Kristen's Non-Blog

A Day in the Life of a Spoiled Dog

2011-11-25T23:45:00.000-07:00

Inspired by this somewhat ridiculous post at feministe, I bring you a day in the life of our dog.

5:00 - Wake up, stare balefully at the Woman for getting out of bed. Consider whether or not to go for a run with the Woman or go back to sleep.

5:15 - Run off leash in perfect heel position to the the park. Run like a child who just ate 15 pixie sticks. Greet other dogs and humans who are willing to pet. As soon as the Woman hits the end of the trail fall into heel position without a word from the Woman. Gracefully accept the compliments of the other runners and walkers.

6:15 - Go back to sleep on the Woman's pillow.

6:30 - Yawn and stretch. Tap the Man - on the nose - until he wakes up and provides affection.

6:40 - Pad over to get a drink of water and food, followed by a quick patrol of the backyard.

6:50 - Sit on the Woman's feet while she eats her breakfast looking pitifully up at her until she surrenders half of her Cheerios.

7:15 - Watch the Woman leave for work. Sit on the back of the sofa and pout for at least 10 minutes.

7:30 - Follow the Man into his office. Look adorable and pitiful until he lets me sit in his chair. This may require rolling on my back, pawing his leg and making "Arrroaa" noises. Stretch to take up 75 percent of the chair and he is perched precariously on the edge.

11:00 - Patrol the backyard.

11:30 - Go with the Man to meet the Woman for lunch at the park. Chase birds, run, swim, dig, periodically tap either of the humans for water or a thrown toy. Greet other dogs and humans who look willing to pet.

12:30 - Mope about leaving the park. Look pitiful until the Man decides to work outside. This may require bringing every toy and placing them on his feet. Chase birds, run, swim, dig, periodically request a thrown toy. Curl up next to the Man to nap.

5:15 - Go inside and sit on the back of the sofa and stare at the door to the garage.

5:20 - Greet the Woman profusely. Lay just outside the screen door looking pitiful until the Woman comes outside. Chase birds, run, swim, dig, periodically request a thrown toy.

5:45 - Tap dance in the kitchen while the Woman prepares my dinner.

6:00 - Stare pitifully at both humans while they eat dinner until they feed you nearly all of their veggies.

6:30 - Lay in the Woman's spot while she and the Man clean up.

6:45 - Cuddle the Woman when she sits down. Begin the Great Migration with a single paw on the lap. Then a nose. Then both paws and a nose. Then request belly rubs while simultaneously moving shoulders on to the lap. Gently push the laptop or xbox controller off the lap while nuzzling the Woman's hand. Fully take over the lap and fall asleep. Make huffy noises if the Woman gets up to use the restroom or shifts position on the sofa.

9:30 - Stand in front of the bedroom door staring at both humans until they go to bed.

9:35 - Grab a nosh while the humans get ready for bed.

10:00 - Once the humans are comfortably ensconced in bed proceed with the nightly affection ritual. Bring various toys to place on the pillows of the humans. Nuzzle each human. Employ the Arrroaa Technique. Stretch. Make "Pfffttt" noises into the blanket. After collecting all the affection sprawl out to take up the third of the bed between the humans and all of the blanket. Look adorable and smiley so that the humans won't want to move me. Sleep.

Fascinating

2011-11-22T17:05:00.001-07:00

Lamb...is fascinating...

Bacon Pasta

2011-11-02T18:53:00.001-07:00

That's right...a Jill inspired original. Bacon mac...er...fettuccine...and cheese. With bacon in the pasta. It still needs work...but it was delicious!

Ambiguity

2011-05-11T06:59:00.000-07:00

I thought we were playing, why are you holding that thing?

Look! Its a deer!

What's that over there?

You want me to do what? I'm thinking...No.

JILL, I AM DISAPPOINT

2011-05-10T17:31:00.001-07:00

The Battle of La Rochelle

2011-05-10T10:54:00.001-07:00

This is going to be an open post if someone wants to discuss the porn issue brought up here:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/05/09/

This isn't going to modded much so please keep that in mind.

Fashion is Mostly Deep

2011-05-04T15:22:00.001-07:00

In an ideal world, fashion would be fun, an exercise in self-expression. Alas, it is often another institution valuing whiteness, thinness, conventional attractiveness, and "appropriate" gender performance, among other things. Then there's the flip side...you know that whole economic exploitation thing So I get where Gwen Stefani was coming from with:

"I think fashion is more of a fun sort of thing," Stefani says. "It's an expression of yourself and your personality and your mood, it's not something we take super deep."

