I was reading ahead for my English class (trying to stay afloat above the workload) and got to an article that my professor assigned for next week. ( This is the 'not' part )

( This is the 'faith' part )

Okay, it's been several hours since the show, so I can come up with something more coherent than, "WICKED AHHHH WICKED AHHHH!!" :P

( The review! )

Speaking of Wicked - rivendellrose or nekokoban, does one of you have my copy of the book? I lent it to your household last summer for one or both of you to read, but I keep forgetting to get it back.

Also, this is kind of random, but worth noting: after the show, we wandered around Barnes & Noble to kill time while the line for parking validation went down. I had worn a red qipao for the show, and a man commented to me that it was pretty. And it was ... nice. A polite compliment that wasn't at all invasive or creepy. He just said, "That's a very pretty dress," and then I looked at him and he met my eyes and smiled. That's all. No leering, no smirking, no sense of entitlement to anything just because he said something nice to me.

It was just a great example of how easy it is to give a nice compliment in a non-sexist, non-privileged way. So if anyone tries to say that it's hard to compliment a woman without it being mistaken for harassment: it's not. Even this crazy man-hating feminazi didn't misread it. XD;;

So what do you call it when a man repeatedly pushes his attention upon a woman in a bar, then tries to grope her, and promptly gets schooled by that woman?

Teaching someone a well-deserved lesson? A justifiable use of force? A sure-fire way of making sure at least one man doesn't view women as accessories for his testicles anymore?

Of course not! You call it unfeminine! battery! the reason men are buying foreign wives! After all, he was "just trying to touch her"! Silly vaginas-on-legs, what were you thinking?

See, men are more intelligent than that, and never react with so base an action. I mean, just imagine that a man was in that woman's place - certainly he would never react with any form of violence to unwanted sexual advances from another man! And of course he wouldn't ever try to pass off his reaction as a legally justifiable defense!

Oh, you vaginas-on-legs, trying to use logic, when we all know full well that's the domain of men (the penis is the logic-muscle, you know). Now take your shoes back off and get back into the kitchen. You'll only get groped if you're outside the home, remember, and only because you deserve it.


*See Amanda's post for further snark, especially this comment, which made me cheer.

Aaaaaaand there's more! Via wordweaverlynn, we have another response by Ellison regarding his groping of Connie Willis. And no, this isn't him dropping all sarcasm and misguided attempts at humor in order to make a straightforward, sincere apology. (We can only dream.)

Since jfpbookworm did such a great job deconstructing the first "apology", I think it's only fitting that we subject Ellison's newest offering to analysis as well. One, because he's so spectacularly idiotic - but more importantly, because of the unexamined privilege that drips from his words alongside the expected arrogance. He may be a talented writer, but that skill does nothing to save him from his underlying sexist assumptions.

( Apparently no one told him that humility is the better part of sincerity )

x-posted to Shrub.com

A few days ago at the Hugo Awards ceremony at Worldcon, Harlan Ellison groped Connie Willis on stage. The primary source of the news is pnh, a.k.a. Patrick Nielsen Hayden, though Ellison himself confirmed it inthe (ostensible) apology on his message board. (Text provided here by matociquala, a.k.a. Elizabeth Bear. Also see her post on the original incident.)

He wrote the "apology" yesterday, even though the event occurred a couple of days ago, because he had no idea that there was a problem until he saw the reaction online. In other words, he didn't know it was wrong until someone else told him. This is the kind of behavior that you would expect out of children developing their sense of politeness and ethics, not a grown man (especially one with as inflated a sense of self as Ellison apparently has).

Connie Willis is one of the most respected science fiction authors writing today - certainly one of the most well-known women in the field. She did not invite the groping, nor did she give him permission. Ellison calls it "intendedly-childlike," and supposedly it came as part of a comedic schtick. However, Willis was not previously informed about his intention, and since she immediately removed his hand and continued on without comment, it's obvious that she didn't feel inclined to join in on the "comedy."

His behavior - the fact that he even thought that this was an acceptable action (or at least funny, maybe "cheeky little bastard," but not reprehensibly sexist), and furthermore, had to be told that it wasn't - speaks to a deep disrespect for women. A disrespect that, really, isn't all that uncommon.

