Fannie's Room

Another Military Man In Charge of Sexual Assault Response Charged with Misconduct

2013-05-20T09:00:00.000-05:00

So, the third military man in 2 weeks, in charge of sexual assault response, has been charged with boundary-violating misbehavior.

Like many feminists, I'm not surprised by these circumstances. I'm also not surprised that some people are, apparently, surprised.

A few months ago, at the now-defunct Family Scholars Blog, someone started talking about sexual assault in the military. It was a tangential discussion on a post about another topic, so I can't find the conversation immediately, but that's beside the point.

In this conversation, one conservative young guy added a contribution that was somewhat fawning of the US military, suggesting that rape was primarily a problem among other, less disciplined armed forces of other countries, and he ended by opining, "I'm sure we can trust that the US military is doing all it can to address this problem."

..... wut?

My response to him was, in that forum, a tepid, "And you are basing this opinion of yours on what, exactly?" And, I then proceeded to reference actual court cases suggesting that the military, actually, was doing very far from "all it can" when it comes to sexual assault.

I'm sure my response was deemed "mean" or "aggressive" or something and therefore ignored so Clueless Privileged Guy wouldn't have to feel the discomfort associated with re-thinking his groundless assumptions about the world, but my larger point here is that it's been my experience that this guy's opinion is not particularly rare in the US, particularly among those who buy into narratives about the US military being, monolithically, a noble, glorious institution full of chivalrous heroes.

I think good people can be, and are, in the US military. I, at several points in my life, seriously considered joining myself, even during the discriminatory time of DADT and even when multiple narratives told me that I wasn't wanted there because I'm a woman and gay.

But, I also think that people who do good things in some contexts, perhaps even heroic things, can do bad things in other contexts. Just as people who are really mean in some contexts, can be nice and good in other contexts. I mean, is that even contentious to purport?

Despite the simple, binary narrative that's encouraged in US political culture in terms of left v. right, liberal v. conservative, Republican v. Democrat, With Us v. Against Us, Good v. Evil, people don't actually fit so neatly into those boxes.

And so I quote Twisty, for truth:

"Despite lofty romantic narratives alluding to honor and quiet heroism and national pride, military culture is ultimately grounded by mores that place a higher value on group cohesion through dominance than on compassion, justice, or truth. These mores are necessary both to foster the required fierce sense of tribal unity, and to permit the execution of the required acts of intimidation and aggression — acts that would be considered psychotic under any other circumstances. Mounting body counts on all sides obfuscate the very concept of 'greater good.'

The thuggy, murdery, cannon-foddery nature of the wars becomes more difficult to ignore, while simultaneously the sexual assault rate climbs: coincidence? I think not. It’s nice that the president 'has [the victims'] backs,' but if he thinks that it’s even possible to extirpate violent behavior from a tight-knit culture based on violence, that dude seriously needs to answer the clue phone. As these relentless wars drag ever onward, it is to be expected only that fewer and fewer members of the military will be able to survive such extreme cognitive dissonance with their moral compasses intact. Warfare debases all humanity."

War is, in principle and practice, the violation of boundaries, albeit for some purported greater good and even though the people waging it might be good people in many contexts. Having legitimated the practice of violence and boundary violating, it should not be a surprise that those who are trained in it sometimes fail to distinguish who is and is not deserving of having their boundaries violated.

So Back Then It Was Center Men or STFU, Too, Then?

2013-05-17T09:00:00.000-05:00

So, it turns out that MRA dipshits have been around for at least 100 years.

In his 1913 tome The Fraud of Feminism, after noting several average, alleged physiological sex differences between men and women, "journalist" and "philosopher" E. Belfort Bax sneered:

"It is the fashion of Feminists, ignoring these fundamental physiological sex differences, to affirm that the actual inferiority of women, where they have the honesty to admit such an obvious fact, is accountable by the centuries of oppression in which Woman has been held by wicked and evil-minded Man."

We see this attitude today, don't we? When we advocate for equality or, hell, even decent treatment for women, some men distort the argument we're making as a ginormous, sweeping accusation of all men everywhere in all of time being horribly sinister.

What it is is projection. When we understand that many MRAs and anti-feminists actually hold sweeping, supremacist views that basically amount to waiving around a giant Men Are #1 foam finger, we understand that their egocentricity demands that they believe that their "opponents" hold similarly unfair, sweeping views about women's purported supremacy over men.

For instance, in Chapter 1, Bax begins:

"The dominance of men [before feminism] seemed to derive so obviously from natural causes, from the possession of faculties physical, moral and intellectual, in men, which were wanting in women, that no one thought of questioning the situation."

.... dun dun dun, until feminism, that is.

He then proceeds to devote chapter called, predictably, "The Anti-Man Crusade" to railing against how British laws of 1913 were so horribly unjust to men and in favor of women.

At a certain point, the text itself reads quite like an old-timey parody of modern MRA-ism, with Bax doing what amounts to the early 19th-century equivalent of whinging about Bumbling Male Characters On Sitcoms. He writes:

"...[W]e see the legislature, judges, juries, parsons, specially those of the non-conformist persuasion, all vie with one another in denouncing the villainy and baseness of the male person, and ever devising ways and means to make his life hard for him. To these are joined a host of literary men and journalists of varying degrees of reputation who contribute their quota to the stream of anti-manism in the shape of novels, storiettes, essays, and articles, the design of which is to paint man as a base, contemptible creature, as at once a knave and an imbecile, a bird of prey and a sheep in wolf's clothing, and all as a foil to the glorious majesty of Womanhood."

Unfortunately, like his modern-day brethren, he fails to connect the dots as to how any of this is the fault of feminists or feminism. Indeed, I reckon that the SupremeFeminaziConspiracy had even less control over the "storiettes" of 1913 than they/we do today.

That he does not, for instance, indict gender traditionalists for saying that men are inherently this and women are inherently that, that he does not indict the predominant religions of his day for promoting absurd notions of "gender complementarity," and that he does not indict "scientists" of his day who promoted the idea that men and women were essentially opposite suggests, of course, that like many of today's MRAs, the primary critique about feminism is that it, horror of horror, doesn't sufficiently center men and only men, all the time men men and more men.

This notion crops up, time and time again.

Well, anti-feminists say, if feminists are gonna push for changing views about women, it's also women's work, and primarily women's work, to push for changing views about men as well. And, as long as feminism does not sufficiently center men, men will seek to destroy it, critique it, or ignore it until it does, while pretty much ignoring every valid point that any feminist ever says about how maybe women are and historically were marginalized.

Going to the Movies

2013-05-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

So, last night I voluntarily decided to watch Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

I wish I had something more intelligent to say about it other than, wow, just what we all needed, another movie about white dudes doing dudely things with other white dudes and, like, one white lady character and one black man, both of whom only have speaking parts because of their respective relationships with the white male savior. Ker-pow! It's like when you think about it, Vampire Hunter's narrative perspective has more in common with traditional historical narratives than it maybe would admit.

And really, I'm not sure the movie deserves more intelligent commentary than that, actually.

But wait, there's more!

Because this time it's a vampire edition of the Male-Centric, Non-Bechdel Action Movie (MANBAM?) genre. Buffy, in my opinion, is a major defining context for all things vampire related in US pop culture. Accordingly, any subsequent vampire-related shows or movies that go back to relegating women to marginal roles stands out as a serious regression.

