Logic: You Do Not Have It:

(or it may be that language confuses you, it's a tossup)

From the comments at Zuska's:

If the power wielded is via the fear of sexual assault, then it is useless without the assumption that every man is a potential rapist.

Now look what happens when we apply logic to this sentence:

"If the power wielded is via the fear of sexual assault, then it is useless without the assumption that potential victims are unable to read minds."

The logical - and statistically supported - assumption that one can't tell which men are rapists just by spending time with them (much less just by simply looking at them) = / = assuming every man is capable of rape.

The only thing more annoying than women being cast as perpetually illogical is women's very logical decisions being used as "proof" of this.

These Are Not the Droids You're Looking For

I made the profound mistake of listening to KROQ's Love Lines as I was out picking up dinner tonight, just to see if it was as bad as I remember.

Dear god, it's worse. Much, much worse.

Right before I turned it off, Dr. Drew was answering the question "I'm 27 weeks pregnant. Is it ok if I use a vibrator?"

(Do these people not have access to Web MD? It's a lot faster and doesn't moralize quite so much.)

The host of course decided that what he was going to jump on was the fact that she was 17. (Which they only knew because they always require that callers state their age. Which not only makes sense from a medical standpoint, it better facilitates slut-shaming as well!)

Which wouldn't have been so bad, except that the first thing out of his mouth after "You're 17. You're pregnant" was "You have a vibrator." A teenager with a vibrator. (lucky bitch, most of us have to make do with all sorts of weird household objects) This is a bad thing? Why, exactly?

But that, dear readers, is not the best part.

Neither is the fact that the question directly before that was from another teen girl who asked "I'm almost 18. I heard that most girls get orgasms at age 18. Is that true?" You might think the best part was Dr. Drew's answer to that question, which was essentially "yes, most women orgasm for the first time in their early 20's."

(because - WTF? That's your answer doctor? Simply to state that most women have their first orgasm in their early 20's? With no other commentary or explanation? As if this all happens for the same reasons that most girls get their period at around age 12 and most kids get their first visit from the tooth fairy in second grade?)

No, the best part was that the same guy that was slut-shaming the pregnant 17 year old for having a vibrator of all things was also the one making fun of the fact that the other teen girl was treating orgasms as if they were simply something that women got at a certain age (like the ability to vote). Because, you know, it's not like the latter idiocy is at all responsible for the stats Dr. Drew was spouting earlier. Don't worry though, dear readers, Stryker knew better than to make fun of the good doctor for pepetuating the idea that physiology alone is to blame foir most women not having their first orgasm until nearly a decade after they hit puberty.

(Cuz, you know. That's the most logical conclusion ever.)


In other, completely unrelated news, the only reason boys peep into windows is because we have antiquated clothing taboos. Plus they are curious. Or something like that.


Girls don't do the same cuz we just aren't as curious. Plus there's not really much that's interesting about the male body. Or something like that.





Move along. There's nothing to see here. These aren't the droids you are looking for.

I've Decided That It's Simple After All

After reading through the thread on feministing, I've figured how to articulate why the violence against prostitutes in GTA bothers me so much. (by stealing from everyone else, of course)

Robos A Go Go argues

Shooting at police, stealing cars, and running down pedestrians are widely discouraged in other areas of life. Sexism and violence against prostitutes is not. In fact, many people feel that prostitutes invite violence upon themselves by virtue of the "choice" they make, or at the very least accept abuse of sex workers as a matter of course rather than a problem that should be as much of a concern as random assaults of pedestrians and law enforcement officers.

yup, yup, yup

Later, noname asks

Where in that video.... did you see forcibly performed sex acts?

doh, how silly of me, none of the prostitutes ever say "no!" There's no sexualized violence here!

More seriously, correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the prostitutes who are "propositioned" ever say "no," yes? Which means that instead of going right out and making it "real" rape, Rockstar has instead chosen to hide behind rape apology arguments (prostitutes never say no) in order to make sexual violence more palatable. Kudos to you Rockstar!

(Also, I'm fairly certain that the police occasionally survive one's attack. In fact, they have guns, themselves, yes? As do other characters? But do the prostitutes have weapons? Are they occasionally not dumb as rocks and aware that johns often want to hurt them? Do you ever get to proposition women who are not prostitutes or strippers? I think I may die of shock if any of these are ever true.)

nonam also tries to argue

There is an anti-male equivalent to killing prostitutes. Killing men.

just _pat points out what should be obvious:

That's not equivalent at all. I can't kill men:
a) As a member of the opposite gender.
b) As someone who is paying them for sex.
c) As someone being paid BY them for sex.

I also can't go to a club and wait for asshole guys to try to pick me up and/or drug me, only to pull out a weapon and exact vengeance upon them.

There's no equivalent.

sgzax adds what should be even more obvious:

Yes, because there are two sexes: male and prostitute. Exactly. Thank you noname for playing all your cards at once like that.

spike the cat then gives us our deep thought for the day:

People just won't admit that killing feels good. But killing a ho feels even better.

Funny, I thought that whole visceral reaction I was talking about earlier was because while killing (in video games) rates as a "meh" to "gotcha!" in my book, murdering prostitutes makes me want to barf.

Update:

Kristen answers the "can they say no?" question.

The hookers even have to like you enough to let you pick them up.

Interesting.

I disagree with her assertion that "There is no sexual violence in this game," however. There may be no outright rape, but if you watch IGN's fan trailer...oh, wait, you can't because IGN took it off their site. (dorks) It's on youtube though. no idea for how long. Anyway, if you listen to the trailer, ("I'm a hired killer and I pay for sex. My mother would be ashamed") "violence" and the "sex' are hardly divided into neat little categories. Sexualized violence isn't just about rape, after all. Often it's simply about normalizing the idea that they go hand in hand.

On the Bright Side

It's all so very snark-worthy

"This should be a better world," a friend of mine said. "A more honest one, where sex isn't shameful or degrading. I wish this was the kind of world where say, 'Wow, I'd like to touch your breasts,' and people would understand that it's not a way of reducing you to a set of nipples and ignoring the rest of you, but rather a way of saying that I may not yet know your mind, but your body is beautiful."

I must fail at logic, because I completely fail to understand why saying "your body is beautiful" is massively more complicated than saying something like "Wow, I'd like to touch your breasts."

And I will say, yet again, that if any guy ever comes up to me and compliments me by saying simply "you're beautiful," I will die of shock. Which will be very sad, because he was sure to get my number and/or my first born child otherwise.

We were standing in the hallway of ConFusion, about nine of us, and we all nodded. Then another friend spoke up.

"You can touch my boobs," she said to all of us in the hallway. "It's no big deal."

I'm fascinated by her phrasing here, and how everyone in the group finds this so refreshing. I mean, I'm very much not down with the whole "sex is a special thing that should only happen between two people who are in love!" meme that most of the world pretends to be caught up in, but isn't it a little insulting for her to say that "it's no big deal?" Unless her breasts are completely lacking in nerve endings, shouldn't she have some kind of feeling toward the experience? Otherwise, isn't it just a mini version of pity-sex?

Now, you have to understand the way she said that, because it's the key to the whole project. The spirit of everything was formed within those nine words - and if she'd said them shyly, as though having her breasts touched by people was something to be endured or afraid of, the Open-Source Boob Project would have died...

I agree. Her lack of (stated) desire and the fact that she was making an offer and not a proposal, very much is the spirit of the project, and very much why the project is complete FAIL.

Yet it wasn't a come-on, either. There wasn't that undertow of desperation of come on, touch me, I need you to validate my self-esteem, and maybe we'll hook up later tonight. There was no promise of anything but a simple grope.

Because, of course, when women do come-on's it's because we are desperate. Guys on the other hand, are just being guys. So when they say 'Wow, I'd like to touch your breasts" women should translate that to "your body is beautiful" and not get sidetracked by all the "me/I" statements.

We all reached out in the hallway, hands and fingers extended, to get a handful...They were awesome breasts, worthy of being touched.

Which raises the question of which breasts are not worthy of being touched, and how the poor women attached to such breasts feel about that.

