Click on the cartoon to see it bigger.

Quoting once again from Aqueertheory’s nutshelling of Julie Serano, I thought this was very interesting:

Serano contributes significantly to feminist theory and practice by providing us with a concise way of categorizing the different forms of sexism in Western societies. She argues that sexism is a two-fold phenomenon, consisting of “oppositional” and “traditional” elements. Oppositional sexism is “the belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories” (13). A man should not have any of the “attributes, aptitudes, abilities, and desires” commonly associated with women, and vice-versa (13). Anyone who does not follow this schema, any manly women or womanly men, should be dismissed and punished for disobeying the divine, natural and social order that deemed the two genders to be mutually exclusive opposites. On the other hand, traditional sexism is “the belief that maleness and masculinity are superior to femaleness and femininity” (14). This type of sexism specifically demeans all feminine persons (many of whom are females) by characterizing their activities as frivolous and justifying their exclusion from certain jobs and positions of social authority. Thus, according to Serano, sexism is a commonly held belief system that conceptualizes males and females as strict oppositional categories and sets up a hierarchy in which men and masculinity are considered superior to women and femininity.

Feminists and queer theorists have failed to recognize this dual aspect of sexism, which is one of the reasons why they often seem to talk past each other. Queer theorists have focused on oppositional sexism: they have analyzed and railed against binary gender norms, which push people to fit their identities and behaviors into carefully prescribed masculine and feminine boxes. On the other hand, feminists have concentrated their efforts on studying and fighting against the more traditional forms of sexism: the oppression of women and their social subordination to men.

(Via.)

On the racial Bechdel test thread, we discussed my comic Hereville a little. Hereville, it was agreed, failed the racial Bechdel test (understandably, given the setting, I would say), but passes the “Jewish Bechdel test” and the original Bechdel test. Responding to this, Daran wrote that Hereville “fails the reverse gender Bechdel test - it doesn’t have two male characters who talk to each other about something other than a women.”

While Daran is technically correct — there is no conversation of any note or substance between male characters in Hereville – I think that to apply a “reverse Bechdel test” misses the point.

The Bechdel test asks if, in a movie (or graphic novel or whatever)

1) there are at least two named¹ female characters, who

2) talk to each other about

3) something other than a man.

The point of the Bechdel test, in my view, is not to criticize individual pieces of work. It’s to point out that movies in the aggregate are overwhelmingly centered around male characters and their interests. In an IM, Mandolin wrote:

The Bechdel test is something that’s only useful when applied in aggregate to a field. It is not diagnostic of sexism or racism in a particular work that it does not pass it, or diagnostic of anti-racism or feminism.

The test - gender and race - exists because of a system that removes women’s and poc’s voices. To create a reverse-Bechdel test implies that it’s coherent to suggest that there’s a mass problem with erasing men’s voices from work.

I think sexism against men does exist, including in media, and is a real issue. But I don’t think a “reverse Bechdel test” makes any sense, because sexism against men in media is not similar to the mass absenting of women as central characters, and that’s what the Bechdel test is designed to make visible.

To work, a male version of the Bechdel test should be simple to explain and apply. It should be more about pervasive, aggregate sexism than about individual works. And it should address real sexism against men, rather than just taking a knee-jerk “but what about the men?” attitude which, I suspect, underlay Daran’s comment about Hereville.²

The problem is, I’m not sure a reverse Bechdel test that has any substance is even possible. There certainly are sexist stereotypes about men in cinema; men’s lives are treated as disposable in many action films, for example, and men are sometimes depicted as unfeeling brutes. There’s a whole lot of comedies which endorse the “men just think with their penises” stereotype, or which present men as incompetent dorks who need to be taken care of by female characters.³

But are any of these really statistically pervasive, the way that movies which center men and male characters are pervasive? There are, after all, many movies which don’t feature scores of men dying offhandedly; plenty which don’t depict men as bestial or as thinking with their penises, and so on. The anti-male stereotypes exist, and they should be objected to, but they’re not omnipresent. In contrast, there really are amazingly few movies which can pass the Bechdel test.⁴

So I’ve been trying to think of a male equivalent to the Bechdel test, with no success. That said, maybe I’m missing something. If Daran, or someone else concerned with making sexism against men more visible, were to create a substantive yet simple and elegant test that pointed out sexism against men in movies, I’d certainly welcome that development.

1. In the original Bechdel test, “named” wasn’t a requirement; my poor memory accidentally added that bit later. (back)
2. Although maybe Daran was just joking, and the joke didn’t come off. (back)
3. The female characters, in turn, are presented as competent but also relegated to the less funny and central roles. As frequently happens, this is an instance where sexism against women and sexism against men is interlocking and interdependent. (back)
4. This is even more true if you try to apply the Bechdel test in a substantive way, versus the “loophole” way people often apply it — for example, saying a movie passes because of one ten-second scene. Of course, looking for loopholes is often fun, and I totally understand that, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the substance. (back)

If you’ve been paying attention to the U.S. Open, you’ve probably heard about the run of Melanie Oudin. Ranked 70th in the world, Oudin has nevertheless made a Cinderella run into the quarterfinals, knocking off world #4 Elena Dementieva and former U.S. Open champ Maria Sharapova in the process.