But then again, I suppose a movie called Chattel Wives and Fugitive Slaves: Vampire Hunters would give too many white men a Big Sad to be considered a viable project?

Update

2013-05-15T09:00:00.000-05:00

Welp, it turns out that I have to be on some pretty strong meds for some persistent sinus issues I've been having and, spoiler alert, they are making me a bit loopy and REM-sleep-deprived. Consequently, blogging and conversation here will probably be a bit light, sporadic, and/or about random, spontaneous topics. (This is Internet, what could possibly go wrong?)

Anyway, as a fun fact, when I was an undergrad, I was regularly sleep-deprived, entirely of my own volition and wanton ways (insert whatever definition of wanton in there, for who am I to fail to live up to the image that some anti-gay folks have of The Reckless, Selfish, No-Self-Control Gays).

I'm much older now and much more into Getting 8 Hours of Solid Sleep per night, but I do remember back then having convinced myself that 1 hour of nap sleep bestowed upon a person the equivalent benefit of 4 hours of regular sleep and that I could, therefore, get my regular sleep in during the hours of 4-6 am, take a 2-hour nap later in the day, and actually come out with a net positive of sleep hours in the long run.

Aren't you so glad you read my blog today? Feel free to talk about whatever.

Fringe and Astrid

2013-05-14T09:00:00.000-05:00

I'm glad I read Ana's post on the TV show Fringe, because she articulated many things that I find problematic about it, even as I continue to watch it.

My current pet peeve of the show is the writer's oblivious and obvious treatment of Astrid. While the other characters, Peter, Walter, and Olivia get to be relatively well-rounded actual human beings, for the most part, Astrid, the show's only regular woman of color, mostly exists to be a Little Helper to the white protagonists.

Like, if someone had sufficient time and willpower, hours-long movies could probably be made of Fringe clips wherein Walter makes a huge-ass mess and Astrid responds with, "I'll clean that up," or of someone else needing something and Astrid saying, "Let me get that," or of Astrid looking sad for another character's troubles, while no one appears to know or care anything at all about her.

See, unlike with Astrid, we know the histories of Walter, Peter, and even Olivia. We know their personalities. We see them having relationships and love interests. We know their fears, their likes, and their preferred foods. We know very little, if anything, about Astrid.

And, as Ana notes, despite "babysitting" Walter for years on end, even though she's a talented FBI agent, Walter repeatedly calls Astrid by the wrong name, even though he doesn't have trouble remembering other people's names.

Like, do the writers just not realize they treat Astrid like total shit?

She's right up there with Angela Montenegro as being the Most Underrated, Taken-For-Granted, and Unrecognized Talent on their respective mystery-solving teams. (Seriously, while Hodgins is in back exploding watermelons for fun or whatever, Angela's already used her computer program to perfectly reconstruct how it was impossible, given the 13 bullet ricochet angles, for the gun to have been fired from the balcony and, therefore, their suspect is the wrong guy).

Friday.... Fun?

2013-05-10T12:12:00.001-05:00

I love this blog, Hyperbole and a Half, by Allie Brosh.

And her latest post, on depression, is at once spot on, humorous, and heartbreaking.

Leftist Gender Warrior wishes you all a nice weekend.

The Gender Police Are Going to Be SO Pissed!

2013-05-09T09:00:00.000-05:00

Welp, this book, What Makes a Baby?, is sure to make many folks fall ass over heels onto their fainting couches whilst clutching their pearls and simultaneously screeching "PC gone awry!"

It's crime? From the linked Atlantic article:

"The book is deliberately and insistently inclusive—which means that it does not presume a 'normal' one-fertile-mommy-one-fertile-daddy household.

Indeed, the book doesn't even mention the word 'mommy' or 'daddy'. Instead, What Makes a Baby explains that 'Not all bodies have eggs in them. Some do, and some do not;' and that 'Not all bodies have sperm in them. Some do, and some do not.' Similarly, sex isn't so much tip-toed around as it is relegated to one unspecified option among many. 'When grown ups want to make a baby they need to get an egg from one body and sperm from another body. They also need a place where a baby can grow.'

Silverberg's goals here are very deliberate and (in the reader's guide) carefully spelled out. He wants to include all children, regardless of whether they have a mommy and daddy who had sex, or adopted them, or whether they have two mommies, or two daddies, or (as Silverberg mentioned in the guide) a trans daddy who gave birth to them, or any of a myriad of other possibilities. The book, then, tries not to impose one truth, but rather to open up possibilities and conversations."

Good.

It's quite threatening to some "traditional family" advocates when the reality that families exist that are not in the format of a married man and woman raising their biological offspring together. Undoubtedly, this book, recognizing the real life existence of real life other types of families, will be framed as an "attack" of sorts on "traditional families."

Again, I reference projection, and how considering the possibility of one's political opponents engaging in it can be rather insightful.

For, rarely do "traditional marriage" advocates, even when directly asked, have tangible solutions or alternatives to offer non-traditional families - particularly same-sex headed families - to address our needs and marginalization in a society that centers and privileges the heterosexual married family. It's as though in their ideal world, non-traditional families (and individuals) should either assimilate or not exist at all.

Related:
A Creepy Anti-Choice/Anti-Gay Thought Experiment

Catholic Leader Denies Reality

Is Extermination the End Goal?

Quote of the Day

2013-05-08T09:00:00.000-05:00

"From March 7 – April 7, I documented everything blatantly sexist anyone has said to me. None of these comments were provoked, none of them were replies to something I said, none of them were at all out of the ordinary and the vast majority of them (an original count of 77 images) have been taken out so that this post isn’t as long as it probably should be. This is a 10-picture indication of what it’s like to be a woman who endorses game culture, every single month."

-Alanah Pearce, videogame journalist, in a post entitled "30 Days of Sexism"

[Content note/Spoiler alert: sexism, harassment. Obviously]

During her experiment of Being Female On Internet, Pearce received, and documented, comments such as "I would like to see her boobs" and "Yo bitch! Do you swallow?"

To tie today's post into a post from earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh recently boasted about his role in, purportedly, killing feminism. What an incredible display of privilege, juxtaposing Limbaugh's commentary with Pearce's, when men can yuk it up fantasizing about feminism's demise.

Anyway, to end on a more positive note, Pearce also wrote:

"Honestly, just seeing one down-vote [on sexist comments] or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism."

Yes.

Like I've written before, I don't blog about feminism primarily to convince men that I'm right and that they're privileged or wrong or sexist.

At a certain point, many men are just going to have to recognize all by themselves that being an ally, if they even want to be one at all to women, will involve them feeling discomfort at times about them maybe being called out for harboring some internalized sexism or icky thoughts themselves even if they're otherwise Really Great Guys. It will have to involve men calling out other men for their shit when they can, instead of assuming that that's Women's Work. I mean, who here thinks that a man who says "Yo bitch! Do you swallow?" is going to listen to a woman who calls them out, anyway?

And, of course, to quote the great Jenny Schecter, "It's not my job to make you a better man and I don't give a shit if I've made you a better man. It's not a fucking woman's job to be consumed and invaded and spat out so that some fucking man can evolve."

So, yeah, I said I'd end on a positive note, so.

