It’s been great guesting here!  Thanks so much to the Feministe crew for the invite.

I’ll leave you with two things.  First, this is recent, absolutely fantastic series of five articles and brief videos about some of the most common claims about “innate” behavioral differences between the sexes. I can’t recommend it highly enough as a quick reference when you get into another tiresome conversation about how “biology” has proven this or that antifeminist claim.

As you could probably tell from my posts, it’s always a pet peeve of mine when people fall back on “biology” as a justification for patriarchal norms and practices. It’s just such a shady rhetorical trick—attempting to claim that social change is impossible by implying that the current social order has been proven unchangable by a completely unquestionable authority, when in fact no such thing has occurred. Ack. Drives me up the walls just thinking about it. Must be my wandering womb.

Second, a rather shameless plug for the new database created by Students Active For Ending Rape (SAFER), the organization I work with. SAFER works to empower college students to hold their colleges accountable for sexual violence on campus, and we help students organize to create better sexual assault prevention and response procedures on their campuses. The policies database lists various colleges and gives a rundown of their sexual assault policies, so if you’re a college student, you can use the database to look up your school’s policies, find ideas for reform by looking at the positive aspects of other college policies, and add information about your school policy to help prospective students evaluate how your college stacks up against others when it comes to dealing with sexual violence. Please take the time to check it out, and add info about any schools we don’t have listed!

Thanks again for having me here on Feministe. I had a blast.

Oh, one last thing:

I just got back from the dentist, who x-rayed my mouth and discovered that my wisdom teeth are sideways. And I’m not talking at a 45 degree angle to my other teeth, I mean, according to my x-rays, all my other teeth are standing up perpendicular, and my four wisdom teeth are lying down sideways, trying to burrow into my back molars.

My wisdom teeth are definitely unwise.

Having just seen the Death Note movie, I have one thing to say about the whole thing:

IRON DEATH NOTE-URU!!!!!!

Thanks to Gordon for letting me steal a funny which is funny on so many, many levels.

You know how spinster aunts love to lounge around on or about the TempurPedic eating Cool Whip and watching TV. Today I saw a series of programs on the E! channel. The E! channel, for those blamers who obstinately decline to monitor world misogyny via American television, consists, even more transparently than most other channels, entirely of antifeminist celebrity idolatry/hatred. Whose dress is ugly, who drove her celebrity man into the arms of another celebrity woman, that mouthy slut Amy Winehouse in rehab, etc.

This morning there was a show called “Soup” where a smirking motherfucker cuts famous people down to size by screening embarrassing video clips of them attacking their fans or being fat.

This was followed by a show starring a young hottt woman named Denise Richards. In this show, a camera crew follows Denise Richards around while she goes about the grueling business of being hottt. What? You’ve never heard of Denise Richards either? I looked her up, and here’s the summary: she was married to and divorced from a couple of other famous people, and appears to be made almost entirely of flowing hair. In today’s episode, Denise explains to her 13-year-old nephew why she did a spread in Playboy and starred in some patriarchy-affirming pornographical films. She did not do it for the money, apparently. No. She did it to prove that a hottt young woman who was married to and divorced from a couple of famous people can still be sexy, dammit. Any 13-year-old boy ought to be able to respect that.

Then there was a show where a camera crew follows Lindsay Lohan’s mother and teen sister around while they go about the grueling business of being related to a famous person with a drug problem. The sister is 14 and is recording a CD in Las Vegas. The skin crawls when the words “Vegas! All right!” squirt like Astroglide from the teenager’s mouth as she plops into a limo. Her entourage tells her what a genius she is and how she’s going to be the next big thing. She has a lot of eyeliner on.

I need not describe the stomach-churning details of the show entitled “The Girls Next Door,” where a camera crew follows around a few of Hugh Hefner’s interchangable 19-year-old blonde bikini “girlfriends” as they go about the grueling business of being prostituted in a brothel built to glorify a famous septuagenarian perv’s exceptional sexploitational success.

What all this programming has in common is the combined fascination/abhorrence that afflicts all modern media characterizations of women. Particularly of women who have bought into the patriarchal myth to the extent that it has rewarded them with the only thing that counts in this world: attention from men with money. It blows the Twisty mind that the subjects of these “reality” shows never seem to get that the whole point is to make them look like morons so their insatiable public can more devoutly despise them. Why this obvious truth universally fails to expose Hollywood as ground-zero for American misogyny I cannot say, but watching Hef protrude his grotesque liverlips at his teenage girls certainly seems to generate a lot of ad revenue from cosmetics corporations who have convinced a nation that female skin can and should “glow.”

Share This

Kathryn Jean Lopez:

A totally crazy Saturday-morning thought: Wouldn't George W. Bush make an awesome high-school government teacher? Wouldn't it be something if his post-presidential life would up being that kind of post-service service? How's that for a model? Who needs Harvard visiting chairs and high-end lectures? How about Crawford High? (Or wherever?) Reach out and touch the young before they are jaded, or break them of the cynicism pop culture and possibly their parents have passed down to them.

Unless the last eight years were a horrible dream, George W. Bush weakened restrictions on air pollution under the Clear Skies Act, turned forests over to loggers under the Healthy Forests Initiative, detained prisoners indefinitely in the name of the law, tortured people in the name of civilization, censored scientists in the name of objectivity, alienated allies in the name of security, and is occupying another country in the name of freedom.

About the only thing he could possibly do to reduce American cynicism, at this point, would be to turn himself in at the nearest police station. (A totally crazy Saturday-afternoon thought, I know, and just about as plausible as K-Lo's fantasy.)

Anyway, while we're waiting for Bush to embark on his life of "post-service service," we mustn't forget to sneer at people who praise Jimmy Carter for building houses.

Help her out:

I’m currently preparing for a guest posting stint over at Feministe, which will start in about a week. I’m planning to make a series of posts about why women, and feminists, should care about economics. I’ve got lots of ideas of my own, but since this blog’s audience is often pretty skewed towards the econ side, I thought I’d ask for suggestions.

Economists, feminist economists, feminists who care about economics - what do you wish your fellow feminists knew about economics? Is there a particular concept that is often misunderstood? A branch of research they should pay more attention to?

If you make a suggestion that I haven’t thought up myself already, and I use it, I’ll be happy to credit you for the idea by name, link, or both. Of course, you’ll just have to trust me on that one.

This is probably a good moment to point out that I have finally secured myself a blog email address. It is: economicwoman AT gmail DOT com. Please send along your comments and criticism, unless you’re going to tell me to post more often. It’s on my list, right below “register for GREs” and “make sure you pass statistics”.