But I think this is pretty damn deep:

"Fashion is of course an almost wholly feminized industry. Apart from a few men at the top, including manufacturers and retailers, celebrity designers and magazine publishers, it is and has been a female sphere of production and consumption...It comprises of six component parts: manufacture and production; design; retail and distribution; education and training; the magazine and fashion media; and the practices of consumption....Thinking across the fashion sector in this way also has the advantage of disaggregating what often seem like a series of starkly monolithic institutions." - Angela McRobbie, "Bridging the Gap: Feminism, Fashion and Consumption," 55 Feminist Review 73 (1997).

Manapua

2011-04-27T15:49:00.000-07:00

Yumm...

Or at least the buns
So I have two recipes for manapua. A “quick” one that is very good and a super delicious…this-is-what- manapua-should-be…slow one. But for both you need char siu, which is more the cooking department than the baking department…so I'm linking to the recipe M uses for char siu. His only caveats: (1) you MUST use fermented red bean curd, (2) the food coloring is optional, (3) the ketchup (in his opinion) should be substituted for tomato paste, (5) the brandy is substitutable, and (4) the amounts don't need to be exact.

To the baking!

Quick Recipe

1 pkg or 2¼ t dry yeast
3 T lukewarm water (110ish degrees or warm on the inside of your wrist)
2 c warm water
1 ½ T vegetable oil (or any cooking oil really)
¼ c sugar
¾ t salt
6 c bread flour (or all purpose, but bread flour will be chewier)
12 pieces of wax paper cut in 3 inch squares and lightly oiled

Dissolve yeast in lukewarm water.

Separately, combine the additional water, oil, and sugar. Stir until dissolved. Allow to cool. By the time it cools the yeast mixture should have bubbles on the top (if not, your yeast is probably dead).

In a large mixing bowl, combine the liquids. Add 4 cups of the flour and mix well. Add the remaining 2 cups (keeping in mind that you may not need the last ¼ c or so). Set aside for 20 minutes then sprinkle in the salt. Knead until smooth.

Lightly oil a bowl (make sure it’s big enough to hold the dough assuming it expands to at least double). Roll the dough in the bowl to make sure it has a light coat of oil on top. Lightly cover with plastic wrap and a cloth and set it somewhere out of the way of any drafts until it doubles in size, about an hour.

Punch down the dough, flip it over, re-cover it, and allow it to double in size again (alternatively, for a tastier manapua place it in the refrigerator for 3-6 hours).

Punch down the dough again. Divide into 12 equal portions.

Roll each portion out into a 6 inch round with the edges very, very thin and the middle thick. Fill each round with about 2 T of filling. Pinch the edges together to close. Place on a wax paper square and set aside. Cover with a towel for about hour to allow them a final rise.

To steam: Place in a steamer at least 1 inch apart. Steam for 15 minutes.

To bake: Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Brush the tops with oil. Bake for 20-25 minutes until golden brown.

Slow recipe

1 t dry yeast
3 T lukewarm water (110ish degrees or warm on the inside of your wrist)
1¾c lukewarm water
¼ c warm water
1 ½ T vegetable oil (or any cooking oil really)
¼ c sugar
¾ t salt
6 c AP flour (bread flour is even chewier, which I like, but which M insists in not "authentic" manapua)
12 pieces of wax paper cut in 3 inch squares and lightly oiled

Dissolve yeast in lukewarm water. Set aside for a few minutes until the yeast has softened.

What the sponge looks like after 12 hours.

To make the sponge, in a large bowl combine 3 cups of the flour, the softened yeast mixture, and 1¾ cup lukewarm water. Stir until well mixed. Cover with plastic wrap or towel and set aside for at least 4 hours and as many as 12 hours.
When you're ready to proceed, separately combine the ¼ cup warm water, sugar, and oil. Stir until dissolved.

Stir down the yeast mixture and add the liquid mixture. Add the remaining flour (keeping in mind that you may not need the last ¼ c or so. After the mixture is just combined set aside for 20 minutes. Sprinkle the salt on top and knead until smooth.

Lightly oil a bowl (make sure it’s big enough to hold the dough assuming it expands to at least double). Roll the dough in the bowl to make sure it has a light coat of oil on top. Lightly cover with plastic wrap and a cloth and set it somewhere out of the way of any drafts until it doubles in size, about an hour.

Punch down the dough, flip it over, recover it, and place it in the refrigerator for 3-6 hours.

Punch down the dough again. Divide into 12 equal portions.

Roll each portion out into a 6 inch round with the edges very, very thin and the middle thick. Fill each round with about 2 T of filling. Pinch the edges together to close. Place on a wax paper square and set aside. Cover with a towel for about hour to allow them a final rise.

To steam: Place in a steamer at least 1 inch apart. Steam for 15 minutes.

To bake: Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Brush the tops with oil. Bake for 20-25 minutes until golden brown.