Basically, I'm far more concerned with snuffing out patriarchy's/kyriarchy's gaslighting by, in whatever small way I can, letting other women know, "I get it. You're not crazy for thinking that's sexist."

Related: What Would You Do If You Witnessed Bigotry?

Brittney Griner's NYT Op-Ed and Bullying

2013-05-07T09:00:00.000-05:00

[Content note: Discussion of bullying, self-harm]

Blub.

In this piece, Griner talks of the racist, sexist, and homophobic bullying she endured growing up, as well as her consequent contemplations of suicide.

Although perhaps some people might think that women's sports are a bastion of tolerance, oftentimes they're not. I experienced similar bullying growing up as a female athlete. As a girl who was good at sports and, thus, a "tomboy," boys and girls alike knew all the right triggers to try to keep me in my place. Do we really need to re-hash the slurs? I don't think so.

Usually, bullies had the approval of adults and authority figures who, through their silence, were complicit in the bullying themselves. Others were active participants in it. I grew up post-Title IX in a place where, like many parts of America, many people - men, especially - loudly resented "their" boys' teams having to share athletic facilities, fields, equipment, money, and courts with lowly girls. When that's the entitlement boys were being taught, they learned that they were justified in ridiculing female athletes.

One adult. It would have taken one adult to have intervened and it could have changed my life back then for the better.

Instead, I spent years largely feeling alone, isolated, and hated during my teenage years. I spent a year considering tangible ways I could maybe kill myself.

While male athletes were celebrated, female athletes were made to feel like we were taking resources and attention away from boys - the ones who really deserved such things. And, I knew no openly gay people, even as people speculated about some of my various female "dyke" coaches, some of whom, it turns out, actually were secretly gay.

I don't have some big epiphany of a hero stepping in and saving me, but things did gradually get better, as I reflect where I once was and where I am now.

And, as I've engaged with, yes I'll say it, anti-gay people on the Internet who have seemed infinitely more concerned with not appearing bigoted than they have with not actually being bigoted, I continue to question how many of them can truly appreciate that talking about gay rights, for many of us, isn't a mere esoteric, intellectual debating exercise wherein it's "fun" to parse how if we just maybe understood this one Christian doctrine "better" we could maybe see that maybe it doesn't quite technically meet a definition of anti-gay so won't gay people just be a little more "charitable" in throwing around the word "anti-gay"?

I also continue, admittedly, to process my anger at those who believe that it's Christians and Poor Tim Tebow who are the Real Victims of bullying in the US, in which they constitute a majority. Not that Christians can't be bullied, but you know, false moral equations and simple-minded cartoons rarely embiggen the discourse about culture war topics.

So it goes.

My best wishes to Brittney Griner as she heads toward her professional basketball career.

Welp, Time to Close Up Shop

2013-05-06T09:00:00.000-05:00

'Cuz yet another anti-feminist, this time Rush Limbaugh, has declared that feminism may be "dead."

His evidence is a Super Scientific article in the conservative Washington Times, which cites a poll of Internet users stating that 28% of Americans identified as feminists. Nevermind that 57% of respondents would identify as feminist when presented with the "dictionary definition" of the term, today I want to observe how this declaring of feminism to be "dead" happens from time to time and perhaps infer some lessons from it all.

The claim about feminism being dead is never, first and foremost, a reflection of reality.

That seems weird to have to say, but I think maybe some anti-feminists don't really.... get that? Or, do people exist who actually believe that Rush Limbaugh, or any anti-feminist, has the power to erase feminism, let alone actual feminists who actually live in the real world, from existence just by saying it aloud?

The claim about feminism being dead is a fantasy. A wish. A dream. Nothing more. And purveyors of it seem to be unwilling or incapable of distinguishing between reality and their own imaginations.

Yeah yeah yeah, who cares, I know. It's just Rush Being Rush.

However, whether we like it not, he and his viewpoint are influential. Rush has certainly done much to stigmatize feminism and feminists, I agree with him there as he proudly boasted about it, with his long history of using his large platform to feed into white (especially) male (especially) anger, entitlement, and false sense of victimhood. His audience and small-time bloggers take their cues from him. Take, for instance, the Christian male blogger who doesn't actually know anything about feminism, but who loves referring us as "hairy-legged feministas" and "abortion lustists."

The Illusory Superiority with which he influences is, of course, so typical of anti-feminsts that it's not even all that fascinating (indeed, why women might be fans of his, let alone married to him, fascinates me much more than Rush himself or his rhetoric does). But alas, I do enjoy pointing out the self-indulgent, cartoonish stereotypes about feminists that anti-feminists like Rush continually draw. It's like, hmmm, whenever they talk about feminism, what hodge-podge will they throw at the wall to see what sticks?

So, the first lesson here is that the way a person characterizes (or generalizes about) feminism is a good indicator, to me, of their knowledge of the field.

In his latest screed on feminism, for instance, Rush shows how he oh so truly has his finger on the pulse of modern feminism by citing "bra-burners," referencing Gloria Steinem, and fantasizing about How Very Angry they/we must be about this poll.

What next, is he going to call us lesbians who worship Valeria Solanas? I mean, the nuance is just so lacking, his rhetoric so unserious, and yet, such a man is one we are supposed to take seriously as having insight into the ups and downs of feminism these days?

Ha ha ha, okay.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the biggest failing of many anti-feminists isn't that they critique feminism or think it's stupid, it's that they don't bother to understand or learn about feminism well enough to render adequate critiques of it in the first place.

I mean, from whence did Rush even glean his knowledge about feminism? Which feminist texts has he read? Which feminist blogs does he read? Which feminists does he regularly engage, so he can be kept honest in his "counter"-arguments? Can he find anything redeeming about any aspect of feminism, or is the entirety of it so very threatening to him that he has to lazily and wholesale dismiss the entire field?

His comments, not only this latest but also his previous, about feminism, suggest to me that his "knowledge" about feminism is incredibly superficial, not nuanced, and largely caricatured. As much anti-feminist commentary is, I'll add.

I've been in or seen so many conversations with anti-feminists who will casually offer a mansplanation along the lines of, "Feminists who believe in gender rolls [sic] would probably call me patriarchist, or whatever." So, I guess another lesson here is that it can be somewhat productive to directly call the ignorance, so at least the ignorance is highlighted.

For, when I've asked such folks to elaborate upon their knowledge base regarding actual feminist works, as opposed to MRA interpretations of such works or Wikipedia summaries, such folks are often stopped in their tracks (*cricket cricket cricket*).

Lastly, when we consider this Illusory Superiority and the nonchalant way that ignorant people nonetheless feel so entitled and competent to dismiss an entire field and get away with it, it becomes apparent how truly privileged and rewarded the anti-feminist viewpoint is. Like, people - men and women alike - have built really successful careers out of doing it.

Indeed, while feminists are oft accused of Just Making Shit Up in pursuit of social engineering, political correctness, and turning men into arch villains, those accusations actually start to look a lot like an enormously successful bit of unexamined projection on the part of many anti-feminists.

Related: So, You Want To Teach the Lady Feminists?

Dissident Group Ordains Woman as Priest

2013-05-03T10:21:00.002-05:00

From Reuters:

"In an emotional ceremony filled with tears and applause, a 70-year-old Kentucky woman was ordained a priest on Saturday as part of a dissident group operating outside of official Roman Catholic Church authority.