And life seemed so much simpler.

Yeah, not having to think about privilege is like that.

In this moment, all of the societal restrictions had fallen away, and we discovered an eBay-like need: We liked to express adoration of her body, and she liked the compliment of being desired. It wasn't a one-way flow; it was a stream of compliments being passed back and forth as we explored that small zone of her body, a My God, these are beautiful breasts you have, along with the backstream compliment of Thank you, you're worthy of touching them.

Dear idiots, the issue is not your worthiness, but her desires. You can pretend all you want that you are living in a brand new world, but if she says you can touch her breasts because you are worthy, oh great one, and not because she wants you to, then it's really just the same old world. As it usually is.

Plus, "an eBay-like need"?? wtf is that even supposed to mean?

It could have been a base lechery. But instead, it was sexual desire made simple. We knew we couldn't go further, but being allowed inside this area of restricted access with nothing more than a question was somehow amazing.

After all, usually women make using their bodies all complicated and shit.

Oh and wtf is up with confusing desire and pleasure? Dudez, the desire was made simple by skipping from compliments to expressing your id. It's the getting of sexual pleasure, not desire, that you are talking about here.

We stood there afterwards, a little shocked

Do I really have to say the obvious?

Then someone else spoke up in the same tone of voice:

"You can touch mine, too."

Well, at least this time there was no "it's no big deal." Although, I must ask, why no "Can I see your cock?" Cuz that's totally what I would have said instead.

And my God! We all reached out like zombies trying to break through a door to get to those breasts.

Yeah, no desperation here.

And it wasn't getting any worse! We weren't degenerating into an orgy....

Isn't that a direct contradiction to the above sentence? Or maybe he thinks zombies are sexy.

Nobody was trying to pull off a bra or suck on a nipple; we'd been given access to a very special place that only lovers usually touched, and why would you be so crude as to try to push the boundaries of that?

You mean men can be expected to respect personal boundaries? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

No really. After reading all of this, I kinda am.

And every girl in that hallway was then asked the question: "May I touch your breasts?" They considered, and said yes. And we all did.

Wow, no pressure there.

And my Lord, I'd had experience in breasts in my time, but having so many compared right next to each other was beautiful. One of the reasons I love sex is because every body is so different, and the differences in size, and skin tone, and nipple sensitivity, and bras - bras were a big deal in how a boob felt - were highlighted....

Yes, every breast is different, but only some are worthy of being touched.

We went back to some of the first open-sourcers, eager for comparison. "Can I touch them again?" "Sure!" And the feel-ups continued.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. As others have painstakingly pointed out, open-source is about who owns the rights, not who ultimately uses the software.

I felt the terrors of high school washing away from me. It could be this easy. Just ask!

Apologies, but I really must quote CM on this one:

"I wish all our unsubs tacked their profile up on the wall like this."

Unresolved issues much?

And then the real magic happened. Because a beautiful girl in an incredibly skimpy blue Princess outfit strode down the hallway, obviously putting her assets on display (the thin strips of her clothing had to be taped to her body to stay on), and we stopped her.

Oh dear god, no.

"Excuse me," the first, very brave girl asked. "You're very beautiful. I'd like to touch your breasts. Would you mind if I did?"

Ok, now I'm really confused. If the idea is that people should take "I'd like to touch your breasts" to equal "You're very beautiful" then why the hell did she say both? Methinks someone isn't being very honest with themselves.

We held our breath. We didn't want to offend.

Yet, they "didn't want to" enough to not take the risk of doing so, obviously. How daring of them to risk her feeling humiliated so that they could cop a feel.

This could go wrong, collapsing and turning us into cruel lechers who'd make her feel uncomfortable and shamed of who she was....

You know, most people get past the "it doesn't happen unless I see it" stage at about age 3.

A tip for all dudez (and dudettes) thinking of trying this. Her saying that you are lechers is not what turns you into lechers.

She thought for a heartbeat, sizing us up. But there must have been something honest and trustworthy in our eyes that promised that we wouldn't get out of hand... Because after a moment, she smiled and said, "Sure!"

Again with the worthiness. And the idea men behaving is shocking. And the lack of awareness of risk analysis. (She decided that they were trustworthy, not that what they promised was worth the risk of what might happen. And god forbid we mentioned the possibility of peer pressure or the risk analysis often involved in saying "yes" when you want to say "no.")

The first girl touched respectfully.

The repetition of "respectful" is really making me wonder why such respect is considered so noteworthy to the author.

And reported that they were glorious.

More than any other part of this post, this sentence makes me want to beg the writer in question to never write anything ever again. Please. With sugar on top.

.... It wasn't that she was a piece of meat to be felt up, but rather that a living person that we did not know had voluntarily lowered the barriers that separate us and allowed us in... And we were so grateful that we were showering her in pure adoration.

You know, I might actually believe this if I thought for one nano-second that any one of them asked her how she wanted to be touched, rather than if they could touch her or how she didn't want to be touched. But since I'm fairly certain none of them did, I fail to see how any of this is adoration.

It was exciting, of course. I won't deny it was sexual.

Except for her, of course.

But it was a miraculous sexuality that didn't feel dirty, but clean.

Dare I suggest that it's because you weren't bothered by thoughts of her pleasure? Plus, your issues are showing again. You might want to take care of that. And no, not caring about how others feel is not the way to do so.

Emboldened, we started asking other people. And lo, in the rarified atmosphere of the con, few were offended and many agreed.

Which makes it all good, cuz that's what a democracy is about, right? As long as most everyone's ok with it, it's ok to do it.

And they also felt that strange charge.

You know, it might have been just you. I doubt that most SF fans are quite as repressed as the stereotype says they are.

Or, it could have just been the static electrcity

We went around the con, asking those who we thought might be amenable - you didn't just ask anyone, but rather the ones who'd dressed to impress - and generally, people responded. They understood how this worked instinctively, and it worked.

Gee, there's no rape apology lingering under all that. No siree.

And on a completely unrelated note, I wore oversized t-shirts all through high school because I was all about being comfortable at that age.

By the end of the evening, women were coming up to us. "My breasts," they asked shyly, having heard about the project. "Are they... are they good enough to be touched?"

I just can't snark about that. It's just too sad.

And lo, we showed them how beautiful their bodies were without turning it into something tawdry.

I'm glad you've finally figured out how to do that, but I still don't think a public space is quite the right place for it.

Oh, and I thought I'd give you fair warning that I'm trying to find a way to ban the letters l and o from the internet.

We talked about this. It was an Open-Source Project, making breasts available to select folks.

Really, there is no end to his lack of understanding of the idea of open-source.

(Like any good project, you need access control, because there are loutish men and women who just Don't Get It.)

Irony, my good friend! So nice to see you.

And we wanted a signal to let people know that they were okay with being asked politely,

For their sake, of course.

so we turned it into a project:

The Open-Source Boob Project.

At Penguicon, we had buttons to give away. There were two small buttons, one for each camp: A green button that said, "YES, you may" and a red button that said "NO, you may not." And anyone who had those buttons on, whether you knew them or not, was someone you could approach and ask:

"Excuse me, but may I touch your breasts?"

Ok so, I'm going to give the Douche the benefit of the doubt and assume that people with the latter buttons were left alone. But still, what is the point of the "No!" buttons?

Oh, silly me, I keep thinking that he's being sincere in trying to make this easier for the gropees. No, it's always all about the gropers.

And if you weren't a total lout - the women retained their right to say no, of course - they would push their chests out, and you would be allowed into the sanctity of it. That exchange of happiness where one person are told with gropes and touches that they are desirable and the other is someone who's allowed to desire.

Again, desire =/= sexual pleasure. Which, in turn =/= access to other's bodies. There is a connection, yes. But they are not all the same thing.

For a moment, everything that was awkward about high school would fade away and you could just say what was on your mind. It was as though parts of me were being healed whenever I did it, and I touched at least fifteen sets of boobs at Penguicon.

Unresolved issues. Drink!

It never got old, surprisingly.

Surprising? In what way is that surprising?

Some women didn't want to. That was fine.

