[InsaneJournal is down and won't let me update, so I'm back to LJ for today.]

Today I found a link to Joss Whedon's commentary on the murder of Dua Khalil, a young woman who was killed almost exactly one year ago. Her death is yet another instance of the abuse of women being treated as a spectator sport - and in the year since, that has not changed. The reason Joss' entry surfaced again is that a charity anthology, Nothing But Red, was written to commemorate Khalil's murder and raise money for Equality Now, and it has just been released.

I never read Joss' entry last year, but I'm glad I found it now. If you are like me and also missed it, I want to bring this it to your attention now for two reasons: the first is that, as to be expected, Joss writes very eloquently about Khalil's death, as well as the pervasiveness of misogyny and sexual oppression.

The second reason is this quote:

"Women’s inferiority – in fact, their malevolence -- is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they’re sporting burkhas. I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards, and not just the ones for horror movies. Women are weak. Women are manipulative. Women are somehow morally unfinished."

I appreciate that Joss does not use this event as a call to arms for feminism that relies on perpetuating racist and imperialist power differences. In other words, he does not seek to protect women from misogyny by redirecting our malice against non-white men and non-U.S. cultures. Too often, the response - the feminist response, even - to news such as this is one of, "Look how awful they are," and "We should help those women over there." Villainizing minority men, infantilizing minority women, and ignoring the whole heap of steaming bullshit that is sexism in the United States.

I do not feel safe from misogyny for being born in the U.S. In fact, when my so-called "liberal" or "progressive" male peers decry "foreign" sexism but refuse to acknowledge the necessity of combatting or even acknowledging their own privilege - I don't feel very safe at all. Finding one more male ally who not only challenges his male privilege, but also refuses to soothe his ego by relying on his racial privilege, gives me some hope.

Hey, girls! Don't you know that when a guy provides you with emotional intimacy, it is your obligation to be "reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy"?

No? Well, that's why you can't find a Nice Guy to date, obviously. Because don't you know, having an emotional connection with someone is only and ever important to a dude for the sake of getting at the poontang.

Yeah, it's more "Women are shallow bitches! I only treat you well because I expect sex in return! ... Women must not like me because I'm too nice, right?" ranting from another socially backward privilege-boy drowning in his own sense of entitlement. The letter itself is pretty painful to read, with the amount of "That? I deserve that because I have a penis" going on.

Luckily, Mightgodking's response makes it all worthwhile. And Ragnell has a more productive and slightly less snarky breakdown of The Nice Guy here.

I admit that The Nice Guy is kind of a sore spot for me, because I had plenty of personal experience with the phenomenon back in high school. And then, interestingly enough, my relationship with ratzeo started out with some of the same structure that Nice Guys attempt to exploit - he was my best friend who also helped me through some dating woes. But then (shockingly!) he did not expect me to fall over myself with gratitude at the fact that he was a decent person, nor to express that gratitude with sexual favors. In fact, when we started dating a long time later, we entered into a mutually respectful relationship that wasn't predicated on him fostering a false sense of guilt-ridden indebtedness in me. And, wonder of wonders, that made me a lot happier. Who knew.

So, yeah - as someone who has been inflicted with The Nice Guy, as someone whose partner could have been a Nice Guy but wasn't, and as someone who herself was socially awkward and could have become a Nice Girl - I have no sympathy. Guys like this neither need, nor deserve, anything beyond a bit of social education and their own right hands.

x-posted to IJ

Jeffrey McKee was convicted of raping two women, but received a lighter prison sentence because his victims were prostitutes.

Luckily, there are people in the Washington state judicial system who aren't total fuckwits.

Read the article for the full story, but here are a few notable quotes that illustrate the persistent sexism and victim-blaming in public attitudes towards sexual violence. Sure, society says, we'll protect the victims of rape - but only if you're the right kind of victim.

( Newsflash: working as a prostitute doesn't actually reduce the gravity of a rape )

x-posted to Shrub.com

One day left before zinjadu and I flee the country (breathe, Dora, breathe!) and I'm just about ready to go. All my stuff is ready and just needs to be put in my suitcase. I've even managed to work within the regulations on liquid substances (which, by the way, includes liquid gel cap OTC medicines because they're semi-liquid - which begs the question, what would happen if I packed a cat?). Everything is in order and ready to go.

