Tonight's Town hall meeting in Cambridge, MA...

This is What Women Want is putting on a town hall meeting tonight, as I mentioned last week. There's been a slight change in venue, however. The meeting will be taking place at Lesley University Ampitheater, at 1815 Mass. Ave in Cambridge. Hope to see you there for this very exciting post-election meeting.

If you can't make it, don't fret, you've got another option. Thanks to the wonderful world of web technologies, you can catch the Town Hall right here!



That's the feed, friends. If you've got questions, send them through the chat function there, because I won't be here to pass them along, but people will be taking questions from the feed and asking them at the event.

Hooray!

The Day After: A Feminist Town Forum

Just taking a moment to pass along some info from CNW

The Day After
A Feminist Town Forum
Wednesday, November 5 @ 7:00PM

PARTICIPATE IN PERSON: Cambridge Family YMCA, 820 Mass. Ave., Cambridge

PARTICIPATE ONLINE IN REAL TIME: Participate by logging on 11/5 at 7PM EST to any of our participating blogs, including Feministe, Feministing, Girl with Pen, WIMN's Voices, No Cookies for Me (hey! That's me!), Writes Like She Talks, Heartfeldt Politics, TakePart, or at our mogulus channel.


It's been a long election season, and now it's time to come together to figure out what it all means and what's next.

At this culmination of our This Is What Women Want election project, please join us, our panel of national leaders and the feminist community nationwide to discuss what happened on Election Day, and what we should be thinking about and doing now to fight for equality and justice for all.

This is a first of its kind event convening feminists from around the country live via the blogosphere! Watch live, converse with other audience members around the country and submit your comments and questions in real time.


Panelists will include:

BYLLYE AVERY
Founder of the National Black Women's Health Project and MacArthur Genius Award Recipient

MICHELLE GOLDBERG
Journalist and author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism

ANNE ELIZABETH MOORE
Critic, activist, artist, journalist and author

PAULA RAYMAN
Founding Director of the Radcliffe Public Policy Center

LORETTA ROSS
National Coordinator, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective

ANDREA BATISTA SCHLESINGER
Executive Director, Drum Major Institute for Public Policy

Come optimistic, disgruntled, angry, or just exhausted. Come in person or online. But come. We need to hear every voice and idea!

(Facebook users: Click here to RSVP and invite your friends!)


_______________________
Center for New Words
Where Women's Words Matter

Minor update...

Obviously, posting contiues to be sparse. It's weird what grad school will do to your free time isn't it?

In other news: I hear there's a debate of some kind happening soon, yeah? I'm very interested to see how it goes. Will Palin continue to respond with non-answers, doubletalk, and scripted soundbites as devoid of content as they are full of shit? Let me consult my magic 8 Ball... "It is decidedly so." Well, there you have it.

The other question... will Biden be able to resist putting his foot in his mouth?
8 Ball? "Better not tell you now."

That's what I was afraid of.

Someone needs to have a conversation with the man, and put some kind of muzzle on him. Don't tell stories if you don't know the facts, man. Don't suggest that a FDR was president when he wasn't, or that he was on tv before they'd even been invented. I get the point you were making. Make the point, but don't pull out assfacts to do it. Don't keep referring to the driver of the truck that killed your wife as a drunk when there's not a shred of evidence that he was, and when he was cleared of all wrong doing. I can understand grieving, and maybe you really think the guy was. That's not what people see, though. What they see is a Veep candidate slandering a dead man and trying to milk sympahty at the expense of a man whose family says that he lived with the grief of having accidentally killed someone until the day he died. Don't ask a man in a wheelchair to stand up. Just... don't. You're a smart man. Stop doing things that make people think you might be an idiot. Do not blow this.

*sigh*

In other debate related news: don't forget to check out This Is What Women Want.
They've got up some great videos of the Mississippi event. A list of the videos is up, so check 'em out!

There's another event in St. Louis, MO tonight at 7PM, over at the Phyllis Wheatley Heritage Center, 2711 Locust, doing more speakouts. So, if you're in that area, head over- it's a free event, and you can speak your mind about what you actually want from the presidential candidates.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get some more work done (reading about the free software movement, and about information access and the digital divide and assorted other such things).

What Women Want...

Just a little shout-out to This Is What Women Want (not, thank gods, to be confused with this).

To kick off the project, they're hosting an event in Boston. Check out the CNW site for more details.

Or, read the press release below:



This Is What Women WantBoston kickoff!
Thursday, August 21 @ 7:00PM
Cambridge YMCA Theater, 820 Mass. Ave, Cambridge

For more info, call 617-876-5310 or visit our website

Tired of being talked about this election season? Done with being represented by skewed polls and stereotypes?

This Is What Women Want is your chance to cut through the spin and tell the media, the candidates and the world exactly what you want this election season.

We're embarking on a This Is What Women Want Tour of speakouts across the country, starting in Boston on Thursday, 8/21 and then taking place in each debate city the night before the debate. At each location, local and national media will sit up and listen to women - from the very famous to the not-yet-known. It could be your voice at that mic!

The Boston event will feature speakouts from Cynthia Enloe, Kety Esquivel, and numerous other national and community leaders, plus a wide-open mic and… you! Come tell us exactly what you want from the candidates, the media and the next President.

However you participate, we’ll be sending the best speakouts to the media and the candidates every week.

From sexism, racism, and other bias in the media’s coverage of the campaign, to immigration, war, poverty, health care, reproductive justice, sexual freedom, worker’s rights, violence, education, environmental concerns and more, this is an unprecedented chance to set the agenda for the country. Whether you’ve got a criticism of the status quo or a visionary idea that no one has yet considered, we want to hear from you.

