MetaChat - Paging Team Vag

[warning- angry feminism to follow]

Better men than you and I have agreed that it's a complex issue without a shred of black or white

Aaaack. Everyone with a uterus, raise your hand...

If your hand is down, then stfu, n00b!

posted by SassHat 23 January | 00:10

I haven't even gotten to the end of the damn thread and I'm already seeing read.

motherfuckers.

posted by SassHat 23 January | 00:17

Thank you!

posted by SassHat 23 January | 00:21

I'm having a whole thread to myself just to keep from saying this over on mefi:

fuck you
fuck you

You're allowed an opinion on this when you get your uterus put in.

The only exception to that rule is Arnold's character in the film "Junior," who, to clarify, does not exist.

If you can't trust women to make the right decisions, then why let them get pregnant at all? They might smoke while they're pregnant. But, then again, we all know how popular crack babies are! They can't keep them on the shelf at the adoption agency!

posted by SassHat 23 January | 00:29

In Bush's America, your vag is like the Capitol building or Yellowstone Park: public property.

posted by orthogonality 23 January | 00:32

In Communist Russia, fetus aborts you!

posted by SassHat 23 January | 00:34

You did hear about the North Carolina woman who was prosecuted for child endangerment for using drugs while pregnant, right?

posted by orthogonality 23 January | 00:34

(The cliche begins "In Soviet Russia...")

posted by orthogonality 23 January | 00:35

Whatever, purist.

It's very late.

posted by SassHat 23 January | 00:35

PS:

Why aren't you in IRC, bitch?

posted by SassHat 23 January | 00:36

It's later than you think, Handmaid.

posted by orthogonality 23 January | 00:36

Abortion-related posts on Mefi are guaranteed to have two things: idiotic posts by bevets and people who for some reason can not keep from responding to the dolt.

posted by weretable and the undead chairs 23 January | 00:41

Dear Ortho:

Nice reference.

posted by SassHat 23 January | 00:48

Don't know why, (well I do, but I don't like admitting what a sick idiot I am) but I'm reminded of a song by the violent femmes

posted by seanyboy 23 January | 03:14

If men could get pregnant, there'd be abortion clinics everywhere, it'd cost 29.95 and you could watch ESPN during the procedure.

posted by George_Spiggott 23 January | 03:32

George_Spiggot. Nail. Head. He hits it.

posted by taz 23 January | 04:14

Taz hit on the head the nail that george_spiggott hit on the head.

And by the way, condoms are cheap.

Penis.

posted by mudpuppie 23 January | 04:31

I have a (used) uterus, and I have an opinion.

I doubt you wanna hear it tho. Especially since I was an unwanted pregnancy.

My great grandmother was illegitimate. Her first child was conceived out of wedlock. My grandmother conceived my mom out of wedlock. I was conceived out of wedlock.
That is all I am gonna say other than I'm glad I'm here.

posted by bunnyfire 23 January | 07:03

I never have the energy for threads like that. So I usually avoid them.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 January | 07:37

Ditto TPS. I'm not sure what I think about it, I'm not sure if it's as complex as it's been made to be, or if it is simply an issue of women's rights.

I personally think there are too many people in this world, period. I don't know enough about statistics on birthrate in this country, but I do know that I have a nephew who is 22 and has had 2 daughters by 2 different women, neither of whom he married. I have a sister (the mother of said nephew) who had 6 kids. She is constantly complaining that she has no money and no retirement. That is not to say she is a bad mother. She also had 3 abortions before she was 17. She called me about 3 months before she had her last child, and told me she knew she needed to quit her job 6 weeks prior to delivery so medicaid would cover the expenses. I was furious, because it was my wallet and everyone else's wallet not even remotely connected with her that was footing the bill. That is wrong.

I can see why people would want to have 2 kids - one to replace each parent, essentially (I know it doesn't work out that neatly, but that's the idea). But to reproduce just because you can is selfish and shortsighted for all of us. I'd even go so far as to say it's immoral.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think we really need to raise the bar on being responsible for ourselves first and most. To own our actions and think about their implications. I don't think most of the people in those birthrate statistics do that. I find very few people who consciously consider the impact of parenthood on their own lives, their kids' lives, and the rest of the population on the planet, not to mention resources.

We went out for breakfast last weekend and while we ate, 2 different fathers and sons sat at the table next to us, successively. The first father was rushing his kid to eat, saying they had to get to sunday school, did he get enough, was he full? The kid didn't say anything. The second father-son pair was completely different. The father talked to the kid while the kid ate his muffin, explaining that he wanted the kid to put the muffin on the napkin, not the table b/c it might be dirty. The kid asked about the salt & pepper shakers, & the dad said he might want to use them on eggs or a baked potato, but probably not a muffin. The kid offered his dad a bite of the muffin while the kid held it.

I know I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is that not only are there too many people, but there are too few quality parental relationships out there, and that's what the whole furor of the right/wrong abortion issue is skirting. Additionally, I believe the choice for the majority should occur before the pregnancy - in people capable of choosing, not instances of rape or incest.

If that makes me black-and-white, so be it. My shoes? I'm childless by choice. Never wanted them, didn't think it would be fair to have them because it was "the thing to do" according to society, and valued my time for other things. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate kids or the very hard work parenting is all about. It means I thought about it and it wasn't for me. I can help but wonder how different my sister's and my nephew's lives might be if they had done the same kind of thinking before boinking.

posted by chewatadistance 23 January | 08:22

I tried typing a comment for that thread, but everytime it just turned into a thread of obscenities...

dejah420's comment early in the thread was good, but it just sort of spiraled off into the usual clusterfuck after that.

posted by kosher_jenny 23 January | 08:32

i don't think it's going that badly--there have been far worse Roe v. Wade threads in the past--and while i am the most pro-choice man around, i don't think it's right to say all guys should stfu bec they don't have uteruses--you're eliminating strong supporters--most men, who are majority pro-choice i believe (for all sorts of reasons).

why don't you people jump into that thread? why are there only 2 women in there? (as far as i can tell)

amd chewatadistance, that comment should definitely be in the thread itself.

posted by amberglow 23 January | 08:35

You're allowed an opinion on this when you get your uterus put in.

