MetaChat - I've been wanting to share this

Oh boy (oops!) It is almost too painful to read this right now because over here I got smacked down by several men-- even called a strident, "smarmy" bigot (I don't think he meant smarmy, I think the word he wanted was smug) because I continue to believe, despite all their examples about how badly men suffer, that my role as a feminist is to work towards equality for women. At one point I was told that men are 11 times more likely to be assaulted then men. And I just kept thinking...So? So what do you want me to do about it? I think the solution offered is that I was to step away from the media and let them (the media) concentrate on men's problems. There is a definite feeling that any publicity, interest, or funding that women receive should be matched by equal publicity, interest, and funding for men. But as your linked article pointed out, they don't seem to want to work for it.

There is nothing stopping men from raising awareness or marching or writing their congresspeople, but it seems to really chap their butts that I would do this on behalf of women and not for them.

At one point I was even told that I didn't "own" the term feminist (Jesus H. Christ!)and that it was too broad a term anyway. I am sitting here shaking my head at these young guys lecturing me-- a 48 year old woman who has experienced sexual discrimination or harrassment in virtually every arena and at every stage of her life. It still makes me seethe.

Sorry if I let off a little steam, but I was trying so hard to be low key and non-personal over there only to be told that I was blah, blah, blah. God I hate name calling over arguing principles.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 10 November | 18:21

helix - Metachat is a pretty woman-friendly place (weird term, I know) - much more so than Mefi. I've always wanted to discuss an article I read on how scientific papers submitted under a woman's name are less likely to be accepted than papers submitted under a man's name, or genderless (first initial last name), but I'm too lazy to track down the corroborating evidence (and it's pretty circumstantial at best). The world (and Mefi) is becoming an angrier, angrier place, especially towards people who are "different" - women, men, minorities, caucasians, Athiests, Christians, Muslims, the Young, the Old, and so on. It makes me sad, and it makes me feel powerless to help. What can we do, as sensitive and tolerant people, to increase dialogue and discourse, and to decrease vitriol and violence?

posted by muddgirl 10 November | 18:31

Gravy, I clicked and then backed up really fast. Just the poster's handle alone tells me how that thread will go. Sometimes it's best as a piece of meat to not throw myself in a tank of hungry sharks. I have no hope of convincing them they're vegetarian, and they have no hope of convincing me I'd enjoy being nibbled on.

posted by FunkyHelix 10 November | 18:36

For reasons that were often kind of bizarre, some of the men in the group took exception to this. They never organized nights at which we were excluded. When we pointed out that by the law of averages, a good half of the various social outings ended up being guy-only, they replied that it was not the same thing.

Well, it's not that bizarre if you think about it. Nobody likes to be excluded, even if it's from something lame. Not saying the woman writing dosen't have a point (many, in fact), but that passage kind of rankled a little bit. I completely understand girls wanting some girls only time, but many feminists I've met object to "boy's night out," type of stuff. Thankfully, I'm with a woman who completely understands my need to occasional act like a drunken neanderthal.

There is a definite feeling that any publicity, interest, or funding that women receive should be matched by equal publicity, interest, and funding for men.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, yes, but I'm also honestly trying to understand and communicate. I think that at least part of what that poster said may come from what I call the "what about us?" syndrome. It's something you see in poor whites when the plight of black america is discussed. It's probably somewhat counterproductive, but it's certainly understandable and to ignore or dismiss at as mere sexism or reactionary thinking is to invite resentment which is what keeps the whole silly dance going. Usually, the best thing to do is simply acknowledge and then say, "But, I'm making a different point, hear me out..." YMMV.

Not that this makes any points about sexism and or male privilige (although that's a problematic term, for a variety of reasons; some unemployed male hears a Ph. D. woman say that and thinks "male privilige, my ass," if you know what I mean), just offering a few observations of my own, and trying very hard to do so without rancor. hope I succeded.

Between this and my discussion of religion with Divine Wino in delmoi's "end times" thread, I'm being unnaturally erudite tonight. I'm off the vicodin and haven't had a drink in over a week and a half. That must be it. Somebody start a thread bout farts.

posted by jonmc 10 November | 18:36

I completely understand the "what about us?" misdirection. I think what I had most trouble swallowing was the guys telling me that I was a bigot because I think feminism is about raising awareness of feminine issues.

Note the word "feminist" not "humanist" although I can be both at times.

I think it arises from the perception is that there is this limited amount of pie-- and every piece that women ask for, there will be less for men.

And about the female-only stuff. When I was in college and was a little in love with one of my professors, we used to argue about The Masons; he was a Mason as was his father and grandfather. I thought my professor was an ideal man in everyway except I kept asking him "How can you belong to an organization that completely excludes all women?" His answer was "tradition" and "Can't you just let men have this last little thing? You are welcome in all other areas of my life. And besides why would you want to join a group that doesn't want you?"

And jonmc meet Fanny, The Famous Farting Dog: She can clear a room in under two minutes!

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 10 November | 18:55

I think what I had most trouble swallowing was the guys telling me that I was a bigot because I think feminism is about raising awareness of feminine issues.

Yeah, that's out of line. But oftentimes, sad to say, the way to get some men to understand feminist issues is to get them to see that it directly affects them, since they have wives, mothers, daughters, etc.

And also, the term "feminist," has been someone tainted, since anti-feminists used a few loud fanatics to scare the hell out of everybody and thus gain power for themsleves.

Where many (but by no means all) feminists dropped the ball, IMHO, is by not saying "Dworkin/MacKinnon/Solanas are nutjobs and no more representative of women than David Duke is of southerners, here's what we're really about. Of course, the men who might be swayed by reasonable feminists/alienated by the nutjobs are reasonable men. The true misogynists aren't even listening.

posted by jonmc 10 November | 19:07

to be honest, the male privilege culture is not something that i'd noticed. i tend to live in my own little world. i'm certainly guilty of some of the things she mentions. this has certainly opened my eyes.

while i agree with the points she makes, i do have some comments to make on some of her observations.

regarding marriage and names, i don't think that a woman keeping her own name is statement of superiority - as she puts foward - rather, it's a statement of equality. a woman who takes her husband's name has submissive overtones in my mind.

and i suppose the actions of wb are rational in a souless corporation kind of way. because we spend so much on crap, we are more valuable to wb - in terms of advertising money - than an equivalent woman viewer.

and sorry gravy, but i'm not going to click that link. mefi makes me sad. i only read axme now.

posted by flopsy 10 November | 19:35

MeCha is an equal opportunity postatorium. No bunnies were harmed in the testing or production of this site (that I know of).

posted by eekacat 10 November | 19:44

And the unicorn was already like that.

posted by flopsy 10 November | 19:47

and sorry gravy, but i'm not going to click that link. mefi makes me sad. i only read axme now.