Rosemarie Smead is one of about 150 women around the world who have decided not to wait for the Roman Catholic Church to lift its ban on women priests, but to be ordained and start their own congregations.

In an interview before the ceremony, Smead said she is not worried about being excommunicated from the Church - the fate of other women ordained outside of Vatican law.

'It has no sting for me,' said Smead, a petite, gray-haired former Carmelite nun with a ready hug for strangers. 'It is a Medieval bullying stick the bishops used to keep control over people and to keep the voices of women silent. I am way beyond letting octogenarian men tell us how to live our lives.'"

I actually support the right for private organizations to define their own membership policies and rules, even as I find it unfortunate that some organizations, particularly powerful ones like the Roman Catholic Church, create policies that align with the preservation of unearned male power and privilege.

Thus, I also support women and allies like Smead to continue subverting rules in this manner and putting pressure on the Church to stop promoting the notion, whether explicitly or implicitly, that men are more divine and closer to god than are women. Indeed, that her ordination causes so many people, the Pope and Internet commenters alike, to flip the fuck out is, in my opinion, precisely why it should be done.

Women's ordination in such a sexist, male-dominated institution as the Roman Catholic Church must be truly threatening to male power, male superiority, certainty, and the purported "natural" order of things if it continues to be met with such resistance.

Indeed, I saw many commenters responding to this story by riffing off the Church explanations for why only men get to be priests - a woman priest is an "impossibility," they say. On that note, it's interesting to observe the parallel point when, say, same-sex marriage is discussed.

Despite the fact that, for instance, legal same-sex marriages actually exist in the real world, some Catholics (and non-Catholics too, but this particular article is about Catholics) claim that same-sex marriage is, like women's ordination, in an "impossibility" because, they circularly argue, marriage can only exist between a man and a woman.

In the same way, only men can be real priests because a buncha men in the Sacred Men's Club have decided that the only real priests are those who are men.

What I'm Getting You All For Your Birthdays*

2013-05-02T16:04:00.002-05:00

So, this movie is a thing.

Featuring such stellar women's advocates as Phyllis Schlafly and the Ladies Against Feminism, one review of the movie, The Monstrous Regiment of Women, purports:

"Today, the feminists are our monstrous regiment. Feminists tell women not to submit to a husband, to avoid having children, and that they should listen to their inner voice and chase a career to find true fulfillment. This twisted and irrational teaching has led to disaster for American women, leading many into a frustrating, isolated existence."

I think my fave part about this movie's Amazon page is that 3 out the 4 reviewers giving it 5/5 stars are men. The movie was also written by a man. Ha ha ha, of course! Can we get a conflict of interest up in here?

Related: RationalWiki's entry on the movie.

(*Just kidding. But if someone sent it to me, I would definitely review it!)

Family Scholars Blog on "Hiatus"

2013-04-29T13:43:00.000-05:00

Per a surprising post by Elizabeth Marquardt, the Family Scholars Blog, which is the blog of the Institute for American Values, has gone on hiatus effectively immediately.

I say "surprising," because the news is surprising and unexpected to me, as someone who has been volunteer guest blogging at the forum for more than a year and who has put in many hours in behind-the-scenes work to help develop a more comprehensive comment and moderation policy for the site.

To my knowledge, guest bloggers, including myself, were given no forewarning* or additional insight for the decision to put the blog on hiatus other than what Elizabeth issued in her public blog post, which includes the following explanation:

"We simply don’t have the staff right now to maintain the blog and the comments section at a high level of excellence. And, more importantly, we want to broaden our outreach on the full range of civil society topics that the Institute engages in the U.S. and the world."

I'm still kind of processing my thoughts about this announcement, so I may have more to say later.

For now, I know that the forum had a host of "regulars" who commented, guest blogged, and interacted with one another on a near-daily basis. I'm not sure if any of them will find their way here to post their thoughts, but since FSB is no longer posting comments, people are welcome to post their thoughts here.

[*Update: Elizabeth actually sent an email to guest bloggers informing us of this decision about an hour and a half before she posted publicly about it. This email contains no additional insight as to the decision than what has been made public.]

Back From Vacation

2013-04-26T09:00:00.000-05:00

Welp, in case you hadn't noticed, I took a little blogcation this past week and, wow, it turns out I'm a much happier person when I'm not interacting with some people on the Internet.

I know this isn't a Startling Revelation, but it seems so clear to me that perhaps the majority of blog arguments (bloguments?) aren't really about achieving understanding at all, but rather, they're about point-scoring, pointing out "hypocrisies," winning, defaming, embarassing, and/or attacking and, wow, maybe I should take more time to step. away. from. the. computer. so I can better re-assess which commenters are and are not worth taking time to engage.

Anyway, in Google Reader news, I've made the switch to The Old Reader and have managed to rack up about 963 unread blogposts during my vacation, so that's going to be swell to catch up on everything I've missed. I take it Internet didn't explode or anything during my absence.

In L Word news, since it's Friday, what does the Hivemind think about Shane?

I think a superficial comparison could be made between Shane and Queer as Folk's Brian Kinney, in that both characters have experienced deep wounds from their biological families and are sexually promiscuous and unwilling to remain monogamous.

A key difference between the two characters is that Brian is consistently up front, honest, and unapologetic about his sexual and relationship choices, while Shane is not. While she's generally loyal to her friends, she cheats on her partners and spends a lot of time being guilty and mopey.

As a result, I ended up liking Brian much more than I liked Shane, even as I understand why some people take issue with the portrayal of Brian and how it lends to the stereotype of gay men being promiscuous. I also think that some gender narratives and roles might be in play in the two depictions, as, can a woman, a lesbian at that, really "get away with" being openly and unapologetically promiscuous and non-monogamous?

In any event, I ultimately wanted Shane to grow stronger and to become more self-aware, rather than continually finding herself in monogamous relationships with partners who expected more from her than she was able or willing to give.

Welp, I guess that concludes today's post, about a TV show that ended in 2009. You only get the most breaking news here in Fannie's Room, folks. Maybe by 2018, I'll hop off my hoverboard and start posting about this hot new show called Game of Thrones!

In Which I Fail to Be Impressed

2013-04-19T09:00:00.000-05:00

Check out number 27, on this list of times the Westboro Baptist Church "lost badly."

It's a screen shot of a disclaimer from the KKK's website, reading:

"NOTE:

The Ku Klux Klan, LLC, has not or EVER will have ANY connections with 'The Westboro Baptist Church.' We absolutely repudiate their activities."

Of course they do.

Here we see a tendency that many people have to distance themselves from Known Bigots, perhaps believing that if they don't belong to that group of Known Bigots or they repudiate these Known Bigots, then they personally have no problematic opinions they need to examine, themselves.

It also nicely illustrates a working principle wherein some people believe that if they denounce the Westboro Baptist Church they're taking some Big Time Stand against bigotry and hate. Even though it really takes no great moral courage to denounce this hate group (or for the KKK, for that matter), does it?

Many bigoted opinions and actions are far more subtle, insidious, and micro-aggressiony than the rhetoric and actions of either of these groups. These groups are widely recognized among reasonable people as being hate groups, extreme, and very problematic. And, for that reason, opinions and actions that are more subtle than WBC or KKK-style bigotry, when called out as harmful, are often more readily dismissed and trivialized (often by those who denounce the WBC) and are therefore more enduring.

