Why it's REALLY important to keep your ears open -

[kyburg]

Or in this case of this medium - keeping reading, and keep your mouth shut.

Because if you don't - and don't hear both sides - you're going to miss the solution.

Case in point:

yonmei made a one-click-does-all post this morning on a topic generating a very large word count this week: Sexism...from both sides of the gender divide. Two of my favorite journals went at it this week - with rather mixed results.

The players? theferrett and ginmar.

First up? theferrett - and Do I wanna bang you if you dress like that? Well, yes. Isn't that the idea? And why are you asking me, being female yourself, if I think the girl across the room is hot? And it's follow up, let's look at this a little closer, which contained the flash point moment of "Frankly, I think any woman who has to be begged fifteen times before she eventually accepts should be drug into the back alleyways and beaten, because her rampant need for a string of pleadings trains the wrong sort of men that no doesn't mean no. And then we should go beat up the men for good measure."

Which is where we pick up ginmar, which for all her rantiness, makes a very good point for clarity - and if you can get through the word count, you'll have a very good understanding of how our language enables a lot of gender-specific violence.

Wow. Just wow. Punish the woman for getting worn down by some persistant asshole?

By commenting on her genitalia you are reducing her to those parts, and doing it loudly and publicly.

Liberal sexism Can I get an AMEN here?

How about we just simplify things by blaming men for what they do?

Fan service. In case you didn't know what it looked like already. Fan service - and not to the female fans, of course.

But she was kind enough this morning to post the Cliff's Notes version this morning - Leading remarks and snappy comebacks - my favorites?

7. Men are so horny they can't help it.

I've noticed that they can help it after a couple warning shots.

8. Women don't have sex drives.

Maybe around you they don't.

But if that's not enough, even Sinfest got in on the action:

(Sure hope this works. If it doesn't, go over to sinfestfeed and add. You'll be glad you did.)

Okay. Let's look at this for a moment.

What do women think men want? Don't bother asking what women want from men. It's been done.

C'mon, you can do this one. What the typical woman thinks a men wants from her is sex. Everything else is secondary. I decided long ago this was unfair, and wouldn't get me what I wanted. So I don't participate.

First off, I want from men what I get from women. Acknowledgment that I'm alive, have a brain and needs of my own. We don't get past this part, there ain't nothing else you're going to get.

The little Sinfest cartoon also illustrates the next level - sex ain't all that, baby; but if it gets your attention, oh male of the species, expect to hear it a lot in conjunction with what really turns me on.

I think I envy women who can just go after the sex, enjoy it and walk away from it. I haven't had ANY first hand experience with anyone who has done that successfully, BTW.

My experience has been that the woman who pushes her sexuality at potential partners (without any discovery of who they're banging) is often motivated by the urge to control the other party by turning their genitals into a collar and leash. This is fine when it's play, but not when it's outside the bedroom. When you consider the previous paragraphs together with this one, you see something rather sinister emerge, don't you?

I grew up during the "sexual revolution," mind. My teens were in the years when the first editions of "Joy of Sex" were published, the huge divorce boom of the mid 70's was in full-swing and everyone was trading partners and having FUNFUNFUN.

The carnage was incredible. Keep in mind I spent a lot of time in emergency rooms because Mom was a nursing supervisor, and I heard a lot of stories. Even in a little town like Hemet, there are a lot of stories.

Put all this together, and you get virginity until 24. (And I married him at 25.)

Sex was always the icing. NEVER part of the "getting to know you." Conservative? Are you surprised? I did live with the fella for over a year in each case before marriage...and that involved sex. Yes, it did.

I want to know you aren't in it for my naughty bits. Not that I have a great set of them to begin with, but hey. I want to know you're interested in me - for me. Not how I perform on my back with my legs spread.

But I can see why some chick would ask Ferrett if he thought the other chick was hotter. What do women think men want?

I'm also complicated by the fact I prefer men to women, even for friends and co-workers. But I take care not to complicate things too much by being "too girly" - and yes, I laugh at the jokes. Because I understand the intent behind them. Ask the SCOTUS if intent matters, guys. It does. VERY. And yes, it's measurable. Go 'way.

I think both sexes have a way of maintaining the divide - men do it by making it hard to know them, and women do it by making it hard to be sexual with them. Do women want men to simply be sexual with them? No. Do men want women to find it hard to discover who they are and what they want? No.

That's why jokes about guys who lie about their sexual intentions are both funny and disgusting. And the ones about women who lie about their orgasms, ditto.

Now, tuck all this in the back of your head and keep your ears open this week.

And...don't you wish Nique had just said NO and been done with it?

(P.S. And to my non-hetero friends? Let fly.)

Comments

I'd just add...

[scarcrest.livejournal.com]

That gender distinctions are generalizations that don't apply in every case. It seems that almost every woman I've ever fallen for fit the "male" pattern of being hard to get to know -- to the point where I've referred to a couple of them as glaciers, because things moved so slowly.

It could be a case of "They're just like that with you." But in a few cases, no, I don't think so. They were as aloof and emotionally flat as any guy in a stereotypical joke.

And not every guy is hard-wired to want sex without love, either. The one time I was able to have that arrangement (mostly), I felt cheapened by it.

Re: I'd just add...

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I'd have to say I fall into that category as well - a lot of my responses are not the "typical" female's. For example, if Jim and I are watching television, he's far more likely to tear up over a sad story than I am. Me, I'm reaching for the phone - but I've always been that way.

I'd also have to say that I'm very eager to let people get to know me - when I'm motivated. Hm. I ought to let Jim answer that one.

Re: I'd just add...

[elfwench.livejournal.com]

As you've seen by my responses in theferrett's thread, I'm not your typical woman either. Yes, I do tend to be rather "binary" in my assessment myself. Yes, I am bisexual and yes, sometimes the hubby and I do rate women as we sit in the mall having our Coke. It kind of gets the juices flowing for us to people watch that way and fantasize.

I see the problems as multipronged... And I was surprised actually to see in the above mentioned thread how many women hating men are out there trying to catch men. WTF??? I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that one. There may even be a post of my own brewing on that.

One person even said that my responses (wherein she pointed out that she liked at one time to dress sexy and just know how the men were squirming, and that was the whole purpose and I told her I thought that kind of thinking was rather cruel... speaking in general not as an attack on her) left her with a sick feeling in the pit of her stomach, which I don't understand in the least.

I think one thing a lot of women (well, the ones who get offended by men looking at them anyway, and yes the problem of the women who are selective over who may even look at them still galls both lord_keeper and myself) forget is that just because someone looks at them and appreciates their body for the visual aspect doesn't mean that the viewer necessarily is going to even try to pick them up, they may just be appreciating what they see. As I pointed out above, the viewer may well be married and have no intention of infidelity.

And isn't that the whole point of why they dressed sexy before leaving to begin with, to have people notice them?

I've always taught my kids, when they got to a certain age that their choices of clothing were their own, that their choices of how they dressed or acted was up to them. But they had to accept the consequences as to how people reacted and not cry about it or scream discrimination. You're going to dress goth of punk, good for you, but expect people to treat you like a freak and expect to meet resistance when getting hired to work somewhere. You want a nice job and be treated with respect, then dress nicely. I suppose that the same can be said for dressing sexy. If you put it on display, expect to be looked at.

Does this make it permissible for men to act like asses over a sexy dressed woman, no. However, he still has eyes and still has hormones that react to what he sees and cannot be blamed for that, and even more so when the package is displayed in such a manner.

Continued... got cut off!

[elfwench.livejournal.com]

I think one thing a lot of women (well, the ones who get offended by men looking at them anyway, and yes the problem of the women who are selective over who may even look at them still galls both lord_keeper and myself) forget is that just because someone looks at them and appreciates their body for the visual aspect doesn't mean that the viewer necessarily is going to even try to pick them up, they may just be appreciating what they see. As I pointed out above, the viewer may well be married and have no intention of infidelity.

And isn't that the whole point of why they dressed sexy before leaving to begin with, to have people notice them?

I've always taught my kids, when they got to a certain age that their choices of clothing were their own, that their choices of how they dressed or acted was up to them. But they had to accept the consequences as to how people reacted and not cry about it or scream discrimination. You're going to dress goth of punk, good for you, but expect people to treat you like a freak and expect to meet resistance when getting hired to work somewhere. You want a nice job and be treated with respect, then dress nicely. I suppose that the same can be said for dressing sexy. If you put it on display, expect to be looked at.

Does this make it permissible for men to act like asses over a sexy dressed woman, no. However, he still has eyes and still has hormones that react to what he sees and cannot be blamed for that, and even more so when the package is displayed in such a manner.

[(Anonymous)]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/poetpaladin/485892.html

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

(Sorry about the anonymous. I was using another browser.)

Here you go:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/poetpaladin/485892.html

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Friends-locked.

[(Anonymous)]

I was just pointing out that, holding men collectively responsible for violence some men perpetuate against women is just as bad as holding a woman responsible for what happens to her. Holding all men responsible is like holding all Whites responsible for past slavery.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Having read theferrett's little riff, I think that when a man starts claiming that all women (no men) are responsible for stopping violence against women, or even harassment, by behaving in such a way as not to provoke certain kinds of male behaviour, it's perfectly appropriate to point out that while theferrett may prefer to abrograte responsibility for his behavior and leave it up to "women" to behave well so as not to provoke him, in fact the only people who can change "male behaviour" are... men. Men can decide that they won't behave violently towards women. Or that they won't harass women.

And they can also decide that, rather than leaning back with a joky smile and thinking it's rather amusing when they see men harassing women, they can speak out against it.

And they can also decide that rather than complaining about women who complain about male behaviour, they too will complain about the men who do these things - who harass women, who commit violence against women, and who joke about it.

You could have decided to do all these things, but you opted for complaining about women, instead.

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

No, I complained about one woman.

I consider it a collective responsibility (including mine, but not solely mine nor my gender's) to do something about it. She started telling me it was a male responsibility because men hold the majority positions of power and law enforcement and men do the raping. Which made me point out that it'd be the same as holding Whites collectively responsible for discrimination/violence against minorities?

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

You complained about one woman?

Yeah, you read a post about blaming women, then you blamed women. And you couldn't understand why I didn't take your word for it that you were so sensitive and helpful. And when you didn't get your way, YOU whipped out the sexist shit, just like all your little buddies, who showed up en masse with more sexist slurs.

Here's a tip, sweetie: If you don't get your way from a way, and you feel compelled to tell her to get laid and wash the sand out of her cunt, or if you call her a cunt, then it's been rather conclusively proven that your sensitivity is a thin shell over more of the same sexist bile that I've been fighting every day. You're all veneer, no substance. Why you think you want to be a feminist I'll be damned if I know. It's not glamourous, and you're so easily aroused to hostility---and so clueless besides----that you'd provide no help besides.

My post: asshole says women are responsible for men's behavior.

You: But they are! What are you gong to do about it!

Me: Oh for fuck's sake.

