Update: I should have noted earlier, but there's a cool slideshow to go with the article.  I like how my eyeballs look.

In the world of Lady Issues, most of the bandwidth this week is going to be taken up by the sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain. I may have some thoughts on those later---I mean, who doesn't?---but first I want to highlight an article that just came out in the online and print edition of New York Magazine about the feminist blogosphere. This is really exciting for me, because most media coverage of other media tends to be in one of two categories: 1) A profile of someone specific who has done something above and beyond what the rest of us do and 2) A generalized profile of a bunch of Young Turks who have energy and new ideas. The latter tends to get people's ire up, not because they have anything against Young Turks, but because women are ignored, over and over again, for that sort of treatment. Women are seen in the media world as the worker bees (which is why they have a stronger presence in the editorial staff than in the front pages), which means that we're not looked to as innovative thinkers, even if we are. In fact, one of the early concerns when I was first blogging---which is discussed in the article---was how men, especially white men, were sucking up all the oxygen when it came to the liberal blogosphere. Those of you who were around then probably remember this:

Left-wing blogging was on the rise, a phenomenon that was strikingly male. As writer Amanda Marcotte says, laughing in recollection, “We had a running joke about how every three months, another guy would publish a post about ‘Why don’t women blog?’ And we would all comment, ‘We’re out here; fuck you!’ ”

That doesn't happen anymore, thank god. It points to why I have so much faith in the blogosphere and in internet media in general: I think it has demonstrated more flexibility and the people involved are more willing to change. Part of the reason is that the constant output of material makes it easier to portray your changes as evolution; in stale mainstream media, changing your mind or outlook is easier to see as some kind of waffling. Therefore, some of the men who were gave us pains in the early days are now some of our best allies. But mainstream media isn't so quick to change. They have a model of what an innovative writer looks like, it that model doesn't include a vagina. When women are innovative, we're generally seen more as silly and hysterical, but mostly we're not allowed to be seen as innovative. I won't belabor the point any further. You can just go read Ann Friedman's delightful satire of the problem here.

So I'm thrilled to see feminist blogging get the Young Turks treatment. Granted, it's by New York Magazine, which is one of my favorite magazines because they are willing to reject media norms and do their own thing. Hopefully, they're opening a door for women to be considered eligible for this sort of treatment.

Mainly, I wanted to highlight this because the writer, Emily Nussbaum, did a good job of making this piece about you. Instead of concentrating on a handful of blogs that get the most traffic, she sees the feminist blogosphere in its entireity, and includes the LiveJournal confessionals and Tumblr satires and all the other various forms of feminist discourse that are happening in the broad world of blogging. One of the major problems of media coverage of feminism is it rarely captures how much of it is about dialogue. Nussbaum understands feminist history really well, and how the archives of the second wave show a lively and diverse movement that had a lot more women in it than Gloria Steinem. She sees the blogosphere the same way: as a jungle of voices, and one where digging in the stacks instead of sticking to the chart toppers can often produce some truly fascinating reading. There's a reading list of blogs and a portrait slideshow that focuses on some of the most prominent voices, but the actual article itself is about the vastness of the discourse. Which is important, because it's a remarkable counter to the same tedious storyline about how feminism is dead. That so many people are online writing about feminism, and that it's not just a few prominent voices, demonstrates how much feminism is not dead, but is in fact undergoing a 21st century revival. 

On a personal note, I have to say it's been amazing watching all this happen. There was no "feminist blogosphere" when I started, which is part of the reason I write largely about politics and pop culture and not just about feminism. (The other reason is: I want to.) But that anyone was writing about feminism at all in the early days turned out to be more inspiring and expansive than those of us typing in our kitchens and living rooms years ago could have imagined. Except maybe Jessica Valenti---I think she had ambitions for Feministing, but the rest of us were just doing our thing for the hell of it. And so much has come from it, for ourselves and for the larger internet community. Now you see feminist discourse normalized in all sorts of unexpected online spaces. And hopefully this article suggests that next on the list is the real world.

This month marks the 20th anniversary of Clarence Thomas's Senate hearings that led to his confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, which the country has been paying dearly for ever since. The whole thing was a disaster, of course, but one extremely important and good thing came out of it all; Anita Hill's brave testimony of enduring some really ugly sexual harassment at Thomas's hands ignited a public conversation about sexual harassment. And while we have a long, long way to go on this issue---most women endure sexual harassment, often on a regular basis still---the idea that sexual harassment is wrong has really taken hold in a way that simply wasn't true in 1991. It's an important first step. 

There was a conference honoring this 20th anniversary that I sadly had to miss, but that can be watched here.  The Nation had an excellent issue dedicated to it, with memories and reflections from a variety of writers, including one from Jessica Valenti on being 12 years old because she believed Anita Hill. 

"I believe Anita Hill": it was a battle cry of sorts then, and to an extent now. It seems like a straightforward statement---between Thomas and Hill, you find her story more believable---but if you really start to scratch at what happened then, it turns out it's quite a bit more complex than that. 

I was 14 when the whole thing happened. I wasn't really politicized yet, so I don't really recall having a strong opinion on it. Not that thinking deeply about the question was really an option; in my community, believing that Hill as both lying and making a mountain out of a molehill was an article of faith. That these two ideas people held simultaneously directly contradicted each other didn't seem to occur to anyone, much less me. Not at the time. She was lying, and anyway, he was just flirting with her and clearly she's an uptight prude with an agenda: faith, not reason supported this conclusion. Being skeptical of it would have received the same hostile treatment that all widespread faith beliefs are protected by. 

I mainly, at that point in time, liked reading books and listening to CDs, and it was the latter that pulled a brick out of my mental wall on this issue. Sonic Youth had a song on their 1992 record Dirty titled "Youth Against Fascism", and it had the lyric "I believe Anita Hill/Judge will rot in hell" on it. It almost feels like an understatement to say that this lyric blew my mind. A man standing up for a woman---a woman he didn't know, especiallly---in a dispute between a man and a woman over sexualized mistreatment? I had never experienced that before, and probably thought of it as simply impossible. Most women treated other women who spoke up about this stuff like pariahs, so the idea of a man calling bullshit, and being so angry about it, was just unbelievable to me. It felt so incredibly subversive. I didn't want to be caught listening to that lyric. It seemed dirty to suggest that there was any alternative to simply enduring sexual harassment in silence. 

Because, like Jessica, being young didn't mean I wasn't already well-versed in the problem of sexual harassment. By my first year of high school, I'd had teenage boys and even men try to get me into their cars with them on isolated roads (thank god my parents warned me about that one), had guys grope me in the hallways, had guys make lewd gestures at me, and generally been sexually abused at the hands of my male peers and occasional, scarier incidents with older men.  Like Jessica, I think I had no idea that this would be a lifelong problem. What I did know was this: It was not a compliment. You often hear, though far less than you used to, this notion that cat-calling was a compliment and only stupid women could therefore object to it. But it was, along with Hill's mendacity, an article of faith in my community that I was ugly and probably a lesbian and no one male could ever actually want to defile themselves by liking me. Thus, it was literally impossible for a lewd gesture to be a compliment. Most of the boys who did this stuff to me would have sooner endured someone putting a cigarette out on their arms than actually have anyone believe for a second they thought that someone like me was anything but scum for spitting on. I had no illusions, none, about what cat calls and groping meant. It was putting you in your place, a casual reminder that you had no value in their eyes and, more importantly, so little value to the community at large that no one would ever come to your defense. And no one ever did.

That's why "believing" Anita Hill was such a complex and frankly radical thing to do in the early 90s. It wasn't just that you were accepting her version of events. Many of her fiercest critics seemed not to deny that the events she described happened, after all. To believe Anita Hill was also to believe that Thomas was wrong to do the things he did. "Youth Against Fascism" made this clear. Thurston Moore didn't just affirm that he believed that Hill's testimony was factually accurate. He said that treating a woman like that was so wrong that a man who did such things would "burn in hell". He said that it was a man's fault if a man chooses to sexually harass a woman. No one around me was saying those things.

I think the message must have wormed its way into my head, because by the end of high school I was standing up to guys who sexually harassed me. It didn't make anyone defend me, of course. Most people who see a woman speak out against injustice treat her the way they treated Anita Hill---they're furious that she's making a scene, not that he abused her without cause. But standing up for myself made me realize that I didn't need to internalize the shame these assholes were dishing out. I could be proud of myself, even if no one else around me agreed that I deserved that. Hey, Thurston Moore agreed with me, you know, and none of these fools were making Sonic Youth records, so what do they know anyway?

