply outragious! And obviously unheard of!

Because, clearly, nobody else gives interviews about the games they're making, right? Certainly, there are no men who capitalize on fame within the gaming industry. Miyamoto who? Hideo Kojima? Never heard of him. American McWhosit? Civ Meier? Williams somebody? Will right? Tommy "I'm a Huge Tool Who Reinforces Everything Bad About Gaming" Tallarico? Nope, clearly, Raymond is the only person who has been presented as a public face for gaming. Nobody else has ever been as much or more in the spotlight than the games they were involved in making.

And, really, I want to know how, exactly, Ubisoft was exploiting her to market the game. I've seen dozens of ads and videos for this game, and until yesterday I had no idea what Raymond looked like, at all. The ads have largely focused on the gameworld and the innovative control scheme (I haven't played it, but that's what the marketing has been about). Interviews? I knew she was giving them- but, again, that's her job- I expect the producer of a game to give interviews- particularly on a game as highly anticipated as Assassin's Creed was.

The interest in Raymond came from sites like Kotaku and from game forums and blogs and the rumor mill. It came from people completely unassociated with Ubisoft who were more interested, or at least as interested, in talking about Raymond's body than in talking about Assassin's Creed. The blame for Raymond being the focus of some sites coverage of AC doesn't lie with her or with Ubisoft, but with the sites themselves. Ubisoft can't force Kotaku to publish intelligent articles. That's up to the writers there.

Apparently, the creator of the comic released this statement:

Hoo boy. Who’d have thought 2 hours of messing around in Photoshop due to random boredom one night could result in so much DRAMA! Actually, it was probably inevetiable since the internet is full of morons who think they know everything (myself included).

So, to dispel some misunderstandings caused by up-their-own-arse moralistic faggots, here’s a “Buy Jade’s Game” MORAL-O-FAQ!

Q: Did you Buy Jade’s Game?
A: As a matter of fact, I did. I’ve had it pre-orderded since before I knew of poor Jade’s existence, since it looked quite nifty. Sadly, despite being promising in many areas, it gets very boring rather quickly, and has the most ridiculous plot since Star Ocean 3 (This is Jade’s game… with a Sci-fi/Horror twist). Oh well.

Q: Why do you hate Jade? Leave Jade alone!
A: Personally, I have nothing against her. I just found the entire situation of HER being more heavily marketed and gaining more “press” (and I use the term loosely) coverage, than THE GAME to be somewhat amusing. In fact, fair do’s to her working her way to a cushy position like “Executive Producer”, it really is the ideal job; since all you do is sit around doing nothing and get paid for it. RESULT!
But I digress, this has nothing to do the matter at hand.

Q: What statement are you trying to make with the Jade Comic?
A: If you would take some time to read the links I originally posted along with the comic, you see that the primary reason for it’s existence is the “Jade Hype” on videogame forums, blogs and “news” sites like Kotaku (lolz). Although Ubi-Soft UNDOUBTEDLY whored Jade out to an extent, it really wasn’t any more than how say, Cliffy B whore’s HIMSELF out. The difference is, forum nerds, bloggers and Kotaku (lolz) got rather more hot and bothered for Jade than they would for old Cliffy.
So, I suppose Jade could be classed as “Collateral Damage”, which may not be very fair, but honestly, if you really care about something as trivial as a comic, you’re a collossal faggot (that goes for you ladies too). A joke is a joke, and is only as harmful to you as you let it be.
When someone makes a joke about you, it is YOU who chooses whether or not it becomes EPIC BUTTHURT, not the other way around.

Q: What if Ubi-Soft sue you?
A: They won’t, because they don’t have a case. As obviously tastless and unsubtle as the comic may be, it is no different to (for example) Dave Chappele dressing up as R.Kelly and pretending to pee in someone’s mouth or cartoons in newspapers showing George Bush as the devil. It is merely bullying tactics, and would reflect more badly on them than anyone else.

Q: What is a “moralfag”?
A: A moralfag is a person who’s principals are so far wedged up their own backside that they believe that any any remotely derogatory commentary made on anyone else is unnaceptable, unfounded, sexist, racist and, possibly, EVIL. That is, of course, unless they are the ones doing it. Moralfags are also utterly convinced that their view of morality is the ONLY view, and anyone who disagrees can GTFOTHX!
In summary, a moralfag is 99% of DeviantArt users. OH SHIT!

Q: Are you a moralfag?
A: No, I’m just a self-satisfied cunt.

Have fun flaming, arse-lickers!

Well, there you have it.
These are the words of a person who considers himself a "liberally minded person".

And that is what we're up against. Even the guy who made the comic admits that the bulk of Raymond's publicity came from blogs and forums, not from any official source, and that she's "Collateral Damage", but, hey, it's fine, because, you know, it's just a joke!.

Har. Har.

At this point, I almost worry that I'm becoming a broken record. How many times do we have to point out "It doesn't matter what she looks like"? "It doesn't matter if you think she's hot- her attractiveness doesn't have anything to do with what she's doing"? "Judge her actions, not her appearence"? If the game is good (and it's been getting generally positive reviews, not that that means much), who cares whether the producer is attractive or not? It's still a good game. And, if the game sucks, why would it matter whether the producer was hot or not? Whatever she looks like doesn't change how good or bad the game is.

So, how do we get that across? How do we fight this kind of thing?

For me, one of the things that I do is, when I hear about a story like this, I make sure that I talk about it with as many of my gaming friends as I can, and I explain why I'm outraged and I explain why this is a problem. My hope is that I get across how important events like this are- how much it hurts women, how much it reinforces stupid stereotypes about gamers, and how bad it makes gaming culture look. My hope is that they'll talk to their friends about it, too, and that it'll spread over time.

That, and I post long, angry diatribes about how pissed off and sickened I am by things like this.

-edited: 2:11 PM EST-

More thoughts that I forgot to include...

I love how Ubisoft is getting slammed for "using Jade" to push the game (again, despite the fact that it's the producer's job to give interviews and raise interest), but these same people have been strangely silent about, say, the use of Playboy to push a game. Last time I heard, Kane & Lynch still wasn't about Playmates, so, there still isn't any reason for Playboy to be the major advertising push.

Anybody want to bet that these are the same people that complain that we're too sensitive about things like the Resident Evil controversy?

And yet, these people are apparently outraged, outraged that Ubisoft would let Raymond give interviews. I know, I know, none of that actually proves anything. Maybe I'm wrong, and these people are equally outraged about the Playboy thing, but, still...

You know, about one of the most highly anticipated games of the year. The only games that I can think of that might have more anticipation were Halo 3 and Bioshock. So, you know, this game was kind of a big deal.

Anyway, I also meant to mention that Luke, over at Shrub has a post up about this, too, and it's well worth reading.

Other related posts:
The Angry Pixel says "We Heart Jade Raymond".
Broken Toys nails it with "Clearly We Do Not Deserve Nice Things And/Or People.
Game Girl Advance reminds that Jade Raymond is for Real.
Shameless: For Girls Who Get It explain why you should care, even if you're not a gamer.
Rabid Space Dog laments that we have such a long way to go.
Elaine over at Confutatis.org explains the problem with the "It's Ubisoft's fault!" arguments

Breaking News: Men Don't Think...

Or, at least, that's what this book review would have me believe.

