#AllMenCan LISTEN (on Policy Mic's Apparent Unravelling)

I'd like to start this diatribe with the realization that in posting this (assuming they read it) I'm totally blowing my chances of ever working for Policy Mic in the future. Which peeves me because at some point I'd have really liked to write for them. But, alas, it must be done.

After becoming embroiled in a mild skirmish on Twitter which they didn't really respond to, today, they published this piece on women's rights:

37 Men Show Us What Real Men's Activists Look Like

Where to begin?

First of all, can I just say I am so relieved to have 37 men telling me what they think about women. The pushback wasn't complete without an article highlighting men, guys.

Secondly, it's staged.

EIGHTEEN of the 37 pictures were taken in the same room. Since Policy Mic didn't remark on this, I can only assume they gathered their male employees in the cafeteria or something, and had them hold up signs so they could complete this assignment. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe it was another company who decided to do a project on it. But if that is the case, the project should be recognized, don't you think?

Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about.

Times that by 18. Call me cynical, but the message doesn't have the same impact when it feels like we are being tricked into thinking these were random calls to internet activism by men propelled by their own volition.

I mean, check this out. In 17 and 18, there is the same man in the same plaid shirt in the background (that guy is actually in the background of 15 and 16, too. Same pose. Everything.)

Also, 26 and 37 are the same picture.

Oh. Looks like they fixed that, now. ^^

Let's take a look at some of the signs, shall we?

4) Alpha males, huh?

5) "It takes strong women to give us the strength to know better." This is in regards to hitting women. I do not appreciate the implication that in order not to be hit I need to be a strong enough woman to teach a man not to do that.

8) "MRAs don't speak for me." ... Not all men.

10) "Because I'm a man and I will never hurt you." Not. All. Men.

21) "My masculinity doesn't include misogyny." NOT ALL MEN.

34) Wielding is spelled wrong, but more importantly, it's a sign indicating that the reason men should be involved is that their own safety is at stake. Which might be true. But isn't really what the conversation is about right now.

Also important to know that the man in #34 is a writer for Policy Mic. Which they didn't mention.

UPDATE: courtesy Brooke Binkowski, San Diego reporter.
#1 - PolicyMic founder Jake Horowitz
#9 - PolicyMic sports editor Bryan Graham
#12 - PolicyMic social media editor Jared Keller
#18 - PolicyMic editor Michael McCutcheon (and this shows that the room which is featured in half the photos is a PolicyMic room or somehow connected to PolicyMic).
#34 - PolicyMic contributor Charles Clymer

(Again, nothing wrong with that, but it needs to be noted in the article, guys).

37) "If there weren't women, there would be no men." Oh. Well. Um, thanks for that brand new information?

In the middle of this article, they ask us to use the #allmencan hashtag to make our voices known about what men can do.

I've said this many, many, many times before, but I'll say it again.

All men can LISTEN.

And if they were listening, well, maybe we wouldn't feel the need to post articles with them talking over us so much.




 

16 Steps to Every Argument a Man Has with a Woman Online

Now, I know what you are thinking. Every argument is different. The players involved are different. The content and context are different. There's no way this piece can be indicative of a general reality.

Only it is.

I am going to use a specific argument to flesh out my points, but that's only because this particular argument went on for 1,000 comments and covered every single base. Usually, only a few of these show up at the same time. But in this case, we got a bingo, and that needs to be recognized. In fact, I've even left off a few, due to length.

1) A condescending comment from a man to a woman, meant to be a "compliment". Usually this occurs when a thread is already in session. This time, the man had the guts to go to this woman's page, and post it with no prompting at all.

Let's take a moment to go through this before we get into our next steps:

a) You were using your radio voice again.

This implies it's an issue that's been spoken about between two people before, with the receiver acknowledging the advice and vowing to make a change. That isn't the case. This person hardly knows this woman, and they had not spoken about her voice before. (Which also happens to be...her voice. Not some random act for you to find "cute.")

b) Very cute, but no offense

Any time you see the words "no offense" that is a guarantee whatever comes next is about to be offensive. If you find yourself using that phrase, stop. Do not speak on.

c) Exude the confidence I know you have. Be proud of the 30-year-old professional that you are. Who knows, maybe you can be the anchor someday. I look forward to seeing that.

This implies she's not proud of herself and doesn't have confidence. This woman is a hard-hitting, no-nonsense reporter and has been so for decades. She doesn't want to be an anchor, either. Surprise! Not everyone does! (She's also not 30, lol). This basically says turn into my vision of your goal for yourself so I can get behind this. And...no.

d) Good luck doll.