I haven't read that thread. If I had, I'd probably be all 'fuck you, fuck you' as well. But saying men shouldn't state their opinion on abortion because they don't get pregnant is pretty bigoted. Should lesbians shut up? How about post-menopausal women?

posted by danostuporstar 23 January | 09:28

sasshat, I think you should post to the metafilter thread. It seems like you're preaching to the choir here. If you have to say fuck you then say fuck you. It's not like it's never happened before.

posted by iconomy 23 January | 09:37

Lesbians and post-menopausal wome were all born with a uterus. I think sasshat's point is that it is hard to listen to someone who has never, will never and could never endure pregnancy insist that they get to dictate who should be pregnant.

If, for some reason, I ever faced the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy, I most certainly would include my husband in the decision making. He doesn't get disregarded just because he's a guy. But the old man in the Wal-Mart parking lot with pro-life stickers all over the car--who is he to tell me what to do? Why does he think he has dominion over my womb? He'll never be pregnant and he's not likely to knock anyone up. I would never, ever advocate taking away his right to speak or vote on the issue, but it is annoying.

posted by jrossi4r 23 January | 09:47

it is hard to listen to someone who has never, will never and could never endure pregnancy insist that they get to dictate who should be pregnant.

But even if I my opinion is the same as yours,

You're allowed an opinion on this when you get your uterus put in.

Fine. It's your fight. I won't presume to vote, either.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 09:57

If men could get pregnant, there'd be abortion clinics everywhere, it'd cost 29.95 and you could watch ESPN during the procedure.

No kidding!

dejah420's comment was fantastic. And I'm with fshgrl when she says "Pro-choice is just that, you believe in a choice. A lot of women who are pro-choice would not choose to have an abortion themselves, but don't feel they should impose their decision on everyone."

For the record, I am very pro-choice. Would I ever have an abortion? I don't know. But if I do find myself in that situation, I want to be the one making the decision. I don't want Bill Frist and George W. Bush and Randall Terry et al making it for me. And I have no right to make that decision for someone else.

posted by sisterhavana 23 January | 10:03

No, Hugh. If your opinion is the same as mine, than you believe that NO ONE should have the right to force a woman to be pregnant--male, female or otherwise, right?

posted by jrossi4r 23 January | 10:05

Hey, I'm pro-choice, too, but people generally chafe at being told that they have no right to an opinion. Besides, so what if they do have an opinion, we're also free to disregard their opinions.

(Also, I don't think abortion will become illegal anytime soon. Loud pro-life loonies aside, something like 75% of the country identifies as pro-choice. Outlawing it would be political suicide.)

posted by jonmc 23 January | 10:08

Yes, that's my opinion, jrossi4r. But I still don't have a uterus. So I'll step aside.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 10:09

*punches Hugh where his uterus should be*

I'm thankful and grateful to every pro-choice dude in the world. You're quality peeps. It's the ones that want to keep us barefoot and pregnant that chafe. (But, to repeat what I said earlier, I'm not advocating taking away their right to vote or speak. Just stating that it is annoying.)

posted by jrossi4r 23 January | 10:18

It's the ones that want to keep us barefoot and pregnant that chafe.

Don't be silly. We'd let you have shoes.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 10:21

All I gotta say on the topic... I'd have a lot more respect for the "pro-life" crowd's position, if it also included welfare and day care, universal health care, and income-independant high quality public education.

I fail to see the unifying logic of the pro-life, anti-welfare, anti-socialized health care contingent.

posted by mosch 23 January | 10:24

Oh, thank you, jonmc. You know how we ladies just looooove shoes! Maybe Operation Rescue could start a shoes for fetuses program. Free Manolos for every sprog dropped!

posted by jrossi4r 23 January | 10:24

I don't think Manolos make shoes that small. Plus wouldn't heels be painful to crawl in?

posted by jonmc 23 January | 10:25

I read only the first 30 or so comments there, but what I found annoying was not that men were opining, but that they were acting like no one had ever thought through the whole issue before, but that *their* particular take on it would change the world.

I'm sure it's a problem with MeFi (and the online world) in general -- we are, for the most part, a pretty priveleged group -- but that underlying assumption of "What *I* say is important, because no one else has had such brilliant ideas before" tends to really grate on my nerves in the women's-rights threads -- mainly because I know that yes, other people *have* stated those ideas, have stated other more radical ideas, have published more nuanced rebuttals of the those ideas, and have often moved onto other issues in the meantime, but because (in my opinion) they're women publishing in a field that's about women, no one's listening to them.

Which is also what pissed me off about the Larry Summer's "girls are different; we should study that" comment. We *are* studying it, asshole. You have a whole *department* studying it. But suddenly a white dude says, "Hey, that bears some looking into!," ignoring decades of work and debate and fighting that's happened, and dudes everywhere start asking me why I'm up in arms about the suggestion.

So that's my problem with many of the male MeFi's acting like they have the right to determine whether or not I get to reproduce (as opposed to simply talking about the issue). It's just that assumption of privelege shining through.

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 10:58

I understand what your saying occhiblu, and for the most part I try to step fairly carefully into debates about issues like this (ones that are both outside my purview and emotionally charged), but if this hypothetical 'white dude,' encounters only hostility upon venturing into these waters, it dosen't exactly encourage him to dig deeper, does it? just saying.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 11:02

Yeah, but I've had so many guys use the "If feminists were just *nicer*, they could get heard, you know?" argument ad nauseum, and requests for ladies to stay polite and dainty when the world is trying to screw them over get... old. Fast.

We act like the conservatives who post on MeFi should, for the most part, stay thick-skinned. With the exception of protesting personal attacks, no one seems to think that everyone should "be nice" when debating politics. Unless it's women's politics.

I guess I'm just saying, if one (male or female) is going to be debating an issue, then one should maybe try to be up-to-date about the issue. Since women's issues get so little real nuanced debate in mainstream sources, those of us who actually follow these issues more thoroughly can sometimes be astounded at the ignorance and general yeah-we-covered-that-topic-a-decade-ago, thanks-ness of some of the mainstream commentary ....