Wow. Good to know.

We never demanded anything of anyone.

You know, despite the obvious douchbaggery involved here, it never actually occurred to me that any of them did (explicitly). The fact that he felt the need to clarify that makes me wonder, however.

And if you didn't want to put yours up for the Project but you wanted to touch, well, that was fine, too. It was simply for folks who felt like being open.

Open to what, exactly? Other than being reassured that I am worthy enough to be groped, I'm a little confused as to what I'm supposed to be open to.

It was a raging success at Penguicon.... And there haven't been any hookups that I know of thanks to the Open-Source Boob Project.

So, I'm not saying that touches aren't good by themselves, but still, this is a good thing why?

I've left off the names, because frankly, people should reveal for themselves whether they're Open-Sourcers or not. Not everyone wants to go public with it, and what happens at the con stays at the con. But trust me. If you are, and I meet you, I will ask.

You have insurance, yes? Good.

And you'll understand the beauty and simplicity of the Open-Source Boob Project for yourself.

Well, yes, being the crazy feminazi that I am, I'm always eager to kick men in the balls. I so rarely get socially sanctioned chances to do so, however. Nice of you to do me that favor.

Touch the magic, my friends. Touch the magic.

And here, I though that earlier sentence could never be topped for pure "dear god, I wish I'd never read that"-ness.

Why I Hate Local News

and all kinds of other news shows as well

some LA station is reporting on the "Spitzer sex scandal"

'cuz the most important thing is that it's all about sex. It's not about a public official who was entrusted with enforcing laws now being charged with doing something that's illegal, the hypocrisy of him going after johns while being one, or that he endangered the lives of others - including his wife - by trying to coerce a prostitute into letting him not wear a condom. No, it's really just the sex that matters.

and they keep calling the woman who blew the whistle on Spitzer a "call-girl"

'cuz it's not like there aren't better words they could use, or that she is an adult who deserves the respect of being addressed as one, or that it matters if we imply statutory rape and then ignore the implication, therefore suggesting that charges of rape amount to nothing more than a "sex scandal."

and yet, when they quote some idiot on her myspace page, they replace "whore" with "prostitute"

or, at least, that's what one assumes they were replacing, since "prostitute" was written as "[prostitute]" on the visual aid screen

'cuz it's all fine and good to treat sex itself as both worse and more newsworthy than illegal activity, conflate rape and sex, infantilize a grown woman, quote people who call her names, or use silly euphemisms ourselves, but god forbid we use something as disrespectful as "whore" on local television.

at 11pm.

even if it means inaccurately reporting the name-callers as being more polite than the local news.

(sigh)

huh?

Kitty Pryde throws herself at Peter Rasputin before the big battle. It’s well-written and doesn’t demean her as a character, but is it appropriate? Well, that depends upon its target audience, doesn’t it?

Um...

Kitty Pryde throws herself at Peter Rasputin before the big battle.

wtf-ever.

Seriously, who the hell describes the continuation of a previously established and emotionally fulfilling sexual relationship as one partner throwing themselves at the other? Really, people, we silly feminazi's would be a little less quick to see sexism when it's only barely there if you all would stop conflating female desire with submission and desperation.

It’s well-written and doesn’t demean her as a character, but is it appropriate?

More or less appropriate than Mystique trying to seduce Wolverine in the second X-Men movie? (Or her make-up throughout all three?)

Well, that depends upon its target audience, doesn’t it?

Since I'm guessing both the target audience and the actual audience of the Whedon's Astonishing X-Men is more than old enough to read about sexual relationships where the two people involved actually treat each other with respect...again I say: wtf-ever.

And as far as the actual point of the post goes:

Just in case I haven't said this enough lately, it just so happens that I often am thinking not just of myself but also of any girl who has started puberty* when I argue against crap like the Heroes for Hire cover and for scenes like the ones where Kitty and Peter get it on. What can I say, I like and admire Judy Blume.

Emma Frost trying to impersonate both the Phoenix and a sex starved kewpie doll - at the same time? Now that I could do without and wouldn't really recommend to anyone - including younger teen girls. I only wish, however, that girls - teen and otherwise - could be exposed to more stuff along the lines of the "I phased!" scene and the "one last time before the big battle" scene.

From my experience of having been one, I can tell you that a lot of girls often get the impression from culture that sex is supposed to be demeaning to women - and it seems increasingly obvious to me that we are not the only ones who learn this. Which means that a lot of people have a really hard time distinguishing "sex" from "showing women in a demeaning manner." Why else would you describe that scene as Kitty "throwing" herself at Peter? No matter how many times you try to argue later that the scene is "well-written and doesn’t demean her as a character" - characterizing her behavior as "throwing" herself at Peter demeans Kitty and her actions. Actions that, yes, really were not at all demeaning as originally written.

I can't decide which I find more disturbing, the misrepresentation of Girl-Wonder's goals, the conflation of Girl-Wonder and every feminist interested in comics, or the constant conflation of (male) sexual desire and objectification (of women and girls) Thankfully, that isn't something that I have to vote on. I can simply get pissed at all three.

*And in case I haven't reminded everyone enough lately, it's not unusual nowadays for puberty to hit girls before they are even into double digits.

It's Not Advice If It's An Order

What strikes me most reading this, is how much it such "advice" mirrors the "advice" given to (young) women on how to not get raped.

As inge points out in the comments:

The question is how much is a person expected to give up to reduce how low a risk to their own or their children’s health? At some point it passes ridiculous and becomes political.

Because that's the part they never talk about...the fact that - as Amanda repeatedly points out in the actual post - people still have lives to live and work to do and fun to have and problems and addictions to deal with, and so on and so forth - even people who happen to be female. Even people who happen to be female and pregnant.

Trust

I have a post stuck somewhere in draft hell about trust and experience and how people interpret the books they read, the movies they see, etc.

Reading this comment over at Random Thoughts and watching Criminal Minds tonight made me think of it.

The gist of the comment at Random Thoughts was this:

You see, you say something like this and you get messages of support.

I say something like this and get told that I shouldn't be saying women should go out and make comics. Of course, I was a lot more confrontational, but still.

Tammy's response was:

I'm sorry. I know it ain't exactly fair. Sometimes gender does count for more.

Which, well....as a fan of Tammy's books, I hate to disagree with her because it reminds me that she's merely mortal, but.....as a fan of comics and scifi and fantasy and books and movies and TV and lots of other stuff, I have to call bullshit.

All reading, viewing, listening, etc. involves a certain amount of interpretation.

So, I don't listen when Tammy says this but ignore people like her commenter because Tammy is a girl and the commenter is a boy, I listen to Tammy because I actually know who the fuck she is. Relatively speaking, anyway. I've read her stuff, both fiction and non-fiction, and I have a general idea of where she's coming from so I can read between the lines a lot better than when I run across some random person I've never encountered before.

Now, it's true that being female generated a certain amount of initial trust back when I started reading her books. Or, well, not trust, exactly, but a certain amount of capital when it came to risk analysis. (Cost of book versus chance it will suck.) Not because of anything to do with biology, but because of socialization. Hers, not mine, that is.

Mickle is quite aware that male authors are capable of writing female characters worthy of mountains of praise. But she has noticed that male authors are more likely than female authors to write books that get lots of fannish praise - but also include female characters that make her want to raise invading armies.

More importantly, unlike the guy who is suspicious of the female mechanic because he's never dealt with a women who knows anything about cars before, logic and basic understanding of the culture I live in support my risk analysis rather than contradict it. A female mechanic, after all, is more likely to have faced a lot of discrimination than oh, say, actually been able to sleep her way into a job. (I've never really gotten that. At least not how common such accusations are, anyway. Are women so completely devoid of logic that we would willingly do two jobs for the price of one? en masse? Anyways.....) However, considering how often the male experience is treated as the default, it unfortunately makes a lot of sense that a not insignificant number of male writers, both good and bad, would write women that sound fake.

Still, despite all that, gender was a tiny fraction of my consideration when deciding whether to spend all of 5 bucks on one of Tammy's books. The main factor was the vast amounts of praise her books always got, and who was giving the praise, and what the praise actually was.