Our goal is simple: to ensure that the real and varied concerns of women are a force to be reckoned with this election season.

WAM! final thoughts...

So, I already talked about the sessions I attended, but I wanted to take one more post to talk about the rest of the conference, because, honestly, the sessions are just one piece of the conference. The other, equally important, part is the networking and keynotes.

And, oh, what keynotes they were! Helen Thomas (Patron Saint of Not Shutting Up!) opened the conference on Friday with a funny and critical discussion about the ways that the media does (or does not) hold the president accountable. For the most part, it was a pretty good speech. She's got a good sense of humor, and has six decades of experience and stories about her work to talk about. She talked about the struggles of breaking into journalism when it was still closed off from women, and she talked about the obligation journalists have to keep an eye on the government. And how many mainstream journalists have been failing that obligation.

At one point she did make the claim that racism is more verboten than sexism in our society, which, um... no. I have to admit that I cringed at that. I just don't like to see/hear claims that sex trumps race trumps gender identity trumps sexuality, etc. She was also a very strong supporter of Clinton, and made it clear that, for her, the fact that this is a viable woman candidate is enough for her to cast her vote. My impression, however, wasn't that she was interested in criticizing supporters of Obama. She made it very clear that she actually thinks that debate and disagreement between Obama and Clinton is a good thing. She repeated asked "What's wrong" with division or debate or disagreement.

There was also a really touching moment where a Lebanese woman thanked Thomas for her work, and talked about how much it meant to her and her family that a Lebanese woman was working the Press Corps. I don't know about any one else, but it was really moving to see this woman, who seemed on the verge of tears, talking about what a tremendous impact it made in her life to see someone who looked like herself covering the president. She said that her whole family would come running to watch whenever Thomas was on. It was really moving.

The second keynote was delivered by Haifa Zangana, and was incredibly powerful. Zangana was tortured under Saddam's regime, and has been an outspoken critic of that dictatorship for a long time, but she discussed the many ways in which Iraq is crumbling under the weight of the current occupation. She discussed the rampant poverty and unemployment that has been created by the war, and how the infrastructure of the country has all but been destroyed. I have extensive notes on her speech (at home, of course.*sigh*).

In a speech filled with sad and disturbing facts about what life is like in Iraq now, it was really upsetting to hear a woman who was detained and tortured by Saddam's forces say that, for most Iraqis, life was actually better under Saddam's rule. When you hear about children being detained in imprisoned by American forces, and you hear about people not knowing what has happened to their loved ones- have they been killed? Detained? Trapped somewhere? For many Iraqi citizens, there's no way of knowing. And then you hear about the millions who've been displaced or fled the country, and I don't know how you can feel anything but upset about the situation.

At the end of her speech, Zangana requested that, instead of straight Q&A, people talk about and pitch ideas for change. She was really interested in hearing what kinds of ideas people had for how we could all work together to improve the situation. She made it clear that she was looking for ways to stand together, not for ways that Americans could give charity.

I believe that Zangana's speech was recorded, and should be out there in the interwebs somewhere. I'm going to look around for it, and see if I can find it or a transcript of it, because it really was a pretty amazing speech.

In addition to the keynotes, one of the most exciting parts of the conference was getting a chance to network and meet so many amazing people. I'm a pretty avid blog reader, and, I'm happy to admit, I think of some writers as being sort of like celebs. I think of them the same way I'd think of meeting a novelist I really like, for example. Which is both amazing, weird, and funny.

On Sunday, after the conference was over, I was hanging around the lunch area, saying goodbye to a few people, and just sort of hanging out. As I'm standing there, a woman walks up to me and says something like (as close as I can remember) "Hi, you're Roy from No Cookies, right? I'm Amber- I don't know if you know know who I am, but I read your blog and I think it's really great." Which was awesome, because it's great to meet someone that reads you. And I started thinking, Amber... Amber... I can't think of any of my regular commenters who go by Amber... And then, all of the sudden, she says something, and it hits me... Amber Rhea!

So. Awesome.

There were moments like that all through the weekend, too. There were so many people there whose writing I read on a regular basis, and whose work I really respect. Like I said the other day, I met Nadia Ann Abou-Karr, which was really cool. I've been excited about the Allied Media Conference being in Detroit since I heard about it last year. I met Latoya Peterson during my session, and got a chance to talk with her a bit afterwards. Oh, and Nancy Gruver, who founded New Moon Girl Media magazine, introduced herself to me during one of the receptions (I'm getting business cards now, I swear!). I got to hang out with Lisa Jervis. I finally got a chance to meet and talk with Jill and Holly, was introduced to Ann and Jessica and "Tech Goddess" Deanna Zandt. Did I mention Derek? And those were just the people I met whose work I was already really familiar with. I can't even begin to list all of the amazing journalists and writers that I met.

Which is all to say, I'm completely blown away by how incredibly awesome the conference was. Three days of learning from amazing and talanted feminists. Three days of networking with really interesting and motivated people who've been busting their asses to make change. It was really, really great to attend a conference where, as Lisa Jervis put it, you don't have to try and explain your politics to everyone. You know, when you're at WAM!, that most of the people there are, if not on the same page, at least reading the same book- we agree that there are problems with the mainstream media, and that sexism is still a problem, and that we need to do something about it. It was easily the most important and informative conference I've ever attended. Aboslutely brilliant.

Yes Means Yes...

Let it be noted: I make no claims to being bias free in this post. I try, and I think I did okay, but I don't promise it.