It’s a nice story, and probably foretells a bright future for the 17-year-old American. Hey, everyone loves to see an unseeded player make a run. And if the stories were about Oudin’s run and her future, that would be great.

Unfortunately, they aren’t. Instead, we’re getting stories like this:

For American women’s tennis, Oudin’s arrival has been a long time coming. Not since the 1970s, when Chris Evert rose to the top of the pro-tennis scene, has this country seen such a girl-next-door-style sweetheart in the sport, said Michelle Beadle. “From Day 1, I’ve never heard the Williams sisters referred to as sweethearts,” she added.

Yeah, neither have I. Funny, that. Because of course, all Venus and Serena Williams have done is go out and kick butt throughout their careers. Serena is currently ranked second in the world, Venus third. Serena has a career grand slam, and at one point held all four major titles. Venus merely has seven major titles, and has reached the finals of all four majors. Both have won Olympic gold medals and WTA championships. And in winnings, Serena ranks first all-time, followed by Venus.

Venus and Serena Williams are arguably the best two female tennis players of their generation, and certainly among the all-time greats. They’re gifted athletically, and both play with tenacity and skill on the court. And not for nothing, but both are attractive women, with compelling life stories and a dramatic rise from a meager upbringing to worldwide superstardom.

It’s hard to imagine why Melanie Oudin — a fine tennis player with a bright future, to be sure — would be viewed as America’s Sweetheart, while Venus and Serena Williams are not. Except, of course, for the fact that Oudin is a pretty, young, blonde white woman, and Venus and Serena Williams are African American.

You see, you can’t be America’s Sweetheart if you’re black. I mean, the very idea! After all, that would mean that African American women could be viewed as attractive, just like a white girl. And that is simply not considered acceptable.

Of course, in a fair world, “America’s Sweetheart” would be the last sobriquet a tennis player would aspire to. Chris Evert, after all, is second all-time in WTA titles in the Open era, trailing only the great Martina Navratalova (who also could never have been America’s Sweetheart, even if she hadn’t been from Czechoslovakia, for obvious reasons). And she has the best singles win-lost record of any player — male or female — in professional history, having won an astonishing 90 percent of her matches. Evert is one of the greatest players to play the game, and possibly the best. And yet we talk of her legacy as her 1970s period — because that’s when she was young and pretty, and dating Jimmy Connors, and that’s far more interesting than the fact that she won 18 major titles and four WTA championships over a 17-year professional career.

It’s disgusting. Because it demeans everyone — Oudin, the Williamses, Evert — everyone who’s playing the U.S. Open in a skirt, or ever has.

Don’t get me wrong — there’s nothing wrong with finding an athlete attractive. Tom Brady is lusted after by as many heterosexual women and gay men as Brady’s wife is by people of the opposite orientations. Finding someone attractive is fine and dandy. But reducing their accomplishments to their attractiveness reduces their value to that of an image. Serena and Venus Williams are superstars. Chris Evert is an all-time great. And Melanie Oudin is making a compelling run that we may look back on one day and see as the start of a fabulous career. And all of these women share something in common: they are all fabulous athletes. That should be the measure of their worth as tennis players. That, and nothing else.

(Via Jezebel)

Aqueertheory at Below The Belt, nutshelling Julie Serano,¹ writes:

…one of the main problems that trans women face is the common belief that their femaleness and femininity are somehow fake or inauthentic. This view is constantly (re)emphasized in the mainstream media. Transsexual women are routinely portrayed “in the act of putting on lipstick, dresses, and high heels, thereby giving the audience the impression that the trans woman’s femaleness is an artificial mask or costume” (41). Their desire to be female is reduced to the pursuit of “stereotypically feminine appearance(s) and gender role(s),” which emphasizes that they are not real women, but men who are simply parading as women (41).

This notion is reinforced in movies that feature trans women characters. Serano identifies two major cinematic archetypes: the “deceptive” and the “pathetic” transsexual. The former successfully pass as women, but their trans status (usually signalled by the presence of a penis) is eventually revealed in a dramatic fashion as an “unexpected plot twist” (36). This pattern is evident in the Jim Carrey movie, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. At the end of the film, Ace Ventura strips Lois Einhorn, a female police lieutenant, down to her underwear so that the audience can see her penis and testicles tucked between her legs. All of the characters present in the room with Einhorn proceed to retch in disgust – the “deceptive” transsexual has been revealed and everybody is expected to exhibit shock, horror and disgust at the “fact” that she is “really a man.” [...]