The same logic and risk analysis comes into play whenever I decide how to spend my money and time.

The point of my previous (and now molding) post on trust and interpretation was that while I ignore a lot of stuff that might otherwise piss me off as long as it comes from writers that I know, I don't do this out of some misguided sense of fan loyalty. When Julia Quinn's heroes start acting like jerks, I don't ignore my feminist sensibilities because, golly gee willickers, that Julia person seems like a nice girl! I keep reading because I know from experience that there's going to be a payoff a chapter or two down the line.

As a more accessible example of what I mean (since I'm guessing a limited number of my readers are Julia Quinn fans), tonight's episode of Criminal Minds started out with an opening that would have had me switching channels if I didn't know the show already. Not only is the girl who is kidnapped the silly girl who doesn't listen to all the scary warnings about teen girls gone missing! she's also kidnapped while out alone, at night, with her boyfriend. Making out, of course. With suggestions of much more to follow. Bad slutty teen girl, you broke one the cardinal rules of being in a bad horror flick! You must be punished!!!!!!!!

However, not ten minutes later, my double crush says one of the many true things that are acknowledged more often on Criminal Minds than on any other show I've ever watched - that the evil, bad, monster who is raping, torturing, and murdering women does it (in part) because he hates women. And not "hates women so much it's made him crazy crazy crazy!" But "he's messed up enough to kill and he doesn't think too highly of women." The "is willing to commit murder" and "really dislikes women" are connected but not necessarily dependent upon one another. (Thus the constant reminders that cruelty to animals is part of the homicidal triad.)

Every time one of the characters says something like tonight's "Well, we know what he thinks of women." I want to send the writers a lifetime supply of brownies. Especially when it's followed up by "he's a part of this community" - in other words he's not some monster hiding in the shadows, he's one of you. He's a husband, a father, a co-worker. Then I also want to send them milk to go with the brownies.

-mental reminder to donate to the writer's guild - BAD MICKLE!-

And that's before you get to the subplot of rape victims not being believed, the conversations between the victims that revolve around them worrying what other people think of them, and the conversations between JJ and Hotch about what it's like to be the target of so much violence* and the fine line between not caring enough and being consumed by empathy.

Honestly, I wasn't overly impressed with this episode. But part of the reasons why I love Criminal Minds is because the more I analyze it, the more I agree with it. And the more I re-watch seasons 1 and 2, the more I'm convinced that there's a lot being snuck in there that works as commentary about the bad trends it's supposedly a part of.

Like violence on TV.

I was cringing through a good chunk of this episode. The stuff they were describing? Yeah, I can totally see a victim of that being extremely eager to convince herself that everyone is right, she was lying, it never happened to her. But - they never actually show any of it. It's all suggestion.

Fast forward to the opening of tonight's CSI:NY and one of the many reasons why I stopped watching the CSI's a long time ago: several shots (maybe even a full minute or two of screen time) of a dead guy with a big gaping hole where is mouth, upper chin, and nose used to be. That? DO NOT NEED.

Now, this isn't to say that the CM writers don't fuck up (scroll down to the third *). But it does mean they do so less often. And that when they don't, they sometimes get it really, really right. I'm all for less violence towards women on TV, but I much prefer CM's more realistic portrayals and stats to CSI:NY's statistically negligent man whose mouth was blown off by an exploding cigar.

Anyway, back to the main point.

It may be that there is more back story to the comment on Tammy's post, but, well, to go with the themes laid out so far (or, attempted to, anyway)...this is an argument that I've seen come up several times before. And the people crying sexism** when feminists note the gender of the author, or people listen to the Tammys or even Ragnells of the world more than the random dudes out there....they are often people who can't seem to differentiate experience from discrimination, caution from accusation, example from bullying.

If I ignore you, or even berate you, because I misinterpreted what you said, the fault isn't necessarily mine.

The fact that CM warms my heart - despite my being heartless, bitchy feminist- that doesn't mean that CM's opening scene tonight wasn't stupid.

It was. Very.***

Likewise, if I misinterpret what you are saying because it sounds a hell of a lot like what really stupid people say...that's not really my fault. The likely explanation is not that I'm a mean feminist who thinks less of men, but that I misinterpreted what you said because you began it by making it clear that punishing slutty teen girl with a serial rapist/murder/torturer was considered to be appropriate. Or, it could be that experience, logic, a basic understanding of human nature, and risk analysis predicts that you are blind to the fact that she is being punished at all.

Then again, it simply might be useful to establish a certain amount of trust and understanding before we delve into complicated topics.



*technically, the conversation is about what it's like to have so much in common with so many of the victims. But again, an interpretation that takes past episodes into account - which we are obviously meant to do, what with two echoes of Vigilante!Elle! in the same episode - reminds us that JJ isn't just like the victims. Aside from the FBI training, she is the ideal victim - at least in TV land - and has even, like Elle, played the victim to get the case solved.

**unsurprisingly, such people also tend to call this "reverse sexism" -sigh- I'll just leave that one be for now, 'cuz I'm all out of outrage tonight. Except as directed towards my family and my inability to communicate to them the political and social ideas that are the driving force behind my chosen career path. I really think they believe I just love books that much. Game Nights are apparently just bribes. -sigh- sorry for the digression, I had a long fight with my dad and sister tonight about the writer's strike. not fun.

***It was made less so by the team talking about how well executed the attack was; it's clear that the unsub was, um, talented enough to have found someone to grab. This was cancelled out, however, by the scene where the second victim blames herself for what happened to her, and nothing in the episode contradicts this. Although I guess one could argue that since this is the segue into the victims talking about shame.....And I was already willing to give them bonus points for showing some male flesh.....

I Knew This Would Be the Case

I'm bored. So I turned on The Big Bang Theory to see how bad it would be.

The problem is

A) I love Sheldon, not the other dude that we are supposed to relate to and like.

B) Sheldon's costume - The Doppler Effect - has to be one of the best costumes ever.

C) I want to be at the party were everyone recognizes the awesomeness of his costume and creates a prize for "the costume that best visualizes a scientific principle" just because it's that awesome. I don't want to be at the party they go to in the show.

And yes, A-C have everything do with the fact that, as a first-year, I was awarded "Most likely to explain a scientific principle during dinner" - or something of the sort. (I'm sure it was funnier than that.)

I want to love this show so much! Because the science jokes are soo effing funny! But everything else? badBADBAD!

Oh, and, gee, not sexist at all:

"But in the information age, we are the alpha males!" No, you're still the dipshits. Sexy men don't resort to evo psych and Nice Guy arguments. And way to spoil one of the few nice moments with a rape joke/nice guy lament, assholes.

NFL is Full of Sissies

via Feministing, we learn that NFL teams have been told to "control their cheerleaders." Apparently, their suspicion is that various cheerleading teams have been deliberately warming up in certain locations before the game, with the intent to distract the other team.

Wha?

Ok, even if this is true, there's two big problems with this response.

**********

First of all, since when is enganging in mind games considered to be not ok?

While my experiences with professional sports is admittedly limited, I did play JV soccer in high school. Let me rephrase that, I played JV soccer in SB Co., home of Landon Donavon, Shannon Boxx , and Heather Aldama. And all four of us are about the same age so, yes, while needless to say all three are eons ahead of me in talent and skill, making it to the JV team around the same time that they were playing varsity was nothing to sneeze at.

Do you know what our coach had us do every pre-game warm-up? Do our damnest to psyche out the other team. Our uniforms were to be perfect and, well, uniform. (We all had our team jackets on, or none of us did.) We ran as close to their side as we could. We ran in step like a fucking army. I don't know if it worked, but I do know that this was accepted. Strikers would go up and shake the goalies hand before a penalty kick in order to psyche them out. The game was as psychological as it was physical.

Now, I'm fairly certain the handshake isn't allowed in professional soccer - for various reasons, but I have limited sympathy for professional players of any sport who accuse the other team of "cheating" because they engage in mind games.