Author Stephen Fried has a new book out, apparently, called Husbandry: Sex, Love & Dirty Laundry -- Inside the Minds of Married Men. If you're feeling really interested to know the mind of the married man, you can read an excerpt. I can save you the trouble: Think of the stereotypes associated with being "a guy" and being married, and you're pretty much all set. You'll gain such wisdom as "Men don't really remember, or care, about putting laundry in the basket" and "Men don't like to do the dishes" topped off with a healthy and humorous! dose of "Women think emotionally, but men don't."

To the credit of the paper, they've apparently picked exactly the right person to review the work, because the only person that I imagine would enjoy this book would be the sort of person who can read a review that opens with "We wives recognize that even the best husbands still suffer from that pesky Y chromosome: They have sex on the brain, they don't listen to what we're telling them and they suck at housework." and not want to scream.

I'm so glad to have my entire sex summed up thusly: we have sex on the brain, don't listen, and suck at housework. Oh, and did I mention that we men have the attention spans of gnats?

Like the comic I pointed out earlier, this book appears to be little more than a series of "here's a tired sexist stereotype that I'm going to reinforce with a humorous story from my personal life." Why is this shit funny to people? Oh, haha! He's a man and he hogs the remote, channel surfs, and doesn't want to talk to anyone while he's watching the show! That's so funny!

It's so very clever.

Only, you know, not.

If I ever start waxing nostalgic about how funny it is that *insert stupid sexist stereotype here* is so true!, please, someone, shoot me.

This post really is About the Menz...

I've been thinking a lot about privilege and oppression lately. I try to think about these things a lot, anyway, but there have been a number of posts on other blogs lately that have been addressing privilege or the nature of oppression lately, and it's got my mind whirling. It started with Jill posting someone's request for help, which turned into a "discussion" about men and privilege. Someone there posted a link to a post from Dizzy about men on feminist blogs who use overtly male sounding names. Thin Black Duke's post about the common elements of oppression just added to the storm...

On the big blogs, it's pretty near impossible, I think, to have a conversation about male privilege without someone like Burton (comment 23 in that feministe thread) coming along and derailing the discussion in some way. Part of the problem with a guy like Burton is that he's not interested in the actual discussion of privilege and oppression. His comments aren't intended as thoughtful analysis or even a result of unintentional misunderstanding- they're intended as a "Gotcha!" moment.

When someone is talking about male privilege or patriarchical institutions, pointing out that women don't register for the draft, or that abused men don't have the same access to domestic violence shelters that women do doesn't negate that. Pointing out that men die at higher rates from work accidents or criminal violence? Sorry, that doesn't prove anything either. See, the problem with the list that he's throwing up, and with many of the criticisms that MRA groups and antifeminists seem to have, is that a lot of those complaints and criticisms are about issues that are a direct result of men pushing public policies.

Take the draft. The fact that women don't register for select services is one of the things I see come up all the time. I'm not really sure why, given the complete and total lack of support for the draft, but it really bugs these types. They'll go on at great length about how unfair it is that men register for select services but women don't. And, if that were the end of the story, sure, that would be unfair. It would be unfair to expect any particular subgroup of our country to be solely responsible for the draft (even as we should recognize that the draft, when instituted, tends to fall on the shoulders of the poor... which isn't that different from voluntary service).

Of course, the story doesn't end there. You can't just look at the draft and pretend that it just happened that way. It's important to remember the context of these things. You can't point to the draft as some example of unfair privilege towards women when it wasn't women who pushed for the draft, and when there are plenty of women and women's groups that actively oppose any draft.

It's not the fault of women that men register for the draft, or that women don't serve in infantry units. Men made those rules, based largely on sexist notions about what women are and are not capable of. When feminists point out that the patriarchy hurts men, too? This is an example. Patriarchical thinking says that women can't hold their own in combat, and that they need to be protected, lest enemies capture them and do horrible things to them. Women are delicate and need to have the strength of a man to keep them safe. That's why women don't register for the draft. That's why women have been kept out of combat.

One of the reasons that this is so frustrating to me, as a guy, is that there are legitimate concerns to be raised about the lives and experiences of men in our country. There are things that happen that should probably be changed, and there are ways that the lives of men should be improved. But, those experiences and those issues get overlooked or ignored because men like Burton are too busy worrying about playing a Gotcha! card against feminists to actually take the time to give those issues the attention they deserve.

Going onto a site like feministe and complaining that men can't have access to women only domestic violence shelters doesn't prove that men have it worse than women- it proves that you're an insensitive asshole who hasn't taken the time to examine why it's important to create shelters that cater specifically to the type of victim seeking shelter. A woman seeking shelter from an abusive husband or boyfriend isn't going to find the safety and peace of mind she needs in a shelter full of men, and there's every reason to believe that a man being abused by his wife or girlfriend may want a shelter that caters to his needs, and can provide him the peace of mind and safety he needs.

I can't quite decide how much of this- if any- is a legitimate misunderstanding of what constitutes privilege, and how much of this is intentional intellectual dishonesty. The move here is from "men have privilege", which is true, to "men never experience negative or harmful consequences", which isn't.

Being a part of the privileged class does not mean that one never experiences harmful or negative treatment. It's possible to be a man in a patriarchical system, and still have people treat you unfairly sometimes. It's still possible to be a part of an advantaged class and find that there are times when you are at a disadvantage.

When we say that we live in a patriarchical system, we're not saying that every single member of the class "men" have a set number of advantages over every single member of the class "women". When we talk about men having unearned privileges, that doesn't mean that no woman has any of these privileges, or that every man has all of them.

Pointing out that I do not have the same advantages or opportunities that someone like Hillary Clinton has doesn't prove that we live in a society that favors women, because the comparison doesn't even make sense. It makes more sense to examine the advantages and disadvantages that face me and my sister, or Bill and Hillary Clinton, because we live in a world where sex is only one of a number of factors that create advantages: race/ethnicity, economic status, age, and education (to name just a few) are all factors that can influence your level of privilege.

And, yeah, like I said, I think that there really are things in our society that are harmful to men. I think that the under-reporting of, and general lack of understanding about or resources for men who are the victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault is harmful. That's not feminism's fault, though. One of the main reasons that men under-report sexual assault is because of the culture of masculinity we live in. We're brought up to think that men can't be the victims of sexual assault. That a man is incapable of not wanting sex. And in cases of male on male sexual assault, there's the homophobic element complicating things, too.

Ultimately, there's nothing that prevents men who are concerned about these things from taking action, just like there's nothing that stops men who are legitimately concerned about father's rights from taking action, either. If a man is really concerned that he's being denied rights as a father- that custody should have gone to him, or that he's not getting the visitation rights he deserves, or something along those lines... do something about it.

Feminists didn't wait for men to back them up before they fought for their rights. They couldn't afford to. The fact that so many of these men use these issues as a way of trying to score points against feminists hurts their cause. It makes it seem like their interest in men's rights is less about the actual problems that men face, and more about winning arguments with feminists.

And, of course, some of this relates to Thin Black Duke's point- are the problems that men face institutional oppression, or are they more like fallout from the oppression that a patriarchical system reinforces?

See, I think that some of the problems that men face now- some of the things that people like Burton complain about and see as examples of female privilege over males- are a direct result of the flaws a patriarchical system. It's not that women have more power than men, it's that patriarchy is an inherently flawed system that sets standards that are harmful to everyone. It's a double edged sword. And as attitudes have changed and feminists have helped to break down some of the systems that have held women back and prevented them from reaching their full potential, some men are finding that, shock of shocks, there are some serious problems with the way things are.

