Who Else Could Bring Me Out of Hibernation but Joss Whedon?

So.

Now that the first ep is out, I've decided that the thing that is going to bug me most about Dollhouse is people talking about Dollhouse. (irony is my middle name) Well, ok, so I should really know better than to venture into the TwoP forums, but still - who the fuck says this:

[Echo was c]oerced by circumstances, no doubt horribly lied to about what would happen afterwords (as discussed elsewhere I'm SURE the Dolls never actually get "out") but yes it was voluntary.

Dear TwoPer with yet another punny name - Did we watch the same episode? Cuz if we did, you need to learn what the word coercion means and how it affects the legality of agreements and contracts - written and otherwise.

Seriously, the only thing that's going to make me go ew more than the prostitution/rape/sexual slavery angle is people arguing that Echo actually consented to all this. (Based on the little clip we were given at the start of the pilot, anyway. I don't know what the future holds.)

Anyhoo...

as far as the pilot itself...eh. If it wasn't Joss I wouldn't be watching. Or at least not going out of my way to do so. And if that's the reworked pilot, I either really don't want to see the original or really want to see the original.

(From what Joss has said about it, I'm actually guessing the latter, bc the actual pilot is a typical "let me hold your hand and tell you how it's going to be" pilot and I don't think I need that for Joss shows, but I understand why that's the better choice for network TV.)

My biggest complaint is that it didn't feel terribly new and it felt like there was far too much given away in the beginning. Mostly - the bit about how Echo got there should have been kept a secret for at least a few more episodes. Possibly the rest of the season. It would have been much better to find out when Echo did (or maybe just a little before) not when Caroline knew.

Also, the plethora of details about the cop was a bit gratuitous (or maybe it was just the stupid intercut fight scenes). Maybe CM has me spoiled, but I've come to believe that economy is key in character development. All I needed to know about the cop was that he was willing to threaten a not-quite-civvie with a gun despite getting heat from his boss - and I really didn't need that last part beaten to death. Anvils were great for Buffy, Dollhouse feels like it should be more subtle. Really, honestly, a single line would have been much better than a long drawn out pissing contest - multiplied for effect! And it would have given him a chance to save the cat - or something.

That said, the last bit can stay in. That's the way to get them coming back. it could have been done better, but nice start with that there.

Overall, bc of the whole ew factor and the OH GOD WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE SAVE ME FROM FOX'S ANNOYINGLY SEXIST BULLSHIT ADS AND PROMOS THAT FLAT OUT SAY THAT WOMEN ARE WORTHLESS IF THEY AREN'T SEX DOLLS EVEN IF THEY ARE FUCKING SAVING THE WORLD?!!??!!?!?? I probably wouldn't be watching if I hadn't stumbled across this interview:

We wanted to talk about it...human sexuality and how it drives us and why it’s important to us.

And the idea of objectification versus identification, these are all things that I’ve been working on all the time...

...are we actually making a comment about the way people use each other that is useful and interesting and textured, or are we just putting her in a series of hot outfits and paying lip service to the idea of asking the questions.

...I think some things will offend some people, some things will not. There are things in it that I’m not positive I support, and some of the things that bother me don’t bother any of the other writers....part of the point is to look at these gray areas and to see what of this is unique in us, what is it we need from each other, how much do we objectify each other, how much do we use each other, both men and women, and what is actually virtuous.

One of the problems I ran into early on... was [the network] didn’t really want to deal with those issues having bought the show....It’s a classic network problem. You want to evoke this, but then they don’t want to say anything....We’ve struggled with making sure that the show doesn’t, by virtue of playing it safe, become offensive, because the idea of this show was never to play it safe. The idea of this show was always to be in your face about it.

....The idea is to get the audience to look at their own desire, and to figure out what of it is acceptable, and what of it is kind of creepy. In order to do that, we go to a creepy place sometimes, and I will be very interested to see if people find it empowering or the other things. I may have crossed the line. Let’s find out.