Now if my debit card would just get here already, dammit.

As you might expect, I'm going to have very little Internet access for the next two weeks. I'm going to try to check my email every few days or so, because I should be getting a notification about my prospective job soon. But besides that, I think I'd rather spend my time seeing the sights - so that means no blog-reading (gasp!). So if there's anything you want to talk to me about, speak now or for-two-weeks hold your peace.

The prospect of going blog-less for a couple of weeks meant that I was eager to get my fill of blogs ... but also a little hesitant, because most of the worthwhile content I read is also rage-inducing in one form or another, and I don't want to start my vacation off on a sour note. But the Internet gods must be smiling on me, because I found a lot of things that pleased me:

( links! )

Okay, that's it from me for now. See you in July!

[This is the final part of my series on Women and Violence, which I wrote as a project for a Women Studies course I took this quarter. For an explanation and information on my intentions with this series, please see the introduction.]

I realize that a quarter-long series of articles about violence against women can be depressing, and I'd like to end this on an optimistic note.

Unfortunately, I don't have The Solution to violence against women. Even I don't have delusions of being that wise. ;) But - and here I'm engaging in a bit of hubris - I believe in the power of language to educate and agitate for change. That's one of the reasons I chose to undertake this project, and why I choose to blog in general. Writing and dialoguing is important. It's powerful. It's consciousness raising in cyberspace.

( Fighting the roots of violence )

x-posted to Shrub.com

[This is part of my series on Women and Violence, which I am writing as a project for a Women Studies course I'm taking. For an explanation and information on my intentions with this series, please see the introduction.]

In "The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action," Audre Lorde writes the following description of her thought process when faced with a potential diagnosis of cancer:

[...] and what I most regretted were my silences. Of what had I ever been afraid? To question or to speak as I believed could have meant pain, or death. But we all hurt in so many different ways, all the time, and pain will either change or end. Death, on the other hand, is the final silence. And that might be coming quickly, now, without regard for whether I had ever spoken what needed to be said, or had only betrayed myself into small silences, while I planned someday to speak, or waited for someone else's words. And I began to recognize a source of power within myself that comes from the knowledge that while it is most desirable not to be afraid, learning to put fear into a perspective gave me great strength.

I was going to die, if not sooner then later, whether or not I had ever spoken myself. My silences had not protected me. Your silence will not protect you." (41)

( The meaning(s) of silence )

x-posted to Shrub.com

[This is part of my series on Women and Violence, which I am writing as a project for a Women Studies course I'm taking. For an explanation and information on my intentions with this series, please see the introduction.]

In an article titled "'Femininity' and women's silence in response to sexual harassment and coercion," Kathleen V. Cairns describes how harassment of women functions as a method of social control over women's behavior:

[O]vert practices include the public, ritual shaming of women in the form of catcalls, lewd remarks and so on which serves to demonstrate the fact that 'any man or group of men feels entitled not only to pass judgement on any woman walking along minding her own business, but also to announce it to her' [Kotzin 1993: 167]

[...]

In patriarchy, women are taught to accept that their femaleness, their simple presence, are responsible for men's behavior towards them [...] It becomes women's responsibility to police themselves, to keep their dress, comportment and presence within approved limits to avoid 'provoking' harassment. (96-7).

This dynamic - of men acting with impunity to judge women, and women shouldering the blame for men's actions towards them - can be applied to other forms of gender violence as well. What it comes down to is the way that negative reactions from men - or even the anticipation of those reactions - function to police women in everything from their appearance to their behavior.

( the lessons women learn )

x-posted to Shrub.com

Reading the anti-feminist whinings of entitlement-junkies tends to get my blood boiling, but there are a few things that are just too funny to get mad about. Like, say, talking about men who are misandrist - and using Joss Whedon as your example. Because, y'know, if ever there was a man who loathed his own gender, and relegated male characters to the same sort of trivializing and degrading roles that misogynist creators use for female characters, it's Joss. All those well-rounded male characters with unique forms of internal strength and ingenuity, damn him.

He must be a misandrist in the same way Jackson Katz is. Or the same way that Tim Wise hates white people. God forbid someone call out their own group on their privileged bullshit.