One issue that MRAs have taken as a pet issue is the concern over child custody. And it's true that, in most cases, men do not get custody of children in a divorce. There are, of course, exceptions (and a man with a lot of money and good lawyers stands a good chance of getting custody, I think), but the courts tend to favor women over men when granting custody.

Why?

Well, it goes back to hundreds of years (or more) of sexist attitudes regarding the raising of children. It's not that feminists are trying to keep interested fathers from having custody over their children; it's the result a patriarchical system that works really hard to tell women that their primary purpose in life is to have and raise children. When you've institutionalized the idea that this is women's primary function in life, it shouldn't be a surprise when the courts recognize this in practice. One follows from the other: if women are viewed as the main source of child care and are treated as though they have some biological advantage over men when it comes to the care and raising of children, it shouldn't come as a surprise when the courts, when deciding the best interests of a child, tend to lean towards giving women custody.

I can hear the cry already: But why don't feminists fight against this!

I should think that the answer would be obvious, but the reality is that there are so many other issues that are more important to feminists, the fact that men might be at a disadvantage when it comes to child custody ranks really low on the list of priorities. Why should feminists spend the time and energy to fight that battle when there are so many issues today that directly harm women?

Not every fight is a feminist's responsibility. There are some fights that people need to take for themselves. The fight for more equitable child custody laws is a fight for fathers to wage. And, I'd imagine that they'd find more allies if they were doing so in a respectable fashion. With so many of them treating the issue like an ace up their sleeve in debates with feminists, it's no wonder that feminists aren't exactly lining up to help them.

If you use your issue as a weapon to try to beat us, don't expect us to come rushing to cheer for you.
...

And thinking about all of this, and reading those blogs has me thinking about my own experiences as a man who frequents feminist spaces. There are actually a few things that I think I want to talk about, regarding that, but it's hard to know where to begin or what to say.

As a guy who spends a great deal of time reading about, commenting on, and posting about feminist issues, I try to be really aware of what it means to have Male Privilege. I firmly believe that our culture- the very way that our society is structured- is harmful to women, and, as someone who strongly values fairness, I think that we have an obligation to work to end that. And while I also think that patriarchical systems hurt men, too, there's also the reality that part of fighting against sexism and part of being a feminist is the recognition that ending these oppressive structures means giving up unearned privileges.

And that's hard.

It's not always easy to step back and examine why I'm reacting the way I am. It's not easy to have someone accuse me of exhibiting male privilege- there are times when I want to say "But I'm on your side!" I want to do the right thing, and being told that I'm missing doesn't feel good, and it can make me feel defensive. I work to get past that and to examine my feelings and thoughts, and I often find that the other person is right. I think that I come out ahead for it, but it's not always easy or fun to discover some element of privilege that you weren't aware you had.

And the reality is that there are times when I don't think I'm wrong, and that can actually be worse.

It's not something that I talk about, and I've thought about talking about a number of times in the past, and I've always backed off, because... well, it's not a fun conversation, but if I'm going to be open and honest about my experiences as a man on feminist spaces, I think it's important to talk about it. Particularly if I want to make it clear to other men what they're in for and what they should expect.

There are times when I read a post or a comment on feminist blogs, and I simply can't participate in the conversation. It could be that I recognize that there's nothing I can add to the conversation, or it could be that the conversation is about a topic where my experiences as a man mean that I can't contribute in a meaningful way, but sometimes it's because I know that no matter what I say, it's going to create hostility, because sometimes the comments are coming from a place of deep frustration and hurt as a result of life experiences that I can only imagine.

So, yes, there are times when I simply have to shut up. Is that fair?

I don't know. Maybe it's not. Maybe I ought to be able to freely express my thoughts without fear of being unjustly attacked. Maybe I should be able to respectfully disagree with someone and expect to be treated with the same respect. Maybe.

But, honestly, I don't think so.

I think that it's my obligation as a male on a feminist space to recognize that one of the privileges that many men enjoy is the ability to have their voice respected over that of a woman. Another aspect that I try to keep in mind, and that I think is important is that many women are used to having their voices silenced, and that sometimes their anger and resentment is coming from a place that I'll never have to experience.

One of the ways that men can help deconstruct patriarchical systems is by having empathy for women's experiences, and by recognizing that sometimes it's important to shut up on women's spaces. In a world that consistently devalues the experiences of women, it's not so much to ask that women have a place where they're free to vent their frustrations.

Again, this isn't always easy.

And I'm still trying to find out how this fits into my other obligations, and my desire to improve myself and continue learning. While I've never really been made to feel unwelcome on sites like feministe, I do recognize that there are thin-ice areas. There are threads where I'm concerned that leaving comments might be seen as hostile or unwelcome, and I'm legitimately not sure how to deal with those feelings yet.

Since I'm on my space right now, I'm a little more comfortable, and I'm willing to share an area that I'm still working through, as it relates to the posts I linked earlier, as an example.

While I really enjoyed reading both the Thin Black Duke's post (on the Suzanne Pharr piece) and Dizzy's post, there are aspects of both that I'm not sure I agree with. Or, to put it bluntly, that I disagree with.

To take the minor case first, because my disagreement comes in the form of picking nits: I think that Pharr's article is amazing. It's a really important piece of writing. It's a really strong analysis of the interaction between power and oppression, and the different forms that can take. I'm still rereading it, because there's so much meat there. That being said, if I'm totally honest, I disagree with one of the early assertions in the piece.

My disagreement is a minor one, and it doesn't have an effect on any of the rest of the piece, but it's there, and I'm not sure how to get past it. I disagree with the writer's assertion that one must have the backing of institutional power in order to be a racist or a sexist. I agree that the concepts of "reverse" racism and sexism are silly, but my mind has trouble getting around the idea that racism is only possible if you are part of the dominant culture. Sexism is a form of bigotry and prejudice. Because we live in a society that consistently devalues the experiences of women, I think that it's more important to focus on the misogynist aspects of our society, but I don't see that it means that a woman who thinks that men are inferior to women isn't a sexist, too. It's not "reverse" sexism- it's sexism without a lot of a social support.

Even posting my feelings here, on my own blog, makes me uncomfortable.

Part of that comes from the knowledge that it'd be easy for some people to try to change my words and use them against me and the things I believe in. Part of it comes from not wanting to disagree with people I respect- when I respect and value someone's opinions and writings, I don't want to provide any potential ammunition, no matter who slight, to the people that I think are working against us. I don't want to provide ammunition to anti-feminists or racists over something small and insignificant. After all, my nitpick above is one of definition, not of substance. Given that I agree with the analysis, the simplist understanding of my disagreement is simply that we have different working definitions.

But, sometimes my disagreement lies with the analysis itself, and I think that makes it a lot more complicated. How can it not be? If I agree with what is being said, or if my stance is actually more hardline than the one being offered, things are easier (in a way). There's less chance of being misread and seen as a threat, for the most part. But, if I disagree, I have to be aware that my comments are coming from a guy, which carries a whole lot of associations and potential problems.

Which makes total sense. Look around at feminist blogs, and look at how often men will come onto them and feign some kind of interest in feminism, but with a whole list of caveats and exceptions. The sense of entitlement is often so thick you can taste it. There are a lot of men who are only interested in feminism if they get something out of it. And, quite frankly, you won't always get anything out of it, except the knowledge that you're working for what is right.

So, yeah, I think that I'm aware of the possible outcomes of disagreeing- there's the potential to be misread by people. There's the potential to have someone see my comments, and think that I'm justifying negative male behaviors, or that my reasoning is clouded by male privilege.