So, as you may be aware, Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti are working on book. I've seen a variety of responses to the project- some people are really excited about it, some people are a bit on the fence, and some people are pretty upset. There's been some criticism to the call- even the post, some people have remarked that they're unhappy with the wording:

One quibble: Yes Means Yes! will fly in the face of the conventional feminist wisdom that rape has nothing to do with sex.
...
I dislike the implication of this claim to "fly in the face of conventional feminist wisdom," because it seems to me, paradoxically, to score a point for this new feminist project at the expense of existing feminism(s) and feminists.

Which is, you know, fair. A more thorough criticism of that point was also made by Andrea Rubenstein, over at Shrub. Andrea's point is a good one: Language is important, and we have to particularly careful about how we use it, because it can actually do harm to our cause if we don't. She points out that lines like that one create an oppositional framework with different types of feminists on each side, when it isn't necessary to do so. Ultimately, all of us want to end rape, so why set up strawfeminists and, in the process, alienate our allies? It's a very good post and I think Andrea is very fair.

I'm not the only one, either- there's a really interesting discussion happening there right now, including a comment from Friedman, who agrees with Andrea's criticism:

Thanks for a great post. As a co-editor of the anthology (and, of course, the call) I don't think it's picking nits -- you're not the first person to point out the unintentional oppositionality in our phrasing, and I regret it. We in no way want to create or re-inscribe false divisions between feminists. What we more meant is that the concept of "sex has nothing to do with rape" has gotten twisted to the point where it's difficult in some quarters of rape prevention to talk about changing the sexual culture as a means to eradicate rape culture, and we're seeking to take that silence on in this anthology.

This post, by imfallingup, I'm less impressed with.

I like righteous indignation as much as anyone else, but while I think that Andrea's comments were fair and justified, I find this post really vitriolic. A lot of the criticisms strike as particularly unfair. I don't know whether it's accidental, or intentional, but many of the points seem like serious misreadings of what the proposal is suggesting.

The title, my god. I read the title and was thinking, where have I seen that before? No, not this book of the same name, which I haven't read but seems to be going off in the same direction; maybe the editors of this one would be wise to read Albury's book and see what exactly they're doing. However, wasn't there a Doonesbury strip somewhere in the early seventies about men insisting something to the effect of 'liberated women say yes'? (I'm pretty sure it was that era and that it was Doonesbury, but I'm not finding the strip at the moment.) (Edited past my bedtime 12/15/07: same era, but it was Nicole Hollander's Silvia I was remembering, although for aforementioned reasons I don't have time at the second to pull up the strip. Trudeau may have done one in this vein too though and I just read it much longer ago, hence the forgetting.) Anyway: this is nothing new, folks. Feminism goes in ripples as well as waves, as does the backlash, and the backlash constantly comes with men saying to women (and sometimes men, but I'll get to that later) "No may mean no, but yes means yes, so let's do it. What are you, a prude?"

In other words, the author thinks that the title is suggesting "If only women would consent more, they wouldn't get raped." Really? I'm sorry, but how, exactly, is that the most obvious reading of the title? Look, we all know and understand that "no means no", right? Yes? The "problem" with "no means no" is that there are a lot of people who have taken that to mean that "only no means no." In other words, if someone doesn't say no, it means yes. The title of the book is an attempt to reframe that. In other words: Lack of "no" doesn't mean yes- only "Yes Means Yes".

And empowering female sexual pleasure equals dismantling rape culture? NO NO NO NO NO. Don't get me wrong: empowering female sexual pleasure? Do it. It's great to have a dynamic by which women can engage in sex that is pleasurable. So: where is consent in all of this? Is it possible for sex to be physically pleasurable while not consensual? Because, you know, just because half the men on earth don't know a clitoris from a clavicle doesn't mean that every rapist is the archetypical shove-cock-in-gooshy-part-of-sex-object. And if all you're doing is teaching women to have pleasurable sex during some shove-cock-in-gooshy-part-of-sex-object type action that was going to happen anyway, the only people you're empowering is men. Have we all forgotten the word 'consent'?

Again, I don't understand how someone can honestly read that proposal and think that this is what Friedman and Valenti are suggesting. The key isn't just getting women to enjoy sex (although, yeah, that's a great goal, too), the point here is that we, as a society, devalue women's sexuality. In a society where women's sexual experiences are devalued, where sex is thought of as a commodity, and where women are punished for wanting or enjoying sex, we end up with a lot of people who have really screwed up visions of sex and rape that allow them to justify why what they did wasn't really rape. I can't be the only person who went through college and saw some of these disturbing attitudes firsthand. It's only in a world where women's sexuality is so completely devalued that you can have, for example, some frat guy rape a passed out woman at a party and say, with a straight face, that it wasn't rape because "she didn't say 'no'".

Is that all rape?

Obviously not. But those sorts of cases are disturbingly common, and, at least as I understand it, they're a pretty big part of the things we're talking about when we talk about rape culture. Do I think that reframing our understanding of consent will actually end rape? Well, no, obviously not. But, then, I also recognize that it's a book and a book proposal, which means that it's going to be worded more strongly than it ought to be. Is it fair to criticize the strength of the wording? Absolutely. Even if you criticize it for being worded too strongly, I don't think it's fair to pretend that it's saying things that it's not, though.

What has also been important accross history? Women fighting back, not by saying 'yes!' but with fists and feet. Women's self defense classes have been a small but building force in the last few decades; why is this effort not being put towards increasing that? Many brilliant minds are analyzing masculinity (Rebecca Walker's What Makes a Man comes to mind, even if it does ave the disastrous bit from Michael Moore); why not put more work into making sure these ideas are getting to every school, to every town, make sure that every boy growing up has a wide range of people to grow up into and knows ways to treat women with respect that isn't just misogyny masked with a smile?