Aw, Barry, say it ain’t so…

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

That quote is from here. And while that piece is certainly the most offensive, I’m also not thrilled with his answer here:

Strang: You’ve said you’re personally against abortion and would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration. So, as president, how would do you propose accomplishing that?

Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president.

I love Obama. I find him incredibly inspiring. I’ve had a lot of silly, idealistic little hopes pinned on him. I so badly want him to be a candidate who stands up for progressive values without apology. Instead, it looks like he’s taking the traditional Democratic route of moving towards the center and trying to please everyone.

This is why Democrats are losing the abortion-rights battle: We’re adopting the right-wing frame and rhetoric, and speaking in their terms. The question “How can we reduce the abortion rate?” is an easy gimme for any pro-choice candidate. You say: “Education, health care and contraception access are the most effective ways to decrease the need for abortion. Abstinence-only sex education has been a colossal failure, and around the world we can see that the abortion rate is lowest in countries with comprehensive sex ed programs, wide-spread access to contraception, health care for all, and a strong social safety net. We know what works; but it’s Republicans who continuously block legislation that would decrease the abortion rate. Democrats in Congress have repeatedly tried to increase contraception access for all women, and have tried to promote initiatives that would make it easier for women to choose to have children — initiatives like aid to low-income families, subsidized day-care programs, and early childhood education. It is the Democratic party that has taken important steps to actually decrease the abortion rate, while the supposedly “pro-life” Republicans have put barriers in the way of pregnancy prevention, then limited abortion access, and then made life more difficult for women and their children. It seems that “pro-life” Republicans only care about life up until the moment of birth — and they have taken no steps to actually decrease the need for abortion. By contrast, my administration will take a comprehensive, truly life-affirming view: We will support women, men and children at all stages of life, and we will give Americans as many options as possible to make the best decisions for themselves and their families.”

Not hard. Instead, Obama used talking points that I would expect to hear from John McCain: Abstinence education. The sacredness of sexual behavior. Adoption.

I realize he’s talking to a Christian magazine, and so he needs to frame the issue in a way that resonates with Christian readers. But “Christian” or even “pro-life” does not equal “Republican,” or “pro-life” in the way that mainstream anti-choice organizations and politicians are “pro-life.” A whole lot of self-identified pro-life people don’t actually want to see women dying of dangerous illegal abortions; a lot of pro-life people realize that criminalizing the procedure isn’t the answer, and that instead we should decrease the need for abortion through common-sense measures like education, contraception, economic justice and universal health care. That’s a big block of voters; I’d like to hear Obama talk to them — in part because the Republican party claims to speak for them, but doesn’t actually represent their interests.

And I’d like to see Obama stand up for his pro-choice base. The issue of late-term abortions is a tricky one, because anti-choicers trot it out as if huge numbers of women were waiting until the eighth month of pregnancy to terminate. In reality, third-trimester abortions count for about one-half of one percent of all abortions. It’s already nearly impossible to obtain a late-term abortion in much of the country, and it is actually impossible to obtain one for purely elective purposes. Women who terminate pregnancies in the third trimester aren’t doing it for kicks; they’re doing it because they have some sort of serious health problem that requires it, or there’s a fetal abnormality.

Obama did say he supports late-term abortion rights in the case of a physical medical problem, but he took out mental health as a legitimate concern. That’s a talking point that you hear a lot from anti-choicers: That mental health is a “loophole” through which any undeserving baby-carrier could legitimately terminate her pregnancy.

But mental health underlies many of actual reasons women have late-term abortions. Take severe fetal abnormalities — where a wanted pregnancy goes wrong, and the problem isn’t discovered until relatively late. In many situations — anencephaly, for example — carrying the pregnancy to term might not be any more dangerous than carrying a healthy fetus to term. Pregnancy and childbirth always come with serious risks, and it’s often impossible to know which risks will arise, but many fetal abnormalities don’t pose the kind of physical harm to the pregnant woman that would seem to pass anti-choice (and now, Obama) muster. (To be clear, many fetal abnormalities do pose significant health risks — it’s just not the rule. Which is precisely why this issue should be evaluated case-by-case between a woman and her doctor, and politicians should butt out). So even though many fetal abnormalities don’t threaten the pregnant woman’s health or life, most people seem to agree that it’s cruel to force a woman to give birth to a baby that cannot possibly survive (if it’s even born alive, which many anencephalic fetuses aren’t). But if a doomed pregnancy doesn’t threaten a pregnant woman’s physical health, why would we allow her to terminate it?

Because, obviously, it threatens her mental health in no small way. Being forced to carry a wanted but doomed pregnancy, and being forced to go through childbirth to produce a dead or dying baby, is understandably deeply emotionally traumatic. We want to give women the option to avoid that kind of mental trauma because we recognize that physical harm is not the only harm that matters.

And the psychological harm of being forced to give birth against your will to a baby that will not survive is not the only kind of psychological harm that matters. It is impossible to account for all the circumstances under which mental issues may seriously impair the ability of a pregnant woman to function, and may be just as threatening as physical issues. People face diverse circumstances, and when it comes to health and medical care, sweeping rules can cause widespread harm. Which is why when it comes to issues like abortion and other medical procedures, we should err on the side of providing care, not limiting it, and we should allow individual circumstances to be best evaluated by the people living those circumstances and the doctors treating them.

That is the position that we expect pro-choice politicians to stake out. Either Obama caved to anti-choicers on this one, or he really believes it and isn’t as strongly pro-choice as many of us thought. I’m not sure which is worse.

So, hey, Phoenix Mars Lander, anyone? Awesome, right? It landed on Mars! Well, I think it’s awesome.

For those of you who don’t spend your typical Saturday night watching NASA TV, the lander is on one of Mars’ polar regions, looking for ice. And by gum, it found some, my friends:

This picture is too big to embed!

Scientists know the white stuff is ice and not minerals because it sublimated upon contact with the atmosphere. WICKED COOL. Right now, the lander is taking soil samples to analyze under its microscope. I’m infatuated with the process: after the lander takes a sample, it shakes it into its ovens, cooks it up, and then uses it to make science. TOTALLY ACES.

But, okay, it’s not like there are women in the soil samples - unless we’re talking about microscopic proto-women, which I can assure you we are not - so why am I posting this on a feminist website?