Panda Party!  Last week, Marc suggested I put up a list of rules for Panda Party in a public document, so here it is. For those interested, that list plus the Turntable FAQ should give you a good grounding.  It's now open to anyone with a Facebook account; no need to have a friend already using the service.  

Today's Panda Party is dedicated to Slutwalk, which is coming to NYC tomorrow at noon at Union Square in Manhattan. I really like these pictures from Slutwalk in Argentina, where they call it Marcha de las Putas.

What I don't get about all the confusion about the Slutwalk methods and message in the U.S. is examples like this: Slutwalk's sense of humor and message is so obvious, so straightforward that it crosses borders without much struggle. If read the satellite list at the original, Toronto Slutwalk, you'll see that the march has expanded beyond culturally similar, English-speaking countries, but that's jumpinng language barriers with relative ease.  This is because the message is actually simple and what women have been dying to say. This is a protest march that fits the "yes means yes" mentality.  This is women saying, "I have every right to say yes to sex with who I want, to wearing what I want, to going to parties, to getting my education, to working in a male-dominated environment, to having interests that threaten anxious men's ideas of masculinity, to being butch or to be femme, to being single, to being out at late hours, to having a job that may not be so great but pays the bills, to being a sex worker, to having a less than virginal past, etc. None of these things mean you have a right to rape or sexually abuse me."

This year hasn't been a good one for that message.  This year was practically designed to remind people of how rape isn't taken seriously by authorities and/or by the public if the victim is considered less than "worthy" for any of the above reasons.  People still believe that the price of admission to a party, a boy's club, a sexually active life, a miniskirt is being groped, cat-called and raped. 

I was just reading another example of this problem this morning, as Rebecca Watson came out about all the abuse that she's faced over Elevatorgate. Elevatorgate is a perfect example of the problem here; Rebecca made what should have been an uncontroversial point about how, because a woman enters a male-dominated space like atheist/skeptic circles doesn't mean she's an object whose personal space and privacy can be violated by anyone who wants to do it.  Her critics disagree, and feel that simply being a female skeptic means that you have to forsake your right to dignity, safety, and quite possibly to declining sexual invitations that aren't going to be enjoyable for you. For her simple request that men not corner her in elevators and make her worry that she's about to be violently assaulted, she's been called the usual names. The message from these men are clear; women in the atheist/skeptic community have two choices, to either tolerate sexual harassment in silence or to leave the community.  They believe the price of admission to what they believe it their club---after all, they're men!---is to be reduced to an object whose feelings about sexual interactions are irrelevant. 

So I'm marching for people like Rebecca, whose sexuality is used as a weapon against her to silence her voice and keep all the plum spaces male-only. I'm marching for women like Nafissatou Diallo, who prosecutors still believe was raped but whose case was dropped because we really do hold rape cases to a much higher standard of proof than pretty much any other crime. I'm marching for the victim of the NYPD rape cops, who saw her abusers walk free in no small part because the jury just couldn't get past their disapproval that she had been drinking so much that night (I'd bet most of them have done the same a couple times in their lives). I marching for myself, and in memory for all the stupid names the rapist called me and weak excuses that he came up with for why he decided it was okay to crawl in bed with a sleeping woman who had absolutely not invited him. I'm marching for women whose access to the sidewalks is restricted by catcalls, who avoid taking the jobs they want because they know the men in those environments will react with sexualized hostility, who endure groping and catcalls at school as the "price" they pay just trying to get an education, who have to spend much of a night out monitoring each other's safety because men will corner your or slip drugs into your drinks, who try to make a living in the hard world of sex work and who know if they get raped, they have no recourse, who can't escape abusive marriages because people are so worried about wondering what's wrong with you that you married an abuser they forget to ask what's wrong with him that he hits and rapes you. 

But first we party at the Panda Party. Because hey, part of the whole point is that we should have fun without being guilted, abused, or shamed for it. One half of Slutwalk is to say that we shouldn't be forced to suffer, and the other half is to say that we should be allowed to be free to do our thing. 

SIGH: that is usually my reaction anymore to seeing yet another dude whip out the "I'm pro-choice but Roe was wrongly decided/decided too soon" argument.  Scott Lemieux is the champion of shooting that one down, so I tend to leave it to him.  But I have to respond to Garrett Epps of The American Prospect ruining what was otherwise an interesting article by arguing that Brown v. the Board of Education was correctly timed and Roe v. Wade was too soon, because the latter had such an appalling backlash.  You hear variations of this argument a lot, and the sole evidence for them is that anti-choicers are such loud-mouthed assholes and they're willing to attack the decision directly, in a way that no one is willing to do with Brown.  But that's extremely limited evidence for the assertion, especially since it focuses more on what people say than what they do.  It's true that people are less likely to openly condemn desegregation than abortion rights, but does that mean the backlash to desegregation (and all it means) was less severe than the backlash to abortion rights (and all they mean)?  I think this deserves a look, from a number of angles. 

Structural differences in the decisions.  If you want to compare Brown and Roe, you should make sure you're comparing apples to apples.  Initially, it may seem that you are: both decisions granted rights to oppressed people that were expected to lead to their betterment and help them obtain political, social, and economic equality. Both had political movements behind them.  That's where the similarities end, however.  The big difference is that Brown addresses what is functionally a structural inequality---they forced schools who had previously closed their doors to non-white students to open them up.  Roe, however, addresses an individual right. An individual now has a right to choose to abort or provide abortion.  Abortion was a criminal matter, and segregation a matter of public accommodation.  This difference structures the backlash to it.  Opponents of Brown realized right away that they could re-establish desegregation by changing the systems so they seemed compliant, but with Roe, that's harder to do. When you're dealing with people making private choices, it's much harder to control without invoking law enforcement. In a sense, they don't have a choice but to oppose Roe directly, because without being able to use law enforcement, they're kind of fucked. They've finally figured out a way to get around Roe, but it really hasn't been easy.  The fact that Brown openly invoked equal protection and Roe didn't also makes Roe easier to criticize without going on the record as being hostile to the abstract principle of equality.

The backlash to Brown has been more severe than the backlash to Roe in many ways. The National Guard wasn't called to let women get abortions.  In fact, what was remarkable about Roe was that it was implemented with relatively little fuss. The violence agaisnt abortion providers didn't start up until the anti-choice movement had really developed into a hardline fundamentalist terrorist breeding camp. They have to work themselves into a frenzy to commit violence.  For civil rights activists, violence was a constant problem from the get-go, and it was more frequent, and it was often less tied to organized hate groups. In fact, it still goes on. Not to downplay the ugliness against abortion providers in the slightest, but it's important to understand that both decisions and the movements around them have resulted in a terrorist response.

In addition,  Roe was implemented without that much of a fuss in rapid order.  Law enforcement immediately stopped throwing abortion providers in jail, and doctors started hanging out a shingle without much concern of running into the authorities. Brown was basically rejected in many communities, however.  (My high school didn't desegregate until more than 20 years after the decision, if I recall correctly.)  And when the authorities forced schools to segregate, local governments moved in rapid response by redrawing district lines, changing tax structures, and implementing policies that basically reinstituted segregation. Private schools shot up in rapid response to take the white kids that were being yanked from school. Busing was basically abandoned.  White flight intensified. The result? American schools are more segregated now than they were in the late 60s.  You know, when people were still openly flouting the decision. And Brown has had huge chunks of it functionally overturned in a way that is just as, if not more severe than the restrictions that have been placed on Roe. 

Meanwhile, while it's been getting harder to get an abortion in this country than it used to be, women who want one are likelier than not to get it.  It's not as good as it should be, but I think abortion rights are still doing better than desegregation of the schools. 

The big picture.  Brown and Roe cannot be assessed in a vacuum. Both were decisions that were made in response to activist lawsuits from people who had a bigger picture in mind. I'd say it was the same picture, in fact.  Anti-racism and feminist activists wanted a world where the group they were advocating for were equal to white men in terms of education, career, personal freedom, personal stability, wealth, and access to those transcedent aspect of human life such as reputation, joy, creative freedom, role models for aspirational purposes, that sort of thing.  You know, equality. Both decisions were seen as major moves in that direction.  Brown addressed education inequalities that fed into economic and social inequalities.  Roe addressed the way that pregnancy and childbirth are used to constrain women's economic and social opportunities. 

