What feminism needs now- MEN
This week, my good friend David Ellis Dickerson commented on a feminist blog entry against Boobquake. He was castrated (figuratively of course). I came to his defense, and was attacked with perhaps as much ferocity for defending a man. It was like I was evil to point of Nazi sympathizer, suggesting that a man had a valid point about a feminist issue. I mean, yeah, Dave should have known you can’t tell a radical feminist to “lighten the fuck up.” But in his defense, he didn’t lay that on her until the fifth paragraph, and had made lots of good points in defense of Boobquake first. You can read the whole shebang here. (My favorite was the woman who called him a “mainplaining dood.”) At this moment, the writer of the original post, “marybullstonecraft” has made nice with Dave, but some of the other participants in the discussion are still very angry that he (a man) voiced his opinion (an opinion that didn’t match theirs) on this feminist blog. The thing is, his opinion, although for Boobquake instead of against it, was a feminist response that would not have ignited such anger if the name associated with his comments had been Diana Ellis Dickerson instead.
I hate that some of these feminist women have this knee-jerk reaction to men. One even told me that men can’t be victims of sexism. Really? How can that be?
Most men have women in their lives. Many men were raised by women, maybe grew up with sisters, have women and girls as friends and relatives, have chosen to create lives with women. Lives are interconnected, plain and simple. Whenever a woman is ill-treated, everyone around her suffers on her behalf, unless she bravely keeps it under wraps (and even if she keeps it inside, it will take its toll). When a woman is denied a raise, her family’s quality of life suffers. When a woman is denied a job, her family’s quality of life suffers even more. When a woman is denied medical care or coverage . . . well, you get the idea.
A woman saying that a man can’t or shouldn’t speak up about feminism is counter-productive and just plain inaccurate. It’s like saying Sarah McLachlan has no right to speak on behalf of the animals because she’s not a dog. Or that I can’t be angry about racism because I’m white. Sarah can be an animal activist and I can refuse to shop at stores run by racist shopowners because this is my world too. This is the world that I live in, and I don’t want it to be a racist, sexist, or abusive place. So my friend Dave, and all men who so desire, should be welcomed with the warmest of hugs into feminism. The current cold, hateful attitudes held by some feminists towards men is not only counter-productive, it’s confusing to me. It’s doctrinaire and strict, and makes feminism seem like it’s only for radical man-haters, which makes men and women, especially young women, hesitant to identify with feminism. Anti-male attitudes are no different than the Augusta Golf Club’s policies. And if it’s true that men’s attitudes are still held in higher regard than women’s, in general, then why in the world would any movement want to silence the members with the most clout? (I’m only half-joking with that question).
So what to do? There’s no easy answer. For tops, feminist women, I implore you to rethink your anti-male attitudes if you’ve got them. Argue with them when the situation warrants it, call them on their sexism if they’re showing some, but be willing to listen to them, too. Learn to detect when the good ones are around. Don’t just assume every man is a “dood” who is “mansplaining” something to you. These dismissive comments are no more constructive than when a man calls a woman a “bitch.”
Men, women, and girls who believe in equality, please recognize that you are a feminist. Believing in equality– Yes!– that’s all it takes to be a feminist. Don’t be afraid to tell people. Consider this: you know how the Republican Party has been hijacked by the Christian Right, Fox viewers, birthers, and now Tea Partiers? We perceive them as complete whackadoodles, right? The moderates are being silenced for not being conservative enough; they’re dismissed as RINOs. How many of those moderate Republicans can you name? (I can name Meghan McCain, who is not a politician, and Christine Todd Whitman, who’s been out of politics for years). So just like how the Republican Party wouldn’t seem so loco if the moderates reclaimed their party, if more of us sane, reasonable feminists called ourselves feminists, loudly and proudly, the movement overall wouldn’t seem so extreme.
So ugly.
So militant.