I've learned that it makes some Christian anti-gay folks seriously uncomfortable when I've engaged them in conversations about actual similarities and differences between their own religiously-motivated anti-gay beliefs. Many anti-gay Christians, it seems, repudiate the WBC without actually knowing the theological basis behind the WBC's rhetoric. The differences, in many cases, seem to be more of degree than substance, although it's not widely admitted.

In fact, to broach the conversation in "mixed-company" can.... dun dun dun.... shut down the conversation because people end up feeling all "accused" of stuff and unfairly likened to a hate group. Which, of course, is more reprehensible than actually being like a hate group.

So, I guess my point here is that if a person's standard for what counts as authentic bigotry is the WBC's (or KKK's) actions and rhetoric, I think they need to seriously re-engage the issue. Like, there are ways to be a bigot or to be hurtful that involve more than the public utterance of slurs.

But alas, people want easy, simple rules, rules that don't make them seriously engage with their own complicity in oppression. They also really don't want to be called bigots. Even if they hold opinions that are really similar to the opinions of Actual Bigots.

Related:

- "We deeply resent the insinuation that we have treated homosexuals unkindly personally." -signed, people who have treated "homosexuals" unkindly.

- On Bigotry, Again

Understanding the Power of White Maleness

2013-04-18T09:00:00.001-05:00

Tim Wise, a white man whose author tagline touts him as "one of the most prominent anti-racist writers and educators in the United States," shares his thoughts on the Boston Marathon bombing:

"It is a lesson about race, about whiteness, and specifically, about white privilege.

I know you don’t want to hear it. But I don’t much care. So here goes.

White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in persons like yourself being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.

White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening, or threatened with deportation."

He then proceeds to list 49 white people who have engaged in terrorism, 44 of whom are men.

It is true that both white men and white women benefit from white privilege. I agree with Wise there. However, I think that white men and women, in many ways, are privileged differently in different contexts.

Wise's piece itself, unintentionally, seems teach us another lesson.

Namely, that whiteness and maleness intersect to create a rather unique privilege, one in which even if the bomber in this particular incident turns out to be yet another white man, his identity as a white man will not result in white men being singled out for suspicion, profiled, or subjected to special screenings even though it is white men when, compared to white women, who disproportionately commit this type of violence.

His gender, like his race, will not be put forth as an explanation for his actions, rendering these aspects of his identity and the socialization people undergo based on these characteristics, invisible. If a person is the Default Person, after all, people look for Other Explanations for his behavior. If the bomber turns out to be a woman, though, I think that many people would begin looking for gendered explanations for why she committed the crime.

Last year, Melissa McEwan wrote a piece in response to the Newton shooting, noting:

"There is one other subject that is off the discussion menu—and that is the fact that mass killings are committed by men almost exclusively. Of the 62 mass murders carried out with firearms across the US since 1982, 61 of them were committed by men. Forty-four of the killers were white men.

Every one of the men who picked up a gun—or multiple guns—and started shooting people was socialized in a patriarchal culture that encourages an aggressive masculinity one of the key expressions of which is meant to be violence.

That is not incidental. And you can bet your ass that if there was an epidemic of mass slaughters committed by women, their gender would be mentioned. How we raise girls would be examined. It would be talked about. Womanhood would be on the discussion menu."

And here we are.

If this particular incident was committed by a white man or white boy, it looks as though his white maleness won't be enough to warrant acknowledging, even by some progressives who are among the "most prominent" writers and educators about identity in the US.

That's a problem if we actually care about understanding violence.

Insight of the Day

2013-04-17T09:00:00.000-05:00

It's clear to me after interactions with some folks on Internet, particularly men who aren't used to interacting with women who don't buy into the "If a man said, that settles it" line of thinking, that such people use the descriptor "passive-aggressive" as a synonym for "You.... you disagree with me, and you're direct and assertive about it? Well, I never!"

So, I guess we can add that usage of "passive aggressive" to the same list of mis-used phrases as "politically correct."

Quote of the Day

2013-04-15T09:00:00.000-05:00

In a letter co-signed to the Republican National Committee:

"We deeply resent the insinuation that we have treated homosexuals unkindly personally."

-Gary Bauer, President, American Values

Paul Caprio, Director, Family Pac Federal

Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B.Anthony List

Dr. James Dobson, President and Founder, Family Talk Action

Andrea Lafferty, President, Traditional Values Coalition

Tom Minnery, President, CitizenLink

William J. Murray, Chairman, Religious Freedom Coalition

Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Sandy Rios, VP of Government Affairs, Family Pac Federal

Austin Ruse, President, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute

Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum

Rev Louis P. Sheldon, Founder, TraditionalValues Coalition

Tim Wildmon, President, American FamilyAssociation

Of course they resent the insinuation they've been unkind to "homosexuals." That's what people do. Just because they resent the insinuation, though, it doesn't mean they haven't been unkind to "homosexuals."

Also notable is this group's approach to attract racial minorities. It doesn't involve acknowledging the existence of racism or listening to what many people of color say they are looking for in a political party. The strategy seems to mostly involve white people not doing anything, really, except bonding with people of color over a shared opposition toward homosexuality.

It's a strategy, of course, that coincides with the National's Organization for Marriage's revealed strategic goal of "driv[ing] a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies" and "provok[ing] the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing [African-American] spokesmen and women as bigots" for opposing same-sex marriage.

How kind and civil.

Related Reading:

18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda
The Anti-Gay Movement
On Bigotry, Again

Civility and the "Real"/"Virtual" Dichotomy

2013-04-12T09:00:00.001-05:00

I found this article somewhat interesting:

"Rudeness and throwing insults are cutting online friendships short with a survey on Wednesday showing people are getting ruder on social media and two in five users have ended contact after a virtual altercation.

As social media usage surges, the survey found so has incivility with 78 percent of 2,698 people reporting an increase in rudeness online with people having no qualms about being less polite virtually than in person.

One in five people have reduced their face-to-face contact with someone they know in real life after an online run-in."

I've emphasized a few words in this snippet, as I question the suggestion that what happens online, when humans interact, is not "real," particularly when compared to what happens offline.

And, I credit Nathan Jurgenson, of Cyborgology blog, with articulating the "digital dualism fallacy" in a way that has better informed my own thoughts about the issue. Misty at Shakesville has also written about how threats against women are sometimes trivialized by others saying, well, it's "just the Internet," as though the threats are therefore less real, problematic, or concerning than "real life" threats.

I would contend that when people are rude online, they at least have asshole-y thoughts offline (and don't we all, really, to some degree?). Online venues merely give people an appropriate context to express those thoughts. How many day-to-day "real life" forums is it socially appropriate, say, to just start spontaneously talking about politics, showing pics of your cat, or showing solidarity with a group of people? Social media can allow people to transcend the boundaries of face-to-face interactions and, at least in some respects, enable us to present our more authentic and deeper selves.

The surprise to me, therefore, isn't that people can be more mean online than in person, but that people seem surprised by the phenomenon - or as though this behavior is indicative of how Internet makes people less authentic, rather than more.

I generally like Facebook. It's true that some people post "hey, how 'bout the weather" status updates that are more akin to face-to-face small talk, but I think it's utterly fascinating, telling, and informative to find out, say, that so many of my heterosexual friends and people I barely even know support marriage equality. It also gives me a heads-up on people who express bigoted opinions, which I don't think I'd have ever known otherwise. And, unlike some entitled folks, I 100% support the freedom for people to friend and un-friend people for whatever reasons they wish!