I'm getting esoteric. My main point was that these are issues that most women (and many men) have thought about extensively, and some clueless people coming in and yelling "Chill out, why are you so hostile? We've got this covered, girls, we'll figure this out for you," even if it's well intentioned, can very easily make me see red.

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 11:10

and some clueless people coming in and yelling "Chill out, why are you so hostile? We've got this covered, girls, we'll figure this out for you," even if it's well intentioned, can very easily make me see red.

That I can understand. But sometimes you get hostility simply for saying "So, what's this all about?" or venturing a "What about this?"

But, as someone who minces words for nobody, I don't ask that anyone play nice, just that people actually listen to eachother.

As I said to someone recently, if we don't figure out what made this country swing rightward back in the day, we'll never get it to swing leftward again. And I don't mean facile 'people are just racost/sexist/homophobic/whatever' that's part of it, but it's not the whole story.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 11:15

Sorry, jrossi4r, I combined what you said with what someone else said; that was wrong.

But the whole "you lack a uterus" stance I need to address, because it's so obnoxious and counterproductive (I can't believe I try to tone down "stupid" and come up with "obnoxious and counterproductive").

It's like coming into a room where she's standing there with her thumbs in her ears, shouting all kinds of things you agree with, and when she sees you come into the room, she tells you to FUCK OFF, GET OUT, EAT SHIT, ASSHOLE!

So you take the cup of tea you brought for her and fuck off, drink it somewhere else.

And you still hope her voice won't break, because you still agree with her, and you still love her.

And yeah, fuck white dudes. Especially WHITE dudes. And particularly any specific member of that group -- yeah, you heard me, fuck you, white guy.

Who me? Fine, fine, say what you want. Be as hostile as you want. Come to your own conclusions, I'll come to mine. You tell me yours; I'll shut the fuck up. We'll still agree. I'll still vote, despite all your efforts to get me to shut the fuck up.

Please be reasonable.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 11:24

This also symptomatic of an impression feminists have (intentionally or not) left with a lot of American men: that feminsist are male-hostile unless the male in question is either a)gay * or b)some kind of new age sensitive girly-man.

*this opens up a whole bunch of misperceptions about gays, I realize, but it also highlights that the whole situation is a lot murkier than anyone wants to admit.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 11:32

My theory on that is that many men don't seem to realize (through whatever combined faults/blinders of their own and of feminism's rhetoric) that when we complain about "the patriarchy," we are not complaining about individual men. We are complaining about the current system that's a result of historical fact, not about one dude's treatment of us (though that treatment may be reinforced by the patriarchal system).

So women say "This system is fucked up" and men hear "Men are fucked up."

Well, that, and it's so ingrained in everyone's heads that "women should be nice" that the second women start getting angry, people get actually scared. I had a boyfriend who would bitch with me for HOURS about Republicans, but the second I would bring up abortion rights, he'd tell me that he "couldn't stand that tone in my voice." That tone was exactly the same as when I was complaining about GWB; he just heard it differently.

Maybe related to the same instinct that distresses men to see women crying? I don't know.

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 11:39

(Also, for what it's worth, some of the most chauvanistic idiots I've ever conversed with about feminism were gay men. So yes, there's a perception that feminists are OK with gay men, but that doesn't always really go the other way.)

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 11:41

Quick summary: I'm pro-choice, would probably never have an abortion myself, believe that all women who are pregnant should be forced to go to mandatory parenting classes, and have friends who have had abortions who I'm very sad because they've had to make that choice.

Why am I not speaking up on MeFi? Because all the rhetoric gets dull after a while. Even here, where saner voices seem to be.

Sorry... this vag isn't as angry as it should be, I guess.

posted by TrishaLynn 23 January | 11:42

well, it's also that sense that it's you or people like you who are being blamed for the world's problems that can make men a tad uptight sometimes. (I frankly belive that everyone needs to take a bit eof the blame sandwich myself).

Also, one of missions in life is to show that a guy can be a testsoterone oozing drunken neanderthal sex maniac and still be pro-feminist. I'll give you progress report. ;>

posted by jonmc 23 January | 11:46

So women say "This system is fucked up" and men hear "Men are fucked up."

C'mon, occhiblu, maybe I have cotton in my ears, but I haven't heard any complaints about "the patriarchy" or "the system" here.

And your judgment of what's ingrained in my head is not only wrong but presumptuous. Your example sounds like a complaint about an individual man. I know plenty who would hear you out.

The same instinct that distresses men to see women crying, distresses men to see men crying, women to see women crying, women to see men crying, and everyone to see babies crying. Oh yeah, and babies to see adults crying. Or doesn't it work that way for you?

Anyway, we agree. See you at the polls.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 11:51

But I think a lot of feminists *have* taken that blame, continue to take that blame, and work to rout out those patriarchal attitudes, assumptions, and behaviors from their life.

I mean, I'm part of the system, yes, but I do what I can to make sure I'm not just buying into it wholesale. I think a lot of men, in particular, derive so much benefit (or, at least, don't incur so many costs) from the system as it stands that it doesn't occur to them to try to live outside it, or at least to question its assumptions.

There was a guy commenting on a feminist blog the other day who was trying to argue that just because his wife stayed home with the kids, and he earned all the money, that it was not an unfair set-up to her because (1) she chose it and (2) if something ever happened to one of them, he believed he'd be just as badly off without her as she'd be without him.

Except that she'd have no income, no recent job skills, and she'd have to be battling a system where "single mother" doesn't generally mean "top of the candidate pile."

The fact that he couldn't *see* this -- not that he couldn't agree to it, but simply that he couldn't understand what our objections to that being the norm were -- just seemed to show that he hadn't considered his life in terms of how it played out in the bigger system of things. He personally is not "responsible" for the world's problems, but his choices do (or can) reinforce those problems.

On preview: Hugh, I was addressing Jon's comment only, about the assumption that all feminists hate men. That was all.

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 11:55

And: Straight men seeing their girlfriends/wives crying seem much more incapacitated by it then any other of the combinations you mentioned. I can watch my friends cry and not get so distracted by the crying that the conversation derails. I've yet to see a man watch his partner cry who can do the same thing (and this is something I've talked to a number of guys about).