There, there, sugar, I totally understand. MeFi is such a major boyzone, but the guys refuse to believe it. So many of my favorite women posters have left or made themselves very scarce (I'm looking at you Taz.)Still, I do like the newsfilter stuff and the odd stuff.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 10 November | 19:48

MeFi is such a major boyzone, but the guys refuse to believe it.

Perhaps, but if someone says something I find stupid or offensive, I'm not gonna show them any mercy simply because they're female. That would sexism, too, right?

posted by jonmc 10 November | 19:58

What I find rankling is the constant expectation of apology and qualification made of women acting on behalf of themselves or other women, which is what the original post seems to be getting at. This link from Bitch Ph.D (via AskMe), on a different subject entirely, gets to the heart of this. I'll quote from it at length, since it summarizes my feelings so well:

How do you react to women's political anger? Is it okay for a woman to have strong opinions as long as she doesn't make anyone uncomfortable? If she sounds angry, does that automatically invalidate what she's saying? Do you think that feminists would be more effective if they were nicer? If there's a disagreement between a woman and a man, do you instinctively see "his side"? Do you mistake strong convinctions for personal attacks? Do you value civility over fairness? Because if so, then that, too, is a kind of distrust, hubris, a reluctance to cede control.

I am not advocating a free-for-all; and I think that considering the rhetorical effect of one's words matters; and I value good manners as much as anyone. There is an important difference between private anger and public anger, and it is the latter I am talking about. It is important to recognize that the ability to remain "civil" about injustice is a demonstration of power, and, arguably, is itself a kind of violence--more subtle than yelling, and for that reason, far more damaging. Because it is easy to isolate the angry woman, to shun her because of her anger. Many people will not see past the anger, and therefore many people will find it justified; she is, after all, being "unreasonable." After all, just as with abortion, women are not supposed to make people "uncomfortable." But when that happens, that amounts to denying women the right to public speech: the angry woman's anger is taken personally, as an indictment of her character, rather than as a legitimate political expression.

I, too, value civility and sympathy, but often feel like this very value is used against me by the unscrupulous. Simply staking one's own ground is seen as an act that must be prefaced by apology: the simple statement "This (right, space, idea, skill, ad infinitum) belongs to me, and you can't control it," is perceived as hostility. When, actually, it's merely a statement of desire to control what one already should.

And in thinking about this, it strikes me powerfully how much of the writing women do is about claiming space: Woolf, Wollstoncraft, the criminally unknown Tillie Olsen, and on and on. Just the act of saying I want this to be mine, and mine alone is treasonous to the idea that a woman's body and time, her very life, belongs to everyone else by default. Women who work so hard to create space and resources for other women shouldn't ever have to explain or apologize. They do it for the reason the linked post explains: no one else will. So to accomplish that, to carve out these tiny women-friendly islands only to be told it's not good enough because they aren't for men too, is ridiculous.

Bottom line: if you want to approach any culture respectfully, with the goal of understanding it, you do so on its terms, not yours. If you think the culture itself doesn't deserve respect at all, that's another story, but that's not what's at issue here. Don't ask, as is always asked of women, that they bend to accommodate and make you comfortable, that they worry first and foremost about your well-being. If you're not comfortable in a space created by women, for women, well, you have the option of enjoying most of the rest of the world as your playground. Every single thing a woman does not have to be about, or belong, or be justified, to you.

posted by melissa may 10 November | 20:02

John, one of the big insults when someone complains at Metafilter is to get the sand out of your vagina, meaning that if you complain or whine you must be a woman.

That's just one example, and I don't feel like depressing myself by going through and collecting more. Suffice to say, it is a boyzone, and the zone is just not interested in hearing it pointed out nor changing.

posted by FunkyHelix 10 November | 20:04

Extremely well said, melissa may.

posted by jrossi4r 10 November | 20:08

Agreed, it's a sexist expression, and I never use it. But, it's also a reflection of a certain (admittedly most male) arguing style, where after someone has pissed you off, you're goal is not only to defeat them but to reduce them anyway you can, up to and including emasculating them, by calling them a whiny little girl or accusing them of having a small dick. It's something that comes from school playgrounds, street corners and parking lots. I've known plenty of women who argue in this no-holds-barred, oh-you-went-there-all-bets-are-off-now, nothing-is-off-limits style, too. This often clashes with the more polished thesis sentence style debate club style of other users. It's part of what makes mefi interesting, but it also results in a lot of misunderrstanding.

Also, (and I say this as someone who's been accused of being a sexist and a misogynist on MeFi, which strongly disagree with) a lot of feminist proclamations we hear on MeFi come off sounding...accusatory, for lack of a better word. And if you disagree, you become de facto ant-feminist, which is kind of unfair. And the male demographic at MeFi (intelligent, arts-oriented, left-leaning) is extremely sensitive to those kind of accusations, so the fur flies more than is strictly neccessary.

(caveat: I'm not tryingto invalidate anything any of the women here are saying, just offer my own perspective. although the fact that I have to include this caveat rankles a bit).

posted by jonmc 10 November | 20:14

It's something that comes from school playgrounds, street corners and parking lots.

and family dinner tables, too. These are the places I (and I expect a lot of MeFites) learned to argue.

posted by jonmc 10 November | 20:15

This piece was good, if I didn't agree with every example. (and having zero exposure to slash, can't comment)

Yes, smarmy. Look it up. The point was that inequality here and inequality there do not "even out" and there is no such thing as "aggregate equality". Just a bunch of people getting f**ked over here, and there. And I'm working for it, Gravy. Lots of years of school, continuing volunteer work, and paid work, too. I also recognize causes beyond my own "group", however, and simply can't understand a disinterest in equality because my particular group isn't at a disadvantage on a given issue. "What -- equal pay? That doesn't affect me so what do I care?" Sure, lots of people confine their sympathies in this way (Iraqi dead? So what? American dead? Oh yeah, this war is terrible) but I think we can agree that that's a lousy way to look at the world. Or maybe we can't agree on that. I don't know.

As for the general topic of "claiming space", no argument from me. Though I'm not certain that the academic study of male issues in art, history, etc. would be completely devoid of content not otherwise found in an art, history, etc. class. An entire department? Probably not.

a 48 year old woman who has experienced sexual discrimination or harrassment in virtually every arena and at every stage of her life. It still makes me seethe.

Well, 34 year old man who has been assaulted more times than I have fingers. It still makes me seethe. According to you, this means that I must have been drunk, waving money around, and generally acting like an ass for this to happen once. So again, I fail to understand how this is not the equivalent of "you must have been wearing racy clothing, and been in the wrong neighbourhood" kind of thinking. If I've misjudged you, I will readily admit it.

posted by dreamsign 10 November | 20:18

The point was that inequality here and inequality there do not "even out" and there is no such thing as "aggregate equality".