In my experience, whether people behave civilly on Internet often seems to be determined by several factors. One, being "new" to Internet written communication, and therefore not as familiar with the lack of facial and tonal cues, can make many people quick to see an enemy and bad faith lurking behind every comment. Other factors contributing to civility would, I contend, include whether people have a basic respect for boundaries and rules of a forum, whether people are regularly exposed to people who disagree with them, the extent to which aggression is tolerated by other conversation participants and moderators, and what people think or know they can "get away with" in certain forums.

The article continues, with some solutions to rude behavior:

" [Joseph] Grenny[, from the company who conducted the survey,] suggested peer-to-peer pressure was needed to enforce appropriate behavior online with people told if out of line.

He said three rules that could improve conversations online were to avoid monologues, replace lazy, judgmental words, and cut personal attacks particularly when emotions were high.

'When reading a response to your post and you feel the conversation is getting too emotional for an online exchange, you're right! Stop. Take it offline. Or better yet, face-to-face,' he said."

While I agree that codes of civility can and should be enforced, and am intrigued by the concept of peer pressure (rather than a top-down) moderation approach, to encourage people to stay within acceptable bounds of behavior online, I disagree that taking a conversation offline and face-to-face is automatically a "better" solution.

For some people it can be. But, in addition to physical safety concerns, I would add that some people, including myself, believe they best express themselves via the written word. Indeed, the last thing I want to do if I'm feeling angry or hurt by someone online is to sit down with them face-to-face and "talk it out."

As a pretty strong introvert, I think it's pretty easy for extroverts or those who express themselves best orally to dominate face-to-face conversations, which I don't think is a process that necessarily results in de-escalation or mutual understanding. And, in many cases, face-to-face situations aren't feasible. But, most of all, I simply prefer the time and space that written communication gives me to step away from a conversation and then, later, to more adequately and thoughtfully express myself than if I were speaking off the cuff and in the moment.

The advice to take a conversation offline and face-to-face seems to be grounded back in an assumption that written correspondence is maybe less authentic than face-to-face, oral communication.

To end here on a somewhat random note, I recently had one of those early morning half-awake/half-asleep "brilliant thoughts" where I wondered, maybe if when we die our consciousness somehow lives on, cybernetically, in the communications we've submitted on Internet. And then, my last thought before going back to sleep was, "Damn, I should be writing more L Word posts and fan fiction."

Anti-Gay Groups Promote Truancy

2013-04-11T09:00:00.000-05:00

Each year, I'm always amused by Team Anti-Gay's over-the-top opposition to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network's Day of Silence. This event's mission is to bring "attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools," which students can choose to participate in by taking a vow of silence for a day.

A "who's who" group of various anti-gay hate groups and organizations are promoting their own "Day of Silence Walkout," claiming:

"This year [the Day of Silence] will take place in most public schools on April 19, 2013. On this day, thousands of public high schools and increasing numbers of middle schools will allow students to remain silent throughout an entire day – even during instructional time – to promote GLSEN's socio-political goals and its controversial, unproven, and destructive theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality.

Parents must actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes."

Non-violent resistance must truly be threatening to these groups if they have to frame students passively remaining silent as something that's as active and violent as "hijacking" a classroom.

And, I contend that the Day of Silence is so threatening to these groups precisely because, its very nature - LGBT allies being silent - makes it incredibly difficult for anti-gay groups and individuals to turn themselves into persecuted victims of gay bullies. It simply fails to fulfill the Christian prophecy wherein some people believe that to be called a bigot is all part of the torture they have to endure on account of their religious beliefs.

I'll also note that these groups seem to hate it when LGBT allies speak, and they hate it when we're silent. Which of course begs the over-riding question that's so rarely answered (other than the obvious, what the hell kind of Team Moral Authority is anti- anti-bullying programs??), what exactly is the place of LGBT people in a society, to these groups?

Where, specifically, do the LGBT folks and the same-sex couples belong in the ideal world of those who oppose LGBT rights and same-sex marriage? In a heterosexual relationship? In "reparative therapy"? In a same-sex "civil union" that's Definitely Not Marriage? Where? Anywhere?

A Wednesday Re-post

2013-04-10T09:00:00.000-05:00

I was going through my archives the other day, and after the past few weeks I've had on Internet, thought it would be fun to re-post this article I wrote about 2 years ago.

When I wrote the post, it was in reaction to comments I had seen men make regarding a newspaper that had cropped Hillary Clinton out of an image, for religious reasons. Reading them, I could have predicted many of the comments, before even looking at them.

What I'm about to say isn't a huge startling revelation, but the more I blog, especially in mixed-company, the more I see the same arguments, the same approaches, and the same patterns occur. Over and over and over again. Miscommunication. Poor communication. Cryptic one-liners. Lack of understanding. Frustration. Hurt. Anger. Poor listening. Tone policing. Trolling. Baiting. Gotchas. The pervasive buying into of the notion that as long as no one is saying curse words or throwing slurs around, then nothing uncivil is happening.

I think that a good civility policy, if enforced, could facilitate some of these issues. But, enforcement takes time and energy, time and energy that I can't do on my own, and certainly not in forums that I don't operate or moderate.

So, more and more, I question the utility of trying to engage in other forums in mixed-company, so-called civil dialogue with people whose starting points to conversations are, to me, uncivil - such as debating same-sex marriage with people who oppose it, whilst we also all operate on the unspoken rule that the word bigoted mustn't ever be uttered. Or, navigating conversations where the full extent of gay people's hurt or oppression cannot be explicitly acknowledged, lest we be mocked or accused, ironically, of "making accusations." Or, say, where we treat every anti-feminist New Guy's response of "so we can never make jokes anymore anywhere, then?!" like it's a Really Good Point, lest we be accused of creating a Feminist Echo Chamber.

And, do I want to repeatedly have conversations about, say, why we let infertile couples marry but not same-sex couples marry, if marriage is supposedly about procreation? Do I want to center the feelings of people who oppose my equality, to never have to feel discomfort about their complicity in an unjust, and dare I say bigoted, system? Do I want to salve the consciences, defensiveness, anger, and hurt feelings of men, in conversations about male privilege and sexism, while I walk on eggshells so as to not appear at all in the least bit angry or hurt myself so I won't be dismissed as emotional?

What is my role in some of these mixed-company spaces? To dialogue? To broaden understanding? To silence others? To diversify a forum? To create community? To be an empty vessel into which people can dump their projections, frustrations, and neuroses? To humanize the opposition? To be a target for people's anger? To be a sounding board for people's pet theories about How The World Works?

I think if a dozen people were asked that question, I'd see a dozen different answers. I'm not sure if any of them would be accurate.

When I think about how communicating with like-minded feminists differs from communicating with those who are overtly hostile toward, or even ignorant of, progressivism and feminism, I think about how my approaches change from context to context.

As I wrote a couple of months ago, getting men and "people complicit in problematic oppressions" to agree with me doesn't tend to be my number one blogging priority. I think that's why some people, even some alleged supporters of same-sex marriage, are shocked and appalled that I might use the b-word (bigotry) when they believe that that word, as opposed to bigotry itself, "shuts down conversations" or destroys community.

