Hit the road, Jack...

Drinking and rape...
Almost any time you talk about rape, the drinking thing comes up. I think, next to criticizing the way that women dress, the fact that people like to drink is about the issue most often brought up. You see it in the news. You see it in the comments on posts about rape.

Despite the best attempts to clarify that a victim's choice to drink or not drink doesn't cause that person to get raped, but rapists choose whether or not to rape, the argument rages on.

In this case, I want to talk about and respond to some of Jack's comments from Cara's thread. Jack's comments are near the end of the thread, and his first question was about rape apologism:

Now, firstly, please elaborate on rape apologism. I read through the ‘no cookie’ guy’s page and I think it’s bullshit. People who believe the oppressed shouldn’t point our their problems to the oppressor are living in cloud cuckoo land. The vast majority of people do not just happen upon the best way of doing things. They wait until someone is so pissed off with them that they have to listen. So, please go on.

I think that this is really important, because it means that either Jack is seriously misreading/misunderstanding the point or that the point has been poorly explained. When we (or, at least, I) talk about rape apologism, it's about people who make excuses for and try to diminish the seriousness of rape and sexual assaults. It's not about whether rape victims should or shouldn't point out or take action against their attackers, it's about the ways that society dismisses and ignores the victims of these crimes. It's about the ways that victims of rape are constantly accused of lying, or how they're told that the crime is, to varying degress, their own fault because they: shouldn't have been alone with that person/shouldn't have had so much to drink/shouldn't have worn that outfit/had consented to sex with that person in the past/etc, etc, etc.

My impression is that Jack is actually responding to the post about whether feminists have an obligation to hand-hold people new to the movement or interested in the movement. I stated that, no, I don't think that women have an obligation to teach men what is or is not acceptable behavior, just as I don't think that people of color have an obligation to teach whites what is and is not acceptable behavior. I stand behind that: it's not the responsibility of the oppressed to point out opression to the oppressors.

Now, the difference between what I said, and how Jack read it is, admittedly, somewhat subtle, but it's an important distinction, none-the-less. I said that the oppressed don't have an obligation to teach the oppressors. The responsibility for not being an asshole lies with the person acting. Each of us is responsible for our own actions, and we each have an obligation to not treat other people poorly. That's not the same as saying that the oppressed shouldn't mention their oppression.

In reality, there are tons of people working to point out and fight oppression from within oppressed groups. There's no shortage of people writing about their experiences with bigotry or oppression every day. So, it's not for lack of resources that a person is ignorant about oppression. The original point was more about any particular person. I can't walk up to any particular POC and expect that person to treat me with kid gloves- to teach me about what it means to be a POC, and in what ways that person experiences bigotry and racism. That person doesn't have an obligation to act as my mentor and teacher.

That's why I went on to point out that it's my responsibility to seek out information and to learn. No particular person is obligated to help me- but that's not the same as saying that people shouldn't help me. If someone feels inclined to help- andy many people do- that's awesome.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that the part that pissed Cara off the most was when Jack gets into discussing the connection between rape and clothing:

However, there are some things that you MUST realise, not just for the sake of this argument, but because it is indicative of human behaviour, drunk or sober, man or woman, rapist or anyone else. When someone gets pissed up at a club or bar and dresses in skimpy clothing, they are saying, “Hey, I want easy sex, for one night only.” That IS what that means. This is a matter of social relationships and these are norms that have been around for a long, long, long time and it applies to men just as much as women. If you don’t want easy sex, you dress down. Most people are turned on by the sight of a bit of extra skin on the right person. If we were all nudists, that would be different, but we are not.

This is the sort of comment that makes a lot of us say that we live in a society of rape apologists. The suggestion that this attitude is indicative of human behavior betrays a really low opinion of mankind, and is, to put it mildly, misguided.

First of all, a person's choice to get drunk and dress in a certain way doesn't tell you a damn thing about what that person is looking for. It most certainly does not mean "Hey, I want easy sex, for one night only." It could mean myriad different things: "Hey, I want easy sex tonight", "Hey, check out this hot new dress I bought that I think really flatters me", "Hey, I'm out partying with my friends", "Hey, I've had a rough week and I wanted to get dressed up and have some drinks and have a nice time, but I'm not looking for sex", etc. So, yeah, sometimes it means that you're looking for sex when you wear a skimpy outfit and go out clubbing and drinking, but the mere fact that you're wearing an outfit that you think is hot doesn't say anything to other people about what you're actually thinking. The fact that some people think that a person's choice in clothing tells them what she IS thinking, is a big problem.

