The Lady Garden

Tea and Strumpets

Tag Archives: teh menz

Quickie: Compare and Contrast

[I'm belatedly adding a trigger warning for child violence to this post.]

Family First:

“The popular public perception is that women and children need to be protected from men, but this ‘gender’ focus is misleading. Mothers killed 15 (45%) of the 33 child victims, comprising 10 daughters and 5 sons,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “If we’re really serious about reducing family violence, we need to talk about family violence, and our violent culture, and the role alcohol and drugs play in fuelling this environment.”

White Ribbon:

“While Family First is stating a fact, they are being irresponsible by not presenting the numbers with all the specifics. “Only two out of the 15 deaths where mothers were responsible for the child, was physical assault the cause of death. Contrast this with the 10 out of 10 deaths where fathers and step-fathers were responsible for the death of a child and were caused by assault.

Every time I think Bob McCroskie and his cronies could not be any more vile, I am wrong.

It’s a fucking conundrum

I’ve seen this image floating around a lot in the past week, Facebooked, Tweeted, Tumbled and Pinned over and over again. In fact, I’ve seen it more than almost any other feminist image I can think of.

And you know, it’s a great message. It’s even one I’ve written about before. Cos, you know, I like men, and I think they are better than all the messages they (and we) get sent.

HOWEVER. I am a little uncomfortable with this message. Because, why do we have to make feminism about men? Let me insert a disclaimer here before anyone chooses to jump in and tell me that I am an angry-man hating dyke who just needs to get laid: I think men absolutely need to be part of The Movement (ironic title case) and that men’s voices need to be heard and valued.

But doesn’t this smack a little of pandering to men to make the very idea of feminism more palatable? Of saying “hey, guys, this is about you too” to get them on board? Yes, we need men to be involved, to be allies, to understand, but do we actually have to spell out that actually, Feminism Is For Men?

And even more insidiously, doesn’t it suggest that men are ‘helpless’ victims of the patriarchy? That they don’t benefit from it all the time? That the other dreaded P word isn’t something that (white, cis, straight) men have in bucketloads, and sometimes actively choose to use?

Because, you just know there are dudes out there who are thinking “well, I’m a good guy, I’m not part of the Old Boys Club, I’m not sexist, OH! I’m a victim of the Patriarchy too!” who are getting off scot free. Who are ignoring the myriad ways that unthinking privilege has helped them.

I spend a lot, a seemingly inordinate amount of time, actually, explaining that feminism isn’t about hating men. It’s about seeking equality for women against this great, amorphous, giant thing that’s unfightable: The Fucking Patriarchy (dot tumblr dot com). And the thing is, we can’t fight it without men. We need agents on the inside. And we really can’t fight it when we’re giving them Get Out of Jail free cards for the ways in which they continue to uphold it.

Right? Or am I massively overthinking what will be a 5-minute meme that no one has thought particularly deeply about before re-tweeting?

[Update: As has been pointed out in the comments, this quote from a piece of the wonderful Chally's. It was appropriated out of context, and as is the way with these things, has spread far and wide. For my part, I should absolutely have googled harder to find out where the original comment came from, so I apologise unreservedly to her.

For what it's worth, the post that it comes from, I absolutely agree with. My post is about the recent ubiquity of this particular image, which I have seen re-tweeted by feminists I respect, and people who absolutely fit the image of the person I've described in this post. Context, as always, is Queen.

So...abject lesson in thinking before you blog/retweet/repost? Yes.]

In which I get very, very angry with Louis C.K.

Trigger warning for rape

So this, this right here, this person you like and laugh at and respect in other ways, this person is currently the personification of male privilege.

Thinking that it’s part of a “dialogue” when a woman gets singled out in a comedy club and has someone “joke” about how funny it would be if she was pack raped there and then, that is privilege. It is something only someone who is fortunate enough to not be threatened by rape culture can afford to think.