The breaking news from Mars reminds me of something I read on the Astro-Dyke months ago, filed under “to blog,” and then never got a chance to write about. Last February, the women on the tactical operations staff for the two Mars rovers decided to switch their shifts around so that, for one day, Spirit and Opportunity would be run by an all-woman team. The full article is on the Planetary Society website:

One, two, or a handful of women around could be explained away by the chauvinistic as token participants, the product of affirmative action. But the entire tactical team, from top to bottom — there’s no way to dismiss that; these women all have the skills to do the work, work they do every day, keeping Spirit and Opportunity alive and active a hundred million kilometers away. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory sure has changed a lot from the days when women were only in secretarial positions, and competed in an annual beauty pageant called “Miss Guided Missile” (see M. G. Lord’s Astroturf for more on that story). My only experience with JPL has been since 2003, and it’s certainly now a diverse workforce by any dimension. Still, I was surprised that the rovers’ tactical operations team could be mustered with only women. It turns out it wasn’t at all hard to do, and has almost been done by accident several times in the past.

Very cool. This situation - and the accompanying buzz - should prove that there’s no difference between men’s and women’s abilities in the hard sciences. Unfortunately, the author decided to take the article in an, ahem, interesting direction:

There have always been plenty of women around on the Mars Exploration Rover mission. But there are lots more than there used to be, in part because the Mars Exploration Rovers have lasted so danged long. In the beginning of the mission, the rovers were being driven by the people who originally designed and developed the hardware and software. The kinds of people who excel at designing and building space-traveling robots under huge time and budget pressures find the regular schedule of everyday operations on Mars to be, well, less thrilling than designing and building the next Mars mission. So they have moved on.

So, since the end of the primary mission, the engineering side of the rover staff has almost entirely turned over to new personnel. The new people get a kick out of driving a rover on Mars while also being sure that, on most days, they can clock in at eight and out at five. On the science side of things, after the long-awaited landings, the thrill of exploring Meridiani and Gusev quickly gave way to fatigue and a nagging worry that all this time spent operating the rovers is time taken away from research. Even in the earliest weeks of the mission, young Ph.D.’s and even graduate students were being thrust into the tactical science positions so that their more senior advisors could spend a little less of their time worrying about day-to-day operations and a little more time analyzing the data being returned to Earth. The four years of operations to date have seen many of these students grow up, win their degrees, find permanent positions, and get replaced by fresh faces.

Oh… I see. Women aren’t running the Mars rovers because they’re highly educated and extensively trained - they’re running them because the men who invented the things got bored. It’s just grunt work, really. Doesn’t take that much skill.

I know I’m in a precarious position here, since a) I don’t have insider knowledge of planetary science careers, and b) the article itself was written by a woman. I’m sure the situation she’s describing is true… but is it true as she’s describing it? Would we have gotten the same emphasis on “less thrilling” work and “fatigue” and grad students being “thrust into” the role if the majority of the tactical operations team were male? Would those grad students be described as bright, ambitious young stars? Would the operations team be portrayed as tough, quick-thinking, and unfazed by the stress of operating an expensive and temperamental vehicle on another planet?

My point is, even though I’m sure it wasn’t the author’s intention, our bias against women - whether it’s outright misogyny or internalized sexism - paints any activity done by women as easier than any activity done by men. And it’s so disappointing to see amazing work like this explained away as menial labor.

Of course, there is another possibility: that the author’s description of the attitude surrounding tactical operations is completely accurate, and that women just make up the majority of lower-level roles (which, cynically, would explain why the team has almost been all-women several times already). We know women are routinely excluded from higher-level jobs anyway. But why rush to explain that the work the tactical operations team is doing is less exciting than other jobs? Is it any less vital to the mission? Isn’t it possible that team members enjoy it?

**

In other space news, I saw WALL-E the other day. Readers, it has happened: Pixar has achieved Optimum Cute. All other Cute will now be judged against WALL-E.

So yeah, overall I loved it. The one thing I found really frustrating, though, was the movie’s portrayal of human beings. The premise is that humans have abandoned Earth after rendering it inhabitable, and are now living on a giant pleasure-ship roaming the universe. 700 years of microgravity have caused significant bone loss, and as a result, people are too weak to walk. Early in the movie, one man falls off his floating chair and flails helplessly until WALL-E hoists him back on. Even though microgravity is presented as the cause of the weakness, the message behind it isn’t hard to miss: the inhabitants of the ship spend all their time sucking food out of cups, obeying advertisements (”Try Blue - it’s the new Red!”), and talking to each other on screens in front of their faces instead of turning their heads. The sum total of human culture is created and owned by a mega-corporation called Buy N’ Large, and people are so absorbed in the mindless comfort of consumer culture that they’ve forgotten how to take control of their own lives.

Oh, and they’re all obese.

My husband and I argued about this on the way home from the theater. My position was that the dystopian future would have been every bit as disturbing if the people had been smaller sizes; the parched Earth, all-encompassing consumerism, and lack of agency should be enough to get the point across.

My husband, however, argued that the weight was essential to the satire in the film - that an overweight body triggers an immediate recognition of pathology in us, and that if that recognition were absent, the film’s potency would be sapped. (To be clear - he acknowledged that he was coming from a place of privilege, and we ended the argument when he asked for more time to think about what I’d said. Also, I’m blogging about our conversation with his blessing.)

Here’s the first problem with that interpretation. When one talks about the message directed at “us,” who exactly is us? Is it the skinny people in the audience? The mid-weight people? The fat people? Are the people whose bodies are being used as satire actually the ones who need or deserve to be satirized? When a skinny person leaving the theater looks at a fat person and thinks, “He’s part of the problem! I hope he learned a lesson!” is she focusing on a valid target - or a scapegoat?

Because, as most people reading this blog already know, weight has a thousand times more to do with class than with laziness and consumption. Obesity rates are higher among the poor and working class, who can’t afford fresh, healthy food. Depending on where and how many hours you work, you may not have much choice about what you eat; furthermore, people living in motels and hotels are usually completely reliant on whatever restaurants happen to be in the area. Also, because of access to time, gym memberships, and personal trainers, people who consume the most resources (food, energy, land, or otherwise) often have the thinnest bodies. And it has to be said that metabolism varies widely from person to person. I can down cheeseburgers for a week straight without exercising and still look thin, escaping the scorn and unsolicited advice that my friends with slower metabolisms (and often better habits) receive. The “ideal” body weight, as we commonly understand it, is largely a myth; people are naturally a range of sizes.