Another issue here is this: Even if a person is looking for easy sex, it doesn't excuse or justify rape. If a woman, for example, decides that she's looking for a one night stand, and chooses to wear something low-cut and short, and goes to a bar and drinks a lot... so what? Just because she's at a bar looking to pick up a guy doesn't mean that she's looking for every guy or any particular guy. The fact that she's wearing something skimpy and drinking doesn't excuse another person assaulting her. Even if she's looking to get laid, she still has the right to say "no" to any particular request.

The fact that some particular person is turned on by that woman's clothing choice doesn't create an obligation on her part to fulfill that person's desire anymore than the fact that some woman or man might think that I'm hot creates an obligation on my part to please that person. Do I realize that if I get dressed up and go out to a club that it's possible that another person might think I'm hot and be turned on by me? Absolutely. That fact doesn't matter, though- it doesn't justify or excuse a sexual assault on my person.

If you think that a person's choice of clothing tells you more about what that person is thinking, feeling, or desiring than that person's actual words, you're treating that person as an object. You're not fighting rape culture, you're reinforcing it. If you're turned on by someone and they don't return the sentiment, it doesn't matter what that person is wearing or how much that person has had to drink.

Jack doesn't do himself any favors when he continues, though:

There are plenty of people (the majority, would you believe it?), who do not see skimpy clothing and drunkenness as a ticket to rape. You make it sound like this is not the case. That is why I find (pending your reply), the rape apologist idea a little OTT. Seeing a load of scantily clad ladies drinking and laughing gives me urges. But I refrain from raping them because that would be utterly abhorrent in itself, not because it’s OK to be a rape apologist, but actual rape is just, you know, not for me… Do you see? Sorry, that was rather a clumsy phrasing.

I think we can all agree, that is rather clumsy phrasing. Sure, I'll agree that probably most people, if asked, agree "rape is wrong". That's not the whole story, though. There are some people who think that rape is wrong, but that if a person is dressed a certain way, or has been drinking, or is a sex worker, etc, etc, that it's not rape. Even if those people are the minority, they're still out there, and they're still a problem. Jack's own comments hint at rape apology. Even if you say "rape is bad", when you follow it up with "but, it's understandable that it happens to people who dress a certain way. They should know that dressing a certain way turns people on", you're treading in apologist territory.

Mostly, though, that paragraph is sort of troubling because of the statement "rape is just, you know, not for me..." Rape is a sexual assault- it's a crime because you're attacking another person. I mean, imagine saying the following: "Actual murder is just, you know, not for me..." People don't talk like that. That's the sort of thing we say about a type of cola or a movie genre: "Coke is just, you know, not for me" or "Crime dramas are just, you know, not for me".

The way it's worded creates the feeling that rape is, somehow, just a matter of personal preference. I doubt that Jack actually feels that way, but that's how the paragraph sort of reads to me, and I imagine it didn't help his case much. Rape is a serious assault, and it's wrong, not because it's "not for me" but because it's a serious violation of another person's personal autonomy.

The interesting thing is that Jack's own analysis of his relationship to rape victims ought to be indicative of the problems that we face. They should reveil to him just how screwed up the situation is. When he notes that, statistically speaking, he probably knows a number of victims of rape, but that he'll probably never know which ones, and that they aren't willing to "put down a dismissive comment about rape in public", that should suggest to him that the ways we view and treat rape victims is problematic. The ways that our society treats rape victims doesn't make it easy for them to talk about their experiences. He almost gets there, I think, when he talks about his own dismissiveness towards rape during his teenage years, but I'm not sure he completely understands the social implications, even as he repeatedly notices and mentions the difficulties that rape victims face:

...it IS the responsibility of the oppressed to speak out. Most men (because let’s face it gents, it’s so overwhelmingly men who commit rape), will never commit rape, but that does not make them devoid of responsibility - because they have neither the personal fear/experience, nor the second-hand emotional information from vocal rape victims, to make a concrete socio-political stand on it, it just might be that many men find it more acceptable or that they are pretty ambivalent about it. This cannot be allowed to continue, but I find it difficult to see how the situation can be improved when women are so divided by personal feelings of shame, or helplessness, or just not wanting to bring it up, that they are not combating ignorance of this issue.