( Now don't misunderstand what I'm saying ... )

x-posted to Shrub.com

Tekanji has a thought-provoking post on a fetish website that's been getting some attention on the blogosphere lately, called Superheroine's Demise. I highly recommend giving it a read, but, in a nutshell: the website is about portraying poweful superheroines being beaten and defeated for the sake of (male) sexual gratification, and that's Not Okay for various reasons.

Tekanji makes the point that, far from being an extreme fetish we can/should ignore, it fits in quite easily with mainstream culture:

"If you accept my premise that the fantasy of dominating powerful women is a pervasive one for men in Western culture, then it would obviously follow that (male) comic fans would have this fantasy, too. Not to mention those who write and draw these heroines. In essence, the fetish of humiliating strong women is perpetuated by the comics themselves, in turn influencing comic book readers to see it as erotic, which feeds the idea that this is what comic fans want... lather, rinse, repeat until you have these themes becoming codified into mainstream thought."

( And now, my turn )

At my most recent training session with CORE, a King County prosecutor came to talk about the legal treatment of rape in Washington state. Now, the man himself was nice - but some of the stuff he told us? Was shit.

( Let me give you some examples )

Trying this again.

Let's talk about terrorism. If you're living in the U.S. (or you receive any news media that allow you to hear us), you're likely quite familiar with the rhetoric associated with terrorism, particularly following September 11. "Use the airlines, or the terrorists will win," "We're Americans who will fight for our freedom," etc. etc. Without assigning value judgments to these statements and their implications (which is oh-so-easy to do), let's just take a look at what they're actually saying. They're about defiance - resisting the attempts of our adversaries to cow us into submission, and holding on to our supposedly God-given right to live our lives the way we want to. Sure, there's some risk - being in an airplane, a place of congregation like a sports stadium, or just a heavily populated city. But in the end, we know that it's not worth circumscribing our lives to win a modicum of safety. Furthermore, the real way to protect ourselves from terrorism is to stop terrorism, not hide from it.

( Wouldn't it be nice if we treated women the same way? )

Two members of the Duke lacrosse team have been arrested and charged.

If you've been hiding in a cave and have somehow not heard anything about the Duke rape case, you can get a rundown of the story by going here. In a nutshell, the victim is a black female student from North Carolina Central University (historically black) and working mother, who was hired as an exotic dancer for a party by members of the lacrosse team at Duke (historically ... well). After being driven out of the party by racial slurs, she returned and was allegedly beaten and raped. Issues of sex, race, class, and the attending domination and entitlement, are rampant.

I've been following this story intermittently over the past few weeks, and sometimes I have to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Cowardly, I know, but sometimes I feel so much anger and fear and sadness that I don't think I could find enough tears or shouting or violence to express.

Because what does this case, and the scenario described within it, make me think of? Yes, the "big three" of racism/sexism/classism - the overarching systems of inequality that permeate society. But also? Individual helplessness in the face of all of that. Because she's just one woman. A woman attempting to prosecute her rapist has a hard enough time, but she's also black, a stripper, and struggling financially: vulnerable to being dehumanized in so many ways. There's an entire system of power arrayed against her - an old, strong, entrenched culture that she has to face. It's not just wealth, or whiteness, or maleness that she has to face from her alleged attackers. It's more than that - it's the smug sense of entitlement, of superiority, that the culture infuses into people due to those qualities. Duke has had a long history of suffering mistreatment from athletes - from the lacrosse team in particular - because they are people who have never heard the word "no." Or, at least, heard it and had to obey. And if you think that sense of entitlement has nothing to do with being rich white boys - well, I just hope to God you're never on the opposite side of that power equation.

But it's not just lacrosse, or Duke, of course. It's everywhere. Everyone who's gone to high school with athletes knows the "boys will be boys" tolerance accorded to them (though whether they abused it is another matter). And anyone who's taken a long hard look at oppression knows the ways in which prejudice feeds into that mentality - most often sexism and homophobia, but racism and classism are hardly rare. And if you want to see it in action? Just look at some of the blog posts being made about the issue. News stories, too - though they're more subtle about it. On the other hand, you can try looking at the more equitable treatment being given to the story in the left-leaning blogs - Pandagon, Alas, a Blog, Feministe - and read the comments there. Again, a lot of people try to couch their bigotry in soft words, but some don't. And you can read the sentiments there anyway - She's probably lying about being raped. She's just playing the race card. She's a stripper, so she can't be believed. She's a stripper, so she can't be raped. And, of course, They're good boys - because they're athletes, because they're rich and respectable. The minimization of the athletes' previous behavior as merely "inappropriate." The scoffing dismissal of the possibility that race played a role because racism somehow doesn't happen anymore.