Which is really frustrating. The reality is that there's no good response to that.

Consider this comment from Ollie to Dizzy's post:

Perhaps, when choosing a handle, most dudes just don’t worry much about what it signifies to others? At least they don’t seem to worry much about whether they ‘give away’ their gender. This kind of man is either oblivious to a lot of gender issues, or is a jerk.

I've been thinking about that comment since I first saw it, and I still can't quite come up with a good response. This is a response to Dizzy's question "why do [men on feminist spaces] feel the need to make it clear from the get go that they're men?"

The problem, for me, is that I can't get to a place where I see using my own name as an undeserved privilege.

Is it a privilege?

Absolutely.

As Ollie points out, I never had to really worry about "giving away" my gender sex. I've written about the difficulties that women face online before, regarding, for example, the Kathy Sierra harassment case. As someone who has spent time playing online games, I've also seen the harassment that players with feminine names can be subjected to. So, in that aspect, I can see how my ability to use a name that matches my sex (and is, in point of fact, my name) constitutes privilege. It's privilege in sort of the same way that I experience privilege in that I know that I'm not likely to be harassed by the police as a result of the color of my skin.

That being said, though, I disagree with the assertion that choosing to use a male name means that I'm oblivious or a jerk. The question of what name to use is a complicated one, and given that this post is already sort of ridiculously long I'm going to simplify my analysis, but I think that there's an important distinction between privilege and undeserved privilege.

The question is whether it ought to be a privilege to use your given name. If we agree that everyone should be able to use their given name, or, indeed, any name they want, online, then using the name I chose isn't an undeserved privilege. That there are people who are unable to do so makes my ability to do so a privilege, but the unfairness lies not with my ability to do so, but with their inability to do so.

So, when I read a comment like that, that the choice suggests that I'm either ignorant or a jerk, it's easy to want to react. Even knowing that their dialogue is more specifically about "men who come on to feminist blogs to argue about how men have rights too and how feminists are woefully misguided" doesn't really help alleviate that feeling of defensiveness and wanting to react.

And, yeah, I think that there are times when a woman can ask a question or say something on a feminist space that I, as a guy, can't. Hell, there are entire conversations that you couldn't pay me to get involved in. Because, whether I like it or not, I'm an outsider in feminist spaces. I'm a man living in a patriarchical world, and the fact that I'm trying to be an ally and trying to help doesn't change that fact, and it doesn't suddenly negate all of the baggage that comes with being a male in a predominantly female space.

That's only half of the story there, though. Because, while I think that there are some ways in which I'm held to a stricter or more restrictive code of behavior on feminist spaces, I also think that I'm rewarded far more for far less than women are. Specifically, there are a number of times where I've felt like my comments were received more warmly or with more enthusiasm than they deserved. In fact, it was a discussion over my feelings of discomfort over those kinds of comments that led to the name of this blog.

This is hard to discuss because I'm my own worst enemy in some ways. I'm far more critical and dismissive of my writing than most other people are, and so it's easy for me to feel overwhelmed by compliments. When people react strongly to my comments, I end up feeling both tremendously flattered, and ridiculously self conscious. It can be hard for me to know if my feelings of discomfort are coming from my own insecurities, or if they're legitimate reactions to people giving me undeserved praise.

But, there are times when it feels less ambiguous. Where I feel pretty certain that I'm getting praise for things that I'm saying that I wouldn't get if I weren't a guy.

And I know where that comes from, too, I think. At least, in part.

Given how often men come onto feminist sites just to attack and discourage, it can be, I imagine, refreshing to see a guy come on and show support. That sense of surprise probably makes it easier to react more positively than if the comment came from a woman. That is: if comment X is a well written feminist analysis of some topic, it's probably going to get a stronger level of praise coming from a man than a woman, because we're less used to seeing it come from a man.

I used to wonder if this was all in my head- if maybe it was just my personality coming through, and I was overreacting, but I've seen other feminists mention it as well, lately.

I think it's important to note that I don't mean these things as complaints- they're explanations of my feelings and thoughts as best as I can manage, and it's my hope that other men who frequent feminist blogs and who are having similar feelings might benefit from knowing that they're not alone in those feelings at times.

And if it sounds like I'm suggesting that it's complicated and difficult and confusing and whatever to be a guy on a feminist space... Well, I am. I have trouble explaining why I'd intentionally choose to be involved in something as complicated and confusing and just plain difficult as feminism, outside of "because it's right." And I recognize that "because it's right" doesn't win very many converts.

Anyway, as long as I'm being honest and open and all that, I'm feeling rather exhausted and drained now. So, no clever closing line from me. I'm throwing this out there and I'm going to collapse in a heap.

Oh, yes... *this* is a healthy model of manhood.

For the past two years, I've watched what might be called a minimal amount of television. I probably average less than an hour of tv watching a week most of the time. Until my recent move, I never purchased cable, or bothered to hook up the rabbit ears. I'm just not much of a television watcher.

Instead, I turn to DVDs to meet my show-watching needs. Problem solved.

I have two weak spots, though. Despite the criticisms that they get (much of which is deserved, I'll concede), I'm a sucker for crime dramas. I love Law and Order and CSI. I also love cartoons. Which, you know, also get a lot of deserved criticism, sometimes.

Anyway, I moved recently, and I've been watching more television than I'm used to, and it's making me sort of hyper-aware of the absolute shit that's on. It's everywhere. It's the shows, and the commercials, and the previews. There's so much horribly sexist, blatantly offensive crap on... it's a strong reminder of how awful a lot of television really is, and why I have no interest in purchasing cable for myself.

Lately, my personal nemesis has been Dr. Steve-O.

Over and over I'm subjected to the commercials telling me that he can "dewussify wimps, nerds and couch potatoes" and make real men out of them. I watch as he staples a papers to a guy's arm. I flinch as someone walks across broken and crushed glass. I scowl at the obvious use of his "nurse" as "look! Half-naked woman! Hot!" advertising.

I shouldn't be surprised, really. What do I expect from a show on USA that follows Monday Night Raw. It's not like USA is a channel known for progressive and intelligent programming.

But why is he supposed to represent manliness. He's not manly, he's insane. He's a self mutilating maniac. This is a guy who essentially gave himself a beer enema. His idea of a good time is pissing on the red carpet or sticking his penis in the concrete at the Hollywood Walk of Fame. For gods' sakes, he stapled his scrotum to his inner thighs...

At least three times.

That's not manly... it's just stupid.

Honestly, that an idiot like him is given a show to make men more manly says way more about the social perception of manhood and what it means to be a man than I ever could.

If he is the model of modern manhood, count me out.

Sexism in Games? Craziness!

Shamus, over at Twenty Sided is involved in a bit of controversy, it seems. I found Twenty Sided through a friend, and I've been a fan of the site. Shamus, as his site suggests, writes about geek culture- games, movies, books, computers, etc. He had a huge hit with his screen-cap comic DM of the Rings, based on the Lord of the Rings movies.

I haven't checked out his newest project- Chainmail Bikini. My understanding is that the title is intended to be a tongue in cheek reference to the fact that most of the women in fantasy settings are depicted in armor that more closely resembles swimwear than protective clothing.

Full disclosure: I haven't been able to see the comic, yet. The site is blocked here, but I'll take a look when I get home. My comments are more about the aftermath than the comic, anyway, but I feel like it's important to note.