PUA and Social Anxiety

2011-01-23T20:31:00.000-07:00

Over at Feministe the topic of PUAs came up with the suggestion that a significant number of the men* who turn to the PUA community do so because it offers a comprehensive solution to a problem with social anxiety where, I would guess, the focal point of pain (the thing that is pushing the social anxious guy to get help) is a desire to connect with either a romantic or sexual partner. For these particular men, I think gender theory might be helpful and so when one of the guy commentors asked for help, I decided to put together some thoughts.

First, some assumptions to avoid derailing:

(1) Sex is a morally neutral act.** It goes in the same category as things like drinking lemonade or wearing pointy shoes. Some people like it, some don’t. Similarly, there is a wide array of different things people do sexually all of which are also morally neutral. In short, I don’t have any opinion on whether or what variety of sex you enjoy.

(2) People are substantially the same regardless of gender. In some ways we’ve been socialized differently. But we are all humans seeking essentially the same things: safety, comfort, and connection.

(3) People have equivalent value. I’m not going to argue on this one. If you think one person is more valuable or worthy as an absolute metric (rather than a point of preference) than another…we have nothing to talk about.

At a cursory glance the PUA community would seem to offer people with social anxiety a method to connect to other people. Follow these specific steps and you’ll be able to talk to, date, have sex with a woman. But many of the steps the PUA strategies suggest are laced with the implication that who you are is not good enough, not manly enough, not okay.

That simply isn’t true.

You are a person. Yes, you have flaws and quirks. Believe it or not, your flaws and quirks are very likely no worse or weirder than anyone else’s. You probably sometimes perform gender in socially unapproved ways. We all do…the socially approved ways of being manly or feminine don’t actually fit any human being. These things about you don’t need to change in order to connect with other people. Moreover, working through social anxiety is not about putting on a mask and pretending to be someone else. It requires something much more difficult – accepting that what you feel is intrinsically wrong with you isn’t wrong or bad.

Sometimes you can do that on your own through self reflection, sometimes you need help. There are lots of support forums on the internet for people with social anxiety, but there is also self-hypnosis (which I’m a big fan of for anxiety) and therapy. It’s not unmanly to seek help. If you want your life to be different, you have to have the courage to try. This is the elephant in the room in the PUA forums. They help may help you nominally connect with another person, but they don’t help you overcome the underlying problem.

Instead of dealing with the anxiety PUAs use it.

There are two big ways people overcome fear. You can devalue the thing you’re afraid or you can try to connect with the thing you are afraid of. When we dehumanize someone by using insulting them or deriding them (calling them “hos” or “targets”), we’re trying to overcome fear through dominance. Essentially saying I’m not afraid of you because you don’t matter, I am in control. This isn’t just a technique that you can use and throw away. It’s pervasive. And it pervades the PUA community.

The alternative is connection. You can see that the thing you’re afraid of isn’t all that scary because it’s just like you. And you aren’t scary. So there is no reason to be afraid. Anthropomorphizing things is probably the easiest example to understand. We anthropomorphize dangerous animals for example because doing so makes us feel less afraid.

So instead of thinking of the woman at the bar as a “target,” you could think of her as a person who once had the hiccups for a whole day, a person whose mother yells at her at least once a week for being a failure, a person who sometimes does or says the wrong thing, a person who cannot remember to turn off the light when she leaves the room, a person…with just as many flaws and quirks as you who is also looking for the same types of things…comfort, safety and connection.

Those I think are the major pitfalls of the PUA community. There are others. I think PUAs stink at teaching about non-verbal cues and at helping people overcome fear of rejection. The evopsych they use to explain human action makes absolutely no sense and explains why their human psychology is all off. But I think all of those problems stem from these two things: not addressing the source of the problem and trying to forge a connection based on dehumanization.

If you want to talk about related things feel free, but please keep in mind that comments are moderated and since its not really a blog, I don’t check them all the time so there may be a delay.

*My understanding is that the PUA community is structured for cis het men, but I think the discussion that follows is relevant regardless of gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

**Sex is neutral. Rape is not. It should go without saying that any discussion of sex implies consent…but over many years I’ve learned that isn’t the case. So I’m saying it. Sex requires consent.

Rape, Defined

2010-12-06T20:38:00.000-07:00

FYI, if you’ve been directed here by a person on a feminist blog as a means of explaining that what you’re saying is wrong, irrelevant, or hateful…please, try to read the following without reflexive defensiveness. Getting shit wrong doesn’t make you a horrible person, it just makes you imperfect…like everyone else.

[Trigger warning: Clinical and somewhat graphic discussions of rape to follow.]

As feminists we talk about rape often. It and similar crimes are part of the web of oppression that remind many of us every single day that we are less – less valued, less autonomous – less. Talking about rape, particularly the rape of women and girls, almost always leads to the same derails. So this is the beginning of a series of non-posts on derailing conversations about rape.

