Fuck Sexism

[FaustWolf]

Thanks for the links Z. I've found that just focusing on a small segment of sites (such as the media ones I've been pulling from nearly exclusively) limits participation because the submitted articles start to sound repetitious after awhile. And it also eventually gets one accused of "blogspam," especially by MRAs who are just looking for opportunities to discredit feminist Redditors over there.

[Sajainta]

I met with the head of the English department with a friend yesterday.  She agreed that it was horrifically inappropriate.  There are a couple options I have, all of which are too long to type up here (I'm tired and strapped for time).  Basically, the ball is in my court, I get to decide what to do, and I have the English department on my side (as well as all of my friends whom I've told.  And you guys!).  That's good.

Haven't seen you around the Compendium while I've been online today, Saj.  I really hope everything went alright...

I've been really busy and barely have time to breathe, let alone do anything else, heh.  I think things will be fine, though.

Saj, I had no idea you were trafficked in a previous life.

This puts lots of things in perspective now that I know.

Sorry you had to put up with that professor.

I really do wish it felt like it was in a previous life.

[Lord J Esq]

Basically, the ball is in my court, I get to decide what to do, and I have the English department on my side...

I'm very glad for that. I expected as much, but given how you've been mistreated by he authorities in the past I was wary nevertheless.

I really do wish it felt like it was in a previous life.

I know what you mean. Actually, I don't know what you mean. Never will. But I can imagine it, and I can think of my own experiences that are either "in a previous life" or not, and wonder.

'Tis a new year. Cheers for an early victory against the forces of sexism, and here's all the best to ya.

[FaustWolf]

Whoa, you're really fighting the power, Sajainta.  I honestly thought you'd have a much harder time getting the department on your side, and that attitude toward these things probably holds back a lot of progress. Kudos on dealing with this effectively!

[Lord J Esq]

This opinion article's title, and its premise, is sexist:

Does Wall Street Need an Estrogen Injection?
Author: William Cohen

The purpose of pursuing sexual equality is not to prevent economic crises; it is to achieve sexual equality that will see all people free to be self-determining without regard to their sex. While I would certainly entertain the claim that this would bring about improvements in our economy, I would still be as in favor of sexual equality as I am now even if it were unambiguously bad from an economic standpoint. It's not about the economy, stupid: It's about control over oneself as upheld by the law.

[FaustWolf]

Lucca makes an appearance on a feminist gaming blog!
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=1814

[Lord J Esq]

It's so true. Lucca is one of the least-gendered female playable video game characters in any RPG--so much so that she is underestimated and even overlooked outright as a feminist icon in '90s gaming.

[KebreI]

One of the fucking mods at /women/ resigned today and deleted her account because some fucking piece of shit stalker posted personal details assembled from her comment history to a comment she made defending women's rights. That's goddamned fucking ideological terrorism. I don't want to submit links today. I want to fucking break someone.

I've done that to people before!

...

Oh you don't approve? I support you fully in your intent but she posted online then its as good as posting it on the local bulletin board(often it is the exact same). The dude was a jackass, but did she give out something private? personal? harmful? Hopefully she'll learn. Not to say the man isn't with out some degree of guilt but whole matters like this are just silly from the start.

[Sajainta]

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month.  Sexual assault happens to males, of course, but the vast majority of the victims are female.

Just a head's up, in case you guys weren't aware.

[FaustWolf]

Sajainta, thanks so much for the reminder. Looks like there's even a whole site dedicated to it!
http://www.nsvrc.org/saam

[Lord J Esq]

Required reading today by the excellent Daily Kos front-page diarist Angry Mouse:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/25/860191/-Setting-the-Record-Straight-on-the-Sanctimonious-Male-Studies-Set

It's about a group of people who want to create a "male studies" program to counter what they see as the abuses of feminism. It's a very good article, and it covers all the points it needs to cover.

[FaustWolf]

J, check out some quotes from one of the sites the Kos author links to (manhood101.com):

E.g., fat people often take offense when negatively judged for
their appearance. Yet, instead of taking responsibility for their
dysfunctional eating habits or lack of exercise, fat people find it
less painful if their critics are vilified as “hateful.”

As this professional victim-mentality becomes entrenched in
our culture, it provides the basis for shaping public opinion.
Now, fearing legal reprisals, society undermines its own
integrity by creating fat-friendly euphemisms. It adopts ad
campaigns designed to absolve fat people of any blame. No
longer do they have to feel bad about their appearance.
...
Clothiers are pressured to tailor their fashions to accommodate
dysfunctional body sizes. Feminists lobby the government to
create a protected interest group for fat people. Legislation is
proposed to ban “doctors from pressing patients to slim down.”
Sensible condemnation of obesity is now demonized as “hate
speech.”

Under Feminism's politically correct stranglehold, people have
become truth-adverse. They’d rather suffer silently than face
their humiliating condition. In short, everything is done to
ensure the preservation of the self-esteem.