I don't know if he's explained all this before and I just missed it, or if Rachel is just a really good interviewer (quite possible), or if the other articles did their best to cut that shit out*, but the fact that Joss is very aware that of the whole prostitution/rape/sexual slavery angle but in fact seems to see it as one of the main themes of the show puts my mind at ease - at least a little bit. As does the fact that he quite aware of the dangers of both selling out and of not selling anything at all. I'm still watching with a critical eye, but I am watching. And very much hoping Joss makes this worth my while.




*The Salon article linked in the TwoP forum, for example, quotes Joss as saying "I believe that prostitution is not, in concept, repulsive," but the interviewer doesn't go back and ask him how that relates to what he said earlier about human trafficking or the question of wether or not the Dolls are coerced. Nor does Joss go into more detail about why he thinks that making the show hot but having less actual sex - as requested by TPTB - is offensive. Without the interview above, it sounds almost like Joss really believes that he his created a sci-fi premise for prostitution without having to deal with the power imbalance of it all - shades of the fundamental problem with "companions." Taking into account the interview above, it sounds more like Joss has taken those critiques to heart (at least a little) and while the Dollhouse is in no way an apology or a concession it is very much a deeper exploration of those issues.

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, Why, Why?!?!?!?!?!?!

Every time I get all set to buy my tix for ComiCon, the idiots of the world make me rethink that decision.

I mean, do I really want be in a packed convention hall full of guys like this guy?


Is even ComiCon really worth that price?



Oh, but! How silly of me, I forgot....

...a brief plug: If you're totally put off by the con you read about and worried that bad things could happen to you at cons everywhere, I'd suggest visiting WisCon, the world's leading feminist science-fiction convention, which I can guarantee you is completely different.

Gee, mister, that's awfully sweet of you, to allow me my fluffy little cage over there. 'Cuz god knows that:

1) the point of WisCon is to be a pink version of ComiCon, and not something else entirely

2) all the special guests that go to ComiCon go to WisCon

3) driving down to San Diego and staying with my cousin is in no way more affordable than flying halfway cross the country and staying in a hotel

4) nor is it more fun, because my cousins will be just as willing and able to hang out with me in Wisconsin as they will in San Diego

5) "separate but equal" is always a dandy idea



I'm seriously tempted to simply spend all that time writing fanfic for Criminal Minds instead.

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.

Yes, You Know Your School Had One Too

Me should be in bed.

But I want to steal a quote from a commenter over at Shakesville/Shakespeare's Sister because it pins down exactly why all the hand wringing over the poor boys in this case is getting on my nerves.

....Kids in school are forced to put up with all kinds of abuse, even when teachers SEE it, and hitting back can get you expelled. If the boys had touched female teachers on the bottom and breast, they would have been immediately punished for the unthinkably inappropriate behavior. "Lots of kids at school do that," is being used as an excuse because middle school girls are so powerless. People question out loud whether the boys really did anything wrong are really wondering how middle school girls got the balls to inconvenience parents, teachers, law enforcement, the courts, and boys with promising futures, by complaining when they were molested.

- greenmorgaine

(emphasis mine)

If we can expect kids to respect their teachers, we can expect kids to respect each other.

We let kids get away with a lot of shit in the under the guise of expecting them to work it out themselves. But when the larger culture excuses or condones bad behavior it is our responsibility to step in - no matter their age - and tell them it's not ok after all.

Sexual harassment is a serious issue in schools and needs to be dealt with appropriately and definitively.

If for no other reason (as if kids harassing kids wasn't reason enough) than because places where crap like this goes on - which is pretty much everywhere - are also places where the people in charge turn a blind eye to adult behavior as well. We may wring our hands over child rapists and the like constantly, that doesn't stop us from ignoring the very real harassment that adults often put children through.

I do not want to have the same commiserating talk with my niece that I had with my younger cousin - the one about the middle school teacher who puts all the pretty/big breasted girls near the front.