By far the most prevalent derail in any discussion of rape is the intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of what definition of rape is being or should be used. Whether it’s the media determining that something wasn’t rape or a person denying that a victim’s experience was rape, people regularly fail to understand what is meant by rape.

Rape is a word that draws its meaning from context.

So what definitions of rape are used and how can you tell the difference? Typically we discuss rape from three perspectives: (a) legal, (b) ethical, and (c) empathetic. The first addresses the liability a person faces for certain acts. The second addresses what a person “ought” or “should” do. The third provides a way for someone to connect emotionally with another person and, in some cases, engage in a part of the healing process.

Rape and the Law

If we're discussing the legal merits of a case there is a very specific, usually statutory definition. If statutory, the law may provide for different degrees of culpability depending on the intention of the defendant, the level of threatened or actual physical violence, the parties involved, the type of sexual act involved, etc.

Outside of a discussion of the legal merits of a case or the institutional oppression inherent in our definitions of rape (for example the notion under some statutes that men cannot be the victims of rape), these legal definitions have no place in a discussion of rape. Let me say that again, for emphasis, do not pull out a statute to define rape unless you are talking about the statute itself or the merits of criminal case.

Why? To do so is to conflate liability with reality. The law does not determine whether something occurred. It doesn't determine whether your house was robbed or your car stolen. It doesn't determine whether the perpetrator committed a crime, whether the defendant robbed or stole. Instead, it determines whether a particular defendant is to be held criminally or civilly liable for the crime. A jury’s determination that the defendant is not guilty, does not magically restore your xbox to your entertainment center or your car to the driveway.

Rape and Ethics

A lot of people have difficulty with is differentiating between discussions of ethics and discussions of law. I suppose your ethical system may be merely to not do things that are illegal, but a great many people believe that there are ethical restraints our actions that are not necessarily incorporated in law. For example, observing an abandoned baby in a rubbish pile and doing nothing. In most cases this behavior would not be actionable under law, but many people would consider it unethical.

The ethical discussions of rape typically revolve around a model of consent.* Rape occurs when one person engages in a sexual act without the affirmative consent of another participant. Thus, a person should not engage in a sexual act with another without obtaining affirmative consent. In my view this model contains two key premises. First, a person should not act to harm another person. Second, that other people have the agency to determine what causes harm to themselves. Since people are not omniscient or psychic, the best way we can know another’s subjective thoughts is to inquire and trust that person’s assertions. Thus, to prevent harm a person must seek and rely on consent.

Notice this consent model is neutral as to the act involved. You shouldn't punch someone in the nose, perform a tonsillectomy on another person or insert an object in to another person's vagina, mouth, or rectum without their consent.**

Some feminists use a model of enthusiastic consent. There are varying definitions of enthusiastic consent, but essentially the idea is that you should only engage in sex activity with someone who has a sexual desire to engage in that activity with you. Under this model, an ethical person would seek to understand the sexual desires of the other person, and seek to fulfill those sexual desires rather than merely relying on a perhaps reluctant “yes.”

While I understand the rationale for enthusiastic consent, the model may deny the agency of people who are asexual, some sex workers, and others. As a result, I prefer a simple affirmative consent model. Essentially, a person must affirmatively consent to sexual acts. Negative consent, i.e. not saying no, is inadequate.

Whatever your ethical model is, the purpose of the model is to determine how a person should act. Said differently, an ethical definition of rape is only relevant when trying to determine the ethical nature of a sexual act. In this way, the ethical definition of rape, like the legal definition of rape is focused on the experience and understanding of the actor. Did the actor ask for and receive affirmative consent prior to engaging in a sexual act? The experience of the victim of rape is not central or even considered beyond the actor’s interpretation of the victim’s actions.

Ethical systems like the consent model described above seek to protect victims of rape by requiring ethical people to value the judgments of others. Nevertheless, even when a person acts ethically under the model of affirmative consent the other party may be the victim of rape. For example, if a person withdraws consent but for some reason is unable to communicate that withdrawal. Obviously, these situations form extraordinary exceptions, but they highlight an important principal: Ethical definitions of rape do not define whether someone is the victim of rape. Instead, the ethical definition only indicates whether the actor committed rape. To understand whether a person is the victim of rape we need to look at the next section.

Rape and Empathy

If the question you are seeking to answer is was this person raped, I urge you to stop.

Please. Stop.