The comic in question apparently features two male gamers, one playing a woman, the other a man. The male character gropes the female character ("It was, if we must ruin the joke by being explicit, a bit of boobie-grabbing" - Shamus), that is apparently ambiguous enough that multiple readers have interpretted the event as rape ("It could have been seen as a simple groping joke but the last line about 'Improved Stamina' seemed to me to cross the line and imply something much more intimidate." - nilus [I assume he means 'intimidating' or 'intimate', but I can't be sure]). The gamer playing the female character then physically attacks the gamer that groped his character.

The thing that I think is interesting is the reaction that is happening. Shamus is pretty upset by the whole thing, and says that he doesn't see what the problem is. His argument here is this:

1. It wasn't rape, it was a groping.
2. The assault isn't presented as okay, it's presented as a situation that is patently not okay. It's what players shouldn't do, not what they should.
3. The asshat player endured actual harm for his pretend actions.
4. The event played out between two males who were pretending to be a male and a female.

And finally, in his own words:
"the next time you think a webcomic is telling you its okay to rape people you should tell the people running the insane asylum you're living in that you need more medicine."

Quite frankly, I'm surprised by this reaction. If you had asked me yesterday, I'd have guessed that Shamus was sort of aware of the complicated nature of message and meaning that media like comics or video games can have in regards to things like this. In the past, he's talked about the morality of video games in such a way that suggested to me that he takes the idea that games have some kind of effect on our behaviors or on our view of morality... that the messages that a media presents can have an impact on the ways we view the world.

But now, Shamus seems quite opposed to the idea that something like a webcomic can encourage a sexist view of women or that it could, in some way, endorse rape. Part of me still wants to give him the benefit of the doubt, and think that maybe there's a disconnect happening in what we mean. I think it's true that most webcomics (or comics in general) don't explicitly endorse rape. You're not going to see many examples of a comic saying "Hey, you know what's a lot of fun? Rape!" When someone talks about a comic/videogame/movie endorsing rape, I don't think that we're suggesting that. I think what is really being suggested is that the thing in question presents rape in a way that minimizes the harm that rape actually does, and makes it seem "okay" by failing to show any of the harmful aspects, or by making light of rape. Presenting rape as mostly harmless, or as a crime of passion- as a case of seduction gone too far, for example- can make rape seem less bad than it actually is, and, I think is what people usually mean when they say something endorses rape.

Unfortunately, it gets worse. At 18, Shamus responds to a comment where someone pointed out that her problem was that the player thought it would be fun to grope a woman, and none of the other players confonted that player and criticized his actions:

Looks like she’s not coming back, bu this is pretty revealing about where the “OMG RAPE” arguments are coming from. This misses the point by a million miles. This has nothing to do with “groping women”. If you read this and think Chuck would really like to grope a woman, I can’t really help you. I don’t even know where to begin. If you’re going to look at one guy humiliating another guy and call it sexism, and then ascribe that sexism to me… wow.

This is, I think, not an uncommon sentiment amongst male gamers. I know that I've run into it before. The problem is that Shamus is arguing that sexism can only happen if a guy is saying or doing something harmful directly to a woman, when that's not actually the case. What's happening here is the gender version of calling another player a fag. It's the same as calling players "girls" or "pussies." The behavior that's happening is simple: it's humiliating a male player by turning him into a woman. Or, at least, by doing to and calling him names that emasculate him and make him into a girl.

In other words, the most humiliating thing you can do to a man is make him feel like a woman in some way.

In that regard, the groping is only a symptom of the larger problem- men that think that being feminine is a bad thing. That's why "sissy" is an insult. That's why men who complain are told to "grow some balls". The suggestion is that being a woman is bad, but being a man is good. That's where the sexism comes in. That's why it doesn't matter if it's two men having the interaction- the sexism is in the "why" not just in the "who".

I'm glad to see that a number of Shamus' readers have tried to explain why the joke offended some people. Laura, who left the comment that Shamus responded to, was the one who pointed out that the player thought groping a woman was okay, and that she was bothered that none of the other players criticized him for it.

Punning Pundit, at 6, gave a couple of reasons:

I think part of my issue is that you let the offending player make semi-reasoned arguments about why his actions were ok, and the only rebuttal was “die fatbeard”.

Also: dude, you made a rape joke. You didn’t make a joke at the expense of the rapist, but rather made a joke of the process. The fact that this happens not infrequently is not a defense– it’s the reason there are so few women gamers.

And Jeff, at 23, points out:

I agree that this was Not Cool. You had a character [roleplay] a sexual assault an give the standard rape-apologist lines in response. This, while squicky, could be fodder for a good strip (and not necessarily in a "morality play" style). But then you had to go and dismiss the whole damn thing by making the punchline about [live action role play]ing. Because we all know that the real problem is all those uppity victims who get upset about being groped

Jhianna, at 27, explains further:

Been forcibly groped by someone physically stronger than you? The comic pushes all sorts of buttons for anybody who has experienced that or worse in real life. I’ll tell you what I’ve told the countless guys I’ve gamed with: I play RPGs to escape the crap in the real world. I don’t play to be reminded that I’m physically weaker, considerably less powerful than those in charge, and subject to the whims of the cretin sitting next to me. Sure, I can try to prosecute the real life stuff after the fact, but can a guy going to jail scrub out the memories from my brain? Last time I checked, that wasn’t an option.

And seriously? He gives the excuse “Besides you have to admit she liked it a little bit” and you didn’t expect to get flamed into next year?

But, of course, there's the rallying cry: Why are you people so hypersensitive?! You're just being PC! Why are you trying censor him?! It's all pretend! And the ever popular: GET OVER YOURSELVES!

If there's a gap that can't be bridged, I'd have to guess that the knee-jerk responses to criticisms that something might have sexist overtones is certainly a factor. Most of the criticisms have been "I didn't think it was funny, and it smacked a little too strongly of sexism." Most people (at least, in that thread) aren't saying "Shamus is pro-rape! He hates all women! He's an evil, evil bastard!" And yet, many of Shamus' supporters are reacting like that's what people are saying. Shamus asked why people were upset and people responded by explaining. By and large, the people who are unhappy with Shamus have been more polite and more reasonable than the people who are supporting him.

I didn't see any of the people who are unhappy with the strip telling people to "piss off". They aren't telling people to "GET. OVER. YOUR. SELVES." They're saying "Look, I didn't think that this was cool, and here's why." In the face of blatant hostility, the people who are concerned by the comic have been remarkably even tempered and polite.

I'm also sort of surprised by Shamus' reaction, and the reaction of some of his readers, because these criticisms aren't really that different from some of Shamus' own criticisms of other works. When Shamus was playing Prey, he had this to say:

In working my way through Prey, I came upon a scene where a kid was killed. One little girl turned into a ghost of some sort, and killed a little boy by impaling him on some alien equipment. This is about the worst thing I’ve seen in a videogame in a long time.
…
Later that ghostly little girl showed up again and I was obliged to fight her. I’ll give the designers credit: It was indeed shocking, but man, what were they thinking? Yes, she was a ghost, but shooting guns at kid-shaped targets wasn’t what I signed up for here. I found it revolting.

and: "I’m not suggesting they shouldn’t be ALLOWED to make games like this. I’m just saying it’s repulsive and a bad move on the part of the developers."

Now, really, how is that any different from what his own critics are saying?

They read his comic, and came across a scene where it appeared that one player was having his character rape another character because the player was annoyed at the other. It was about the worst thing they'd seen in one of Shamus' comics. Sure, it was shocking, but what was he thinking? Yeah, they were fictional characters role-playing in a fictional universe, but raping another player's character in a fit of sexist misogyny wasn't what they signed up for on one of Shamus' projects. They found it revolting. They're not suggesting that he shouldn't be ALLOWED to make a comic like this. They're just saying that it's repulsive and a bad move on his part.

