Anonymous on Oh Conan Yes!: Defending the n… email@example.com on Privilege: I’ll Ignore Y… ministerfaust on Review – From The Notebo… Lindsay on Oh Conan Yes!: Defending the n… Anonymous on Why do they keep letting M. Ni…
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
- ad campaigns
- all about me
- Amy Winehouse
- ashamed to be a man
- aversive racism
- aversive sexism
- awards voting
- awards:not me
- being an ally
- blogging as it happens
- body images
- book reviews
- busy busy bee
- call for …
- cultural appropriation
- currently reading
- early draft
- Feminist science-fiction
- gallery of idiots
- good times
- identity politics
- in memoriam
- justice for some
- magical realism
- me elsewhere
- media friday
- media representation
- my fiction
- People of Color
- pop culture
- problematic things I enjoy
- publication information
- quote of the day
- quote of the week
- reading (series)
- religious intolerance
- sample writing
- sexual assault
- short stories
- silencing tactics
- teh funny
- the 90s
- Theory & Criticism
- traveling with femmes
- viral sci-fi
- web series
- william sanders is a bigot
- writing day
- 139,327 hits
Category Archives: misogyny
I think there’s humor in the hypocrisy of a movement that fights for marriage equality while lauding a film like “Brokeback Mountain” as romantic when the core basis of the film is an extra-marital affair. But it seems being on the down’low is acceptable as long as those engaging in it are white and only betraying women. Although the theme of pretending to be something you’re not fits in quite well with the homogenizing view of the large GLBTQ organizations.
I believe that the fierceness and power of the movement has been bled out by the constant focus on marriage equality as the only issue of importance perpetuated by large, wealthy, privileged groups such as GLAAD and the HRC who are looking out for themselves as opposed to the community as a whole.
I don’t understand how fighting tooth and claw for inclusion in such a problematic power structure such as marriage is a fight for everyone’s equality. A marginalized group fighting for a bigger piece of the pie rather than the eradication of the system has never led to liberation.
I understand that marriage is a prison, has a historical basis in silencing women and trading them like pieces of chattel and that a mere fifty years of “change” or transgressive reinterpretations can in no way wipe out a history of oppression and inequality stretching back centuries.
So both my readings last week went exceptionally well. I got a bunch of compliments on my prose piece and am going to submit it somewhere this week and despite my fear the Manifesto reading went swimmingly. The audience got what I was saying and was whooping and hollering in agreement. In fact after the reading I had a few people come up to me and ask if they could find it online or if it was posted anywhere. I had been on the fence about putting it up online simply because it is pretty radical and the blogosphere is a very different environment than the very radical space I was in for the reading. I’m not up for some of the comments I’ll inevitably get but having folks ask me if they could find it online made me realize that if no one sees or hears a manifesto what is the freaking point?!
So my Manifesto, Not The Marrying Kind will be going up in five parts this week. I’m breaking it up, not to make more posts out of it (or at least not just because of that) but because it’s the way I wrote it – in a series of chunks – and I like the idea of it being experienced in that way. In fact at the reading since we had interruptions from the audience they got it broken into sections as well and I think it worked very well, allowing folks to take in the previous points before moving on. Keep in mind that this is an early iteration of the work and it may grow, shrink, shift during any future re-writes however the core of it will not alter.
Not The Marrying Kind: Intro
So in my post about Adventureland ( “We Don’t Get This” ) there were some comments in the post itself and also in the comments between Kate and I that might have implied that I dislike Seth Rogan. At the time I was talking about Seth Rogan as one of the people that defines a certain genre of film and humor. But today…today I hate Seth Rogan! His new film “Observe & Report”? Apparently it contains a scene where Rogan’s character date rapes a woman intoxicated on high levels of tequila and anti-depressants. She’s so wasted she actually throws up on herself before it happens. But it’s still funny! Why? Well let’s just hear what Seth has to say:
In an interview with the Washington City Paper he states:
SETH ROGEN: When we’re having sex and she’s unconscious like you can literally feel the audience thinking, like, how the fuck are they going to make this okay? Like, what can possibly be said or done that I’m not going to walk out of the movie theater in the next thirty seconds? . . . And then she says, like, the one thing that makes it all okay:
BRANDI: “Why are you stopping, motherfucker?”