YOu: WAH: Bitch! GEt laid! You're mean and eivl and I didn't want to be afeminist if you won't listen to me and enable my sensitivity and, oh, yeah, let me whine adn say the EXACT SAME SEXIST THINGS AS ANY OLD SEXIST ASSHOLE! It's different because I'm me! lallalallalalalalala

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

You putting words in my mouth tells everyone exactly why it's pointless to argue with you.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Look, Lady...

Nobody who's sexist can be aroused to sexism when they're disagreed with. You started referring to my gender as soon as you got contradicted.

Yeah, that was sensitive all right.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Amazing. He gets it. But thinks it's an excuse to be as racist as he is sexist.

*waves paw* Bah.

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

Hey, I think it's wrong to blame all Whites for how some of them discriminate against minorities. What's racist about that?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

 

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Then let's make blacks solely responsible for fighting racism, shall we? That's what Ferrret wants. And for good measure, let's let white guys define what they do. After all, they might get threatened if it's any other way.

I hold the people in power for misusing that power. Sexism wouldn't be the problem it is were it not for the blind men who spend all their time complaining about women's responses to sexism rather than the sexism that provokes them. Horrifically sexist men are a minority, yet there is a substantial group of passives who stand by and find their voice only when a woman responding to some sexist slur makes them uncomfortable.

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

Please do not reply to anything I write to someone else, since you have already banned me from commenting in your journal and you obviously do not want me to talk to you anymore.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

I'll reply to whomever I want. You could not control me in my LJ, nad now you want to control me here? If that doesn't illustrate your sense of entitlement I don't know what does.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Hon, it's my honest opinion that everyone is expected to correct bad behavior. And equally responsible for doing so.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Hon, it's my honest opinion that everyone is expected to correct bad behavior. And equally responsible for doing so.

How can unequals be equally responsible?

I'm sorry, but we don't live in a society where men and women equally offend. If they're required to equally share the correction duties, then men are let off the hook for their fair share, and women are saddles with more than theirs.

Let's look at crime, shall we? Approximately 90% of all violent crime is committed by men. If men and women are equally responsible, then that means that men get to shove off on women 40% of their deeds, their responsibilities, and their blame. Men automatically get it easier; women get it harder. That's one of the things I've written about many times before. We let men off the hook. That's what pissed me off about the theferrett. And here it is again---the notion that men and women are equally responsible for unequal acts.

Is that fair?

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Hm. I don't approach it as a "separate by gender" issue. We're all in this together, like it or not -

You report it - 100% of the time. Doesn't matter what equipment you have - tits or testicles. You know about it, you report it. And insist that it's WRONG and consequences have to follow. It's simply wrong not to - and that point has to stick. Not getting away with it, not being cute about it. Wrong - and there have to be consequences.

Not that men and women are equally responsible - as groups.

Individuals - one at a time - are equally responsible. There are things you don't do, shouldn't tolerate in others and need to grow a backbone about. Period.

One person at a time. Regardless of the gender.

Nobody gets off the hook. That's being equal. And until that happens, guess what. Strongest, most dominant, in power until it's pried from their cold, dead fingers, we're in charge - guess what.

Ask if anyone gets off the hook around here. If they do, it didn't come cheap. That's what I can do.

Fair? Life's not fair - you get what you can negotiate. And you have to keep trying -

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Um, no.

Holding men and women responsible for acts that are mostly committed by men makes about as much sense as holding black people responsible for lynching.

Tits or testicles? The FBI devotes a fair amount of time to documenting which crimes are committed by which genitalia. Life will never get to be fair when you insist on looking at things as if they did not have a gender component.

What next? Discussing rape as if it were a gender-neutral crime?

[(Anonymous)]

How about just discussing it, period? You can't do that without being gender-specific, and you know why. Rape is overwhelmingly a male crime against females. Domestic violence is overwhelmingly a male crime against females (and children). However, to be "fair" - you also have to address the minority of crimes committed against "gender expectation" in these cases. Or you miss those victims.

I think we have to be gender-specific when we're talking about gendered crimes. We're diagnosing boys with autism, before the age of 8, at a rate I find frightening. Girls? Pick one. ADD, ADHD, bi-polar depression, and once they've reached puberty? The rate for boderline disorder is scary - and that's the one that really has its feet in prior abuse. Gee, I wonder how that happened. Watch me die from the surprise. We're building monsters and victims cradle to the grave - why should I be surprised?

This is not acceptable. Our language is the biggest enabler I've ever known.

Try to curse a man without bringing a woman into it; his mother, his sex partner - it's nearly impossible to use the "traditional" curses and actually hit the guy. And while just calling a cockless waste of carbon a "bitch" is very satisfying (and gets the job done quickly), it's also lazy work. I come up with other things.

Hm. Not everyone is responsible for crimes committed; that's just silly. However, if you want to end crimes, try to deal with the causes and resolve the outcomes - yes, that's everyone's responsibility. That's when you become gender-neutral. Wrong is wrong.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Wrong is wrong.

No. I refuse to discuss male victims of female rapists for a very simple reason: they're more than capable of helping themselves. They can do what feminists did: they can form groups, and so forth. They don't, though. They want to make women do it for them, they want to be the center of attention, and they want to shut up female victims.

They can discuss it elsewhere. Not here.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

I just had someone read that and then ask, straight-faced--it's your poster down below here---what women were doing to alter men's behavior. All very sensitively and so on. I got hte whole, "Not All Men Are Like That" and then how both men and women live in society and should fight to change sexism, even though we don't 'both' have---screw it, I'm not arguing about the existance of sexism. But that was what the post was about. It was about telling women that they had to control men. It was about letting men off scott free, and I was supposed to take Mr. Sensitive by the hand after he read the post and asked the same question as theferrett and devote a great deal of time and handholding while he said that he wasn't responsible just because he had a penis.

It was just unbelieveable.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I wonder what the word it is that relates reading - and getting it - like "listen" relates to "hear." Comprehension misses the mark.

Listen - and really understand what's being said. Words matter.

But, in defense? We do two dumb things to men every time someone does something dumb to women. Consider for a moment - men die earlier, they kill themselves at a higher rate and overall, still are over-represented in every crime statistic you'd care to name.

And it's *shrug* all over. Consider being a thinking creature - and male - and try to figure out your place in all this. "I've got a penis - but I didn't do all that crap!" You can't be surprised. Sooner or later, they get bagged by it. Try to find other men who agree with not being "like that?" C'mon. You've heard what they get called for that. The nice one was pussies, last time I checked.

I can tell you what anyone can do. Don't participate in it. Don't perpetuate it. Don't generalize -

You've done a very nice job in outlining the language - and pointing up just how easy it is to discount, discredit and literally, depersonalize women. The next trick?

Do the same thing for the men. I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

I'm not interested in doing any work for men. They have all the power and yet they force women to do just about everything in the fight against sexism. Furthermore, there's a debt owed to women. Men and women do not share equal troubles and tribulations, although it's become a very popular argument among some men to argue exactly that.

We do two dumb things to men every time someone does something dumb to women.

This, quite frankly, is bull. Women get raped; men, if they avoid prison, do not. Women's rights are getting chipped away by men. Men's rights are not.

Consider for a moment - men die earlier,

Their own fault. HOw, exactly, is this a concern? Women are dying of AIDS at a higher rate than men, due to sexist traditions in various countries. Men don't get their genitals amputated. And so forth. I don't know who the 'we' you're talking about is, but anyone who looks at the facts should be able to see that for dumb thing that happens to a man, a dozen await any woman.

they kill themselves at a higher rate

They succeed more often. Women actually make more attempts.

and overall, still are over-represented in every crime statistic you'd care to name.

Especailly that of perpetrators. Men commit 90% of all crime, compared to approximately ten percent for women. Yet if I made the same sort of argument here that you do---that this 10% shows that women are morally superior---I'd be accused of de facto man bashing.

Do the same thing for the men. I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with.

I can't even get men to acknowledge sexism, like your friend. He absolutely did not see that asking the same thing as theferret made him equivalent to him. He was utterly blind to anything he himself did, and the fact that those actions had consequences for other people.


Until well-meaning sexism is gone, men have more than enough people on their side fighting their battles, and by that I mean, perpetuating New Sexism, where if you use enough fancy words you get to revivive all those comforting old stereotypes about women that never really went away.

Every day on my blog, I get some guy who doesn't listen to what I say. Yesterday it was the guy commenting below. Every. Damned. Day. Strangely enough, too, I got five people on his flist, who I had to ban. I'm sure that just a coincidence. But that's every day. If these people devoted their time and effort to fighting sexism, it'd be over by now. But they don't.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

He was utterly blind to anything he himself did, and the fact that those actions had consequences for other people.

The irony burns.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, another who just doesn't understand why being lectured on sexism by a guy isn't ironic either. Are you done? Or are you just going to follow around after me, yammering?

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Well here's an idea... how about you stop discriminating against me just because I'm a man? Isn't that the point? Equality? Hmm?

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

I hate the be the bearer of bad news, sweetie, but it's not your alleged manhood that's the issue.

But then again, I told you three times to knock it off and even then you kept whining. Your quick reversal to sexist slurs doesn't do you any credit.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

And which slurs would those be? In fact, which one of us started being patronizing?

Oh yes, that would be you. At no point was I whining. I did try asking for silly things like respect, and that you treat me as a person, not treat me based on my gender. I thought that's what feminists wanted? or is it different somehow when it's men?

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Sweetie, you whined that if feminist snarkiness got as bad as male sexism---Uh, yeah. That'll happen. Why, even as we speak feminist commandos are taking over Congress. Of course, you get to judge when feminist snarkiness hurts your poor widdle feelings.

You get your feelings hurt. Women get killed.

I don't have much sympathy for you if you can't see the difference.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Wow, the point just sailed right over your patronizing little head, didn't it?

You win. I'm done talking to you. You have far more experience being a moron who cherrypicks what she'll respond to than I do. I prefer to do silly thing like actually discuss the points people raise without putting words in their mouths. You appear to prefer to deliberately misunderstand me, twist what I'm saying, and then patronize me. I'm sure that's earned you lots of friends.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

You mean, discussing things like this?

The whole idea of 'feminism' seems to me to be reactionary, and enforcing an us/them mentality and an adversarial situation. Is that really a great way to be going about creating a better world? Using the term 'equalist,' to me, indicates that there's currently an imbalance which needs to be addressed, and once it is, we can all move forward

Typical white guy arrogance. I got news for you, babe: the us/them mentality started with men and you just want to ignore the male half of the equation so you can feel better. Not my job. I'm not your fuckin' babysitter. An imbalance? An imbalance?!

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

I got news for you, babe: the us/them mentality started with men and you just want to ignore the male half of the equation so you can feel better.

No, not in the slightest. I want to fix that as much as you do, and I don't want to ignore for a moment the reality of the situation as it stands. Yes, men in general have subjugated women for a very long time. This isn't news. Hammering into our heads "you men suck! you subjugate women! you suck! you suck!" accomplishes precisely what? We--those of us with half a brain, anyway--are fully bloody aware of history. We're trying to look to the future, however, as it's somewhat impossible to change the past. I fail to see what is so fundamentally wrong with men and women working together to fix this. Isn't the simple fact of a man trying to help end sexism an acknowledgement for what has been done in the past, and an attempt to redress those problems?