Again, I have to look at the situation and think feminists have been allowed to go further in their goals. Women's status relative to men has improved more than black people's status relative to white people's.  It's a complex question, of course---after all, half of black people are also women, and racism is different than sexism, so it's really hard to measure.  One the measure of income, it's clear that race hurts more than gender: black people make 62% of what white people do, while women make 79% of what men do.  I believe this is a sign that desegregation has faced more backlash than reproductive rights.  Much of what made it hard for women in the past to get access to educational and employment opportunities was the assumption that they would get pregnant and be forced to drop out or downsize their careers in order to get married and have babies.  That expectation has been curtailed greatly, especially for average Americans.  Women can time their pregnancies and limit their family size, which gives them a great deal of control in the rest of their lives.  But black Americans continue to be pushed out of educational and employment opportunities that would help make that income number more equitable.  

It's true people are more willing to say grossly sexist things in public than grossly racist things (though the election of Obama has shifted that), but I think a larger look beyond what people say and what they do will indicate that the situation is more complicated than that. 

What does this all mean?  Well, it sure as hell doesn't mean that Brown was wrongly decided. What it does mean is that we can't judge a court decision granting human beings their full rights based on our fears of a backlash. Often, the only way to change the status quo is to force a confrontation, and courts granting rights are a good way to do that. Just quit pissing on Roe. It was a good decision and it came at a time that the country was actually supportive of abortion rights.  The backlash against is shaped by the trajectory of women's gains differing from the tragectory of African-American gains, but reading the tea leaves of specific court decisions isn't really all that illuminating as to why. 

Via Caperton at Feministe comes this mind-boggling rant from Peg Aloi claiming that women today are eschewing the "tough gals" model to be weak, frivolous bubbleheads.  Caperton takes this nonsense on, but I'd like to address it myself, because while I somewhat sympathize with a tiny fraction of what Aloi is saying, she's just so incredibly wrong in her assumptions, and it causes her rant to be vicious, depressing, and nonsensical.  Aloi is working off three false assumptions:

1) That "feminism" is about creating "tough" women.  While feminism certainly is about making social space for women Aloi would describe as "tough", in reality feminism is about making women and men equal, just as importantly---pay attention to this part---dismantling toxic gender roles that limit the lives of men, women, and anyone who has a gender identity that doesn't fit into neat little boxes.  A feminism that is obsessed with "tough" women isn't a feminism that's prepared, for instance, to help women to get out of domestic violence situations, since women in those situations don't need a valiant rescue or to stand up to their attackers so much as to be sympathized with and given the tools to escape.  

2) That traditionally coded masculine behaviors and values are automatically superior to traditionally coded feminine behaviors and values. The only argument Aloi has against things like gardening, baking and knitting are these are traditionally considered women's work, and should be shunned for it.  This is actually not a feminist belief, but a sexist one, since it's about reinscribing the gendered nature of certain activities and valuing the masculine over the feminine. 

3) That women having, enjoying, and discussing leisure time activities is un-feminist.  A lot of what makes Aloi mad is her assumption that women are, heaven forbid, having fun. Some of the activities she denounces women for participating in aren't even coded as feminine, but she still hates them because they're leisurely---such as making vintage cocktails.  The pop culture role models she trots out are role models because they seem to have no life of their own outside of duty to family and to work place.  This isn't just not-feminist, but actually sexist.  Already women have far fewer leisure hours in the week than men.  Feminism is actually about demanding that women get to live full lives that include leisure activities.  We're trying to break away from thousands of years of women being treated like workhorses who only get a carrot after everyone else gets everything they want---and really, does everyone else ever have everything they want?

I said I was somewhat sympathetic to Aloi's point, however, and I want to explain: I don't think she's wrong that there's an ongoing backlash against women's gains and that it's resulting in pressure for women to be as unthreatening and powerless as possible.  Some of her examples even fit into this pattern: pole-dancing classes (for most women, though there are a few that are legitimate athletes at it at this point), the explosion in childish things.  There is a disturbing trend of women playing at being overgrown children who are legal to stick penises into, the Manic Pixie Dream Girl taken to the next level, where she dances non-threateningly and without shoes in fields of cotton candy.  But most of what Aloi is talking about isn't that.  I'd even argue that the cupcake trend has more to do with portability than cuteness.  Kristen Wiig's character in "Bridesmaids" was a cupcake expert, and there wasn't even a whiff of childishness about her, so I would argue the two really aren't that wed in the public imagination.*

And that's the problem here.  There's nothing inherently childish about tradtionally feminine activities, and many traditionally feminine activities are a valuable use of your time.  I realize the amount of sacchrine on Etsy can make anyone sick, but don't let the people with bad taste define the concept for you.  Many---most?---of the work coded as feminine in our history was still vital, necessary work, and often it's empowering to learn how to do it.  For instance, I really wish I knew how to sew, which means you could constantly alter the clothes you have or fix up thrift store ones for basically free.  And why the hostility to knowing how to garden and cook?  One of the benefits of feminism is that men feel free to pick up these valuable skills that improve your health and your diet, and I would argue improve creative thinking, while providing often-needed stress relief. ** Plus, baking is often a good, inexpensive way to make unique gifts for parties or friends.  And a lot of women start off with small, safe crafts and end up moving into fixing up furniture or wood-working.  I think it's true that some women retreat into crafts because it's cute and non-threatening, but just as many find that being able to make things with your own hands is empowering.  It can help you get away from the helpless little girl act. 

What's particularly telling is Aloi's hostility to vintage cocktails.  That's not even gender-coded as feminine!  Like working the grill, making cocktails has always been considered a masculine activity that women can do if necessary.  It indicates a generally negative view Aloi takes towards women having leisure activities.  Let's just put it this way: she disses heirloom tomatoes.  Twice. At a certain point, you have to imagine that Aloi's problem is with pleasure itself, not with women being cute and non-threatening.  A heirloom tomato hardly signals, "I'm a submissive little girl, don't fear me, easily startled man!"   I'd actually imagine an easily threatened man would find a heirloom tomato threatening.  Women who know their tomatoes are like women who order the wine without blinking.  It signals an intelligence and willingness to pursue mature pleasures---the sort of thing that easily threatened guys are trying to avoid.  It's not like having a Hello Kitty T-shirt and sticking to workout routines that don't do icky things like make you strong and powerful.

The more I think about it, the angrier I get.  Already women feel a ton of pressure never to kick back and enjoy the finer things in life, but instead to believe there's always a brow or a floor that needs mopping.  One of the toughest things a woman can do is say that she's taking some time for herself instead of just giving and working and giving and working.  

*Maybe "Bridesmaids" is sounding the death knell for the trend of passing off childish MPDGs as something for real women to aspire to be.  There was nary a woman wearing a romper while eating an ice cream cone with what "what, me?" expression on her face.  And men didn't run screaming for the hills, too afraid of women acting like adults to tolerate two whole hours of it. Suck it, Zooey Deschanel.  (Though you probably were sucking something already, chin pointed downwards, and eyes cast upwards as if you're ingratiating yourself with someone three feet taller.)  Kristen Wiig is the new boss in town. 

**That said, I retain the right to make fun of knitting.  I realize it's fun to do it, but unlike with baking or sewing, the final products are something to be endured instead of enjoyed.  Unless you get off on that sort of thing. 

And to make up for the lack of food blogging, I humbly submit this story from the NY Times:

“Just brown the meat, stir in the noodles, seasoning, then smite them, smite them with the liquid gold until there can be no more smiting,” says the blacksmith, played by David S. Lee with the precise diction and syntax of a Shakespearean actor, as he ladles the Velveeta cheese sauce included with the product into the pan......

In another spot, expected to first broadcast in mid-September but already uploaded to YouTube, a woman is pressing buttons on her microwave when the blacksmith grabs her wrist.

“Reject these cold technological contraptions,” he says. “Would you want the shoes of your horse forged in a microwave? Your stove: Use it!”

Adam Grablick, the brand manager for the Velveeta convenient meals division, said the new ads, and the Cheesy Skillets line itself, would resonate with consumers who wanted simplicity but had misgivings about meals that were too simple.

“Our consumer doesn’t want to be slaving away in the kitchen, but she may not feel great about just pulling something out of the freezer and putting it in the microwave,” Mr. Grablick said. “She wants the meal to be hands-on, and for the meal to come from her hands and her heart.”

It's fascinating that Velveeta has turned the growing concerns about junk food, fast food, and instant food and has decided that the reason the public is concerned about these things is because we're concerned that women aren't spending enough time in the kitchen.  Yes, Velveeta!  The nation as a whole is disturbed that a woman takes 10 minutes to produceartery-clogging crap, when she could have spent at least 30, perhaps even 45 minutes to make the same thing.  The entire national concern about food is really just a disguised desire to make women work harder for no reason whatsoever. 