It's here. It's not in some hidden corner of society. It's not only in this school, or that. It's in the everyday people all around us. I see it now, in a specific case - but this isn't new. I see and hear this shit all the time. More now that I've learned to read between the lines. Oh, it's "better" than it was before - 100 years ago? 50? But there's still way, way too much of it. It's there, and so many people buy into it, and so many people don't even care, that sometimes I don't even know what deluded dream could lead me to believe that I might somehow chip away at it.

I feel powerless. And yes, this is about power. The power of rich, white men to think nothing of sexually violating a poor, black woman. Maybe not in this particular case - there's always the possibility - but if not here, then goddamn everywhere else. Women getting hurt. Blacks getting hurt. Lesbians getting hurt. It's about domination, degradation, humiliation - the ability to bleed power and superiority out of someone else. And the ability, if you're the right kind of person, to have society let you do it.

It is absolutely vital, however, not to make the victim a symbol, or turn her story into some mythic representation of all oppression. The alleged crime happened to a real person. Whatever we can say about patterns of behavior or theories on society, she is more than a statistic or a news byte. She felt it and experienced it, and now has to keep experiencing it until this case is over - and forever afterward. what does that feel like, and what is it doing to her? I have no fucking clue. But this story ... it's a reminder. It triggers realizations. Realizations that make me feel tired and smothered and enraged and silenced and scared. And will I keep fighting and hoping? Of course. But it's never, never easy.

This is not my post for Blog to Raise Awareness About Sexual Violence. I had a different one planned, which I'll write later. Maybe.

On April 18, Blog To Raise Awareness About Sexual Violence.

On April 22, Blog Against Heteronormativity.

These topics mean whatever you want them to mean. Break out some statistics. Analyze a news story. Develop a theory. Refute a theory. Or go with the old stand-by of writing an angry rant (which is, of course, my plan, assuming I can manage to write something in between studying for midterms). Just say something, anything, that throws off the tired assumptions that we should keep silent about sexual violence, or that heterosexuality-with-traditional-gender-roles is the way things have to be.

If you're not going to write something, and you don't want to read what I write, go to the links I posted and browse the comments to see what other people have to say - the feminist blogosphere is full to bursting with impassioned and intelligent writers!

Just finished helping to set up some exhibits for Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence Awareness Week. Go me! :D For people on campus who want to see them, we have the Silent Witness exhibit on the HUB lawn, detailing the stories of twenty-something victims of domestic/relationship violence from Washington in 2004. Inside the HUB, there are a series of posters about healthy relationships. Both exhibits will be on display all week (Silent Witness will be taken down in the evenings).

Of course, there's also the major events I mentioned before. Once again:

Monday, April 10th, 7:00 p.m.
HUB Auditorium
"Consent is Sexy" lecture by Dr. Pepper Schwartz

Tuesday, April 11th, 7:00 p.m.
HUB Auditorium
Born into Brothels screening

Thursday, April 13th, 6:00 p.m.
Red Square to HUB lawn
"Safety Under the Stars" Run/Walk and Rally

There's also an article in The Daily. Whee!

This morning, I: 1) posted flyers advertising events meant to educate my campus about sexual assault, 2) played phone tag with a writer for the Seattle Times to arrange an interview about the anime club, 3) and donated blood for the very first time. All before class. :D

Once I got home, I finally got in touch with the Seattle Times writer, chatted with him a bit about the club, and set up a meeting time. Go me!

As for the bloodloss, it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd been worried about. The main reason I haven't donated before isn't pain - I don't really mind needles - but rather the worry that my body wouldn't handle it so well. (I have low blood pressure, to the point where I occasionally experienced brief blackouts when I was younger. I am just that cool.) But it was fine - I felt a bit lightheaded, but that was it; and I've been guzzling water and juice all day. The only slightly squicky bit was when they were taking samples in small containers; at that point I'd already been tubed up, so the blood flowing in the tube had built up and it sort of sprayed and splattered the inside of the container when it was released. O_o That, and it took so long for me to fill the bag that I ended up being late to class. :P

And finally, the sexual assault education flyers are for SARVA (Sexual Assault & Relationship Violence Awareness) Week, an annual series of events put on by CORE (Committee Organizing Rape Education). As some of you know, I started working with them as a volunteer peer educator last week. So far, I'm still in training and can't really *do* anything yet, but we trainees are still good for grunt work. Thus, the postering.