Before you go any further ask yourself why it is important to know whether this person was raped. Are you seeking to hold someone liable for rape? If so, then this question is not relevant to you. Look instead at the legal definition for liability. Are you seeking to hold someone morally or ethically responsible for rape? If so, then this question is not relevant to you. Look instead at the ethical definitions of rape. Are you seeking to impose your conception of rape onto this other person? If so, please stop. For the reasons I will shortly explain, that rationale is both wrong and hurtful. So, please don’t do it. Are you seeking to connect with another human, to understand the world from their perspective and perhaps help them heal from a harmful experience? If so, you probably have no need for me to explain anything, but I’ll discuss empathy after I address knowledge.

Language is one of those funny things. It is in large part a social construction. You and I and the rest of the English speakers on earth have determined that the object over there next to the table is a chair. We call it a chair. We understand it to be a chair in fact and in concept. But socially constructed meaning is not the only meaning. My psychological experience of chairs also provides a definition of chairs, a meaning unique to me. For me the word chair conjures up the dining chairs in my parent’s house when I was small. Brown, hard, uncomfortable, too smooth to exert leverage and climb on, too tall for my legs, but too short to reach anything on the table. So while you and I may agree that a comfy leather side chair meets the socially constructed definition of chair, we likely have different psychological experiences that similarly define our internal understanding of chairs. Both the socially constructed and the psychological meanings are true, they are just describing the same concept from different perspectives. If I choose to share with you, my psychological understanding of chairs, I’m probably not trying to convince you must alter your psychological understanding of chairs or even our socially constructed understanding of chairs. Instead, I’m just trying to share part of who I am.

Rape is understood much the same ways. We have a social construction of rape based in part on the legal and ethical definitions discussed above. But different people have different psychological experiences of rape. And it is these psychological experiences that define rape from the perspective of the person who experienced it. Such a definition cannot be socially constructed, it is necessarily experiential.

So to return to the point, if you want to know whether someone experienced rape, the only question is whether they say they experienced rape.*** Their experience is not socially constructed. So please, do not try to shape someone’s experience into your understanding of rape. We can shape ethics, we shape the law, we can shape society…but we should not ever tell people what they did not or should not feel.

Instead, we should use empathy. Empathy requires hearing someone else's suffering with your mouth shut and your heart open. It is connecting with another human being. It is an emotional conversation, not an intellectual one.

Moreover, the self is, in part socially constructed.**** Rape can destabilize a person’s sense of self particularly in relation to others and particularly in a society that compounds the damage done by rape. Reconstructing that social bond, is a social obligation. The obligation to hear, to listen, to empathize, to accept, to embrace the victim as a valued member of society.

In short, I’m trying to convince you of three things (1) that rape from the perspective of the victim is defined experientially, (2) that such definitions are not an attack on our socially constructed, or personal construction of meaning, and (3) that victims of rape need us to hear them and respect their understanding of what they experienced.

If after all of that you still cannot help but want to argue with a person’s self-definition of rape, I urge you to stop and walk away. Perhaps you cannot for what ever reason empathize or sympathize, but please do not compound the harm someone has experienced by making them feel as if yet another person does not value them.

FYI 2 - Comments are moderated. This isn't really a blog, so I'll get to the comments when I can and it likely won't be immediately.

* There are other models of course. But this is the most prevalent and my favorite.

** Acting without another person’s consent is sometimes justifiable in cases of necessity, but such justifications are rarely related to rape except in the case of medical rape.

*** I urge anyone who struggles with this directive to go read Cara’s “On Birth Rape, Definitions, and Language Policing.” It is a brilliant and empathic examination of the language policing that occurs around the word “rape” and why such efforts are so vile.

****Susan Brison makes this argument regarding the socially constructed self and inspired my thoughts on this issue, but her work is not necessarily reflective of the totality of this line of thinking. Brison, Susan, “Outliving Oneself: Trauma, Memory and Personal Identity” in Feminists Rethink the Self (1997).

Patriarchy, Kyriarchy and Men

2010-11-29T17:24:00.000-07:00

So some idiot’s long and rambling editorial over at the Chicago Tribune sparked what I think is an interesting discussion over at Feministe. The interesting confab was not on the article itself, but on Julia Serrano’s (cited by Jadey) definitions of traditional sexism and oppositional sexism

traditional sexism
Sexism that is rooted in the presumption that femaleness and femininity are inferior to (and only exist for the sexual benefit of) maleness and masculinity. It targets those who are female as well as those who are feminine (regardless of their sex).

oppositional sexism
Sexism that is rooted in the presumption that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive, “opposite” sexes, each possessing a unique and non-overlapping set of attributes, aptitudes, abilities, and desires. It targets those who do not conform to oppositional gender norms. A number of previously described categories of sexism (e.g., transphobia, homophobia and cissexism) fall under the umbrella of oppositional sexism.

Essentially, the interesting argument is whether what Serrano calls “traditional sexism” should applicable to men to or said differently whether women have any institutional power over men.