In contrast, the “pathetic” transsexual is portrayed as completely unable to pass as a woman, even though she strongly insists that she is female. She is given obviously masculine mannerisms and characteristics, such as the five o’clock shadow, and openly makes references to the absence of a penis or to her intention to eventually “ha[ve] the chop” (41). According to Serano, this “extreme combination of masculinity and femininity does not seem to be designed to challenge the audience’s assumptions about maleness and femaleness… [the ‘pathetic’ transsexuals’] masculine voice and mannerisms are meant to demonstrate that, despite her desire to be female, she cannot change the fact that she is really and truly a man.”

I agree with all that. Unfortunately, even some of my favorite performers, like the brilliant British comedy group The League of Gentlemen, engage in exactly this sort of bigotry.

I have to admit, I can’t think of a single mainstream media presentation of transsexuality that doesn’t fall into one of these two categories (unless you could the psycho serial killer trans stereotype). Even relatively progressive films still tend to contain the “transformation” scene, usually shot in an almost fetishistic style (close-up of lipstick being applied, etc.).

Comics don’t do much better. I think there was a good trans character in Dykes to Watch Out For, who wasn’t presented in these ways. There was a major trans character in Sandman, but although she was also presented respectfully, she wasn’t able to be genuinely female, rather than “fake,” until after she died and was in Heaven.

Aqueertheory does misstep a little, I think, writing:

The situation is unfortunately not that much better in the allegedly more progressive feminist, academic and transgender/queer circles. Serano notes that, “there are numerous parallels between the way trans women are depicted in the media and the way that they have been portrayed by some feminist theorists.”

Serano seemingly took care to make it clear she was talking about some, not all, feminist theorists (at least in what Aqueertheory quoted). Unfortunately, Aqueertheory seems to ascribe transphobia to all feminist, academic, and transgender/queer circles. There are bigotries and problems in all these communities, true, but it’s a wild overstatement to claim that the transgender community is only marginally better at avoiding transphobia than Ace Ventura, Pet Detective. And it’s a wild overstatement that denies the hard work some people in those communities have put in to address exactly these issues.

I am definitely not saying that transphobia in the feminist community shouldn’t be acknowledged and criticized (past “Alas” posts have criticized feminist transphobia), and Aqueertheory makes many points I agree with. But I don’t think that we should pretend that the transphobes own all of feminism, either. Certain transphobic feminists may think that their views represent the One True Feminist Viewpoint, but I don’t think those of us who aren’t transphobic should concede feminism to them.

1. I posted a similar quote from Serano last year. (back)

The following post contains an extended discussion of Quentin Tarantino’s new film, Inglourious Basterds. There will be spoilers. If you haven’t seen the film, please enjoy this short video from the 1968 Mel Brooks film The Producers. Otherwise, feel free to click below.

Read the rest of this entry »

From Signs of the Times:

Women who hold supervisory positions are more likely to be sexually harassed at work, according to the first-ever, large-scale longitudinal study to examine workplace power, gender and sexual harassment.

The study, “A Longitudinal Analysis of Gender, Power and Sexual Harassment in Young Adulthood,” reveals that nearly fifty percent of women supervisors, but only one-third of women who do not supervise others, reported sexual harassment in the workplace. In more conservative models with stringent statistical controls, women supervisors were 137 percent more likely to be sexually harassed than women who did not hold managerial roles.

While supervisory status increased the likelihood of harassment among women, it did not significantly impact the likelihood for men.

“This study provides the strongest evidence to date supporting the theory that sexual harassment is less about sexual desire than about control and domination,”said Heather McLaughlin, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota and the study’s primary investigator. “Male co-workers, clients and supervisors seem to be using harassment as an equalizer against women in power.”

McLaughlin and her co-authors examined data from the 2003 and 2004 waves of the Youth Development Study (YDS), a prospective study of adolescents that began in 1988 with a sample of 1,010 ninth graders in the St. Paul, Minnesota, public school district and has continued near annually since. Respondents were approximately 29 and 30 years old during the 2003 and 2004 waves. The analysis was supplemented with in-depth interviews with a subset of the YDS survey respondents.

The sociologists found that, in addition to workplace power, gender expression was a strong predictor of workplace harassment. Men who reported higher levels of femininity were more likely to have experienced harassment than less feminine men. More feminine men were at a greater risk of experiencing more severe or multiple forms of sexual harassment (as were female supervisors).

In a separate analysis examining perceived and self-reported sexual orientation, study respondents who reported being labeled as non-heterosexual by others or who self-identified as non-heterosexual (gay, lesbian, bisexual, unsure, other) were nearly twice as likely to experience harassment.

Researchers also found that those who reported harassment in the first year (2003) were 6.5 times more likely to experience harassment in the following year. The most common scenario reported by survey respondents involved male harassers and female targets, while males harassing other males was the second most frequent situation.

Via Hunter of Justice.

Top photo: Afghan women protest an earlier version of this law, in April 2009, from the New York Times. Second photo, also from April: Hazara women in Europe protest the Afghan law. From Hazaritan Times.