Okay that IS NOT consent! When you are so fucked up that you have vomited on yourself you cannot give informed consent! That line could have been about anything, don’t even assume at that point that’s she’s aware of her circumstances in any but the most random way. Trust me, on one or two occasions I’ve been that drunk and I have things I said recalled to me that I am absolutely horrified by and do things I never would have done sober. The argument that Brandi’s line somehow absolves him of raping her? NO! Let’s look at the fact that he never asked for consent before he started to undress her, he was obviously already set on the goal of sex whether she consented or not and nothing was going to stand in his way. The fact that her random ramblings while supremely intoxicated could be imagined to be INFORMED CONSENT allows Rogan’s charater to continue do what he was already doing while having some sort of balm for his guilt. It also allows the audience of mostly misogynistic and immature men to chuckle in public at something society tells them they should be horrified by. They don’t have to have guilt over having a fucked-up racist as a POV character or enjoying that scene because she said that line and that makes it humor! Funny!
Rape is NOT funny! Being violated is NOT a joke! Every time you mock sexual assault you make it more okay in the cultural discourse. It becomes a more acceptable act because after all even girls so fucked up they vomit on themselves want it? right? right?
I had heard that Superbad had it’s share of date-rape jokes which is the main reason I’ve never seen it. This film takes it a step further – not only is it acceptable to mock someones emotional anguish over being assaulted but it’s fine and dandy to perform the act! Fuck you Seth Rogan! Last week I hated you in an amorphous kind of way, now I want to punch you in your mouth!
P.S. We won’t even go into the fact that this scene and the violent rape scene from Last House on the Left made it past the MPAA but any hint of any alternative sexuality and there’s no way to get an R rating – ex. The Bruno film from Sasha Baron Cohen. Conflation, intersection of two mindset – firstly that women and women’s pain does not truly matter and so can be shown and mocked with impunity and secondly that any kind of sex act that GLBTQ people engage in is inherently dirty or sinful.
Hat tip to Jezebel: Is Date Rape Funny? Seth Rogan Explains It All To You
I heard someone called a metrosexual on the street yesterday, in a joking laughing matter and remembered why I hate the term so much. Metrosexual is a supremely gendered term that just goes to reinforce gender roles.
A “metrosexual” is what exactly?
You might be “metrosexual” if:
1. You just can’t walk past a Banana Republic store without making a purchase.
2. You own 20 pairs of shoes, half a dozen pairs of sunglasses, just as many watches and you carry a man-purse.
3. You see a stylist instead of a barber, because barbers don’t do highlights.
4. You can make her lamb shanks and risotto for dinner and Eggs Benedict for breakfast… all from scratch.
5. You only wear Calvin Klein boxer-briefs.
6. You shave more than just your face. You also exfoliate and moisturize.
7. You would never, ever own a pickup truck.
8. You can’t imagine a day without hair styling products.
9. You’d rather drink wine than beer… but you’ll find out what estate and vintage first.
10. Despite being flattered (even proud) that gay guys hit on you, you still find the thought of actually getting intimate with another man truly repulsive.
“Some people think he’s gay, but he’s actually metrosexual.”
-via Urban Dictionary.com
Okay let’s unpack this a little bit. It’s a vile mix of enforcing gender roles, sexism and queerism. And a lot of this ties into the fact that for a lot of men the term metrosexual has taken the form of an attack on their masculinity.
Metrosexuals care about their looks, care about style, have taste and are refined in a general sense. These are trait societally expectedof women. I have many a female friend who can tell you of the horrible interactions they’ve had because they don’t practice hair removal or prefer Pabst to white wine or dress in a casual style all the time. The contempt for men who do these things not only reveals the contempt for these practices in general, practices more associated with women but also attempts to reinforce gender roles by strictly defining certain acts as “womanly” and “manly”. So there’s that.
The contempt for metrosexuals and use of the term as an insult is a large scale version of schoolyard bullying. “These are things that men don’t do! If you do them you’re weird, not normal.” The term itself is problematic because it exists at all, it’s main purpose seems to be to create a division between metrosexuals and “real men” who would never think of doing any of that “girly shit”. In addition to this it also acts as a form of protection for metrosexuals. It’s a defense mechanism that can be called in when they are accused of homosexuality, because any deviation from the strict male gender roles obviously must be a symptom of homosexuality but metrosexuality is still better than homosexuality. You can see this clearly in the definition above (#10). In fact almost all the definitions of Metrosexuality at Urban Dictionary contain a reference to homosexuality, usually an insult.
The discussion becomes even more complex when you bring race into it and point out that I’ve never seen anyone not white termed metrosexual, no matter how dressed up, refined or dapper they were. Because on the rare occasions we do get to see a Man of Color dressed up in any way 99.99% of times what is his role? He’s a mobster/gangster/defendant/crooked businessman/yakuza/drug dealer/pimp…you get the point.
So… in one term we have a confusing and intersecting web of misogyny, strict gender roles, queerism and racism. Is it any wonder I hate the term?