Well, some might say there's no such thing as actual equality. As Bob Dylan once said "The only way the we're all equal is that we're all going to die someday." NTM, the Declaration of Independence offers the "pursuit of happiness," not a guarantee. We have no right to a happy ending, any of us.

This dosen't mean that I think racism or sexism should be tolerated, however. I'm just stating that quality of life shouldn't be based on capricious things like race or gender. But equal opportunity for all won't neccessarily lead to equal results.

posted by jonmc 10 November | 20:23

Most men, and I think jonmc is an example, are almost completely unaware of the simle truth that women experience a different world than men do. In everything from how they are treated and expected to act in the classroom to sex to the workplace to the home, women have on average very different experiences than men do.

Speaking as a man, part of the problem in recognizing this is it's like a fish noticing the water. And it's not our experience. But also, speaking for myself, once I did begin to see with new eyes, I was profoundly depressed and angered at the new world I was living in.

And besides what is happening around me, there's what's happening in the world at large. If there were still many countries where certain races were slaves or defacto slaves, there'd be a sit-in and a march at most college campuses. But this describes the situation of women in several large regions of the world. And it's almost compltely not showing up on our political radar. Also, I like to remind people that it has been within living memory, within the last century, that women in the US were guaranteed the right to vote. Those two facts alone reveal how far we are from sexual equality. But men don't see it and don't want to see it.

The essay is interesting where it talks about exclusion of the female perspective. This is, I think, exactly the reason that metachat exists and you can see why in the disparaging remarks you sometimes see on metatalk about metachat.

It's also interesting where it mentions surnames. My ex-wife and I took each others' names and hyphenated them. We weren't the only people to think of that 15 years ago, but one difference is that I truly went by this new hyphenated name. And I got many strange and repressed reactions about it. My dad's side of the family, of course, just ignored it or didn't speak of it.

I now call myself an anti-sexist instead of a feminist because, particularly as a man, I think I can be most productive speaking out against sexism in general and by being aware of the ways that sexism affects men, more than I can by limiting myself to feminism. But I am very unhappy finding myself figuratively in bed with the men who go on about "men's rights" because, for the most part, they are reactionary and/or just wanting a piece of the aggrieved pie.

posted by kmellis 10 November | 20:32

Most men, and I think jonmc is an example, are almost completely unaware of the simle truth that women experience a different world than men do.

I don't think I'm any more sexist than anyone else, and probably less than most.

But your above statement is about half true, kmellis. Yeah, there's some shoit women have to put up with that men don't. (There's some stuff that comes with being a man that women don't have to deal with either, conversely). But ultimately we're all doing the same stuff on this planet: eating, sleeping, shitting and fucking. And pssibly playing Stratego. So, ultimately dividing the world up into little hostile tribes dosen't help much.

I'm simply for across the board respect of humans on the basis of them being human. I judge men and women equally. And my ultimate conclusion is that generally humans are pretty fucked up, men and women both.

and men's rights? the bongo drummers in the forest, I'm oppressed because I have a woman boss, types? I can do without them. Although most female bosses I've had have sucked but so have many male bosses. They're the boss, and bosses generally suck.

posted by jonmc 10 November | 20:39

Most [X], and I think [anyone] is an example, are almost completely unaware of the simple truth that [Y] experience a different world than [X] do. In everything from how they are treated and expected to act in the classroom to sex to the workplace to the home, [Y] have on average very different experiences than [X] do.

posted by mr_crash_davis 10 November | 20:40

Agreed, it's a sexist expression, and I never use it. But, it's also a reflection of a certain (admittedly most male) arguing style, where after someone has pissed you off, you're goal is not only to defeat them but to reduce them anyway you can, up to and including emasculating them, by calling them a whiny little girl or accusing them of having a small dick.

But that's just another example of how totally ingrained sexism has become. A man is "reduced" by being compared to woman. If someone's arguments are illogical or moronic then they are arguing like a woman, a whiny little girl. The implication is that females are incapable of intelligent debate. When a man resorts to whining or mewling then he has "sand in his vagina".

The opposite holds true for women. When they are strong, passionate and get in and scrap with the men then they have balls! Now they're taking it like a man!

I do not think that most of the men on Mefi and other sites who toss these insults around are sexists, nor do I believe that the misogynistic undertones of their arguments are intentional. But that's the whole point. Sexism is so ingrained that they simply don't see it.

(This is not directed at you personally, jonmc. This particular quote just jumped out at me and illustrates part of what I think funkyhelix is talking about.)

And the male demographic at MeFi (intelligent, arts-oriented, left-leaning) is extremely sensitive to those kind of accusations, so the fur flies more than is strictly neccessary.

Well, I think part of the reason why some, and I stress some, of the men on Metafilter are so sensitive to this particular accusation is because they know that it's accurate in many cases. I think most Mefites see themselves as enlightened sensitive types and the idea that they could be perpetuating offensive or sexist stereotypes is upsetting to them. It's a natural reaction and I'm not above it. I bristle a little when confronted with my own prejudices.

funkyhelix, I thought it was a great essay. I agree with you on nearly every point.

posted by LeeJay 10 November | 20:47

Do I believe that all women are all right all of the time? Hell No!

Do I believe that all men are all wrong all of the time? Hell No!

Do I believe that many men are experiencing "growing pains" as they are forced to share? Yeah. But it is nothing like the pain of all those women who came before me who didn't get to share at all.

And Dreamsign I really don't want to continue our "conversation" over here except that "smarmy" means "fulsomely flattering." Where exactly was I flattering anyone? Also, "bigot" means "Person obstinately and unreasonably holding some creed or view and intolerant towards others" I'll cop to obstinate, even unreasonable but if I was intolerant of your ideas about feminism then you have to admit you were intolerant of mine.

And the stuff aboout men being beaten up?
a) I was being facetious.
b) It is news to me that roving gangs of men are going around assaulting other men for no reason at all.
c) There were two local college students murdered yesterday. One over drugs the other over a fight about a woman (also known as being an ass) so maybe my joking response was a bit more on the mark then I realized.
d)I find it very odd that you have been assaulted more than 10 times for no reason-- but then I don't get out much. And it wouldn't be very kind of me to doubt you. Therefore I apologize for not knowing that you routinely get beat up.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 10 November | 20:47

P.S. My husband wants me to add: "Maybe if you quite being such a jerk-off you wouldn't get beat-up so much."

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 10 November | 20:52

b) It is news to me that roving gangs of men are going around assaulting other men for no reason at all.

You need to watch the news more. It may not be no reason at all, but it's usually a very stupid reason (a few bucks in some guys wallet, "he looked at me funny," "he stepped on my shoe,") that leads to violence.