Again, the point of the book isn't that victims should be saying yes. That's just not an honest reading at all. Quite frankly, it strikes me as the reading of someone with an axe to grind. I'm certainly aware of the anger and resentment that came about after Valenti's last book, so I can absolutely understand being apprehensive and cautious about other books that she's involved with- but I don't think that excuses or justifies intentionally misrepresenting what this project is about. And you know, it's true, women's self defense classes have been a small but building force in the last few decades... and, as I recall, Friedman, in fact, endorsed that... Oh, that's right. She did:

And yet it's true; women and girls can keep themselves safe using our very own bodies. No pepper spray. No whistles. Even women who don't work out, or are "overweight" or are physically impaired...

...Regardless of this resistance, we must all learn how to defend ourselves and insist that our schools and other public institutions teach all girls and women the same skills and not just for our own safety. Because the most practical way to reduce the risk of rape for all women is to create a culture in which the rapist has to worry that he'll get hurt.

And the bit about masculinity and raising boys properly? You mean, for example, by making sure that they understand that lack of resistance isn't the same as consent? You mean by making it clear to them that a woman who isn't giving active consent should be understood to be saying 'no'? By, making it clear that only yes means yes?

And, honestly, I get really tired of reading the "why isn't more effort being put into X, Y, or Z?" Because, you know, there are a lot of us, and there's plenty of work to go around. This book, however problematic the wording of the proposal was, sounds like it does want to address issues around how boys are raised to understand women's sexuality, and how we view rape and sex in our society. That's an important message and I think that it is an important part of battling rape culture. I don't think that it's the only part, but it's an important part none-the-less.

You don't fight rape by enjoying sex more, just as you don't fight eating disorders by enjoying starving, binging, or vomiting (or even eating in and of itself) more. They're both symptoms of other problems, and the solution here proposed is not only so far from incomplete as to be a joke in its phrasing, it borders on the insulting to the many people who have already worked hard at empowering female sexuality and been rejected by the mainstream feminists. Why reinvent the wheel? Well, if it was invented by a bunch of queer women of color and of all sorts of sizes and shapes, you can bet Feministing will find some flat-stomached white women can 'invent' their own, Jen Sincero style.

Okay, time out.

I've seen a couple of other people mention this kind of thing, too- that this is a "feministing project." Or talking about "Jessica's new book." Now, the last time I checked, which was... um... just now, the editors of this book are "Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti." Jessica Valenti is from feministing. Jaclyn Friedman is not. This author mentions Jessica's name and feministing a few times, and seems to think that Friedman and Valenti are the same person... they're not. Jaclyn Friedman is the program director at the Center For New Words, and a member of Big Moves. She's the driving force behind the annual WAM! conference- which, you know, seems to be trying really hard to help bring less mainstream feminist's concerns up so that they get more attention and to help all women's voices be heard. Are she and Valenti working on this together? Absolutely. But it doesn't mean that every complaint about Valenti's past work, or about feministing in general, is fair to levy against this book. Before going off about how they're going to ignore "queer women of color and of all sorts of sizes and shapes" it might behoove the author to make sure that, you know, that's actually the case. Because, as it turns out, Friedman does, and continues to do, work with queer women of color and of all sorts of sizes and shapes.

In other words: This isn't a "feministing" project, and continuing to refer to it as one, and continuing to talk about it as though it's the exclusive property of Valenti ignores the fact that there are two names associated with the book, and that, in fact, Friedman's name comes first. So, maybe it might be a good idea not to pretend that she doesn't exist and that her input into the book isn't important or worth examining?

And, you know, nowhere did I see the suggestion that enjoying sex more is the solution. What I saw was the suggestion that getting society to understand that women already do enjoy sex, and that sex isn't a commodity that women have that men must get through any means is important. Is there already work being done on this? Absolutely. But, as the author notes, the message isn't getting out. And you know, on a personal level, can I just point out that dismissing Friedman and Valenti as "flat-stomached white women" isn't a criticism of the book. Also: Factually inaccurate. But, let's conveniently ignore that Friedman also does work on size issues with Big Moves, because that'd make it hard to dismiss the effort as being one from a flat-stomached white woman, wouldn't it?

The author then goes on to attack, one by one, the list of "potential essay subjects".

* The new backlash against rape survivors (i.e., media obsession with drinking, Girls Gone Wild culture being to blame for assault)

AND THIS BOOK ISN'T BACKLASH AGAINST RAPE SURVIVORS? "If you'd just said yes, you wouldn't have been raped! It would have been consensual!" I know their intent is good, but the title alone is a problematic framework that recycles a male supremacist argument against women's consent being relevant to sex, and everything is downhill from there.

And if that was even remotely what Friedman and Valenti were suggesting, I'd totally agree. But, honestly, I just don't see how anyone can honestly believe that either of them are seriously suggesting "you know, if you'd have just said yes, you wouldn't have been raped." The insanity of that statement alone should suggest "You know, that's probably not what they're saying." So, in short, no, I don't think that this book is a backlash against rape survivors. I'd point out that one of the authors has already written about her experiences as a rape survivor, but, you know, whatever.

* Thoughts on “enthusiastic consent”

The term makes me violent, or violently ill, I'm not sure which. How does 'enthusiastic consent' a) exist as a measure of progress we haven't reached yet (because, you know, all women ever in history have just 'lay back and taken it') and b) fight rape culture? Wait, where's the most common place we see enthusiastic consent nowadays? Oh, yeah, in nearly every single movie coming out of Hollywood where the lead character is a male (in other words, nearly every movie coming out of Hollywood). "Enthusiastic consent" is what is assumed of women outside of rape, when consent is actually being considered. "Ladies' man"? "Women love me"? "Of course she'll want me"?