Remember, it’s the Sarah Palins and the Michele Bachmanns that get the attention, but we need to remind people that the radicals are the exception, not the norm. Only a handful of feminists are man-haters. Only a handful of feminists are bullldykes. Only a handful of feminists aim to silence every other voice but their own. Only a handful of feminists are militant. Being a feminist is not an ugly thing. COMON GIRLS! Let’s be positive, proud, and inviting.
Leave Meghan McCain Alone!
I hear there will be a protest for the “protection of marriage” Thursday at George Washington University because Meghan McCain is speaking there, and she’s for equal rights for gays.
Can you see the necklace?
The GOP cracks me up. The most pleasant Republican I can think of is Meghan McCain, she’s their best bet for winning over younger Americans, and instead of kissing her bodacious ass as they should, they protest her, mock her, call her fat (see my post “Laura Ingraham: Quit Talking about Our Bodies) . . . that’s a party that should fire their bouncers and hire new ones who have a better concept of what kind of people to let in.
For years, I was told that all conservatism means is “less government.” I heard it everywhere: my dad, my brother, a guy I (very) briefly dated. “Less government” should mean that conservatives wouldn’t think that government should be concerned about sex, marriage, or whatever. Newsflash: Liberals and progressives are the ones who believe in protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I like that Meghan McCain’s presence is a near-constant reminder of the hypocrisy and overall suckiness of the GOP, but I do wish she’d switch teams. I’d take her out for cosmos.
The Difference Between a Liberal and a Conservative (an email forward from Mom)
Here is the email verbatim that my mom sent me this week . . .
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor, and then sues.If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.If a conservative is down and out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended.”
When I received this email, I immediately began composing a fiery response, which, to my credit, I deleted and replaced with a simple “Come on, you’re better critical thinkers than that.” I also mentioned that I forwarded it to some of my liberal friends, so we could also have a laugh to make that last item false.
Of course, lots on this list is false, or at least very, very simplified. For example, most of the liberals I know don’t want Fox News to go anywhere, if only because Glenn Beck’s theatrics are better than telenovelas and we love the way The Daily Show exposes Fox’s tricks, like using old crowd footage to make it appear that thousands of people turned out for a healthcare rally and Sarah Palin’s book signings.
Normally, email forwards from my mother don’t hurt my feelings. In fact, usually when I get a forwarded email, I look up whatever the message is on snopes.com and then hit ‘reply all’ with the link. Or I might instead send a simple message like “there is no such thing as Obamacare.” But this particular email, with the message on the top added by my mother: ”This shows the difference in our thinking,” did kind of hurt.
Our relationship has often been difficult. We clashed early and often as I was growing up. We both try to get along, but it seems that we’re never giving the same amount of effort at the same time. I’m a complicated person, as are most people (of all political affiliations, I feel). I am quick to judge and I have more than my fair share of sass, But in my defense, instead of thinking of me as I am (writer, teacher, thinker, compassionate person, occasional philanthropist, a woman in her thirties who’s spent time since the Reagan administration analyzing her positions) my mother sees me, according to this email forward, as these things: whiny, greedy, doctrinaire, litigious, and slimy.
How can she chat with me on the phone, cheerfully tell me she loves me as we hang up, and then send me this email the very next day?
I can only reply to most of these sweeping generalizations with “Well, I only want certain guns, like assault rifles, harder to get” (really, does anyone need a machine gun? really?) or, “I’ve never sued anyone,” and “I can’t speak for all liberals, but I see Afghanistan as much more complicated than either winning at all costs or backing out slowly with our tails between our legs.” However, I admit that there are things on this list that are true for this particular liberal. For example, when I was newly vegetarian I was very obnoxious about it. I never wanted meat to be illegal (veal maybe, but not meat in general) but I did indeed lecture people, I made vats of vegetarian chili to bring to cook-outs hoping to fill people up before the burgers were off the grill. But I’ve always been much more annoying in my anti-smoking crusade, to tell you the truth. After a year or maybe less of a vegetarian lifestyle, I chilled out and pretty much decided that people could eat whatever they wanted as long as they didn’t try to force me to eat to their preferences.