This argument points out what I consider to be the fundamental flaw inherent in many strands of feminism. They look at the world from the single lens of the oppression of women. I know, I know…that was what feminism was created to do: to provide equality for women. I completely agree on the rationale for why feminism was created. I just disagree on the value of that perspective.

But there can be no equality as long as one person is unequal, as long as one person lives in a world that oppresses.

Looking at the world from the single lens of the oppression of women provides a distorted view of the world. Decades ago feminist philosophers charged the ivory tower academics with failing to solve problems because they have a myopic view of the world. Feminism has a myopic vision of power as binary and men as the holders of that power.

Power is not always binary. It’s so obvious as to be ridiculous, but at least in the US there is no cabal of men who get together on Sunday afternoons to determine how best to oppress women and how to maintain the existing power dynamic. Indeed, there isn’t even an unconscious consideration on the part of *men* in general on how they should alter their actions to further oppress women. In the US, men are not simply the Oppressors and women are not simply the Oppressed. Power isn’t necessarily controlled by one group and exercised for the purpose of oppression.

This isn’t to say that the view of power as binary isn’t reasonable. Indeed in some situations people do consciously and purposefully collaborate to harm or oppress others. I’m sure we can all think of at least a dozen examples. Although even in those contexts there are oppressive forces working on those exerting power. The problem is it isn’t the only way in which power oppresses and when we limit ourselves to a oppressor/oppressed (“or/ed”) paradigm it is far to easy to ignore the oppression experienced by people who we label as oppressors even though they too are victims of oppression.

The men are oppressors. If men are oppressors in the or/ed paradigm then Serrano’s definitions of traditional/oppositional sexism make sense. Men oppress women both institutionally and through gendered norms. Men oppress other men who fail to meet gendered norms. In all cases men are the source of the oppression.

It falls in with Jadey’s comment (@ 98) that:

“So short = bad also encompasses feminine/female = bad (and it should be clear where this sucks for short guys), but it also intersects with conformity = good, so short women = conforming to the idea that women are short (and also bad), which is good, and short men = failure to conform to the idea that men are tall (or taller than women, at least!), which is bad. And also they are (or could be) “feminized”, which is also bad, both because non-conformity is bad and being female/feminine is bad.”

But it falls apart when we look more carefully at the idea implied but not expressed by Jadey that masculinity=good.

Let’s take a look at one of the common characteristics of masculinity: stoicism.

Stoicism. I maintain that generally speaking one of the characteristics of masculinity in USian society is stoicism, the repression of emotion and indifference to pleasure or pain. I also maintain that overall in USian society stoicism is generally considered good. We admire the football player who “walks it off” or otherwise “takes it like a man.”

But before we write this one off as part of the masculinity=good category let’s examine it in other contexts like relationships. Men are often accused of not being able to share their feelings. And I use the word “accuse” on purpose. This is not a good thing. This is the subject of countless sitcoms and innumerable made-for-TV movies. Not being able to communicate emotion=bad: bad romantic partner, bad son, bad sibling, bad father.

Stoicism has systematic effects. Women and girls are sometimes afraid or unwilling to report their sexual assault experiences because they face disbelief and scorn.

But men and boys often have those same experiences when they report rape or even domestic assault. How many times have you heard that “men can’t be raped”? Additionally, men are less likely to seek medical treatment and even psychiatric care (a problem exacerbated in times like these when so many are facing the consequences of PTSD).

The value judgments attached to stoicism are not merely about gender conformity. They are about the faults we see in masculinity and how we judge masculinity to be both good and bad or helpful and harmful.*

Back to the Or/Ed paradigm. If masculinity isn’t universally preferable to femininity then there is a fundamental flaw in the paradigm. Who is forcing men to take on “bad” behaviors? I suppose one answer might be to maintain the paradigm and suggest that women oppress men (which I think some people in the feministe thread were trying to argue) but this argument fails on exactly the same grounds. Women as a group are not getting together on a Sunday night to figure out how we can oppress men. What is broken is not who gets labeled as the oppressor and the oppressed, but the idea that power and oppression are a downstream process rather than a collective one.

Kyriarchy

This is why the word kyriarchy is so powerful to me.** In my mind it shifts us away from the binary, downstream view of oppression and lets us examine the problem as a collective creation, collectively enforced.

One of the central functions of the Or/Ed dynamic is it gives the oppressed a target. The oppressors are the ones causing us harm. If we can just wrestle power away from them, it will be all good. The problem of course is that even if the oppressed rise up, if their sole goal is to achieve power, oppression will still exist merely in another form. To steal a phrase from The Who…meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

To quote my SO “while the particular form of oppression, such as who is being oppressed and the manner in which they are being oppressed might change, oppression itself remains functionally persistent. The haves and the have-nots will remain locked in the same vicious, pointless, endless game of musical chairs until we realize that when we stop trying to grab two chairs, you know, just in case something happens to the one we’re sitting on, there are enough seats for everyone.”