But it is nothing like the pain of all those women who came before me who didn't get to share at all.

Sure. But this is now. I'm not going to coddle anyone or give them extra points based simply on gender. That's equality, too.

But that's just another example of how totally ingrained sexism has become. A man is "reduced" by being compared to woman. If someone's arguments are illogical or moronic then they are arguing like a woman, a whiny little girl.

Suppose I found somebody's arguents whiny and said "Boo Fucking Hoo," or "Gonna cry, little baby?" That's a product of the arguing style I described, which I'd say roughly 1/3 of mefi uses much of the time, and even more use occasionally.

Worse? Better? One fallout of impassioned argument is that people are gonna try to push people's buttons, whatever they are?

posted by jonmc 10 November | 20:54

My husband wants me to add: "Maybe if you quite being such a jerk-off you wouldn't get beat-up so much."

Well, I don't know dreamsign or anything about him, but I can think of several reasons other than "being a jerk-off" for which a man might get beaten up by a gang, so maybe your husband isn't being very charitable.

posted by mr_crash_davis 10 November | 20:56

Regarding Maureen Dowd, she had a pretty interesting interview on Brian Lehrer's show on NPR yesterday.

posted by Edible Energy 10 November | 21:03

Come on, ladies! They let us vote. They even let a handful of us into congress. Why can't we just be grateful for that and stop whining so much?

Now get off the dang computer and go tend to your man. He's had a rough day of holding doors open for ungrateful feminazis and getting beaten up repeatedly.

posted by jrossi4r 10 November | 21:05

Suppose I found somebody's arguents whiny and said "Boo Fucking Hoo," or "Gonna cry, little baby?" That's a product of the arguing style I described, which I'd say roughly 1/3 of mefi uses much of the time, and even more use occasionally.

I understand what you're driving at and I agree that most of the Mefites who argue that way are not trying to be sexist, they're just trying to score points or render their opponent's argument irrelevant. The point I'm trying to make is that they try to do so by comparing their opponents unfavorably to women. To them it may seem as silly and innocuous as saying "boo fucking hoo" but that's the whole point - they don't even think about what they're saying because it has become so acceptable to make such a comparison.

Worse? Better? One fallout of impassioned argument is that people are gonna try to push people's buttons, whatever they are?

Of course, and lord knows I am not above such things. I think the point is that it is occasionally productive to think about the language we use and what it is we are actually saying and decide whether scoring points is worth perpetuating a stereotype that still exists and is still used to hold women back.

posted by LeeJay 10 November | 21:12

I'm not sure what's worse - the man that doesn't see the inequality between men and women, or the 'sensitive man' who claims to under stand women and then proceeds to tell them to calm down, this happened to women once, but we're all okay now, besides men still got it pretty bad, can't we all get along because they once heard about this guy that got beat up for having sand in his vagina.

-__-

I need to go get myself more coffee and stop reading some of the responses here.

btw, spellcheck isn't working.

posted by FunkyHelix 10 November | 21:14

Uhh, what about guys like me who understand that inequality exists and acknowledges that he has little grasp of the extent of it?
Can't we all just agree to hate hipsters in trucker hats?

posted by Edible Energy 10 November | 21:20

the man that doesn't see the inequality between men and women,

Where did I state that I don't see inequality. I merely state that I refuse to treat anyone any differently because they're female, and that includes calling them out when I find them stupid or annoying. And i don't use gender specific insults like "sand in the vagina." I'd say that's equality in action. A stupid person is a stupid person regardless of gender and I will treat them as such. Do you want to do otherwise? cause quite frankly that's the opposite of what feminism is supposed to be about.

posted by jonmc 10 November | 21:23

Perhaps, but if someone says something I find stupid or offensive, I'm not gonna show them any mercy simply because they're female. That would sexism, too, right?

Yes, but when women start a thread clearly about menstruation, and a bunch of men come in and start talking about how disgusting menstruation is, that IS sexism, or at least blatant ignorance that should not be respected by anyone.

I'm not going to coddle anyone or give them extra points based simply on gender. That's equality, too.

Discrimination and bigotry are more pervasive and subtle than that - like LJ and such are arguing. Yes, you treat me "as one of the boys", but what does that phrase imply? Why is "cunt" still a worse insult than "dick"? Why isn't there an analogous word for women for "phallic"?

No one here think's your sexist, jonmc. But a lot of boys over at 'Filter are.

posted by muddgirl 10 November | 21:26

"Can't we all just agree to hate hipsters in trucker hats?"

OK. You make the banners, I'll organize the march.

posted by mr_crash_davis 10 November | 21:30

Uhh, what about guys like me who understand that inequality exists and acknowledges that he has little grasp of the extent of it?

I think that's all most of us are asking. I don't think anyone here expects every male Metachatter to run out and join N.O.W. and start organizing a rally. Just recognizing that subtle sexism does exist is a good first step.

Can't we all just agree to hate hipsters in trucker hats?

Ok, that I can get behind. Leave the trucker hats for people like my father, rowdy beer-swilling men (and women!) who actually drive trucks. My father can wear John Deere like nobody's business. ;)

posted by LeeJay 10 November | 21:32

Well, I don't know dreamsign or anything about him, but I can think of several reasons other than "being a jerk-off" for which a man might get beaten up by a gang, so maybe your husband isn't being very charitable.

I know, I know. I told Dave, (my husband) that I was going to ruin my reputation for playing nice. But there you are. Perhaps I just felt like being a jerk myself. Honest to God, if I met Dreamsign in person I have no doubt at all that we would get along just great-- I am very accomodating and never make waves in person. I normally keep all my anger and all my hostility to myself like a good girl.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 10 November | 21:44

regarding marriage and names,

I am somewhat uncomfortable with the thought of hyphenated names and such. Ok its a traditional thing for the wife to take the husband's surname, but i would incline to the view that this system is what that makes lineages easy to resolve. I dont particularly care whether the wife takes the husband's name or vice versa as long as its consistent. If hyphenation becomes more and more common, future generations will have to contend with two sets of hyphenated names and in the extreme case, we'll have to resort to codes. I think a surname handed over from generation to generation has value.

posted by dhruva 10 November | 21:47

Why is "cunt" still a worse insult than "dick"?

Well, "dick," just sounds stupid. "Prick," works better, methinks. "Asshole," is roughly equal, and to be honest, I rarely apply that word to a woman, even if they're assholic. Not sure why. Women do have assholes, after all.

Yes, you treat me "as one of the boys", but what does that phrase imply?

I can see the point there, but linguistic habits die hard, especially since gender-nuetral invented words ("wimyn," "personhood,") generally are unweildy, silly sounding and poorly thought out. Just saying.