From Human Rights Watch:

“Karzai has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “So much for any credentials he claimed as a moderate on women’s issues.” [...]

The law gives a husband the right to withdraw basic maintenance from his wife, including food, if she refuses to obey his sexual demands. It grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers. It requires women to get permission from their husbands to work. It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying “blood money” to a girl who was injured when he raped her. [...]

The law regulates the personal affairs of Shia Muslims - who make up between 10 and 20 percent of the population - including divorce, separation, inheritance, and the minimum age for marriage.

Amazingly, the earlier version of the law was even harsher on Shia women’s rights, and was softened in response to internal protests and international pressure (including protests by Hazaras women of many nations):

The initial version of the law included articles that imposed drastic restrictions on Shia women, including a requirement to ask permission to leave the house except on urgent business, and a requirement that a wife have sex with her husband at least once every four days. [...]

In a rare move, Afghan women took to the streets in April to protest, braving threats and violence. President Barack Obama of the United States, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, and many other world leaders condemned the legislation. As a result of pressure, Karzai submitted the law to a consultation process with civil society groups in May, which resulted in some improvements. The legislation still contains some of its most repressive measures, though.

Remember back when we first invaded Afghanistan, when hawks were criticizing feminists for not favoring a war that was, we were told, going to free the women of Afghanistan from misogynistic oppression?

I’m genuinely sorry the hawks were wrong — but not surprised. The problem with hawks in the US is that they think of the US army as a magic wishing lamp, which can be waved at any problem to produce good results. But the truth is, you can’t invade a culture into accepting women’s rights, or — I suspect — into genuine democracy.

I’m also genuinely amazed at the enormous courage of women in Afghanistan who took to the streets to protest in April. I hope that if there are further protests, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, we’ll hear about in the US.

See also: The Czech, Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Gullibility is Bad for You.

KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) — Sudanese police fired tear gas and beat women protesting at the trial Tuesday of a female journalist who faces a flogging for wearing trousers in public.

Sudanese journalist Lubna Hussein could receive 40 lashes if found guilty of violating the country’s indecency law which follows a strict interpretation of Islam. The 43-year-old says the law is un-Islamic and ”oppressive,” and she’s trying to use her trial to rally support to change it.

”I am not afraid of flogging. … It’s about changing the law,” Hussein said, speaking to The Associated Press after a hearing Tuesday.

Hussein said she would take the issue all the way to Sudan’s constitutional court if necessary, but that if the court rules against her and orders the flogging, she’s ready ”to receive (even) 40,000 lashes” if that what it takes to abolish the law.

Hussein was among 13 women arrested July 3 in a raid by the public order police on a popular cafe in Khartoum. Ten of the women were fined and flogged two days later. But Hussein and two others decided to go to trial.

In an attempt to rally support, Hussein printed invitations to diplomats, international media, and activists to attend her trial which opened last week. She also resigned from her job in the U.N.’s public information office in Khartoum, declining the immunity that went along with the job to challenge the law.

Around 100 supporters, including many women in trousers as well as others in traditional dress, protested outside the court Tuesday.

And from another article:

Police have also cracked down on another woman journalist, Amal Habbani, who published an article in Ajrass al-Horreya newspaper (Bells of Freedom) entitled: “Lubna, a case of subduing a woman’s body.”

I am awed by Ms. Hussein’s courage and determination. She’s now been banned from leaving the country, either out of pure vindictiveness, or to make it harder for her to appear in the media.

Anne of Carversville (whose blog is all over this story) has posted an English-language translation of an interview with Lubna Hussein. In the interview, Ms. Hussein claims that three of the women lashed for wearing pants were teenagers, one as young as 16.

(The photos came from this AP photo gallery. The blog title quote came from this article.)

UPDATE: More commentary on this case:

• Katha Pollitt at The Nation
• The F Word
• Earwicga
• Feministing
• Woman’s Media Center
• Cruella-Blog

SECOND UPDATE: Here’s a petition you can sign in support of Lubna Hussein.

The Economist argues that sex offender laws — specifically, sex offender registries — are too harsh. It’s mainly concerned with statutory rapists, some of whom were only two or three years older than the person they were arrested for having sex with.

There are three main arguments for reform. First, it is unfair to impose harsh penalties for small offences. Perhaps a third of American teenagers have sex before they are legally allowed to, and a staggering number have shared revealing photographs with each other. This is unwise, but hardly a reason for the law to ruin their lives. Second, America’s sex laws often punish not only the offender, but also his family. If a man who once slept with his 15-year-old girlfriend is barred for ever from taking his own children to a playground, those children suffer.

Third, harsh laws often do little to protect the innocent. The police complain that having so many petty sex offenders on registries makes it hard to keep track of the truly dangerous ones. Cash that might be spent on treating sex offenders—which sometimes works—is spent on huge indiscriminate registries. Public registers drive serious offenders underground, which makes them harder to track and more likely to reoffend. And registers give parents a false sense of security: most sex offenders are never even reported, let alone convicted.