GOOD LUCK DOLL.

Okay, back to our steps:

2) Understandable backlash from people who see the offensive comment:

"Just saw your post here on _______'s Facebook page. You were using that douchey, neckbeardy tone again. Very cute, but no offense, you sound like a 45-year-old asshat. Exude the intelligence I know you must have since you're friends with ________. Be proud of the 30-year-old professional she already is. Who knows? Maybe you could actually turn into a supportive and good friend. I look forward to seeing that. Then I can say, "I saw you that one time when." Good luck, bro."

3) Bystanders completely baffled at aim of original comment and attempted deconstruction:

Q - I can't even get my head around his motivation. Hitting on you by "negging"? Honest but assholish attempt at advice? He secretly hates you and has been biding his time for an opening to be mean? 

A - "This woman will appreciate that I see the potential she has, and that I am treating her almost like a real person because I'm asking her to be a person that commands respect, while at the same time, I am expressing fondness and familiarity toward her with my cutesy taglines that degrade her into exactly what I just told her she ought not be. In this way, I show her that her intellect is worth something, but also that I am not immune to her 19yo femininely wiles. Then maybe she'll be so grateful, she'll take my advice, act as I've advised with everyone, except me. With me she'll be soft and child-like, just like a woman should. I am very complex."

4) The original commenter says "I wasn't talking to you." (even though the comment is open for all to see, and not a PM).

I really was just trying to help. I'm sorry for offending you. But since ______ herself hasn't flamed me, I'm going to assume that she accepted my constructive criticism. Notice that she didn't "like" any of your comments?

5) Professional accolades and accomplishments that mean nothing are trotted out.

In this case, our man is an architect and we can thank him for many beautiful buildings. This obviously entitles him to give shitty advice in regards to news broadcasting. He knows things, guys.

6) The person he is talking to says something. Anything.

In this case, it's kickass. I mean, boom.

7) Bye, Felicia.

That should end our story, but alas.

8) Women who have been watching the thread understandably rejoice.

8) The White Knight. Some other dudebro comes around a bit later, feeling the urge to tell the women who were insulted how wrong and mean they are.

I found the thread rather depressing myself. ______'s response was detailed, on point, and said everything she wanted to say. Almost everything else just reinforces my conviction that FB is like the worst aspects of high school.

9) Dogpile and Bullying are invoked. (Remember, this man comes into this space, which was clearly dying down, to take ownership of it and make it all about him.)

what you seem to be saying is that this is a venue where you can be rude and bullying without consequences. _________'s response was a textbook case of taking the high road, and would be perfectly appropriate delivered to someone's face, not to mention a spot on, devestating rebuke to condescending assholism. About half the comments here are just textbook gang-bullying by people who probably think of themselves as decent human beings in real life. 

I've been on the bottom of these kind of dog piles, and it's no fun. The really disturbing part is seeing people who probably think of themselves as progressive resorting to bullying tactics I associate with the extreme right, like "feminizing" one's opponent by insinuating he's some kind of sissy ("did we get our wittle fee fees hurt" etc.) and a group of individuals ganging up on someone who has expressed the "wrong' opinion. It's like the mean girls club in high school.

11) Mansplaining.

If I may offer a bit of advice (yeah, I know, mansplaining") but why give a shit about being labelled a "bitch"? The men who hang that on you are assholes whose respect you don't need, and the rest of us understand that you have to drop a hammer on these twerps or they just waste everybody's time. 

It's a difficult line to walk. It's hard for me too, and the sad truth is there are plenty of men out there who don't like being "bossed around" by a women. But hey, fuck them, you know? That's their problem, not yours.

Oh my God, we were so wrong about you. You totally "get" it. You even know you're mansplaining. Thank you so much for validating our lives, and yet again telling us how we can behave. We have never seen this before.

12) Watch your tone, ladies. (I'm Darlena, so one less black mark I have to amateurishly make in paint.) Annnnyway, maybe we would get what we wanted out of our communications with men if we were just nicer. Thanks for letting us know what your idea of a discussion is. We will try to behave better and adhere to your ideal discussion.

13) Concern Trolling. They're just looking out for our best interests. As men, they can help us win this world. If we'd only let them share their valuable and relevant experiences.