I normally keep all my anger and all my hostility to myself like a good girl.

Or a good guy.

posted by jonmc 10 November | 21:51

Dhruva--that practice doesn't necessarily make lineages easier to follow. If I take my husband's name and give our children his name, my family's contribution to the family tree isn't acknowledged at all. In fact, because my father had only daughters, his family name is dead.

That's why I kept my name. And why our daughter has both our names (though not hypenated).

posted by jrossi4r 10 November | 21:56

Etymology: smarm to gush, slobber
1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness - a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction

Look, I see an interesting MeCha post, read it, and enter the thread to participate. Your comment was half about dragging in the MeFa thread, which I would have been happy to never think about again.

Maybe if you quite being such a jerk-off you wouldn't get beat-up so much.

I generally get attacked because of where I am or who I'm *with*. I am not the loudmouth who goes looking or fights. Quite the opposite. The violence was partly a function of neighbourhood (which I got out of as soon as I could). On at least three of those occasions, I hadn't even said a *word* to the aggressor. Wrong place, wrong time, friends to impress I guess. (and two of those guys were definitely on something). Anyway, hasn't happened since, though the potential is there in any drunk crowd. Roving bands of people looking to pick fights? Yes there are. At the height of the nonsense (drive by shootings on a semi-regular basis), it was better to look crazy than sensible and friendly.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there.

Suffering is not relative. Do women suffer "more"? I have no idea, but I am not indifferent to others' suffering. I don't deny it. I don't ignore it. And I try to help when I can -- sex be damned. That is the major difference I thought I saw between Gravy and myself in the MeFi thread, and again, if I got that wrong, I apologize. The idea of violence shakes me to the core -- especially when it comes out of nowhere, so I may have been more rattled by your comment, which I took to be sincere. The 11 to 1 thing was commenting *specifically* about a program available to everyone seemingly but me, completely ignoring sociological evidence that I belong to a high risk group - on the street. That has absolutely nothing to do with domestic violence, which you brought up in rejoinder. (and it was me saying... ah, ok... so what?) Different problem, probably different solutions. Yes, same perpetrators, if you insist on seeing this in us-them terms. But experiencing one doesn't impair my ability to sympathize with victims of another. Again, that is where you and I seemed to differ.

posted by dreamsign 10 November | 22:02

But it is nothing like the pain of all those women who came before me who didn't get to share at all.

Sure. But this is now. I'm not going to coddle anyone or give them extra points based simply on gender. That's equality, too.
And jonmc you missed my point entirely. What I was trying to say was that some guys are going to miss out on jobs because a qualified woman took it. And it may happen that some guys have to hide the pin-ups at work because a woman started working there. And maybe you hear about all the funding for breast cancer research and nary a word about prostate cancer research. All these things are what I refer to as "growing pains." And a lot of men are angry about having to share in what was not so long ago a male dominated world.

A world where men owned their children so they automatically got custody. A world where Rosie the Riviter had to go back to the kitchen because "the boys were back in town." A world where prostitute murders were routinely ignored and chalked up to "comes with the life style."

I'm not talking about letting an idiot slide just because she doesn't have a set of balls-- I'm saying that these growing pains are a sign that women are achieving things that women of another era would never have dreamed possible.

When I got my first job at 15 waaay back in the early seventies, I had to choose between letting the boss rub his wienie on my backside or losing my job. That choice is almost unimaginable now. Few managers would be so blatant, most 15 year olds would know enough to report it. But it took time and effort to change this, and some men ended up paying a steep price. Even today, you still hear bitching and moaning about sexual harrassment lawsuits and worshops.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 10 November | 22:10

jrossi4r: i see what you mean. I have no other thoughts re this, but want to note that when a friend of mine got married, they decided to swap surnames. Bit odd, but as good as any.

posted by dhruva 10 November | 22:14

They let us vote. They even let a handful of us into congress. Why can't we just be grateful for that and stop whining so much?

Now get off the dang computer and go tend to your man. He's had a rough day of holding doors open for ungrateful feminazis and getting beaten up repeatedly.

See, I just don't get this. If I thought this way, then I wouldn't give a damn about women's problems so long as I see any kind of inequality tipped against men. Should I feel this way about race? Because we don't have enough minority members of parliament, either. (though the immediate problem is that we can't get enough minority candidates to run) But I guess I shouldn't care about that. Not my group.

posted by dreamsign 10 November | 22:15

I'm not talking about letting an idiot slide just because she doesn't have a set of balls-- I'm saying that these growing pains are a sign that women are achieving things that women of another era would never have dreamed possible.

Fair enough. Sounds like we're on the same page after all.

posted by jonmc 10 November | 22:19

At one point I was even told that I didn't "own" the term feminist (Jesus H. Christ!)and that it was too broad a term anyway. I am sitting here shaking my head at these young guys lecturing me-- a 48 year old woman who has experienced sexual discrimination or harrassment in virtually every arena and at every stage of her life. It still makes me seethe.

Well, 34 year old man who has been assaulted more times than I have fingers. It still makes me seethe.

Dreamsign, I don't know what to say. Are you really this dense?

I write that I have been sexually harassed which is a large part of why I work for equality for women, and why I think I might possibly know something about feminist issues. I've been harassed (and raped)by men.

And your response is you've been beaten up more then 10 times. By men.

The two things have nothing to do with each other.

Parading your victimhood is not going to change the discussion. The discussion is feminism. The discussion is how women have worked their asses off to achieve great changes in society and they have much more work to do.

Tighten your seatbelts because we are in for a bumpy ride. You think men are squealing now, just wait. Nothing hurts quite as much as handing over the reins of power.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 10 November | 22:45

Gravy, you responded to a stat about street violence with a stat about domestic violence (in the MeFi thread). Who was parading victimhood?

I pointed out a *concrete* problem, and if you were able to see this as anything other than an us-them issue, you would see that the men who have harassed you, and me, have nothing in common but a dick and balls.

The fact is, I don't deny inequality faced by women, nor do I start spouting off about "men's" problems when I'm told about an issue of concern to women. I take each issue as an independent concern. You, however, seem to need to reply to *any* issue a man has with a "we have it worse" attitude, which at best is counter-productive. And you wonder why you get hostility?