Put simply:
a)It's a measure of progress not yet reached, because it's not the standard view of consent. We don't, in our society, generally view sexual consent as a positive action (that is, we don't see it as something that people do, not that we don't see it as a good thing), rather, it's seen as a lack of something else. Consent isn't a thing unto itself- it's the absence of rejection. And, even then, it's often portrayed as the lack of strong rejection, not just rejection.
b)The quotes given by the author are exactly the sorts of things that they're talking about- those attitudes "of course she'll want me" aren't enthusiastic consent. They're, in fact, the opposite. If you're going into the bedroom with that attitude, you're not looking for enthusiastic consent, you're assuming you've already got consent, and nothing short of a serious rejection is going to convince you otherwise. The point is to make people understand that anything less than enthusiastic consent from the other person should give you pause and make you think "Maybe the other person isn't into this".

* Taking Back the Porn: How changing the pornography industry can stop rape

See what I said before on feminist porn being nothing new but it being, like many other things, ignored by mainstream feminism as too gay/dirty/body-friendly/giving feminism a bad face. Also, apparently rape was invented after the creation of porn. I mean wait…

Seriously? Seriously, changing the porn industry will stop rape? The way punk music stopped capitalism in its tracks?

Yes, feminist porn is nothing new. And, yes, like many other things, it has largely been ignored by the mainstream. How, then, does it make sense to criticize Friedman and Valenti for proposing it as a topic help bring the conversation into the mainstream? They haven't suggested that this is something new- they've suggested it as a topic that people might be interested in writing and reading about. If you think that this is an important topic, I'm not sure I understand the value in criticizing them for pointing it out. And, yeah, again, it's worded too strongly. No, changing the the industry won't, by itself, stop rape. I also don't think that recycling is actually going to end global warming, either- but I certainly think it's an important part of it, and I recognize when I see commercials that say things like "Save the Earth: Recycle" that they're using hyperbole.

-flails- PLEASURE IS NOT CONSENT.

-flails- NOBODY SAID IT WAS!

Rape doesn't happen solely to deprive women of pleasure. It happens to remind women who gets the final say. How many years of activism pushing the importance of consent are being completely squashed and forgotten in the interest of giving fighting rape a Cosmo face?

Again, where do Friedman or Valenti say that rape is about denying women pleasure? The point was that a society that values women's pleasure wouldn't push the idea that a lack of "no" is the same thing as consent. It wouldn't tolerate or accept the really common attitude that "if I get her drunk enough, she can't say no" isn't rape. Because, if society actually valued women's pleasure and their sexuality, then people wouldn't act in ways that seem specifically to work against it.

And because I've been avoiding tackling it: this concept that women can fight rape by self-empowerment through pleasure sends a really clear message

The author would have done well to continue avoiding it, because it's not a concept that anyone else is promoting. Nobody is seriously suggesting that if women would just start enjoying sex, we wouldn't have rape anymore. Again, that idea is so clearly insane that I don't understand why the author would jump to that conclusion. I really don't.

the problem of rape can be solved by changing women's response to sex. It's the fault of the victim, right? YOU DON'T NEED TO EMPOWER WOMEN TO SAY YES! Is shame an issue? Sure, for some folks. Does rape happen any less to women who don't have shame around sex? Does that question really need to be answered? For the sake of the glassy-eyed that are reading: Rape creates shame. Shame may have been there already, but it'll pretty sure mcome in afterwards. Guess what? "She was asking for it" isn't the line usually put on women who are visibly ashamed of and cloaking their bodies who are subsequently raped. Ending shame to end rape is like casting broken bones to stop bones from getting broken in the first place.

And, see, that's exactly why reading it that way is so clearly wrong. If you've got the choice between reading the suggestion as "If women would just say 'yes' more often, there'd be less rape" (which is, again, fucking insane), and "if society valued women's sexuality more, there'd be less rape" (which is, at the very least arguably true), why would you go with the insane reading? I just don't get that.

* Rethinking sexual interaction as a private joint performance, as opposed to as an exchange of a commodity or service

As someone who's had a mess of great sex that was neither private nor (assuming they mean only two) joint, as well as someone who's engaged in sex as an exchange of services (and when done in the interest fof mutual pleasure, isn't that an exchange of services as well?) I'm rather uninclined to shove sex back into the marriage bed where it never needed to be restricted to (and never successfully was, anyway). Sexual interaction comes in more flavors than jellybeans. It comes in more colors than your bright shiny book covers. If you personally don't enjoy them that doesn't make them rape. It just means you shouldn't give consent to engage in them yourself. Sweet christ on a crouton.

I can sort of agree with the author about the phrase “private joint performance” in so far as I’m uncomfortable with the word “private” there, but I think, again, that he's the author is giving a really unfair reading to what is being suggested and said- nowhere do Friedman or Valenti suggest that sex should be shoved back into the marriage bed- the suggestion is that society's view of sex should shift away from sex as a commodity (sex is something that women have that men must barter/lie/cheat/steal to get from them), to sex as a performance (something that people engage in together- something akin to dancing, for example). I think that a performance model of sex is healthier than the current model, which is, in our society, very much commodity.