*********

Most of all though, it's a stupid response by the NFL because it reinforces the idea that men are unable to help themselves around pretty girls - 'cause they're men you know! That's the basis for most rape apology arguments. The boys just can't help themselves.

Bullshit.

The fact that the NFL consistently and constantly uses the cheerleader's sexual appeal to make money off of them - and get people to come to the games, which gives the home team a psychological advantage - just makes it even worse.

Echo Chambers

I never really considered myself to be all that left wing - until we took some stupid test in high school history and I scored as a complete commie-loving radical. Despite that, I still tend to side with the status quo when controversial stuff comes up.

For years, I was more moderate on abortion than even my younger brother. Now, my views are probably the most radical within my entire family.

A part of this recent change is due to reading some of the really awesome left wing and especially feminist blogs over the last few years. There's so many brilliant writers out there blogging away reminding me of things the mainstream media ignores and explaining things so much better than anyone else does.

I find it interesting, though, that my most radical stances tend to solidify not through reading Pandagon or Shakesville, but by reading the comments of people who disagree with Amanda and Melissa. Or rather, by responding to such comments.

For example, Amanda made a short post recently in response to a comment left at another blog. The comment itself was very outrageous (it ends with "Ugly old women virtually never get raped") and no one who reads Pandagon regularly would disagree on that point.

The topic of discussion then became the first part of the comment (because, despite stereotypes, you can only go so far with the unnuanced "evil!" or "that sucks!") :

Feminists invented the idea of “rape as hate crime” because it fit their overall “men vs. women” worldview.

Or rather, the main topic became whether or not rape is a hate crime. (fyi, while the discussion there considered at certain points whether or not all rape is a hate crime, I'm only talking about men raping women. Mostly because that's the kind the comment is talking about. Apparently men and boys are as lucky as girls and older women.)

Now, when I first read Amanda's post, I was thinking to myself "hell, yeah!" as she pointed out several of the ways in which the commenter's "proof" that rape is motivated by lust is so very, very wrong. What I wasn't really thinking about was whether or not that meant rape was a hate crime. If you had asked me back on Saturday when I first read the post, I likely would have answered "sometimes" - which very few people argued against in the comments section.

The weird thing is, listening to all the arguments, and pointing out the obvious - and maybe not so obvious - flaws in the less offensive arguments made my stance more out of step with the status quo than it was before.

Or - maybe not so weird.

The great thing about blogs isn't just the bloggers, it's the democratic act of discussing and debating things. Despite the fact that lots of comment sections are full of juvenile taunts and grammar lessons (I'm sure I've been guilty of both myself), comment threads can be some of the best parts of blogs. Not so much just to read, but because they are participatory.

By requiring that defenders of the status quo give forth real arguments, they force people to put to (digital) paper the twisted logic that often stays hidden, and therefore unquestioned. By motivating people to point out these various contortions, it forces the people making such comments to think things through more thoroughly than they would otherwise.

Emotions still cloud judgement. Debates still get hung up on connotation, definition, and myths that are accepted as fact. But overall, I think they are just what the founders had in mind.

Which brings us back to the weirdness of my more radical stances. Because the weird thing about my conviction that rape is a hate crime* is that it's a view that is less likely to change, despite being very not mainstream. Because it's a view that I put a decent amount of thought into, not just an emotional reaction or a value I picked up without questioning it.

The weirdness is that this goes against what we tend to think debate should be about. I shouldn't be simply convincing myself more thoroughly, I should be compromising and/or convincing opposite minded people.

But while the actual act of governing requires a lot of compromise and convincing, I don't think the real value of everyday discussions and debates lies in just getting more people on your side. It think a lot of the value of such discussion lies in self-discovery and being certain about what you really believe in, so that when the time comes to make that compromise, you know when it's ok to do so, and when you need to stand your ground.

After all, the reason why most people seemed to agree that at least some rapes could be hate crimes is because that's a very vague stance to take. As annoying as we radicals are, one has to admit that vague positions aren't very useful when it comes to actual governing.

*As I said there, the fact that it is one doesn't necessarily mean that it makes sense to prosecute it as such every time, especially when one is talking about hate crimes. But it does mean that it should be an option and that the larger culture should be educated about the true nature of rape.

Things You Should Know

Since I don't do enough useful stuff with this silly bog of mine:

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Because, Eastern Michigan University, knowing is half the battle.

(idea stolen from Auguste, who has more to say on the subject)

(hat tip to Melissa as well.)

The Really Scary Part?

This is not the only one of it's kind out there.

How about this:



please note that the decay has managed to touch neither superheroine's breasts. trying to look sexy, my ass.

Or this:



Sadly, it seems to be a trend (and no, I don't mean the zombie bit.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Violence against women as a punch line is so overused that even misogynist comedians should take a break from it for no other reason than on account of it being excessively amatureish.

Showing women who are maimed or had violence done to them as sexy is so pervasive in our culture and so fundamentally disturbing given real life stats that, no matter how good-natured the intent, it's pretty much never a good idea.

Plus, it tends to make the whole irony of a sexy zombie not so ironic after all.

Because this is Important

(and I'm too tired to write a real post)

Melissa's had some great - but heart-wrenching - posts lately about rape and how it's normalized through humor. In her most recent post on the subject she responds in the comments to someone who makes the tired old argument that:

If I were wasted and walked down a city street with $100 bills sticking out all of my pockets, then got jumped you’d call me, at the least, irresponsible wouldn’t you?

Having responded to such arguments at face value before, without really examining how false the core of the argument is, I want to highlight the Melissa's fantastic reply, which boils down to:

Relying on the “guy getting mugged” comparison tells us two things, however. One: It shows how deeply ingrained the notion of women’s bodies as property is. Comparing a woman’s genitals to a $100 bill visibly dangling out of a man’s pocket is laughable in both practical and intrinsic ways, and yet the association was cited with not a hint of awareness at its patent absurdity. Two: It illustrates how far removed you are from the real threat of rape. Invoking a mugging is evidently the closest thing you can imagine to being forcibly subjected to an assault on one’s sex organs. That must be a lovely world in which to live.

I will be stealing that the next time I get into that argument with someone.

Not My Cute Bunnies and Happy Puppies Post

I told myself I was going to write about some of the comics I've read recently that I really liked, even if for no other reason than for Ragnell's sanity, but, like hippokrene, stupidity offends me.

But do you know what offends me more? That our culture has managed to link women with vulnerability, and violence against women with sex to such an extent that normally not stupid people are unable to tell the difference between this:

and this:
It makes me wonder if these same people cannot tell the difference between this:
and this:
How many times do I have to explain that it's not just that women always! = sex that offends me, it's also very much the fact that so large a portion of my peers finds the thought of me in pain to be sexually arousing and that this is considered normal! That's what disturbs and enrages me. That's what scares me.

It's really not the fact that (heterosexual) men like looking at sexy women that bugs me. It's really not even just the pervasiveness of it, nor even just the double standard that says that they are not for looking at. It's not these things alone that makes me look askance at the guys around me. It's also very much the fact that time and time again "regular" people prove that they can't tell the difference between "women = sex!" and "violence against women = sex!" that makes me wonder and worry.

Some People

seem to have the impression that Heroes for Hire is not aimed at women.

If the follow-up to a comic that gets ball-cracking-feminazi Karen Healey's stamp of approval* is not "aimed at women" what the fuck is?

(And do you not get that by arguing that we are so invisible as to not even be worth considering when it comes to even comics like this that you are making our point for us?)

You may keep your tentacle porn for all I care, some of my best friends enjoy tentacle porn.

But for the love of baby Jesus and cute puppies everywhere, is it really necessary to turn this into this, much less this?

(I'd argue to keep the 'fing bondage and sexual violence away from rape victims - or at least be smart enough to not consider soft focused depictions of them a selling point - but that puts you in rather a conundrum now doesn't it?)

*well, ok, so the nipple thing. But that hardly contradicts the point. And yeah, H4H is not the same thing as DotD, but one would think that a certain amount of crossover between audiences would be the goal.

This is What We Mean By Rape Culture

First, you have all read Whedon's latest rant of excellence, right? Good.