The whole idea of 'feminism' seems to me to be reactionary, and enforcing an us/them mentality and an adversarial situation. Is that really a great way to be going about creating a better world?

You haven't actually addressed this point. Which avenue provides for the more stable and long-term solution? An adversarial--dare I say, traditionally patriarchal--system, or a cooperative and collective--traditionally matriarchal--one?


Using the term 'equalist,' to me, indicates that there's currently an imbalance which needs to be addressed, and once it is, we can all move forward

Yes, an imbalance. I'm sorry if you don't like my choice of words, but that's what it is. An unreasonable, grossly disproportionate imbalance, yes. But an imbalance nonetheless. And if we as a species want to get anywhere, we need to restore equilibrium and move forward. Which means that my goals--equality, true equality across the board--are precisely the same as yours. So again, why are you dismissing those who are your allies?


Typical white guy arrogance.

And how is you saying that any different than someone saying "typical woman hysteria"? It's not. Degradation is degradation. Reducing me to my skin colour and genitals, and applying a stereotypical (and wrong) label to it is something I would never expect a feminist to do, given how much feminists complain (rightly) about that happening to women everywhere.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Hammering into our heads "you men suck! you subjugate women! you suck! you suck!" accomplishes precisely what

Whereas, of course, painting any feminist criticism of the dominant culture as man-hating bitchery is so productive. Care to try again?

Yes, an imbalance. I'm sorry if you don't like my choice of words, but that's what it is. An unreasonable, grossly disproportionate imbalance, yes

An imbalance is what you have when you don't get enough Vitamin C, okay? It's not an imbalance: it's systemized bigotry. Why do you want to minimize that?

I'm sorry if you don't like my choice of words, but that's what it is

Rediculous arrogance yet again. My experience must be defined by YOUR words. My life, my words. Not yours.

Reducing me to my skin colour and genitals

You just reduced male hatred of women into something that as malice-free as a nutrient deficiency.

Your words say far more about you than you should be comfortable with. You use words that constantly miminize the conscious aspects of male sexism, indeed male culpability, and you want me to accept your vocabulary for things that do not affect you---and which, once again, you wish to minimize.

Which avenue provides for the more stable and long-term solution?

Well, for starters, I reccomend men should sit down and shut up and let women say what they want without male editing.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

*sigh* No. An imbalance is when things are not equal. Please look at a dictionary. Yes, there's bigotry. I'm not minimizing that. But it seems you're far more focused on assigning blame than allowing anyone to participate in a dialogue with you.


Well, for starters, I reccomend men should sit down and shut up and let women say what they want without male editing.

And women should be seen and not heard. Saying what you want is one thing. Marginalizing THE VERY FUCKING PEOPLE WHO AGREE WIUTH YOUR FUCKING GOALS YOU RELENTLESS FUCKING MORON is rather different.

This time, I am done. Apparently nobody knows anything except you, apparently nobody has been victimized except you (yeah, because a small feminine gay boy certainly doesn't get victimized by straight male culture), and apparently simply because I'm a man, I have to listen to your brainless diatribes, and your marginalization of my own experiences. Take a look in a mirror, babe, and actually be honest with yourself for a change.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

I'm not minimizing that. But it seems you're far more focused on assigning blame than allowing anyone to participate in a dialogue with you.

Bullshit. You're so determiend to avoid listening to what I fucking say.....

Marginalizing THE VERY FUCKING PEOPLE WHO AGREE WIUTH YOUR FUCKING GOALS YOU RELENTLESS FUCKING MORON is rather different.

YOU're so fucking threatened by the notion you don't get to do the defining and shit that you reveal your true colors. Sorry, pal. You agree with me but you won't listen to me. Being told to let me lead makes you bitchy. Being told that I get to define my goddamned experience makes you hostile.

Yeah, thanks. Friends like you? I don't need.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Bitch please. Women like you, the feminist movement doesn't need. You're not interested in equality; like most fringe feminists you're interested simply in the exact same power dynamic we have now, with the genders reversed.

Now why don't you go back into the kitchen and bake me some muffins? Or at the very least, wash the sand out of your vagina.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, asshole, like any feminist guy would be so quick to take offense, find it so easy to resort to sexism.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's more about resorting to something I know will piss you off. Seriously. Get a hose, wash the sand out of your vag, and go get laid. You'll find yourself a lot more relaxed and less bitchy.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Not proving my point about you, at all, are you?

All that Hallmark card stuff about working together and you sound like any other guy.

You know, try this on for size, see if it's okay.

Faggot. Homo. Child Molester. Queer. Ass ranger.

Feel better now? You're no bettter than any homophobe out there.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

If you find people responding like that to you all the time, perhaps you should look at the common denominator int he interactions. Namely you, and yuour sand-in-the-vag attitude. If you were a boy, i'd be asking what crawled up your ass, so don't even start with me.

I'm all about togetherness when dealing with, say, intelligent people. You're clearly not in that group, so you can be safely ignored and disregarded. As you are, as of now. Goodby, have a nice bitter life alone.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

More ad homs. Yes, sweetie, you're so special.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Ah, and as I attempted to point out, I'm not a feminist. I'm an equalist... that means if you're being an asshole, whether you're male or female doesn't matter. You want equality? That means you get called on your bullshit. You don't get a free pass.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Let's see...


NIgger. Coon. Big fat lips. White woman raper. And so forth.

Yeah, you're such a great guy.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

I fail to see how any of that has any relevance here.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Those are the racial equivalents of waht you called me. I somehow find it hard to believe that any whtie person would be taken seriously after resorting to that sort of language, along with language about 'go eat some watermelon and chiltlins, you coon.'

Now, of course, you will protest that you are special and sensitive and what you meant is so much more important than what you said.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

No, I'm done with you. You're simply not intelligent enough to bother with. Bye.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Aw, yes. Translation: "OMG, that puts things in a whole new light. I guess I'm not as speshul as I thought I was."

Go call somebody a nigger and see what they think of you.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

And what was it that I called you that was even close to that?

Oh, right... Nothing!

You stupid, stupid person.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

More ad hom, Mr. Sensitive LIberal Equalist Guy. Who just can't stand being told that women get to say what they want about what happens to them.

Let's see---go get laid. Wash the sand out of your vagina. Bitter. Etc., etc.,

Want some watermelon? Some fried chicken? Black people are so lazy and shiftless. They don't want to work. Welfare queen.

Money-grubbing jew. Drop a penny in front of the Jewboy. and so forth.

Yeah, what a sensitive guy.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

I tell everyone who's in an obviously bitchy mood to go get laid, male or female.

Dand in your vag/what crawled up your ass? What's the difference? Ah, right, nothing. You just love these straw men, don't you, babe

Now kindly fuck off and die.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Hey, sweetie, you sounded almost heterosexual for aminute there.

Fact is, you said several extremely sexist things. And look at you run now!

At least back them up.

And sweetie? Nice try with the vagina/asshole comparison. Still no good. You preceded it with way too much sexism.

You've already lost. I'm just going to see how desperate you get.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

And which sexist comments would those be, hmm? The deliberately offensive remark about baking me some muffins? Jesus.

I wish I had a worldview like yours. My life would be so much simpler seeing things in simple black and white, us and them. Unfortunately, I live in a place called reality, which NO LONGER HAS ANY FUCKING TIME FOR YOU, YOU UTTERLY BRAINLESS PIECE OF EXCREMENT. Or is it somehow different when you make homophobic comments, you fucking cunt?

Byebye, and you have a nice day. Preferably involving a bus hitting you.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Sweetie, you can't even see that telling a woman she's bitter, she needs to get sand out her vagain, she needs to get laid, are sexist. Yet the hterosexual remark made you get all up in arms.

I see we can hypocrite to your list of virtues.

Keep gong as long as you want, asshole.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Saying that you're bitter, based on all the evidence, is automatically sexist simply because you're a woman? And if I called a man bitter, that wouldn't be? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The sand in the vag comment, to explain again, is mirrored rather precisely by saying similar things about men. Of course, I can't tell a man to get the sand out of his vag, because he doesn't have one.

For the record, you moron, I'm up in arms because of your rampant and depressing stupidity.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Sweetie, just because you claim you're unaware of sexist stereotypes and offer lame expalnations for your useage of them doesn't get you off the hook.

Option 1. You really are the fucking ignorant, in which case you have no business bitching at women at all.

Option 2: You know full well what a sexist slimebag you are, and now you're just running.

either way, you're gutless and ingorant, and calling me stupid just proves it.

Anything else? You've already proved what you are.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

False dichotomy.

Option 3: It doesn't matter what I say, because unless a man is uttering a string of mea culpas and grovelling in the light of your holy wisdom, nothing he can possibly say has any value.

Fuck off and die.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Gee, in between all the sexist slurs I mussed have missed it where you said you were ever so sorry for being such a sexist slime.

How exactly do you fight homophobia? By being ignorant of homophobic slurs? Do you let homophobes off the hook when they try and talk about the gay agenda, or equate gay sex with NAMBLA?

Whatever, sweetie.

Your whines about your sexist language would look rather more convincing if you hadn't so eagerly started sounding like a good ole boy.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

The point was to use deliberately loaded language, deliberately to piss you off. Again, I'm not sexist, but it seems abundantly clear that anyone with a penis who doesn't think and act precisely as you decree is sexist. Can't win, so fuck you, you moronic little troll.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

The point was to use deliberately loaded language, deliberately to piss you off.

Because that certainly proves----Oh, yeah, that your'e not a sexist scumbag. \\

NIgger. Jew boy. Kike. Spic. Faggot. Dyke.

So pissing off people proves what, exactly? Oh, yeah, that's right. You're being clever and hope nobody will notice how desperately you grasp at straws.

Again, I'm not sexist,

Do keep telling yourself that, sweetie. At the very least you've gotten yourself convinced, and that's all that matters, isn't it? But the people affected by your sexism don't have the right to an opinion.

but it seems abundantly clear that anyone with a penis who doesn't think and act precisely as you decree is sexist. Can't win, so fuck you, you moronic little troll.

OMG< you just hate me bcuz I have a penis! I can't argue and win so I'm just gonna whine till you give up.

Ain't gonna happen, bitch.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Yeah... ginmar really isn't known for "listening to others" - when the "others" are sexist trolls.

But she does like batting sexist trolls about. And it's fun to watch.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Except that I'm:

1) Not sexist.
2) Not a troll.

You'll notice, especially if you look at her journal, that I tried to discuss things with that fucking morong politely and intelligently. it was only after repeated examples of her simply refusing to address anything I actually said--preferring, instead, to put words in my mouth--that things degenerated.

I'd suggest actually reading before making such generalizations. kthxbye.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

that I tried to discuss things with that fucking morong politely and intelligently.