They undercut and render unimportant and invisible past action to combat male supremacy; suggest that women are responsible for rape throughout society if they do not personally make efforts to enjoy their own sex, and and and… -fumes-

I know, I'm a broken record, but... seriously, they're not suggesting that women are responsible for rape throughout society if they don't personally make efforts to enjoy their own sex!

Again: That. Is. Insane.

Think whatever you want about FFF and of Friedman and Valenti, but I've never been under the impression that either of them are victim blamers, and I've certainly never gotten the impression that either of them was insane. So, I'm not inclined to jump to the worst possible reading of their words when there are other, less blatantly bad readings.

And you know, I get where a lot of the above is coming from, I think. Because, yeah, there's a lot of ugly history around mainstream feminists ignoring certain issues, and, yeah, the blowup around FFF has created a lot of bad blood. And, yeah, there are some legitimate concerns to be had- and I think that it's wrong for someone to pretend that the issues of white, middle-class women are the only issues that women face or the only issues that feminists should be concerned with. But I also think it's really wrong and harmful to misrepresent what is actually being proposed in an effort to discredit the works of those feminists you don't personally like.

There are lots and lots of people that I find personally unpleasant or with whom I have serious issues. I don't think that excuses or justifies misrepresenting their words, though. I'm totally for criticizing the actual content of the proposal, but, just like I don't see the value in attacking the strawfeminist of "conventional feminist wisdom" (which, as Andrea points out, plays directly into divisiveness of the sex-pos/anti-porn debate) when they could be reaching out to all feminists, I don't see the value in taking a personal grudge to the extreme by deliberately misreading and misrepresenting the work that's being attempted here.

Is all of it new? Of course not. The reality is that most feminist discourse isn't new- feminists have been busting their asses for, you know, a long time now, and they've done a lot of work, so, yeah, a lot of this stuff is stuff that's probably been said in some form or another. Does that mean that nobody else can write about it, now? The fact that it's been said before doesn't stop people from still talking about it again, and if the message hasn't reached the mainstream yet, maybe there's some value in collecting some of these ideas in one place, and trying again?

I'm just not sure what the value is in tearing down this project like this. Justified criticism of some of the wording aside, I don't understand trying to tear the project down. I don't understand the vitriol being offered here. Do any of us really believe that female sexuality and pleasure is valued by our society? Do any of us think that we'd be worse off if it was? No?

No.

At worst, you might believe that we'd be no better off if people believed that only yes means yes. If that's the case, don't offer support, or offer that criticism. But, there's plenty of room for differing opinions on that without suggesting that this book is somehow going to set us back and OMG! It's going to BLAME THE VICTIMS! Because, right, it's not.

You don't have to like the editors or agree with their premises to treat their proposal fairly.

And that post doesn't.

Edited - Saturday Dec. 22

It has been brought to my attention that "the He your quoting in all your desperate need to be fair and show how nuanced you are

is a TRANSPERSON ( but way to set up the kind of underhanded privileged male picking on women jab yeah you EXCEPT NO)"

I used the pronoun "he" here: "I can sort of agree with the author about the phrase “private joint performance” in so far as I’m uncomfortable with the word “private” there, but I think, again, that he's giving a really unfair reading to what is being suggested and said"

If anybody else interpreted that as an example of a privileged male picking on women jab, or my attempting to suggest that it was such, that was not, in fact, my intention, and I'm sorry that it came across that way.

While I was aware of the fact that imfallingup identifies as a transperson (the , the profile from the LJ page indicates "I'm a radical queer with a body that tends to be read as male-to-female-that-needs-to-learn-to-shave and an actual history slightly more complex than that (ftm is relevant but for now I'm just calling myself tranny)." I used the pronoun "he" based on the "ftm" comment, but if "he" is inaccurate, I sincerely apologize. Based on the main page, which makes it pretty clear that imfallingup identifies as trans, I made sure to check the profile, to see how sie identifies, and I'm sincerely sorry for my misunderstanding and getting it wrong. I've striked out the pronoun, to correct the error, but have not removed it since there are other comments that reference my mistake.

The 49th Carnival of Feminists is up!

Just a quick shout out to Days in a Wannabe Punk's Life, host of the 49th Carnival of Feminists. As always, there's great stuff there, including a number of posts by bloggers I love. There're the Iron Man post from Living Between Wednesdays I linked, and then there's The Curvature, Feminist Gamers, Mind the Gap, The F Word, and Feminist Allies.

So, yeah, check it out! Great stuff!

WAM! Registration has begun! I'll be there, and so should you!

The Women, Action & the Media conference is fast approaching, and it's time to consider registering. This is a great chance to see some totally ass kicking presentations by a variety of feminists on a ton of interesting topics. This is a rare opportunity to get a chance to see sessions by, meet, and network with some really amazing people, on a variety of really important subjects. But, you have to register.

But, before you do, I know you've got a question, right?

"Who is going to be there?"

I'm glad you asked! This year's keynote speakers are none other than Helen Thomas and Haifa Zangana.

Helen Thomas, the first woman officer of the National Press club and first woman member and president of the White House Correspondents Association, is a noted author and presidential correspondent. She's been covering presidents since JFK, and has been raising conservative ire with her criticisms about the current administration, and the War in Iraq. Helen Thomas is, as Jill's post suggests, awesome.

Haifa Zangana is an Iraqi artist and author, and a former prisoner of Saddam Hussein's Baath regime. She escaped execution, and eventually ended up working with the PLO in Damascus, Syria, before moving to London in 1975. She's also a cofounder of Act Together: Women Action for Iraq, one of the founding members of the International Association of Contemporary Iraqi Studies, and is the chair of the Iraqi Patriots in Media and Culture. She's a contributor to such publications as The Guardian and Red Pepper.