Here are the events for SARVA, in case you're interested. I plan on going to the Monday and/or Tuesday event.

( For the week of April 10 )

Some highlights from what I've been reading this week:

-From Shrub.com, a post on Octavia Butler, notable primarily because it provides links to some of her stories and other writing. One of the links is to "Amnesty," a story I read last quarter for my sci-fi class - great stuff.

-Biting Beaver clarifies the statement that rape is about power, not sex. At the same time, she illuminates the connections that exist between sex and rape, while explaining why it would be hard to explain the concept to the population at large.

The rest of these links may make you want to kill things. They did for me. (Thanks to ratzeo for putting temporary moratorium on my angry ranting so my blood pressure didn't hit the roof.)

-In case anyone's forgotten that homophobia kills, Pandagon gives us a news story that refreshes our memories. The state of our country's law enforcement, people.

-We treat rape victims with the respect they deserve, right? Especially in court. Women only have to watch the video recording of the rape or risk jail time. The judge has since backed down - more likely from outside pressure than the realization that he's a fuckwit - but what does it say about us that this issue was even raised? (From Feministe.)

-Clearly inspired by the moral righteousness of the South Dakota abortion ban, Utah wants to enforce parental notification even in cases of incest. Because a father deserves to know if his daughter is having an abortion - even if he's also the father of the baby. "Abortion isn't about women's rights," says Republican Senator Chris Buttars. There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. (Another one from Pandagon.)

-In light of the disgusting anti-abortion legislation that seems to be popping up everywhere, the information for women in South Dakota from Molly Saves the Day ought to be shared again. It's frightening and horrifying - but no more frightening or horrifying than what's going on in South Dakota, Utah, Mississippi, and god only knows where else.

*sigh* As ginmar put it so aptly: I swear, some days I feel like a proctologist with an overbooked schedule. Too many fucking assholes and not enough suppositories.

Your daily dose of wisdom from Phyllis Schlafly.

William J. Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for more than 20 years for having sex with his wife Linda.

Actually, no. He has been incarcerated for raping his wife Linda. But, you know, small difference. Rape is just sex, after all, and damn the woman who tries to say otherwise.

Linda was not a battered wife; she testified at the trial that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage.

Oh, right, I forgot -- only men with long histories of physical violence are rapists! So that means I don't have to worry about anyone whose malice is expressed in forms other than physical spousal abuse, right? My mistake.

Twenty years later, despite an exemplary prison record, the parole board routinely refuses to parole him, giving as its sole reason "prisoner denies the offense."

So a man convicted of rape refuses to admit that what he did was wrong -- hell, denies that he even did it. Well golly gee, why don't we just toss him right back into society?

No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed no evidence of injury or forced penetration.

Bzzt! Rape =/= violent penetration. Rape can also be a result of coercion or the rapist incapacitating the victim so that she is unable to resist. Or are you one of those people who believes that rape only occurs when a man in a dark alley grabs a woman (who shouldn't have been walking alone in public and was probably one of those slutty types who wears tight clothing and can't keep her legs shut anyway). In other words, it doesn't happen to married women. In other words, it doesn't happen to people "like me."

Suchy's letter [discrediting Linda's story] is hearsay but has the ring of authenticity.

Oh, yeah! Linda's testimony isn't reliable because there isn't any (physical) evidence backing it up, but this random person's story is reliable because ... uh ... well, because Schlafly says so!

Is "has the ring of authenticity" some kind of code for "is in favor of the man"? Just wondering.

A man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father [...]

I know, the poor, poor rapist who can't raise his children just because he raped their mother ... It's tragic. Truly.

[...] by malicious feminists [...]

*makes Scary Mean Feminist face*

[...] who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape [..]

Unbelievable, isn't it? Those crazy feminists just don't get the fact that being married means you can never say "no"!

[...] and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser.

Keep in mind, people, it's only the man's rights we're worried about, here. We don't care about a woman's right to have her rapist punished.

At this point, I don't even care about the case in question. I can't say what's true or not based on what I read on the Internet. But it's dazzlingly clear from what Schlafly and other people have written that their primary concern lies with preserving the reputations of possibly innocent men, rather than defending or even sympathizing with the victimized women.