I personally thought the turn towards more home cooking had more to do with Americans concerns about exploding heart disease and diabetes rates, myself. 

But what do I know?  It probably is just an irrational desire to make women work harder for no other reason than they're stupid bitches who need to show more effort around here.  Perhaps we can see more commercials promoting doing twice as much work for exactly the same results.  Maybe there will be a new trend towards women throwing out curling irons and getting back in to pin curls, or women being guilted out of mops and expected to scrub the floors on their hands and knees.  

So, we have a woman running for President who literally believes that her god made women to be the helpmeets of men, and that marriage should be built around women submitting to their husbands.  And this belief, being weird---especially for someone who claims she wants to run the entire nation---was asked about during a debate. 

And this is "sexist"?

No, it's not.  The belief she has  is sexist.  Asking a candidate about her sexist beliefs is well within bounds.  If a politician were running and followed a religion that believed that people under 5'4" were not fully human and should be routinely beat about the head by taller people, it wouldn't be sizeist to make her explain that belief to people she expects to vote for her, either. She's sizeist to believe that. 

It's pathetic that this is even being debated.  Stop letting conservatives who pretend to have the sense of very small children run us around in circles like this. Please.  

There's so many ways to respond to this tedious trotting out of stereotypes about feminists, all involving playing into the hands of people who want to condescendingly sneer at feminists for being so earnest, what with their interest in human rights and equality.  Well, I for one refuse.  Instead, I'm just going to make a list of my own, this time of women who disavow calling themselves feminists, even though by doing so, they kind of admit that they think they're inferior to men.

Angry, Joyless Anti-Feminists. 

Humorless, undersexed women who get their revenge for being boring joy killers by making sure other women aren't going to reap the rewards of liberation.  They tend to obsess heavily about other women's sex lives, and the stopping of them through unwanted child-bearing and/or coming down with an STD.  If you get raped, they're the first in line to say it's your fault for thinking you had a right to try to get some  joy out of life by going to parties, going on dates, drinking, or just leaving the house for reasons other than work and grocery shopping. 

Examples: Leslee Unruh, Michele Bachmann

I'm The Only Smart Girl In The Room Non-Feminists

These are women who believe themselves smart and capable---often as smart and capable as men---but believe they are the exception to the rule of women generally being stupid and boring.  By doing this, they get to feel superior to most other woman and treated, in their mind, like honorary men.  They live to hear some guy say to them, "You're not like other girls."  They are willing to tolerate men condescending to them and treating them as inferior as long as they get to be treated as better than all other women.

Examples: S.E. Cupp, Maureen Dowd

Just Plain Ignorant Non-Feminists

These are women who've bought all the anti-feminist propaganda about baby-killing and bra-burning, and they haven't thought to question it.  They probably would agree with feminists if they thought much about it, but by and large, they don't try to go there.  They're somewhat afraid of questioning the status quo anyway, because if they became feminists, they fear (often rightly) that they would be abandoned by their families and their communities.  It's easier to believe anti-woman bullshit just like it's easier to believe in god, since asking questions is just too damn dangerous.

Examples: Mostly not known, since sticking out is against their value system.  This group has heavy representation by well-meaning women who married young and don't have a lot of options. 

Self-Hating Women Who Want Applause From Misogynists To Quiet The Emotional Storm Inside Anti-Feminists

Similiar to the women who want to be the smartest girl in room, except these women are even meaner and exude hate for other women that is only equaled by their hunger to have creepiness-exuding misogynists say nice things about them.  It's not enough to simply dismiss other women as inferior; they openly hate other women and beg misogynists to give them cookies for their willingness to attack other women.  Sometimes they pretend they are feminists, because doing so makes their attacks on other women even uglier and more protracted.

Examples:  Ann Althouse, Ann Coulter (don't name your girls Ann, people)

I Pander To Sexist Pigs Because I Don't Believe I Can Get Actual Respect From Men Non-Feminists

These are women who agree with the actual points of feminism, but they don't have enough spine to stand up for their beliefs.  They're just so afraid of some guy somewhere not liking them that they cherish the head pats of sexist douchebags who don't think much of women. They don't expect that men can give women actual respect, much less be enthusiastic about women and women's ideas.  When they see men that are overtly pro-woman,they suspect said men have ulterior motives, because their suspicious views make it hard for them to imagine that a man could actually just like a woman for herself. To be fair, if you're out in the world, you do meet a lot of men like this, but these women haven't caught on to the idea that entertaining men who don't really like you is a waste of your time, time that could be better spent finding more interesting people to hang out with (including---gasp!---women). They like to pander to sexist men by making fun of feminists, but often secretly envy feminists for not being afraid to face criticism.  They believe that no one will ever want to fuck you again if you're caught doing something like admiring Nancy Pelosi or giving money to Planned Parenthood, so they do these things in secret while practicing their "I'm not a stupid feminist" act in the mirror while wearing a romper before going out to mingle with men who don't even pretend to listen to them talk.  They believe that having men treat you like you're the second coming of Zooey Deschanel will cure the yearning for something greater inside.  Many feminists are nice to them, but mainly because they feel kind of bad for them.

Examples: Well, I'd say Johanna De Silentio's piece at Thought Catalog is the best example of the form I've seen in the past 24 hours.

My largest problem with De Silentio's piece was that it was kind of lazy.  There were entire swaths of feminists she could have stereotyped in order to get head pats from sexist douchebags.  I personally felt left out---where was the category of feminists who are addicted to withering sarcasm?  I kind of think Tina Fey belonged to that category, anyway. 

We feminists are big on talking about double standards, with the stud/slut dichotomy being a particular favorite, in fact often referred to as the double standard.  But I think one that we tend to circle around in discussion around sex, consent, sex work, etc. is the way that the continuing model of heterosexuality is based on the he's buying/she's selling model.  That's the most obvious when it comes to sex work, where men are literally buying and women are literally selling, but I think that the assumption that men are the choosers and women are the chosen is the functioning one in even more liberal circles.  (And in misogynist circles, the assumption isn't concealed in neat little euphemisms, and the free market ideology causes them to whine that minor girls aren't legally available for sale.)  But generally I don't see feminists tackle this problem directly, unless they're Twisty Faster, and obviously she's talking on an experimental plane that is interesting for provoking thought but doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on the lives of those of us who aren't playing footsie with a separationist kind of thing.  

I'd really like to see more discussion of this double standard as a double standard.  I think that it underpins a lot of rape culture and creepy demands from so-called Nice Guys®, because the women are selling/men are buying model of heterosexuality has the side consequence of convincing the public that men are entitled to partner sex.  After all, in our economic systemm, as long as you have the money, it's unheard of to turn you away as a customer, often because of non-discrimination laws.  Now, the price in the heterosexual dating system isn't always money---this is a metaphorical, not a literal economy---but consider the whine of the Nice Guys®.  They paid the price of giving a woman attention and pretending to listen to her, and now she has to sell, right? Most interestingly, since women are considered a product and men the buyers, women are also considered a resource, and arguments about equitable distribution come into play.   

Women, on the other hand, are the sellers in the heterosexual economy.  Our job is to make sure the product is worth buying.  We are no more entitled to partner sex than a company is entitled to move all its widgets when customers aren't buying.  

Dating advice tends to get gendered along these lines.  When women aren't getting any action, it's pretty much standard to tell them to look at themselves and see if they're charging too high a price for the product they have on offer.  The advice from there is to either improve the quality of the product or lower the price.  Granted, upbeat American society being what it is, most of the advice industry aimed at women is about improving the quality of the product.  

But you definitely get your share of people griping that women are too full of themselves and think they deserve more than they do, i.e. that they charge too high a price for a crappy product. Advice to settle isn't as rampant as advice to learn how to suck cock better and tighten those abs more, but it's definitely out there.  The assumption in a market view also is that the seller really has to sell, but the buyer has an option not to buy.  Thus, in our heterosexual dating model, women are often cast as so desperate to get the man to sign on the dotted line and drive off with his new car-wife.  Men are buyers, of course, and therefore are cast as hesitant to spend the money, and thus commitment is seen as a tense negotiation between a woman trying to move product and a man worried that he's paying too much.  Many conservatives warn that because women are willing to have sex outside of marriage now, that has made it all the much easier for men not to buy at all, much like the way that an avid bicyclist is probably going to be that much harder to sell a new car to. 