Hee.

[ciardhapagan.livejournal.com]

You sir, are one of the most vile sexist persons I've ever encountered. Your attitude ranks right along the right wing theocons toward women. You spout the ugliest of hate filled insults at women. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you were truly left of center, not only would you never write what you did, but you'd call anyone that did pond scum.

And your ignorance of feminism is appalling in someone who claims to be left of center. I suggest reading Ms. magazine cover to cover for the next 20 years as a start to your education of what mainstream feminism is. Ginmar is very much a mainstream feminist, as am I.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Really. Did you happen to read Part 1 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/463135.html#cutid1) of this little contretemps? Where I was endeavouring to discuss patently foolish ideas like men and women coming together to end sexism? No, clearly you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be saying such things.

And I wasn't spewing 'vile, hate-filled insults at women.' I was spewing insults at one idiot, who happens to be a woman. That's the thing about equality: not only should women and men be on equal playing fields as far as jobs, families, lack of discrimination go, but the bad as well. Ergo... if you're behaving like a fucking moron, you will get called a fucking moron, male or female. I don't give a flying fuck what body parts someone has (except when it comes to sexual attraction). If you act like an idiot, you will get treated as such.

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/460015.html?thread=11550703#t11550703

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, here's a recap:

My post: Asshole said women are responsible for what men do to them.

Twittish poster: Women ARE responsible for what men do to them. Let's fight this togehter!

Additional poser, er, poster: I don't like this word: let's call it imbalance.

Me: Um, I'm the one affected by it, I get to define it.

Both posters at various times: OMG YOU WHOREBITCH TRAMPSLUT NAZICUNT GO WASH YOUR VAGINA GET LAID GET A VIBRATOR YOU BITCH.

Hm, didn't take much.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

I can't see that entry.

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

She must have protected the whole entry.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Most likely. It's entirely unsurprising. I'm curious to know what it says, naturally, though I'd rather stop cluttering kyburg's journal.

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

Basically I was saying that not all men are like that.

Then she said that we men are responsible for the behavior of other men, since men are in positions of power.

I said we collectively are responsible. Holding all men responsible for how some men treat women is like blaming all Whites for how some of them discriminate against minorities.

She got further pissed off. And that's that.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Yes, because I want to preserve your remarks rather than have you delete them many others have done.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

I don't do that, dipshit.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

And you're trustworthy because--? Let me refresh your memory.

not just as something with a penis. *item from the troll list. Actually, pretty much everything you said...

I'm a man, therefore I'm evil, therefore I cannot possibly have anything worthwhile to say. I hope one day you understand how that's just as wrong as a man saying that about a woman

I'm saying that sometimes the feminist movement steps far past seeking equality, into the exact discrimination that it's fighting against. Item from the troll list.

I'm sorry you're so bitter and so angry.

This was three times after I asked you to stop commenting.

how about you stop discriminating against me just because I'm a man?

Hammering into our heads "you men suck! you subjugate women! you suck! you suck!"

U just hate men.

YOU RELENTLESS FUCKING MORON

You're not interested in equality; like most fringe feminists you're interested simply in the exact same power dynamic we have now, with the genders reversed.

Now why don't you go back into the kitchen and bake me some muffins? Or at the very least, wash the sand out of your vagina.

Get a hose, wash the sand out of your vag, and go get laid. You'll find yourself a lot more relaxed and less bitchy.

have a nice bitter life alone.

And what was it that I called you that was even close to that?

Oh, right... Nothing!

You stupid, stupid person.

you fucking cunt?

Saying that you're bitter, based on all the evidence, is automatically sexist simply because you're a woman?

Again, I'm not sexist, but it seems abundantly clear that anyone with a penis who doesn't think and act precisely as you decree is sexist

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

And all you've done, my dear, is prove again that you have utterly, totally, completely, and above all wilfully missed the point of everything I was trying to say, not to mention being completely ignorant of your own frothing at the mouth, dismissive, rude, arrogant behaviour.

I have no time in my life for separatist morons like you. I prefer to be silly, and work together for a better world. You have no interest in that, therefore your opinions are worthless. Male or female, anyone who behaves the way you did when faced with a polite and respectful posing of an opinion is simply not worthy of being listened to.

Goodbye. I hope your bitterness fades one day. When it does, and you become rational, I'll be happy to talk with you.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Oh, I get it. It's okay if a gay guy is sexist.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

You'd be funny if you weren't so pathetic. I feel sorry for you, really I do.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Sweetie, at the end of the day, I know I am bitchy and impatient and bad-tempered. I jump all over stupid people and I enjoy it. I have so many flaws compiling a list would exhaust me and that's even without the contributions of my friends. But you know what? I'm not lying to myself like you are. I'm not blind. When I look in the mirror I see the person I am, and when you look in the mirror you see the person you're desperately convinced is there.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

I know you'd like to believe that, but it's not true. I say what I say for very specific reasons. In your case, I deliberately chose the most inflammatory language possible to piss you off. Childish? Maybe. But your sheer dismissal of anything I had to say was incredibly disrespectful.

You still haven't addressed that, by the way. Nor have you bothered addressing 90% of any of the other points I've made. The echo chamber you like to sit in must be endlessly entertaining for you. When you're willing to actually discuss points I have raised, in a rational and respectful manner (as I did, to begin with; you appear to keep forgetting, or at least refusing to acknowledge, that you went shrill and ranty first) I'll be willing to talk to you. Until then, please, please get out of my life. I'm sure you don't want my icky male cooties contaminating your pure feminist worldview.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you don't want my icky male cooties contaminating your pure feminist worldview.

When you make my temper look reasonable, it's time to worry.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Sarcasm just flies right over your pointy little head, doesn't it?

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Sweetie, you're a guy who just doesn't. get. it. You're a poster child for the New Sensitive Sexist. I got it the first time you showed what lurked beneath talk of imbalances. All your excuses since then have sounded not sarcastic but desperate.

So go right on ahead.

.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

This is getting sad. At what point will you realize that just because I think you are a fucking moron, it doesn't mean that I therefore think all women are? I don't give a flying fuck about gender, skin colour, sexual orientation, or whether you prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla. People are people, and we're all in this together. That's it. That's the sum total of my attitude towards people. Male or female is utterly irrelevant. Yes, there is horrifying sexism. And yes, it absolutely needs to end. And the only way for that to be done constructively is for us all to work together.

I'm sexist because I deliberately chose to use language that I knew would piss you off? Don't be so disingenuous. If you would actually read the points I was making without bias or prejudice, you'd understand. Unfortunately, you can't or won't. And now, for the umpteenth time, Please leave me alone. You bitched about me waiting for you to say so three times; I've said it rather more. Or are the rules different for you?

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

odanu and yonmei already said it. No excuses.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Well in that case, you're clearly homophobic. Do you see now how ridiculous your assertion is?

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes. This from a guy who stated repeatedly that I hated him because he had a dick. In truth, of course, you are a dick.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

You claim I'm a sexist--even though I'm noit--for deliberately choosing to use sexit language. You deliberately chose to use homophobic language. How is it not logical to, using your own standards, call you a homophobe?

Or are you going to continue evading responsibility for your own actions? I thought so. Go. Away. Now. Please.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Sweetheart, I used that stuff after you repeatedly used that shit.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

And I only used that language after you repeatedly dismissed my respectful and rational comments, and reacted with shrill ranty outrage. So again, why are you allowed to decide that I'm sexist, and I'm not allowed to decide you're homophobic?

You really don't understand the concept of 'it cuts both ways,' do you?

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Sweetie, yonmei's already explained it to you. You give off the whiff of "Some of my best friends are black."

Well, I ain't your friend. You don't get to tell me what I get to call experiences, and not listening to me---you know what? That's not respect. You. Don't. Get. To. Tell. Me. What. To. Call. Things. In my LJ, no less.

Yeah, respectful is ignoring me three times.

I'm done.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

So... let me see if I've got this right. I'm not allowed to tell you how to define things... but you are allowed to define for me what I think 'equalism' means to me? And you're allowed to define for me what I think is the best way for us all to get out of this discriminatory mess?

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

Hey, why are you bringing up racist equivalents here?

Didn't you just tell me that I was bringing up a "straw man" argument for saying that holding all men responsible for what happens to women because men are in power is stupid because it's like holding all Whites responsible for what Whites in positions of power have done to minorities?

You are such a hypocrite. All you do is rant and rave and blame men for everything. You disgust those men and women who want to work together to solve violence against women. I've had one female friend literally write tell me that you are a "cunt" after reading our exchange in your journal, and another write to me telling me that "Somebody needs to buy that chick a vibrator and take the edge off" to indicate a few.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Because, sweetie, poeple who think that a woman's agner results from sexual frustration are ever-so-feminist.

Unnamd female friends, eh? Gee, would those be those little friends of your who descended on me en masse to gang flame me?

Didn't you just tell me that I was bringing up a "straw man" argument for saying that holding all men responsible for what happens to women because men are in power is stupid because it's like holding all Whites responsible for what Whites in positions of power have done to minorities

Who in the fuck talking to you? I haven't addressed you since I told you to get your head out of your precious sensitive ass the other day.

And racial equivalents? That's the point. You and your friends claim you're all sensitive and enlightened and shit---'poet paladin'-----yet you revert to type really fast when you don't get the response you want: 'OMG, I'm so grateful you're here to tell me how wrong I am and how your'e going to lead me and condescend to me! Despite the fact that you're so godammned stupid you can't see how holding women responsible for men's acts against htem is about as sexist as you can get."

Yeah, sweetie, I'm impressed.

[odanu.livejournal.com]

I have been holding my tongue, but this one got me.

You are such a hypocrite. All you do is rant and rave and blame men for everything. You disgust those men and women who want to work together to solve violence against women. I've had one female friend literally write tell me that you are a "cunt" after reading our exchange in your journal, and another write to me telling me that "Somebody needs to buy that chick a vibrator and take the edge off" to indicate a few.

Do you not see the rampant sexism in that paragraph? Let me point it out in small words.

1) Calling a woman a "cunt" whether said by a man or woman is equating her with her sexual organ and strongly implying that she is no more or less than that sexual organ. It is generally used when a woman gets "uppity" and says things that make men or women who have bought into some facet of patriarchy uncomfortable. Gin is not comfort food. She is an acquired taste. She sticks to one topic and doesn't allow other people to define it for her. Even when I disagree with her (which happens on a regular basis) I admire her for not backing down. That very quality of not backing down is what generally provokes outcries of "cunt". How dare a woman say that the fight for women's rights is and should be defined by women, and that men who profess to want to help should listen and be led by women in the fight. Would you presume to lecture your black friends or gay friends on how they should fight civil rights fights?

2) 'Somebody needs to buy that chick a vibrator and take the edge off' Again, do you not see the sexism? This implies that Gin is in a "bad mood" and probably "irrational" because she has no man in her life and that if she had an orgasm she would suddenly fall in line and stop making you feel uncomfortable. a) I'd bet money that Gin is able to handle her sexual needs perfectly well without anyone's help. b)by endorsing the opinions of the friends you are quoting, you are trying to bring the pressure of many to bear to get Gin "back in line".