(A sidenote: the people who are rudest to vegetarians are generally the ones who feel guilty about eating meat, often times failed veggies themselves. Or they’re just plain rude. Once, the daughter of a South Dakota rancher found my presence offensive, as if I had spit on her family photos by not eating meat. Another sidenote: my mom used to sneak meat into my food, such as lying to me that the potatoes were not made with chicken broth. She also used to make me go to church when she knew I was an atheist. She couldn’t live and let live, and really, that turns numbers one and two back on her as a conservative, don’t you think?)
Another point that reflects on me is the one about health insurance. I’ll admit it; it’s true. I want a public option so that I don’t have to have a full time job to get health benefits. I was laid off in June and have only been able to work part time. (My parents, btw, are on social security and Medicare. Interesting that people with socialized medicine are against it for the rest of us). I’m worried about losing my COBRA. But this conviction is not just for me: I think everyone should be covered because I don’t think healthcare is a privilege, like a driver’s or a gun license. It’s a right. And interestingly, I’ve noticed that poor people pay taxes. Now really, do you have to be a liberal to prefer seeing your neighbors able to take their kids to the doctor over seeing crooked bankers take home millions in bonuses? Or millions of taxpayer dollars lost on a pallet somewhere in Iraq? Are these just liberal preferences?
I’m struck by the double-standard stereotyping in this list. I mean, usually the Right paints liberals as Hollywood types, snooty academics, or wealthy Eastcoasters, out of touch with reality. But in this list, liberals are poor, whiny takers waiting for handouts. Don’t try to have it both ways, Righties: consistency is step one towards selling people on your point. Color the enemy one way for clarity. And if you’re going to stereotype liberals, it makes more sense to go with the original; it is an established fact that liberalism goes up with one’s level of education.
I’m also struck by some of the assumptions in this list. For example: ”If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.”
So the assumption is that gay conservatives live under the radar *by choice*. It also suddenly turns demanding respect into a bad thing. I was always taught that the only way to gain respect is to deserve and demand it. This statement also assumes that you have to be liberal to want gay rights. Plus, it also assumes that only gay people fight for gay rights. Not true, as shown by this awesome kid in Arkansas. These are the extreme views that so many members of the GOP are fighting against. Ask Meghan McCain if you have to be gay or liberal to believe in gay rights (which is really just a more specific way of saying “human rights”). Actually, you don’t have to ask her. I’ll show you right here what she said about it in her most recent column, found in its entirety here at The Daily Beast:
The problem I have with my fellow Republicans is why gay marriage is the trump card in any situation. It seems that as long as you are against gay marriage, any scandal in your life can be overlooked or overcome. When you are in favor of it, however—and I have been very vocal about my support—that position defines you.
What Feminism (& the World) Need Now — Positivity
I’ve been playing with an idea for my blog for a while. I have a pink T-shirt that reads “this is what a feminist looks like,” and I wish I saw it out and about more often, but it takes, ironically, balls to wear it. In fact, the first time I wore it in public, I pulled my jacket closed (without even realizing it) as I entered my doctor’s office. I did this even though I feel I have a healthy amount of of feminist pluck about me.
The problem is that people who speak up about their beliefs are often labeled unfairly, making others fearful of possible similar ramifications. Speaking up with some righteous feminist indignation on this blog has gotten me some abuse, something I didn’t relish. It’s easier to keep quiet. So I’m not surprised that when I ask my students if there are any feminists in the room, most of them (even the women) keep their hands down. Sadly, it’s because of the perception that being a feminist is somehow radical, ugly,super-liberal, and outrageous. But when I ask them basic questions about rights and opportunities, they voice opinions in line with feminism. I would like to see the label and the stigma go away in my lifetime. I am not a radical feminist. I am not a radical anything, really, so I don’t do a whole lot of proselytizing. I did my share when I became a vegetarian, and I’m sure my parents would attest that it wasn’t pleasant or effective*. While the occasional outburst or lecture is still unavoidable (for an example of how an outburst got the better of me, see my previous post, “Laura Ingraham, Quit Talking About Our Bodies,”) I try instead to do subtle and personal things that promote my personal beliefs.
