Good Feminist

[mimekiller]

I"M SHOCKED I TELL YA, SHOCKED

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/p ... -2008.html

[Phoebe]

Not shocked but that sure is going to hurt her reelection campaign.

[mimekiller]

If she runs in 2020 to lose to Trump again I will never be sad again

[Phoebe]

I'm very glad I keep my discussion of these issues confined to my household and NPR, because wow. Those good articles above, wow, thankful for those, because otherwise the public discourse continues to lurch wildly. Andrew Sullivan should have learned long ago never to write about women again because it is one of his greatest areas of raw ignorance. But then, most everyone I know is a big fan of his critic who rightly argued we should investigate why women are trained their whole lives to consent to things that do not give them pleasure, even as she sails right past the obvious neon-flashing point that women consent to these things, sometimes! Why do you think people are upset, including people who did NOT consent and don't very much like being preached at about how their situations were no different from those of a person who clearly did? Nobody is trying to measure or rank pain; people can feel whatever they feel. But you also don't get to claim another person's trauma as your own, which I thought was a big millenial feminist commandment. No?

Yeah, if you want to talk about why women (and sometimes, men) consent to things that don't give them pleasure, yes, please, please do. But can we not then fill the lesson with more sexist tropes about girls and what they actually DO want? Can we acknowledge that they do in fact want all kinds of things just like the massive diversity of half the human species might indicate?

Sullivan really is the worst though, with all his HIGH T bullshit. Honestly, he is such a smart person who has done some really wonderful things, I can't understand his horrid blind spot where women are concerned, and it has been that way for decades of his writing. He's all about the biological essentialism, which is fine with me actually, but like the evo psych dudes he has this small problem of getting the biology wrong.

Then you get people like Caitlyn Flanagan dipping in yet another oar - I guess strike while the iron is hot and you can sell those essays, girl! - this time to note that Katie Roiphe is a victim whose free speech was silenced by the mob. Who is this mob? Where is it? Twitter? And where did it hide Katie's speech? Last I checked, real life is rolling along like gangbusters without even one tiny puff of concern about what happens on Twitter. Robots and Russians in cold office buildings are not "mobs" who determine what gets published, unless stupid people decide to listen to them. What happens is that real, live human beings who work in the same industry find that their industry's ethics standards were violated egregiously by someone who was already known to have been such a violator before, and so they made it known that was unacceptable. The thing about "mobs" is supposed to be that they hurt innocent people, or people who didn't deserve the level of criticism they received. Flanagan may not remember who Roiphe is but I do and so do a lot of others.

[mimekiller]

alpha woman respecter...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42952220

[Bonefish]

Oh man. That is too damn good. Fuckin Trudy man. He is a goddamned tool.

[Phoebe]

From a remarkable little McSweeneys piece called, "New Erotica For Feminists":

"I meet a scientist on Tinder. They go on and on about their biggest professional achievement — the serum that made Ruth Bader Ginsburg immortal. It drives me wild. I don my naughtiest jabot and my sex gavel."



The whole thing is pretty good, except for the part about Tom Hardy and The Crown. Substitute Ben Whishaw and Victoria and we're good.

[mimekiller]

oh no! http://time.com/5140897/california-meto ... llegation/

[Bonefish]

I don't wanna come off as an asshole. But in light of the numerous women who have told me previously that #MeToo was just a woman only thing, and male survivors need to just let the women have their moment.

Well... HOW BOUT DAT?

[Phoebe]

Yeah, I don't understand why male victims of abuse or harassment should have to stand aside - this isn't about personal identity, but is about bad behavior and changing a culture that tolerates it. By definition that's not happening if you exclude some of the bad behaviors from consideration.

What's worse is the same people who will tell you that women need to have their uninterrupted moment will also tell you that women don't get to have that moment when the fashion dictates. If women want to talk about their biology or things that happen to them naturally, they're being essentialist and excluding people, I am told.

On the other hand, I have some sympathy for people who have internalized the sexist rituals of their culture and therefore don't know how to interpret vague signals when they are not getting a clear refusal from people. That is why I like the bright clear lines. And there are people who will try to project, or in true sociopath style, claim that the other person is guilty of the very thing that they themselves are obviously doing. So I do take things with a grain of salt.

[Bonefish]

One of the things I love about the BDSM community is that, knowing how much potential for abuse exists for those who ask people to tie them up and beat them, there is a lot of discussion about protocol and consent. We arrange meet and greet events in public spaces, we advocate that people meet their potential play partners in public spaces, informing a trusted person of where we are going and with who as well as a time table for when we will contact someone to let them know we are safe, and, of course, safe words. There is also the advice to discuss clear limits for what behavior is accepted and expected, and what is not tolerated. Some folks even go as far as video taping them and their partners discussing the planned events and thresholds for safety.

There is still abuse, especially as the community becomes more "mainstream". But, damn. We are very much about consent and safety. Which is somewhat ironic.

Now, back to Garcia: the really shitty part of this is that her behavior, if found to be true, is going to do some very real damage to the cause. It provides fodder for those who are critical of feminists, which they didn't really need, and it makes us look like hypocrites. Of course, she apparently was one of those "feminists" who seems to embrace the idea that the issues of sexual inequality are unilateral, so, then again, this is also an opportunity for us to point out exactly what we want in our cause: the freedom of ALL people to be safe from sexual assault and harassment.