Again, sometimes Gin fights fire with fire, and I don't always agree with her language or methods, but she does have an unerring ability to spot and draw out hypocrisy. Rather than continuing to flame her, if you are sincere about being a pro-feminist perhaps you should take a good look at the discomfort she aroused in you and ask yourself whether maybe you have some subconscious vestiges of sexist and racist attitudes that you need to deal with. Certainly some of your casual use of sexist language indicates it might be a possibility.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

You have far more experience being a moron who cherrypicks what she'll respond to than I do

I have far more experience being a woman than you do. And I don't need to get lectured by kids who think platitudes like this: Because I'm considering the issues in terms of where we want to be. The whole idea of 'feminism' seems to me to be reactionary, and enforcing an us/them mentality and an adversarial situation. Is that really a great way to be going about creating a better world? Using the term 'equalist,' to me, indicates that there's currently an imbalance which needs to be addressed, and once it is, we can all move forward together. solve anything but your unease.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

Women get raped; men, if they avoid prison, do not.

That part's actually not true. I can think of two male friends who, off the top of my head, have been raped outside of prison, and those are just the ones who haven't hidden it out of embarrassment or for other reasons. They can't possibly be the only men in the world who have been raped outside of prison, but even if they were, it would make the statement untrue.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

How many women do you think have not reported it?

Your friends are exceptions. The fact is, if men avoid prison their chances of getting raped are zero.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

How many women do you think have not reported it?

That's irrelevant to whether men get raped.

The fact is, if men avoid prison their chances of getting raped are zero.

I know you make a lot of good points and have a lot of important things to say, but I also know this isn't true. I know, for sure, it isn't true. And though a lot of your other points are true, it leaves me wanting to wander through and look every single assertion up, just to make sure, which doesn't make the argument more convincing.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

It's a fact. Shrug. You want to compare risk rates for rape between men and women? Are you trying to say that as many men will get raped as will women?

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

You want to compare risk rates for rape between men and women? Are you trying to say that as many men will get raped as will women?

Your credibility slips when you try to mislead the direction of the discussion like that. Some people use statements like those to good effect, though, folks get sucked in by it.

I said that your statements that men don't get raped, that their risk of rape is zero, aren't facts.

If I said, "People aren't allergic to pollen," with a "shrug" attached, that wouldn't make it a fact, either, even though I'm usually fairly credible. It would probably make people start suspecting my statements.

I recently made a post in my journal that implied that all astronauts (I wasn't thinking in terms of scientists who weren't on the flight crew) were required to have a military background. I thought it was true, I'd been told growing up that it was true, a trusted friend of mine had recently talked about it as if it were true. Two friends of mine, both who have been in astronaut training, and only one of which had a military background, came in and said, "You're wrong. Astronauts don't have to have a military background." I quickly acknowledged the error and removed the post.

Little factual errors can really add up.

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

The fact is, if men avoid prison their chances of getting raped are zero.

No, the chances of a man being raped outside of prison are about 3%. [DOJ/NCVS, 2003.]

One in ten rape victims is male. [DOJ/NCVS, 2003].

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

*Shrug* 3%

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

I got news for you. 2.78 million people is not zero.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Well, great. With you working on their behalf they won't need to interupt discussions about female rape victims ever again, will they?

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

Actually, as Secretary of the Board of Directors of Impact Bay Area, I work almost entirely with female survivors of rape, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence. You and I might on quite a bit, if you didn't keep intentionally using hyperbole to distance your opponents, rather than teach.

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

might agree on quite a bit, that is.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

You know, after numerous discussions of rape that were interupted time and again by people shouting, "Well, men get raped, too!" I somehow think I'm entitled to a little hyperbole.

Here's what happens: I get told repeatedly that men get raped by women. Constantly. All the time. This is, in fact, a crime that's far more serious than male rape of women---it's worse for men, as a matter of fact. Which kind of implies that it's no big deal for women. Male rape gets compared to female rape, and guess what? Male rape is more important. And feminists are somehow supposed to solve it, not men, because it's so much more important than men raping women, doing it constantly, commonly, and without retribution.

Think of that thenext time you comment on hyperbole.

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

You know, after numerous discussions of rape that were interupted time and again by people shouting, "Well, men get raped, too!" I somehow think I'm entitled to a little hyperbole.

I don't feel that you are. As someone who puts time and effort at no pay into this, and constantly listens to rape victims and people who've been fucked as infants, had their lives threatened, had their genitals physically cut, had feces shoved in their face, I feel like it's my right to slap anyone who marginalizes the tragedy of ANY of these individuals in any way whatsoever.

Here's what happens: I get told repeatedly that men get raped by women. Constantly. All the time. This is, in fact, a crime that's far more serious than male rape of women---it's worse for men, as a matter of fact.

Wow, you and I live in different worlds. I see, appropriately a focus on rape of women, just because of the numbers, that's where the most good can be done. But to me, each tragedy is an individual. But if you can point me at people who said that "male rape is worse" in this discussion, I would be happy to go ... argue against that marginalizing nonsense with just as much vigor.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

ANY of these individuals in any way whatsoever.

It just so happens that the huge majority of victims aren't the ones we're talking about at the moment.

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

Right, we're only talking about the ones that you marginalize.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

Maybe it would be better, then, just to say from the outset that it's not a discussion about facts but about . . . I don't know . . . the need to rant? Valid emotional reaction to the real problem of rape and how many people are conditioned not to be horrified by it? But to try to make it about facts, then shrug off people who say, "Um, but that's not how it is," and present valid data, just deflates it. I'd never have gotten away with that in a term paper.

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

How many women do you think have not reported it?

Apparently, the non-report rate is fairly consistently similar between male and female rape victims. [DOJ/NCVS, various years.]

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

There are fairly strong correlations between rape and the commission of some crimes. Shall we next expect you to start pontificating about how you intend to do no work for people of certain races?

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Cite?

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

Go read the NVCS reports yourself.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

The study you didn't link to?

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

Link now provided.

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

Here is a good starting point.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Here is a good starting point.

Yeah? Where?

Sorry, but you wanna argue that zero and 3% are huge differences? Sorry. Fact is, men do not get raped with anything near the frequency that men rape women.

Men don't get told what to wear, how to walk, what time to be out, and so forth if they don't want to get raped. Women do.

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but you wanna argue that zero and 3% are huge differences? Sorry. Fact is, men do not get raped with anything near the frequency that men rape women.

I said, in plain English, that the difference was about a factor of 9. It's a bit less, IIRC, if you include children.

I find your hyperbole to marginalize what is inarguably a smaller population of rape victims.

Men don't get told what to wear, how to walk, what time to be out, and so forth if they don't want to get raped. Women do.

Oh? Put a guy in a dress and leave him in nearly any rural setting, and see how safe he feels?

Nonetheless, you're hyperbole here, and my response to it, both ignore that you're trying to make, but masking, an important point. Of course it is ridiculous to think that someone should be victimized because of the clothes they wear.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Oh? Put a guy in a dress and leave him in nearly any rural setting, and see how safe he feels?

Because this is a problem that's sweeping the nation. You're right. It eclipses women being raped by ahuge margin.

That was your point, wasn't it? To bitch at my hyperbole with some of your own?

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

I thought the last sentance of my previous post had fairly clearly copped to the idea that I'd fought hyperbole with hyperbole there, and then actually gone on to try and make a point. I see, upon rereading, that that last sentance said "my response", not "my hyperbolic response."

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

Because this is a problem that's sweeping the nation. You're right. It eclipses women being raped by ahuge margin.

I didn't say or imply that.

[odanu.livejournal.com]

Gin, I have to cut in here, and feel free to disagree. I've known Joe and Mary for a long time. They're a couple of the good guys. You both are arguing over hyperbole and marginalization, without really noticing that you are really agreeing on the facts. And while I consistently respect your space in your journal and do not bring up male rape because it is a less widespread problem, in this venue I don't think it's necessary to hone that point.

Joe knows that it doesn't happen as often, and he knows that the perpetrators are still men. Because the subject is as close to his heart as the subject of rape of women is to yours, he wants a simple acknowledgment that while male rape is not as widespread as that of women, and does come from a different root cause, it is still as horrible to the victim as female rape (not more, just as). I really don't think that saying "Yes, about 3% of men get raped, and it's tragic, and men should get together and do something about it, and I'm sympathetic to them, but I am focused on women" would hurt your point in any way.

Just saying. You guys have gone from debate to insults, and I hate to see it happen.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. I really resent these guys who pop up and go, "You know, that's not an insignificant number." Guys have a 3% chance of getting raped outside of prison? Sorry. I can't even continue to discuss this. I wish I only had three percent odds or whatever it was. Not a woman I know has not fended off, unsuccessfully or not, at least one attempted rape, and they were not in prison, unless their gender qualifies as one. For all intents and purposes, 3% is zero. Arguing that it's significant is rather nasty and passive aggressive.

As I said, we'll agree to disagree.

[actiasluna.livejournal.com]

Jumping in here, just for a sec.

That 3% he (sort of) cited doesn't even make sense.

If 1:4 women are raped (25% of the female population), officially anyway (my own personal experience is more around 75%--very few reported it), and 1:10 rape victims are male, wouldn't the total statistic be 2.5% of the total male population be raped. Also, he didn't explain whether or not his 1 in 10 statistic was including imprisoned men or not. If it IS including men in prison, then the not-in-prison percentage would be even LOWER.

Am I just getting the math wrong because it's late and my brain shuts off after 11?

I still can't get over how anybody thinks that not allowing 3% of the victims have 50% of the discussion is "minimizing their pain." Handing over 47% of the discussion from 97% of the victims is "minimizing pain."

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my point exactly. Every word said about a male victim is one not said on behalf of female victims: then we have to catch up on behalf of the female victims, and then the men interupt again instead of doing what women had to do, all the while proclaiming that hey, they weren't the ones who discriminated against those women so long ago.

[dwinghy.livejournal.com]

It's hilarious to me how people sometimes complicate things so unnecessarily. Let's just suppose-- for argument's sake, though it's a scenario I doubt really occurs all that often in reality-- that a woman's lips say no-no but her eyes say yes-yes. Let's just take that scenario at face value for a moment. If a man, when confronted with a woman saying no-no, ACTUALLY TOOK HER STATEMENT AT FACE VALUE and said, "oh, okay," and let her alone, wouldn't this hypothetical woman who-says-no-but-means-yes look at what just happened and think, "next time I mean yes-yes I'll say yes-yes and not just with my eyes"? Yes, of course she would. But of course this woman is just hypothetical, because generally when a woman says no she actually really and truly means no and isn't playing some craaaaaaazy mind game just to get some poor, suffering, mind-reading man's knickers in a twist.
Sorry to be so long winded just to make a point that's been made many times before, but I am just flabbergasted at what a clueless dickwad theferret is. they wanted men to flirt with them, but they wanted men to remain in some strange, cartoon-like asexual zone until they were ready to have sex. OH NOES THE MAN MAY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL A WOMAN IS READY TO HAVE SEX BEFORE THEY CAN HAVE SEX. Because apparently any time you're NOT having sex you're in some "strange, cartoon-like asexual zone". Whatever.
I'm just glad I'm old and experienced enough at this point to know not all men have such an overblown sense of entitlement.