Men's sex and dating advice tends to be more on the grounds of being a better consumer.  Pick-up artist books and websites aren't interested in teaching men how to improve the product so more women want to buy.  Seriously, PUA guides read like guides on buying a car---show up looking like money, demonstrate to the salesman that you fill out the checklist of requirements to get a car, talk down the price (which PUA guides suggest you do by insulting women, hoping the loss of esteem in their product will cause them to sell at a lower price), and you're done.  Actual improvement of one's self is as strange an idea as suggesting that you have to have good character and a tight waistline to get a car.  You just need to have the cash, the credit rating, and a solid ability to bargain. 

So much of what causes strife and 500 comment threads on heterosexuality online is when feminists challenge this model of heterosexuality, though again,  I think we usually peck at various manifestations of it as opposed to directly attacking this metaphorical understanding of dating. Elevatorgate caused strife for this reason.  In the market model of dating, men are allowed to drive a hard bargain, just like consumers are allowed to haggle. Offense at being told that this is scary resembled the offense one might take if one is thrown out of a car dealership because you weren't wearing a suit---hey, you don't know if he  has the money!  He should be allowed to at least make an offer!  The reason feminists flinch when using the "I have a boyfriend/husband" strategy to get a pest off them is because that's basically saying that you aren't for sale, because someone has already paid for you.  

And of course, the reason that threads about men who buy sex blow up to epic proportions here is that there's always a handful of guys pushing the Sad Unfuckable John myth, i.e. the belief that men who go to sex workers are just sad sacks who can't get laid through normal means and so are forced---because men are entitled to partner sex---to pay for it.  The fact that women don't turn to paying men for sex if they can't get it through normal means isn't even acknowledged.  After all, women are the sellers, and sellers don't have the right to sell in the way that buyers have the right to buy if they can get the money together.  Feminists are told we're supposed to sympathize with the largely mythical (in reality, most johns have wives or girlfriends, don't actually enjoy the paid-for sex in and of itself, and are mainly shoring up their masculine bona fides by proving they can buy and control women) Sad Unfuckable John, because you know, women are a resource and as good liberals we should want more equitable distribution. 

A lot of us feminists who came up online have been promoting a model of sexuality called "enthusiastic consent", and I think that one thing that could strengthen this is tackling the market model of heterosexuality.  Because, to put on my Twisty Faster hat, if we cast men as buyers and women as sellers, that means that women are assumed to be in a perpetual state of consent just as that gallon of milk at the store is assumed to be on sale for anyone who can cobble together the $5 to buy it.  As long as the market model of heterosexuality is in play, the notion that sex should be a mutual exchange between two individuals will not make so much sense to people.  

What brings all this to my mind was reading Tracy Clark-Flory's examination of when "violent sex", aka sex that involves violence without enthusiastic consent, is okay.  To those of us who don't buy into the market model of heterosexuality, the answer is simple: never.  It's  never okay to have sex with someone who isn't saying yes, and it's especially never okay to make someone feel afraid or threatened.  If a man can't get enthusiastic consent for rough sex from an equal, well, too bad.  Clark-Flory comes to these conclusions, but it was heart-breaking to see how much the idea that men are entitled to partner sex infects our ability to see the ethics of these situations clearly.

How should rough (or "brutal") sex be appropriately negotiated? What should we call an encounter where brutality and dominance is not requested, but also not objected to? Is it the responsibility of the aggressor to OK it with their partner, or is it the "receptive" partner's responsibility to object if it's undesirable?

For those of us who don't believe men are entitled to partner sex, but that it should be a mutual exchange between enthusiastic partners, these aren't complex questions: 1) By open communication between two people who put each other's safety first.  2) It's always wrong, and it's often straight up rape. 3) The responsibility is on the person doing the asking, always. People speaking up for themselves is good, but it's not required.  Making sure you aren't assaulting someone is the responsibility of the person pushing for more. 

All of this is obvious if you don't believe men are buyers and women are sellers.  The notion that she's consenting until she says "no" is ridiculous when applied to other social situations.  For instance, we invite people to parties.  We don't tell them where to be at what time and expect them to work up the courage to say no. We especially don't lure people into our homes under false pretenses and then bar the door and demand they plead a little before we let them out. We don't show up at people's houses uninvited, bags in hand, and start making ourselves comfortable unless they throw a fit and toss us out.  Sex is a social situation, and should be treated as one. But instead, it's treated like a market and so we all have to wonder if it's acceptable to pressure an unwilling person as long as that person isn't fighting back.  

Of course, people are notoriously bad at actually communicating during sex -- whether it's outright stating what they want or asking what their partner wants.

I think that this sentence is a clear example of how the notion that men are entitled to partner sex can creep up even on feminists.  Some men are bad negotiators!  Feel sorry for them!  We certainly can't tell them that it's just too bad if they can't charm someone into having enthusiastic sex with them, because that implies they aren't entitled to partner sex.  To be clear, that's not what Tracy's saying by any means.  But the stance of pity towards a man who struggles to get things like consent is rooted in the largely unexamined male entitlement to women's time and affections. 

I actually would say that my ideal is a world where everyone is kind of selling a little, but no one is cast as a buyer.  I think that people's friendships work this way, in fact.  People shouldn't feel entitled to have the time or affection of others, but instead should assume the responsibility of being charming enough to have people give it to them of their own free will. I do see a turn towards this in our culture somewhat, with men actually starting to think a little harder about being what women want instead of just meeting the metaphorical price tag that they are socialized to think is hanging off women.  We just have a long way to go. 

Oh lord, Elevatorgate is continuing to go on, as these things do when a bunch of men (and their pathetic female supporters) swear up and down that the biggest problem this world faces is a bunch of nice, well-meaning guys can't get laid because women are meanies.  Every time I've written about Nice Guys®, I've picked up at least one man who makes a permanent enemy out of me, proving often how "nice" he is by sending me a bunch of nasty emails or blog comments about how I understand how his niceness keeps him from getting laid and women are all shallow bitches that like to be abused.  Indeed, the "niceness" I've experienced at the hands of self-proclaimed Nice Guys® has done little to convince me that they're actually nice guys who've been edged out of the sexual market by women's inconstancy and evilness, and has instead convinced me they strike out a lot because their entitlement issues make them irritating to be around.  

Unfortunately, the fantasy that there are scores of genuinely nice guys whose decency can be measured in how often they strike out with the ladies persists.  Psychology Today, which is basically a right wing rag that uses pseudo-science to argue for a view of race and gender on par with Bill O'Reilly's, has unsurprisingly weighed in on the whole notion of whether it's okay to corner women in elevators, hoping that raising the stakes of saying no will get you to "yes".  David has the whole disturbing spectacle, but the sum of it is, "Women shouldn't scold men who do predatory, frightening things because they're all just Nice Guys® who are shy, which is identical to meaning well."  

There are a couple of fallacies with the "men just corner women because they're shy and fear rejection" argument.  The first is the assumption that shyness precludes ill intent.  There is no evidence for this assertion.  On the contrary, many self-proclaimed "shy" men online are also eager defenders of "pick-up artists", i.e. their sense of entitlement to women's bodies allows them to believe that it's acceptable to see a "no" from a woman as a challenge, instead of respecting her wishes.  That's not nice at all.  Many shy people are nice, and they tend to be the shy people who say no means no.  My point isn't that shy people are bad, just that shyness in and of itself doesn't mean anything about the rest of your personality.  There are shy assholes, and shy saints.  If a man starts with the assumption that sex is a zero-sum game and getting laid is about getting one over on a woman, he's an asshole, no matter how hard it is for him to work up the courage to do this. 

But more importantly is the fallacy that choices made from shyness are indistinguishable from choices made by belligerent sexual predators. 

In order to understand what I mean, let's review actual research done on sexual predators.  Thomas at Yes Means Yes did a great job of summarizing the findings of researchers who actually bothered to interview rapists and figure out what their patterns are. I think it's worth reading the whole thing, but the relevant piece here is a summary of the standard M.O. of sexual predators:

In the course of 20 years of interviewing these undetected rapists, in both research and forensic settings, it has been possible for me to distill some of the common characteristics of the modus operandi of these sex offenders. These undetected rapists:

• are extremely adept at identifying “likely” victims, and testing prospective victims’ boundaries;

• plan and premeditate their attacks, using sophisticated strategies to groom their victims for attack, and to isolate them physically;

• use “instrumental” not gratuitous violence; they exhibit strong impulse control and use only as much violence as is needed to terrify and coerce their victims into submission;

• use psychological weapons – power, control, manipulation, and threats – backed up by physical force, and almost never resort to weapons such as knives or guns;

• use alcohol deliberately to render victims more vulnerable to attack, or completely unconscious.

Emphasis mine.  At least three of these behaviors are displayed immediately by a man propositioning a woman who has been drinking in an elevator.  Once the target has displayed strong boundaries, a smart rapist moves on to his next victim.  This one is just too much trouble.  