Concern trolling. I'm pretty sure you knew what was going to happen if you came into this thread AS A MAN and tried to school us all, yet you decided to do it anyway. I have absolutely no doubt that you are here without any attempt at respect, and seek only to piss us all off so that you can get off to it.

14) Pre-conceived notions / Not all men. Then, inevitably, women standing up for themselves against mansplaining get the 'you don't even know me' line, sometimes plied with 'not all men are like what you say we are!' Okay, that's true. Not all men are like that. But you are.

15) The follow up. Then the conversation usually goes like this:

Woman: "I just don't understand why this even has to happen. A condescending, sexist as fuck post was made. From very early on it was very clear this post was not okay. But instead of any apology, or even at attempt at self reflection, an attempt to listen to any of us, it's just flailing and whining that we're mean bitches. I'm so sick of this shit."

White Knight: "what you seem to be saying is that I should just fuck off, butt out, and slink back into my hole. That I have no right to join this discussion in anyway unless my contribution consists of "yeahyourite." Cool. Enjoy your epistemic closure. Who died annd made you king of this thread"

16) You people.

Woman: He's acting like we did this to HIM. He's the one who came into this post to shit stir it all up again just because he clearly enjoys putting women in our place and finger wagging at us.

White Knight: If the tables were turned, I would not participate in the bullying, mob behaviour. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

This is normally where I'd write a witty conclusion, but Julia wrote one for me, right on that thread, so I'll leave you with this, the point of the deconstruction.


"Women are allowed to support each other. We're allowed to get annoyed or pissed off at men who constantly belittle our efforts, our work, our choices, at men who only want to comment on our physical attributes instead of, quite literally, ANYTHING ELSE we happen to do. Hence the anger at the original post. Which is still one of the shittiest negging posts I've read in a long, long time.

We're allowed to respond however we want. It doesn't make us stupid, or not worth being listened to, or not worthy of being right. Our response does not make it okay for you to hop into the post, insult all of us willy nilly at once, then act surprised when we respond.

Fucking goddamn ridiculous.

You've tried to police women for how we respond to sexism with more sexism. You've derailed the conversation completely with your own intense need to finger wag at women.

You have NO BUSINESS telling women how we should or should not respond to asshole men. We live this life every single fucking day and we have every single right to get pissed off if we want to. Just because YOU don't like our tone does not mean our message and our points are invalidated, no matter how hard you're trying to invalidate them and pretend they aren't important because of the words chosen to express ourselves.

You have talked over women, you have talked down to us. You have tried to mansplain how we should respond to situations that are, quite frankly, none of your fucking business.

You call us bullies, a mob. And yet you're perfectly content to try to bully us into being silent, to bully us into responding how you see fit. You are doing the exact same shit you claim we are, when you're the one who jumped into this thread for no reason only than to be a condescending asshole.

In short: go fuck yourself."

So, if you are a man, thinking about engaging in a debate with a woman about how society treats her...

DON'T.






   

Equal Pay Day Controversy

So, Tuesday was equal pay day. For those of you who somehow don't know about this, it represents the day women have to work up to before they've made as much as men made the previous year.

At 77 cents to the dollar, we have to work an extra 98 days.

Anyway, if you want more information about how this came about or what it actually measures, click on the link above, because what I'm doing in this post is taking on these two bullshit questions from this post over here.

Question 1:

Do women go into lower-paying sectors because they prefer them, or because employers discriminate against them? 

I don't know about you, but I don't know too many people in general who look at themselves and think, you know what I'm worth? Very little money.

There are more women in teaching and administrative work than men, and you know what, when asking many of them, they'd say they do enjoy the work. They are where they want to be. Great! Let's pay them more.

The women workforce also has a lot more part-time workers, which apparently messes up the average? They're working part time usually because they have a family at home, right? And daycare is incredibly expensive...more expensive than college.

And having families is something that people do, don't you know. And our society is still set up in such a way where the responsibility usually falls on the woman to care for the child, and if alternate care is used, the woman actually has to be making some money. However, since she only makes 77 cents to a man's dollar, she often saves money by not going to work.

Not to mention that we are constantly saying we need more women in science, yet to be in science you need a PhD and to get a PhD plus some experience, you need to not have kids until about your mid-30s.