I'm not completely sure what to make of this. I don't know of any feminist who thinks that men are devoid of responsibility when it comes to rape. Ultimately, most of us suggest that it's rapists responsibilities not to rape, but, given how that's not happening, we need to create a society that takes rape more seriously, and doesn't treat rape like a joke, or blame the victims, or excuse rape because the attacker "couldn't help it" or whatever. Many people believe that men have a responsibility to stand up to rape and to confront other men on the issue when they make light of it or excuse rape.

I'm also confused because it's not like no women speak out. It's true that many victims- male and female- of rape feel shamed or frightened about speaking out about their attack, but it's not the case that no victims speak out. We certainly need to make it easier for victims of sexual assault to be heard, but it doesn't make sense to suggest that nobody is trying to raise awareness about rape. Telling the victims of a serious assault "You ought to be doing more" doesn't help- it's just piling more guilt on top of what, for many, is an already tremendously difficult time.

It's true that it's difficult to raise awareness about an issue when the victims are often silenced- but Jack comes to the wrong conclusion. This is exactly an area where he could be making a difference, rather than standing around complaining about how victims don't do enough. Instead, he could be doing advocacy work. He could be, himself, pointing out the problems that victims of sexual assault face, and trying to help people understand the realities of rape. Instead, he says:

The responsibility to improve on the numbers of women subject to rape, on the care victims receive afterwards AND on the conviction rate lies with women and most specifically with rape victims not out of some moral high-ground kind of thing, but because men in general, through thoughtlessness, common stupidity, gender socialisation and because nobody has bothered or been able to tell them, simply don’t know what they are talking about. That’s the crux of the matter and you even said it in one of your posts. If you just get annoyed with people who don’t get it, you can’t wait until they’re interested. Why would they be? They don’t know anyone who has been raped, or rather, nobody they know has let on that they’ve been raped.

The responsibility to improve on the sexual assault rate and the resources available to the victims of assault doesn't sit at the feet of the victims or at the feet of women- it's all of our responsibilities. That some people- even most- are ignorant or thoughtless or even stupid doesn't excuse the rest of us from working on it. If some, even most, men are stupid about it, it just means that the men who do get it have a tough battle to try to help those men "get it". Jack claims to be gender egalitarian, but shoving the responsibility at the feet of women after pointing out that rape is a problem that disproportionately affects women doesn't make sense. If you really think that men are the biggest source of rape, and that women are the biggest set of victims, why would you throw your hands up and suggest that it's women's responsibility to fix the problem?

Ultimately, Jack ended up getting banned after suggesting that Cara- who was, it should be noted, doing a lot of things that Jack wanted women to do (talking about rape, raising awareness, etc)- "part of the problem." You see, her attitude is "essentially the same as the ones which have kept women in the kitchen and the bedroom institutionally for hundreds/thousands of years."

Jack: If you want women to help you understand feminist concerns and issues, I don't think that arguing that women dressing in skimpy clothing is a good start. And after you've annoyed and upset someone on their own blog, telling them to "Grow up" and telling them that they're "pathetic" aren't going to help your case, either.

Forcible penetration isn't injurious... now you know.

Given Eastern Michigan University's previous track record, I almost feel like I shouldn't complain, but the DPS release that they sent out this morning just strikes me as being a bit poorly worded.
Thoughts?

Eastern Michigan University
Department of Public Safety

Informational Release October 12, 2007

Criminal Sexual Assault - Report number 07-1599

On October 11, 2007, a 20-year old resident of Ferndale, Mich., who is
not an EMU student, reported that she was on the EMU campus on Sept. 19,
2007 at approximately 9:30 p.m. The victim reports that at this time,
she voluntarily got in a car parked in the Ann St. Parking Lot with a
person she had just met. The victim reports that while in the vehicle,
the person committed criminal sexual conduct with forcible penetration
on the victim. The victim reports that she and the suspect got out of
the vehicle, when the suspect spoke with a second person, whom she did
not know, who grabbed her arm and walked her back to the vehicle. The
victim reports getting back in the vehicle and the second suspect
committed criminal sexual conduct with forcible penetration while in the
vehicle.

No weapons were used during the assaults and no injuries were reported
by the victim.
...