The fallout from a woman being threatened with rape in a comedy club for the purposes of a “joke”, is only beard-strokingly interesting to people who have never been told that what they’re wearing could get them into trouble. To people who don’t have to think of survival strategies on a daily basis, to the point where they’ve perfected LOUD FAKE CELLPHONE CONVERSATIONS while walking home in the dark. To people who haven’t memorised which neighbours stay up later than others in case you have to run to their door. Or which shoes you can run in and which you can’t. Or which of your boyfriend’s friends you don’t want to get a ride home with. Or what you’d say if you needed to leave somewhere fast.

Rape “jokes” (no matter how public they become) are not part of a dialogue. They are part of a systematic and institutionalised violence against women everywhere and always.

The reactions to those jokes are not part of a dialogue, they are fucking survival strategies. They are attempts to try and protect ourselves, our sisters, our daughters, our mothers, from the ever-present threat of rape, which is now even more dangerous because apparently it’s funny. They are attempts to get people to please stop scaring the shit out of us, or reminding us of something we’re trying to forget, or what could be in our futures, or what has definitely happened to women we love.

It must be really nice to have the ability to enjoy those pleas as part of some interesting anthropological discussion which benefits everyone apparently, because Louis CK got reminded he doesn’t have to worry about it.

Comments Bingo

Once again, my darlings, I’ve read the comments so you don’t have to. The things I do for you. You should all buy me bourbon and bonbons.

Liam Dann, whose columns I normally enjoy, wrote about the NZX requiring gender reporting from listed companies. So far, so…fine. He’s aware that writing about gender issues might “get him in trouble”, so I assume the very middle ground he’s steering is because of that. Though, why he’s mixing up reporting and actually having quotas is beyond me.

Here’s what we know. There are systemic reasons why there are few women in leadership roles in business, that involve undervaluing women’s skills, the impact of child care, and the fact that few women get mentored into senior positions. Little of this is addressed by the column, or in fact requiring disclosure, but it’s a step. I like to blame the fucking patriarchy, but you can choose your own cause. It’s worth mentioning the even tougher time women of colour and GLBT folk have, but that’s a very different column. That will never be published in the Herald.

So I have no beef with Mr Dann, particularly, which makes a nice change for Herald columnists. But the commenters never fail to live up to the lowest common denominator.

First up, Gavin believes “the number of women in the top tier of our business community is an embarrassment.” to whom? What a total non-issue.”  Well, Gavin, to anyone who believes that women deserve equality in all aspects of society, not just in name but in practice. Also, to anyone who wants our business community to be successful.

Lloyd wants “proper equality”:  “Why is there such an unfair gender imbalance in home executives. Let’s set a quota for home Dads and force 50% of home Mums back into the workforce. Fair’s fair.” I agree, Lloyd, let’s do that. And watch childcare in workplaces increase exponentially. Because no woman ever stayed home to look after children because that’s what made financial sense, not because she’s a lazy slapper, right?

BONUS ROUND: What About The Menz AND gender essentialism. Top marks for you, ‘A Dad’: “Perhaps we can also get the gender imbalance fixed for dangerous jobs too. Too many men are dying from mining, the heavy engineering and the armed forces. Yes, a very divisive subject but very important to air because of the many complexities that relate to each gender. We will never be equal as we are physically and psychologically different.”

YouKnowIt’sThe Truth can’t bring himself make an argument, except to say “The phrase “PC gone mad” is often despised by many as it’s so over-used, but I can’t think of a better one in this instance.” IT’S PC GONE MAD! Next, those uppity bitches will want, like, proper healthcare and education. GOD!

Timespider thinks successful people are special snowflakes and we should laud all of them: “When a woman makes it to the top she deserves it if she made it by herself & good on her – we need more women like this”‘ Because no man ever received assistance, mentoring, special education. EVER. They all got there through hard graft and good genes.

In totally missing the point news, along with a good old-fashioned, strawman, please come down Westiman: “Women are given opportunity to obtain skill sets- as you put it-turn the telescope around and ask the same question for men. How many men are nurses and what a kerfuffle that caused. There is a fundamental difference and as soon as you try to smooth the difference out you have total confusion on the roles/skills of both genders- Quotas are not the answer- are women some kind of “Sealord” catch?”