In fact Freeman Dyson, the world-renowned mathematical physicist who helped found quantum electrodynamics thinks academia is bunk:

"I’m very proud of not having a Ph.D. I think the Ph.D. system is an abomination. It was invented as a system for educating German professors in the 19th century, and it works well under those conditions. It’s good for a very small number of people who are going to spend their lives being professors. But it has become now a kind of union card that you have to have in order to have a job, whether it’s being a professor or other things, and it’s quite inappropriate for that. It forces people to waste years and years of their lives sort of pretending to do research for which they’re not at all well-suited. In the end, they have this piece of paper which says they’re qualified, but it really doesn’t mean anything. The Ph.D. takes far too long and discourages women from becoming scientists, which I consider a great tragedy. So I have opposed it all my life without any success at all."

Question 2:

Do women stay home with the kids because of cultural norms, or because of the way parental leave policies are set up?
I don't understand this question. I mean, both? First of all, don't kid yourself, we don't have any  parental leave in this country so there is no "way it is set up" because it does not exist. Secondly, yeah, there are definitely cultural norms still in place that need to go away because they are annoying and they make people feel bad. Not to mention that they perpetuate stereotypes that women cannot hold positions of power because "they won't give as much to the company" or women "choose not to make as much" because they "chose to have children."

Okay, well, since we're the only ones who can have children, how about you help us out and not put us through those shitty choices.

The long and short of it is that women are still struggling to be seen as a serious force in the workplace because of outmoded ideas of family, cost of childcare, and doucheheads who think if a woman chose to birth a child, she decided she didn't want to work for a lot of money so she should shut up.

We need future people, right? And to get them to the adult stage, we need to feed them. And if we're going to feed them and teach them healthy things about the world, we deserve a livable wage for doing something we have been trained in.

And if a woman works as hard as a man in her profession, she should make as much money as he does. Period.

As my friend on Facebook said:


" If you are too much of a goddamn pithy simple-minded asshole to see the structural problem with putting a tax on working women of as much as $1000/month per child, there's nothing anyone can say to talk you to a place of reason.

I never want another person coming at me about the "personal choice" of mothers to take low-paying jobs who doesn't have a solution to this nightmare of a decision-making process we put women through."

Pay equity. Because we're effing worth it. And so are our kids.

 

You Don't Get to Tell Me Why I Do Things

Dear Jon from Babble who has a lot to say on feminism and selfies:

You are wrong.

Now, I know that, as someone with a penis, hearing that you are wrong will make you flare up with anger for a split second, before you catch yourself and laugh it off with bravado, telling yourself that someone who thinks you could possibly be wrong obviously doesn't know anything.

Oh, wait, I don't know that.

I don't know that because I don't know anything about you. And I certainly don't know anything about your penis, or how it would possibly play into your inner monologue. I also know nothing about your inner monologue.

Even though I have a husband, and a father, and am also full of rage, much, apparently like yourself.

As such, with my admitted lack of knowledge, I would not presume to tell you about how you would react to being wrong, or why you would react that way.


Can you do me the same favor?

Because, frankly, I am getting fed up with you people telling me what to do.

Now we'll skip the lazy argument here (man talking about feminism full stop) because I know several men who talk well about feminism, and go right to a similar, but not quite the same argument (man thinking he is using sound logic to tell women how to be better feminists). I cannot abide this.

Your whole argument is lost when you say: "The thrust of the 365 feminist selfie project attempts to destabilize traditionally restrictive notions of beauty to make room for all women in the Palace of Pretty."

That's not what the project is about for me. You don't get to tell me what a project I'm doing is about. I don't owe you this, but for me this project is a chronicle through picture of my achievements and struggles this year, as a person. It is about self-exploration, and documentation in a way I've never been free to do before. It has nothing to do with acceptance into your Pretty Palace.

Then you really nail your coffin together when you follow that ridiculous generalization up with this: "She might write a poem a day or learn about a new woman author every day. Maybe she could do a science experiment a day or plant a tree every day. Run a mile every day? Or maybe she could make it a point to seek out a sad looking girl every day and say something kind to her (NOT about her appearance)."

After attributing faulty reasoning to the project in which I am partaking (which you do not get to do), you further do not get to tell me that projects that you deem more important than physical beauty are better for my feminism.

And seriously, I dare you to go find a "sad-looking" girl and say something "kind" to her. You don't get to tell girls to cheer up. Neither do I. People, anyone, right now, should not be imposing their opinions on what "sad" is on poor random girls who are probably not even sad anyway. Talk about your narcissism. What makes you think anything a random person has to say to a woman he is guessing is sad would make any difference to her? You're not talking about a tangible thing here, like, someone is struggling with the groceries so you help them out, or someone's got a flat tire, so you lend them a jack. You're talking about an intangible assessment of a stranger's mental well-being.