It would not be hard to redesign America’s sex laws. Instead of lumping all sex offenders together on the same list for life, states should assess each person individually and include only real threats. Instead of posting everything on the internet, names could be held by the police, who would share them only with those, such as a school, who need to know. Laws that bar sex offenders from living in so many places should be repealed, because there is no evidence that they protect anyone: a predator can always travel. The money that a repeal saves could help pay for monitoring compulsive molesters more intrusively—through ankle bracelets and the like.

I agree with pretty much all of this. (Via.)

Time is moving along. Planned to have this done already. I will just keep a running log here as time passes. Many of the young girls here look so beautiful as to not be human, very edible.

–George Sodini, December 22, 2008

George Sodini was, by some measures, a reasonably successful guy. He owned his own house, had a decent job, was able to take a vacation now and again. Only one thing spoiled it: he didn’t have a woman.

Now, you may think that’s an understandable pain. All of us have been alone at some point in our lives, all of us have wished we had a soulmate, someone to share our thoughts and desires with, someone to build a life with. To lack that is understandably painful.

But it was not a soulmate that Sodini lacked; he had no interest in such things. He didn’t want someone; he wanted a woman. He wanted a woman the way some people want a really sweet computer, the way others want a brand new car. His desire was not for a person, but for a thing, an object. And preferably a newer one, without too many miles on it.

A man needs a woman for confidence. He gets a boost on the job, career, with other men, and everywhere else when he knows inside he has someone to spend the night with and who is also a friend. This type of life I see is a closed world with me specifically and totally excluded. Every other guy does this successfully to a degree. Flying solo for many years is a destroyer. Yet many people say I am easy to get along with, etc. Looking back, I owe nothing to desirable females who ask for anything, except for basic courtesy - usually.

–George Sodini, December 29, 2008

If Sodoni had needed a car or a television or a computer to be happy, he could have bought one. But he needed a woman, and unfortunately for Sodini, women are not cars. They are people — fully human, living people, with their own wants and desires and needs. That Sodoni never really bought into that liberal bullcrap is clear; still, he had to deal with the laws of the land. He couldn’t simply buy the woman of his choice.

Adding to Sodoni’s problems was the fact that the woman of his choice was almost impossibly beyond his reach. He was a moderately successful 48-year-old who was not unattractive physically, but not especially attractive, either. Had he reached out to, say, fortysomething women who were moderately successful and of averageish looks — and had he not hated women in general — he might have been able to find a woman who would love him for who he was. But Sodini didn’t view women as people; he viewed them as commodities. And a 48-year-old woman has a lot of wear on the tires. No, he wanted a 20-year-old, and not just any old 20-year-old, but a pretty hot one, the kind the pick-up artists call a “9+.”

He went to PUA seminars – there’s video of him at one, the one guy not in a sportcoat — and tried to learn the secrets of winning the hearts of younger women.

It never seemed to occur to him that he was going about things completely wrong. Ironically, he would until the day he died.

Girls and women don’t even give me a second look ANYWHERE. There is something BLATANTLY wrong with me that NO goddam person will tell me what it is. Every person just wants to be fucking nice and say nice things to me. Flattery. Oh yeah, I am sure you can get a date anytime. You look good, etc. Pussies.

George Sodini, July 29, 2009

Sodini spent his last nine months on Earth plotting his revenge, his revenge on women for failing to simply be his through force of will. His revenge for women daring to have their own wants, their own desires, their own needs.

He hated them for it. Hated the sixteen-year-old girl he saw on an online forum having sex three times a day. “So, err, after a month of that, this little hoe has had more sex than ME in my LIFE, and I am 48. One more reason. Thanks for nada, bitches! Bye.” He hated his mother, saying, “Don’t piss her off or she will be mad and vindictive for years. She actually thinks she’s normal. Very dominant. Her way and only her way with no flexibility toward everyone in the household.” He hated his brother’s wife, a “Chinese-descent, petite woman with no body, no ass, no chest and no personality.” Though he admitted, as an aside, “But she is highly intelligent and an excellent cook. I can testify to that! She home bakes her own DELICIOUS wheat bread! But who cares about that type of small bull crap?”

That his brother seemed satisfied with his intelligent wife did not register with Sodoni. Who seeks out a woman for her brain?

I just looked out my front window and saw a beautiful college-age girl leave [redacted by editor]’s house, across the street. I guess he got a good lay today. College girls are hoez. I masturbate. Frequently. He is about 45 years old. She was a long haired, hot little hottie with a beautiful bod. I masturbate. Frequently.

–George Sodini, July 23, 2009

The girl leaving the neighbor’s house was the neighbor’s daughter; Sodoni can be forgiven for assuming that his neighbor had slept with her. After all, Sodoni was reading How to Date Young Women: For Men Over 35 by R. Don Steele, and attending seminars hosted by Steele. He wanted a young woman to fall in love with him, one who was attractive enough for his tastes. One who would be totally okay with dating a 48-year-old who had never been married, who hadn’t been in a serious relationship in 25 years.