Now that I've spent far too much time compiling the list below I'd like to talk about why I believe that the Twain quote about there being "lies, damn lies, and statistics" is never more apt than when it comes to discussions about gender, harassment, and the male gaze.

Amanda recently made the comment on her blog that:

.....I call bullshit on the simple-reversal thing.

For example, a scene: Woman in library reading by herself, man leans over her shoulder. vs. Man in library reading by himself, woman leans over his shoulder.

Simple equation, but most of us could more easily see the former being scary because we’re aware of how commonly men invade women’s personal space to harass them.

Experience isn't something that people need to get over, it's something people rightly use to make everyday choices. While we should never let fear dominate our decisions, ignoring our feelings because they are inconvenient is never good nor logical.

The two posts must hardly seem connected in most people's minds, however. Amanda's example is of man doing something that many women would find threatening, while most women would find Laura's example of a man looking at store displays featuring sexy women to be harmless everyday behaviour. Yet why is looking at objectified women in public considered to be such mundane behavior? Does it really carry no other meaning than "sex is good and healthy?"

Just like the image of the person looking over another's shoulder, we view the situation through the lens of our experiences. Just as we bring to images like the ones below the knowledge that men rape women exponentially more often than women rape men, we also bring the knowledge that men are allowed more freedom when it comes to sexual desire than women are. While the pervasiveness of all this often prevents us from seeing the big picture impact of everyday actions, it's also what contributes to the impact such actions have.

Every instance of such behavior is a reminder that not only men are allowed to look at objectified images of women, but they are often given the right to do so without reasonable boundaries, while women often barred from the same basic privilege. The amount of harm done by such actions is not limited to the crudeness displayed or lack of respect when interacting with actual women. No more than it's all about the way he's looking over her shoulder that makes the image frightening. It's also about the experiences of being denied similar privilege and being forced to participate in the same pastime of looking at objectified images of women, whether you like to or not.

The final score is not thirty-something to nine, it's thirty-something to a fraction. Because, like Amanda's example. mere gender reversal does not equate to equality. Whatever I may feel looking at person-shaped Spidey in peril, I'd imagine most (heterosexual) men see nothing sexual in it at all. Which means that the pairing of sex and violence is not present in those images the way that it is in even the image of Sue Storm being held captive by two men.




I don't dislike the Fantastic Four cover. I just think it carries different connotations than a similar image of a male superhero would. Especially the typical superhero, who would be built closer to a tank and than a movie star. And I think we can all agree that many of my additions to the "sexy men in peril" were highly questionable when it comes to the sexy part. Is Spidey in that cover really in any way sexy the way that Sue Storm is in hers? He's mostly just person-shaped and looking a little graceful and awkward at the same time. There's nothing really objectified about him. Sue Storm, on the other hand has a blank expression, "perfect" body, hands clenched together (not apart and in fists), and knees together as well.

Quite frankly, in some ways I find this cover more disturbing than the infamous Heroes for Hire cover. (With the exception of the needless injustices done to Misty.) Setting aside for the moment the rating of the cover, it is at least honest about what it's trying to convey. To a disturbing degree certainly, but, well, honesty counts for something. But images like the F4 cover normalize the intersection of sex and violence against women in a way that's needed for the HFH hire cover to become acceptable in the mainstream. How many people are going to look at the F4 cover and consciously think "sex! and women in pain!" and yet still absorb the message? What kinds of real life signals do guys miss because they are taught that her posture is womanly rather than deliberately vulnerable? Which brings us back to Dworkin and the question of how a culture that equates femininity with vulnerability and submission can ever properly define rape.

The guy who "can't take a joke" is now arguing that "sexism is a convention of the genre" - in the guise of "sex sells."

If it was just sex that sells, I'd be fine with it all. I'd imagine most of us would (leaving sex in kid's stories for another debate). But it's not just sex that sells. It's degrading sex that sells. It's sex that degrades women that sells. It's sex that lumps sex and violence against women together that sells, and that's something else entirely.

The male gaze does burn. Largely because, as the covers show, it's meant to.

I can't speak for other women, but I didn't buy Super-hero comics until recently not because I don't like action or super-heroes, but because I thought they were more of the "action hero saves damsel in distress" type of story - often with added objectification of women and sexual violence towards women. Other people (Ragnell, Kalinara, and yes Whedon) showed me that this isn't always the case, but I never would have been able to find the comics that don't do this without their help. And I'm still very, very torn between liking the medium, wanting a good adventure story, and wanting to avoid crap like this as much as humanly possible.

Blood is Cumpulsory, but it's Best if it's With "Love"

Let's count the number of covers up on Marvel's site that show women as being both sexy and in peril, shall we? Because this and this have put me in the mood to do so.

>One.

>Two.

>I'm including this this partly because I've always found the preponderance of Superheroines with unbound long hair to be nearly as silly as the number of exposed bellies and improbable shoes. O don't know who she is, but even if she's not a superhero - the artist included that flowing long hair for a reason, and it's not just to improve the composition. That makes Three.

>Yes, she's evil, but she's a sexy evil villain - and we all know why that is. Four.

>So, the other two X-Women look like they're kicking ass, but Rogue looks like she'd looking for a handy boulder. Five.

>I so want to count this, because she looks like she's about to fall, but I'll let that one slide.

>I get that there's men lying (dead)?) on the ground as well as women, but only the women are draped as well as mangled. Six.

>Wolverine may be the one with the claws in his neck, but she's the one who looks scared - and has holes in costume everywhere a normal costume would have more coverage. Seven.

>Again, why do Superheroines so often look like they are scared? Eight.

>Again! Scared! Why are the girls always the ones who are scared! Nine.

>No, I'm not going to count this - but it does rather look like she's expecting something other than what she's obviously getting. That ought to be it's own category.

>Oh, hell yes. Ten.

>I swear, it's like we never left the Victorian age and women are constantly swooning gracefully. Eleven.

>Twelve

>Scared again. Possibly surprised this time. But note how the gals look scared surprised and the guys are angry surprised. Except for the Thing, who just looks comical. Thirteen.

>It still counts when it's women doing the violence. Fourteen.

>This is simply because of the composition, but I still think it counts. Fifteen.

>I wasn't going to coountthis, but then I noticed how her knees are together and decided that it doesn't really matter if that's just her regular suit - because who makes the suits so form fitting? And is it just me, or wouldn't one think that breast armor would cover both breasts together, not each individually? Sixteen.

>They're all rotting away, but they keep enough of her so that we get to see all that nice exposed skin. Seventeen.

>Eighteen

>Yay! They're all scared. But only she's half naked. Nineteen. (I somehow lost the link to this one - I'll go back and find it sometime soon.)

>Yeah, 'cause I'd totally have that expression if I just got punched in the face. Twenty.

>Not that these count for either, I just found the juxtaposition interesting.

>I do not get what this is about, but Twenty-One.

>Could her mouth be open any wider, and could they have worked harder to show her breast and hint at her crotch, and again with the unboundhair - while he has a helmet. Twenty-Two.

>Aside from Spider-Girl, are men just incapable of making that :0 face - and women incapable of making any other? Twenty-Three.

>Twenty-Four.

>You know, if the wouldn't keep insisting on making so many of the female characters the token girl, they'd worry less about making sure people are sure she's a girl, and then the women wouldn't look any more scared or prettied up than the men. Alas..... Twenty-Five.

>It's really scary that this is really good compared to the cover for the next issue. Twenty-Six.

>Twenty-Seven.

>Almost missed this one. Twenty-Eight.

>Twenty-Nine

One female shaped person, and we see more of her face then all of the guys she's chained up with combined. Thirty.

>Dear God. Thirty-One.

>Scott's doing the :0 face - but again with the sexy hair. When their flowing locks are practically their costume, it has the same effect as their actual form-fitting costumes. Thirty-Two.

>Thirty-Three

>Thirty-Four

>Is this her second or third so far? Thirty-Five.

>I was looking at whats-his-name, trying to decide if he counted or not, when I realized that it's her butt that's blocking part of our view of him. Thirty-Six.

