A bunch of shiny links below the cut to all the interesting things people who aren’t me are talking about in the Series of Tubes.
Captain Awkward teaches us how to solve relationship problems with one handy flowchart.
Trigger warning for descriptions of abuse and boundary violations and mentions of rape. An interesting post about why I’m a feminist. Have we settled on “trans exclusionary radical feminist” for those radfem assholes that give honest radical feminists like myself a bad name? I like “radscum” myself. It sounds so beautiful when spat.
Trigger warning for descriptions of violent threats, discussion of abuse. A woman of color reflects on reporting her mentally ill son to the police. Bittersweet, sad, and painfully honest.
Trigger warning for description of homophobic violence. A HuffPo article about a hate crime directed against a gay man and the first prosecution of a person for a hate crime against a gay man. I mourn the death of one of my brothers, but I hope he receives justice.
Trigger warning for description of suicide. A seven-year-old boy kills himself because he was bullied, in part because he was the only boy in a family with eight women. Sexism matters. Sexism kills.
All right, I’ve looked at all those trigger warnings, and it’s time for some good news. Female soldiers challenge the ground combat rule which excludes women from combat. Frankly, that rule is sexist against everyone: it’s rooted in misogynistic assumptions about what women are capable of (nothing) and how well men can keep from fucking every woman in their combat unit (not well), it leads to men being in more danger than women, and it keeps women from being recognized when– as often happens in a war like Iraq with no front lines– they themselves are in as much danger as the men. I wish the female soldiers the best of luck.
New developments in stop-and-frisk (the search of people on streets, directed almost exclusively against men of color) in New York City: a judge has declared that the stop-and-frisk cases are a class-action lawsuit, and the police commissioner has proposed that there ought to be more training. Suuuuuuuure there ought to be. Because this is definitely not a structural problem in the NYPD! Nope, it’s just a few bad apples. Just like all racism is just because of a few men in Klan robes.
Louisiana is the world’s prison capital, and it’s not making many steps towards ending recidivism or preventing crime before it even starts. Prisoners, most of them nonviolent, are treated as commodities used to get more money, not human beings. This is the prison-industrial complex in action.
Oil field truckers are pressured into working 20-hour shifts and often die driving home. Fatality rates are seven times the national average. Deaths on the job are incredibly gendered: 92% of people who die on the job are male. Stronger occupational safety regulation is a masculist issue.
Trigger warning for brief mentions of suicide, violence, and domestic violence. The F Word, an excellent UK feminist website, explains that it’s not feminism that hurts men. Also they mention us. I love it when people mention us. (I do have to point out that “it’s mostly men who commit violence against men” DOESN’T MEAN IT’S UNRELATED TO SEXISM. Christ. If that were true, female genital mutilation would be unrelated to sexism because the cutters are often female. Other than that, good piece.)
The New Statesman has had a themed week about men’s rights. I have yet to read all the posts myself, but the material they have looks very interesting.
Trigger warning for child sexual abuse. The ultra-Orthodox Jewish community shuns reporters of child sexual abuse. I hate humans. You guys suck. I’d quit the human race and become a dolphin, but I hear they have some rapey shit too.
How male privilege damages men.
Trigger warning for rape and abuse. The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence in Conflict. Good shit. Check it out. The fabulous Jaclyn Friedman, editor of Yes Means Yes, author of What You Really Really Want, and general awesome person, is working with them.
Trigger warning for brief mention of suicide. Ontario is working on passing Bill 13, which would ban bullying against queer youth in the wake of a young man’s suicide. Get on that shit, Ontario.
Shane and Tom loved each other. And then Tom died and Shane lost all his rights because, as a gay couple, they were not able to marry. Further adventures in the “Please make our doomed romantic love not doomed anymore! LOOK AT HOW SAD AND ADORABLE WE ARE” school of fighting queerphobia?
Trigger warning for description of violence. Also from Womanist Musings: an openly gay teen suspended for using a Taser in self-defense. Includes the following sentence: “If you wear female apparel, then kids are kids and they’re going to say whatever it is that they want to say.” FUCK YOU principal dude! Men should have the right to show up in school in a fucking pink tutu if they want, and no one should be able to say shit about it, much less be violent. Equal rights for men!
Trigger warning for descriptions of rape and abuse. A soldier raped by his fellow soldiers in a hazing ritual. Gah. Fuck humanity.
Sociological Images asks whether drug courts are the solution to the drug war. Although they appear to help, just like the rest of the justice system, they are systematically biased against men and people of color. And the conclusions that they prevent recidivism may be overstated.