So to make the implicit claim that laziness equals fat only pins the blame on the wrong people. Also, I don’t think that portraying our fictional descendants as overweight inspires the precise fear that the filmmakers intended. I really don’t think thin people are seeing this movie and thinking, “Yikes, I don’t want to live in space and depend on robots!” They’re thinking, “Yikes, I don’t want to be fat!”

Finally, even assuming that the film’s message would have been diminished if the people had been “normal” weights - why is a movie more important than real people’s lives? We all remember the proposed ban, in Mississippi, on fat people in restaurants; it came as no surprise to learn that weight plays a role in women’s job prospects. People I love are called “fat bitch” as they walk down the street. Yes, prejudice affects people. And the more we associate fat with laziness and largess, the less we do to combat the real causes of unhealthy eating habits. How can we privilege Pixar’s need to make their movie a certain way over actual people’s wellbeing?

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

More Independence Day fireworks.

        For interesting comments on Obama and abortion, Shakesville has a good discussion. You also may enjoy this post on faith-based organizations at Pam's House Blend. I'm looking forward to a fundamental Christian group training a pagan nonprofit to run a preschool program.

Three Intimations.
I.
The hydrangea tree blooming over the old graves on the rise in the cemetery are the only flowers there. Bent and twisted by the winds and winter, there isn’t a time it wasn’t there. Afternoon wind.
II.
There is nothing whiter than the evening lychnis at dusk. Dry summer.
III.
So still tonight the moonlight is the loudest thing.

Anthony McCarthy: 1978

How many times have you heard some idiot say something like, “man, I hate American chicks, might as well go to Thailand/El Salvador/Moldova, that’s where the REAL WOMEN are at.”

Now, we all know what he probably means here - women who are at a similar economic level are not submissive enough, and women who are not are “easier” to deal with. There’s also the fact that a certain woman’s upbringing may make her more “susceptible” to what the man perceives to be submissive status, or else give the appearance of such status.

That’s all pretty much clear, or so I think. What isn’t often clear is the motivation of the “submissive foreign woman” in question. Based on my experience, scenarios vary wildly. A lot of women consider the arrangement a step up, and will tell you to fuck off if you try to lecture them on who to marry and how to carry themselves.

Were you born outside of Donetsk to an emotionally sadistic mother who cleaned hotel rooms and slept with guests for extra cash? Did you have an alcoholic stepfather who tried to bash your face in with a wrench after you refused to blow him? Did your mother then kick you out of the house for “trying to steal [her] man”? If not, you’re probably not going to have a whole lot of authority in the eyes of the eighteen-year-old who just wants a nice, stable life with some aging paramour in Milwaukee.

Maybe she’ll be happy with him. Maybe not. Maybe she’ll wait for him to die, inherit all his money, get a young boyfriend, and do her thing without ever revealing whether or not she’s happy. Hell, I don’t know. But what’s usually true about relationships that spark up in this manner is that both parties enter into them while pursuing a certain ideal, and their expectations are adjusted accordingly when reality hits.

Sometimes this is positive. Sometimes it’s deadly.

I’ve known people who have entered into such marriages. One was the childhood friend of my cousin on my dad’s side, and she was beaten severely by her first husband, in Spain. After getting out of that relationship, she ended up going straight back to Spain with another dude. She said it’s what she wanted, and the rest of us could take a flying fuck on a rolling donut, as the saying goes. After my cousin’s tragic death, we all lost touch. Who knows what happened to her? I hope she’s happy, but I’m not entirely sure, and in fact, I fear the worst. I’ve seen the look in that woman’s eyes, and it frightened me.

Another one of my cousins, on my mom’s side, has a very good friend who married a man from Denmark, having met him through a dating site or something like that. The two of them ran a business together for many years, and raised a child. Then the woman met another man, a fellow Ukrainian, and skipped out. They still run the business together, and it’s doing well. The guy from Denmark is often in Ukraine, working, and going out to drink with his ex-wife’s friends. He’s unhappy about how his marriage turned out, but he is happy about the money that his savvy Ukrainian wife has made. Who’s to say that arrangement is unequal? Or even bad?

On the other hand, you hear of husbands murdering their wives after discovering that said wives refuse to act like automaton fucking and cooking machines. Such men can prey on poorer foreign women very easily, especially when one considers the fact that dating agencies rarely do background checks or refuse customers based on past record. They’re in it for the money, and if a few women are murdered in the process, it doesn’t bother them a whole lot.

In a men’s magazine I read a few years back, there was a story of a fashion photographer who went to Latin America to search for a bride. He actually boasted to the journalist about how his woman is a “sex machine,” etc. - the usual dehumanization was taking place. Well, they ended up falling out back in the States, and he sent her packing. Then she discovered she was pregnant. And while he admitted that it was going to be difficult for her to find another man after what happened, you could tell, based from the article, that he just couldn’t give a fuck.

Many people, when given the opportunity to treat others like toys, will.

So what do you do about all of this? I don’t know. I know that until conditions markedly improve in my native Ukraine, people are going to want to get out. Until more men realize that women’s sole purpose isn’t to gratify their sexual and culinary needs, they’re going to seek out the vulnerable among us.

And we will keep on keeping on.

Though if I have any ideas about any of this, it’s to stress that all of us, the rich, the poor, the in-between, the misogynists, the crusaders, the quiet and shy, the loud and abrasive - we are all as “real” as the next person.

The latest findings:

A study was conducted to assess whether individual differences in sexual activity during the past 30 days, in particular penile–vaginal intercourse (PVI; which is associated with measures of relationship quality), are related to the perception of the facial attractiveness of unknown men. Forty-five women reported the frequency of a variety of sexual behaviors and rated the facial attractiveness and friendliness of 24 men. Women who reported more frequent orgasm from masturbation rated men as less friendly. This finding might be reflective of the more anti-social attitude associated with more frequent masturbation. The results also show that women who engaged more frequently in most kinds of sexual behavior, not only PVI, considered unknown men to be less facially attractive. That is, individuals who engage more frequently in a variety of sexual behaviors with their partner perceived unknown men as less attractive and thereby may be less susceptible to the lure of other (or if the only sexual behavior is masturbation, any) men.

Somehow, Terry Easton has gotten wise to our plans:

You would think that this story is right out of science fiction. But the facts appear to be that the US Democrat-controlled Congress intends to destroy the Republican middle class with $11 per gallon gasoline.

The Democrats’ base -- wealthy white “limousine liberals”, and very poor people -- won’t be harmed, but the families who live in suburbia will be devastated.