Now, let's be clear.  Not all men who isolate women and start testing their boundaries are rapists, i.e. men who won't take no for an answer.  But, as I argued before, they are still sexual predators who use the implication of violence to raise the stakes for saying no.  If you've been cornered by a man, you don't know if he takes no for an answer or not.  You just know that he's the kind of guy who has so little respect for you as a human being he would do something like corner you, which tends to drastically raise concerns that he doesn't take no for an answer.  (It is worth noting that the research indicates that setting strong boundaries quickly can be protective, because actual rapists do tend to test them for weakness before making their move.  That said, there is no foolproof way to avoid being raped.)  Men who do this live in the world and grasp this.  They know women are told not to meet strange men in isolated places, told not to go to dinner on a first date with a stranger (instead choosing coffee or drinks, which makes it easier to bail politely), and they know that they have the B-word in their pocket to fling at women who are firm in rejecting them.  They also know that women know this.  They manipulate all these things---which everyone knows----for their benefit.

I've been cornered by men, though now that I've grown older and don't give a flying fuck if someone calls me a bitch, it hasn't happened in a long time.  I tend to pass the initial boundary-testing, I suspect.  But when I was younger and still stuck in my feminine conditioning to be nice and assume the best of everyone (even men who creep me out), I got cornered a number of times.  Luckily, never by a rapist.  But every time, it was by someone who was willing to let the idea of rape hang in the air while I tried to figure out how to say no and get out of there without provoking someone who might be a rapist.  The way it usually went is that they found some pretext for isolating me, often by having a male friend distract any female friend I was with, but I've also been followed into isolated areas.  Then they made me feel uneasy by acting outside of the normal bounds of human interaction---usually by immediately introducing the idea of sex without any prior flirting or indication from me that this was welcome.  On the contrary, they knew damn well I wasn't into them, often to the point where it was painfully obvious.  And yet, I often found myself pondering the notion that maybe the quickest way to get out of this situation safely would be to tolerate some sexual interaction with the hopes he'd be pleased with himself and let me go quietly.  It never happened, because I would be so disgusted and angry at the idea that I'd stop caring if I was perceived as a bitch.  But the amount of effort it took to say no was outrageous, and has included trawling a party for a friend who has disappeared and demanding that I be taken home right now because I'm having a miserable night. This has happened to me and I've rescued friends that it's happening to, and one thing I can safely say about all these interactions is never once did I pick up a "shy" vibe off the Guy Who Corners Women. 

Thus, I'm intensely skeptical that the behavior of shy guys who are well-meaning but awkward is indistinguishable from cocky assholes who think it's acceptable to obtain sexual favors from unwilling women by using heavy-handed tactics.  I personally cannot think of another situation where people claim behavior that is usually associated with pushy assholes is indistinguishable from behavior of shy people.  

But let's assume for the sake of argument that there are cadres of shy but well-meaning men who somehow manage to behave exactly like predatory assholes.  Hey, three left turns equals a right turn, you know?  It's possible, though highly unlikely.  (And as a skeptic, I'm forced to point out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.)  If this is true, then by definition, the response to hearing "don't corner women in isolated spaces and proposition them, forcing them to wonder if you're going to let them go without violence or abuse" is, "Holy shit!  Thank you for the excellent advice.  I shall, being a well-meaning guy, never ever do that to a woman.  Any women I have done that to, my sincerest apologies.  As a well-meaning person, the last thing I would ever do is make a woman fear rape. I'm ashamed and appalled at any instances where I awkwardly caused fear."

But the reaction that Rebecca Watson got instead was, "How is a guy supposed to get laid if he can't corner women in elevators?" or "How dare you tell men what to do?" or "Being against cornering women is being against sex, strawman strawman."  By definition---this is tautological---that reaction cannot come from a well-meaning but shy person.  That reaction may come from a shy person (but I'm skeptical, since shy people tend not to be so belligerent in their defensiveness), but it cannot come from a well-meaning person.  

As I noted during the Elevatorgate debacle, I had just recently written an article about the link between the atheist movement and broader social justice movements, and how that link could be explicated and strengthened.  It turned out to be ironic, because it came out right as this controversy was causing a number of atheists to expose how low their opinion of women really is, and at least how unwilling they are to support feminists even if they quietly believe in feminist goals.  That's too bad, because the two worldviews, as I noted, are firmly intertwined and the alliance could be of great help all around.  

Take, for instance, elections.  I'm uncomfortable comparing the levels of oppression atheists face with the levels of oppression other groups face---look, I don't get my opinion cavalierly dismissed or harassed on the street because I don't believe in god, but I do get both of those on a regular basis for being female---but it's definitely true that extreme amounts of fear and hatred towards atheism in the country does result in forms of oppression.  One that movement atheists like to dwell on is the prejudice against electing atheists to office.  The best way to combat that prejudice like that is to take it on directly.  Start supporting atheist candidates, and if you do, they'll start having a better chance at winning office and that prejudice, which is based as much on fear and ignorance as anything else, will fade. 

Now here's where I'm going to tell you that atheists would be wise to actually pay attention to feminists.  Because---and let's be clear, many movement atheists really do get this---feminists and atheists face a common enemy, the religious right that wants to shove anti-woman theocracy down our throats.  If feminists are able to pound these misogynist fuckwits out of office, atheists will find that the political support for the theocratic agenda will decline.  Take, for instance, the case of Heath Shuler. 

Feminists hate Heath Shuler, who is a first class misogynist and a member of the religious right who happens to be a Blue Dog Democrat instead of a Republican.  Sarah Jaffe explains why he's such a fuckwit:

Feminists are angry with Shuler for his position on abortion and his role in co-sponsoring bills that would defund Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations, that would further restrict abortion access, narrow the rape exception that allows women seeking abortions to access federal funds, and allow hospitals to turn away women who need emergency abortion services. Shuler supported H.R. 3, for example, the controversial bill that once included a clause that would limit abortions paid for with government funds to victims of “forcible rape.”

He's also opposed to gay marriage and laws that forbid discriminating against gays in employment.  All this makes sense when you realize that Shuler is a member of the religious right. He's a member of The Family, the theocratic organization that works, somewhat in secrecy (which has eroded due to the brave work of journalist Jeff Sharlet), to push their imperialist form of fundamentalist Christianity into the government.  They also backed the organizations in Uganda that promote the "kill the gays" bill.  As a religious right Democrat, Shuler is basically working to undermine the Democratic party as a reliable source of support for women's rights, civil rights, and religious liberty.  He has to go. 

Luckily, Shuler is being primaried by an atheist feminist, Cecil Bothwell, who has gained some attention for being an openly atheist (he prefers the term "non-theist", but whatever) city councilman in North Carolina.  Bothwell has been facing some horrible attacks for his atheism.  If atheists really want to step up and stop oppression against atheists, they need to throw their full support behind Bothwell to fight attacks like these:

During his Asheville City Council campaign in 2009, two direct mailings were sent around warning voters of his non-belief, and after his election opponents tried to prevent him from being sworn in. The U.S. Constitution, of course, forbids religious tests for office, so the former green builder, journalist, and author (of a political biography of preacher Billy Graham) was able to take his seat.

Don't let the people wringing their hands about expanding the Democratic caucus by any means necessary scare you off this.  Shuler is a snake in the grass who spends his time on the Hill trying to undermine Nancy Pelosi, who is, last I checked, the main source of hope this country still has.  The seat is probably not going to depend on Bible-thumping and being a moderate Republican posing as a Democrat, anyway, as the district has been severely redistricted.  But this is a good time to take a stand and send a message that the Democrats just can't be embracing the religious right or overt misogynists in an ill-advised bid to somehow win over the good ol' boys.  

So, folks, let's give Bothwell some support!  Let's blog about him as a feminist and an atheist standing up against the religious right in North Carolina.  Let's get some donations going.  There's no time like the present to start taking a stand against this bullshit.  

It's not, by the way, that I oppose finding Democratic candidates with crossover appeal in the South.  For instance, I see no reason not to start a campaign to draft Tim McGraw to run against Rand Paul in Kentucky, which would mean exchanging an actual liberal with buckets full of redneck appeal for prissy little Rand "I can't flush my toilet twice wah" Paul.  We need to be more strategic about it is all. 