And until kids feel safe speaking out when they've been wronged by their peers, we won't have much success in dealing with harassment from people in positions of power.

edited to add:

Why did I make the jump from kids to adult offenders so quickly, despite my last two lines below? Because both my cousin and I were pulled out of particular subjects because of such teachers. Kathy's point about the lawyers "boys with bright futures" sound bite reminded me of that, and of how sexist that line is. No talk of how the girls lives are affected by such behavior. No talk about the jr. high school science geek who couldn't take science her ninth grade year because the teacher was a sexist pervert who was later convicted of molestation. No talk about girls that have had to make similar choices to avoid peers that the people in charge refused to deal with - and I know of quite of few such girls.

(I really, really need to smash something right now.)

end edit

PS, re the whole sex offender registry, greenmorgaine also has this to say:

I also want to point out how screwed up it is that a law supposedly intended to protect people from sex offenders is causing people to propose letting sex offenders walk away without even misdemeanor charges.

The sex offender registry needs to be fixed or scrapped. We need to stop giving kids adult punishments.

And I really think that's all that needs to be said on that subject.

I'm Sure the Problem Lies With My Illogical Brain

* Nebraska Revised Statutes
Section 27-403
Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence; reasons.

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Source:
Laws 1975, LB 279, 13

(emphasis mine, hat tip to Marcella)

I'm still trying to figure out how "rape" and "victim" are not only "unfairly prejudicial" - or at least more so than being able to say that "they had sex" - but are "unfairly prejudicial" to such an extent that they override any and all concerns about the language used during the trial being "misleading" or causing "confusion."

What's in a Name?

Some people have been arguing that it makes sense for a judge to disallow "rape" "sexual assault" "sexual assault kit" and "victim" from a rape trial because using these terms presumes guilt.

First of all, I was under the impression that the prosecution is presuming guilt (based on the evidence they've gathered) - that would be the point of the trial, after all.

Secondly, it may be different in other states, but as far as I know my state allows prosecuting attorneys to use the legal definition of the crimes that they are accusing the defendant of. See the previous sentence and "rights of the accused" as to why.

Third, banning "rape" and "sexual assault" from witness testimony is not the same as requiring that attempted murder victims use words like "kill" or the like instead of word "murder"- which doubles as a legal term. This is because "rape" does not have as many synonyms as "murder" does. The judge has effectively banned about the only two terms that are used by laypersons to describe the crime in question. And the latter is mostly by used only by laypeople if they write for newspapers or if the assault is something less than rape.

Furthermore, said persons may want to look up the legal definition of "rape" in the state in question before they focus on "rape" as a legal term. It's not. The legal term is "sexual assault." (hat tip Kristen)

Fourth, if legal meaning of "sexual assault" (or "rape" if that were the case) prevails above all else despite the profound lack of clarity that will result in the victim and the prosecutors not being able to use this term, then the legal meaning of "victim" should prevail as well. The state in question defines "victim" (at least as it pertains to sexual assault) to be

the person alleging to have been sexually assaulted

Yes, "alleged" is included in legal definition of "victim" in the state in question. I rather think it's quite likely that this is the prevailing legal definition of the term.

While I can see the logic behind arguing that terms like "victim" and using the legal definitions of crimes to mean something nonlegal can be confusing for jurors and might prejudice them, I hardly think that it does so to a greater extent than banning both "rape" and "sexual assault" - while simultaneously allowing for "sex" and "sexual intercourse" (which presume consent) to be allowed.

Amanda, Jill, Bean, and Shakesville have more. (Shakesville is down, I will add when they come back up.)

update

Since that particular argument also seems to boil down to "such things are standard" - can get a special "wha?" As in, "then why the need for special orders?"

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.)

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.

Things They Don't Teach in High School

When the teachers and the books were talking about the connections between the Suffragettes and the banning of alcohol...

(which, is it just me, or does anyone else feel like the vast majority of the reasons given in high school for the passing of the 19th Amendment was chalked up to either "men as benevolent leaders" or "women as moralizing whiners"?)

...why, oh, why were we never told that better statutory rape laws were advocated for and passed due to the hard work of the Women's Temperance movement? And that the age of consent before then was 10.

10!

No, I didn't learn this until today when I began reading The Body Project by Joan Jacobs Brumberg. Which I'm finding both frustrating (see below) and illuminating (see above).