Only in rape cases do you see so many people so willing to sacrifice the victim for the sake of the perpetrator.

I have a serious question for people out there.

How many of you think that a woman who wears skimpy clothing, acts flirtatious with men, goes to a party, or gets drunk is partially to blame if she gets raped? (I don't mean in a "That slut deserved what she got" kind of way, which shifts the blame from the rapist to the victim entirely. That morally repulsive viewpoint is, thankfully, only expressed by a few worthless individuals.) I mean the less blatant, yet more insidious, feeling of, "Well, she could have done this or this differently ..." On the other side of the coin, you might see a woman engaging in one of these behaviors and think that she should watch out because she's being risky. In other words, you assume that a woman bears part of the responsibility for being raped or not raped.

I'll be honest: I have. I still do, in some ways; it's something I'm working on, but it's slow going. And, sadly, I'm not alone: Amnesty International published a study this past November that showed that anywhere from a quarter to a third of people in the United Kingdom think that a woman's behavior can make her partially responsible for being raped. These behaviors include anything from flirting to having many sexual partners to "failing to say 'no' clearly." Almost a third of people answered 'yes' to that last one. A third. As if sex is not something that a woman offers, but is by default granted to a man, and it's her responsibility to say 'no' and stop him, not his to make sure she's saying 'yes.'

(Oh, and a certain percentage of respondents said that women who engaged in each of these behaviors was "totally responsible" for being raped, as you'll see if you download the full report. Misogynist pieces of shit. And yes, I'm including any women who answered this way.)

( More )

This post brought to you by avoiding my homework, reading a lot of smart people who say smart things, and being sick and damn tired of seeing victims blamed for the crimes committed against them.

Edit: I found the person who made the eloquent example about men's "uncontrollable urges." Read the original entry for an awesome deconstruction of the myth of "pussy power."

You know, sometimes I spend a lot of time thinking over my own personal social and political philosophy, responding to things I read or attempting to reconcile conflicting feelings. Sometimes, it's even difficult for me to understand why I believe the things I do.

And then sometimes, I get this.

I was talking to a dear friend of mine about T Shirt Hell and how we found it generally amusing. The shirt on the Olson twins was brought up, and we chuckled. I then said how I felt bad for them, considering from a relatively young age they were famously the masturbatory fantasies of a large proportion of men; that there was literally a website (so I've heard) that was counting down until they became legal.

He responded: "That's gotta be the world's biggest compliment to them."

(from a a post on feminist)

( I keep thinking this stuff should be obvious, but ... )

Hodgepodge of stuff. First of all, some food for thought:

-An editorial on homophobia written by the mother of a gay son. This was written a few years ago, during the civil union debates in Vermont, but the sentiment is obviously still valid. My favorite part: "If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you."

(I myself give great thought to my moral principles, and foremost among these is, without a doubt, heterosexuality. Don't kill people? Check. Love my neighbor? You betcha. Liking boy-parts? Certainly a given principle in moral discourse!)

-A comment from a post in feminist about street harassment. The question was whether guys leering/catcalling at women on the street could be considered harassment, and this answer sums up my feelings: it's not so much about what is said, or the genders of those involved, or even about unwelcome advances. It's about objectification and the overblown sense of entitlement that some people have.

-A quote from Whores and Other Feminists that (for me) trumps the argument that all prostitution is rape, and is disrespectful of rape survivors: "By the blood and bruises of sexual violations that I have sufered, I advocate protection for consensual sexual expressions of all kinds." (emphasis mine)

-Another quote, from Carol Queen, famed sex-positive feminist: "The stereotype about sex workers that says we are driven to this demeaning lifestyle by a damaged history must be exposed as the sex-negative and, yes, sexist crap it so often is. (How eerily this parallels what used to be said about lesbians!)" This reaffirms my impression that anti-pornography and anti-prostitution often acts as a mask for the 'other'ing of a minority sexual group that makes the mainstream feel more secure, rather than an actual, principled opposition to the practice itself.

Second of all, I watched several more episodes of Firefly this weekend. (I'm not going to be able to save it for when ratzeo comes home, am I? ~_~)

-Shindig: Much fun! But the best parts were Wash's ode to the "corpsified" Zoe, and Mal's ode to himself ("Mercy is the mark of a great man," etc.). Also love the way Mal said "sw-what?" when he found out about the duel.

