Gender Equality is Not a Zero-Sum Game (or, Why I Call Out Prison Rape Jokes, Because They’re Not Funny)

The following is a comment that I left on a post at The Good Men Project, in a comment thread I have returned to multiple times over the past month. I stopped participating after it pretty much devolved into typical whiny zero-sum thinking, i.e. that addressing inequalities affecting women by definition means neglecting the issues that affect men. What I am finding is that, while there are undoubtedly issues that disproportionately affect men, they generally result from prejudices and attitudes intended to favor men. For example, it is probably true that courts favor women when making orders for child custody and child support in divorce cases—but then, men are the breadwinners and women are the ones who stay home and care for the children. Men have fought hard for generations to maintain that order, and this inequality we see now is really just one tiny advantage women have found amid the oppression. Furthermore, by raising these issues in the context of criticisms of feminism, men are essentially trying to put the burden of improving men’s lot onto women. “Please ignore your own inequalities for now,” the argument seems to go, “while we address these issues that affect men.” Dudes, we can do better than that. Anyway, here’s the comment I left, with a few embedded links added in:

You raise a good point, and one that, due respect, is not so good. In regards to the point that is not good, I feel like I am banging my head against a wall, so I won’t dwell on it for long.

The good point you raise involves the issue of gendering and rape. Yes, most of the public discourse around rape focuses on women. You seem to be assuming, though, that it is women who are keeping the issue of rape against men suppressed in public discourse. I respectfully disagree. The gendering of rape defines it as something that happens to women. So if a man is raped, he is demeaned by the entire concept that rape is something feminine. That is something that we men have done to ourselves–the concept holds that a man who is raped is somehow less of a man, because only women get raped. Men have the power to change that concept.

Yes, men get raped. Quite a bit. They get raped in prison, but “prison rape” continues to be a topic of humor. Where are the men standing up to that, challenging the idea that prison rape is not funny, the way that feminists have been challenging sexist humor for at least two generations? Those men, and the women who support them, exist, but they are few in number. (The same can be said for female-on-male rape, which much of popular culture still does not view as a crime, cf. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsFunnyWhenItsFemaleOnMale)

Also, what organizations or people are standing up for male victims of rape? If you look closely at most major organizations that support victims of sexual violence, they actually don’t discriminate based on sex. It’s just that men don’t come forward. Why don’t they? Again, because they are unlikely to get any support from other men.

If men are serious about fighting male-victim rape, they need to start fighting male-victim rape, not just complaining about it to feminists.

As if to illustrate my point, a quick Google search for “male rape victim support” turned up a front page of results for organizations in the UK. American men need to get on this. Even if all you do is refuse to laugh at prison rape jokes, it is something. Here are a few resources to get you started:
http://www.mencanstoprape.org/Resources/resources-for-male-survivors.html
http://www.malesurvivor.org
http://www.aftersilence.org/male-survivors.php
http://www.pandys.org/malesurvivors.html

The only other point I will address, even though I’ve heard it so many times and it such a ridiculous argument that it will take a miracle to talk sense to anyone, is the issue of the selective service. If selective service registration is the best example you can come up with for discrimination against men in favor of women, then we guys are doing pretty damn swell. See, there are two problems with the argument:
1. (Assuming you live in the U.S.) we have not had a military draft since the early 1970’s, and there is less than zero political will to reinstate it. I can’t speak for countries that do have mandatory military service, but many of them require service of both men and women.
2. Regarding combat roles being reserved exclusively for men, that is no longer true in the United States, and many men (and some women) fought tooth and nail to keep women out of combat. Many women fought tooth and nail to be allowed in combat units. It strikes me as daft to claim women are privileged because they are, until recently, excluded from something some of them want to do.