Resolved, not to talk about myself or my feelings. To think before speaking. To work seriously. To be self-restrained in conversation and actions. To not let my thoughts wander. To be dignified. Interest myself in others more.

(from the diary of a 19 year old, 1892 - emphasis mine)

The one thing about the book so far that I really question is how the author keeps characterizing such statements as indicating that girls in the past cared less about appearance. This passage in particular seems to me to indicate that what has changed has been which part of themselves girls focus on cutting down to size, not that girls in the past were more focused on improving character than girls are now.

This may be true in the sense that there's less focus today on girls being good and on society being moral than there used to be, but when "improving character" is defined mainly as being selfless to the point of silence, it seems to me that the biggest change is the way in which girls are pressured to be objects, not in the reasons why girls do things.

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.

"Look, Nora, in lots of things, you're still a child. I'm older than you in many ways and I've had a little more experience."

I adore my alma mater to pieces.

Quirks and all; and trust me, it has plenty of quirks.

Such as...a PE requirement.

Yup, that's right, we had a PE requirement to fulfill before we could graduate. I took Badmitton, Rennaissance Dancing, and Self Defense. Which....yeah, that says a lot about both me and my school right there.

If memory serves me, the self-defense course was the most popular PE class available; owing in no small part to the college being both liberal leaning and all-women. Our instructor was tiny, not much taller than me. I'd imagine most people saw her as pretty non-threatening. as just your normal, slightly overweight, middle aged woman. She was also in charge of campus security and had a black belt in karate. One of our final classes included a demonstration of her breaking boards with her karate chops and kicks (with one of us nervously holding the boards up for her).

At the time, the class was - to use an over-used and often abused phrase - empowering. Of course, pretty much anytime we got together and had the opportunity to yell simultaneously was an empowering experience - Convocation, Disorientation, Graduation, Friday Night parties, etc.. Adding in the practice punches and learning how to get out of a choke hold certainly gave the class extra kick to it, though.

However, one of the most memorable parts of the class was not so empowering in retrospect.

Part way through the course we got the lecture from our instructor about acting smart so that it would be less likely that we would ever have to use any of this stuff. Now, I do give her props for not pretending as though following her advice would for certain save us. I will also adore her forever for being the first person to ever tell me about the FBI's research about rape, and how they concluded that women who act confidently - as if, you know, they have every damn right to be wherever the hel they happen to be at that moment - are statistically less likely to be targeted by rapists.

Her list of advice - which sounded a lot more like dire warnings - was endless. Don't have an apartment by yourself if you can help it. Don't say your name on your answering machine. Don't walk alone at night. Don't take trips by yourself. Don't trust strangers. Watch your drink at all times. Never carry your keys with your fingers through the key rings (they can be easily broken that way if you are attacked). Carry your keys in a fist with one key poking out between your fingers. Make sure someone knows where you are going if you do go out alone. Glance under your car as you walk towards it whenever the area is deserted or it's nighttime. Have your keys ready to go so that you can get in your car quickly. Don't make your routine too normal. Get a second floor apartment if you can. Don't listen to music while jogging outside. Don't jog at night. Make sure your dorm blinds are closed before dressing and undressing. And on and on and on.

Now, a lot of this advice is perfectly reasonable - as long as it's taken with a grain of salt and one balances trying to be safe with not missing out on opportunities. Unfortunately, when people give out such advice, they usually leave out the bit about the salt and weighing various costs.

Which is part of why my reaction at the time was mixed. I wanted to be smart and safe, and her advice seemed mostly reasonable, but....some of it rubbed me the wrong way, and it was one of the most logical and reasonable bits of advice she gave us that bugged me the most.

Closing one's blinds before undressing is a pretty normal and low energy task. It might seem odd to you that she would even mention it. Unless, of course, you happen to be living on a fairly isolated campus with a student body that is all female. Privacy boundaries change. The topic of periods becomes acceptable in normal conversations. Pajamas are worn to communal dining spaces. Third story blinds that look out over the lake or the athletic fields are often left open for the view and sunlight.