As if getting a chance to see these two amazing women speak wasn't enough, there's a fantastic bunch of feminists putting together some really interesting sessions. Feminists like Brownfemipower, Ann Friedman, Lisa Jervis, Audacia Ray, Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, and and dozens more.

And they'll be giving sessions on topics like "Battling Backlash: Strategies for Fighting Back, Rising Above, and Making Progress", and "Dying for Your Entertainment: Gender Bias in News Coverage of Britney, Lindsay, Courtney & Owen". Or "Gender, Justice and the Future of Media - Building Our Long-Range Plan" and "Immigration in the U.S.: The Women's Rights Crisis Feminists Aren't Talking About". And more!

And, as a dubious bonus*: I'm going to be there! I have the extreme pleasure of being able to present with Naomi Clark. Our session is on video games and gaming culture, and is called "Feminism and Video Games: Expanding the Discussion of Sexism in Gaming Culture".

In order to attend, though, you're going to need to get registered, -OR- volunteer!

The regular registration fee is $145 for the entire event. That includes access to both keynote speakers, all of the workshops and panels, as well as breakfast and lunch on Saturday, the Saturday evening party, and a Sunday brunch. To put it mildly, it's a hell of a deal. But, I know that a lot of you are students, right? Well, WAM! has you covered- if you're a student of any kind, you pay only $45. For the whole event. Food, panels, party- the whole nine yars. That's a hundred dollar savings. And, if you volunteer as little as six hours of your time to the event, you get all of the above for free.

Of course, you'll need to get to the conference, and you'll need a place to stay, right? WAM! has you covered, there, too. The amazing women at CNW have put up a discussion board to facilitate car-pooling, and another board for finding room arrangements. The Cambridge Marriott is offering a special rate at $199 a night, and the HI-Boston Hostel offers dorm-style accomidations for as little as $40, which includes breakfast and WiFi, and is located right by the subway system.

Some of you have already been looking, I know, and, in fact, I've been told that the very first person to register mentioned my blog as being how he found out about the conference! A hearty thanks to Derek! Hooray!

The point is, it's going to be an amazing conference, and I'm hoping to see as many of you there as possible. It's not just a chance to net-work with and meet some of the amazing feminists that you read about all the time, it's also a chance to actually make a difference- it's a chance to find out what other people are doing to make a difference, and to learn what you can do to help. I really do hope to see you there.

* Bonus only available if you actually like me and want to say hello. In which case the bonus constitutes "will be glad to see you and say hello".

You've got time for Big Moves...

(via Jaclyn)
Time for a commercial interlude: a little shout out to Big Moves: I've talked about them before, but in case you don't know, they're awesome. This is their first time making a calendar, it's all kinds of amazing. It's thirteen months of full color photographs and bits of wisdom from the Big Moves cast and crew, all put together by the one and only Jaclyn Friedman, and it goes to a great cause- namely, helping fund Big Moves performances so they can keep bringing the best of body positive dance and theater to audiences. If you haven't had a chance to check them out, or if you're a longtime fan, this is a perfect opportunity to show support.

From the press release:



Need a big gift for someone special in your life?

Want to widen your body confidence in 2008?

Look no further: the 2008 Big Moves Wall Calendar has arrived!


Each month of this full-color, 13-month wall calendar features an up-close and personal portrait of a member of the East Coast Big Moves cast & crew like you've never seen them before. Plus, a new quote or quip each month to help you or someone you love get through the tight spots in your year. Click here to see a sample for yourself.

Plus -- every calendar you buy is a big support to Big Moves 2008 touring productions, spreading body-positive performance on thick from Montreal to Philadelphia!

Click here to buy yours TODAY!

Orders received by December 16 for delivery in the continental US will be mailed by December 17, and should be received in time for Christmas wrapping (but we cannot make guarantees for USPS deliveries). Please contact us at admin(at)bigmoves(dot)org for international or expedited shipping options. Order now for fastest delivery!

WAM! 2008! You're Running Out of Time- Get Proposing...

The call for proposals is out, and in case you've missed the notice, the WAM!2008 proposal deadline is looming just over the horizon. You've got less than a month to get your porposals in. What are you waiting for? Everyone who comments on or reads my blog on a regular basis should be getting involved here.

This is your chance to get involved. It's a chance to network with the media, meet other awesome feminists, hear some fantastic presentations, and help get your message out there. If you've got something to say- and I'm pretty sure all of you do- you should be filling out that call for proposal, not sitting here reading my blog (although, you know, come back and keep reading after you've got your proposal submitted).

Look at some of WAM!'s previous presenters- Andi Zeisler (co-founder of Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture), Jessica Valenti (creator of Feministing.com), Brittany Shoot (co-founder of HollaBackBoston.com), Deanna Zandt (freelance writer, designer, researcher for AlterNet), Valerie Boyd (founder of EightRock), Mikhaela Reid (political cartoonist for The Boston Phoenix), Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America), Rita Henley Jensen (foudner of Women's eNews), Elaine Lafferty (former editor and chief of Ms. Magazine), Garance Franke-Ruta (senior editor for The American Prospect), and Pullitzer Prize winner Ellen Goodman, to name but a few.

When else are you going to get the chance to rub elbows and exchange ideas with such an amazing group of feminist movers and shakers?

Even if you don't have a proposal to submit (and why the hell not?), you should at least consider attending.

If nothing else, I'm going to be there.
(I don't expect any cookies- but if anyone wants to get drinks and gush over how awesome the presentations are, you'll know where to find me)

In other words: get those submissions in, and I'll see you in Boston!