[joggingguy.livejournal.com]

I think you and I were brother and sister in another life or something *hugs you*

First off, I want from men what I get from women. Acknowledgment that I'm alive, have a brain and needs of my own. We don't get past this part, there ain't nothing else you're going to get.

The little Sinfest cartoon also illustrates the next level - sex ain't all that, baby; but if it gets your attention, oh male of the species, expect to hear it a lot in conjunction with what really turns me on.

I think I envy women who can just go after the sex, enjoy it and walk away from it. I haven't had ANY first hand experience with anyone who has done that successfully, BTW.

Personally, I've never gone out with a woman for sex alone. I just can't do it. The woman has to be valuable to me somehow, and to do that, you have to get to know them first. Yeah, it's slow, and yeah, you don't get as many dates, and yeah, some women don't want to wait, etc. I'm just not in a hurry.

I grew up during the "sexual revolution," mind. My teens were in the years when the first editions of "Joy of Sex" were published, the huge divorce boom of the mid 70's was in full-swing and everyone was trading partners and having FUNFUNFUN.

I have that book. I bought it when I was around 30 because I was curious what the big deal was back then. I think it was published just to make the statement that we can publish something like that now with pictures and get away with it.

Put all this together, and you get virginity until 24. (And I married him at 25.)

Sex was always the icing. NEVER part of the "getting to know you." Conservative? Are you surprised? I did live with the fella for over a year in each case before marriage...and that involved sex. Yes, it did.

Me too. I was a virgin until I was 20. Married her at 21. Got divorced when she had an affair, but that's another story.

Girls in school didn't want what I wanted or were in a hurry. It was either a) let's fuck and see if I fall in love with you and want to keep you or b) let's fuck because you're the one I want today or c) I just want to be friends with you right now (and from now on). I was so busy with stuff during and after school that it didn't matter much, but it was sometimes lonely because it seemed like no one wanted to get to know you and thought you were weird for wanting to. It was all about being pretty, popular, etc.

I think both sexes have a way of maintaining the divide - men do it by making it hard to know them, and women do it by making it hard to be sexual with them. Do women want men to simply be sexual with them? No. Do men want women to find it hard to discover who they are and what they want? No.

Yeah, no kidding. There is a certain amount of "testing" that both sexes do to see what really makes the other one tick. My last girlfriend didn't know what she really wanted, so the "testing" and emotional rollercoaster went on way too long. It finally became clear that I was never going to be good enough and left. I was just there to keep her from being lonely.

Seriously?

[vertamae.livejournal.com]

I think it was published just to make the statement that we can publish something like that now with pictures and get away with it.

I believe Kinsey, et al, and especially Alex Comfort, wanted to EDUCATE, and they did a fine job. I've met people who've never picked up a book on sex to read about our bodies and how they work, and frankly I'm surprised. People will look at porn online before they'll read how to give the best blow job, or how to locate a clitoris and bring a woman to near instant orgasm.

If more people started out with books like Joy of Sex we'd be a lot happier as a culture, maybe even less prone to so much violence. More reproductive education would be in order too, as it desperately is now. One cannot be TOO educated. :)

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I still think you'd make a really good neighbor. :)

Boy, it's really hard to think what education must have been like without Joy of Sex and Our Bodies, Our Selves. Talk about ignorance....

Big deal? Nah. I understand that book now comes in every "flavor" sex comes in - and I'd have to admit, I'm curious. The original stands up so well with its caring, tolerant, gentle approach - I wonder how it treats other subjects?

[joggingguy.livejournal.com]

When Joy of Sex was first published, I was 10 years old. The schools here in the bible belt were notorious for providing little information about sex. In fact, other than biology class, I can remember only 2 times when they covered sex directly. A film shown to classes in the 5th grade and a chapter that was covered in one day in health class in the 8th grade. Only 2 times in 12 years. That's scary :-O

[turandot.livejournal.com]

I'm also complicated by the fact I prefer men to women, even for friends and co-workers. But I take care not to complicate things too much by being "too girly" - and yes, I laugh at the jokes. Because I understand the intent behind them.

Heh. I'm with you there. I went through a long phase where it was just akward to have women as friends. I haven't had a close friend who's a woman since my freshman year in college. Heck, My husband was a friend before he became my boyfriend, and he's pretty much as close as a best friend I have.

The thing about men, the way you get them to be decent to other women, in my experience, is not to harrass them for jokes or innuendos, or how they think or talk about women, but to laugh at what they're saying and sneak a moment in that gently educates them. Call it the "yeah that might be funny, but wouldn't it bother you if someone talked about your sister like that?" aside.

And you're right, men make it harder to know them as friends, both to other men and especially to women, who assume that different things are involved in friendship than men. You're not gonna get "omg, I feel like crap today" newsflashes. If a guy friend has had a shitty day, you're gonna be able to know from the long silences rather than a never ending stream of words, and asking him to talk about it is pretty much the best way to ensure he won't talk to you for the rest of the day. Most guys, my husband often has to explain to me, like solving their problems on their own, and while they appreciate that people are there to talk to them and help them, that's usually their last resort.

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

huh. the men you know are awfully different from the ones i know. i get "omg i feel like crap today" newsflashes all the fucking time--usually followed by a weather report from lahore or houston.

Well

[turandot.livejournal.com]

They'll give you the "omg I feel like crap" if they stayed out all night drinking, or they were doing something sports-related and pulled a muscle or two. They don't usually do the "I feel like crap and I'm totally worthless" when it's related to something mentally stressful they are going through.

Re: Well

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

none of the guys i know go drinking, or play sports. or even watch sports, with rare exceptions around playoff time.

I get lots of "omg" when their roommates are ignoring them, or they realize that their friends doesn't like them as much as they like the friend, or one of their classmates is being mean, or they're dealing with unrequited love for some girl, or they lost their wallet, or their boss is being crazy, or their parents are fucked up, etc. etc.

which are all pretty mentally stressful things. they'll complain about the weather, too, which is physically stressful, but they generally complain about how the weather makes them feel.

i'm not saying this is how all of the guys i know act. just a lot of them. and a lot of them talk about their feelings and such even when they're not feeling crappy--'omg, e-, i am so happy today! i just had the best ice cream ever!'

Re: Well

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Just for reference - how old? Twenties? Thirties?

Re: Well

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

about 21 through 36 (one friend just had a birthday.) the average is probably around 25, though there's a pretty wide spread between my college cohort (just graduated+the past four years' worth), a few internet friends, and people from the local goth club.

one friend from the goth club checks the red sox scores after the games. I've never seen him actually watch a game, though.

Re: Well

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

That explains a lot. That generation has had a whole lot more encouragment to act more normal - which to my mind, a lot of the more "reactionary" part of the culture would call "feminization" - AKA, they're wussies. Girly men. Take your pick.

Re: Well

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

one of the "girliest" of the lot was raised and lives in Pakistan. I don't think the feminists have taken over Pakistan, yet. so anyone who thinks that girliness is a result of evvvul feminization is just kind of stupid. Reasonable people who aren't deathly afraid of people questioning their manliness are perfectly capable of not being neanderthals.

(But I think a large part of that may be the fact that he's a very gay boy stuck in a military school complaining about his roommates to a friend on the other side of the planet.)

but otherwise, yes, i think our socialization has a *lot* to do with it. i mean, crossdressing is considered fairly normal in my group, and at least one of my friends is tansgendered. (not to mention several who are 'gender queer')

Re: Well

[turandot.livejournal.com]

*nods*

I more or less am relying on experiences in befriending guys outside of college and/or online. My college friends, barring a couple, were more forthcoming about personal problems, and online I have male friends who'll tell me exactly what is wrong. But a lot of that has to do with the fact that even if I've met them IRL, I'm not likely to see them more than once every couple of years or so.

But most other kinds of guys would rather not confide anything deep to anyone other than their SO, even as they count you as a friend. Not complaining though: I'm perfectly okay with not sharing bad moods, I try to keep them to myself as well IRL.

[neintales.livejournal.com]

Not quite sure what I should let fly.. heh..

But.. ginvar has summed up a lot of my thoughts very well.

I absolutely HATE it when anyone expects there to be 'mind games' involved. Man or woman. "Guys are stupid and girls are insane" is often a joking reason I give as to my single, almost outright asexual as opposed to bisexual status.. but it's a joke.

I have to admit, I tend to make comments to friends about various hot people. I loove seeing sexy men and women (definitions of sexy may vary!) but I would never ever assume that some man or woman is DRESSING LIKE THAT FOR ME. No matter how attractive I find it, it doesn't mean it's so that I should go up and make a comment or hit on them.

IF I decide "wow.. I gotta try and hook up with that person".. my way to do it? Walk up to them, maybe compliment them, or find something to make conversation about.. TALK to them a while.

Funnily enough, almost every time this has happened, I've learned via the conversation that nope.. wouldn't wanna date them. But sometimes I've made good friends.

And the few I've wanted to date in the end? Well, generally, I've been shot down. Is it their fault somehow? Nope. Did I bug them? Nope. Do I hate them or myself? Negatory. Because not everyone in the world is here for me to date/have sex with!

And if I ever dress up.. hey, I don't mind being noticed, but I don't want empty/libido-fueled compliments/come-ons/harrassment/stares. And yes.. in my opinion.. there is a VERY big difference between being noticed and being harrassed- and note that while I said I don't mind being noticed.. I didn't say "I'm doing it TO be noticed."

I'm doing it because I love how I look when I'm dressed up and it makes me feel GOOD.

I don't care if it is a girl or a guy.. sex shouldn't be used as a weapon. People aren't to be confronted like they are objects, and if someone doesn't want to go out with you or have sex with you- they are not *in the wrong* and they are not *leading you on*.

Someone says no? Get over it, you aren't coming across as what they want, if they are even wanting someone/something, which you can't assume they are.

If you seriously think they're wanting something or someone? And think it should be a slice of you they are after?

Maybe you should think again.

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

"I think both sexes have a way of maintaining the divide - men do it by making it hard to know them, and women do it by making it hard to be sexual with them. Do women want men to simply be sexual with them? No. Do men want women to find it hard to discover who they are and what they want? No."

maybe it's just that i live in a strange environment (which, admitadly, i do), but this isn't how men and women seem to act around here. some of my male friends update me on their personal lives so often that 'just a bit, Foo just crashed, i need to go comfort him,' is a normal statement around here. i get fewer angsty emails from my female friends, but i think this is in part because i have fewer female friends.

as for women, i'm not sure i really even understand what you mean by making it hard to be sexual with men. do you mean that women aren't simply willing to fuck every man she meets at the drop of a hat? most men i know aren't interested in that, either.

but like i said, i have a reaaaally tiny group of people i know well, and we are very off the norm.