Side note: when people ask me why I went to a women's college, I want to point to experiences like this. Nothing opens one's eyes to the subtle way that culture and other institutions blindly favor men than going to a school that is focused only on women. Not that one needs to do so to see that "male" is the constant default "in real life", but - for me, anyway - there's just something about having spent several years in a culture where "female" was the default that solidifies this knowledge in a way nothing else could have.

Back to the main topic....

I immediately knew why the thing about the blinds bugged me. I was convinced I was behaving illogically as well, but I still rebelled at the suggestion and deliberately ignored it. Not because I thought the 15 seconds it would take to do this was really all that much of an inconvenience, however.

Here's where I explain, because I'm sure very few of my current readers know this, that I spent my entire high school career checking not only my windows - but also in my closet and under my bed - each and every time I got undressed. I didn't do this because I was irrational or paranoid. I did this because it was the precaution that I had learned to take in order to prevent my brother from spying on me. It was the safety measure that I found worked best. It became so automatic that I didn't stop doing it until I had been living in the dorms for quite a while. What had started out as a logical response to clear and present danger had morphed into something closer to a tic or a security blanket. Until one day my brain noticed what my body was doing....and I stopped and pushed the horror of what I had become back into the dark corner of my mind where everything else about that time dwelled.

Until we got the lecture.

And all I could think when she mentioned the thing about blinds was that I didn't want to go back to being afraid all the time. I refused to go back to living in a world where even my own bedroom was unsafe. I thought at the time that I was being illogical, but in reality I was being very logical, I was just to scared to examine everything throughly enough to realize it.

I wasn't living on a co-ed campus in the middle of a city, in a bedroom that looked out into the street. I was living on a relatively remote all women's campus and my bedroom window looked out over lots and lots of green space surrounded by forest. Yeah, some creep could hide out by the trees with binoculars, but I it seems to me that such men are looking for victims, and will find them no matter what I do. Yes, a couple of extra seconds spent doing a simple chore was certainly low cost enough to be worth the safety gained by doing so. The problem is that this would never be a mindless task for me ever again. I would never be able to go to the window and simply consider it normal behavior, like closing the door to the bathroom or keeping my mouth closed as I ate. This had gone far beyond normal cultural mores long before I'd ever gotten to college. And it wasn't ever going away - at least not anytime soon. It's still something that I often think of when I go to open or close my bedroom blinds.

So my choice was not between having to do normal, simple, short tasks and endangering myself. It was between doing something that would make me a tiny bit safer and not expecting to feel like shit for at least a few seconds every day. What would seem to be the logical choice to any outsider was no longer an acceptable option to me.

At the time, I didn't question any other particular bits of advice our instructor gave us (remember, I thought I was being illogical), but the experience did leave me with a vague uneasiness with such advice. As time went on and I had to decide more and more often whether or not I would follow her safety measures, I found myself looking more critically at what I would be giving up by doing so. I've decided in favor of ditching her advice to a degree that would shock and alarm many, I'm sure. I've walked down streets alone at night. I traveled alone by myself dozens of times. I've done so without making sure anyone has my itinerary (what itinerary?). I've even walked alone, by myself, in a foreign city, with no cell phone, at frickin 1 am at night, and I was perfectly fine, thank you very much. And no, no one knew where I was except me.

Do you know when I wasn't safe? In the middle of the day on a crowded subway full of normal people. That's when some guy decided my boob was his little pet.

And in my bedroom, when I was alone by myself, and no one else was home except my own family.

And do you know what else? I don't regret getting on the subway that day. If some fortune teller had told me that my choices were getting on that subway and experiencing that humiliation along with everything else I did that day - or staying home where it was safe - or even choosing to travel to Paris with a group and doing group things instead, I still would have taken that damn subway. Because that was the subway that took me to Monet's Waterlillies.

So, I'm with Sheezlebub on this one: you can take your "advice" and shove it you know where.

Gems, All

From the DC boards (via Occasional Superheroine)

Shyguy and Herald: why don't you give your point of view about why the blog ISN'T feminist

Mr.M: Give your point of view about why you think it IS?