Speaking of strawmen, thanks Gondwana: “Should the All Black panel be adjusted genderly and when was the last Silver Ferns coach a male (I nominate myself to be the first even though I know nothing about netball). Why not leave people to live their own lives if they are good enough and work hard enough and sacrifice enough they’ll get their regardless of their gender.”

Oh, but wait, Gondwana has more: “This government enforced social engineering will be the death of us all. And you’ll notice it only ever goes one way! Women are always portrayed as the poor innocent little victims of male prejudice and never of their own folly and poor choices in life!” government enforced social engineering! We’re getting close to bingo here, folks.

So, that must mean it’s time for a little bit of drive-by misogyny. Wolfman sez “If you want something stuffed up, give it to a woman, plenty of examples of this around the world.”

Oh, also, we women should just be quiet and wait our turn, according to CGD: “I believe in 20-30 years from now there will be many women with the skills and experience to be in executive roles in bigger numbers than there are now. Good things take time!”

Except, that of course, it’s all our own fault, because we suck, and should probably get back in the kitchen. Right, refugee? “Women dominate in the teaching professions. Boys are failing. Badly. No one seems to have any problem with that, but answer this. Why? The London School of Economics knows.”

BINGO

No, you are, dick.

Something wierd is going on at Stuff. I don’t want to alarm anyone, but in the past week, they’ve published three, count them, three not-offensive columns related to women. One Two Three.

Now, Stuff being Stuff, the usual rules apply. DON’T READ THE COMMENTS. I managed to avoid the comments on the first two – because I don’t care to read (in the case of the sexual violence column) hysteria over BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN and FALSE RAPE CLAIMS and LESBIANS ARE ABUSIVE TOO.

However, on the How to Spot a Misogynist column, I read them, so you don’t have to. And how you spot them? Simply look down below the column, to where the comments are.

The reason I read them is because actually, the comments are hilarious, if you have the energy. This is a group of people who really, truly, do not understand irony. Here’s a tip, folks. If you preface a sentence with “I’m not a racist/sexist/pig, but…”, odds are, you’re about to say something objectionable. Also, the OMG this chick is so angry comments? This is one of the calmest, most rational pieces of feminist writing, like EVER. (Clem’s, not mine, clearly.)

So. Let’s look at some of the choice pickings, shall we?

From (probably not our) Emma:

….you need to do what every other sucessful and happy woman and man I know does, and ignore the remaining few imbeciles who make such assertions and instead, highlight the successes of the present, celebrate the fact that women are different from men (and that this is a great thing for both women and men) and focus your efforts on spreading the love, rather than refreshing the hate.

Gosh. I am sorry. I forgot that we successful women are to have nothing to do with “other” women, and should just focus on ALL THE GOOD PRETTY THINGS. And dudes. Forget the massive inequalities women face, reproductive rights, gender-based violence. Just shut up and love everyone. OMGAMIRITE?

From: Alan_Wilkinson

I’ll believe women are oppressed when I don’t hear them complaining.

So, because we have voices we can’t possibly be oppressed. See #1 one of the article, If you want to see real oppression, go to the Middle East. The point, I think you missed it.

From Joseph:

I was raised to be “a gentleman”. That probably reflects the age in which I grew up – chivalry doesn’t seem to be fashionable these days. I was told that I should open doors for women and let them go first, offer them my seat on the bus, pull out their chairs at the table, remain standing until all the women in the room were seated, all that stuff. It was my mother who taught me these things. Obviously she was a misogynist and passed these tendencies on to me.

Nah, it’s called politeness, loser. That’s really what your mother was teaching you.

From Unfair:

 ”I have always found it interesting that the English language has a word like misogynist but not for the gender reversed noun/adjective.”

Um. You mean misandry?

From Peter Ashford:

Take item 3 about domestic servitude. Some people have attitudes like that for religious reasons (God tells them that women do dishes, men do hunting or some such). That may be an archaic or misguided point of view but I’m not sure if it constitutes hating women. An old fashioned woman who sticks with an undeserving husband and accepts outmoded gender roles is just old fashioned, not a hater of women.