>Now this doesn't count, but it gets a very special honorable mention because it's for kids, and while the boys and older girl all look scared, it's the girl we focus on first and last because of her placement, posture, and sight-lines. Bad Marvel.

>I have of course, saved the best for last. Thirty-Seven. And it's rated T+: 9 and up. (Though I've they've changed it to 12+ but not all of the site is updated.)

Now, let's count the number of covers up on Marvel's site that show men in peril and looking sexy, shall we?

>Ok, maybe - maybe - we can count this. But since the guy in the dominant position looks far sexier, I vote no.

>Aha! One thing you can always count on LKH for is the save the handsome prince plot. That's pretty much the reason she's one of my guilty pleasures. Too bad the comic sucks and Phillips looks more creepy than sexy. The thought was there, though. One.

>I can't decide about this because he's outnumbered, undressed, and not too scary muscled - but he's also not only got that bigass gun, but his symbolic genitals scream power! not pain! And well, gee, if this is Ghostrider - isn't that him up above as well, or is the guy with the bigass gun someone else? Either way - he doesn't really look scared, does he?

>I dunno, partly because I have a hard time finding something with eyes like that sexy but mostly because we don't have a but shot.

>Barely I'm not sure it should, because of the dominating images of strength behind him negate the small amount to which he's sexualized, but ok. Two.

>Call me weird, but I think this counts. Spiderman is so very, very small compared to the image behind him, and he's in one of those awkward pseudo-graceful positions. Three.

>I don't think that there's enough of his ass in this picture for it to count, but I'll do so anyway. Four.

>The way his legs are spread alone. Plus, he's got the :0 face. A very distorted :0 face, but a :0 face nonetheless. Five.

>Meh. He looks as confident rather than scared, but ok - just because his clothes are shredding. Six.

>Spidey's problem is that we're supposed to always remember it's Peter Parker in there. Which means he's vulnerable and human-shaped. Plus he's a spider, so his mere four appendages must try to do the work of the normal eight. I'll keep counting them, but I'm fairly certain the sexiness part is mostly unintentional. Whereas women are pretty much always drawn intentionally sexy. It's the combination of sex and peril that I think isn't always consious. Seven.

>Eight.

>Scott has the face, but he doesn't even have eyes.

>I really don't have a crush on Spiderman, I promise. I think my gudging might be skewed by the fact that it's so refreshing to see an actual male-shaped body after all those tanks. Nine.

>The intent is here but that weird mask thing is just not scary enough.

Note that we can't count this.

Damn. Now I have to go back and count the total covers. And the number that have women on them at all. And the number that don't have men at all. (I remember about three.) And the number of them that have women in peril that aren't sexed up.

Well, for now the final score is Thirty-Seven to Ten. With about half of the sexy men in peril consisting of nothing more than Spider-Man being a spider, and absolutely none of them comparing to the worst of the Thirty-Seven. (Anita Blake wants to, but it really doesn't manage it at all.)

It's too bad I know never want to buy anything from Marvel again, because I like this cover.

Plus this freakin' makes up for a good chunk of those other covers, 'cause Little Red - the perpetual warning to all girls to "stay on the path" or else - looks like she's more than capable of decking that big bad wolf with her basket.

Although, please don't tell me what this 'cause I'm sure I really don't want to know.

Blood is Compulsory

We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see.

Since I'm doing the procrastination thing anyway, I wanted to share a conversation I overheard the other day at my favorite local cafe/deli:

Well, actually, it was a month ago, so I don't remember the exact words, so I'll have to paraphrase.

The grown-ups at the table next to me are talking about YA books...

Oh, wait, I'm a grown-up.

Let's try that one more time:

I came to gradually realize that the group at the table next to mine are talking about YA books...and they sounded like librarians. So , being the nosy person I am, I started eavesdropping on their conversation. Much of it was blah, but I did find one bit to be both amusing and annoying. They were talking about what books were popular and good for teens. Stephen King was mentioned, and then dismissed by one of the librarians - because they have sex scenes.

If anyone reading this has yet to see This Film is Not Yet Rated - stop and go see it right now. Just go buy it since you can't get it at Blockbuster, Netflix takes forever, and you'll be glad you did anyway.

Aside from raising such good questions as "why is blood compulsory?" it also points out that, while violence is more acceptable than sex in kid and teen rated movies (in the US), exceptions are made for sex which includes violence. Which is an even scarier observation than the ones that led to it, if you ask me.

Dworkin gets lots of crap for having said that all sex is rape, which besides being not true, has to be one of the worst examples of taking a quote and using it out of context. What Dworkin was talking about is pretty much the same thing that John Water's comments on in This Film is Not Yet Rated when it comes to rape and sexual violence and movies. He argues that part of the reason that there are so many BDSM porn sites on the internet is not just due to it being more accessible, but also due to rape, assault, and derogatory remarks being the first type of sex most kids are exposed to when it comes to media portrayals of sex. When rape is how we define sex, how can we distinguish sex from rape?

I'm not sure how much of a direct connection there is between ratings and online porn, but I can't see it being healthy for us to shield teens from consensual sex, but not violence. And I really don't see how it's healthy for them to have seen more fictional depictions of rape than fictional depictions of people having consensual sex. Especially (relatively) realistic portrayals of consensual sex.

Which is why I take issue with the MJ statue as is, and the number of similar items, but disagree with those who argue that it does not belong in comic shops because it is pornographic.

PS - if you want a much better written response to This Film is Not Yet Rated and these specific ideas, go read Amanda's take, which was good enough to convince me to go buy the movie just so that I could see it.

Idiots Be Forewarned: I Am In The Mood To Do Some Major Ass-kicking

I'm not terribly certain that I have much say that hasn't already been said in response to Kos' most recent "insert foot in mouth" moment, but also figure that if there is ever any time that gratituitous piling on isn't really gratutitous at all, this is it.
 
I'm also pretty much incapable of writing a nice, neat, concise, coherent essay on this topic at the moment, so instead I'm just going to pick apart a bunch of the more idiotic and rage inducing comments from Markos and his defenders.
 

What surprised me was the obvious fear and surprise she showed despite being a public figure in a public arena, and that such things would stop her.  She let the bastards win.

Jackass.
 
I have a feeling I'm going to want to say that about a lot the people I will quote in this post.  So in the unlikely event that I don't work it in each time, just consider "Jackass" to be the unspoken tagline for just about every blockquote until I say otherwise.

Hmmm...I wonder if I could write some code that would do that, like have a special "Jackass" version of the blockquote tags.
 
You know, Jackass, when someone surprises you, it might do everyone some good if you spent a few minutes thinking about why that might be instead of immediately assumming that the other person is the one who made the mistake.
 
People who go to the same work related conferences as Kathy Sierra threatened her repeatedly, violently, sexually, publicly, and graphicly.  The fact that this scared her makes her anything but stupid, and while it's true that the bastards have won for now, it's not Ms. Sierra who has let them win.  It's people like those who defended or dismissed Harlan Ellison's public assault of Hugo winner Connie Willis last August.
 
Oh, have we forgetten that already?  I didn't.  Somehow I doubt Kathy Sierra has.
 
But you go right on ahead dismissing women's fears of sexual and sexualized violence despite the fact that it's so common that Ellison can do that to a fellow honoree at a national awards conference and get very little flack for it outside of certain very small circles.
 

If you run a blog of any kind, you bound to get this kind of attack. After awhile it's just silly to get outraged about it. Plenty of random crazy people out there.

 
Random crazies......In what way are collegues and fellow students random people?
 
In other news, I don't run a blog.
 
I must admit, though, that it's nice to now know that I shouldn't take threats of random violence seriously.  I was complaining quite recently about all the stupid advice I've been given about the various things that, as a woman, I shouldn't do - because doing them makes me more vulnerable to random violence.  Since worrying about such stuff tends to not only cut down on the amount of fun stuff I get to do, but make it hard or impossible to do some of the stuff I need to do, this is a huge relief.
 
Thanks, Jackass!  You're a peach!
 

everybody sets their own standard of behavior on their own blogs, as is their right in a free society.