I'm torn. I can see both sides.

Context : The thread is about Occasional Superheroine's Goodbye to Comics posts and what they are actually arguing about is whether the term "feminist rant" as posted by "Mr. M" (whose handle, is not, in fact "Mr. M" - but rather starts with M) is dismissive.

Methinks "Mr. G" - the author of this odd question - is confused as to why "Mr. H" considers the phrase "feminist rant" to be dismissive.

To be fair, apparently so is "Mr. M":

I entered into this civilly, I attacked no one, esp. Valarie, who I'm sure you think I did by describing her work as "feminist."

But, wait! There's more.

...Do you know what feminism is? Do you think it is the opposite of chauvinist? Or misogynist?

(dear god where do these people come from?)

"Mr. H" states the obvious

You didn't JUST say "feminist", pal.
You called it a "feminist RANT".
There is a WORLD of difference.

(psst - herald - I love you)

I was, of course, on tenderhooks to see how "Mr. M" would respond.

Unfortunately, he dissapoints with usual fallback of the dictionary definition of "rant". Because, of course, he went through all the words he could think of that meant "a bombastic, extravagant speech" and decided that "rant" worked best. He in no way choose rant because it's what feminist complaints are usually referred to. And well, the dog ate the part of his dictionary that explained that "rant" also means "To speak or write in an angry or violent manner" and "A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence" and gave such example sentences as "The vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy” He also must have confused it's synonym "rave" with that thing you go to.

But he makes up for it by later stating

I have some trouble calling her work "feminist" because it's not calling out men as a whole, nor is it a "call to arms" for the women of the world to rise up and overthrow their "vagina-challenged" opressors. It just doesn't have that smack to it.

See, guys, that's why I'm so bitchy. I like being called a feminist....and if I don't bag on men all the time, how the hell are you going to know that I am one? I really hate it when people mistake me for a "I'm not a feminist, but...."

Another "Mr. M" seems like he might be taking this all as seriously as it ought to be

The fact that mainstream comics has not dealt with this subject is a crime. Rape should leave you feeling outraged, invoke feelings like you wish it never happened, it should make you react!

but then shows his true colors

In stories about heroes saving people from mass murders and drug pushers and evil despots and corrupt presidents...rape should not be so taboo that we are not able to confront it like all of these other concepts. And even if there are kids reading this, how is it different than watching the nightly news? Kids need to know about these subjects and the earlier they learn the more of a chance a potential rapist can be averted or educated.

Yes, because Sue Dibny's rape was motivated by the same concern that prompted Speak and was dealt with in the same, responsible, thought-provoking manner. Complete with information on how to contact RAINN and Men Can Stop Rape.

He then responds to the obvious point that DC used rather than addressed rape with

In your opinion. You keep forgeting to write, in my opinion after you say things like this, 'cause that's all you're really speaking for. Just you. The rest of as get to make up our own minds. Thanks for caring though...

Cuz, you, know, everyone else on the board is using their "imho"s as they should!

And nevermind that it's quite obvious from what Valerie writes, and conversations not on the DC boards, that a large number of women (you, know, the people who are more likely to live in fear - or live through - sexual assault) agree with people other than "Mr. M" #2

Although, I must say my personal favorite from that thread is everyone arguing that without Sue Dibny being raped, there would have been no reason to go after Dr. Light. Call me crazy, but I rather think it wouldn't have been difficult for the masterminds at DC to come up with a reason other than "save the princess from, shocking, titilating violation!" to get the team on the hunt for Dr. Light.

Heck - I'll bet if they thought real hard they might have even been able to come up with a reason that allowed Sue Dibny to continue to help our amazing heros!

- side show (if you can stomache it) another commenter complains that Valerie brings everything back to her "broken vagina." Commenter is schooled by others in the basic literary terms "metaphor" and "theme." Hijinks ensue!

Yes, I know, I'm a bad person for picking on such easy targets. But it's so much fun!

Besides - how else is "Mr. M" #1 going to know I'm a feminist!