I see a greater purpose in feminist readers finding affirmation, truth, and solace in my writings, against so many people hell-bent on gaslighting and convincing them that they're crazy, foolish, oversensitive for caring about or reacting a particular way to a certain issue. Yet, when I converse in mixed-company, I find that substance often takes a backseat in the conversation since the parties have to work through a host of conflicting assumptions, patterns, and stereotypes that mixed-company interactions necessarily bring to the table.

In such a context, for instance, I'm wary of calling myself a feminist, as I know that will often involve men taking ignorant cheap shots at the entirety of feminism, people reading a "hatred of men" into everything I write, or trying to bait me into a conversation about abortion, gender roles, or how men are really the oppressed ones, in conversations in which these issues are not germane.

I'm wary of discussing my agnosticism, as that invariably involves people assuming that I completely lack values and principles, unlike religious people, and how therefore everything I say is evidence of "moral relativism" or nihilism.

I'm reluctant to call myself a progressive, as people try to play games of "gotcha" wherein if I express "disapproval" of One Thing, I'm a raging hypocrite because, don't you know, progressives are "all about tolerance" and therefore we must be "tolerant" of all things everywhere or else we lose all moral authority to judge anyone about anything.

When I'm conversing with some men, I wonder, is he taking on a condescending "neutral arbiter" demeanor because he's a man and I'm a woman and he therefore thinks he's automatically the objective party in the convo, or is he just kind of an asshole to everyone?

I dislike communicating with people who hold Very Strong Opinions, who do not express those opinions clearly or well, and yet who are hellbent on expressing those opinions anyway, while assigning bad faith to others when the inevitable misunderstanding occurs.

After more than 6 years of doing this, I've developed some semblance of awareness after being repeatedly exposed to these types of patterns in communication and interactions. As I talk about labels, I also realize it's a delicate dance to, myself, remain open to dialogue while also preserving my own sanity and well-being in these conversations.

Quote of the Day

2013-04-09T09:00:00.000-05:00

On leading Louisville to an upset win in the Sweet Sixteen over Baylor, the team with perhaps the most dominant woman ever to play NCAA basketball:

"It's my mentality to keep going at her. She's Brittney Griner, but I mean, I'm Shoni Schimmel, so I'm going to keep going at her, you know?"

It's such a great quote.

To many fans, it was a foregone conclusion that Baylor, the tournament's No. 1 seed, would win another championship. Many had this belief largely because Baylor's not only a great team, but they have the talents of 6'8" star player, Griner, whom at least one NBA coach would offer the opportunity for a tryout. (Griner's Twitter response: "I would hold my own! Let's do it!")

What I love about Schimmel's quote is that it's not empty, foolish bravado. It's emblematic of confidence combined with actual ability to back it up - and it's a confidence that endured against an Expert Narrative telling her that she and her team didn't have a shot in hell.

I've enjoyed watching Griner and some experts think that Baylor losing will make the NCAA Finals less exciting to watch, but, well, I love an underdog story, so I'd love to see Louisville seal the deal. (Are these adequate sporty colloquialisms? I'm not sure. I just keep hearing Sportscaster Voice in my head, saying some of these things as I write this post.)

Nonetheless, best wishes to both players in the future!

On Bigotry, Again

2013-04-08T09:00:00.000-05:00

Although I did not get to the conversation in time to participate before the thread reached the 50-comment limit, I'd like to re-kindle the conversation about Barry's post, "Kind, smart, lovely people sometimes support bigoted public policy."

Whether the word "bigoted" is fair to apply to the viewpoint of opposition to same-sex marriage, whether the label is used to "deliberately" shut down conversation, and what the word "bigoted" even means are recurring issues in conversations at Family Scholars Blog.

Matthew Kaal, for instance, cited the Merriam-Webster definition of "bigot," which states:

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

This definition, as Victor noted, differs from Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus definition of "bigoted," which is:

“unwilling to grant other people social rights or to accept other viewpoints."

The latter reflects, in my experience, the way many people commonly use the word "bigoted."

Even if we can't agree which definition or usage of the word bigoted is authoritative, I do think it's important for conversation participants to know how other participants are using a particular word. So, I can appreciate the value of that aspect of the conversation.

However, today, I'd like to highlight an aspect of Barry's post that I believe got a little lost in the conversation. Here, Teresa made a common accusation against those who use the word "bigoted":

"For me, my commenting as anti-ssm, seen as a bigoted position … although that’s not how I understood it at the time … was no longer acceptable at [Family Scholars Blog]. That’s how the common usage today of the word bigot/bigotry seems to work, in my opinion. It closes down discussion. It deliberately wants to do that, in my opinion." [ellipses in original]

Although this comment has some unclear passivity going on in it, Teresa suggests that those who use the words bigot or bigotry are "deliberately" trying to close down discussion. She further clarified her position:

"How does it enhance discourse to throw labels at persons or positions which, by their current very nature, are meant to shut someone up? Either we argue an issue on merit/demerit, or we’re left flaming one another. I’m sure you agree, Barry. I’m, also, quite sure that you did not intend to close down discourse … but, that’s quite where we’re at today, unfortunately."

I'm only singling Teresa's comment here because she happened to be someone expressing it in this conversation. But, in my experience, it's a pretty common accusation, and one that's leveled against me at times at Family Scholars Blog, despite the general agreement that assuming bad faith is a violation of the site's civility policy.

To address this accusation, I think it's important to do a quick re-cap (my emphasis):

First, the title of Barry's post: "Kind, smart, lovely people sometimes support bigoted policy."

Secondly, Barry's statement to Teresa, within his post, that even though she holds what he finds to be a bigoted position, he tells Teresa, "....that’s not to say that you’re a bigot, a hateful person, or acting out of spite or out of 'yuk.' From the little I’ve seen of you online, you seem like a lovely person, not at all hateful."

Third, he says, "...if you do have some bigoted attitudes that you need to fight against, that doesn’t make you a bad person. Nor do I think that makes you any different from me. Or from most people. Surely we all have some prejudices and bigotries inside that we have to work on."

Fourth, he concedes, "History makes it clear that good, sincere people who are not hateful, can nonetheless hold bigoted positions."

Fifth, he says, "So when I say that being against legal SSM is a bigoted policy, that’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying that those who oppose SSM are bigots (no more so than anyone else, anyhow); I’m not denying that they are frequently smart, loving, and kind people."

And lastly, in the comments, he tells Teresa, "In the prior post, I specifically told you that you were extremely welcome to post on my thread, and that I was hoping you’d post more."

So, I guess what I'm left wondering is what more do opponents of same-sex marriage want from people who genuinely and sincerely believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is a bigoted (or anti-gay, as I would argue) position to hold in order to convince you that we are not trying to "deliberately" "shut down discourse" about the issue?

I agree with Barry that "kind, smart, lovely people sometimes support bigoted policy." And, I also believe that other people who are more problematic, like members of the Westboro Baptist Church, can at times, be "kind, smart, lovely people" themselves. It's not realistic or accurate, in my experience, to think that people are 100% monsters or 100% saints.

So, if we can go back to the definitional issue for a moment, I agree with Barry that the word "bigotry" includes connotations that acknowledge a broader, more systemic history of oppression that also-appropriate words like "unjust" do not include. To me, that is the importance of using the word bigotry - it is, in my opinion, simply a more accurate, specific representation of reality. It contains history.