In short, Sodoni wanted a figment of his imagination, the perfect woman of his dreams, to find him charming and attractive and perfect, despite his imperfections.

I actually had a date today. It was with a woman I met on the bus in March. We got together at Two PPG Place for lunch. The last date for me was May 1, 2008. Women just don’t like me. There are 30 million desirable women in the US (my estimate) and I cannot find one. Not one of them finds me attractive.

–George Sodini, May 18, 2009

It takes a certain ignorance to write that women don’t like you on the day you went out on a date; still, one misdoubts that Sodoni was right. The women he dated, however infrequently, likely didn’t like him much. But not for the reasons he thought.

Sodoni went to seminars where they told him to “kill the nice guy,” as if niceness was his failing. He read books telling him that if he was assertive enough, bold enough, that twentysomethings would be beating a path to his door. Meanwhile, he was convinced that he himself was unlovable. And he was convinced that women were out to get him, when they weren’t ignoring and/or laughing at him.

One can’t cover up that kind of toxic stew of hatred for long, and no doubt, women who came in contact with it fled, and right quick. And rather than addressing the root of his problem — his own misanthropy — Sodoni looked to charlatans and hucksters who claimed that you, too, can get the girl of your dreams if you just insult her enough.

And when even that didn’t work, Sodoni turned his rage outward, in one violent, bitter act, an act that transformed him from someone we might pity to someone we must despise.

I took off today, Monday, and tomorrow to practice my routine and make sure it is well polished. I need to work out every detail, there is only one shot. Also I need to be completely immersed into something before I can be successful. I haven’t had a drink since Friday at about 2:30. Total effort needed. Tomorrow is the big day.

Unfortunately I talked to my neighbor today, who is very positive and upbeat. I need to remain focused and absorbed COMPLETELY. Last time I tried this, in January, I chickened out. Lets see how this new approach works.

Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

–George Sodoni, August 3, 2009

On August 4, 2009, Sodoni walked into an aerobics class at a gym in suburban Pittsburgh, and opened fire. He killed three women, and wounded nine others, before turning the gun on himself.

His writing makes plain that he felt no remorse, no guilt, no doubt. He felt righteous. He was destroying the things that had failed to love him, no matter how much he wanted them to. The pretty girls working out in their leotards, going home to fuck their young boyfriends or husbands — they would pay for not fucking him.

Ironically, George Sodoni was able to kill those women for the same reason those and other women wouldn’t fuck him: because George Sodini didn’t see women as fully human. Didn’t understand that they have the same emotions he did, that they desire and hunger and despair too. He couldn’t imagine finding someone other than what our society deems “attractive” to be attractive, because he didn’t even find “attractive” women attractive. He lusted after them, yes, but he didn’t want their company, he didn’t want their friendship, and he didn’t want their love. He just wanted them to fill the space beside him, like a trophy on the mantle — a validation of his manhood, his worth.

Because he could not view a woman as his equal, he could not win the love of a woman. And so he fired dozens of shots in hopes of killing that which pained him, but in the end,  only one found its true mark.

The one that killed George Sodoni.

From Nihlistic Kid, Here’s some editorial comments on a story by author Bev Vincent. The story was written from the point of view of a male protagonist. These comments are all from the same editor:

“It’s quite a challenge for a writer of one sex to explore writing from the perspective of the opposite sex. Bev Vincent has not done a convincing job.”

“The story seems far too personal, introspective and emotional for a man”

“And I can’t think of many guys from [setting] who call home every Sunday afternoon to talk to their family” [Emphasis his or hers].

“Most men don’t think deeply about the dewy greenness of nature.”

“She needs to write more convincing [sic] from a man’s perspective.”

The thing is, Bev Vincent is a man. The editor just assumed Bev was female, based on the name, and then projected all sorts of nonsense the editor “knew” about how women write on to the manuscript. Bev comments:

I’ve heard female writers talk about gender bias in the industry before, but it’s always been an abstract concept to me. Not something I’ve ever experienced. Oh, sure, people often think I’m female based on my name—it’s a common enough mistake, which I’ve had to deal with all my life. I like to tell the story about how I was almost assigned to the women’s dorm at university. However, I’ve never before had an editor criticize my writing based on a false assumption concerning my gender. Or make blatantly biased statements about the male perspective. [...]

I pause here to note that this was the most autobiographical story I’ve ever written, and all the things that the editor complained about were my real observations and my real thoughts cast into the mind of a fictional character participating in fictional events. I did, in fact, call home every Sunday afternoon to talk to my parents, while they were still alive.

To compound his or her arrogance, the editor claims that my prose is “overly elegant,” which is presumably his or her way of saying that a man would never write or think in elegant terms.

This is a funny story, but it represents two kinds of sexism, both worthy of concern.