Easton left out a few important details. It's not just the Republican middle class we're after; we also need to destroy hungry seniors, whose traditional values pose an obstacle to the acceptance of mandatory same-sex marriage. Underprivileged children and the disabled are another target (Peter Singer absolutely insisted on it, and you know how hard it is to say "no" to him). Higher gas prices will also thwart efforts to control malaria, which will be a fitting tribute to the spirit of Rachel Carson.

Then there are cabbies. How are we supposed to create a socialist wonderland while counterrevolutionaries like these are able to buy food and pay their bills? Eleven-dollar gas is the least these running-dog lackeys to the bourgeoisie deserve. Last, crippling the production and distribution of fireworks will strike a deadly blow against patriotism, just when it's needed most.

The article goes on to explain that limousine liberals have thwarted efforts to drill in ANWR and along the coasts, and concludes with this dirge for human freedom:

Oil sells for $145 per barrel mostly because of artificially-created supply-side shortages. A small part of its price is also determined by speculators and uncertainty over a future cut-off of oil from the middle east that a war with Iran could cause. Assuming that Iran’s nuclear bomb program is destroyed by Israel this fall -- with or without America’s help - look for oil to spike up to $250-300.

Indeed. I think it's fair to say that things are proceeding quite nicely, don't you?

Regular readers know that my brother Bill is one of the true joys of my life.

Well, Bill is 38 years old today…yay!

Bill is the oldest and he is autistic, so I have never known a world without autism in it. When I was a wee bitch I was easily embarrassed by Bill’s public displays of autism. As I grew older, I came to resent him for being autistic in a world that didn’t suffer difference. It wasn’t until I returned home to St. Louis to take up co-guardianship with my sister that this bitch came to know and truly appreciate my brother for the man that he is.

Anyhoo, I’m sitting here remembering.

Not the summers spent driving an hour each way so that Bill could go to summer school…the tantrums and destruction of property…the weird and ultimately unproductive diet-based “cures” (wince)…the speech therapy…the family therapy…or the pain of Bill being placed in residential treatment in his early teens.

No, I’m remembering cartwheels through sprinklers and peanut butter mixed with sugar sam’iches…his adoration of cake and Pepsi, candy bars and French fries...and how Bill sang the chorus of September over and over for years upon years (wince again). I remember my father, God rest his soul, trying to play basketball with Bill and Bill’s complete lack of interest in that shit. And always, Bill's smile that can still banish all but happiness from the room in a heartbeat.

I left St. Louis when I was 17 years old, fleeing the dysfunction and damage of my mother’s house to go to college. And in a very real sense I left my brother, because he is without speech and the ability to chat over the phone. In the years that followed, a bitch didn’t keep in touch and struggled not to fret or worry. I gave my brother to God and tried to tell myself that I deserved the time it took to discover who the hell I was and what the world had to offer me.

But when, years later, I came home and went on that first visit to see Bill again I realized that part of who I am is being his sister.

There is no definition of me without Bill or my older sister…no life that took place without them, not really. We three are family, and that has made all the difference.

Today, as we celebrate the gift of Bill’s birth 38 years ago, I am so very proud to be his sister…so amazed at the life he built despite the challenges the world tosses at him.

And tonight this bitch shall cherish a birthday meal with my brother, including all those loud ass repetitive noises and all that other autistic shit (wink), and celebrate with our different kind of family…our different kind of normal.

To my beloved brother Bill, I am so grateful you are in my life.

Happy birthday and the first round of fries are on me...

But dying on the 4th of July was perhaps the most patriotic thing Jesse Helms ever did. Thanks, Jesse, for making the world a better place by finally leaving it.

“The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that’s thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men’s rights.” - Jesse Helms on civil rights protests.

I’m sure some right-wing blog is going to link to this post as evidence of Teh Evil Left, but my point isn’t that I’m glad Helms is dead; my point is that the ideology Helms espoused is the antithesis of everything that makes a great country. It is the antithesis of what makes this country great. And the reactions to Helms’ death are pretty clear illustrations of what “patriotism” means on the right and on the left. On the left, it means improving things, and making the dreams that underpinned the formation of this country accessible to everyone. On the right, it means narrowing those dreams and making them available only to a particular group; it means basking in power without taking any sort of responsibility, and without making any effort to actually make great the thing you claim to love so much. On the right, it’s a window dressing, absent all substance.

I’m often skeptical of patriotism, mostly because I think the version promulgated in the U.S. political scene is vapid and shallow. Patriotism or nationalism or whatever you want to call it can be great insofar as it celebrates things worth being proud of. The problem with the conservative American form of patriotism is that it’s largely flag-waiving and no substance; it’s obsessing over who’s wearing the appropriate lapel pin as a symbol that We’re Number One! as opposed to doing the day-to-day, getting-your-hands-dirty work of actually making a place great.

Helms was a cheap “patriot.” He never worked to make this country better; he worked to exclude as many people as possible from the ideas and the dreams that laid the foundation for this place. What’s most disturbing is that Helms was embraced throughout his career, all the way up until he left the Senate in 2002. In fact, they’re still standing up for him — and even defending the racist ad he used to win an election in 1990. According to conservatives, Helms was “a truly great American and champion of freedom;” “a warrior and a patriot;” and “a man who understood, appreciated and fought for everything we celebrate on the 4th of July.”

Of course, these are the same people who claim that Helms’ opposition of civil rights legislation “did not in and of itself did not make him a racist” — because his personal and administrative assistants were black.

What did Jesse Helms fight for? Well, he fought against a whole lot more than he fought for — including civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, abortion rights, HIV/AIDS funding, foreign aid, the poor, and even modern art.

He fought bitterly against Federal aid for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.

“Nothing positive happened to Sodom and Gomorrah,” he said, “and nothing positive is likely to happen to America if our people succumb to the drumbeats of support for the homosexual lifestyle.”

Helms launched a Senate filibuster against making the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. He was a segregationist and a bigot. He opposed fundamental rights for American people.

He is no patriot, and he is no great American. True patriots — true people we should be admiring today — are those who did the tough work of getting out there and demanding that their voices be heard; those who insisted that their America matters too; those who did not accept the status quo and instead worked every day to make this country a better place. That takes heart. That takes love. That is what the best of America looks like.

Those are the people I’ll be drinking to tonight. Not people like Jesse Helms, who did nothing more but try to stand in their way.