 
Actually, Jackass, in a free society, society uses government to pass and enforce laws regarding certain activities, and then leaves the rest up to community standards.  Since Ms. Sierra has already said that the law considers at least some of the threats against her to be illegal and credible, I really don't know what the fuck you think you are talking about.  Whether or not Tim O'Reilly's specific proposal is good or workable or not is beside the larger point: bloggers should try to not let illegal threats remain on their site.
 
There will be people who violate this more general code of ethics, but before kos's diary, I wouldn't have thought that people would consider it controversial for anyone to ask that bloggers pledge to uphold the law so that visitors will feel - and be - safer on their sites.

am i missing something or are people out there believing that the type of person who would send a death threat would follow a code of conduct?

 
Yes, like Kos, you are missing the fact that the code of ethics isn't aimed at the people who make death threats, but rather the bloggers who let death threats against others stay up on their site.  In light of the fact that several Kos supporters have commented that DailyKos troll rates physical threats, and a few have even gone so far as to say this helps increase civility, I find the cries of "language police!" especially obnoxious.

Locks only keep out honest people...

 
No, they keep out thieves, too.  They just don't keep out all thieves.  The trick in risk-assmessment is to balance the cost of the lock with the risk of danger.  I.e. balancing getting to spend a decent amount of time in Glasgow with the possibility that I'll be raped while walking from the train station to the youth hostel alone and in the middle of the night.  Or, balancing curtailing public appearances with the possibility that people who have posted really nasty and violent threats about you on trade blogs will try to hurt you in some way if you go to work-related conferences.
 
I get the pile on for O'Reilly's specific proposal. However, I'm failing to see what Ms. Sierra's ordeal has to do with why it's bad. And I really don't get why simply admitting that this is serious a problem is so very controversial.  And arguments along the lines of
 

I run an educational website about a historical topic that 99.9% of people consider non-controversial, and I still get the occasional crazed, foul-mouthed, verbally abusive tirade similar in tone and coherency to the one Kos published above.  There are people out there who just like cursing at strangers on the Internet.

 
sound suspiciously like the usual, dismissive "boys will be boys" arguments - especially considering the type of threats that Ms. Sierra and others have received.
 
To spell it out more clearly for you all:

the online threats against Kathy : online cursing at strangers :: sexual harrassment in middle schools : use of foul language among middle schoolers
 
Oh! speaking of middle schoolers! Um, no, let's not at the moment.
 

Kos said that the worst we use against people is a cream pie.  His meaning is that we do not typically see people use violence or carry out death threats.

 
Oh, well, then.  If Kos says that it's true......
 
There's this thought on the tip of my tongue...something about media figures equating "liberal" with "traitor"....and the government itself spying on left wing peace groups...
 
Or maybe it was about radical right wing groups posting personal information about certain types of doctors....and those doctors ending up dead....
 
Or maybe it was about jackass lawyers in training threatening all sorts of things....and following through with several of them.....
 
Or maybe it was about media depictions of certain minorities....and their ability to get a job....the probability that they will do jailtime....the amount we are willing to spend to help people we keep crushing down.....

Or maybe it had to do with men who kill their significant others....and how often they threaten to do so beforehand.....

And something else...about all these being lie....lib...l.... ..... pro...pra...pre........ damn, I lost it.......
 
....there seems to be a hole in my head through which all logical thought is leaking out.  Must be going around.
 

LMAO i really enjoy those emails.  People need to develop a thicker skin and a sense of humor. Seriously, kos. Could you post more of those?

 
Nadai has suggested, in all seriousness, that bloggers do this.  I think it's an excellent idea.  I can definitely see a lot of men being unintentionally ignorant of the extent to which women are harrassed, online and in real life. Even I was unaware of how virulent Amanda's hate mail was until I read some of her comments about it. A hollaback style site may help.  (At the very least it will give women another space to help each other deal with it.)
 
That does not, of course, excuse idiotic comments like those above.  Especially in light of the fact that it's fairly easy to find out that the threats Ms. Sierra received were nothing like the e-mail Kos equated them to.
 

Quite frankly I have three words for the young women who find themselves being threatened online followed up by three more, self defense course and conceal carry permit.

 
(I'm sure Kathy is surprised to hear herself described as "young" seeing as how she turns 50 this year.)
 
Re: words 1-3:  Done.  Oddly enough, my little brother mocked me when I talked about taking it. Said it wouldn't do much good against a big, strong, man like him.  The fact that I think he was being an asshole, and that I still consider the class well worth the time, does nothing to negate the fact that he would be right in certain situations.
 
Re: words 4-6:   I work in a public library.  I don't think a conceal carry permit would extend to preschool story morning.  Besides, I don't want to have to carry a gun simply because I'm a woman any more than I want to not get to travel alone because I'm a woman.
 
Try another answer.
 

If you are that worried by threats you really have two options 1) give up blogging (which gives the nutballs what they want) or 2) ensure you can defend yourself if some psycho were to manage to track you down.

 
Those weren't them.
 
How about number 3) pressure people to take down personal information, number 4) expect the vast majority of people to react negatively to actual harassment, and number 5) expect support from those that consider themselves to be progressive and allies.
 

I AM a woman. As far as I can see there are only two options open to people who are being threatened or intimidated 1) back down or 2) learn to defend yourself. [Choosing] any other option simply isn't going to work and one need only look at domestic violence to recognize that.

 
Yeah, those silly laws about alimony and rape existing within marriage have nothing to do with it.  Neither does feminists asserting that "no means no" or helping to build safe houses for victims of domestic violence.   Women deciding to stick up for themselves just sorta...happens - if you tell them to do so often enough.
 

I've observed the opposite: excessive desire for protection. I've also seen flagrant disregard for safety, but that's a different thing.

 
Finally! Someone who gets it!  I mean, it's one thing to deride the boogyman in the dark as being statistically unlikely and a handy tool of the patriarchy, but to dismmiss the statistically supported idea that many of the average guys you know are capable of sexual assault - just because he seems like a "nice guy" and nice guys don't do that - well...
 
Er, wait...that isn't what the Jackass meant?

I want civility as much as you, but I just can't get on board with this "victim" shit.

I really hate the "victim" mentality. Why can we not empower those that suffer from others actions?

I will never get the "victim" mentality, I suppose. I guess that's because I refuse to see victims, and choose to see people empowered.

o_O

You know, I don't care so much about civility as I do being able to take a shower without having to worry that someone will be hiding outside my window.  I have, in fact, argued before that I think civility can be overated - owing to the fact that those in power usually get to decide what is polite and what isn't.  Such as whether or not it's appropriate for me reveal certain personal facts about my (anonymous) brother when arguing that the preponderence of guys like my brother working in mainstream politics, and the dearth of Amandas and Melissas, has a profound impact on the nature, tone, and subjects being debated.

More importantly though, I don't get what is empowering about having my fears dismissed and derided as paranoid rather than grounded in experience.  But then I'm just some crazy chick who still talks about stupid stuff that happened to her as a kid.

Does that make me a bad person too?

No, just ....um...I'm having trouble coming up with the right words here? Anyone want to help me out?

And now, for a nice quote, because GreenSooner put it better than I could:
 

kos's failure to identify the ideology behind the Blogger Code of Ethics and his disparaging of Sierra are of a piece. Identifying all criticisms of online behavior as simply misplaced nanny-ism serves his purposes better than more careful analysis of either the Blogger Code of Ethics or the Sierra matter.

 
as did aimai
 

Kronos, its sweet of you to keep working at this from such an open minded perspective but I'd like to take a different step and ask you this--what makes you think the women who are posting here, and the many people who post anonymously/without gender who are women--*haven't toughened up?*...Every woman you interact with here and elsewhere has received some kind of anti-female attack at some point and yet she still posts, just as most of us have been sexually harrassed on the street and yet still go out, and sexually harrasse at work and yet still go out.

Frankly, I think its a bit odd to assume, given all you've been told, that the women around you haven't in fact gone the extra mile to laugh shit off and just shrug off a hostile work and play environment.*

aimai, I love you.

Update: forgot to add that MB is keeping track of the posts.