Real change comes with the end of oppression and the end of oppression comes when we each acknowledge our individual roles in the oppression of others. When we each acknowledge and empathize with the pain experienced by others, when we each accept that oppression is the enemy, not other people, only then can we begin to make real strides toward real solutions for every member of society.

*Leaving aside for the moment the arguments about “good” value judgments being as potentially harmful as “bad” value judgments….but just for a moment keep in mind the old trope of “Asians” being good at math.

**As an aside, I may not be using the word as intended by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza

Body Dysmorphia and Ablism

2010-10-28T20:06:00.000-07:00

Interesting discussion going on at feministe about body dysmorphia and ablism. The ablism is a derail over there so I wanted to open it up here in case folks want to discuss it further.

Rachel and the Parasite

2009-10-16T03:23:00.001-07:00

Rachel Maddow to the President of "Americans for Prosperity" (aka Rich People Against Health Care Reform).

"I personally think that you and the folks who do what you do are a parasite who gets fat on America's fears."

THANK YOU.

(I think she may have just blown her chance to host Meet the Press someday, but I think it was almost worth it.)

The Resentment of Ressentiment or Entitlement in the Extreme

2009-10-11T18:05:00.001-07:00

In response to Leftist Ressentiment in the Extreme also discussed by Belledame.

In the interest of fairness, I should begin by saying I'm a lefty-leftist-leftooya, or as my dear SO would say, a pinko commie. As such, I choose to believe that all human beings, even the despicable ones who choose to do bad things to others, are (frequently to my chagrin) human beings and deserving of some minimal amount of "respect" and having some value. I also believe that "morality" aside, no one person has more value than any other person. So, I deny from the outset the ~~ego driven bullshit~~ philosophy of Nietzsche's superman. There is no superior person, no ultimate expression of humanity, no golden idol of awesome for us to worship or attempt to emulate. We are all just humans wandering about somewhat aimlessly with too much intelligence for our own damn good.

So, you want to argue the assumptions, there they are...now on to the substance.

Entitlement in the Extreme

I can't stand self-satisfied, privileged sociopaths. It drives me to drink. So all you sociopaths out there listen up:

1) While the world may in fact revolve around you, it isn't because you deserve it. You can reach your stove, access computers, access books, sit in a chair at a restaurant, etc because the world is made mostly for you, by accident of birth and presumably a good bit of luck. You are not responsible for that accomplishment. It doesn't reflect on your value or your usefulness. You won the genetic lotto without even choosing to buy the ticket.

So when someone says that it isn't fair that the world is constructed for your use rather than theirs, realize that they are speaking truth. Both of you are equivalent in value. For the same actions, you received a benefit, they received a cost. Your benefit is to their detriment. It isn't fair. If they ask for assistance to create a more equitable arrangement, you owe them that assistance because you accept the benefits.

Please learn to cultivate an attitude of humility for this "gift" and consideration for those who didn't receive it, rather than being a pompous ass who thinks the universe is owed to them and they owe nothing to those around them.

My first message to sociopaths: you are not more valuable than others, get over yourselves.

2) Moderating your tone for other people rarely fulfills any purpose. The tone argument is fallacious for reasons that have been discussed previously and ad infinitum. You reveal your logical deficits when you pull out hackneyed arguments in support of your position. You also add to my suffering in the process.

My second message to sociopaths: find better arguments, these are old.

3) Let people breathe, for the love of humanity. People are free, even to do the wrong thing. The only way you can make people conform to your view of the world is if you place microchips in their brains and have Butter control their every action. The urge to control is so strong in sociopathic people.

My third message to sociopaths: learn to let go.

(What? There's too much irony in complaining about how other people complaining is controlling. I couldn't come up with anything funnier...its like Sarah Palin and SNL...I just read the lines, the snark makes itself.)

4) Lastly and most importantly, do not try to use some bs ethical theory to somehow underpin your own cruelty to other human beings. Look outward for a moment, and ask yourself what kind of person tells another person to shut up about their pain, because hearing about someone else's pain makes them uncomfortable. Don't try to flee from that self-judgment by looking solely inward like the narcissist you are. It's okay, you're allowed to consider other people. I know empathy is foreign to you, but turn your self-aggrandizing inner dialogue off for a minute and know that you are being a complete shit.

My fourth message to sociopaths: all the time you spend thinking solely of yourself could be spent cultivating empathy and consideration for others.

Breathe, sociopaths, breathe...or don't because while I consider you human beings, and thus having equivalent value, I'm not sure the world wouldn't be better off without you.

Hugs and kisses...