Yes, because no religion could ever be accused as being misogynist. And OH! It’s just that they’re old fashioned. Oh, well, that’s OK then. I didn’t know. I thought that living in the 21st century meant I wouldn’t have to put up with 19th century attitudes. Fuck. I’ll just go get into my corset. At least my tits will look amazing.

Waldo wants us to know that this thing we’re fighting for isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Equality means you get just as much BS & mocking as everyone else without complaining about it.

Cos, shut up ladies, and stop your moaning. Being a man, or part of any dominant group is hard, what with walking all over the backs of the oppressed. I turned my ankle on one of them the other day!

Michael, says

I am suprised that the rantings of a misandrist are still being published

Could you talk to “Unfair” and explain the meaning of misandry? Also, could you explain it to yourself? And then explain to me where in the column it says “This applies to all men.”

Jabu is a peach. He’s worried about us ladeez and the man drought.

Women are definitely equal to men in all aspects of our modern world. Just without the benefit of reason and accountability….But sometimes its worth reflecting on why some traditional values were deemed approriate at certain times, before throwing your man to the lions. I certainly hope the next time you have a burglar banging round down stairs, if infact you have a man CLEMENTINE, you let him sleep soundly while you pop down and see him off. I suspect your attitude and the fact that helen clark was the face to our nation is partly responsible for the influx of internet brides in a country faced with severe man drought

Course she doesn’t have a man, dude. She’s clearly a hairy-legged lesbian. All feminists are dontchaknow. How’s that for reason and accountability. Also, you totally stole that line from As Good As It Gets. Way to be original. Dick.

Speaking of, here’s Thomas.

This is the sorta clap-trap that gives women a bad name in the first place. Why is it something that has worked comfortably for millions of years has to change just because some chick learns how to wear a pair of pants with a fly in the front? Things are good as they are, if you want more pay, work harder. If you don’t want to be a stay at home mum, find a new partner with life-views that align closer to your own, if you don’t want to get raped, don’t walk down dark streets at night by yourself while drunk. ez pz

Did you even read the column, Thomas? Because you’re the poster child for MISSING THE FUCKING POINT and inadvertently proving it.

Dave was doing so well until the last sentence:

All of these points are moot points. The point is women are still begging men for equality. The only reason women have any kind of equality at the moment is because men let them. This will always be the case until they take charge of their lives themselves and stop relying on misogynist men.

Yeah, cos you women, you should shut up and be happy with your lot, or Take Action. But don’t Take Action against us, cos we’re really nice, honest. it’s those other guys. I’m not one of them!
On the other hand, Antipodean is:

Sucks to be you!! Too bad arguments against misogynists won’t stop them or there influence. You’ve been relegated to spewing out your anti-man penis-hating diatribe in an electronic advice column on a news website that services a tiny country on the backside of the world. Way to influence things!! Surely that level of relegation and irrelevance has to be evidence of misogynism in action.

Nah, it’s not. You are though, dick.

 

Today in What The Actual Fuck news

FOTLG Boganette linked to this article on Tumblr last night. I have been mulling it over, and while it’s not the cause, it is definitely not helping this headache I have. So let’s, shall we, take this apart piece by piece. It is brilliant in it’s absurdity. As always, Don’t read the comments.

Is the pursuit for gender equality sucking life out of relationships?

Not mine, but you carry on.

Instead of harnessing the different qualities of men and women to energise us, we are striving to make men and women equal.

More women are joining the battle for the CEO’s chair and pursuing dominance in their homes and communities. But in the process they’re becoming more like men. And men are becoming… well, less like men.

Um, yeah, no. “Striving for equality” isn’t “making women more like men. And cutting off the men’s balls and turning them into namby-pamby apron wearing pantywaists. It means women having equal rights and opportunities and access to services and healthcare, and bodily autonomy, and freedom from fear of violence, and teh right to work or not work. It’s the choice. And if a woman has to “become more like a man” to do that, that’s a sad indictment on this apparently “post-feminist” world we live in. If she does that because she chooses to, fantastic. But let’s none of us fool ourselves into thinking that women wearing boxy pantsuits and drinking beer with the boys after a 14 hour day at the executive table is what every feminist wants.