For me, feminism is a good and happy thing, and I want to focus on that. I know so many amazing people who positively impact the people around them, and I think it would be cool to feature different feminists (wearing my T-shirt ideally, but not necessarily) as they describe what feminism means to them. Since I have the shirt, I’m going to start with me:
Denise DuVernay: writer, teacher, divorcee, daughter, feminist, and loads of other things
THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE
I’ve already established my feminist cred, I do believe. A few posts ago, I remarked that “my brand of materialist feminism includes anyone who doesn’t think human beings should be judged by their naughty bits. Or their parents. Or their cars (or lack thereof). Or their noserings. Or even an accent or tattoo . . .”. Yes, I am a materialist feminist (sometimes called Marxist feminist), but don’t go calling me a communist. I am a materialist feminist because I feel that understanding historical materialism is the key to understanding inequality, which is necessary to figure out what to do about it. It all goes back to the economic bases of societies– social classes, ideologies, education, political structures–and how cultures evolve, especially their social structures.
In a social structure where some people earn more money than others for the same work and experience, or when someone is considered unworthy for certain roles or positions simply because of their sex, sexual orientation, pedigree, or skin color, that social structure should be examined.
Materialist feminism is not anti-male nor is it anti-white, and it’s not at all like the feminism associated with the 1970s that was mainly concerned with the concerns of straight white women. Everyone has the same potential to be cool in my book; progress is not made by attacking some in hopes of elevating another. It just doesn’t work that way. As a teacher, co-worker, family member, and friend, I do what I can to encourage those around me to not take sex, race, looks, class, sexual orientation, or any other such meaningless classifications into account when making judgments about people, and I do my best to follow my own doctrine. I hope my students and coworkers find me fair and respectful to all (at least, until an individual gives me a reason not to be . . .).
While I do occasionally find myself on a soapbox, most of my influence comes in subtle means; for example, if a coworker or relative makes a racial slur, I will tell them firmly that I don’t accept that kind of talk. If someone calls a woman a slut (or, more recently, “town bicycle” [because everyone gets a ride]), I stand up and say, “that’s not cool!” If it starts a discussion, great. If not, that’s fine, too. As long as I don’t laugh it off or let it go as if it’s okay, because it’s not. (Which is why I wrote my previous post: What Laura Ingraham said about Meghan McCain wasn’t cool with me, and I think I made that clear).
Sometimes laws are necessary to get the ball rolling and to send a message of what’s expected and desired in society (such as hate crime legislation or affirmative action), but laws aren’t enough. Everyone has to do their small part to effect social structure changes. So the next time someone says something in front of you that you’re not cool with, say so.
So that’s installment #1 of ”THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE.” If you’ve got a suggestion or would like to be featured in a future post, contact me!
*Speaking of vegetarianism, tomorrow is Meat Out Day, and I invite you all to join me! It’s just for a day; you’ll survive.
Laura Ingraham: Quit Talking about Our Bodies!
If you didn’t know who Meghan McCain was last week, you probably do now. And it’s probably because of Laura Ingraham, a right-wing radio host who does not want anyone to hear McCain out. But the ironic thing is, she has drawn mega attention to McCain by calling her, among other things, a “useful idiot” who is being used by the media. Ingraham is trying to convince people that they shouldn’t be listening to Meghan McCain because she is young (a “Valley-girl gone awry”), attractive, and not thin, but in doing so, she has helped McCain get more TV and Internet exposure than she had during the whole Presidential campaign! (Hey, I would never have written a blog entry about Meghan McCain if it weren’t for Laura Ingraham).