Who knows how this will work out

[Phoebe]

I have noticed how people who identify with this community talk a lot about the importance of clarity and consent in their practices. I am curious about something and you don't seem like the kind of person who is easily offended, so maybe I will ask you, with the caveat upfront that I have actually offended other people by asking this:
Although power relationships are part of natural life for many species, many of the details of BDSM practice are obvious artifacts of human invention. For example, raccoons may be naturally attracted to people in masks, and there may be interesting evolutionary reasons for human attraction to those who have dark things around their eyes, but in general it seems like there's a lot more to the practice of wearing masks that is devised by people whose sexual desires are influenced heavily by their history in a social world, culture, etc. So lay this out as a kind of first premise, that a lot of the detail of our sexual practice develops this way.

Then as a second premise, here's something I'm guessing you've heard before: people who have experienced trauma of various kinds might be drawn to sexual practices that somehow involve or speak to this trauma. Coming up with and then consenting to a plan to get off on something both sexual and painful, or sexual and involving an overt display of power-over, seems like it could be related to past experiences of not being able to consent to such dynamics.

So maybe you would say one or both of those premises are nonsense. Or you might say that even if they're true, why not simply embrace wherever the spirit moves you, regardless of where it got that original impulse?

But it worries me that people might be working through their trauma in a way, and mixing all of that up into sexual practices. One of the things many old-fashioned and totally out of fashion feminists used to write about is the very nature of sex as a dominance relationship. Some of them were interested in exploring ways to get the dominance out of their sexuality completely; some of them even felt like heterosexual sex was doomed and therefore needed to be avoided for this very reason regardless of one's orientation. To me that's an unnecessary over-reaction, not to mention a not-fun one, but I can understand why they were worried about the overall issue. There is difference built into many aspects of heterosexual sexuality. BDSM might for some people be a way of bringing those differences up to the surface where they can be examined and played around with. But I find that my own impulse there is much like the feminists who wanted to get away from what seems like an entirely negative system. I definitely can see immediately why coming up with your own system of rules to follow and or deliberately break could be fun. Or just an interesting aesthetic project. But in the end, I want to laugh at absurdity and life and feel free; I don't want to replace one set of rules or procedures with another, but cast off all of them. Maybe that's my way of working out issues with the culture or trauma, who knows.

But I'm curious about what someone who has thought about these issues and chosen an opposite path would say about it. The response I usually get is more along the lines of, how dare anyone drag in the old tired tropes that people who do this are all doing it because they're traumatized! But I'm not really trying to do that at all - I think a whole heck of a lot of people are traumatized, far more than ever choose this particular practice. It does seem like it could involve playing with fire that could end up making a person feel worse. I don't know.

[Bonefish]

Those are valid thoughts. In fact, we often discuss this in groups, and, well, the consensus isn't in. Some people think talking about abuse and the context of BDSM is harmful to the whole scene, because it makes us sound like we are all traumatized and it's a "unhealthy" mental fix. There are also people who consider some types of play as strictly harmful, such as cutting. Now, I think these people are largely full of shit. You gonna tell me that letting a leather goddess tie me up, stomp on my balls with heels, prod me with an electrical wand and otherwise inflict harm on me is "healthy", but me and another adult consenting to responsible and mild blood letting is sick? Ah, come on.

Now, I think there is something to the idea of BDSM allowing us to work through traumas in a way that isn't abusive. I think some pyschologists approach phobias in a similar way, I troducing them in a mild and controlled fashion to listen the fear response. I don't feel NEARLY qualified to talk about that.

I think I will ask my Domme about some of this. She reads all sorts of books about this, and is far more experienced in the scene than I am. I am kinda just stumbling through it, honestly.

[Phoebe]

Well, I'm curious to know what you find out. I used to find it comforting to draw a boundary line around things I knew I didn't want to do as a way of saying, okay, that's how I know I'm in control of my choices! But upon further reflection in older age, I find I'm no different in terms of working out the thangs in life that require working out. Husband and I agree with some amusement that there is no room for bdsm in our life because nobody here would ever agree to submit to even one tiny thing one time. We can't even agree to respect a peaceful border for one round of Risk, much less more.

[Bonefish]

Well, it's not for everyone. And by all accounts(blame Kyle), y'all have a healthy romantic life. Well, at least did, if you have three kids.

[Phoebe]

I have never even met Kyle, much less had three kids with him!

[Phoebe]

Wait, what? In what context is anyone discussing my romantic life as old married lady? For... any reason, really? Difficulty imagining a relevant context for this. This is a topic literally no one should care about.

[Phoebe]

If you haven't heard about this latest college frat "pig roast" contest, I'm sure you've heard of something similar in the past. People will in fact associate it with Cornell University for a long time instead of the other good work they're doing. Given the scope of the damage things like this cause, not just to human beings involved but to the entire institution's reputation, the punishment should be a lot worse. Does anyone believe for even one second that no one else in the whole fraternity knew about this? This is how you end up with other institutions where e.g. the chief of staff knows his star employee is beating his wife and chooses to ignore it, or someone is known to skirt the financial conflict of interest rules and gets by. If an employee of the University did something like this or even knew it was happening and didn't say anything, they could be fired. A brief probation sends the message that it's no big deal.

And let's be real, a man who finds it amusing to think of women as pigs is hardly a man at all. These people are absolute scum. People are so worried about over-punishing these assholes - why? People deal with injustice and unfairness every day. Most college students in this country don't enjoy one tenth of the privileges of a frat boy at Cornell. These actions are causing real economic damage to a valuable institution. And yet we continue to be worried about maybe giving such people a slightly harder slap on the wrist?

[Bonefish]

Frat boys. Ugh.

[Phoebe]

Their poison travels surprisingly far through the cultural veins. Kind of like how many deeply political and serious hardcore/punk white boys of the 80s were still totally sexist jerks with a different aesthetic veneer.