Renowned Australian neurosurgeon Charlie Teo believes men and women have different roles “set not only by society but set by physiology”.

“The current trend is for dads to be more hands on. But for all we know it may be proven in a hundred years time that that may be a negative thing for the upbringing of children,” he said recently on Seven’s Sunday Night program.

Yes. Parental involvement is such a terribly bad thing. That’s why I just spent ten minutes googling and couldn’t find any study ever saying that. (I’m positive someone will come along to prove me wrong). But what do I know? For all we know, in one hundred years, it may be proven that cigarettes are good for you, lettuce causes heart disease, and bourbon is an elixir. (I can live in hope)

Feminism has achieved victories for women, but could it be at the expense of femininity, chivalry and attributes of the opposite sex that instinctively attract us to each other?

No. Have you not seen the recent retro-crafty-uber-feminine-apron-and-gingham movement.  Or feminist embracing stilettos and lipstick. And I, as a card-carrying feminist (seriously, we need cards, ladies), have never once kicked a man for holding a door open for me. Chivalry is nothing more than politeness, and I expect that from everyone.

“This force of attraction is the dynamism that often disappears in modern relationships. If you want real passion, you need a ravisher and a ravishee. Otherwise you just have two buddies who decide to rub genitals in bed,” he writes.

*snort*. I just…can’t even. Hey, I liked to be ravished as much as any girl, but why is that to say women can’t be the ravisher? Oh. Because he wrote a book called “The Way of the Superior Man”, so he’s clearly the ideal person to quote in an article about feminism.

Earlier this month, TopGear presenter James May…

Noted without comment.

Well into the last century the husband provided his family with a home and food and this sole responsibility gave him a sense of power and purpose. And women didn’t feel pressure to justify their existence with a career. They were proud home makers and mothers.

Until feminism.

That’s right, blame the bitches. We ruined _everything_. Just out of interest, this right you have to express your opinion, to be heard in a publication, that just came to you, did it? No one fought for that right, no one suffered so you could spout your “traditionalist views”? And also, you know there are women who are still proud homemakers and mothers? And the fact that some women feel pressured to stay in the workforce or not stay in the workforce, or wear heels or not wear heels or put our when they don’t want to, is exactly the reason you need to be a feminist.

However, a British survey of 2000 men revealed one-third of men would prefer to be the sole breadwinning traditional father while another quarter would like to be the main breadwinner with their spouse working only part-time.

Instead, men are sporting aprons, doing their own ironing and pushing trolleys down supermarket aisles – roles that don’t exactly exude manliness.

You know, one of the most “manly” men I know does his own ironing. In fact, I’ve asked him on occasion to do mine. Do you know what? Sporting aprons and doing the supermarket shopping is providing for a family. Challenging society’s vision of what makes a “real man” is extremely manly, and if you can’t see that, you are part of the problem.

“Kids, turn off the TV, Buster outside, Dave, the dishes aren’t going to clean themselves.” Dave feels like he’s surrendered his balls.

When a man is stripped of his sense of purpose, it’s more difficult to satisfy that instinctive hunger for power and purpose. Could this be part of the reason why one in eight Australian men experiences severe depression in their lifetime?

Deida describes it as a “weakened impotent existence”.

“Without a conscious life purpose, a man is totally lost, drifting, adapting to events rather than creating events,” he said.

Dave should probably talk to his wife. Of course, his wife is probably working a full time job, and doing the lion’s share of the caring at home, because our society continues to  not value “women’s work”. He might feel like he’s surrendered his balls. She’s probably exhausted.

And you know what? I could care less that the poor delicate flowers that are men are lost, adrift, and confused and impotent. OK, I probably care about that last one. However. I expect everyone – of whatever gender – to treat me like a human being. Frankly, I don’t give a shit if you’ve been taught to hate my gender. Man up, and do the decent thing.

I don’t think that women should surrender their careers all together. But if we allow men to reclaim some power, we women could do more to embrace our femininity.

Would we be happier if more of us accept that men and women are not equal?