2009-08-14T06:01:00.000-07:00

Per Belledame's request, we have puppy pictures.

As history...

Here is Abbie when we first got her from the animal shelter. As you can see, she was very, very skinny. About 11lbs, and that was after the shelter had been fattening her up for a week! [She arrived there at 7lbs, she's now 16lbs.]

She soon settled into the family, learned that she was safe, learned that her food would not magically disappear from her bowl and that there would be more later. Then, her natural instinct for cuddling came to the fore. If there was thigh, she would snuggle it. If there was a lap she would wiggle into it. No one was immune to her pleading looks and polite paw nudge to make some space on the sofa, the bed, or even the floor.

And then, she discovered the joys of romping and playing with other dogs. Particularly if other dogs were willing to run.

But eventually, winter came, and she hadn't put on enough weight...so when it was cold she didn't like to go out and play as much. So we had a coat made for her by the lovely people at Blue Willow who did a fantastic job. And thus winter was saved.

Time passed and Abbie became the star pupil in her daycare (okay, that's not really what that means, but we're going to pretend it is).

She put on a few healthy pounds and became secure enough in her food source that she would discriminate between organic and non-organic foods.

With the liberal use of chicken, she's learned how to not be frightened of other people, strange dogs, loud noises, plastic bags, cars, shadows, her pillow if the light changed...Instead she has become a wonderful family member who approaches life with such joy and abandon that spending time with her can't help but lift your heart.

"Beating the homeless is cruel, not cool"

2009-08-12T20:47:00.001-07:00

Did this need to be said? Was there some indication that beating vulnerable people is fun?

Apparently yes. From CNN:

The August issue of Maxim, a youth-oriented magazine targeted at college-aged males, joked about last weekend's National Hobo Convention in Britt, Iowa, in a blurb titled "Hunt the Homeless." The journal quipped "Kill one for fun. We're 87 percent sure it's legal."

As if we didn't need enough reasons to avoid Maxim.

Maxim...not just about sexism any more...

The scary thing (okay, so there are many scary things here, but one scary thing) is that 58 percent of these attacks are committed by children. Children for christ sake. Children are seeking out more vulnerable people to commit violence upon.

Which makes me think of this from bell hooks recently quoted by Ashley in a beautiful post about Love on Feministe particularly salient:

The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.

Is this violence by young (for the most part) men part of that psychic self-mutilation? Do they need to assert their dominance in a patriarchal world so badly that they seek out vulnerable people to prove their physical superiority? And what is making these manlings so desperate for dominance that they would brutalize another human being?

Do we have to mandate humanity training in schools along with PE and reading?

Honesty at Last

2009-08-12T06:49:00.000-07:00

Re: The health care astroturf protests

One protester commented:

"“This isn’t just about health care,” said Carolyn Doric of Harrisburg, “it’s about political power and a means to regain political power.”"

From the NYT "Senator Goes Face to Face with Dissent"

Just sit there and ponder that for a moment. A moment of pure honesty.

Domestic Violence & Victim Blaming

2009-08-08T15:03:00.000-07:00

So there was a post at Ren's that made my head explode and she decided to shutdown comments (understandable since was a derail in the first place), so I thought I'd continue here and everyone can feel free to be angry and vitriolic on my time.

These issues have been talked about elsewhere, so I'll start with that....

The reason "Why didn't she leave" is victim blaming - See La Lubu's comment here

"Why, on even feminist blogs, do people assume the victim to have a major flaw, rather than as a person with few resources attempting to fend for herself? Police go in with cadres of armed companions when confronting violent criminals—yet we expect DV victims to “just leave”."

A good explanation of why many victims don't file criminal charges - From DOJ

"The period between arrest and trial can be an especially dangerous and intimidating time for victims in cases of intimate partner violence. It is also a time when the criminal justice system’s legal control over defendants is limited. In most jurisdictions, defendants are released on bail while awaiting trial. And despite the court’s imposition of “no contact” conditions of bail for a majority of defendants..., experience has shown that the pretrial phase (between arrest and the trial) is the time when an accused person is most likely to try to influence the victim’s testimony and the outcome of a case. Some attempts to influence victims appear to be desperate pleas for forgiveness; others clearly involve threats of physical harm or death."

Yeah, so in short:

(1) Asking why she doesn't just leave or why she puts up with it is victim blaming because it focuses on what she should have done rather than on the actions of the abusers. It makes her responsible for what happens.

(2) It's dangerous to get a TRO or to file criminal charges. They don't just lock the abuser up immediately and throw away the key...there are things called bail and whatnot...I know...shocking.

Collection of Useful Links

2009-08-08T14:52:00.000-07:00

For all manner of derailing - www.derailingfordummies.com

The "Tone Argument" - http://inalasahl.livejournal.com/149900.html