I have never been sexually harassed. But I have a mother, sisters, nieces and a spouse and female friends, and I'd hate to have it happen to any of them. Are there *no* men or boys in your life that you would like to see safe on the street? Because if you acknowledge that there's a problem -- regardless of the source, then I would think/hope that you would see the "safe ride" program as something that should respond to it, which is what my comment was about (not "parading victimhood"). It's because of people like you that the question is framed "who in this society is the victim of violence" instead of acknowledging that reality is just a touch more shaded than that, and that is why the program operates the way it does. And the fact that some *men* might cause violence toward other *men*... I can't even believe that I have to explain this to you. Why does my safety matter less? Are you really that dense?

posted by dreamsign 10 November | 23:04

Oh wait... it's because *other people with dicks and balls* have done terrible things. I don't deny this. Tell me again why this means that *I* can't work toward a *single* issue that is of concern to men without women yelling at me "we have it worse! we have it worse!" Cause I'll take some abuse. But my son? No. That doesn't cut it. Not by a friggin mile. (fortunately, Safe Ride accomodates children -- but he won't be a child forever) Do you fucking get it yet?

posted by dreamsign 10 November | 23:14

Fucking hell. "SAFE" ride.

Don't work out your demons on me, Gravy.

posted by dreamsign 10 November | 23:17

Nothing hurts quite as much as handing over the reins of power.

And the world will remain a fucked up place. Hertopia does not exist. And power corrupts. The only power any human is entitled to is power over themselves.

This whole stupid rhetorical dance ceased to be about anything other than the two of your egos a while ago.

posted by jonmc 10 November | 23:32

30. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called "crime" and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called "domestic violence" or "acquaintance rape," and is seen as a special interest issue.)

Every time women bring up violence against them, there's someone like you who comes off sounding like you don't understand male privilege. Your attitude, at least to me, comes off as so what if this happens to all women. I GET HURT TOO! Me! Me! Won't someone think of me? I get hurt too and I'm male, so stop making a big deal about it.

It's shrill, reactionary, and hurtful. You can walk into a police station and report the violence and it wouldn't be assumed that it was a domestic fight with a husband or boyfriend, or that you didn't pick the fight over something silly.

And right now what I fear is that you understand what I'm saying, and just don't care.

Now go on. Tell me again how you got beat up and I and everyone else should feel sorry for you and forget all this privilege stuff.

posted by FunkyHelix 10 November | 23:36

Tell me again why this means that *I* can't work toward a *single* issue that is of concern to men without women yelling at me "we have it worse! we have it worse!"

When did I ever say what you can do? In fact, I actually said this (on Metafilter): If you are afraid you are going to get assulted I'm not going to stop you from trying to get more police or more safety classes or whatever. Be my guest.

This whole conversation has been about you trying to browbeat me into saying I will work on the issues you deem important. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen. What you call strident, I call focused. Women have been labeled shrill, angry femnazis because they were willing to buck convention, to try and change society and a whole way of thinking. But guess what, it isn't easy. People don't like change.

Now, I personally don't know a single man who has been beaten up. If my husband, father, or nephew was repeatedly being beaten up for no good reason, I would certainly get out there and force some changes. But this just isn't happening.

On the other hand, I do know many girls short changed by the school sports department because all the funding goes to football and basketball. I do know a woman who receives no child support because her husband just disappeared so she was working two jobs to make ends meet, unfortunately social services was called because she left her 12 year old son home alone at night while she worked her second job. And I know one little girl who was raped at a very young age and always felt ashamed because she wasn't a virgin. I could feel this entire page with all the women and girls that I have personally known who have suffered in some way this patriarchal rule.

So telling me I have to work for both sexes or not all -- it just isn't going to fly. Nice try though.

jonmc: Again I didn't make myself clear. I never imagined for a moment there is going to be some magical utopia when "women come into power." First of all because I don't think women are infallable (and I do think power corrupts.) Secondly because women never will take over. Completely. It just isn't going to happen barring some mysterious virus that kills off all the male babies.

My prediction about the bumpy ride concerns the future when, say a woman finally does become President. I think men in this country will have an extremely difficult time with this. I predict an assassination attempt at the very least.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 10 November | 23:50

Now I really need to get to bed, because it is very cold in this room. But dreamsign, feel free to carry on without me. I'm sure you still have plenty more to say about how mean, nasty, shrill and horrible I am.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 11 November | 00:00

And the world will remain a fucked up place. Hertopia does not exist. And power corrupts. The only power any human is entitled to is power over themselves.

This just makes me think of whoever said, "The real proof of equality will come when an incompetent woman is appointed to high position."

Women deserve to be as corrupted as anyone else. That's kinda the point.

Also, dreamsign, I gotta say that I agree with funkyhelix and SLoG: the problem is showing up and demanding that a conversation about women be about men and calling that equality.

Finally, yay MeCha girls/women/ladies/what have you.

posted by dame 11 November | 00:04

I'm a what have you. Yay me!

posted by Edible Energy 11 November | 00:05

Yay MeCha edible energies!

posted by dame 11 November | 00:08

MeFi is such a major boyzone, but the guys refuse to believe it.

Please don't lump us all together. I have made more than my fair share of "it's a boyzone" posts, thank you very much. (I think I may have even called out jonmc once--sorry, Jon!) Hell, when the place went $5 I offered up memberships to the first 20 women that mailed me and said they wanted one but couldn't afford it or didn't have paypal. (I ended up signing up 26, if I remember correctly.)

That said, there seem to be more female voices speaking out in this thread than I ever saw do so in a single MeFi thread. Every time I made an anti-boyzone post on MeFi I would get multiple emails from female MeFites (FeMites?) thanking me.... but they rarely said so in the thread. It was encouraging and disheartening at the same time.

Funky, I liked your article but got lost in the last 1/4 as I don't know shit about Slash or Fan Fiction or those worlds. I've experienced the first 3/4 many, many times though. A good (male) friend of mine brings up the prostate thing all the time, as well as the "plenty of violence against men!" thing. I can honestly say that I've tried everything but he'll never discuss it in a reasonable fashion even though in other (non-women-related) things, he's very reasonable.

An ex of mine is a big whig at the Breast Cancer Foundation here in Canada and I keep waiting for him to bring it up in front of her so she can put him in his place. She's much more articulate (and informed!) than I. Should be an interesting match--so much so that he knows she'll eat him alive so he keeps his mouth shut.

Anyway, interesting thread.

posted by dobbs 11 November | 00:29

Should be an interesting match--so much so that he knows she'll eat him alive so he keeps his mouth shut.

Then the match wouldn't really be interesting, right? I mean, that's not much of a fight.

posted by kenko 11 November | 00:39

Yeah...about that prostate thing. Isn't the survival rate for prostate cancer considerably higher than for breast cancer? Could that explain the discrepancy there?

posted by jrossi4r 11 November | 00:42

kenko, interesting because once he does mention it, he won't back down. By keeping his mouth shut I meant "broach the subject"... eventually it'll snake out though.

posted by dobbs 11 November | 00:51

To touch on the surname thing: I'm not sure why taking a husband's name is "submissive" compared to keeping your father's. Using either name is something you choose to do.