Aside from the fact that the first sentence makes no grammatical sense, um, what? I think you mean men and women aren’t the same. I’d argue that people aren’t the same, but actually, I will never, ever, not in a million years, not if you paid me a billion dollars, or gave me 100 puppies, accept that men and women are not equal.

And even if in your privileged life, men and women are equal, it might be worth thinking about the fact that that in a lot of places, women live horrible lives of poverty and violence and fear. And we need to do something about that. With or without aprons.

Come again?

I am a big believer in reform. I think given the right impetus, opportunity, and support, people can change. They can get better, improve, and come to regret things they’ve done. Naive and idealistic, maybe, but sometimes I am, darlings. I also think you can really dislike a person, but agree with something they say.

Which is why I was willing to give Hugo Schwyzer the benefit of the doubt when he wrote this piece. Because this is all very true.

It’s a key anti-feminist strategy, even if that isn’t the actual intent of the men doing it — it forces women to become conscious caretakers of their male peers by subduing their own frustration and anger.   It reminds young women that they should strive to avoid being one of those “angry feminists” who (literally) scares men off and drives them away….

This doesn’t mean that a “good man” is always in the wrong when he’s arguing with a woman.  It does mean that when men and women argue about gender justice, women are more likely to have insights that men have missed.  Here’s the basic axiom: power conceals itself from those who possess it. And the corollary is that privilege is revealed more clearly to those who don’t have it.  When a man and a woman are arguing about feminism – and the women involved happen to be feminists and the man happens to be an affluent white dude – the chances that he’s the one from whom the truth is more obscured is very high indeed.   That’s as true for me as it is for Tom Matlack.

So, when the furor at Feministe (one of my favourite feminist places) happened, I was a little nonplussed. Here was this guy, who seemed to get it. Sure, problematic relationships with his students – but who hasn’t done things they regret? We grow up, we move on. Oh. He tried to kill himself and his girlfriend? Huh. Well…he was an addict, we all do things…and…. I am increasingly on thin ice here. I can’t justify that, especially in the terms he describes it – he was trying to take care of her, she was broken, only he was strong enough to do what needed to be done. And you know what? Part of reform is admitting what you’ve done, and paying the consequences. He freely admits he hasn’t done that.

Oh. And then Clarisse shut down the comments? Well, while calling someone a sociopath – if you’re not a psychiatrist, and don’t actually know him – is dangerous, but yeah, that seems extreme.

But Feministe apologised, and all was well. Sort of. However, enter Jezebel, who will do whatever they can to increase pageviews, even if it’s posting a column basically suggesting we women are too wrapped up in the idea of consent.  At Jezebel, Mr Schwyzer has suggested this:

For a young man raised with the sense that his body – and especially his penis – is “disgusting”, a woman’s willingness to accept a facial is an intensely powerful source of affirmation. In my conversations with Glickman and Andelloux, I shared this anecdote. Both agreed that rather than seeing the facial as rooted in the impulse to denigrate, it might indeed be better to view it as longing for approval. Andelloux pointed out that in her experience, many women (often with good reason) have a difficult time believing that degradation isn’t at the root of straight men’s fascination with facials. In any case, humiliation and affirmation aren’t incompatible reactions to the same act; a feeling of indignity when your partner ejaculates on your face isn’t contingent on his intending to demean you.

And, yeah, OK, this is where I draw the line. Flavia has said it all better than me, but Hugo? remember back up there when you said that men should sometimes shut up and listen? It’s time for you to Shut Up. We’re not going to give you cookies for being an ally, not especially when you argue bullshit like this.

I should preface the rest of this paragraph with the disclaimer that some women don’t mind, or even enjoy, facials. For me, it’s entirely contextual on the person I am with, and the situation I am in. But the way they are usually (insert standard disclaimer here) portrayed in porn is inherently degrading. But don’t worry about that! According to the estimable Mr Schwyzer, that doesn’t matter! We women should suffer through a humiliating act because it might make a dude feel better about his cock? Look, I’m all for consenting adults being allowed to do whatever they want, but that? Is bullshit. And in fact, consent is barely mentioned in the piece. It’s much more about we women should “let” men do it, to save their precious egos. There’s lip service paid to the idea that “No one should be obligated to endure humiliation for the sake of someone else’s longing for validation.” Except that the entire rest of the piece makes that statement a lie.