Yeah, I'll let you describe just how wrong this is on multiple levels, since you've done more research on the pertinent subject than I have. But doesn't it strike you as just a little too unflatteringly similar to Hitler haphazardly spouting off things in Mein Kampf?  These people want to to be taken seriously -- they claim to teach "classes" instructed by people with the title "Dr." I hope this group is being vigorously fought within the Males Studies Movement just as extremists within feminist studies have been strongly critiqued and rebuked within feminist circles.


And then, there's this telling bit:

Manhood has been misunderstood for too long. It does not merely...represent a misogynistic declaration of gender superiority...Simply put, Manhood is your authority—the proper form necessary to govern the lives of others, especially women.

EDIT: Ah, crap, I succumbed to Godwin's Law in this post. Well, my point stands. The talking points that appear in this manual strike me as oversimplifications that nevertheless might look attractive to people who feel lost within the current environment.

[KebreI]

The man is pretty much spouting crap but is there any on this:

Legislation is
proposed to ban “doctors from pressing patients to slim down.”
Sensible condemnation of obesity is now demonized as “hate
speech.”

That sounds like something the current legislation would do and I am wondering and worried.

[GenesisOne]

Just thought the feminist-sensitive here would like what I'm doing this semester in my Chaucer class:

I'm writing a thesis about the commoditization of marriage and how overbearing patriarchies and imperious family bonds affect relationships between married couples (that is to say, in the context of the Tales) and how marriage becomes the social and personal means of controlling the couple's sexuality in the face of somatic temptation.

On a similar note, I've come across an interesting paper dated back to the middle ages.  It's Andreas Capellanus' De Amore; aka The Art of Courtly Love.  It was an interesting read, but the most interesting was at the end when the author listed the "rules."  They are:

I. Marriage is no excuse for not loving.
II. He who is not jealous can not love.
III. No one can be bound by two loves.
IV. Love is always growing or diminishing.
V. It is not good for one lover to take anything against the will of the other.
VI. A male cannot love until he has fully reached puberty.
VII. Two years of mourning for a dead lover are prescribed for surviving lovers.
VIII. No one should be deprived of love without a valid reason.
IX. No one can love who is not driven to do so by the power of love.
X. Love always departs from the dwelling place of avarice.
XI. It is not proper to love one whom one would be ashamed to marry.
XII. The true lover never desires the embraces of any save his lover.
XIII. Love rarely lasts when it is revealed.
XIV. An easy attainment makes love contemptible; a difficult one
makes it more dear.
XV. Every lover turns pale in the presence of his beloved.
XVI. When a lover suddenly has sight of his beloved, his heart beats wildly.
XVII. A new love expells an old one.
XVIII. Moral integrity alone makes one worthy of love.
XIX. If love diminishes, it quickly leaves and rarely revives.
XX. A lover is always fearful.
XXI. True jealousy always increases the effects of love.
XXII. If a lover suspects another, jealousy and the efects of love increase.
XXIII. He who is vexed by the thoughts of love eats little and seldom sleeps.
XXIV. Every action of a lover ends in the thought of his beloved.
XXV. The true lover believes only that which he thinks will please his beloved.
XXVI. Love can deny nothing to love.
XXVII. A lover can never have enough of the embraces of his beloved.
XXVIII. The slightest suspicion incites the lover to suspect the worse of his beloved.
XXIX. He who suffers from an excess of passion is not suited to love.
XXX. The true lover is continuously obsessed with the image of his beloved.
XXXI. Nothing prevents a woman from being loved by two men, or a man
from being loved by two women.

So, which one's do you agree or disagree with?  Which ones are sexist in your view?

[Lord J Esq]

@ GenesisOne:

My second thought--not very deep, I know--is that this would have been the perfect occasion for a period usage of sex-inclusive pronoun language such as "his or her" instead of just "his."

My first thought was that your comment at the beginning about how the institution of marriage is also a control on male sexuality as well as female sexuality is an interesting one, a gateway comment that if you will explore it shall lead you to the fascinating and rather horrifying realization that the institution of misogyny, in order to be as powerful as it was and is, required significant constraints on the self-determination of males as well--at least those males who chose to follow the customs and folkways, when they chose to do so.

As for the list itself, the two most overt sexisms in it are the specific exclusion of females in the line about puberty (an acknowledgment that females were pressed into sexual relationships at all ages of childhood), and of course the dominance of the male gaze.

What I agree or don't agree with on the list is outside the realm of this topic, but needless to say I agree with some of these "rules" and not others.

@ FaustWolf:

I think Angry Mouse hit the nail on the head when she described this effort to create a "male studies" program (keeping in mind that there is already a "men's studies" program as a counterpart to the women's studies one) as the death throes of some expiring social attitudes. Unfortunately, like Iraq, I expect these death throes to continue for a while, and, more importantly, to echo down the generations. The rise of fundamentalist Islam in Europe and the widespread lack of opposition to it by the European left is a key example of two social realities that are deadly when combined: the defense of sexual equality is weak in many people's minds, and the desire of religion to end sexual equality is very powerful. Hitleresque? I don't know...but it is horrifying.