(Does that make me self-hating, too, when I examine straight privilege or classism? Oh, but wait, clearly I hate men and white people too, right? So I guess I'm limited in my social circle to lesbians of color. Who better not be wealthy, damn them.)

Or maybe, just maybe, this is another case of the normalization of oppression, in which abuses of members of disadvantaged groups are ho-hum, but the slightest infraction against the privileged group is ZOMG! SUCH A CRIME. If members of a group are not "allowed" to do something, it's that much more of an offense when they do. Criticizing a dude's privilege? That's surely as grievous as belittling misogyny or commodifying rape!

That's why, you see, white kids who beat up a black kid are charged with battery, but black kids who beat up a white kid in relatiation are charged with attempted murder. Oh, and those nooses? Just a joke, you oversensitive PC-nazis!

*sigh* Sometimes there's too much ignorance in the world to comprehend.

Oh, well - I guess I can just go spit in a white man's coffee and make up for the history of colonialism or something.

[This is part of my series on Women and Violence, which I am writing as a project for a Women Studies course I'm taking. For an explanation and information on my intentions with this series, please see the introduction.]

Yesterday some of my classmates gave a presentation about female genital cutting (though the terminology they used, and which is probably more familiar to people, is "female genital mutilation" - a difference which I'll address later on). It's an important, worthwhile issue, and I'm glad our class is addressing it.

Still, every time the topic comes up in conversation I cringe inwardly.

( Here's why )

x-posted to Shrub.com

Here's an idea: stop putting out shit that pisses me the fuck off.

Oh, look! It's MJ bent in a back-killing position, contorted to show off tits AND ass, with a waist smaller than her neck! Har, har! Oop, don't forget the obedient little smile while she does Spidey's chores. Hilarious!

Hey, Marvel? That shit isn't funny. It isn't edgy or rebellious. Making women be on sexual display while engaged in domestic labor isn't new; it is, in fact, the same goddamn pressure women have had to face for-frickin-ever. Oh, and, guess what? Women shoved into uncomfortable positions that make them "sexy" to the viewer without allowing them any sexual pleasure - hell, any comfort - for themselves, is also not new. It's what we call the fashion industry. And advertising in general.

Hell, if we're talking about women being physically uncomfortable in order to provide sexual gratification for someone else, that's a good chunk of heterosexual relations.

In less teeth-gnashing news, Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel has the guts to be a decent human being. "What this world needs is a lot more than what we presently have" is true - and it goes for people like him, too.

ETA: Karen Healey makes things better.

[This is part of my series on Women and Violence, which I am writing as a project for a Women Studies course I'm taking. For an explanation and information on my intentions with this series, please see the introduction.]

Next week I'm giving a presentation in class on cosmetic surgery in regards to women of color. Now, cosmetic surgery does not readily fall under most common definitions of 'violence,' and I find myself hesitant to categorically label it as such.

On the one hand, while cosmetic surgery does involve bloody alterations on a person's body, so does surgery in general, and we generally don't label that as violent - especially when voluntarily consented to by the patient. The fact that cosmetic surgery is often (though not always) agreed to by an autonomous individual does mitigate the physical damage it brings.

Of course, we are all aware that 'consent' is a sticky issue, and that we can't ignore the pressures that can constrain a person's ability to make a choice - particularly in the case of women facing pressures to be 'beautiful' in a certain way.

Furthermore, the same level of physical damage can be construed as 'violent' or 'non-violent' depending on the context. Full-contact sports can be performed just as ferociously as a street brawl, yet not be uncontrolled and violent. What's more, a session of safe, sane, and consensual BDSM can be non-violent, while the quietest rape perpetrated under clearly communicated threat is clearly not.

( Where else violence lurks )

x-posted to Shrub.com

[This is part of my series on Women and Violence, which I am writing as a project for a Women Studies course I'm taking. For an explanation and information on my intentions with this series, please see the introduction.]

One of the most insidious ways of normalizing and justifying gendered violence is by tying it to tradition. By portraying perpetrators as if they were enacting the accepted practices of a culture, those in power position victims of violence not only against their victimizer, but also against the weight of a culture's history. Additionally, "tradition" is a popular buzzword that protects a practice from interrogation, hiding it behind a shield of maintaining history or honoring ancestors.