Ingraham hasn’t attacked McCain’s ideas, because that would make sense and doesn’t follow the m.o. of the radical right; rather, she has attacked McCain’s physical characteristics and age: Yes, in addition to that Valley girl comment, she called her a “plus-size model” hoping to be picked for an ”MTV show.”
Is Meghan McCain considerably more attractive than Laura Ingraham? Yes, but not that it matters. Is Laura Ingraham thinner than Meghan McCain? Yes, but not that it matters. Is Meghan McCain younger than Laura Ingraham? Why, yes, by over 20 years. But not that it matters. I’m not quite sure what Ingraham hoped to accomplish, but I’m guessing it wasn’t the actual result: a bevy of articles and blog entries like this one, where their photographs are placed side-by-side:
Meghan McCain
Laura Ingraham
In response to McCain’s request over Twitter that Ingraham stop talking about her body, Ingraham said: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the punditry business.” Next time, just for fun, Meghan should pretend that she’s had a change of heart and is now a pro-life conservative. Then she’ll really see how the Mean Girls treatment feels” (Times Online).
Say, what?!
Being a pundit means people get to critique your body all they want? Awesome, that means we’re allowed to call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot– Sweet! Accurate as it is, I’ve grown a tidge bored with the “hypocritical druggie” bashing I’ve stuck to for a past couple of years.
Or is Laura just hazing the new girl into the GOP’s Blonde Pundit Sorority? Did Peggy Noonan inflict a harsh, secret initiation ritual on Dana Perino? Hot! If only the GGW cameras had caught that moment!
Or is Ingraham saying that since she’s been blasted by the left, it’s perfectly okay for her to attack Meghan McCain? I don’t know that Jesus would approve. Plus, isn’t that like saying that I am justified in stealing a car if mine is stolen first? When I insult the likes of Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter, it’s because they’re hypocrites, not because they’re unattractive, bony, bottle blonde, old, or shrill. Nope, it’s because they went TO LAW SCHOOL and GET PAID TO TALK, oftentimes railing against feminism, when without feminism, they wouldn’t have been able to attend law school. Without feminism, they wouldn’t be paid to talk for a living. Without feminism, Ann Coulter wouldn’t have had the chance to be fired not only from MSNBC, but The National Review, too. Without feminism, Laura Ingraham wouldn’t have an “addictive” radio show or a podcast!
I’ve noticed a propensity with these types to fabricate and even invent statistics when it’s convenient*. I’ve never insulted Meghan McCain, and it’s because I haven’t heard bullshit from her. In fact, the other day when Rachel Maddow asked McCain if she agreed with her father about the economy, she said she didn’t know enough about economics to judge. IMO, some honesty from a Republican is a refreshing change. No wonder why the others are attacking her– “I don’t know” isn’t supposed to be in the GOP lexicon.
Oh, Laura, I haven’t seen this many logical fallacies since my last batch of freshman essays. Of course, there’s ad hominem (that’s fancy Latin for attacking the person instead of the argument). Basically, Meghan McCain asserted that the Republican party could do better in reaching out to young people. McCain said that extremism (like that of Ann Coulter) is not good for the party. Since Ingraham had nothing of substance to contribute in rebuttal, she responded by remarking on McCain’s body, looks, and age.
Ingraham has created a red herring– she’s trying to make the discussion about whether or not a 24-year-old can have anything to say about politics. Or if someone that pretty (and, I have a hunch, naturally blonde) can have an opinion about politics. Or if someone who has curves can have an opinion about politics. And Ingraham is reinforcing what feminists have fought against for a very, very long time, but we’ll never get over until clueless monsters like Ingraham knock it the fuck off— It’s the idea that, ladies, to a large portion of the population, we are bodies. Nothing more. Thus, we should have no say about our bodies; if our bodies are kept up front and center they do not belong to us. And women’s bodies are some pretty good real estate. (Actually, I’m not exactly sure why the religious right wants ownership over other people’s bodies. It’s an interesting question. It must be related to their obsession with sex. For an interesting discussion about the difficulties in developing healthy sexuality in such an anti-feminist environment, see the terrific book Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica Valenti of feministing.com ).