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 11:57

True, but strangely sadistic story: When I broke up with my first boyfriend, I knew it was something I had to do and couldn't cave in to the sadness that was going to result. So when he curled up into a ball and lay down on the pavement in the driveway, sobbing his eyes out, I didn't move to comfort him. I didn't cry myself. I let him weep and chanted to myself to be strong and to end it.

This is something that I'm very, very proud of.

posted by TrishaLynn 23 January | 12:04

I guess it's a matter of experience, then, occhiblu. I still think you're drawing some broad conclusions.

And, please forgive me, but so what if you were only talking to jonmc? Should I shut my ears and leave?

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 12:06

Heh, no, I just meant that jonmc presented a broad stereotype ("feminists are seen as manhaters in the world in general") and so I posted an equally broad theory as to why, in the world in general, that was the case. I wasn't commenting on this particular thread, or any of the posters in it.

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 12:09

He personally is not "responsible" for the world's problems, but his choices do (or can) reinforce those problems.

Fair enough, but sometime's hostile lecturing might not be the best way to explain it to him. In fact it might make him even more hostile. And yeah, in a perfect world that shouldn't matter, but we live in this one.

I just meant that jonmc presented a broad stereotype ("feminists are seen as manhaters in the world in general")

One that I personally don't subscribe to just so you know, although some of the more hardcore feminists do make me bristle a bit.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 12:14

hardcore feminists do make me bristle a bit

So... you think it's possible that some of the "what's women's problem???" men & women out there might make many feminists bristle a bit? Perhaps even leading to "hostile" responses? ;-)

It goes back a bit to my assumed privelege argument -- you as straight man, up there on your societally-approved pedestal (that you did not create, I recognize), get to tell me what tone I should take when asking for my equal rights.

I'm not blaming you personally for that being the case, just trying to demonstrate where my (and many other's) frustration lies. The fact that you get to tell me to "ask nicely" shows how much power you (generic you, as representative of male culture) currently hold.

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 12:23

Again, occhi, I see your point (and please don't take anything i say as an attack here, I'm merely enjoying an interesting conversation).

What I meant by 'bristle,' is that I often get the sense from some feminists, that simply because I'm a man (and esp. a man of my appearance, demeanor, and tastes) that I am gulity till proven innocent of being a misogynist* which all politics aside, chafes.

* (I make no claims to complete innocence of sexism or misogyny. I don't think anyone can really, just like nobody can claim to be completely free of prejudice in general, but that's a whole other issue.)

posted by jonmc 23 January | 12:32

Oh, okay, then I'm glad I wrote as carefully as I did, occhiblu.

I completely agree with you and see where you're coming from (except the crying thing, but that's a non-issue). Seriously, this is the issue. Only it tends to be spoken of in terms too general or too specific to be very persuasive.

And there's a wide gulf between "asking nicely" and "being a dick." Like I said, right is right; women presenting belittling and demeaning arguments won't change the fact that a woman's body is her own, nor will it change my agreement on the issue.

Preach to the choir. Don't tell 'em to stop singing, or that they don't really deserve to be there. That's being a dick.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 12:41

Nope, no attack perceived or intended.

But that sense that you get from some feminists? Is the equivalent of the sense I get from a lot of men -- that I'm not intelligent or worth listening to simply because I'm a woman, and that I am guilty until proven innocent of being around simply to coo over their accomplishments or to pick up their socks or to provide a nice ass for them to comment on as they drive by.

And you know, give me a day with enough of that happening, and yes, it makes me hostile and mad. When you spend your days reading about it happening to so many other women -- and much, much, much worse things happening to so many other women, everywhere -- and then someone tells you that you won't get anywhere unless you're *nice* about it, when the very fact that women are taught to be "nice" is contributing to the goddamned problem because "nice" also means "negligible," well.... yeah. It can get tiring.

On preview: Hugh, I never said anything of the sort. I wish men (and some women) would educate themselves more before jumping into the debate, rather than just swaggering in and taking it over (seriously, I got accused of being a bad feminist on MeFi recently because I didn't support equal funds for prostate cancer research -- WTF? Talk about pushing women's concerns aside in favor of your own agenda...), but I do think men necessarily must be a part of these debates. It'd just be nice if most of them listened a bit more and lectured a bit less.

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 12:45

Is the equivalent of the sense I get from a lot of men -- that I'm not intelligent or worth listening to simply because I'm a woman,

Well, there's a word for guys like that: chauvanists (I won't say misogynist, since many of these men don't hate women, they just possess dunderheaded preconceptions about them), but with the right approach they can be brought around somewhat.

to provide a nice ass for them to comment on as they drive by

Well, that is appreciated. But in the interest of fairness, I'm glad to provide the same thing for the ladies.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 12:53

It'd just be nice if most of them listened a bit more and lectured a bit less.

These shoes fit all our feet, myself included.

I'm not asking anyone to be nice. I'm just asking them to stop assuming that the guy they're talking to is making assumptions about them. If he doesn't roll his eyes, don't assume that he's rolling them internally.

And of course I've been, as usual, confusingly and didactically mixing my use of specific and general "you"s until the water's well and truly muddy. Nothing personal here, and I find this all quite valuable, even though I'm an interloper.

Seriously, nobody wants to be lectured unless they signed up for the class. And unless you have a full inventory of their knowledge and opinions, you never know if it's a class they've already taken. I'm not saying don't start; I'm saying be prepared to change your tack when your class surprises you.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 12:57

Just to make a random comment...

You know what irks me the most? And it's related to the whole "play nice" thing and the need to apologise, still, for being pro-abortion rights.

The fact that many pro-abortion rights people feel like they have to temper their comments with "well of course most women feel sad" and "of course abortion is a Bad Thing" and other such blanket comments.

You know what? Not all women feel that. Speaking for myself and many, MANY people I know, having an abortion evokes one emotion: relief. Followed quickly by happiness. And it was no more traumatic or meaningful to me than a wisdom tooth extraction.

So fuck you to the people who say they speak for me.

This is none of you metachat people, I'm just a little ranty right now. and, uh, sorry for butting in on the conversation. It's interesting

posted by gaspode 23 January | 13:03

Heh.