Personally, I took my husband's name because of my father.

posted by deborah 11 November | 01:29

but i would incline to the view that this system is what that makes lineages easy to resolve.

The system that I proposed and which my wife and I planned to use, retained lineage information as well as being fair and having familial common identity.

The way it works is that the children have the parents hyphenated name until they marry, at which time they keep their same-sex portion of their hyphenated name and use that with their spouse's same-sex hyphenated name. That is, men retain their patronymic in the hyphenated name, and women retain the matronymic in the hyphenated name. While children, families all have the same hyphenated name. Hyphenating is equal and fair to both genders. All male descendents of our marriage would have had "Ellis" as their male portion of their hyphenated name, all female descendents would have "McIntyre" as their female portion of their hyphenated name.

My goal in coming up with this system was equality, familial identity, and retaining lineage. It had two flaws, one temporary and one serious. The first flaw was with "McIntyre", it being my ex-wife's father's name. This was particularly rankling to me, as he sexually abused her. But she felt that the name was enough hers that she didn't mind. We talked about taking her mother's maiden name, but that only pushed the problem back one generation. The bigger problem was in the case of gay marriages. I don't really have a solution to that, and it bothers me.

On divorce, the court's divorce decree changed my name back to "Keith Ellis" as it did Shelley's to "Shelley McIntyre". The decree, which was a form, had the wife's name change included in the form but they had to hand-write in my name change. I actually still haven't gotten around to telling social security about the reversion.

At St. John's College, everyone addresses each other as "Mr." and "Ms.", "Miss" or "Mrs." (the latter two I refused to use, regardless of the person's preference) and so, partly because of its length, everyone there and those that I know as alums now vividly thinks of me as "Mr. McIntyre-Ellis". So it wasn't only that I used the hyphenated name, it very powerfully became my identity.

posted by kmellis 11 November | 02:30

Dobbs, I too think it's sad that female mefites aren't more active on the site, and I'm one of them.

For me, it's a combo pack of issues, though. The specifically sexist element of the boyzone thing is disheartening*... The fact that just about any post focusing on a woman is going to have comments about how much someone does or does not want to fuck her - and that, by and large this is just seen as a normal observation in the course of commenting - seems wildly surreal to me. How do I fit into that picture at all? I don't.

I know that I should probably see this as an opportunity to speak up, but I don't relish the idea of becoming an instant target as the "shrill feminist", and I have too many things that I want to do and don't have time for to spend time talking to people who would make comments like that anyway.

But also because MeFi has developed this "gladiator school" style of discourse, and I don't fit into that picture either, it's just not a congenial place for me to participate very actively.

It's a loss for me, because I think MeFi really does have a lot of worthwhile, fascinating commenters/posters, but trying to pick out the informed, interesting comments that aren't overstuffed with insults and chestpuffery is tedious. (Also, I think that a lot of people now have been drawn to the site purely by the desire to participate in the flamewar aspect of it, so make that "tedious¹⁰ ".)

Also, since I'm not really that much into a news and politics site, I'm just less and less inclined to participate very actively. Why try to force the fit?

However, I do agree that if more women would participate... more women would participate. But what to do? Organize a drive? Wouldn't that also be weird, as well as somehow inherently divisive? I don't know, but I suspect so.

(* Please take for granted the obvious disclaimer that not all male mefites do this or agree with it.)

posted by taz 11 November | 02:38

Also a note about comparing violence against men and women. While it's true that men are more often assaulted in general, women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual violence than are men. And as a matter of fact, I think it's probably the majority of women in the US, not even a minority.

After I had been volunteering as a rape crisis hospital advocate, almost every woman close to me—that is both family and friends—disclosed to me their experience of being the victims of sexual violence. Everything from rape to molestation. The sheer ubiquity of sexual violence against women is overwhelming; I don't think most women realize how common it is and I mention this often because one of many things survivors struggle with is feeling very alone in their pain.

However, men are victims of sexual violence more often than is thought. This is thought to be one of the most underreported crimes. Men are far more likely to sexually assaulted by other men, but sexual assault of a man by a woman does happen. It's supposedly impossible by folk wisdom, but in fact it's quite easy as the body responds quite independently from the mind. This is true for women, as well, and this fact is one of the most confusing and hurtful things that a survivor torments themselves with. So this is also something I like to mention often.

"The War Against Women" sounds like hyperbole, but it's not.

Finally, both by my own consideration, by my rape crisis counseling, and other education in women's studies, there is a way in which many men try to help women and concern themselves with their problems that is not helpful. Being patronizing, being the knight in shining armor does not help. It is part of and perpetuates the problem. This is especially a problem for men who are close to a rape survivor, particularly their husbands. This is the complaint I've had against Dobbs.

posted by kmellis 11 November | 02:42

Well, despair. I thought I was going to sleep, but the drunken neighbors had other plans for me. So let me just say:

No, dobbs, I don't pipe up about sexism very often on MeFi. I did more so when I first joined, but you know what? It gets tiresome to be the forever scold. Really, how do you pick and choose? Do you make some lexical point about sand in the vagina, do you make some political point about violence against women, do you react to how "just about any post focusing on a woman is going to have comments about how much someone does or does not want to fuck her" (as taz succinctly put it)? Like her, I don't have the time nor the inclination to be that person.

That's because I've had already had this conversation so many times in my life, and it follows such a familiar, disheartening pattern. The original link (remember it?) was about women's fandom writing and men's protestation that it wasn't inclusive enough. Now, here we are, again being asked to contemplate men: the violence done to them, their pain of being wrongly accused of sexism, their efforts to fix the problem. Why? Again, with the apology and equivocation: that does not diminish the importance of those things. It just means that they do not have to be, nor should they be, the inevitable outcome of any conversation about these issues.

Many of you have never read slash. I have; I find it fascinating. I've read Joanna Russ' How to Surpress Women's Writing, the first time I learned of the K/S (Kirk/Spock) phenomenon; how women, in male-dominated SF fandom, created this radical genre focusing on tenderness and love between men. Bad slash is easy to laugh at, but the good stuff is really interesting, and raises all kinds of questions about gender, sexuality, politics -- and some of it is extremely hot, to boot. But I don't think we can have that conversation anymore; the thread has completely unravelled.

If you knew nothing of it before, are you curious about slash now? If not, cool. But if not, why oh why use the topic as a jumping point for general complaints about feminism? Why not just listen, instead of reacting?

If you can't do that here, what are the hopes of it happening on MeFi?

posted by melissa may 11 November | 03:36

But I don't think we can have that conversation anymore; the thread has completely unravelled.