Share

The Feral Men and Boys of Steubenville, Ohio

road_warrior2, via dangerousuniverse.com

Look, Steubenville, even the character named “the Feral Child” managed to keep it together (via dangerousuniverse.com)

This is pretty much the only conclusion I can reasonably reach, given all the talk about how the real lesson of the Steubenville rape case is the dangers of drinking too much. I’m not going to link to some of the more ridiculous commentaries, but the line of thinking amounts to: a girl got so drunk that she couldn’t control herself, and she got raped (see the Public Shaming Blog for a collection of tweets and other social media updates: 1, 2, 3.) Missing from this analysis is the moral agency of anyone else in town. All I can think is that the men and boys in this town are so lacking in self-control that they actually register below most members of the animal kingdom, because most animals have at least some concept of consequences for their actions.

Even the people who say that the boys are at fault, but so is the girl for getting drunk miss the point so much that it is doubtful they even know the point exists. All the girl is guilty of doing is getting drunk while underage. That barely registers on the scale of criminality next to the crime of rape. If you do not understand that, maybe you should not be allowed in public near drunk people.

This is such a ridiculously defamatory notion, that men cannot control themselves around a drunk/sexy/scantily-clad/female woman, and that the onus is entirely on the woman to protect herself. It has served as cover for men for a very, very long time, though, and it may only be recently that it occurred to men that this idea actually makes us look like idiots. I assume women have known this all along, and that privilege blinded the guys from seeing it. Some guys seem determined not to get it. Some women and girls go along with it, too.

Guys, we can do better than this. Have a little damn pride in yourselves, because if you really have such a serious problem with self-control, maybe we need to be the ones covering up all the time.

Share

Social Science, Intolerance, and Redheads (Oh My?)

The social sciences are, in general, easier to ignore than the harder sciences if you don’t like their conclusions (not that this stops people from ignoring inconvenient aspects of physics, chemistry, or biology.) Where social issues are concerned, our abilities to convince ourselves of whatever we already believe are rather magnificent in their scope and brazenness. Anyway, George Will apparently doesn’t like to pay attention to what social science has to say about the lack of negative impact gay people have on society. It’s not that he discounts the research that has occurred. He apparently prefers to ignore it or pretend it does not exist at all.

Nathaniel Frank at Slate offers a good analogy for Will’s basic refusal to engage on the issue:

Suppose a group of people claim that redheads can’t enter the town square because they’ll drive away commerce, badly harming the economy—and then this group gets a law passed barring redheads from public spaces. To reverse the discriminatory law, they then argue, redheads must spend however long it takes to amass definitive proof that entering the town square won’t cause harm (which is impossible since you can’t conduct research on scenarios you won’t permit). When redheads nevertheless begin to produce a growing body of research that points conclusively to the fact that their presence does not harm commerce, the law’s defenders consistently reply, “It still might; more research is needed.” Continue reading

Share

Life Exceeds Art, in Terms of Racist Absurdity, at CPAC

ST-slaves

I have no idea what conservatives think would have happened without slavery.

I’m having a hard time believing that this guy, who went on a bizarre rant in defense of slavery and only went downhill from there, is for real.

A panel at the Conservative Political Action Committee on Republican minority outreach exploded into controversy on Friday afternoon, after an audience member defended slavery as good for African-Americans.

The exchange occurred after an audience member from North Carolina, 30-year-old Scott Terry, asked whether Republicans could endorse races remaining separate but equal. After the presenter, K. Carl Smith of Frederick Douglass Republicans, answered by referencing a letter by Frederick Douglass forgiving his former master, the audience member said “For what? For feeding him and housing him?” Several people in the audience cheered and applauded Terry’s outburst.

ThinkProgress generally seems to have good reporting, so let’s assume for argument’s sake that its reporting on this story is accurate. Because that’s not all, folks:

When asked by ThinkProgress if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites, he said “I’d be fine with that.” He also claimed that African-Americans “should be allowed to vote in Africa,” and that “all the Tea Parties” were concerned with the same racial problems that he was.