But those chauvinists are more common and less recognizable than you think. I'm not just talking trust-fund frat-boy behavior, I'm talking little tiny things that happen all the time that remind me how screwed up we, as a society, are about women. I'm talking about my company's management team being all male, and seemingly unable to promote any of our female directors into VP positions -- the guys get promoted, but we go outside whenever a slot opens up above a woman. I'm talking about real estate agents or car salesmen or dentists (just to name a few mentioned on MeCha recently) who refuse to speak to the female half of a couple and address all their comments to the guy. I'm talking about the people who tell me that I'm being "too strident" when I talk about feminism. Everday occurences, not just the Larry Summers-esque flame-outs.

But, in any event, jonmc, I'm glad you're doing what you can for equal ass opportunity. We need more men willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause.

And Hugh, agreed, but that goes for both sides. The amount of crap society has piled on to both sides of the gender "war" is atrocious and out of control, and we'd be better off, again, talking to and listening to each other rather than making huge assumptions about what anyone wants. But I think that also means that we have a responsibility to challenge our own assumptions -- about what's "normal," about whether the lives we're leading are what we want or just what we default into -- because I think it's hard to accept where other people are coming from unless you make conscious choices in your life rather than just falling into things.

(Was that just confusing as hell or what? Perhaps I should stop posting until I've had something to eat today...)

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 13:06

(That "heh" was directed at jonmc's comment, by the way. Damn you all for posting so fast!)

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 13:06

sorry for butting in on the conversation.

Metachat means never having to say that, gaspode.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 13:07

Oh I know Hugh, but y'all are having a nice back and forth and I'm all "BLAH BLAH BLAH".

Carry on.

posted by gaspode 23 January | 13:09

it's hard to accept where other people are coming from unless you make conscious choices in your life rather than just falling into things.

Word.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 13:09

But gaspode, I wanna hear you roar.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 13:10

Hugh, here's something, though: You say no one wants to be lectured unless they've signed up for the class. This is true. I think where that gets muddied in the feminism arena is the whole heterosexual relationship thing.

I can't box off my feminist issues into one area of my life, because (to me at least) they are central to how I conduct myself in my relationships with everyone, and most specifically with my romantic partners. So if he wants to understand me, he's going to get roped into these issues. Broadening that, any man who's involved with any feminist is going to get roped into some of these issues, whether he wants to be or not.

It's all very well to say "Don't lecture me unless I ask for it," but in the past I've been in relationships where it's assumed that I do all the caring-work and all the housework and all the typically female things, and you better believe I'm going to start kicking some feminist ass once I realize that the power dynamic is skewed that way, whether my partner wants to hear it or not.

Men and women are, to some extent, locked together as we kick and fight and cuddle and try to negotiate this terrain. So it's not always easy to set it aside, because it's so central to the most central relationships we have.

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 13:13

Seriously, nobody wants to be lectured unless they signed up for the class.

I dunno. I sometimes take a weird pleasure in engaging with people of differing opinions (even extreme ones). If the conversation goes well, you can learn how they came by those opinions, and if they're reasonable people, they'll often return the favor.

But those chauvinists are more common and less recognizable than you think.

Oh, I know. I usually do the laundry in our house. During the dry cycle, I go to the bar across the street. One time some dude said "How come your old lady ain't doing the laundry?" I explained that I didn't really mind and besides, the mrs. knew that I went to the bar while doing it and kicked me a few bucks beer money as an incentive. He nodded in appreciation of my craftiness.

But, in any event, jonmc, I'm glad you're doing what you can for equal ass opportunity.

I'm here for you, ladies. But sadly it seems to be other men who ogle my ass, mostly. Hazard of working in the West Village, but I take my ego boosts where I find them.

it's hard to accept where other people are coming from unless you make conscious choices in your life rather than just falling into things.

Well, I've "just fallen" or drifted into most of my life and since that's given me an opportunity to hear from a pretty large swath of people, if anything it's made it easier for me to understand where others are coming from. YMMV.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 13:14

I mean more, "Oh, of course I'll get married and have kids and live in the suburbs and have a well-paid job because that's what EVERYBODY does!"

From what I've seen of you on MeFi and here, you're not exactly blindly following society's expectations.

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 13:18

I mean more, "Oh, of course I'll get married and have kids and live in the suburbs and have a well-paid job because that's what EVERYBODY does!"

Even those balding suburbanite Red & Kitty's are often more complex than we give them credit for.

Recently I read a book by Donna Minkowitz called Ferocious Romance. Minkowitz, a lesbian feminist raised by leftist intellectuals in New York City decides to go 'undercover'in the Religious Right. Initially, she thought the book would be a expose, but she found herself developing an odd affection for the people she was investigating (while still deploring many of their opinins). It's a fascinating read.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 13:29

I am a suburbanite, stay-at-home mother whose husband is the primary breadwinner.

I'm a proud feminist and so is my husband.

Just so you know.

posted by jrossi4r 23 January | 13:39

Minkowitz quotes Walt Kelly in her book: "We has met the enemy, and they is us!"

Seriously, though, I just try to reassure men skittish about feminism that (for the most part) women don't want to take away your football, boobies and stupid guy stuff. They just want equal pay, no mistreatment and some respect.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 13:44

It is all very well to say "Don't lecture me unless I ask for it" because I, like most men, am not any of the specific men you've had problems getting through to.

I tend to resent it when "us and them" replaces "you and me." Then again, maybe that's why I'm so fucking lonely.

But I'm not big on respect or happiness. I prefer dignity and satisfaction.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 13:55

I prefer dignity and satisfaction.

Sadly, even though you try, you can't get none of the latter.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 13:56

But I try. And I try. And I try, try, try, try, try, try, try!

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 13:58

But you can't be a man cause you don't smoke the same cigarrettes as me.

But, really, who could hang a name on you babe, when you change with every new day...

posted by jonmc 23 January | 14:00

maybe that's why I'm so fucking lonely

*puts Hugh in headlock*
*gives him noogie and kiss on the forehead*

posted by jrossi4r 23 January | 14:00

Aw, shucks, thanks, jrossi4r.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 14:06

eww, jrossi4r! you kissed a hugh janus!