Luckily, he lost long before his death. And those who admire and seek to emulate him will continue to lose — because, to paraphrase someone much smarter than me, the arc of history does bend toward justice. And it bends that way because there are passionate, intelligent, good people pushing it — not because there are people like Helms trying to stem the tide.

My condolences are sincere for his family and for the people who loved him. But for my country and for the people who I love, celebration is more in order.

Inspired by Fatemeh’s post below.

People ask me, “how do you reconcile feminism and religion?”

The short answer is, I don’t. I don’t reconcile religion with anything. I think the true nature (and purpose) of religion is such that it cannot be reconciled with the world we live in.

That’s not to say that religion cannot influence is in good and bad ways, or that it doesn’t have direct influence in the physical realm we inhabit, but that what appeals to me about religion is the fact that from the point of view of the physical world, it is irrational. Which is very different from how I view feminism.

Why do I believe? Because belief is beautiful, and strange, and imperfect (circumscribed as it is by human nature), and a great paradox to me. Because I agree with Milton in describing the world as a story that the divine being is telling itself. Which is in itself a paradox running up against the idea of free will.

So when some bearded guy somewhere tells me “cover up, whore” or “repent, whore” or “be quiet and stir that borscht, whore,” I pity him most dreadfully. His God is indeed dead, and it was he who replaced his God with an embalmed version that rests in an ugly-ass Great Mausoleum in the Sky. And I’d like to tell him that, except that I worry about getting my teeth smashed out (have been threatened, once), and I already have dental issues, so instead I just stay away from most religious gatherings and discussions altogether.

Being a feminist and being religious is totally possible, if you just ignore people who tell you you’re going to hell/you’re a brainwashed idiot in need of re-education camp. Or so I’ve decided for myself.

Miss Piggy Rocks!

Many thanks to my friend Ellen for sharing this!

1. Modest Mouse - Bury Me With It
2. Bill Evans Trio - All of You (take 2)
3. Jens Lekman - It Was a Strange Time in My Life
4. Ryan Adams - My Blue Manhattan
5. Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds - Sugar Sugar Sugar
6. Bob Dylan - Corrina, Corrina
7. Miles Benjamin Anthony Robinson - Buriedfed
8. Tom Waits - Johnsburg, Illinois (live)
9. Frightened Rabbit - Head Rolls Off
10. Alceu Valença - Morena Tropicana

And, because it’s USA Day, a video from one of my all-time favorite Americans:

Home-Made - Inside Baltimore's Home Birth Underground: "Disenchanted with a medical system that treats birth as an emergency instead of an emergence, seeking an alternative to the tubes and wires and monitors of a high-tech birth, some women are stepping...

[This is a content summary only. Click the headline to visit Our Bodies, Our Blog for the full post, links, other content and more!]

The picture was taken by a friend of mine a few years ago.

America’s Shrinking Food Wraps, by Kate Pickert at Time.com, via Yahoo! News. I read this last week, but Frangela reminded me about this morning on the radio as they were filling in for Stephanie Miller.

. . . is it possible that the amount of food Americans are buying is, in fact… shrinking? Well, yes. Soaring commodity and fuel prices are driving up costs for manufacturers; faced with a choice between raising prices (which consumers would surely notice) or quietly putting fewer ounces in the bag, carton or cup (which they generally don’t) manufacturers are choosing the latter. This month, Kellogg’s started shipping Apple Jacks, Cocoa Krispies, Corn Pops, Froot Loops and Honey Smacks containing an average of 2.4 fewer ounces per box.

Similar reductions have recently happened or are on the horizon for many other products: Tropicana orange juice containers are shrinking from 96 ounces to 89; Wrigley’s is dropping its the 17-stick PlenTPak in favor of the 15-stick Slim Pack; Dial soap bars now weigh half an ounce less, and that’s even before they melt in the shower. Containers of Country Crock spread, Hellmann’s mayonnaise and Edy’s and Breyer’s ice cream have all slimmed down as well (although that may not necessarily be a bad thing).

“People are just more sensitive to changes in price than changes in quantity,” says Harvard Business School Professor John Gourville, who studies consumer decision-making. “Most people can tell you how much a box of cereal costs, but they have no clue how much is actually in it.”. . .

I’m very sensitive to tiny boxes, Professor Gourville.

Once they’re asked about the changes, food manufacturers are quick to explain their own increasing overhead costs - a Kellogg’s spokeswoman said reducing the amount of cereal per box was “to offset rising commodity costs for ingredients and energy used to manufacture and distribute these products” - but most are not exactly going out of their way to let consumers know they’re getting less for their money. Some claim newly shrunk products are responses to consumers’ needs. Tropicana told the New York Daily News earlier this month that its orange juice containers, which also include a newly designed cap and retail for the same price as the previous larger size, were the result of customer complaints. Said spokeswoman Jamie Stein, “We had a lot of spillage with our old products. It’s a value-added redesign.”

Value-added redesign? Don’t pee-pee on me and tell me it’s raining, Ms. Stein.

I understand that some of us Americans, regardless of our body size, need to exercise some portion control. However, this is not the way to do it.

Have you readers noticed any other cost-cutting measures enacted by major corporations, or by small businesses, in reaction to our struggling economy?

There are plenty of elephants in feminist classrooms, as we’re all aware. As a woman of color, there have been times when I was one of those elephants. White, middle-class feminism’s overlooking of race, class, queer identities, ability…this leads to a classroom full of elephants that many students and instructors are unable to see or unwilling to discuss.

These issues have slowly gained legitimacy within the white middle-class feminist classroom. In Intro to Feminism courses, there are discussions, speakers, and readings assigned about womanism, the queer movement, etc.—if the teacher is a half-decent one, anyway. They may be small discussions, they may only raise awareness without creating understanding, but the elephants are acknowledged.

There are still a few elephants left, however. The elephant I’m going to acknowledge today is religion (including spiritually and belief systems).

Religion is brought up in classrooms when anti-Semitism is discussed. Religion is brought up when female genital mutilation is introduced. Religion is revealed to be part of the dominant structure of Judeo-Christian patriarchy in the U.S. Religion is often talked about in classrooms as part of “the problem.”

How many times have we been in feminist classrooms and heard, “I think all religions are oppressive to women.” Or seen it on a feminist blog?

What does this statement do? It dismisses religion and feminists who have one. Feminist interpretations of all major world religions are increasing. Here’s a great website where you can find a bibliography for feminist theology and interpretations of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and then some. Why is it acceptable to dismiss the belief systems of these feminists?