[vertamae.livejournal.com]

I think I envy women who can just go after the sex, enjoy it and walk away from it. I haven't had ANY first hand experience with anyone who has done that successfully, BTW.

My last one-night-stand, January '04, went swimmingly!

I had my first sex at age 14, read that same first edition of Joy of Sex, cover to cover, at age 18, so I really knew what I was doing, and kept going from there, with Our Bodies, Our Selves.

I want to know you aren't in it for my naughty bits. Not that I have a great set of them to begin with, but hey. I want to know you're interested in me - for me. Not how I perform on my back with my legs spread.

Ah, but what about on top and backwards? :))

Sex is a beautiful thing, and I see both sides to this argument, even tend to side more with the sexist men, than with the feminist women, though I consider myself a feminist. I've come across too many feminists who were abused as children or teenagers, who hate men in general, and who see feminism as some sort of revenge, which is a huge turnoff to me.

And, as an enlightened woman who came of age just post-Sexual Revolution, I am appalled at the fashions of today. Why do young women wear that crap? They all need to go home, right now, and put some CLOTHES on! ;)

[moropus.livejournal.com]

I came of age late 70s-early 80s and I'm not happy with the way young women display their bodies today, either. I think current fashions make them look like slabs of meat in a butcher shop. If you display a thing, people will look at it. Recently, I witnessed a female with a plunging neckline that came within a few inches of her waist go off on a male for looking. WTF? She stuck them out there, he looked. He didn't drool, ogle, come on to her, or comment. He looked. If you don't want people to look at them, you shouldn't display them like that.

I've had one night stands, and I liked them just fine. I own plunging necklines and I think there is a time and a place for them. When I wrap my ass in a lycra skirt that is barely long enough to cover it and wear a neckline that comes close to my waist, I'm not offended when men look. I'd be offended if they didn't look.

[vertamae.livejournal.com]

True, true, all of that.

The only times I've worn 'provocative' or 'revealing' clothing were when I wanted to attract attention. Otherwise, I don't find it particularly comfortable. I like t-shirts and jeans, still, but then I've always preferred 'masculine' clothing, i.e. pants to skirts, etc. Doesn't mean I'm not feminine, but I've never really felt I needed to blatantly advertise my sexuality, or my body, to attract men. At least not now. There are much more subtle ways to attract. I gave up the belly shirts and tight pants in my teens.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

What I really find appalling with today's "fashion" is that very few people actually look good wearing it. And it just doesn't even look comfortable in the bargain.

And then? They size it all down and think people want their little five-year-old daughters wearing it. Uh, NO.

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

*insert fashion rant here*

bleh. if i ever have five year old daughters, i'll make their clothes myself if I have to to keep them out of that junk.

i am perfectly fine with people dressing skimpily if they want to, but my children--and no one's children--are not sex toys.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

You had me until you started quoting ginmar. She is, to be charitable, not terribly interested in actually listening to others.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I've never found that to be the case.

Of course, she's renowned for having no time for sexist trolls. She is (to be admiring) not terribly interested in letting sexist trolls go on and on and on at her.

As a result, an awful lot of sexist trolls on livejournal complain that she's not terribly interested in listening to them. Perhaps you've been listening to one or more of them?

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

No. Being neither sexit, nor a troll, that's not the problem.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Nice try! But I just read your sexist-troll thread with ginmar further up.

*waves paw* Bah.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Ah, another dismissive feminist. it must be so nice to be so assured of your superiority, and the perfection of your worldview. That's nothing like the patriarchal models you rail against, not at all.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

*waves paw*

[odanu.livejournal.com]

You do realize that this comment is as dismissive as you are accusing yonmei of being, right? Perhaps there is a middle ground.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Is it really? I, apparently, am not allowed to have any opinions on sexism or the ending thereof, unless they've been sanctioned by yonmei or ginmar. Go take a look at ginmar's journal.. she was dismissive of me from the start, put words in my mouth, deliberatley misinterpreted every single thing I had to say, and yonmei is, frankly, no better. Your point is what, exactly?

[odanu.livejournal.com]

My point is that if you continue to act sexist, by using sexist language and by being dismissive of people who call you on it, you will not be improving your case for being perceived as a pro-feminist. Calling yourself pro-feminist does not make you so. Acting in such a way that you respect women as people and don't use their sex against them when they say something you disagree with does.

My favorite definition of feminism is "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people" (Cheris Kramerae). Breaking it down, it addresses three things:
1) The idea that women are people and not things (objects) is radical and not a mainstream idea.

2) The idea that women are people is denigrated as a "notion" and not an idea by those who wish to continue marginalizing women.

3) Women are not "people, too", they are "people". Period.

You have demonstrated through your posts here that you feel free to objectify and denigrate women who disagree with you, and dismiss their views as notions even about the women's movement, which is a movement by and for women and defined by women.

Gin didn't misinterpret you. She poked at your veneer to see what was under it, and found a hypocrite. She's good at that. I have seen her mistakenly call a person sexist when I knew better, and called her on it. I have no reason to believe she is mistaken in this case.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

You're making the same mistake that a lot of feminists (or gay activists, or indeed, any activist of your choice) make when one of their number is insulted: you seem to think that by insulting one, I'm insulting everyone. I'm not.

I feel free to call a moron a moron. Male or female, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest. That's equality; you have to take the bad with the good.

I don't consider myself a feminist at all. I believe that the term 'feminism' carries an implication of women being better than men, and as I've pointed out elsewhere, creates an adversarial dynamic which doesn't help anyone. Growing up, there was never any question whatsoever that women and men are fundamentally equal in just about every way (well, men aren't so good at getting pregnant, and it's usually kind of messy for women to pee standing up).

Again, I very strongly suggest that you read the original thread in ginmar's journal, and tell me again how much I'm a sexist pig, and how much she even bothered readin anything I wrote. Thus my comment above about the irony burning, that she can't see her own actions. Please don't bother responding until you have, in fact, actually read that other thread.

[odanu.livejournal.com]

I have. It is the thread on which I based my opinion. You objected to her tone and therefore felt free to question her sexuality and her humanity. My opinion stands.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Wow, someone else who doesn't get it.

I objected to: her inability or unwillingness to actually respond to my points, her refusal to grant me any respect, her continual building of straw men.. shall I go on?

As for insulting her sexuality, that happened when, precisely? Oh yes, it must have been when she said "Gee, sweetie, you almost sounded heterosexual for a moment there."

[odanu.livejournal.com]

Gin's journal is her space. She has very clear rules on how to behave in her space prominently posted in her user info. There are certain topics and arguments that have been done to death and she refuses to debate them in her space. You chose to enter her space, ignore her rules, and pick precisely the topics she will not debate on her time.

Respect must be earned. If I entered into someone's home and repeatedly violated the rules of the house, I would expect to be kicked out on my ear, as you were. She asked you repeatedly in your conversation to stop repeating ideas she found offensive (like the idea that you as a man had an equal or better right to define feminism and sexism as a woman has, an idea which is patently ridiculous -- members of the oppressing group, no matter how sympathetic to a cause, do not get to define the problems of the oppressed group-- for example a straight person cannot define the problems of the gay community), yet you continued to in her space to attempt to sanitize her language and her opinions to something you found more acceptable in a feminist, after she told you three times to leave and not comment anymore.

Then you said, in so many words "fuck you". This is the moral equivalent of standing in her living room and shouting at her after she has opened the door and asked you to leave repeated. That does not deserve respect,and anything she said after that point was clearly deserved.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

And exactly how have I oppressed women in my life?

Oh, that's right! I HAVEN'T.

Feminists bitch and complain about being seen only as women. I'm not, apparently, allowed to bitch and complain about only being seen as an oppressor. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. When you grow up and realize we're all in this together, I'll bother talking to you.

[odanu.livejournal.com]

Was there a reason to start cussing at me and generalizing my statements to all feminists? No? Then apparently I hit a nerve. You were called on behaving rudely in someone else's space and somehow this has become about you being lumped in with oppressors? No, this is about you being a hypocrite. You say you're "on the same side", but you get to define the problem and the terms under which the problem gets to be solved, for a problem that isn't yours? No. No. No.

I have not said you personally oppressed women. Gin might have, but I don't remember it and don't have time to look. What I have said is that you have been hypocritical and condescending to Ginmar in her own space, and went into full attack mode when you felt uncomfortable, both with Gin and now, with me. These are the actions of someone who is afraid to face his own motivations and prefers to redefine the problem so he won't have to.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Actually, you're the one who called me a member of the oppressing group.

And again... perhaps you have difficulty comprehending? I'm not sure. Take a look at the thread in gin's journal. Now, actually read it. Notice how I was both polite and respectful? Can you see that? And it was only after gin became shrill, ranty, and completely ignoring and refusing to respond to any points that I made that things got snarky. Is that clear yet? At what point will feminists in general--and, in this specific case, you in particular--that women don't get a free pass for assholish behaviour, any more than men do?

I never said I get to define the way the problem is solved. I was trying to present the ideas that I had always been told were the core of feminism: community, collectivity, cooperation. Again I reference Starhawk's discussions on poer-over versus power-with. I'm still waiting for one of you to tell my why working together is such a bad idea.

I also don't think it's unreasonable to make the general statement that feminists complain about being seen solely as women. Again, as I understand it, the whole point of the feminist movement is that we're all seen as people first. If that's wrong, tell me.

And again... read the damned thread. You'll notice that condescension came after her repeated refusal to actually respond to anything I said, after she became patronizing. And after, I might add, her homophobic comments. Or does she get a free pass on those? If you're going to call me on rude behaviour, you have to call her as well. Otherwise it's... yes, you geussed it: discrimination!

[odanu.livejournal.com]

1) you are a member of an oppressing group (men) whether or not you personally oppress or not, even though you are a member of an oppressed group(gays) as well. The same applies to me. I am a member of an oppressing group (whites) while at the same time the member of an oppressed group (women). As a white person, I have no right to define the terms of oppression for black people, nor determine how much is "enough" or "too far". Similarly, you can't make those determinations for women. You can, however, make those determinations as a gay man, while I can make those determinations as a woman.

2) It's her space, right or wrong. It's not a topic she wants to discuss in her space, and you have no ownership there, either of her time or of her space. Whether I think she's unreasonable in some instances is irrelevant. You assumed a right you did not have: to choose the topic of conversation in her space, and to demand that she answer your objections on her time.

3) Starhawk's ideas are in fact interesting, and a large branch of feminism (myself included) think that they are critical to the movement. However, Gin belongs to a different branch of the movement that believes that before we can be equal, we must push back. I don't agree with her completely, and have told her so. I do not, however, try to waste my time or hers in her venue rehashing an argument she plainly does not want to hear.

4) That is such a complicated subject we could literally debate it for months and end up in circles. There's truth in both views.