First of all, there’s the obvious sexism against female writers. (Was this incident only about prejudice against writers who with protagonists who aren’t of the same sex? No, it was not; the bit about “overly elegant” wasn’t about cross-sex writing, it was about discrimination against a writing style that is perceived as feminine. Criticism of female writers for being too “elegant” or “flowery” is, I’m told, a cliche that female science fiction and fantasy writers encounter often; and although the language is nice, the underlying gender politics are recognizable from decades ago, when Poul Anderson said “[Science fiction] remains more interested in the glamour and mystery of existence, the survival and triumph and tragedy of heroes and thinkers, than in the neuroses of some sniveling fagot.”

And there’s also obvious sexism against men here, who — at least, in this editor’s estimation — are rather limited in our ability to be loving towards our families, to appreciate nature, or basically to have an emotional life significantly deeper than a turnip’s.

This post uses Dollhouse as a way of examining some ideas. If you haven’t watched Dollhouse, but want to, then I recommend avoiding it, since it has some significant spoilers, and the show really will be better if you don’t know. But if you’re never going to watch Dollhouse then read ahead, you don’t need to know anything about the show to understand the post. Read the rest of this entry »

I love this cartoon by my friend Mikhaela Reid.

(Spoiler warning!)

1) We paid the extra couple of bucks to watch in 3-D. The 3-D was so well-done, so utterly natural and looked so good that we all stopped noticing it after the first fifteen minutes. Not really worth the money.

2) Why is everyone saying this film is such a weepy? Yes, right at the start of the film (in the film’s best sequence), the main character meets a girl, falls in love, gets married, has a long and happy lifetime with his love, and then she dies once they’re both in old age. We should all have misery like that.

Because I had heard so many “bring a hanky” comments, I really expected a major character (maybe the dog?) to die at the end of the film. This probably improved the film for me, since I actually thought a major character might die.

3) The bad: Even for Pixar, the lack of female characters in this movie is extraordinary; of two important female characters, one is the protagonist’s wife who dies in the first fifteen minutes, the other is a bird named Kevin. Why is Pixar unable to imagine a story with a female lead? Needless to say, it fails the Bechdel Test.

4) The good: The main character is elderly, which makes UP the only children’s flick I can think of to feature an old protagonist.

5) The even better: The secondary protagonist, Russell, is a fat little boy — and there isn’t a single joke about his size, anywhere in the film.¹ A positive, non-buffoon fat character with no fat jokes — That’s pretty much illegal in a children’s movie, isn’t it?

Heather MacAllister once said:

Any time there is a fat person onstage as anything besides the butt of a joke, it’s political. Add physical movement, then dance, then sexuality and you have a revolutionary act.

6) In addition, Russell is a positive, non-stereotypical Asian character, and the actor who did Russell’s voice, Jordon Nagai (who was seven years old when they cast the part), is also Asian-American. In a more reasonable world the race of actors doing the voices in animated films wouldn’t matter at all; but with major live-action movies casting white actors to play characters that were originally Asian (as in “21″ and “The Last Airbender”), it’s nice to see Pixar go the other way.

7) And by the way, good story, good animation, and lots of great visuals. The dog characters were pretty consistently funny, as well.

1. He does have trouble climbing a rope, but the way they depicted that didn’t emphasize his fat. (back)

I was reading an article about Mexican brothel laws. Mexican brothels apparently use the “legal, but heavily regulated, including medical testing of prostitutes” approach to prostitution I’ve heard Americans advocate (and which is the approach used by Nevada).

I’ve also heard Americans advocate for the New Zealand approach (legal, and basically no more regulated than any other business), and for the Swedish approach (prostitution is legal, but being a John is illegal).

But so far, I’ve never heard an American advocate for the US system. The US system doesn’t eliminate prostitution — according to Patty Kelly, the author of the article on Mexican brothels, 30 percent of single American men over 30 admit to having paid for sex,¹ “and according to the National Task Force on Prostitution, 1 percent of women claim to have worked as erotic service providers at some point in their lives.” The system is brutal to sex workers, encourages corruption in cops, and wastes tax money on useless enforcement. No matter what you think the goal of prostitution policy ought to be, the US policy fails.

Yet it doesn’t seem seriously possible that US policy could change, either, except possibly in a couple of the more liberal or libertarian states. There’s no money behind changing the laws, and no political upside for congresspeople in advocating for change. (Plenty of downside, though — can you imagine the mailers? “Senator Smith wants to open a legal brothel in your neighborhood!” and so on.)

Kelly concludes her article:

Despite the Eliot Spitzers, the Heidi Fleisses, the Eddie Murphys, and, best of all, the pastor Ted Haggards, we deny, deny, deny that prostitution plays a role in our culture. Like Sonia lies to her family back in El Salvador about what she does for work, so too do we lie to ourselves as a culture, though on a far more massive scale. What I admire about Mexico is not the legalization of sex work in some states, but the widespread cultural honesty about the topic. What I admire even more is New Zealand’s effort to transform their own honest assessment of their situation into a public policy that benefits both sex workers and society. The final conclusion of the sex workers, the nun, the police officer, the criminologist, the public health specialists and others who formed the committee to evaluate New Zealand’s Prostitution Reform Act states that “traditions and attitudes [about prostitution] developed over many years and cannot be changed overnight.” This is true. But perhaps it is time we start trying.