I'd still be willing to have it. Slash absolutely fascinates me. The fact that it is something produced mostly by straight women about sexual and romantic relationships between two men. The idea of these fictional characters becoming a way to work out extremely complex issues dealing with sex, violence, love and gender. The heated debates that flare up over loved and/or hated pairings. The way in which some straight women take their interest in it so far as to consider fictionalized heterosexual relationships unappealing. (Het? Gross!)

I admit when I first got involved with fandom in a generalized sense that slash, or really fan-fiction in general, confused me. But the more I read about it and the more involved I get with the people who produce it, the more fascinating it becomes. And I'm all the more fascinated by it because of the issues funkyhelix raised in her excellent essay.

posted by LeeJay 11 November | 03:47

But if not, why oh why use the topic as a jumping point for general complaints about feminism? Why not just listen, instead of reacting?

Your complaint is valid with regard to jonmc's immediately jumping in and offering a "different point of view" and dreamsign's "men have it bad, too" comments on the subject. But your complaint is wrong in claiming that the subject was slash. It was not. Not in the original essay, nor in this post about the essay. The topic is how men are privileged in this society in a way that shuts women out of many conversations. I wouldn't say the thread has derailed.

Additionally, the post itself mentions a man that had "his eyes opened" by the essay; it implicitly concerns men and their attitudes with regard to women and discourse. That doesn't make the topic primarily about men—far from it—but it does include them.

However, you're quite right that as a general rule men will jump into any topic concerning the status of women and turn the discussion to what they think about the matter qua men. I don't think I've done that in my comments, but I apologize if I have.

posted by kmellis 11 November | 04:25

fwiw i'm a single, "full-time" parent (male fyi) and i guess i'd consider myself more of a third-wave feminist than anything, i guess. so, from my (minority?) pov, the essay came across as more of a rambling, angry, flamebaitish rant than anything approaching a worthwhile, insightful, or "productive" dialogue... i.e., conceptually operating w/in such a paradigmic framework not only misses the bigger picture but actually serves to perpetuate further bs conventional wisdom re: socially-constructed gender norms, imho*. sorry for sounding like a pompous douchbag or whatever. im generally sympathetic to anyone's plight, and rarely do i seethe... i just wanted to reprezent and also give a shoutout to all the men who secretly enjoy drinking strawberry daiquiris but are shamed into silence by other bullshit cultural norms ("real" men drink beer am i rite?). and extra props for those who arent afraid to openly reject the nonsense and myths of "manhood".

However, you're quite right that as a general rule men will jump into any topic concerning the status of women and turn the discussion to what they think about the matter qua men.

*...which is why i feel compelled to offer my opinion and frame of reference. still, how is this unique either to men or the subject at hand?

btw bros b4 hoes

posted by Wedge 11 November | 05:31

^ ... obviously not a gardener.

What taz said, about MeFi, except that I think that gladiators treat each other with more respect. I'm not really ok in a place where people enlarge their gonads by taking each other out over opinions. I don't mind being disagreed with; it's no big deal.

The key word for me is respect.

Making someone else' pain into it being about yourself isn't helpful. We could discuss violence in general in another thread. I've been a victim of random violence a couple of times, and of violence targeting me as female more times than I care to count. One subject at a time, please.

Slash fan fic is a new one on me. Thanks for broadening my world view.

posted by reflecked 11 November | 06:23

If you're interested in the slash aspect, these are two pretty good links to read up on it without having to read the stuff.

How ~~young~~ women explore their sexuality online
A mefi thread that started out as Matt mocking fanfic/slash, which turns it into a explanation and defense of slash by several Mefi ladies, myself included.

posted by FunkyHelix 11 November | 07:35

Thanks for pointing out that Mefi thread, funkyhelix. I'd missed it somehow and it's an interesting read.

posted by selfnoise 11 November | 08:48

Kmellis--I like your naming system alot and wish that we had thought to use it. It makes a hell of a lot of sense.

A few years back, I tried to rent a car and they wouldn't let me because they said I wasn't insured. Seems State Farm's computer system had no way to handle married people with the different last names, so I wasn't in the system. I had to get a note from my husband stating that I was covered under his policy.

What guy in this world ever needed a note from his wife to do a routine business transaction?

posted by jrossi4r 11 November | 09:59

Personally, I took my husband's name because of my father.
posted by deborah 11 November

I did too. I couldn't get rid of this hateful reminder fast enough. Then after 18 years of marriage I was left with my ex-husband's name, and while I kept it for 5 years because it was also my daughter's last name, I recently took husband number two's last name because a) I love him very, very much and b) his last name is very pretty, very English while ex's name is Asian (I am Caucasian.)

Good thing my identity is not wrapped up in my name, huh?

posted by Secret Life of Gravy 11 November | 10:12

Women deserve to be as corrupted as anyone else. That's kinda the point.

Well, they have the right to be, but corruption is still corruption, and I'm still gonna call it what it is.

posted by jonmc 11 November | 10:50

The fact that just about any post focusing on a woman is going to have comments about how much someone does or does not want to fuck her - and that, by and large this is just seen as a normal observation in the course of commenting - seems wildly surreal to me.

Even more surreal when it's phrased as "I'd hit it." Hitting? IT?! Yet it's so common that there is no point in mentioning it, really.

I've really enjoyed this discussion, and thanks for the link to the post about slash fiction. I had missed that one, and it was interesting.

posted by heatherann 11 November | 10:56

The way it works is that the children have the parents hyphenated name until they marry, at which time they keep their same-sex portion of their hyphenated name and use that with their spouse's same-sex hyphenated name. That is, men retain their patronymic in the hyphenated name, and women retain the matronymic in the hyphenated name.

Hey, that always how I planned on doing it! And I have both my parents' names as a last name now, so I'm on my way.

Even opposed minds think alike sometime, I suppose. It makes me feel dirty, though.

posted by dame 11 November | 11:39

Good thing my identity is not wrapped up in my name, huh?

Indeed. And mine isn't either. I'm just glad that my mister's name is also a nice name.

posted by deborah 11 November | 15:11

Wow funkyhelix, I somehow missed that thread too. And now I miss headspace. She wrote so many great posts, and I wonder where she's gone off to. I'm gonna have to write that girl.

For me, reading the old K/S stories is amazing: those women were on the edge, just flying, and you can sense the giddiness of it. As for more recent stuff, I'm a fan of Herself, (and much of the other writing on Bugger This), as well as Anna N. But post-Buffy, I've fallen off slash reading, probably because I watch so little serial TV now.

(And actually, I didn't mean to imply the scope of the conversation should be limited to this; I'm interested in naming conventions and other aspects of the conversation. The matronymic/patronymic arrangement always seemed logical and fair to me as well.)

posted by melissa may 11 November | 15:22

brunching shuttlecocks' geek hierarchy: funny or true? btw arent all metanarratives inherently oppressive?

posted by Wedge 11 November | 17:36

10 November 2005