Shamus responded to people who told him that he could just not play the game, too:

Of course! I hadn’t thought of that! Thats for pointing out the blindingly obvious and irrelevant fact.

When I said, “I was obliged to kill them” eveyone else was able to figure out what the hell I was sating: I was obliged to kill them IN ORDER TO PROCEED THROUGH THE GAME.

I’ll decide when I’ve had enough and put the game aside. In the meantime, I may or may not complain about parts I don’t like. Cope with it.

I'm not going to go through and reword that, I think it's pretty clear how that same comment can be applied in this case. People reacted to Shamus' strip, and some of them were bothered by it. Nobody that I've seen is calling for the strip to end- they voiced their displeasure, and levied some criticism. Some have even said that they're not going to read anymore. The way this is playing out is pretty disappointing, though.

Ah! And it just happened. I was refreshing the page, and it happened. I should have known that it was only a matter of time before someone trotted out that tired horse: blame things on the feminazis!

Way down at 93, Deoxy goes into a diatribe about what rape is and is not about, ending with a tirade about "the feminazi koolaid". Lovely.

Generally, I really like the Twenty Sided site. There are a number of times in his posts and in his comments to some of the DMotR stuff that Shamus has shown an awareness for the troubling ways that women are treated within the gaming community. But that post, and the comments in it, are really disheartening. It's times like this that I remember how incredibly hostile the gaming community can be towards women and homosexuals.

Let's Have a Wake; Chivalry is Dead!

Apparently, I miss all the fun stuff when I go off the grid on weekends (and every other Monday). The target, this time, was an article from the Daily Trojan- Feminism to blame for the death of chivalry, by Josh Bass.

Oh, hooray! It's yet another article that takes opportunity to blame feminists for the downfall of something or other. In this case, it's the often reported death of chivalry. To which I say "Ding dong, the witch is dead!"

Bass, though? He's not so sure that this is a good thing. See, one of his friends had a bad date and spat out "Chivalry is dead" and it made him realize just how terrible the loss of chivalry has been for women. See, it's the evils of women's liberation and feminism that have led to the cesspool of immorality that makes it so hard for women to get respect in the world today. If only women hadn't fought for equality almost two hundred years ago, they'd be better off today.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

I'm forced to wonder what, exactly, Bass thinks he's talking about when he goes on and on about chivalry. Chivalry is one of those concepts that you hear people talk about, but nobody seems to want to elaborate on. There's this notion that times were so much better when men were Men and women were Women, and there was chivalry all around us. I think that most of us think of chivalry as being a product of the times of knights and kings and men riding around on horseback doing all sorts of Good Deeds. Given the inclusion of a knight's helmet as an illustration to the article, I think we can assume that Bass subscribes to this idea.

Which, of course, makes me wonder how he's coming to some of his conclusions. He suggests that marriages arranged for wealth rather than love is a product of the death of Chivalry. Because marriage in the Middle Ages was a product of love, clearly. Certainly, nobody arranged marriages for the benefit of families. Right?
Right?

Sure, if you ignore the rather unpleasant realities and look to Disney as your source of information, you might think that marriage used to be all about love, although I'm not sure how you'd come to the conclusion that now we marry for money, but, whatever. In reality, marriages in the Middle Ages were arranged by men for the benefit of the families involved. Women were married young to men they barely knew who were frequently a decade (or more) older than them. Weddings were arranged by fathers, and were largely treated like a transfer of property. If you were part of the noble class- the class most associated with chivalry- your marriage would likely have been arranged before you were even 10 years old, and you wouldn't meet your future husband until the day of your wedding. At which you'd be expected to perform your "wifely duties." Contrary to what Bass might wish to believe, it wasn't all flowers and hearts and loving embraces between couples who loved each other deeply. It was about uniting families and acquiring wealth. It was about property.

When people like Bass talk about chivalry, what they think they're talking about is "treating women with respect." They think that chivalry is about holding doors and carrying books and walking on the outside of the street. They think that it's about treating women like they belong on a pedestal, and that they're the "fairer sex."

And, of course, if chivalry of that sort is dead, it's because women killed it. And I say, why the hell wouldn't they? That kind of chivalry isn't a good thing. That kind of faux concern for the well being of other people isn't helpful. Concern based out of the feeling that women are inferior to men and in need of protection doesn't actually help women. And the sense of entitlement that so often accompanies that kind of chivalry is patently dangerous. Men who harbor that kind of chivalry don't think of women as people, they think of them as props in some grand play that they've created, starring themselves as the knight in shining armor.

And Bass almost certainly thinks of himself as a modern Lancelot. Look at Bass' article, and you'll see it steeped with the kind of cynicism and patronizing sarcasm that is so common in anti-feminist tirades. From his affected concern for the well-being of women, to the cracks about "warrior princesses affectionately referred to as Feminazis", to the labeling of women as "harlots"- Bass pulls out all the stops. He thinks he's got the answers to save women from themselves. I'd be surprised if he doesn't wonder why you're not already lining up to thank him for his helpful hints.

So, let's talk about real chivalry, shall we? Chivalry is the code of honor that knights were sworn to uphold. Chivalry, as a concept, you may be surprised to learn, isn't gendered. Nor does it involve treating women in some way differently than men. Chivalry is a sort of moral code that knights swore to uphold. It's a code of conduct.

There are a number of different Principles of Chivalry, but most of them bear a number of things in common. Essentially, chivalry is about five things:
1. It's about accomplishing the duties of your station- doing your job and doing it well and fully.
2. It's about being honest- not lying or cheating, or helping others lie or cheat.
3. It's about upholding that which is right- acting in a moral fashion.
4. It's about helping those in need and protecting those who cannot protect themselves- lending a helping hand, offering charity, and fighting against oppression.
5. It's about fulfilling your obligations- doing what you say you will do.

Given that chivalry comes from a time steeped in sexism and blatant misogyny, it's not surprising that many examples of chivalry are of a questionable nature. They involve protecting women and saving them from danger because those were the stories being told, because our cinema loves to glorify the damsel in distress. But, despite this, chivalry, as a concept, is alive and well. It's not feminists who are killing chivalry- it's people like Bass.

See, one of the important aspects of chivalry is that you do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. You're not supposed to save the princess because you think that she'll fuck you when you're done. You're supposed to save her because she's in danger and has been unable to help herself. You'd be just as obligated to save the prince if he found himself in that situation, or a bunch of children, or the king.

Modern chivalry still exists- it's the people who stop to help you if you've dropped your packages on the sidewalk. It's the people who hold a door open for the people behind them. It's the guy in New York who took a moment to ask me if I needed directions or anything because he thought I looked lost. It's the person who offers a quarter when you're 22 cents short in line at the store.

Bass doesn't want chivalry back, he wants a return to the days when men could make demands on a woman's body by virtue of having given her some service or some token bit of "respect." He wants a return to the day when not treating a woman like shit meant that you could demand a roll in the hay. What other explanation is there for the idea that women who have and enjoy sex without strings are harlots responsible for making men not respect women, but men who have sex without strings are just doing what is natural? Oddly, Bass makes no demands on his fellow men. He doesn't feel the need to label them for their behaviors. No, they're just taking one option.