There's no small amount of irony in the fact that I published this article about how the atheist movement dovetails with other social justice movements this particular week.  I was actually feeling pretty good about the whole thing, because I was writing it while traveling to CONvergence to speak at the invitation of Skepchick about the feminist depths of this issue, on a panel called "Women vs. God", where we discussed fighting the religious right.  Talking about my commitment to feminism through an atheist angle always pleases me, since the two are firmly intertwined in my mind---religion and patriarchy are so intertwined as to be functionally the same thing in most ways, especially in the context of history.  Pulilng down one means pulling down the other, and I think it's naive when anyone denies that and instead claims that there's a way to preserve religion without patriarchy or vice versa.  I'm thinking long term here; obviously in the short term there are religious feminists and sexist atheists. 

In fact, what makes all this ironic is I did get an eyeful this weekend of how serious the problem of sexism in the atheist/skeptical movement really is, and how much hard work needs to be done to get a male-dominated movement to take the problem of sexual harassment and female alienation seriously.  (Though by and large claims for reproductive rights go unchallenged; there are a few loud-mouths whose virulent sexism will cause them to take anti-choice nonsense seriously, but it's so steeped in religious woo that most atheists can't be bothered.)  Because right as I was traveling, conferencing, and writing about atheism, there was a blow-up that started because a guy exploited his position as a fellow atheist/skeptic to act like a creep towards a movement leader who happens to be female.  The controversy---and this is truly pathetic---is because she decided instead of just rolling over and taking it, she would say something about it. I know!  The bitch.

I don't want to recount everything that happened in depth, because it's really done better elsewhere, but what happened was this: Rebecca Watson, who travels extensively speaking about skepticism and atheism, was at a conference in Ireland and a guy followed her onto an elevator at 4AM and cold propositioned her for sex in this enclosed space without ever speaking to her before.  She mentioned it in a vlog that was mostly about other stuff, mainly to illustrate why this behavior is unacceptable and can turn women off from participating in events such as the conference.

The usual excuse-making for the guy immediately proceeded.  I'm sure you guys could generate all the excuses on your own: Claiming that men don't really know what's appropriate and what's not because women make it so complicated.  (This has been demonstrated untrue with research, though common sense should also apply.)  Denying the difference between flirting and cornering women in hopes that the implication of fear will grease the wheels for you getting your dick wet.  Claiming that introducing a whiff of coercion and fear into a situation is okay as long as you're willing to take no for an answer at the end of the day.  All of which reminds me of one of the great scenes from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia".  

In sum, men who corner women know what they're doing. And yes, they are relying on the fear of rape to grease the wheels towards getting laid.  Rebecca may not have  put it that way, but being a mean ol' feminist bitch, I'm happy to say it.  Also: duh.  It also strikes me, in my dealing with geek culture, that there's a taboo against rejecting someone, and creepy dudes also are happy to exploit that, knowing that women who reject them will be condemned for violating the "don't be judgmental" rule. 

And I also know, being a feminist for many years now, that whenever a bunch of dudes start freaking out on a woman who called out some egregious sexism, there are a bunch of women willing to back those dudes up in order to get that coveted male approval and attention.  I call this move Pulling An Althouse.  Or Dr. Helen, if you prefer.  Or maybe just call them Sister Punishers.  And they were thick on the ground in this case, and Rebecca used a quote from one of her female attackers in a speech where she was talking about there's sexism in the atheist movement (as a prelude to the more obvious fact that there's sexism in religion).  You can read the whole story here. Rebecca sounds like she was much nicer about it than I was; I'm prone to making jokes such as, "The guys you attract with this crap don't go down, so I don't know why you bother."  It does make you look desperate, ladies.  I'm just saying.  

Anyway, this launched Round Two of Silence the Feminist.  This time, the theme was, "Sure, you may be right that this dude was a creep but shut up, since you're making people uncomfortable and can't we get back to talking about how religious people are sexists?"  This was greased by a political strategy known as Calvinball---one that the right is really good at, by the way---where you make up brand new rules of discourse that were previously unknown and then chastise the target for breaking the rule that didn't exist before because you just made it up.  In this particular case, Rebecca broke the previously unknown rule wherein you can't actually quote someone's public words and the name they publish under when disagreeing with them, at least if your blog has more traffic than theirs does.  It may also be true that there are exceptions on every other Sunday, but I'm not sure. 

Here is a classic example, from the usually rational Hemant Mehta, of this Calvinball argument:

This was bad form for two reasons. One, it was a distraction from an otherwise important talk. Instead of us discussing the incredibly important issue of how the Religious Right harms women (the subject of the talk), we’re all discussing whether it’s right for someone with a big megaphone to pick on someone with a smaller one, whether someone was being a “bad feminist,” and all sorts of shit that doesn’t need to be aired in public.

Two, whether it was the intention or not, you’ve convinced a young female in our movement that if she says something you don’t like, she better be ready for an all-out barrage of criticism from every “big name” in the atheist blogosphere.

It has it all: 1) Countering criticism that makes you uncomfortable by saying there's something more important to worry about 2) Shaming a woman for having success  3) Sexist paternalism in the form of arguing that a woman has to be shielded from open discourse lest she be too frightened to return and 4) Implying that said paternalism is feminism.  Sarah Palin's P.R. team would be proud. 

Personally, I think that convincing an audience of atheists that the religious right sucks is probably much less of a challenge than convincing them to look at themselves and find imperfections, and I applaud Rebecca for being willing to take the hard road. 

That's the bad news.  The good news is that people in the movement are fighting back against this tedious and predictable sexism,  and they're fighting hard.  PZ Myers, as usual, is on the side of the angels.  So is Jennifer McCreight. Sadly, Richard Dawkins was a dick about all this. 

To sum up a long story, what is fascinating to me about all this is that it's something that tends to happen over and over again, and while it sucks at the time, it tends to pay off over the long run.  Many of the attackers, especially the ones pulling the "you're right but shut up" card, may resist now, but they absorb and learn and often adjust their attitudes, a little at a time.  Now that the issue has been raised, it's hard to ignore it in the future.  More attempts to make things female-friendly usually come out of this.  But it is fascinating how these things have a predictable rhythm to them. 

I found this piece at Good about a woman who converted to veganism but whose boyfriend didn't troubling.  Now, to be clear, I don't eat meat, but I do eat dairy and eggs and very occasionally (as a treat) fish, and so my life is generally much easier than a vegan's.  And that might be the reason why I've never really felt that the mixed-relationship thing is that hard.  Most restaurants have vegetarian options, at least in your more cosmopolitan cities.  And most importantly, I never have really dated guys who throw temper tantrums if there isn't meat on the plate. Just because someone will eat meat doesn't mean they have to eat meat at every meal.  As long as your only measure for eating something is, "Does it taste good?", then drifting towards a more vegetarian diet because you're dating a vegetarian isn't really that hard. Of course, I offer the caveat that veganism is different, complete with reasonable concerns that vegan food often features a lot of crappy meat substitutes that vegetarian food often doesn't, for reasons that are a little too complex to get into here.  Still, this passage here upset me:

But instead, he is totally thrown off by the whole vegan thing. The tension came to a head a few weeks ago when we were on vacation in Palm Springs. The lone vegan-friendly place in the greater Palm Springs area is a vegan-only place, and the menu was rife with fake cheese and fake meat. I get that my boyfriend is creeped out by fake animal products posing as the real thing. But sometimes I just want him to bite the proverbial bullet and at least pretend to enjoy a slab of barbeque seitan.

This is not an unreasonable desire.  Since I can go pretty much anywhere to eat (except maybe some Texas barbeque places), I don't have to go to vegan or vegetarian restaurants, but I do it all the time with my boyfriend or friends.  Why?  Because a lot of the time, they're just good restaurants.  There are a handful of places in Austin and in New York where non-veggie friends suggest going, not because they're pandering to me, but because they just like the place.  The notion that it's some sort of hell to eat in a vegetarian or vegan restaurant is baffling.  If you don't like fake cheese or fake meat, most of these places have plenty of dishes that don't feature either.  There's bean-bashed dishes, mushroom-based dishes, pastas, stir fries, etc.  I don't particularly like fake meat precisely because there's no need for it, since there's a variety of other things to eat.  I don't find her boyfriend's reaction adorably quirky or even mildly irritating.  I find it childish. 

And I think this whole article points to an interesting aspect of the growing trend of meat reduction in diets, either through vegetarianism, veganism, or part-time versions of either (such as the Mark Bittman "vegan until 6" diet or the weekday vegetarian program): it's really gendered.  I don't think this gets covered sufficiently, because so many prominent voices in the new green foodie culture are male, but women are far more likely than men to adopt these strategies to reduce their consumption of animal products.  Which means there are probably a lot of "mixed marriages" out there amongst the straights, and this means that how dietary differences are dealt with gets all mixed up with gendered expectations, male privilege, and power dynamics that exist even amongst the most well-meaning and feminist straight couples.