And of course, “At the same time (as perhaps with anal sex), many people struggle to believe that receiving a facial is something a woman could enjoy.” This is something anyone involved with BDSM is familiar with – you can’t consent to being submissive, that’s unfeminist, and also, you like being hurt? What? Weird. To which, you know, shut up, I can’t be bothered with that conversation today.

But, seriously, feminist sites need to stop giving this guy airtime. He’s not a feminist. He wants to believe he is, maybe, as redemption, or just cos it’s a really good way to get chicks. Let him write what he writes at his own place, and people who care can have that conversation there. I’m not someone who believes men can’t be feminists – the kyriarchy hurts everyone, and men should  be a part of the conversation. But when a man consistently fails to take responsibility for his actions and his words, and actively promotes disrespecting women – then, yeah, nah, it’s time to STFU.

[Update: Garland Grey also has a great piece, with my favourite sentence this week: "But still, the memory of his sexism is reason enough for you to reevaluate your flimsy personal objections to this sex act, because if there is anything I know about Feminism, it’s that not nearly enough people are getting jizzed on and this is a crisis."]

For our special friend Alasdair

This is why it is important

A couple of days ago, I discovered a long-buried comment telling me men would like me more, if only I “knew my place”. Let me tell you something, my anonymous friend, men like me fine. Were that where my self worth comes from, I’d be doing OK.

And this weekend, I will be marching with some of my favourites. The ones who agree that women don’t ask to be raped, whether with their clothing, their attitudes, or words. They understand that it isn’t just women who are raped, nor that stranger rape is the most common. They aren’t just coming to SlutWalk to check out all the sluts.

I love these men, and I hold them to a high standard. It’s the same standard to which I hold everyone, but it seems that it is a high standard. Because apparently all men are, at base, raping, dick-pxting assholes. Or so says one of them. I mean, it’s Scott Adams, so take it with a grain of whatever condiment you like. At least he had the decency to categorise it as  “General Nonsense”.

The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn’t ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, “Here’s your square hole”?

The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose. All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way. Things just drifted in that direction.

Let me paraphrase:

Hey bitches ladies! You’ve castrated men! You’ve set up a society that means men have to conform to your rules, and supress their natural desires to send pictures of their bits to all and sundry. Men want to rape, monogamy is anathema, and even though we don’t blame the victim, you should know it is All Your Fault.

But don’t worry, Mr Adams has a solution.

But in general, society is organized as a virtual prison for men’s natural desires. I don’t have a solution in mind. It’s a zero sum game. If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa. And there’s no real middle ground because that would look like tweeting a picture of your junk with your underpants still on. Some things just don’t have a compromise solution.

Long term, I think science will come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated for as long as they are on it. It sounds bad, but I suspect that if a man loses his urge for sex, he also doesn’t miss it.

Chemical Castration! For all those men who can’t contain their rapacious urges. Who can’t help but break out of the virtual prison constraining their desires.

Let me tell you something, Scott. Most men can contain their desires. They don’t want to rape anyone, and they only want to send pictures of their genitalia to people who have asked for them. Also, most women don’t wish to constrain all of men’s desires. Some of us like men, and also like sex. Consensual, hot, awesome sex. Men winning does not equal women losing. But misogyny, sexism of this kind, the words you put on the internet, and have people follow, your woman (and man) hating little diatribe? That’s where we all lose.

So. All men are not rapists, and all women are not victims. And if you believe that, I hope you’ll be attending slutwalk. There will be a  full contingent of Lady Gardeners. The WYFC is holding a prewalk gathering. And if you aren’t on Facebook, here’s the details:

We will be gathering in Waitangi Park at 2pm. At 2.15pm we step off, walking along Cable Street to Civic Square. We will arrive in Civic Square at 2.45pm, where we will have a rally with speakers to talk about victim-blaming and sexual assault, wrapping up at about 3.30pm.

See you there.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 235 other followers