1. I originally wrote “30 percent of American men over 30 admit to having paid for sexual services,” and then updated it to more accurate wording. (back)

Since we’re discussing porn, I thought I’d post this, which I thought was interesting. I’m not sure if it’s porn or not — it has no nudity or explicit images — but it’s probably NSFW. The video features interviews of people talking about porn, interspersed with video of them masturbating while viewing porn. Since the camera was apparently positioned on the monitor, the people seem to be staring directly at the viewer as they jack or jill off, which I think creates a more intense effect than porn images of masturbation.

The people interviewed are a little more diverse than you’d find in mainstream movies and TV — or in mainstream porn, for that matter — but much less diverse than I’d wish them to be.

“If I go to the debate on pornography, I’ll just fume about the fact that everyone’s got stupid analysis but me.” I said that a couple of months ago, and I was joking, but only a little bit.

Feminist discussions on sexually explicit material tend to be heated, and change no-one’s mind. The latest discussions on The Hand Mirror, another blog I write on, have followed this pattern. I want to explore why.

Media that has been created for the purpose of sexual arousal and produced to be bought and sold (which is a mouthful, but I think more precise than ‘pornography’) sits at an intersection: Desire, sex, the construction of men’s sexuality, the construction of women’s sexuality, bodies, work, the role of the state, objectification, the creation of rape culture and commodification (and much more, those are just what’s on top for me).

It only takes small differences in feminists’ analysis, weighting or experience of a couple of these before they’re coming at the issue that we call ‘pornography’ from completely different angles.

As well as making the issue complicated, these many facets also mean that those no such thing as a disinterested party. Everyone has a stake in what is being discussed, but what is most triggering about the discussion about sexually explicit material varies widely.

To simplify one example more than is really justified: discussions of sexually explicit material may trigger some women’s experiences of having their sexuality and desire denied, while the same discussion might trigger other women’s experience of having other people’s sexuality or desire forced on them. (I don’t mean this as a dichotomy, just an example of the sorts of talking past that can happen in these discussions).

I think it’s very difficult even to talk about, or articulate any of this, because the vocabulary we have around sexually explicit media is so limited. The distinctions I think need to be made about are numerous and complex:
Was it made by an individual expressing their personal desires?
Was it made to be bought and sold?
Did everyone involve in making it give genuine consent?
Does it normalise misogynist ideas about women, women’s sexuality, women’s bodies, or sex?
Do they normalise racist ideas about any group of women or men, their bodies or sexuality?
Does it normalise a limited view of human sex or sexuality?
How do the ideas it contains interact with rape culture?
Does it normalise a particular type of body?

Now the answer to most mass-produced mainstream pornography from Ralph to are yes (or no depending on the question). But my point is that these are different questions, and they’re different again from:

What do we do about it all? What do we expect other organisation, or the state to do about it all?

Those are just my questions, I’m sure other people have different ones (I’m sure I’d have different ones if I wrote them on a different day, after reading different material). Unless we are clear about what exactly we’re talking about, unless we actively try and overcome the difficulties I’ve outlined, we’ll never have anything useful to say.

I wrote this post - I decided to continue talking about pornography, despite my cynicism, because I think it’s important. I think untangling these threads, understanding the role of sexually explicit material in women’s oppression is vital. I think the first answer to the question: ‘what is to be done?’ Is that we have to figure out how to talk about this.

The comments on this post are open to feminists, and feminist allies only (I appear to have forgotten how to do the rule).

(MAJOR TRIGGER WARNINGS — Lots of stuff about how Fred Phelps abused his entire family. Please be cautious about reading on or following the links if you think it may be a trigger for you.) Read the rest of this entry »

Remember that awesome CD that’s out right now? The spoken word collection that features the work of BFP, Black Amazon, Little Light, and so many others? The one that combines personal history and movement making in truly inspiring ways? If you live in or around Long Beach, CA and haven’t heard it yet, now’s your chance! On Sunday, June 14th, Petit Poussin, Christine, and I will be hosting a listening party from 2-5. As we listen to the CD, you’ll be able to participate in discussion and respond by making your own media, whether it’s visual art, handwritten text, a zine, blogging or twittering, or whatever combination of the above you can come up with. Afterwards, we’ll sit down to a potluck dinner. CDs will be available for sale - remember that all proceeds go towards getting single mothers to the Allied Media Conference next month.

Address available upon RSVP. A quick warning for people with allergies: a friendly medium-haired cat will be present.

RSVP to modernmitzvot at yahoo com or ppoussin at gmail com!