My sense that gender plays into this comes also from the fact that while most people are very nice about my vegetarianism (it helps that I'm not pushy or hectoring about it), the only people who jump all over me, at least in person, have been male.  Not eating meat is seen by some men as emasculating, and subsequently a woman who doesn't play along---even if she's not pushy at all---is seen as threatening.  (These will often be the same guys who take it personally if you get a male pet neutered.)  But beyond all that, there's just the fact that women are supposed to be the ones who are accommodating and self-sacrificing.  Plus, women's choices are seen as irrational and emotional, and men's as rational, and so even though vegetarianism is often better for you in terms of cancer and heart disease prevention, there's potential for it to get characterized as stupid girl shit, ironically by men who are being completely irrational. 

Which is the vibe I get off this story:

I’ve gotten used to it and found ways to be comfortable without being imposing, but I still feel awkward when my boyfriend and I go out to eat in a group with other people. He always seems slightly embarrassed and apologetic that his girlfriend is a vegan weirdo.

But for all his eye rolling and complaining, my boyfriend respects my choice and how I’ve stuck to it.

Look, there are few of us that are relationship saints.  Everyone teases and eye rolls and acts embarrassed at times.  But a constant fucking drumbeat of it aimed at someone's diet isn't respecting anything.  It actually reads more like a man who finds veganism threatening and who feels entitled to treat his girlfriend poorly about her choices, because he sees those choices as stupid girl shit.  I've been a vegetarian for more than half my adult life---going on 9 years now, I think---and have been around other vegetarians and vegans and so I know for a fact that you can handle the dietary restrictions without just constantly whining about it.  In fact, many meat eaters find that they slip into not eating meat fairly easily once they have some practice being around a vegetarian, as long as they aren't just constantly pouting because they expect that others are there to do all the accommodating.  If you're generous to a vegan or vegetarian, you often discover that they do a lot more emotional work making sure they're not a hassle than you initially thought, and that empathy can teach you to be less picky and close-minded about food.  

Okay, I'm so incredibly sick of this stupid Anthony Weiner thing, but feminism has been sucked into it, and bigger issues are being attached to it, so what are you going to do?  I can't pray for this country to grow up, since there is no god and prayer doesn't work.  But this morning I wrote about women, feminists even, taking on the schoolmarm role, and I forgot to load it down with caveats about how sex needs to be consensual, and so concerns about consent naturally came up.  I honestly hoped that my long track record of being all for consent would spare me the need to write a few hundred more words, but alas.  

Dana Goldstein and I are on Bloggingheads today rehashing our debate about Weiner and whether or not politicians should be held to a sexual standard.

In it, she raises the same concerns about consent, as did Ta-Nehisi.  It appears that one of the women involved has been clear that she did not engage with Weiner in any sexy talk prior to the penis picture.  And while she's not accusing him of harassment, I think that likely rises to the level of it.  I hope it's obvious that this is a much different kettle of fish.

But I still think most of my concerns are firmly in place.  This isn't a consent scandal.  To be fair, we do have consent scandals in our media.  Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a consent scandal, for instance.  But can anyone look deep into their heart and say that this would be going down any differently if every single woman involved was saying, "I was completely into it.  Cock pictures, yum!" No, we cannot.  Hell, if anything, that would probably just make it worse.  

I think what I'm getting at here is that this isn't about defending Anthony Weiner. This is about how much power we give to right wing fucktards like Andrew Breitbart who are completely unconcerned with consent, and whose sole purpose is to start up sexual witch hunts.  One of the reasons that I wasn't completely aware of the compromised consent issues is that it's been treated like an irrelevant aspect in the media.  Weiner's completely consensual chat logs are being given even more attention than the single picture we know was non-consensual, and the reason is there's more there to feed the prurient interest.  I think it's important to tease out these various issues, as complicated as it is.  The next target for a witch hunt is probably going to be 100% consensual stuff that simply is humiliating if put in the public square, because consent has no impact on why this particular scandal is a scandal. 

For instance, in my post this morning, I was addressing two separate situations that had zero to do with the consent concerns.  The Jezebel piece was about cheating and lying, and the Democratic women are playing up the female-judges-of-philanderers angle.  I've seen more ink spilled on the question of whether or not there's an angle with the fact that he did this in his office and at the gym than the consent question.  (As I noted in the video, I don't really see a gaping difference between using your down time at work to send sexy messages to people and using it to play Angry Birds, so long as you're careful not to involve coworkers.)  Since the media is making this about sex, I'm addressing my media critiques to the sex angle.  If we're having a conversation about consent, that's a much different conversation.

My concern that I've been on about is bigger than a single politician who is probably going to be redistricted away anyway.  It's about the future of politics and placing such prudish standards on private behavior that no one will actually be able to meet them. And it's women, I believe, who will pay more.  At Double X, I wrote about this piece in the NY Times, and one thing that was noted was that women are easily discouraged from running for office because they're afraid of being picked to death by an often-misogynist media and their political opposition. This is a legitimate fear!  And in our new post-Weiner era, when your bedroom doors are being flung open and your truly personal behavior is being considered part of your job qualifications, women will get it way worse. There are many people who will feign outrage if a woman simply sleeps with a man she's not married to, and who wants to deal with that? If we want more gender equality in politics, this is not going to help in the slightest.  

Excellent piece in Salon on why Anthony Weiner is getting denounced by the same congress critters who backed Charlie Rangel, who was actually accused of real ethics violations, and not just being a sad dude who bolsters his ego by getting ladies on the internet to tell him he's sexy.  Basically, Weiner didn't make a lot of friends, and that's apparently what matters the most.  I want to pull something from it, however, that's marginal to the point of the piece:

Several of his House colleagues, including the woman tasked with recruiting candidates for the 2012 elections, said it in the days following Weiner’s admission last week that he’d sent lewd photos to several young women. And now Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, have joined the chorus.

So the finger-wagging work has been relegated to the women.  Great.  But it's not just in Congress.  Erin Gloria Ryan of Jezebel wrote a piece about how Weiner's situation is causing her to question the trustworthiness of all the men in her life.

When men whom I admire let their families down- Anthony Weiner, to use a timely example, or Bill Clinton, to use an example that Jay Leno still likes to use as joke fodder- I can't help but apply it to my own life. If men like that are capable of lying to their families and to the public, then who's to say that the men in my life aren't doing the same to me? When men in public mess up, they're making it a little worse for other men, as the more I learn about the level of deceit that seemingly good men are capable of, the more gun-shy I feel about what men tell me, the less inclined I am to believe everything a man tells me. I become a side-eye machine, cross examining, and disbelieving mundane things.

Yes, let's make this about men vs. women. Erin is being a bit tongue-in-cheek (I think), and admits that it's unfair to judge all men by the actions of a few.  But still, this entire piece bothered me because once again it upholds an extremely conservative view of gender, where men are naughty little boys with overactive libidos and women are scolding schoolmarms whose trustworthiness is assured because we're practically asexual.  

Women should resist this crap with all our might.  In this moment, it feels pretty good, I'm sure, because it casts women as morally superior and all that.  Though that alone should give anyone with feminist sympathies pause, since we should be striving to unite men and women as equals, and avoid this pitting them against each other shit that sexists do.  But not only is that a problem in terms of truth (women cheat nearly as much as men, and most research points to the gap as being most likely a matter of opportunity and not desire), but also because this is just the patriarchy selling the same old double standard, but dressing it up and making it seem like it's a good thing so we're happier to embrace this church lady shit.   And while this double standard occasionally chews up a  man like Weiner, the main victims are women.  It's a short leap from insinuating that women are the more chaste sex to saying women should be chaste at all times, and if they aren't, then they deserve to be abused. I wrote a piece at RH Reality Check showing how thoroughly this is about using sex as a weapon against women that I'll hope you read.  When prudery expands, it's women whose rights get legally constrained, women whose clothing choices get monitored, women who are raped and then told they brought it on themselves by being unchaste.  

All this finger-wagging about Weiner distracts from that, but it's worth remembering that even in this case, the driving force behind it was the conservative desire to punish and abuse women for failing to live up to arbitrary and often impossible modesty standards.  Don't forget that conservatives were combing through Weiner's online contacts, finding the women, and closely examining---for the good of the nation, no doubt---their online pictures for short skirts and cleavage-showing shirts, anything that could used as evidence of sluttery.  It's distressing to see other women mindlessly rewarding this sexual witch hunt because the ostensible target is a man.  Not only is that inexcusable on its surface, but it's self-defeating.