-Safe: Simon has my heart. That is all.

-Our Mrs. Reynolds: I loved the hilarity (Mal is adorably dense!), but also for the sense of mundane conflict -- Zoe getting snappy at Wash, Inara getting snappy at Mal. This episode, even more than Shindig, makes me feel the Mal/Inara. Also love the way Mal said "you dubba wha?" when Saffron wanted to "cleave" to him.

-Jaynestown: I was afraid I wouldn't like Jayne as much as I'm coming to like the other characters. I was happily proven wrong.

Also, I'm developing a deeper and deeper affection for Simon. Not just for his actions in Safe (but it does help that he called River "Mei-mei," because that made me MELT), but for the fact that he's a really ordinary guy. He's smart, and he loves his sister, and he *is* brave -- but he's not a good fighter, not good at deceit, not even very good at being witty. I sympathize with him the most as the 'wants to be useful but is sometimes just an irredeemable gimp' character. <3

This probably could have gone in the comments from this morning's entry, but this article makes me so happy I had to share: Because it isn't the victim's responsibility not to be raped. And because men are not their cocks.

A very good (and hilarious) article that says some very important things that shouldn't *have* to be said. It's sad how, even though I know these things to be true, and I know them to be true about the men in my life, whom I respect and love ... it still feels like a vindication to see someone say them.

And if I had to pick one thing that was the most important?

"Not being a rapist is the default fucking setting."

Also see the follow-up post, which confronts the idea that women 'tempt' or 'attract' rape through certain behavior or dress. The answer is that women can't not be 'tempting,' because "women, simply by being women, are on display at all times." This is exactly the idea I was talking about in my entry this morning. I don't think I dress or behave in a way that welcomes sexual assault, and I certainly don't try to. But by virtue of being female, I am vulnerable to assault. And the point of the article is to remind us of this, and to say that it's not right.

Anyway, it's good stuff. Go read. And I need to go to freaking sleep.

My last entry made me think of this ... In high school, I had an aerobics instructor who was once a victim of kidnapping and attempted rape. She made it a point to talk to her (mostly female class) about women's self-defense every semester. I put up a would-be transcript in my old blog a few years ago, and figured it was worth doing it again. This is a condensed version, though it's still fairly hefty.

( Long-winded advice follows. )

Also, while looking through my archives to find this stuff, I ran across this emoticon. I think I got it from beanbandit, back in the day.

t('.'t)

Kirby says, "up yours." XD

To get to work, I take one bus from my house to downtown, and then transfer to another bus that gets me close to my workplace. This morning, as I was getting on my second bus, a man sat down in the seat next to me. He looked youngish, maybe late twenties-early thirties, wore a dress shirt and slacks, and carried a copy of the Seattle Weekly. He asked me what I was reading, and I showed him the cover of my book (The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf); then he asked me what it was about (feminist theory on the role of "beauty" in society as a controlling force). He was sure it was interesting, he said, because he saw me reading it for a long time at the busstop.

I am always a little nervous when strangers talk to me, especially on the bus. But when he said that last thing, I felt very wary. He had been watching me? For a long time? At a downtown busstop? Why?

Of course I didn't feel seriously threatened. Like I said, the man was dressed in typical business wear; and while that isn't an indication of character, it did mean that he had business being downtown, and wasn't just hanging around watching women. And we were in a public place, etc. etc. I do remember, though, that thrill of worry I felt, however briefly, about this man who was talking to me.

There could be many reasons for feeling like this. The man was on a city bus, a site notorious for off-kilter people. He was older than me, perhaps a reason to be suspicious. He was black, so I could have been paranoid about criminal stereotypes. But even if all that wasn't true, I think I would have felt the same. The fact remains that a man I don't know, of any age or color, is a potential threat to me because I'm female. It's why I don't just protect my wallet when I'm downtown or walking on the north end of the Ave. It's why I become suddenly aware that my shirt has a low collar and zip up my jacket, even when it's warm. Being female is automatically vulnerable.

It's an interesting thought. I often feel that many of the issues raised as "women's issues" don't apply to me -- not that they aren't legitimate, but that, because of lucky circumstances, I've never faced gender discrimination in work or school, sexist family pressures, sexual harassment, things like that. I can understand them in theory, but not personally. But this, being worried about simple safety because I'm female? I get that.