Trigger warning for discussion of violence. Apparently a Florida A&M student wanted to be hazed in the hazing that led to his death. Fuck you, you victim-blaming assholes.
Finally, Companion Cube is adorable.
About ozyfrantz
I bust on feminists when their wrong. I think we should acknowledge the times they’re mostly correct.
http://feministing.com/2012/05/24/quick-hit-whats-with-all-the-naked-dudes/
I don’t think it’s feminism itself that harms men, but probables the unintended consequences of feminist inspired gendered laws, if VAWA is one of those. Some parts of feminism could promote a gendered and negative view of men, but that tends to be the more extremist stuff. Would it be fair to base feminism off the extremists? Probably not, although that doesn’t seem to stop quite a few feminist blogs from basing MRA’s off the extremists. How does either behaviour help?
Radscum, feminasshole, radextrem, extreminist, quite a few words could be made to describe those pesky extremist/negative radfems. ExtreMRA’s, MRadA’s, MRAssholes for the extremist MRA’s?
The F word article is terrible.
First it strawmans this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/13/men-victims-new-oppression with comments like “How is this the fault of women and/or feminists?” and “I really do struggle to see how this can be laid at the feet of women, or of “sexism” against men.”
The article wasn’t laying anything at the feet of feminists or women. There was ONE person quoted calling out a specific subset of feminists about obscuring sexism against men. And… hey look at this quote from a feminist author:
“I really do struggle to see how [men developing heart disease sooner] can be laid at the feet of women, or of “sexism” against men.” Seriously can’t she just assume that, like the pay gap, this gap isn’t biological in nature? But instead caused by increased stress, pressure not to go to the doctor, women specific health initiatives ect? Fine
http://www.cloisterstudy.eu/index-Dateien/COMMS.htm
Death gap is mostly not biological, and we have the feminist obscuring sexism against men.
Next problem “if women and girls were merely “lagging at school” and “the butt of cruel jokes”, rather than victims of systemic violence” … you are living in a country where its okay to mutilate babies if they happen to be male. The hell. Also more likely to be a victim of violence.
There is the repeated dismissal of discrimination against men by saying that other men are the ones doing it. I mean what the hell? That isn’t a counter point to men being discriminated against! Although you already caught that Ozy
So the F word article attacks what is essentially a pure strawman and has a bunch of problematic statements besides.
Here is where that F Word article really lost me:
Besides, all the talk of young men and suicide rather tends to obscure the fact that young women actually attempt suicide more frequently than young men, but the methods they tend to use are less effective, on the whole, which helps explain the discrepancy in completion rates.
If the best a feminist site can do when confronted with the fact that men commit suicide more often is to claim that it “obscures” the fact that women attempt then they are just plain dirty. It reeks of trying to direct an issues back to women, the “real victims”. Simply put the feminists that start whining at the mention of that book need to check out Ally F’s article on it. Honestly I think some of the groaning over that book is the result of them being pissed that MRAs are bring up stuff that feminists themselves either didn’t want brought up or are mad that someone other than feminists are bringing them up.
No feminism may not being aiming to hurt men but I’m getting real sick of this bit where when something good comes from that movement the entire movement gets credit as a monolith it but when something bad comes from it all of a sudden they aren’t a monolith anymore.
ht tp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/11/981112075159.htm
“”An attempted suicide is not really an attempt at suicide in about 95 percent of cases. It is a different phenomenon. It’s most often an effort to bring someone’s attention, dramatically, to a problem that the individual feels needs to be solved. Suicide contains a solution in itself,” he says.”
It seems many attempts women do are cries for help, whereas more men are choosing more lethal methods as an exit. This is the trouble with comparing suicide rates and ATTEMPTED suicide rates.
“If the best a feminist site can do when confronted with the fact that men commit suicide more often is to claim that it “obscures” the fact that women attempt then they are just plain dirty. It reeks of trying to direct an issues back to women, the “real victims.”
This is a standard feature based on my observation.
Okay so, here’s my perspective on the gendered discussion of suicide rates…the MRAs started it. Which, how flipping childish is that? I know. But it’s like, I never saw any feminists taking up suicide as an specifically feminist issue, except as a reaction to the MRA assertion that it is a gender issue. Feminists either weren’t paying attention to it, or (more likely) were involved in support campaigns and so on that were focused on suicide, full stop…without bringing gender into the conversation.
Then you get people who decide to take it up as an issue and start saying “men commit suicide more. Women try more often, but mostly they’re just doing it for attention.” Which is extremely insulting and marginalizing to anyone (woman or man) who attempts suicide as a call for help. If someone is in such a psychological state that you think an option is to attempt suicide to try to get someone else to recognize your pain, then you are in need of help. That person is in need of as much help as the person who succeeds in committing suicide, really. And by hammering on and on about how “men commit suicide more,” it does obscure the seriousness of attempting suicide (regardless of whether their goal was to actually kill themselves or not.