At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”

Look, I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on comedy, satire, or political subterfuge, but I’ve done a reasonable amount of comedy-related writing and performing in my life, such that I know a thing or two about creating a caricature of an opinion or attitude that you want to mock. The trick to creating a character who expresses or embodies a position that you want to lampoon is that you have to make that character over-the-top and believable at the same time. Have the character express opinions that might represent an absurd yet realistic extension of an actual opinion. The character has to be someone who could exist in our world.

At the moment, I am having a hard time believing that Scott Terry exists in our world.

By this, I mean that several possibilities occur to me:

  • Terry is an earnest, if catastrophically misguided, young man, but the depths of his depraved beliefs make me wonder how he was able to hold these beliefs, wake up and get dressed in the morning, eat food with utensils, and get to the meeting hall, all without somehow hurting himself. You know, by walking directly into a brick wall because he thought it might be a special doorway reserved for white people or something.
  • Terry is a James O’Keefe-caliber troll sent to make conservatives look like epic doucherockets. For the record, my opinion of James O’Keefe, based on what I have seen and read, rests somewhere around the level of inorganic material intertwined with forest undergrowth—no one really wants to come into contact with either it or the organic undergrowth, and unlike the organic stuff, it doesn’t even help trees grow. My point being, this is not meant to be a compliment for Mr. Terry.

I’m pretty sure this guy was for real, as much as it pains me to think that people younger than me think this way and are able to function in society. CPAC, after all, is the place where two white guys did a rap number last year and dropped an almost-N-bomb for comedic effect. The Republican Party boasts among their 2012 candidates a guy who thinks slavery was good for Africans because it meant that their descendants could live in the U.S. and not, you know, Africa. So yeah, I guess it’s plausible that a CPAC attendee would actually believe all the things that guy said.

Anyway, if an actual liberal wanted to smear conservatives by infiltrating and posing as a racist idiot, it would have been far more clever than this.

Photo credit: See page for author [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

When Conservatism Meets Empathy (UPDATED)

1146008_19639910Modern-day conservatism cannot survive a head-on collision with empathy, at least when the empathy is for a close loved one. That is really the only way to explain Senator Rob Portman’s (R-OH) about-face on same-sex marriage.

To be clear, I’m very glad that he has seen the light, so to speak. I also have no doubt that he will face severe backlash from his party’s “base,” who don’t seem to like any policy that expresses any sort of kindness towards people they dislike. So he went out on a limb here, and his specific reasons are perhaps not as important as the fact that he did it. I am less interested in why someone comes to the right conclusion as I am in supporting the fact that they got there. The reasons become important, however, when you consider how a change in tune will affect their positions on related issues. In this case, Senator Portman pretty much flat-out said that his mind was changed gradually after his son came out as gay in 2011. I assume he will continue to be a Republican darling on issues that do not affect his loved ones.

I don’t much feel like quoting from the senator’s self-serving justification for his flip-flop in the Columbus Dispatch, so I’ll quote Sylvia Nightshade, writing about it in Daily Kos:

[H]e never considered how the issue of gay marriage affects people until it affected him.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he’s come over to our side (we have cookies!), but this reveals exactly why Republican politicians suck.  They don’t think about things from other people’s perspective.  They don’t have to struggle to eat, so they don’t think about what happens when they cut food stamps and people who already have too little to eat have even less.  They have retirement savings and won’t have to depend on Social Security, so they don’t think about how gutting SS effects people who depend on it to survive.  They can afford their own healthcare without any problem, so this big scary Obamacare mandate is all bad news, it can’t possibly help people who have no insurance now and just pray they don’t get sick or injured, because it doesn’t help them.  They just end up paying extra taxes for people who are lazy, right?  Because how else would you end up in a situation like that, unless you were lazy?  Because Republican politicians aren’t lazy, and they’re all well-off, so the opposite must be true–if you’re lazy you fail at life.  Thus if you’ve failed, it’s your own fault, so why should anybody else help you?  Help yourself, damnit!