Abortion? Emergency (or any, for that matter) contraception? Not about the sweet little unborn babies. It’s about women’s bodies. (If the issue really were the children, the right wouldn’t have such a spaz attack about providing health insurance for children, WIC, or food stamps). The fact that selling a vibrator gets you thrown in jail in Alabama doesn’t have anything to do with . . . morals? Hey, what is their justifcation for making them illegal, anyway? Well, anyway, whatever the fake reason is, the real reason is to try to maintain some ownership of women’s bodies. The mere idea of a woman getting herself off and owning her own sexuality is terribly frightening to these sex-obsessed right wing radicals. And I’m not sure why. What is the religious right’s obsession with sex all about? Maybe if they got over it, they wouldn’t transfer the obsession to their kids and then the teen pregnancy rate could drop. Just sayin’.
This whole war on science, yeah, it’s about women’s bodies. Take stem-cell research. It’s not about the “sanctity of life” or any other such nonesense. If it were about life, creating the embryos would be the sin, not the using-of-the-stem-cells part of it. If it were about respecting life, not using advances to help people with things like spinal cord injuries or Alzheimer’s would be the sin. If the war on stem-cell research got canceled, the religious right would lose just a tiny bit more of their hold on women’s bodies. And remember all those people fighting over what should happen with Terri Shiavo’s body? In 2005, George Bush even interrupted his vacation to sign some legislation to keep her body on life support. Did he do that to save Terri Shaivo’s life? Of course not; she hadn’t had a life in years. She’d been in a vegetative state for 15 years at that point. Her body was some sort of pro-life symbol for the religious right, and the real victim was the husband, whose life was on hold. And at the time, I remember thinking if Terri had been a man, it wouldn’t have meant so much to the right.
The religious right voice their desire to own our bodies by policing our reprodution and by calling us fat or hot (or not) when we get the crazy idea in our heads that we’re smart, have something to say, and deserve to be heard. They voice their desire to keep ownership of our bodies away from us by calling for abstinence-only programs instead of actual sex ed. They voice their desire to own our bodies by encouraging girls to sign virginity pledges and to even have ceremonies with their dads. (Yeah! How creepy is that? A ceremony in which a girl says her body belongs to her father until she gets married, when it becomes property of her husband. Icky. For something disturbing and funny, see Valenti’s take on Jessica Simpson’s virginity pledge in Full Frontal Feminism).
So my desperate cry to Laura Ingraham is a plaintive “come on, sister!” We already get this crap from everywhere around us. Don’t contribute to the old-school tricks of reducing women to our naughty bits. Stick to your inane links (on http://www.lauraingraham.com/) about the entrepreneurial spirit inspired by Obama (“Obama Sushi: You’ll Come Barack For More”). Keep up the good work in keeping Middle America terrified of and pissed off at immigrants (“Illegal Aliens Get Creative”). And kudos on your hard-hitting and immensely useful reader polls (Hold onto your hats– at the time of this writing, 51% of Ingraham’s homepage visitors report to wearing green on St. Patrick’s Day! However, we are told firmly that the poll is not scientific, so do not use that statistic for anything official, or really, anything at all).
*Laura Ingraham is notorious for lying, especially about her “two week” trip to Iraq in 2006. In fact, the observant folks at http://www.lauraingrahamsucks.com/ are keeping a running list of Laura’s lies, including recent false information she gave about Obama’s stimulus plan. As for Ann Coulter, she has been busted more than once for plagiarism and inventing footnotes.