/juvenile giggle

posted by jonmc 23 January | 14:11

My earlier comment was not meant to say that suburnbanites could not be feminists. Just that many people fall into the "daddy works, mom's responsible for dealing with the kids" thing because that's what "everyone does," rather than because that's what they decide works best for them, *after* realizing that there are other valid choices.

That's what I meant by "falling into" something -- just assuming that "this is how everyone lives their lives, and should live their lives, and there's no room for debate on it."

posted by occhiblu 23 January | 14:20

Wow, this thread blew up after I left.

Wow, this thread blew up after I left.

Just remember though, that actually, the majority of pro-lifers are male (case in point, pro-life GWB and his pro-choice wife, Laura).

And my point is that, pro-choice guys (the good ones, anyway), support women in their choice, not act as though their male priviledge lends credibility to the fight.

Do I love you if I support my right to choose? Yes. Does your opinion matter? Not really. Not until you get pregnant.

posted by SassHat 23 January | 14:25

I know, occhiblu. Just wanted to illustrate that not all feminists are man-haters and not all women in "traditional" roles are conservative.

posted by jrossi4r 23 January | 14:33

as some very wise men once put it:

We're All Alright! We're All Alright!

I'm not even kidding. Nobody's perfect, but most humans are alright

posted by jonmc 23 January | 14:36

Why would I support a woman who didn't think my opinion really mattered, sasshat?

I wouldn't. But I would do what I think is right, based on eveything I know about the issue.

I'm not supporting you in your choice, nor am I acting as if my male privelige lends credibility to the fight. I'm acting according to the dictates of my conscience.

Does this make me one of the "bad" pro-choice guys, that I don't fall neatly into your bumper-sticker worldview?

And what about women who can't have children? Do their opinions matter? Lemme guess. Not really.

Not until they get pregnant.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 14:48

sasshat:

Do I love you if I support my right to choose? Yes. Does your opinion matter? Not really. Not until you get pregnant.

occhiblu:

Broadening that, any man who's involved with any feminist is going to get roped into some of these issues, whether he wants to be or not.

Yeah, I think these quotes need to be put back to back. And not even any man involved romantically with a feminist. I would expect any man who I consider a friend to have an informed opinion, and I would absolutely think that his opinions matter, as a member of this society. Where his opinion (or anyone's except my husband's) wouldn't matter to me is in my personal reproductive choices. Assuming I still had them all.

To summarily block men from this debate is short-sighted, sasshat.

posted by gaspode 23 January | 15:04

I would expect any man who I consider a friend to have an informed opinion, and I would absolutely think that his opinions matter, as a member of this society.

BingBingBing! We Have A Winner!

Give the girl with the cute accent a cheroot!

It's no longer possible (or even desirable, if you ask me) to separate things into womens/mens/black/white/straight/gay issues. We all have to grapple with how we feel about these things, because we're trying to have a society in here, and like it or not, we're all in this together, and the world is getting smaller all the time. And all of our fates are intertwined.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 15:09

All of our fates are intertwined?
Even yours? Even mine?
Ooooooh baby,
I just can't stop lovin' you.
We're trying to have a
So-ci-e-ty
We all have to grapple
With our feeeeeeeeelings, yeah!
The world is getting smaller,
Oh yeah,
All the time now, and
Oooooooh baby,
I just can't stop lovin' you....

/Wilson Pickett RIP

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 15:20

Heh.

posted by gaspode 23 January | 15:21

Glad I could play muse there, hugh.

posted by jonmc 23 January | 15:22

*sigh*

posted by jonmc 23 January | 15:23

Yeah, about halfway through reading your post, the jonmc voice inside my head turned into the Wilson Pickett voice. Happens sometimes.

It's my internal monologue's way of saying "WORD!!" with extra punctuation. As in, "Well put, my friend, I couldn't agree more."

posted by Hugh Janus 23 January | 15:27

Hey, kids! What's happening?

Erm.... looks a bit messy in here.

Anybody up for a quick game of Yahtzee before Canadian civilization goes crumbling down the tubes as get our own little anti-abortion party voted in later today?

*takes huge slug of Bushmills*

posted by jokeefe 23 January | 17:41

Men and women are, to some extent, locked together as we kick and fight and cuddle and try to negotiate this terrain.
Well, that's me developing an occhiblu crush.

sasshat; You know, I haven't got a big old palace and an eager army either, but I think my views on dictators are valid. :0)

The "You can have an opinion when you get a uterus" argument upsets me a bit. It's a valid place to come from emotionally, and if you're simpy venting, then fine. I hope you don't believe it completely though.

I'm pro-choice because if it were me, then I'd want to be able to choose. Simple. But, on the flip side, I've spent an evening with someone as they half-killed themselves with vodka after learning that his girlfriend had gone and got an abortion without even discussing it with him. It was months before he got over the "death" of his unborn child, and I think it still haunts him now.

There seems to be this feeling in pro-choice/feminist circles that birth has nothing to do with men. I agree that any woman should have the final say, but to dismiss any input from men is, if not wrong, then insensitive.

posted by seanyboy 23 January | 18:42

To summarily block men from this debate is short-sighted, sasshat.

Of course it's not a workable political plan in a country with a male-domintated political system.

But tell a man that he is not allowed to participate in any rhetorical discourse, and he's bound to get upset.

To dismiss any input from men is, if not wrong, then insensitive.

Insensitive, yes. But I really don't mind that. We're talking about women's bodies, not men's feelings.

Fellas, feel free to do what you like with your junk. Cut your balls off, fine. I'm not going to legislate that it be illegal. And I'm not going to chime in about whether guys cutting off their balls is the right thing to do, or whether or not I'm "comfortable" with it. Do I have an opinion? Probably? Does it matter? Absolutely not. Your body, your business.

posted by SassHat 23 January | 19:42

And, everyone's opinions aside, I really have to say that I'm enjoying the fact that we can discuss this here reasonably, without flaming out into madness. That's why I love you guys :)

I do respect everyone's opinions and appreciate hearing other people's point of views. Don't think I'm a hater. I just feel very strongly that when it comes to abortion, having an idea or an opinion doesn't mean you get to have a say in the actual decision.