At least Bass gets one thing right. Chivalry can be resuscitated. It still lives on in the hearts of a good number of men and women. I don't think it's where he thinks it is, but it's out there.

I can only hope that the new perspective his friend gained was "wow, my buddy Bass is kind of an asshole."

On being a victim...

I've seen the poster mentioned here before, and I've thought it was kind of awesome. It's awesome because it's a call to action to prevent and stop harrassment that doesn't just tell women "stop wearing short skirts and drinking, or you deserve it."

Apparently, though, not everyone agrees.

The first comment reads: "Tee hee hee, violence is funny when the victim is a man!"

I'm almost loathe to get into a discussion about it, because it seems like it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, but apparently it's not, so I guess maybe we should examine the situation being described by the poster?

Let's start by reading what the sign says. I don't think that feministing's translation is quite accurate. The English version of the sign reads:

Warning! Women defend themselves! If you leer at, catcall, or touch a woman, take into account that you might be loudly ridiculed, have a glass of beer poured over you, or be slapped in the face. Therefore, we strongly advise you to refrain from such harrassment!

Women, migrants, homeless people, transgender people, gays and lesbians are often victims of assaults. Don't look away, intervene!

So, what we're talking about are cases of harrassment. We're talking about a case where a woman is being sexually assaulted. I think that the sign makes it pretty obvious that it's not talking about cases where a guy asks for someone's number- it's aimed at guys who're threatening women and assaulting them, and then gives a warning of the sorts of responses that such actions could have- which could range from being publicly ridiculed up through physical retaliation.

So, how, exactly, are the men this poster describes victims? If you're assaulting someone, and they hit you back, you become the victim of the story?

I don't think so.

As is frequently the case in a thread like that, there are a number of "But... but... what about men?!" sorts of comments that came up. The first question raised was "Isn't this a double standard? Why is it okay for women to hit men but not for men to hit women?!"

A number of men seem to have read the poster as advocating violence against men, or as saying that it's okay for women to hit or assault men just for looking at them. I think that's an inappropriate and flawed reading of the poster.

First of all, the poster's main call to action was for people to intervene when they see someone being assaulted. It's not telling people that they should hit or pour beer on people, it's telling people to stop ignoring violence against women. The opening section isn't a call to action. It doesn't say "Women, pour drinks on men!" It's an attempt to subvert the typical warnings about sexual assault. Usually you read "Women, be careful! Don't wear short skirts! Don't show cleavage! Don't drink! Don't! Don't! Don't!" This poster subverts that and puts the warning wear it belongs- on the people doing the assaulting.

The idea is simple: if you're the sort of person who sexually assaults women, you should be the one getting a warning, not the women you're attacking. If you're the sort who gropes women, you should expect a response. Women shouldn't expect to get assaulted.

As another person pointed out, as well, there's a parallel structure involved: The various offenses are lined up in parallel with responses that are proportional in nature. If you're staring at a woman in a threatening fashion, it's completely appropriate for her to ridicule you over it. If you're being verbally threatening and harrassing someone, getting a drink thrown at you doesn't really seem out of proportion to me, and if you escalate it by touching, groping, or otherwise physically attacking someone, I think your victim is absolutely within her rights to hit you back.

The intentional mischaractorization by some readers is completely over the top. Take this choice response:

Sweet. The next time a woman stupidly stares at me, talks rubbish, or otherwise irritates me I get to dump a beer over her head and hit her in the face? Of course not.

Obviously, this get placed in the "women are children" category as women have tantrums, throw things, and hit people when they are irritated because they are actually little girls without self-control and are not expected to behave like reasonable adults. Brings to mind the wifey trowing pots and pans stereotype.

I've heard that you get out of a piece whatever you bring to it, and it's pretty clear that some of the people reading that poster are coming to it with a big chip on their shoulders. What other explanation could there be for reading a poster like that as a call for women to hit people because they're "irritated" and not as a call not to harrass women?

And then, halfway through, you get some of the really great stuff. I'm always fond of the "I'm going to take my toys and go home" argument, personally:

If you want men as allies you need to convince us that you're actually for the issues and are not just going to knee-jerk defend females accused of sexual harassment, domestic violence, or whatever.
...
David Gest? Ryan Haddon? It really doesn't matter whether these cases make up 33% or .033% of the total - if you want more "good guys" as allies, you need to do more to convince them/us that you're not going to be condoning the issues you're advocating when the alleged assailant is a woman. (Which is how I read this ad, grammatical attempts to explain it notwithstanding).

You know, domestic violence and assault are serious issues, and it's never okay to attack someone. That being said, it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that a poster warning that victims of assault might strike back is advocating or encouraging domestic violence- particularly when we're talking about a group who disproportionately suffers the effects of sexualized violence, while perpetrating a vast minority of said violence.

In other words: No, saying that women victims of assault might strike back is not the same as saying that it's okay for women to beat up men.

I find the argument that feminists have some obligation to make nice with men like this really annoying, and somewhat confusing. By the time this comment was posted, there had been dozens of attempts to explain and clarify interpretations of the poster. It must have been stated a dozen times, at least, that nobody was advocating for violence against men, or justifying domestic violence. What more was this person looking for? Personally, I'm not really interested in allies who are conditional in that way. If the only reason you care about sexual assault is because women are nice to you, and because they're very clear not to say things that might threaten you? Well, you're not really much of an ally then, are you?

You can't be too awfully interested in social justice if the conditions for your participation are "people never say things that make me uncomfortable and they're always very nice to me."

Have I Mentioned How *Bad* Men Have It?

Every time I read a post like this, about how awful men have it, I can't help but feel frustrated, and a little sad. The original author (and, one assumes, the person reposting it) is pointing out some pretty serious problems, but he's pointing in the wrong direction and placing the blame at the feet of feminists. If he'd take a minute to think about what feminists are actually looking for, he'd see that our goals could be compatible.

Instead, he wants to blame women for men's problems.

Sure, some of what he's saying is true: Women live longer than men and tend to win custody battles. Of course, he completely fails to mention why either of those things might be. Women live longer than men in no small part because men murder other men at higher rates, die in wars in greater numbers than women because the men in charge of the military won't let women serve in combat units, and have higher infant mortality rates than women, as I recall. How many of those things are the fault of women? Of feminists?

While some of what he's saying is true, some of it is... well... suspect: According to a Census Bureau release, only 26.5% of women hold a Bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 28.9% of men.

And some of it is just flat-out dishonest. Consider his claim that female-headed households earn 41% more than a male-headed one. In other words: a household headed by a woman has a net worth 141% of that of a household headed by a man. As that link shows, when you take into account the age of the people involved (and ignore that he was examining data that is now two decades old), it turns out that women in each age bracket earn less than the men in the same age bracket. That there were more single women in the upper age range artificially inflated their average worth, because older people tend to earn more than younger people.

When we examine this table, which is a comparitive breakdown of the median net worths of male-headed and female-headed households for 2004, we find that the median net worth of a male-headed household was greater- in some cases significantly greater- than the median net worth of a female-headed household. In my own state, the male-headed household earned 230% what the female-headed household did.

Scheaffer makes the classic error of thinking that our living in a patriarchical society means that all men must have it better than all women. His argument is basically "Well, look, there are lots of men who have it pretty shitty, and there are some women who end up in positions that put them ahead of some men, so how can we claim that women are an oppressed group. The fact that there are sections of our society where men come out worse than women must mean that women are a privileged group!"