5) And again, her venue, her choice of topic. I have called her on her attitude, but rarely in her own journal. People can be as rude as they want in their own living room. If you don't like it, don't visit.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Ah, okay... before women can be equal with men, women have to be more equal than men?

Shades of Animal Farm.

I give up. Goodbye.

[odanu.livejournal.com]

Farewell. You might want to reread what I just wrote. Miscomprehension?

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

No, I understood precisely what you just said, and it renforced Gin's--and indeed that entire segment of the feminist movement's--utter stupidity. Equality is not, has never been, and will never be achieved simply by the oppressed becoming the oppressors. Look at how well that's worked out for Israel.

[odanu.livejournal.com]

"Starhawk's ideas are in fact interesting, and a large branch of feminism (myself included) think that they are critical to the movement. However, Gin belongs to a different branch of the movement that believes that before we can be equal, we must push back. I don't agree with her completely, and have told her so. I do not, however, try to waste my time or hers in her venue rehashing an argument she plainly does not want to hear."

Miscomprehend much?

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Apparently we define 'push back' in different ways. Either way, it proves the point I was trying to make to her, that she freaked on me for: her version of feminism is reactionary and adversarial.

[odanu.livejournal.com]

...but not out of the mainstream, much in the same way that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were both mainstream civil rights activists. Personally, I think MLK was more effective. I will concede, though, that there is often a time for oppressed people to turn loose their rage and react. First, you get the mule's attention...

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Oh, and Gin's rules break down to: "I'll say whatever I want. This is an echo chamber. If you don't agree with me, I'll kick you out."

Very mature. Very grown-up. Very good way to, y'know, actually create a dialogue.

Pathetic.

[odanu.livejournal.com]

They are her rules, and it is her space. If you don't want to abide by her rules, don't visit. I disagree with Gin quite frequently, and she hasn't felt the need to ban me.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're a woman. Can you honestly say that if I were a woman, saying exactly what I had been saying, she would have banned me? Not bloody likely, mate.

She's yet another activist who has absolutely zero interest in trying to talk to other people and build bridges. Just like the worst of the gay rights movement, she just wants to rant and rave, and have a crowd of sycophants around her hanging on her every word.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

#umpteen:

You just hate me because I have a penis. It has nothing to do with the fact that you wouldn't let me define my own life in language I chose, that you didn't listen to the word no, and that when prodded, you lashed out with sexist language.

odanu and I have disagreed many, many times. Never once has she told to go get laid as a means of ending an argument. I have never had to tell her 'no' more than once. Funnily enough, there are guys with whom I vehemently disagree as well, too. SAme thing. They actually listen to what I say.

(frozen)

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I might also point out that you were the one to pick a fight with someone in my journal -

Cool it.

(frozen)

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Take a look at the last time I bothered responding to the morons. It's been cooled.

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but theferrett's police officer uniform analogy disturbed me on such a deep level that anything else he has to say is simply null and void.

A police officer took an oath to serve and protect when he got that uniform. I did not take any oath to be sexually available when I got my vagina. That any person could draw a parallel between impersonating a public servant and dressing attractively is beyond me.

[dandelion-diva.livejournal.com]

Best point *ever*. Thank you for making it. :)

Gessi

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

A police officer is obligated by his responsibilities to serve the public. Evidently merely having a vagina requires one to serve the public as well.

Yeah, that creeped me out, too.

Man. I can ramble!

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

I try to be fair about these things. And I have never been offended by an expression of interest in me as a person. There is a vast ocean of difference between someone wanting to get to know me and someone wanting to borrow my cunt and tits for a while. And I am more than intelligent enough to know from which side of that ocean a man is hailing me.

What makes me most angry is the assertion that someone does not have the right to be offended if they are approached, for any reason. I have the right to be offended by unsolicited calls to my house, by someone asking me the time, by the state of affairs in Denmark. My emotions are my property and I will not harness them because someone does not have the personal stability not to be rocked by my displeasure. I will moderate the manifestation of my emotions, but "Nice funbags, baby" is going to get you "Step the fuck back, cockmonkey" every time.

I have every right to be offended. It's my mind. My emotions. My power. My energy. I have the right to emotion of any sort and action within the law. In fact, I have the right to ACT offended, even if I'm not personally, if someone is behaving in a way that is generally offensive to others and is offensive to me in principle. It's my choice. I can also wear stripes and plaid together. Yay, freedom.

Men have the right to be offended by my being offended. They have the right to do something about it. Their options are mostly limited to therapy, sucking it up, or entering into intelligent dialogue. I restrict my relationships to people, not just men, who know how to take those options when necessary.

What's frustrating to me is that people take the idea that they can't express sexual attraction in any ways they please as "oh, you just don't want me to have a natural reaction!" No. In the same way that you were taught not to crap in your pants as a toddler, you should have a proper way of dealing with that pesky hard-on or wet spot. You are a sexual being and that's okay. You also don't eat off of people's plates at restaurants, no matter how hungry you are, and you don't pee on the bus just because you had to go right then. You moderate yourself.

To me, the correct response to women being offended and threatened by being approached is not to try and stifle their reaction but to say instead "I have offended/frightened another person*. How can I moderate this or improve the situation?" There's so many non-stifling, respectful, genuine things a person can do to make it better while honouring themselves, why are they screaming over the other person's reaction?

*Person, not woman. Saying you've frightened a woman immediately biases you, because women are skittish creatures with unpredictable uteri. /snark

I guess also, I get pissed at the idea that being found attractive/desirable is a compliment that I am in need of receiving. No. Sorry. I've been told I'm fuckable since I was eleven. I don't need to know that you're having sex with me in your head. Not flattered.

I've had one man in my life outright tell me without preamble that I was attractive so it didn't put me off. He was a older gentleman at a small rock gig in a bar, there with his wife, and he came over to where I was with my partner to say that he thought I was exceptionally beautiful and I had a wonderful smile, that he didn't usually say things like that but he thought I was so striking and vibrant, he wanted to tell me that and that he hoped I'd stay happy in my life. He had his cowboy hat off, he gave me and my partner a little bow, and went back to his wife. That was it. I think that it's genuinely okay to express yourself if someone moves you in a certain way. I've complimented other people often, regardless of gender, race, age, etc. There is that ocean of difference there and anyone on the other side isn't welcome on my beach.

Re: Man. I can ramble!

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

You know, one thing struck me in all that----your comments about being attractive and having some guy feel like he can borrow your body for a while. You're supposed to be happy that he likes this, even though it displays the same level of sophistocation as shitting in the middle of a restaurant. Elsewhere on this thread I have a guy who has no sexual interest in me. This is how he insults me---me and my genitals. He links my reasoning abilities to them and to how much men are attracted to them. My emotions, he thinks, are determined by the fact that I must be unattractive to men and therefore I am so angry that I am a feminist. My anger at this is seen as a further sign of my unnaturalness. Unless I am docile and tractible---this guy wants to run the feminist movement for me, you know, with all the unpleasant dick-hating bits taken out---I am to be shunned as an unclean thing who is unfuckable becuase I am dirty. Maybe men do not want to fuck a woman who needs to 'wash sand out of 'your vagina.' Or 'vag' as he puts it. Dirty, hateful, unclean, unreasonable, unhinged----all these things result, evidently from not being fuckable.

And this is not supposed to be something we take offense at.

Re: Man. I can ramble!

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

I try not to link offenses to people's genitals, in general. Why should I do so when what I want is for people's bits to matter less and less? "Get the stick out of your ass." is fair because we all have asses. :)

Any person who insults a woman's body and makes inferences about her character like that is not a feminst and would be flensed at any reasonably liberal feminist gathering.

Also, being unattractive to men is a side effect of not being docile and sweet, not the other way around. Silly person.

I had a bit of a crisis at one point when I was much younger where I felt very left out because everyone, it seemed, was having sex but me. I said to my partner (okay, I was having sex with them, but not with other people all funlike and whee), "Why is ****** getting all that attention and not me!?" ****** was one of the most unnervingly unattractive women I knew, down to constant, oozing coldsores on her mouth. And my partner said, "Because you don't have 'I will do anything for attention.' tattooed on the back of your neck. Trust me, you can't see it but men can."

That was a real wake-up call for me. When you're a woman that intimidates men, it doesn't matter how gorgeous you are. You're ugly and dirty and not worth the time. (To most of them. There are exceptions. And those are the ones we want to cultivate.) And if you'll do anything for attention, it doesn't matter what you look like to that kind of man, because it's not your beauty they want, it's power over you.

I think we have every right to be offended by that kind of crap. And I think the more powerful and self-assured I am, the more beautiful I become. I can see it. It's not my problem if no one else can.

Re: Man. I can ramble!

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

Did you ever think that the come-on is not at all about attractiveness and totally about power? Because that's how it looks to me sometimes. A man approaches like that PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS OFFENSIVE. He /forces/ his sexual presence into your sphere of awareness. (Regardless of the fact that no matter what, you should have the right not to be imposed on by someone else's sexuality.) Your response to it will determine how much power he can have over you and whether or not you are worth his time to try and dominate.

When you reject him, he (and men in general) defends himself (and his ilk) with "you were dressed like that" and "it's only words" and "it was a compliment" when called on his power play, attempting to reassert himself as dominant. You are tagged as deviant and disruptive to the natural biological order. You are threatening the species by your reaction. (Woe.) You are to be shunned, if possible. You may even be a target of revenge for reducing his power status.

If your response is submissive (and tolerance is submission), he persists, perhaps even with the promise that he's not just after sex (no, we know you're not, this is really about power, this is about you getting what you want, and that might be sex). When you reject him later, once again you are targeted for shunning and retaliation.

So, ultimately, it's really not about attractiveness and sex. It's about power. Women do it, too. "Buy me a drink?" "Can you lift that for me?" Do what I want. There's even a little dance, an exchange to it, usually. But in this world where women are starting on low footing, you are never going to get the upper hand, honey. Right now, that doesn't exist for us.

Maybe it's not a compliment when a guy hits on you. It's not even a come-on. Maybe it's a power test.

Re: Man. I can ramble!

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's all about power. Come ones on the street don't make a woman feel good---insert standard disclaimer here about those twits who think "Nice titties!" is a compliment-----they make her feel like a piece of meat. And when you confront a guy over it he gets defensive or he apologizes. That means he knew on some level something was wrong.

So many male strategies are about dominance but we disguised them so that we don't have to see the dynamics of power too openly. Men are bigger and stronger, and they occupy all the positions of power in society. Nevertheless, they bitch about feminists. They fear having done to them what they have done to women. Their fear and hostility is a measure of their own self-recognition.

Sigh. I have to go and do something now. Later, okay?

Adn if you want some fun, check out dirtynumbangel in the above thread.

Re: Man. I can ramble!

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

Oh, I watched the dog and pony show.

It just pissed me off. :p

Later. :)

Re: Man. I can ramble!

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

...evidently, I am having one of those days where I could argue that men can't be feminists, not if they really believe in feminism.

I think I need to go turn in my MODERATE badge now. :p