( Where that leaves women )

x-posted to Shrub.com

Next time you find yourself thinking, I swear I've heard this all before, whip out one of these handy bingo cards!

-Anti-Feminist Bingo by Lauredhel from Hoyden About Town
-Anti-Comics-Feminist Bingo by Karen and Betty at Girl-Wonder.org
-"Geek Girl" Stereotype Bingo by tekanji at Shrub.com
-White Liberal Bingo by i_dreamed_i_was

... In other news, I'm trying desperately to avoid falling into OMG-I-don't-know-what-I'm-DOING panic over the 10 page research paper I have due on Friday. And, um, haven't started. >_> Wish me luck.

[This is part of my series on Women and Violence, which I am writing as a project for a Women Studies course I'm taking. For an explanation and information on my intentions with this series, please see the introduction.]

A couple of disclaimers, to start:

-First, this is not about me being angry at, or blaming, any particular individuals. This is also not about placing the responsibility for a society-wide problem on these particular individuals.

-Second, this entry is for everyone to read, even though I refer to a specific example in which only a few people were involved. The point of this entry is, again, not to pin the responsibility on anyone. The point is to raise awareness of a common, problematic pattern that we all engage in.

( With that said ... )

x-posted to Shrub.com

[This is part of my series on Women and Violence, which I am writing as a project for a Women Studies course I'm taking. For an explanation and information on my intentions with this series, please see the introduction.]

One of the first readings assigned for this class has been Albert Bandura's "Selective Activation and Disengagement of Moral Control," published in volume 46, number 1 of Journal of Social Issues. The purpose of the article is to examine how, in normal and everyday circumstances, people can commit actions that they typically consider immoral. Most of the time, barring deviant individuals, we keep ourselves in check. We decide not to commit immoral actions according to what we understand as 'moral,' without needing other people to force us to do so.

According to Bandura, we regulate ourselves through the use of "self-sanctions." I guess it's like the superego, but without dealing with issues of the unconscious. For a psychological layperson like me, it's useful just to think of it as a conscience. Basically it means that we watch and judge ourselves, and that is what determines our behavior. So if those judgments are somehow deactivated, then we can engage in behavior that we would normally consider wrong, but without making ourselves feel shame.

This is a pretty useful concept for a class on gendered violence, because it helps explain why something normally heinous (violence, particularly sexual violence) has become so common against women. I also find it useful for wider discussions about sexism in general - why something as awful-sounding as discriminating against people based on their sex is nonetheless such a widespread part of our societies. Not by a few of the absolute worst people. Not by the people who mean to do it. But by everybody.

( but I'm such a Nice Guy ... )

x-posted to Shrub.com

The ever-industrious tekanji of the Official Shrub.com Blog, working in conjunction with revena, has launched The Iris Network in order to bring together women in the gaming community.

There's an online magazine, a blog directory, and - what I'm most excited about - forums where female and/or feminist gamers can meet and geek out together. Without having to worry about sexist harassment, without having feminist discussions silenced or harassed, and without being excluded from any boys' clubs.

(Oh, and "gamers" really does mean any kind of gamer - electronic, pencil and paper, or LARP. Me, I'm jazzed about the tabletop forums.)

The official site announcment is here. Go! Join!

The New York Times has an article about a group of New York schools who have started requiring cheerleaders to girls' basketball games as well as boys'.

Not surprisingly, there are a lot of complaints to this new policy, most of them being some variation of, "But we don't waaaaaaannaaaaaaaa." Mostly, this is because the added workload of cheering at girls' games has required the schools to stop sending cheerleaders to the boys' away games. Because, you know, of course we're all equal now and Title IX is outdated and female athletes are on equal footing with the boys ... except, you know, when giving girls equal support means actually having to take something away from the boys (gasp!).

To the Times' credit, the article itself is rather well-balanced - not very surprising, since the Times is part of the Lib-rul Media and all. However, there were a couple of ... interesting quotes just ripe for analysis:

( more )

feminist_writer

I figure some of you guys would be interested in this. :D I haven't worked on my writing in a really long time, but I joined anyway because this sounds like it'll be a great space.