While I can appreciate men saying how they think or feel about it--as much as I enjoy my roommate's theories about what Obi Wan Kenobi should have done in situation xyz--there are some boundaries where enjoying arguing the hypothetical is not your place. "Women should" or "I would" is not the issue if you are never, ever going to face having to have an abortion your own self. For men, it's a point to argue, or an issue they have an opinion on, not something that is going to affect their physical being. And having sisters or girlfriends or mothers or ______ who went through it or could go through it is not the same thing.

posted by SassHat 23 January | 19:53

But tell a man that he is not allowed to participate in any rhetorical discourse, and he's bound to get upset.

Tell anyone that about any issue and they're bound to get upset. Sorry, but that's just human nature.

Cut your balls off, fine. I'm not going to legislate that it be illegal. And I'm not going to chime in about whether guys cutting off their balls is the right thing to do, or whether or not I'm "comfortable" with it.

In the name of all that is good in this world, I hope you'd step in, in that instance! ;>

posted by jonmc 23 January | 20:14

Insensitive, yes. But I really don't mind that. We're talking about women's bodies, not men's feelings.

Good for you, sasshat! It's about time someone pointed out that it's not always a crime to offend somebody, and that there are more important things than the fact that they've found an excuse to be offended and are grabbing it with both hands. Sometimes "being offended" is nothing more than a handy diversion and a cheap source of specious moral authority. The hell with that. If it weren't painfully late '90s I'd even say "you go girl!" But it is, so I won't.

posted by George_Spiggott 23 January | 20:28

sasshat: I still don't understand why men can't have a say in this discussion. We're surely capable of empathising and understanding the issues involved.

If I was a woman, and I married / moved in with a guy and I wanted to have children with that man, and if he had a vasectomy without discussing it with me first, I'd be devastated. I would have expected to have a say (if not the final word) in that argument.

If I was a woman MP, and Parliment were discussing whether male circumcision should be banned (because it was a kind of child torture), I'd expect to be able to (a) have people know that I understand the issues involved and (b) to be allowed to vote on the issue.

Finally, it isn't a crime to offend people, no. But it is better & less divisive to not offend them.

posted by seanyboy 24 January | 03:02

Sass, I'm very sympathetic to your position, but I do think it's coming from a place of anger... and I do understand why that can happen.

But look at it more pragmatically: As a solidly united half of the voting public, women could easily steer legislation on these (and other women's rights) issues - if we were really a united voting block. But since we aren't, the fact is that we definitely need men and their opinions on this, and their votes in the booth. That's the reality. So "winning hearts and minds" is not just a niceynicey traditional female way to be - it's sound, necessary political logic.

And, on the other side, guys - isn't it getting to be a little too cliché that every discussion on feminist topics nearly always devolves to a discussion of men and their hurt feelings? If a topic on racial bias started out "if you're not an ethnic minority, I don't want to hear from you," I could actually understand how - as well-meaning as I may be - there are some things that as an entitled white girl that I can only understand intellectually and not viscerally. I might still participate in the discussion, and it would be very interesting to me - but I can't imagine consistently moving the conversation into a discussion of my feelings and the unfairness of being left out.

And... Now that everyone hates me, I guess my work here is done!

posted by taz 24 January | 05:12

I do respect everyone's opinions and appreciate hearing other people's point of views

Right. If only you could have said that before you said this...

You're allowed an opinion on this when you get your uterus put in.

...things might have been a little easier.

posted by Hugh Janus 24 January | 08:17

I still love you, taz. I think those are great points.

posted by occhiblu 24 January | 10:07

Are there any meaningful issues facing our society which women should not participate in?

How about issues for which only the opinion of white people should matter, sasshat? In what other instances should groups be excluded because their opinions are not relevant? Certainly this is not the only issue of it's kind in this regard, is it sass? Just wondering if there are parallel examples you could cite.

posted by mcgraw 24 January | 10:43

I have not wasted the time it would take to slog through this thread, much less the other one. Happened upon it today and have only read the most recent comments. Then I look up to the top, just now:

Aaaack. Everyone with a uterus, raise your hand...

If your hand is down, then stfu, n00b!

Even in jest, you sound as idiotic in the above remark as I'm sure all the men on the blue sound. Fire with fire, perhaps?

I wouldn't try to take away anyone's claim of ownership or entitlement regarding a particular event or issue, mostly because I think it makes the person feel valid and important which is necessary in life. Everyone has a voice, as well they should.

posted by mcgraw 24 January | 11:02

I'd like to replace the word 'idiotic' in my comment above with "closed-minded".

posted by mcgraw 24 January | 11:05

If anyone's still kicking around this thread (mcgraw, specifically), I'd just like to point out that my first half-dozen or so comments were not meant to be part of a discussion about abortion.

I made a thread to vent in while I read the MeFi thread, to vent about how retarded the mostly-male commenters were acting. It was meant to be idiotic, and closed-minded, because I was mocking how ridiculous the flames were getting over there.

A discussion sprung up after I went to bed, and into the next day while I was at work. When I came home to find people were actually talking about it, I clarified my position on the matter.

I'm not a politician or an activist. I'm allowed to say "STFU n00b" and sound as idiotic and closed-minded as I want to.

posted by SassHat 24 January | 18:12

Seanyboy:

If I was a woman

I'm not trying to be an asshole (it just comes naturally I suppose), but you aren't. That's what I meant when I said that to you, this is a hypothetical situation.

if he had a vasectomy without discussing it with me first

This is not at all relevant. A vasectomy is not equivalent to an abortion. Nothing is, and that's a big part of my point. And as for "not discussing it with me first," well, that has nothing to do with abortion. Are you suggesting that women should have to ask permission of their spouse or partner to have a legal medical procedure done? Or are we just talking about feelings still?

whether male circumcision should be banned (because it was a kind of child torture)
This is also not equivalent to abortion. A child having their foreskin clipped by their parents ('child torture' or not) is not the same thing as a grown woman having a medical procedure performed by her own free will, when she wants.

posted by SassHat 24 January | 18:19

I'm allowed to say "STFU n00b" and sound as idiotic and closed-minded as I want to.