First of all, we've got the rather conspicuous avoidance of the word "rape". I'm not really sure why, because "criminal sexual conduct with forcible penetration" is wordier and more awkwardly phrased. And the explanations that some people have used in other cases don't really seem to apply here, since, a. this isn't a trial, and b. they're using "criminal sexual conduct" which is just as much against the law as rape is. It'd be like saying "forcibly coerced her into going to a place she didn't want to go, against her will, and without telling other people where she was" in place of "kidnapped her". I'm just not clear on the benefit.

The other problem is with the last line I quoted up there. I understand what the line means, but it just seems... I don't know... wrong to say "no injuries were reported" after you've said that the victim reported that someone "committed criminal sexual conduct with forcible penetration" against her. I'm not sure how that could be worded in a way that doesn't leave me feeling sort of off, though. I understand that what they're trying to say is that her attacker didn't break her arms or cut her or beat her up, but... I don't know, it just seems like there's a disconnect between "forcible penetration" and "no injuries were reported."

And, as the friend who passed this along pointed out, it sucks, and is indicative of the larger problems we're facing, that this could happen and that the victim would wait a month to report it. I know that this isn't a new thought, but a system where rape victims feel so helpless that they'll wait a month to report it (if they report at all) is seriously broken.

Yahoo has a dating advice file?

Via zuzu, over at feministe, comes this... article, from Evan Marc Katz, about women and dating. From yahoo? I didn't even know that Yahoo gave dating advice.

Conversations about dating and sex are always interesting, because everyone thinks that they've got the ultimate insight into What Makes a Relationship Work. It's not like I'm an exception, there. I'm always giving my friends advice about dating and relationships if they ask. I think that zuzu really nails a lot of the problems with this guy's advice. This notion that people need to lower their expectations or "settle" for someone is pretty harmful.

The problem with settling or lowering your expectations is that it usually ends up hurting the relationship. If you really want a person with quality X, but you try to lower your expectations and settle for someone without X, the odds are good that you're eventually going to want X anyway, and you're going to find yourself frustrated that your partner doesn't have X. You might end up looking for someone else, or resenting your partner or yourself. It's not healthy.

Of course, the assumption there is that X is a deal breaker of some kind. When someone asks you "what are you looking for in a potential partner", you're likely to list off all kinds of things that aren't necessarily deal breakers. You might prefer men with dark hair, or women with green eyes, or aliens with three fingers- whatever. The fact that you've got this idea in your head of a tall man with dark hair and blue eyes who rides a motorcycle and does community theater on the weekends doesn't mean that you expect to find that exact person. We're not the kids in Weird Science (thank gods).

Even if we have some kind of idea for a "if I was building a person from scratch" fantasy, that doesn't mean we're not open to the idea that potential partners might show up in some other form. How many of us actually date the sort of person we think we'd want to date when we're asked "what's your ideal person like?" We have a core set of a deal breakers, but everything else tends towards fantasy- we might hope for X, Y, and Z, but we might find ourselves thoroughly attracted to someone who only has X, or Z, or maybe has M, B, and Q instead.

zuzu also criticized an article by David Zinczenko, who writes for Men's Health. His article is about five ways that women can keep their man from leaving. The problem I have with this article is that it's got some reasonable advice, but it's so obscured by telling women that they need to keep their men from cheating that it's hard to see at first. The article takes some pretty general advice, and tries to twist it into a "you can keep your man happy if" statements.

A few commenters took issue with the article for slightly different reasons than zuzu, though:

All this “advice” basically implies that everyone concerned is stuck in some perpetual state of middle-class narcissistic adolescence with the fiscal resources and leisure time for various fun activities to “maintain excitement” in what is supposed to be a relationship between two reasonably mature adults. Funny that most families I knew growing up lived nearly everything in the “Go to work, come home, scarf down dinner, shuffle kids to practice, watch “Last Comic Standing,” and off to bed.” routine for years except shuffling kids to practice and watching late night TV part. Odd that most of my own and my classmates’ parents were able to maintain stable caring relationships despite not being able to maintain the levels of “excitement” required according to this “expert”.

After working effectively two or more jobs six or more days/week, most of our parents were lucky enough to come home to have a late night dinner with kids before heading to bed for what little sleep they could catch before the next workday started anew. Forget about “activity nights” or “guys night out”.