Belief systems are how we frame our entire world, and the entire world adheres to some type of belief. Here you can see a really rough breakdown of the world’s main belief systems. Not a definitely authoritative source, but the most illustrative and incredibly thorough. That’s a lot of people, and half of these adherents are women.

The idea that “religion is oppressive” is deceptive, because “religion” as it is discussed is reduced to the rules & regulations of said religion. We’re not talking about a connection with God or the universe, here. We’re talking about eating fish on Friday or wearing a wig to cover your hair. Dismissing an entire faith (and/or all belief systems) dismisses those who believe in this faith. Not to mention those of us who believe the male-defined rules, interpretations, and applications are the problem, not the faith itself.

Religion is a belief system. An idea. And idea cannot actively oppress someone. A holy book cannot chase women around and tell them do this or that—the Bible doesn’t go around physically stopping homosexuality; the Torah doesn’t physically measure the length of an Orthodox Jewish woman’s skirt. The interpretation and application of ideas (by male scholars and male-centered religious schools of thought) is what gets us in trouble. Interpretations that keep men in power and deny women agency are the problem. You know what these interpretations are? Patriarchy. Not God or faith in God. Patriarchy poses as religion in interpretations that say that women shouldn’t use birth control or that marriage is only for one man and one woman.

But the rules get confused with God. And then God gets pegged as the bad entity, instead of patriarchy. And that leaves the religious/spiritual feminists in class and on the blogosphere staring at each other, wondering, “Ain’t I a feminist, too?”

The blanket idea that all religions are oppressive is also often an uninformed one. Can someone who has not studied all belief systems (not just The Big Three, but all belief systems, including atheism, animism, wicca, etc., as well as more well-known Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) put forth this idea? Often, those doling out judgment on religion only focus on The Big Three (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), ignoring other belief systems like Buddhism, agnosticism, or Rastafarianism. These are religions, too: people frame their viewpoints with these in mind.

And even within The Big Three, there are endless sects. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have differing sects within them, and sects with sects. None of these religions can be described as monolithic. Sects within these religions can be incredibly strict and severe (like Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saint Christians, Salafi Muslims, and Haredi Jews), and they can be incredibly liberal, accepting female ministers, imams, and rabbis, and following interpretations that allow homosexuality, for example.

Can one fairly dismiss something without understanding it? Without reading a religion’s holy book, the scriptures, and laws, as well as understanding their historical interpretations and applications, without knowing the intricacies of sects within a religion and the differences between them, how can someone really know any belief system is oppressive and make a statement as such?

Reducing a belief system to its male/patriarchal interpretations and dismissing a religion because of a lack of knowledge is bad enough. But dismissing religion also dismisses the spirituality of an adherent. Their connection with the universe and/or their higher power. Take away a person’s religion may take away their source of comfort. It may take away their strategy for dealing with patriarchy and traumatic events. It’s taking away a support system; who has too much support in a world that often victimizes us because of our gender, skin color, or sexuality?

“You’re just brainwashed because you believe in God” sounds a lot like, “You’re just hysterical because you’re a woman” or “You’re just lazy because you’re Mexican” to me. Despite the fact that these are different types of discrimination, they all result in discrimination, barriers, and disunity. Yes, there are people who don’t question their belief system and may aptly be described as brainwashed. I don’t advocate this, but dismissing faith (and those of us with a faith) is exclusionary.

For many religious feminists, belief in a higher power and a religious lifestyle is a choice. But it’s also part of someone; it’s the way we look at things, the way we respond to situations, the way we deal with events and people in our lives. It’s part of our psychological make-up. Feminism, as I learned it, is about respect and dignity for all people. I think that should include feminists who have faith.

        Now that I’ve become a Chihuahuaphile, I can’t resist Disney’s “Beverly Hills Chihuahua,” opening Oct. 3. I wish I could enjoy the little dancing dogs in peace, without seeing how the movie reinforces the patriarchy. But that’s the problem when you swallow the red pill; you can no longer watch fluff without deconstructing it.
         As Joss Whedon said: "People used to laugh that academics would study Disney movies. There’s nothing more important for academics to study, because they shape the minds of our children possibly more than any single thing."
         In the upcoming movie, a “spoiled” little white Chihuahua from Beverly Hills gets “lost in the mean streets of Mexico” and ends up guided by a bigger, darker, lustful Chihuahua. (I hope this isn’t “Swept Away” for Chihuahuas.) Guess which is male and which is female?
         Many people covet the smallest Chihuahuas. Because it’s often easier for bigger dogs to give birth, a lot of teeny-tiny males get bred to bigger females. (My “retired breeder” is one of these BBWs.) When you anthropomorphize dogs, however, I guess you have to stick to the conventions that say males must be bigger. At least Disney didn't make the female Chihuahua pink.
          On the Disney site, the synopsis tells the story of a female finding her footing, with the assistance of male dogs. But the trailer focuses on the male dog, with the female as accessory. Disney has to be careful not to lose too many boy viewers.
         Before the trailer came out, Disney started a viral video campaign featuring the male dog as revolutionary. He speaks of Chihuahuas as if all are male, and these males must reclaim their dignity after being carried in purses. They can no longer take orders from female dogs, either.
         Is Disney making fun of machismo? Riffing on the insecurity of men who fear being “feminized”? I wish everyone would see it that way. 
         You can catch the viral video (which really is funny) on Dog Art Today, where Moira McLaughlin discusses how artists have stolen from one another, in regard to dogs and revolutions. One of those artists, Kevin McCormick, says he has been calling on Chihuahuas to revolt for years.
         Mark Derr says small dogs are stigmatized as women’s pets. Bigger dogs are associated with men and work, such as herding sheep or finding prey for hunters. But a Chihuahua? It's just a companion, and being a companion has little value in our society.

        Recently, I blogged about whether we can simply “add women and stir.” That concept came back to me as I was reading a news release from the International Women’s Media Foundation, which is honoring women who have continued coverage despite harsh conditions and death threats.
        These women deserve to be honored. But it’s not enough to honor women who risk their lives to do what men do. We also must value women who write about the stuff of women’s lives, the sorts of stories that get little coverage in mainstream media. The foundation helps make this possible by offering training and other resources.
          On the subject of female journalists who enter male-dominated areas: "Gillian Anderson will star in and produce a biopic of Martha Gellhorn, a trailblazing female war correspondent who covered conflicts from the Spanish Civil War to Vietnam," according to Variety. Can't wait for this? Then I hope you've already seen the movie about Irish journalist Veronica Guerin.
          (By the way, I'm always amused when writers feel the need to modify a job title with "female" even though it should be obvious from the context. I think readers can figure out that Gellhorn was a female correspondent by her name and the fact that she's being portrayed by a woman.)          