Leaving aside the misuse of the word “effect,” she raises many excellent points. Much of the ideology of the modern-day Republican party derives from a near-total failure (dare I say refusal?) to understand the actual lived experiences of the people affected by their policies. Perhaps the most obvious example from the past year would be Rush Limbaugh’s treatment of Sandra Fluke, who offered expressly non-sexual reasons for women to use contraception. Limbaugh, either because he is cognitively incapable of understanding that she was not talking about sex, or because he knows that his fan base won’t care that he was wrong, ignored all of the actual words that came out of her mouth and called her a slut. Repeatedly.

Same-sex couples want to get married? Well, they are sexual deviants, conservatives know, despite the fact that they want to get married and raise families.

Meanwhile, individual Republicans declare their support for policies deemed anathema to conservatism once it affects them or a family member directly. See Dick Cheney on same-sex marriage, Nancy Reagan on stem-cell research. Compare Nancy Reagan’s position on that issue to that of Rush Limbaugh.

It is tiresome to argue these points, because the only surefire way to make the point clear, apparently, is to put the effects of their policies directly in front of their faces, where it affects someone who actually matters to them.

UPDATE (04/18/2013): Peter Miller at Vice has a good piece on this phenomenon, “Republicans Don’t Have a Ton of Empathy for Strangers.” The whole thing is worth a read, but this jumped out at me:

I’m not saying that Republicans are monsters. I’m not even saying they don’t care about other people’s kids. They probably don’t, but that’s beside the point. The point is, right-wingers of all stripes, from the feisty libertarian to the noble Santorumite, are incapable of learning from the experiences of others. They just can’t help it.

He goes on to list examples, but this really captures the phenomenon for me.

Photo credit: twitchtoo on stock.xchng.

Share

Living in Hell

enhanced-buzz-20812-1354917127-1

Source: Reuters, via Buzzfeed

BuzzFeed published a couple of photo sets recently about marriage equality in Washington state and elsewhere:

20 Photos That Could Change Someone’s Mind About Gay Marriage

and

60 Moments That Gave Me The Chills During Seattle’s First Day Of Marriage Equality

I admit that there was a time when I did not understand the marriage equality issue. I didn’t see why it was such a big deal. Quite a few people still oppose allow people to marry the consenting adult of their choice. They cite many reasons, all of them ultimately indefensible. But that’s not why I’m writing this today.

Look at the pictures at these links. Look at the people who have spent decades waiting for the society in which they live to accept their love as worthy of recognition.

Source: Meryl Schenker/ZUMAPRESS.com, via BuzzFeed

Source: Meryl Schenker/ZUMAPRESS.com, via BuzzFeed

If you can look at these pictures, and see the joy that is so much in evidence, and yet you still maintain that limiting marriage to your particular view of it is more important than their happiness, then I have nothing kind to say to you.

Honestly, I want to tell you to go to hell. But I won’t.

If you look at these faces full of love, of lifelong commitments finally brought out of the shadows to show that they are no different than what society has deemed “normal” after all, and you still believe that your world is somehow under threat, then it is clear to me that you are already living in a hell of your own making.

Share

Confessions of a Recovering D-Bag

8388756753_96e97955f4_zTeenage me, probably around 1992, wrote and publicized the following Valentine’s Day poem, and I will bear that shame for all my days:

Roses are red, violets are blue.
Women are evil, and nice guys get screwed.
I wrote you this poem because I wanted to say
I’m not bitter at all on this Valentine’s Day.

It goes on for several more whiny quatrains, but I think you get the idea. I share this now not in service of the belief that “nice guys get screwed,” but in atonement for ever actually thinking that way. I have been out of the dating pool for a few years now, and it has given me the time and perspective I needed to see just what a d-bag I used to be. If I can use this realization to help even just one person live a more fulfilling life, it will be worth it.

I used to fall victim to the notion that there ought to be a standardized set of procedures for dating. The world of the typical American man has changed from what we imagine was a time when men could meet certain standards and expectations in order to qualify for a mate. Most of these standards involved income or social status, with looks thrown in as (at best) a secondary concern. Factors like charm, personality, and compatibility were near the bottom of the list in this mostly-imagined previous era of courtship. Women, as the idea seems to go, picked a suitor from a panel of applicants based on these attributes. The upshot of this is that men had a uniform set of goals and attributes for which they should strive in order to “succeed” at finding a bride (or hookup, or whatever.)