Now, sure, that happens. I'm not convinced that we should be holding that up as a gold standard, though. My parents lived like that for a long time- get up early, go to work, stay late, come home tired, work on the house, eat dinner, watch an hour of tv and go to bed. Rinse and repeat six times a week. My father routinely worked 60 to 70+ hours a week to earn the overtime pay.

I don't, for a minute, think that they wouldn't have been happier if they'd had more time to spend with each other. I don't think that it's a secret that getting stuck in a routine like that isn't really good for a relationship. I mean, yeah, it's possible to have a stable- even happy- relationship like that, but that doesn't mean that it's ideal, or that you couldn't be happier. The fact that some couples, like our parents or grandparents, were happy in situations like that isn't an argument against the idea that we could have a happier population if people could spend more time with their loved ones.

Now, I don't think that the advice, as presented, is very good, but I think that it's easy to see how we could reframe it in a way that makes it better (if completely unsurprising.

Consider:

1. Try to have some kind of long term goals: couples who share longterm goals tend to be happier and more excited about their futures than those who don't.

2. Make plans/dates with each other: many people report wanting to spend more time with their partners. It's easy to get stuck in a routine that doesn't leave a lot of time for connecting with your partner (wake up, go to work, eat, watch tv for an hour, go to bed). Making plans to spend time with each other- even if it's as simple as taking a walk, or playing a game together- can help you reconnect.

3. Make personal time: part of being in a healthy relationship means knowing when to spend time alone. This can be especially important if you're living with each other.

I think that those things are probably sound advice for anyone in a relationship- male or female, straight or gay or flexisexual or whatever.

On Michigan: Glad to know we're not just economically screwed...

Michigan, in case you're unaware... well... it's not doing so good. Our economy is weak: the auto industry is suffering, something like 1 in 30 homes have gone into foreclosure in the last six months, and unemployment is like twice the national average. Detroit is trying to undergo a major rebirth, but much of the nation is unaware of the series of improvements that have been made.

So, you know, Michigan is hurting, and our population is suffering for it. We've also had the misfortune of lots of negative attention because of the corruption and graft in Detroit, and people who are generally unhappy with the state's leadership.

So, you know, it sort of sucks to have most of the major Democratic candidates back out of the Michigan primary.

I don't give a shit if the leadership of the state is doing something that pisses off the leadership of other states- when you pull out of the primary, you're not hurting the leadership, you're hurting the people, and that sucks.

So, you know, way to send a message to the people of Michigan. Glad to know that I'm going to be able to have a voice in the primary.

On an unrelated, and slightly less bitter note: Sorry for the light posting (again). I'm in the middle of a rotational assignment at work that's increased my workload and made it a little more difficult to find time to blog. I noticed a jump in traffic, and I hope that these new readers will stick around or check back sometimes. Oh, and welcome, new readers!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

So, apparently, I'm a troll.

Seriously, now. When did we start using troll interchangably with "person who disagrees with me"?

Oh, wait. My mistake. It's not just "person who disagrees with me" it's "feminists."

Because, yeah, that's an intellectually honest reading of the situation.

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.

They're there to serve and protect... right?

Jender has a great post up on Feminist Philosophies (Why Don't They Call The Police?) that reminded me of this post from Ann at Feministing.

Whenever stories like that turn up, there are almost always a few people who chime in with "well, why didn't the call the police?! Why didn't they do something?!"

And, I can understand where that comes from. We all want to believe that we would do something if it were us. This, despite the evidence to the contrary.

I know that I've been guilty of the "but, calling the police is easy!" sort of comments, though. It can be tough to directly intervene, but just alerting the authorities doesn't seem like it should be that hard, right?

Then I see a story like this or I read about someone like Kathryn Johnston, or the Jena 6, or the Newark case, or the Tampa Bay rape case, or the Megan Williams case...

And it drives home a point: for an awful lot of people living in our country, the authorities do not represent a friendly force.

When you've got story after story of people in authority positions who are flat-out bigots... when you've got EMS and 911 workers who refuse to lift a finger to help a woman bleeding and crying in the ER lobby, right up until the police come and arrest her, and she dies as they drag her away... when the police arrest a woman on her way to the hospital because she's having a miscarriage, and refuse to help her...

If we want a society where people will turn to the authorities in times of need and when people need help, we need to create a society where we can trust that those authorities will actually help us in times of need, and not further victimize us.

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."