Yes, yes. Go right ahead. Just like the people who got you so riled on the blue.

I'll ask you again, sasshat, because you assert that a man's opinion on this issue is doesn't count or is meaningless:

Are there any meaningful issues facing our society which women should not participate in?

How about issues for which only the opinion of white people should matter, sasshat? In what other instances should groups be excluded because their opinions are not relevant? Certainly this is not the only issue of it's kind in this regard, is it sass?

posted by mcgraw 25 January | 08:28

You're allowed an opinion on this when you get your uterus put in.

When I came home to find people were actually talking about it, I clarified my position on the matter.

Wow, this thread blew up after I left....
Does your opinion matter? Not really. Not until you get pregnant.

That's quite a clarification.

posted by Hugh Janus 25 January | 08:53

HEY IT'S HUGH JANUS!

you know what i think, hugh? sasshat is a fucking bitch. she won't answer reasonable questions. i think she is entitled to special treatment on account of her rare and unique quality of posessing a uterus. my, she sure is a work of art.

and by 'work of art' i mean 'poorly educated, self-centered fool'. it's delightful how she claims everyone else is getting emotional when in reality SHE is 'venting [her emotions]' here-- in her own words. the problem is that her screed is just as misguided as what one would expect to hear from the people who angered her so much on the blue. she is not being rational, not here, anyway.

posted by mcgraw 25 January | 09:18

What tha? I assume there's a point there beyond the surface appearance, mcgraw, but I'm apparently too dim to get it.

posted by danostuporstar 25 January | 09:33

ok, so i shouldn't have taken her to task so aggressively.

but, after the type of remarks sass has made, it is insulting that she won't respond to legitimate questions posed in a reasonable manner.

however, i suppose i have stooped to her level of discourse, above.

i would appreciate her responding to my questions in bold above, if she is really interested in an exchange here instead of her merely 'venting' at metachat users with her arrogant screed.

posted by mcgraw 25 January | 09:39

sass, i shouldn't have called you a fucking bitch, but you have inviting this sort of response. if you don't know why, then you are beyond help.

posted by mcgraw 25 January | 09:43

I think you're getting carried away, mcgraw.

posted by taz 25 January | 09:45

I wouldn't go so far as to call her names, mcgraw. I do agree that she's being at the very least dishonest about her intentions, and I can understand why: she made an unsupportable and insulting claim that reeked of both misandry and insensitivity -- and of course, as others point out, it's okay to offend people in pursuit of justice -- and then, when she was called out on it, sasshat went all mealy-mouthed but no less insulting. If I backed myself into a corner like that, I might get all defensive and lash out, too.

The problem is that she left the discussion for a while, and long after her insult had been autopsied and laid to rest, long after the conversation had moved from destructive to constructive, she came back in hurling the same insult, never addressing any of the broad criticisms of her words.

Some people have trouble accepting responsibility for their words, and try to play them off as jokes, or venting, or what have you. This is human. Me, I'd rather apologize too much than have folks think less of me for something I said in the heat of stupidity. The justification gets more panicked as the corner gets tighter. The disavowals sound planned and disingenuous, but I'm inclined to believe that they are an unhappy accident.

I also think "fucking bitch," at the very least, remains to be seen. Easy there, tiger, you may be right, but we're all just chatting.

posted by Hugh Janus 25 January | 09:49

Ok, taz. It's your site.

But the next time someone posts a biased or bigoted screed such as what sasshat has said here, I hope users call them out on their mistakes more vigorously than has been done in this thread.

This thread is a troll, taz.

posted by mcgraw 25 January | 09:53

Yes, I went too far. And it was not apparent that so many users were still reading this thread, so I thought my comment might not be read by very many people, or perhaps noone at all.

I have acknowledged my error here and apologized. That is much more than can be said for sasshat thus far.

posted by mcgraw 25 January | 09:55

Whoa. There's no way I'm reading through all of this mess. I just want to elaborate on what I said way way way upthread. There's a trend lately for people to start threads here about things they're reading on open posts on metafilter, and it sucks. My personal feeling on this: If you have something to say about something being discussed there, then own it and contribute to the discussion, and be brave enough to post it there, instead of coming here and ranting about something you disagree with. I don't understand why people keep doing this.

posted by iconomy 25 January | 10:26

That said, the middle part of this thread had some nice discussion in it.

posted by gaspode 25 January | 14:10

sasshat is a fucking bitch. she won't answer reasonable questions.

I'm not answering your questions because you're a troll, attacking me personally and ignoring my responses, cherry picking them to add more fuel to the fire.

This is the kind of bullshit that doesn't belong on metachat. I apologize to everyone for even starting this thread.

posted by SassHat 25 January | 16:18

That said, the middle part of this thread had some nice discussion in it.

posted by danostuporstar 25 January | 16:23

*opnes thread, looks around*

Oh dear.

Who wants macaroons?

posted by bmarkey 25 January | 16:30

Yeah, I agree, it was a good thread, though it started and ended in unnecessary nastiness. I don't think we should be name-calling. Makes discourse nigh impossible.

But if that's righteous anger you're feeling, sasshat, can it. You're as much the problem on this thread as anyone else.

posted by Hugh Janus 25 January | 16:32

≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by mcgraw 25 January | 16:36

You're as much the problem on this thread as anyone else.

True. I started it, and I'd like to end here with hugs and candy for everyone, because that is the only way this type of thing can end, really.

posted by SassHat 25 January | 18:49

*gives everyone hugs and candy*

posted by SassHat 25 January | 18:50

Aww shucks...

*sucks on candy for awhile*

But now you don't have any!

*takes candy out of mouth*

Want some of mine?

posted by Hugh Janus 26 January | 08:57

sorry for being so inconsiderate to you, sasshat
≡ Click to see image ≡
≡ Click to see image ≡
≡ Click to see image ≡
≡ Click to see image ≡
≡ Click to see image ≡
≡ Click to see image ≡
≡ Click to see image ≡
≡ Click to see image ≡
≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by mcgraw 26 January | 09:05

23 January 2006