The problem is that some of the problems he's citing are a direct result of a patriarchical society. You can't point to the mortality rate of soldiers during a war as a sign that women have it better when it's sexist attitudes that are keeping women out of harms way. You can try to spin that as women getting a privilege, but that's not something that women or feminists have been fighting for- that's a direct consequence of a patriarchical system that says that women aren't fit for combat. When you live in a society that refuses to let women take on risky professions, you shouldn't be surprised when women don't die in accidents or in combat in the numbers that men do.

See, it's not the fault of feminism, it's a direct result of sexism.

This is one of those times where it's fair to point out that, as shocking as it may be, patriarchy hurts men too. Patriarchical systems create a society where men are encouraged to "prove" themselves through the use of violence. Patriarchical systems encourage male on male violence and sanction men who report female on male violence. That's not feminism's fault- that's sexism's fault. That women tend to gain custody more often than men? Same issue. That's not a result of feminism taking men's rights away- that's a result of a society that sees women as caregivers and men as money makers. Our social outlook doesn't do much to make room for men who want to be the caregiver of their child.

Most of the problems that Scheaffer is listing- the higher suicide rate, the greater mortality rates, the issues with prisons, and violence, and war... those are important things to talk about. Is it a problem that 7 million more women than men vote? Absolutely. It's not a problem because women vote more- it's a problem because neither men nor women vote in the numbers they should. It's a problem because less than 60% of either group are voting. Is it a problem that our society doesn't think that men can be the target of domestic violence? Absolutely! Domestic violence of all types is a problem, and we ought to be taking it more seriously across the board.

Framing this as though it's the fault of feminists is completely dishonest though- these problems aren't new, and they're not the result of women trying to end or correct the oppression they face- these problems are older than that, and pointing the finger at women and feminists isn't going to solve them. Of course, one can't help but walk away from Scheaffer's article thinking that he's not that interested in finding solutions to those problems.

It's much easier to blame women.

The New Fall Season: Whiney Men and (Em)Powerful Women?

Vanessa has a post up at feministing that talks about a Salon write-up of the new fall season. I freely admit that I watch very little television, and I probably won't be watching these shows, but I think her take on it is interesting:

Rebecca Traister takes on strong female characters on TV that end up being portrayed as money-grubbing, selfish and more-or-less evil while emasculating the male characters. In short, although showing women as strong and self-sufficient should be anticipated as being progressive, the end result is offensive to women, men, and their relationship with one another. Sigh.

The thing is, I've read the article, and, at least from the descriptions that Rebecca Traister gives, I disagree with the analysis. Oh, there's no doubt that the men on these shows sound like total losers. They're portrayed as whiney and resentful, and unable to cope with the changing roles of women. Basically, they resent women who are successful and who are able to achieve great things within their careers.

For the most part, though, the women that Traister describes sound... well... fine.

At least, from her descriptions, I didn't think most of them sounded money grubbing, or selfish, or evil at all. And I certainly didn't think that they were emasculating the men. Unless, of course, "being successful" is enough to emasculate your partner.

The description of Carpoolers is one of the few that really has women in it that fit the description Vanessa gives. According to Traister, the show is about a group of men who share a carpool, but little else. One of the show's leads is married to a woman who stays at home watching television and taking his money while he "waits on her, cooks, and cares for the kids". Another of the leads has been dumped by his cheating wife. The last one, though, doesn't seem to have any serious problems with his spouse, except that she might be making more money than him.

While the first two spouses sound pretty awful, there's nothing about the third spouse that should raise any ire. She's not the one emasculating her husband- he's emasculating himself (well, I suppose it's really the show's creators who are emasculating him, but, whatever). Her only "fault" is that she's successful, and making money. The show, however, sounds stupid and annoying. When you've got lines like "men go off to war; women shop; if we don't provide for our women, do they really need us?" Well... I suspect I'm not really your target market.

Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton's new show "Back to You" doesn't seem any worse (or better?). Grammer's character sounds like a total asshole who gets his comeuppance after he impugns a colleague. Again, though, there's nothing there that I could see that should make me dislike Heaton's character. She's a single parent working as a news anchor, and she doesn't need someone like Grammer to make her life complete. Given that Grammer's character is the sort to say "I didn't freeze my ass off in Minnesota and fucking Pittsburgh to end up working with some dipshit who only has her job because she's fucking the general manager!" and that the only thing that they shared was a brief sexual fling... it sounds to me like she's probably better off without him. Again, though, the point is the same: I don't see a problem with her character, so much as with his.

"Samantha Who?", on the other hand, sounds appallingly bad. Christina Applegate plays an amnesiac who discovers that her "real" self was a horrible person. Now that she's lost her sense of identity, she's much nicer, blah blah blah. I'm with Traister on this one: this sounds like a show that was designed with a desire to punish and dominate a female lead. The point of the show is to dominate and humiliate a woman that was set up as being too successful.

"Women's Murder Club" sounds a lot better, to me. A group of intelligent, successful women work together to solve murders. Nothing in Taister's description paints these women out to be particularly "money-grubbing, selfish and more-or-less evil", nor do they seem to be out to emasculate the men in their lives. The main character has had a failed marriage because she refused to put her family before her career: "Before he left, I kept promising that I would change. That I would put him over the job and that I would be at home more. Eventually he just stopped believing me, and he was right." Does that sound particularly different from what we'd expect a male cop to say?

Of course, there's still an aspect of punishment there- because she's successful and driven at work, her love life necessarily sucks. She hasn't had sex in two years. But even Traister seems to see this as a problem with the men on the shows, not the women: "The only area in which these women show any weakness is their love lives, but it's made clear that that has a lot to do with male discomfort with their power."

Traister turns her sights on "Cashmere Mafia" next. The show focuses on four women who are "utterly self-sufficient professionally, except insomuch as they rely on each other for detailed four-way-phone-call advice." One of the leads has a devoted husband who stays home with the children and turns down an offer for an affair. Another is a marketing executive who may is discovering and exploring her attraction to women.

Having read through Traister's piece, I feel like I must be missing something that Vanessa saw. The vast majority of the shows described don't seem to fit the type that Vanessa describes. I didn't think that any, outside of pre-amnesiac Applegate, sounded evil, and while many of them are very occupationally driven, I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. They certainly didn't seem money-grubbing, and I can't remember the last time I saw a man who puts business or personal success over romance called selfish, so I'm not sure where that's coming from either.

The men in these shows are, almost without exception, portrayed as insecure jack-holes who are intimidated by successful women, or who are complete push-overs. They're either asshole woman-haters, or they're willing to let themselves be walked on. And the bulk of them sound whiney and angsty and generally unpleasant.

And while this is a serious problem, I'm not remotely surprised by it. Particularly given how many men really are intimidated by powerful, successful women. It's hard to tell from Traister's piece, but I wonder how many of these shows are portraying the men's fears as being reasonable and rational. How many of them are trying to reinforce the idea that men who are married to or involved with women who make more money somehow aren't "real" men. Or, is there some attempt to show these men for the whiners that they are? Is it played for comedy (Look how stupid these men are! They're *afraid* of successful women!), or is it played straight (Look how awful this is- these men don't make as much money as the women in their lives. Isn't that sad?)?

Anyway... I won't be watching these shows to find out, but I'm a little curious. Am I the only one who is missing what Vanessa is apparently seeing? Because, while I definitely agree that a lot of this could be offensive to men, and that it doesn't show male/female relationships very well, I don't see that most of these shows are offensive in their treatment of the women- it's that the men on the shoes echo too strongly the shitty sentiments of men in the real world, and say and do offensive things to the women in these shows.