Very, very few of us have debutante balls like in Downton Abbey, where a young woman can announce her availability to the world. Also, most of this imagined past of following dating instructions set forth in a cultural manual is just that: imagined. Life has always been complicated, I believe, and while the specific norms of relations between the genders (all of them) is in flux, they have always been complicated too.

I could write an entire book or more on everything that I have gotten wrong over the course of my life, but (a) I have stuff to do, and (b) it is an ongoing process of realization. I am not saying this in search of forgiveness, or even just to get a cookie. Rather, I have discovered a wondrous world in which people can coexist and interact without undue concern over gender or identity roles, where a relationship with a woman that culminates in friendship rather than sex is not somehow a failure, where a guy can meet a woman and develop a friendship without feeling pressure to at least try to have sex with her, and where one’s ability to share fully in others’ lives potentially extends to everyone, not just their own gender.

It can be a beautiful place, and I want to share it with others who think the way I once thought.

Whether others want to join in this world is up to them, but this world exists, and it is all around us.

Photo credit: emmstitch [CC BY 2.0], on Flickr.

Share

I Can’t Tell If This Is Satirical, Whiny, or Both

I’m not sure if this is:

  1. a satirical look at guys who think their lack of money and fame is the main reason women don’t drop trou for them (as opposed to, say, their whiny and entitled attitude and insistence on a degree of physical perfection in a mate that they do not expect of themselves); or
  2. a passive-aggressive attempt to satirize women who move to Los Angeles, spend a great deal of time trying to build a career, as well as a great deal of time working out (the two are probably closely connected in LA), and yet dare to be picky when someone who lacks ambition or accomplishment but is a really nice guy expects to be able to sleep with them.

I’m leaning towards option 2, but satire is becoming more and more difficult to recognize as satire.

Even if this is actually the douche-tastic lament of a spurned Nice Guy™, I have to recognize that it has some effective song parody qualities.

(h/t Manboobz)

Share

“Tell them there that Missouri’s daughters and her sons are yours no more”

An old, yet still compelling, story came my way today (h/t Matt), of a young man who sought to express his Scottish heritage, but was shunned by school officials who don’t think men should wear dresses. This all played out in Missouri.

A Granite City High School senior doing research on his family’s Scottish heritage purchased a kilt made out of the family’s tartan and decided the garment’s coming out party would be at the senior prom.

School officials, however, said no.

William Carruba was denied again Tuesday by the Granite City School Board, where he had turned in hopes of having the school’s denial reversed. Officials there said kilts are “nontraditional” and that they do not fit into the district’s dress code.

“I understand full-heartedly,” Carruba, 19, said of the board’s decision after the meeting. “I’ll just … wear pants.”

Superintendent Harry A. Briggs told the 65 people in attendance that the denial was not simply about the kilt.

“We must adhere to our (dress) policy,” Briggs said. “To do otherwise would be reckless on our part.”

While he said he respects the tradition of the kilt, Briggs, who said he is of Scottish-Irish heritage, said normal attire must be worn to school functions.

“It’s not what we call normal wear,” he said of the kilt, adding that “attending the prom is a privilege, not a right.”

Okay, fair enough, what with school policies and all. Maybe the problem is with the policy itself (unless the goal is to keep kids from expressing themselves, which it might be.)

I’m tempted to break out some Braveheart quotes, a la “Go back to England and tell them there that Scotland’s daughters and her sons are yours no more. Tell them Scotland is free.”

What this really needs, though, is some Scottish-highland-dancing McGuirk:

tumblr_lz7ddlIYCr1rpov5io1_500

Share

I Tried to Avoid the Guns-as-Phallic-Symbols Angle… (NSFW?)

…but my search for images licensed for re-use led me to this picture, titled “Male-Kink”: Continue reading

Share