Then you get people who decide to take it up as an issue and start saying “men commit suicide more. Women try more often, but mostly they’re just doing it for attention.”
Actually most of the ones I saw talking about it didn’t bring up the “….but mostly they’re just doing it for attention” bit.
But as for bringing gender into it let me ask. Is always (or usually) distracting or is it only so when MRAs do it?
I’m asking this because when feminists add gender to something (like abuse and rape) there doesn’t seem to be any worries about distracting from the seriousness of the issue as a whole. Oh no let me take that back here we are a few decades later and some people are finally getting the fact that they do this.
People want to get all mad at MRAs for some of the things that they do but some of what they do is not so different from the feminists that came before them. Now if we want to call foul on both sides doing dirty stuff then let’s do so. But as someone who got no response or negative response from feminists for the most part when I tried to interact with them but got some response from MRAs I’m honestly and deeply offended that now all of a sudden people want to grand stand like feminists have just been on the issues all this time.
So yeah on the specific topic of suicide MRAs might have started but when it comes to issues in general feminists were already doing and no one seemed to have a problem with it.
“I’m asking this because when feminists add gender to something (like abuse and rape) there doesn’t seem to be any worries about distracting from the seriousness of the issue as a whole.”
Feminists didn’t add gender to that discussion. Historically it was an issue with a greater distinction between which gender was the aggressor and which was the victim. Feminism largely failed to change with the times, so to speak, and realize that the old paradigm was no longer accurate…not to mention that it is traditional gender norms that cast men as aggressive and violent. Also, that is changing…because feminists are realizing that the simplistic narrative surrounding gender and sexual assault & domestic violence doesn’t work.
But my comment wasn’t about sexual assault or domestic violence…my comment was in reply to a discussion of suicide rates and how that is being falsely portrayed as a gendered issue. We could sit here and list, back and forth, all the mistakes feminism and MRAs have made over the years…but that’d not really get us anywhere, and it’d take a long time.
“So yeah on the specific topic of suicide MRAs might have started but when it comes to issues in general feminists were already doing and no one seemed to have a problem with it.”
Well this is going to sound wicked cliche, but two wrongs don’t make a right. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, etc. I mean, that’s a great way to turn the whole thing into West Side Story, right there…or Romeo and Juliet…which are both tragedies, keep in mind. Not to mention, people do have a problem with it (it being ascribing gender to an issue inaccurately)…feminists are constantly critiquing and examining themselves to better understand the issues they are advocating for. It’s why the feminism of the 1920s and feminism today look so very different.
Feminists didn’t add gender to that discussion.
True. They just didn’t have a problem when men got left out. Its great that they are trying to be inclusive now though.
But anyway in the long run it is better to not continue the dance of who started what. It just burns me when people seem to want to do the dance as long as only one side’s closet gets opened. If we want to close all the closets then fine let’s do so.
One thing of merit that I think MRAs do when they talk about men committing suicide more often is that does give a bit of spotlight on the silencing that men go through when it comes to reaching out for help and support. I can understand how men would take on more extreme suicide methods when backed into a corner of not knowing what to do and needing help but not being allowed to seek it out.
“True. They just didn’t have a problem when men got left out. ”
False. Erin Pizzy tried to include men right from the beginning, and feminists usurped the shelter movement and silenced her through bomb threats. So they most certainly DID add gender to the discussion, and ensured it remained one sided.
Fair enough.
@ HeatherN
“I never saw any feminists taking up suicide as an specifically feminist issue, except as a reaction to the MRA assertion that it is a gender issue.”
I’m not sure it’s not a gender issue. If men are taught to man up and they shouldn’t need help, how is this not a gender issue? If men are killing themselves four times as often as women, why is it not legitimate to ask why? Maybe more aggressive interventions need to be put into place. Because the suicide hotlines and the waiting for someone to “attempt” to kill themselves before providing intervention is not even remotely addressing the problem men and boys face. Why are we not having this discussion? The answer may well be that it’s because most of the successful suicides are of men and that makes it a gender issue. Have you considered that this might be why feminists never looked at it as a gender issue? Unless women are the biggest victims, it’s not a gender issue.
If men are killing themselves four times as often as women, why is it not legitimate to ask why?
Especially in the face of people constantly asking why men commit other acts, like say DV, at much higher rates than women.
If Johnny is aggressive and attacks his wife Suzy people want to make it a gender issue but if Johnny is aggressive and self harms or commit suicide all of a sudden gender is not part of the equation?