Ha, here’s a guy who thinks that blaming means “blaming.” Ordinarily I wouldn’t mess with fish in a barrel, but I’m sorely pressed for time. I don’t understand a word of this, do you? Do your worst, girls. I swear, I’ll be back soon.

I am an MRA, and learned about your blog from an MRA board, AntiMisandry.com:
http://antimisandry.com/misandry_radical_feminist_message_board-t12052.html?t=12052

One thing that I have come to realize is that blaming really doesn’t give you any power. You may feel justified in your designation of blame, but ultimately you depend upon the validation of others to reinforce your position. As long as you receive such validation, you are well-positioned relative to whoever (or whatever) you’re blaming. But ultimately, without violent force or coercion to enforce your beliefs (as punishment), you are weak and helpless when you feed off of a sense of blame.

It’s far more empowering to blame the victim, that being yourself. Take responsibility for your own choices, and you’ll experience a form of empowerment that external validation never could provide. Blame others (or other things) if you like. But the usefulness of blaming is no different than blaming a sand trap in the desert after you’ve fallen into it. It’s much more useful to prepare oneself to avoid becoming a victim. I suppose you view the law as doing this for you, but I think even then you are at the mercy of collective judgments. Personal responsibility over one’s own happiness and safety is the only true empowerment any one individual can experience — and yes, that is a very brutal reality to accept.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

John Dias

He’s so concerned for my well-being. It’s heartwarming.

Share This

Writing at Salon, Thomas Rogers looks at whether the publicity surrounding Thomas Beatie, aka "the pregnant man," who has willingly appeared on "Oprah" and in many other media outlets, has ultimately helped or hurt the public perception about transgendered men...

[This is a content summary only. Click the headline to visit Our Bodies, Our Blog for the full post, links, other content and more!]

My kids refuse to teach me how to use Facebook, but Krista over at Beauty and the Breast took the plunge and found, much to her horror that among the ‘gifts’ you can send to your friends is a set of boobs–there are motivational boobs, fake boobs (which Krista points out is a tad oxymoronic since all of  the boobs in question were fake) and sporty boobs.  Now while I can see some possibilities here–do they come with a pink ribbon during October?  And what about a phallic equivalent?–the real question is what does this say about the oh so kewl concept of social networking? As Krista eloquently sums it up,

“Who, but an immature teenager would think receiving and sending photos of fake breasts is interesting, cool, or “okay” for that matter? Aren’t we inundated with fake breasts ENOUGH? What is this teaching the millions of teenagers that are part of Facebook, that women’s bodies and breasts are just objects?”

I’m going to put it a smidgeon more bluntly–GROW UP!  Objectifying women is misogyny pure and simple–it isn’t funny and it isn’t cute and Krista is absolutely right, the message sent is very damaging.

Nina Simone: Here Comes The Sun.

Robin Hanson, who I suspect of harboring mischievous¹ motives, writes:

….it is really clear male privilege is stronger overall that female privilege in our society? It might be, but as with defense spending I’d like to see some sort of calculation.  A little web search finds a male privilege checklist and a female privilege checklist. The next obvious step is to assign point values to such privileges, so we can add them up and compare totals.

The discussion in Robin’s comments has interesting bits, as does the discussion of Robin’s post at Marginal Revolution. (Or course, there are also a lot of painfully obvious, cliched and/or mindless comments, but that’s par for the course, isn’t it?) It’s kind of interesting to see this discussed on blogs where the comments sections aren’t firmly dominated by either feminists or anti-feminists.

* * *

The Male Privilege Checklist is something I now have mixed feelings about. It’s probably the single most widely-read thing I’ve ever written, or in this case, compiled. I’m awfully glad that so many people have found it helpful, including many leaders of classroom and college discussions.

But I’m not sure all of the thought behind the list makes sense.

1) In particular, the implicit definition of “privilege” used by the list is muddled, because I didn’t have a coherent definition of “privilege” in mind when I compiled the list. Instead, I used the word “privilege” as a lefty-speak way of saying “advantage.” But that’s a problem, because “privilege” is a political concept.

2) I’ve also pretty much despaired of critics ever reading the introductory remarks. In particular, this bit is nearly-universally ignored by critics:

More commonly, of course, critics (usually, but not exclusively, male) have pointed out men have disadvantages too - being drafted into the army, being expected to suppress emotions, and so on. These are indeed bad things - but I never claimed that life for men is all ice cream sundaes. […]

Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases - from a boy being bullied in school, to a soldier dying in war - the sexist society that maintains male privilege also does great harm to boys and men.

Despite this, the list is frequently taken as a statement that men don’t suffer, men don’t have legitimate complaints, etc etc.. That couldn’t be further from my view; I’ve always felt that many boys and men are severely injured by sexism, which is a major reason I was attracted to feminism in the first place.

3) It’s funny how often critics of the list assume I must be female, even though the list is clearly written from a male perspective. (In a possibly related development, men writing their counterpart “female privilege” lists virtually always write from an assumed female perspective.)

4) Why the hell did I call it a “checklist”? It really doesn’t make sense. Sigh.

5) The list is incredibly US-centric. The intro (that no one reads) acknowledges this, and I’m probably incapable of writing it any other way, but it’s still a problem with the list.

1. In the sense of being playful, not in any negative sense.

Here’s my current working definition of “oppression”:¹

Oppression is a system whereby:

1) A group “A” is systematically mistreated in comparison to non-As in a given social context.

2) The distinctive traits of group “A” are viewed as exceptions to the “unmarked” or “default” traits of a “normal” member of society.

3) Members of group “A” are effectively prevented from holding a significant number of high leadership positions in society’s controlling institutions.

Can we then define “privilege” as the direct opposite of “oppression”?² So:

Privilege is a system whereby:

1) A group “B” is systematically, unfairly advantaged in comparison to non-Bs in a given social context.

2) The distinctive traits of group “B” are viewed as the “unmarked” or “default” traits of a “normal” member of society.

3) Members of group “B” hold a near-monopoly on the high leadership positions of society’s controlling institutions.

Comments?

1. This definition of oppression swipes quite a bit from Caroline New’s discussion; see previous “Alas” discussions here and here.
2. Credit where credit’s due: I think Daran of “feminist critics” may have suggested this to me at some point.