A Brief Diversion: Movie Game....

One of my blogging buddies, Mark, has been hosting a movie screencap game, and I was the winner of the latest round. I put up round 23, over at 79 Soul, but I wanted to take a moment to promote the game over here, too (there have only been a few of us playing so far).

So, if you have a moment, why not drop by Round 23, and take a shot?

Feminism and Me: My Role as a Man...

Kevin: aka Thin Black Duke, of Slant Truth had a guest post up at Thinking Girl's site that I thought was pretty interesting. The topic was 10 things that men can do to end men's violence against women, but it's also a good jumping point to discuss things that men can do to help end sexism and misogyny.

As a man, my role in feminism is something that I often think about it. It occurs to me that I don't think I've actually talked about that on here, which... well... is weird. You'd think it would come up.

One thing that I think feminist men should absolutely be doing is taking other men to task for the sexism that we exhibit. When we, as men, "get it" it's important that we work to help other men get it, too. This isn't always easy, but it's necessary. This sort of goes back to the question that cme asked me about here: It's not women's jobs to be a tourguide for men.

I think that's absolutely true, as I mentioned in response to that. I do, however, think that I, as a feminist man, do have an obligation in that area. I'm under no illusion that my voice will always find a willing ear or that I'll always get things right, but I absolutely believe it can make a difference, sometimes. I think that being vocal about supporting women's rights, and helping other men see that these are important issues is one of the most important things we, as feminist men, can do. I think of it as my responsibility as a man who supports an end to sexism to step up and help other men see what I see: a world where sexism is still all to common.

We also have an obligation to examine and challange our individual sexism and the roles we play in supporting sexist systems, and to work to understand how patriarchical systems benefit us- to see how male privilege benefits us, even when we don't mean for it to. It's not enough to fight against the systemic sexism that exists outside in the world around us if we don't also take the time to examine the ways that we exhibit sexism in our personal lives, as well. Even the most well intentioned among us are likely to harbor sexist beliefs sometimes, or unconciously benefit from privileges as a result of our sex. Part of being a feminist male, to me, is working to understand and be aware of the areas that I need to improve on, and to work on noticing instances of sexism that benefit me.

It's only after we've taken the steps to recognize how sexism and privilege play into our personal lives that I think we can really begin to help educate other men about our responsibility in ending sexism. This goes back to what I was talking about in the begining of this post- it's not enough to recognize sexism and say "Yeah, sexism sucks!" That's a start, but real action takes action. We have to be willing to move from recognizing sexism, to taking action against it, and that means being vocal, and it means being willing to address sexism when we see it, and it means working to educate other men about sexism.

The Intersection of Art and Feminism... and T-Shirts...

I'm playing catch-up today. I've been meaning to drop a couple of links for some time, now, and I keep forgetting.

No more!

I discovered The Feminist Art Project a little while ago, and I've been wanting to drop a link to their site, because I absolutely love their mission:

The Feminist Art Project is a collaborative national initiative celebrating the Feminist Art Movement and the aesthetic, intellectual and political impact of women on the visual arts, art history, and art practice, past and present. The project is a strategic intervention against the ongoing erasure of women from the cultural record. It promotes diverse feminist art events and publications through its website calendar and facilitates networking and regional program development throughout the U.S.

Sadly, none of the events that they've listed on their calendar are near me, but there's some pretty interesting sounding things going on, and it might be worth checking some of them out if they're near you.

The other thing I keep meaning to do, and I've been sadly remiss in following through on, is to give a shout out to Jaclyn Friedman's t-shirt site. I think that the designs themselves are great, and I love the idea: Take the insults and attacks that feminists are accused of, and take away the sting by mocking it on a t-shirt. From the site:

I started Sticks & Stones Clothing after I published an article in which I briefly mentioned having been sexually assaulted, and was accused by commenters and letter-writers of being a lying, man-hating whore just for having had the nerve to speak about it.

That hurt. Until I made a tshirt out of it so I could wear it proudly. Now, you can, too.

Friedman's goal is to "Claim or subvert a current insult used by wingnuts" and make t-shirts that "can't be worn un-politically." Take a look at some of the designs, and if you've got an idea for one, she encourages you to send the idea to sticksandstones at jaclynfriedman.com. If she uses it, you get a free shirt.

Also, you can check out the logo, which was designed by yours truly.

Another Post About Children: A Lesbian Couple, Sperm Donation, and Me...

(Cross posted at feministe as part of my guest blogging)

I was reading this article from the Washington Post earlier today, and thinking about the situation that this guy is in. It makes me wonder how common these sorts of situations are. I think that most of us, by now, realize how uncommon the Nuclear Family is. We have families with step-children and half-brothers and extended families that live in the same house and same-sex families and even families like this, where it's a same-sex couple and a "daddy" who isn't in a romantic relationship with either mommy. I think it's great that he's able to have this kind of relationship with his friends' children. His children.

On the other hand, I want to ask him how he feels about the situation in general. He answers the question "do you have children" really well, and I get that he's really proud and happy to be a part of these children's lives, but this is a guy who wanted children of his own, and while it's great that he was able to do this, part of me wants to ask him what it's like on a day-to-day basis. How hard is it to not be able to be there for them? How difficult is it to be in a situation like that, where you're the father, but they're not your children?

But, an even bigger part of me wants to know what it would have been like if he didn't want children of his own. How would he handle his role in the lives of children if he'd never wanted children of his own? How would that feel to see a child that is biologically yours, but that you don't have any fatherly claim to?

Because, as it turns out, I might find out for myself, and I've got questions, and for every question I have, I worry that there are at least six others I'm missing.