Yet, Barry's post was still tepid.

It made big concessions that acknowledged a nuanced reality that some people can be kind, loving people in some contexts while being problematic in others. It acknowledged that not all opponents of same-sex marriage are horrible monsters. It acknowledged that we all likely have work to do on being aware of our own biases and bigotries. Barry specifically welcome Teresa to continue commenting and expressed hope that she would "post more."

In light of these facts, I think it is incredibly unfair and unjustified to make the general, unqualified accusation that people who use the word bigot are "deliberately" trying to silence people or shut down conversation. I think that if Teresa, or others, choose to remove themselves from forums like Family Scholars Blog because some people believe they hold a bigoted position, that neither Barry, nor I, nor those who fairly use the word "bigotry" are to blame.

In these conversations at Family Scholars Blog, same-sex marriage is explicitly treated as a debatable conversation topic amongst people of varying views. People are going to experience discomfort at times. I certainly experience discomfort. Participating in such conversations does require somewhat of a capability to endure other people making judgments about us or are beliefs that we feel are not deserved. When it crosses the line, by the site's civility policy, is when people refuse to assume good faith and engage in personal attacks while having these conversations or in making these judgments.

In my opinion, the facts establish that Barry extended an assumption of good faith to Teresa, and many opponents of same-sex marriage, that Teresa and some folks are utterly unwilling so far to extend to him, me, and everyone who uses the word "bigotry."

[Cross-posted at Family Scholars Blog]

Friday Fun, Redux

2013-04-05T09:00:00.000-05:00

Maybe from now on it will be L Word Fridays here in Fannie's Room. Who knows, I'm open to experimentation, although, I dunno, do you think that might be possibly alienating to the bigot lurkers of this blog? Maybe I'll make Tuesdays Straight Pride Day, or something.

But seriously, I liked the comments and conversation that ensued after my post expressing excitement about The L Word now streaming on Netflix. Riffing off my appreciating for Jenny Schecter, commenter aravind referenced Jenny's apt counter to her creepy roommate, Mark, who had secretly installed cameras throughout the house and bedrooms so he and his pervy friend could watch Lesbians Having Sex (and make a movie about it, without the consent of said lesbians... I mean, really, what could possibly go wrong?).

Throughout the episodes leading up to this revelation, Mark was frequently portrayed as a Nice Guy, other than his acts of transgressing serious boundaries. For instance, he seemed genuinely into wanting to understand Shane's mentality, and even helped defend her from a violent assault. The storyline really underscores a recurring theme in my Internet interactions wherein people can be nice in some contexts and really problematic in others, which is a concept that seems to completely elude many people.

I was able to find a clip of Jenny ultimately confronting Mark about his voyeurism:

Here's a transcript of the relevant quote, in which Jenny is speaking to Mark:

"What I want is for you to write 'fuck me' on your chest. Write it. Do it! And then I want you to walk out that door and I want you to walk down the street, and anybody that wants to fuck you, say, 'Sure! Sure! No problem!' And when they do, you have to say, 'Thank you very, very much.' And make sure that you have a smile on your face. And then, you stupid fucking coward, you're gonna know what it feels like to be a woman."

As I said in the comments to my post from last week, I'm really starting to question people throwing the "crazy" label on Jenny. I mean, sure, she's quirky, but I think she has a real gift for Telling It Like It Is, more than any other character on the series. While the other characters have varying levels of political awareness around gay issues (and little, but somewhat evolving, awarenesses, about trans* issues), Jenny seems to be the character whose politics and understanding of LGBT issues is informed the most explicitly by feminism.

Secondly, commenter Faaaaaan expressed disappointment that there hasn't really been a replacement for L Word, as perhaps some of us expected when the show ended. Lip Service was decent, but at what? 8 episodes or something, was also very brief.

I've also been watching Lost Girl, which I love for many reasons. It portrays sexual orientation as something that is not explicitly acknowledged or remarked upon, which can be a mixed bag. Bisexual and lesbian characters are, simply, unremarkable and normal in the world of Lost Girl. And, accordingly, big "coming out" conversations (around sexual orientation, at least) don't really occur. This portrayal can be refreshing, as it suggests the possibility of potentially living in such a world where people "don't even see sexual orientation" (or race, of course), but it also elides the reality that bigotry is still a real thing and many people actually don't think bisexuality or homosexuality are benign, normal states of being.

Welp, I initially intended today's post to be light and stuff, and it still can be.

I mean, I've been re-watching old episodes before bed all week, and while the series isn't perfect, there are so many great and funny moments. Like, when Dana, Alice, and Shane have the intervention with Bette and Tina, who only talk about their pregnancy and have become....boring? And Marina, who is so over-the-top seductive it's more funny than anything. And Alice, who contends that "there's a lot going on down there."

Sigh.

Of Course

2013-04-04T11:22:00.002-05:00

As you may have heard, Rutgers men's basketball coach Mike Rice was recently fired after ESPN aired a video showing him physically and verbally abusing his players during a practice, including throwing basketballs at them "at point blank range" and calling them by homophobic slurs.

The university administrators admit to having known about Rice's behavior for some time. They only fired him after the video went public and after outrage ensued.

So, of course, Rice being fired, to some defenders of aggressive, entitled masculinity, constitutes PC Gone Awry. Or, as Fox News commentator Eric Bolling calls it, "the wussification" of America. Here's his comment in full:

"This story kind of infuriates me. We’re in the midst of political correctness crushing our ability to teach kinds, to discipline kids, to disagree with people or one another or kids. Our culture is in decline, but this is an example of our culture in free fall. And I’m saying this because he got fired, not because of what he did… Listen, it’s time to toughen up. Talk about the wussification of America, the wussification of American men."

"Political correctness," so we meet again. Was there ever a more asinine phrase in the English language? Other than "wussification of American men," that is?

In this instance, by "political correctness," Bolling seems to mean that "holding people to standards of basic civility and non-abusive behavior" are what's responsible for the decline of "our culture." But, of course, he can't just say that without looking like a total ass and losing all credibility, so he hides behind the phrase "political correctness" while purporting to be some brave truth-teller and defender of "our culture" against the swarming masses of the PC Police who are getting all upset about nothing.

I guess what I wonder most about critics of "political correctness" is what world they are living in if they think the problem with culture these days is that people are too darn nice to one another, or that society doesn't have serious issues with respecting people's boundaries.

Over at another blog, I got into a conversation with a self-proclaimed Christian man who (a) freely admits to verbally abusing people he disagrees with in order to shut them up, and (b) who also claims to welcome the experience of being victimized himself so he can fulfill the Christian prophecy wherein Christians are, supposedly, to be persecuted for their faith.

This type of mind game seems somewhat common in US politics, even though many people aren't as open as this particular man is about his tactics.

A goal of some conservatives seems to be to provoke people into anger so that the provocateur can end up feeling like an oppressed victim, in the end. Here, we are to believe that it's bullies who deserve our sympathy, not because they are damaged people, but because they are being victimized by "political correctness."

There's just something so insincere about it all. I find that people who use the phrase "political correctness" rarely say what they mean, or truly mean what they say in political conversations, and using the phrase "political correctness" in this particular instance of abuse seems to be a prime example of this sort of insincerity.