I’m not saying this to claim that this is why feminists don’t consider gender in suicide. I’m saying this because it seems that when it comes to the intersection of men and pretty much anything folks get awfully selective of when maleness/masculinity have anything to do with it.
I am disappointed by the fact that I can’t find any mention at all about male rape victims on the The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence in Conflict.
Tamen: To quote from the Campaign Call, the first item under the About section:
Because in recent years along, massive numbers of women – and sometimes men and boys – have suffered not only the physical trauma of rape and gender violence in war and other conflict situations, but also the shame and stigma that often leaves survivors suffering in silence;…
Because women and girls, men and boys across the world demand and expect justice.
…and sometimes men and boys…
Well I suppose that does satisfy the condition of proving that Tamen’s comment about no mention of male victims is not true.
Now maybe if they can actually mention men and boys without the usual “but women have it worse” disclaimer…
Its weird. For some reason it feels that when it comes to gender its only okay to talk about numbers when the numbers show that one group or the other is getting harmed by something in larger numbers (its wrong to say say that men commit suicide more than women but then it okay to say that women are more often targeted in wartime rape).
Isn’t the problem with this really that the ‘… and sometimes men and boys…” really fails to account for the fact that in most cases those men and boys are getting killed rather than assaulted? I remember a few years back there were a lot of posts about women and children being 90% of the victims of war despite men / boys being something like 95% of the casualties.
I am very glad to be proven wrong about this. I don’t know how I missed it, but I didn’t look at the whole site, mea culpa.
Given the picture of prevalence of male rape victims in conflicts (in Congo for instance) which has already emerged and which continues to emerge I still think it could be more incorporated into the site.
The problem with that is that they may actually convince someone that it’s a problem or come to believe it themselves rather than having a quick blurb they could point to deflect criticism when needed.
@ Ozy
“Because in recent years along, massive numbers of women – and sometimes men and boys”
Does that mean that there are sometimes massive numbers of men and boys victimized or does that mean that sometimes not even one man or boy is victimized? Odd phrasing.
When sometimes is contrasted with massive numbers I read sometimes to mean camparatively very rarely. That does not really jive well with for instance a “2010 survey, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that 22% of men and 30% of women in Eastern Congo reported conflict-related sexual violence” *
Another pertinent section from that Guardian article:
I have to say that even though The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence in Conflict manage to end up in the 3% (making them vastly better than thhe vast majority) they unfortunately don’t seem to expand the mentioning of male victims past a passing reference.
* From the Guardian article ‘The rape of men’: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men
I realize this is an old post, but I felt I had to say this:
I was physically and emotionally abused by female social workers throughout my time in the US public school system. This is not unusual in special education classrooms (I have autism). All of my abusers identified as feminist and most employed ideas and terminology which borrowed heavily from major feminist figures as part of their abuse. When I was forced to read the works of these people at university by feminist professors, the image they presented to me of myself and my gender identity brought me close to suicide (this is not hyperbole, I planned several attempts but was ultimately prevented), although feminist professors refused to credit my grievances. I was also bullied extensively by groups of female students during the period of my abuse, and these attacks were frequently justified to me as being payback for “the history of women’s oppression”. I have been clinically depressed since the age of eight, but the NOW declares, on their website, that I cannot possibly suffer the kind of psychological harm a woman would have in the same situation. This declaration takes the form of a quotation from a major feminist thinker whose ideas exert a strong influence on policy to this day. It is true that much of this treatment, especially the fact that they not only got away with it, but were able to hold me, a prepubescent child, accountable for the abuse I suffered, was an expression of patriarchal tropes. However, these are tropes which have been either ignored or actively supported and reinforced by many influential feminist writers, activists and organizations over the years.
In light of this experience, I consider the “F Word” article to be incredibly insulting and to represent the erasure of people like me and out experiences which required me to leave the feminist movement in the first place. Since abandoning feminist spaces and refusing the definitions of my own gender identity and sexuality that they offered me, I have been much happier, better able to express myself and better able to form my own identity in defiance of cultural norms.
I also note the standard “woman hater” rhetoric which begins the piece. I am not an MRA, nor do I wish to become one, but the descriptions provided are not at all representative of the majority of MRAs I have met or whose work I have read. This is consistently considered to be sufficient as a defense of feminism, and I see no reason it should not suffice for others, who are, after all, no more “monolithic”. This, combined with the failure to address real feminist thinkers, organizations and programs, gives the strong impression that the piece is nothing more than a bit of cheap political rhetoric designed to present complex issues in fairy tale black and white.