Which basically sums up your whole piece in a microcosm example.

Other insulting things you have said include this gem: "I see your need to redefine beauty and raise you one need to question the female defined by her appearance. Women can be more than how they look and deserve to be. Step away from the cameras. Seek new ways to appear. As you explore new adjectives through which to be defined, you will emerge as more complicated nouns than pretty ones. This is perhaps the direction toward a feminism beyond beauty."

I pretty much can't even stand you right now, so I'm going to hand this one off to Raeven Zayas, a woman in my closed FB group for the #365feministselfie project. (It's closed, you see, because it's not for you, or the public, or anyone. It is for us.)

Rae aptly points out your weak attempt at generalizing to an entire population with your sample set of, um, two. Here's a huge clue for you, Jon, women are not the same. We are not a neatly categorizable group. I am sorry for your loss.

Okay, she says,

"Never mind that some of us are in Grad school, and some of us are parents, and some of us are both, and some of us are neither, and some of us have fancy jobs, and some of us are tough as nails, and some of us could get a blood stain out of a white satin wedding dress, and some of us can train a horse, and some of us have survived cancer, and some of us use our pasts and our traumas to help each other, and some of us can push a baby out of us under the water at our house with no pain medication, and some of us have awesome dreads, and some of us do amazing makeup, and some of us can make a giant cake with a Magic Mike style dancer that pops out of it, and some of us are recovering addicts, and some of us have made a huge connection to other women through this project that has indeed been empowering, and some of us have realized that perhaps we aren't alone in our own insecurities, and some of us have helped one another embrace and love those insecurities, and some of us have learned beautiful things about each other that do not, in fact, have much to do with our physical appearance and our ability to Get a man."

Oh, did I forget to quote you on that part? Hold on, here it is: "What if the seemingly natural, and cunning, desire of women to be physically beautiful — to either be included in the culture’s definition of beauty OR to alter the culture’s definition of beauty to include them — all stemmed from the basic desire to attract (uh-oh) a man?"

Yes, we are so cunning. We are so cunning in fact, that we think taking pictures of ourselves will prove to men that there is room for everybody in the Pretty Palace. Also, lesbians don't exist in your world of seemingly academic ponderings. Good to know.

Are you even listening to yourself?

Rae continues:

"This isn't his movement, it's ours. And if he really wants the truth, I do this for my daughter. All feminism has ever been about for me is my daughter. As a mother who has a little girl that I still get to watch grow up and find her own empowerment and struggle against harsh societal standards of beauty and will spend every day judging herself as harshly as I did about the way she looks, this absofuckinglutely is about my kid. And she will be amazing, and funny, and kind, and intelligent, and generous, and understanding, and compassionate, and driven, and stubborn, and fuck him if he thinks I don't want her to feel beautiful, too."

And there you have it. Two different women with two different motivations for doing the same project, and both of us feeling empowered because of it.

Should we do another one? Let's do another one. This is from Rebecca:

"For me, taking these pics, and being involved in this project is more about creating a supportive community, one where women can be vulnerable and honest about who they are and their daily lives (struggles and successes). For me, it has very little to do with physical beauty."

I ask you, dear sir, why does our feeling of empowerment and community force you to action?

Don't react with a hasty defense, you said. Think about it, you said.

I did think about it, even though I didn't have to.

Because you do not get to tell me what to do. You do not get to tell me why I do things.

You do not get to tell me what to do.

Also, your scholar jargon makes you sound like a douche. And I'm a scholar, so I know about that one.





   

Man Up, You Damn Pussy -- A Retort to NY Post's Kyle Smith

Oh, I'm sorry, Kyle Smith, did the Golden Globes get your panties in a bunch?

NY Post

Seriously, the amount of bitching you did at having to watch successful women for a few hours on your TV makes me wonder if you're on the rag. Get hold of yourself, man.

The last thing we need is another bro crying hysterical tears about cruel Hollywood (Hollywood? Nay, life) completely forgetting about your penis.

If you want something done, do something, don't just sit there, eating your gallons of ice cream and whining in mass media...like a girl.

Be the change you want to see. Strike out in leadership and dominance. Christ, men wonder why their rights are disappearing when all they do is PMS all the time instead of pulling themselves up by their boot straps and getting the job done.

I mean, what's the matter? Are you too much of a pansy to actually do something about this sorry state of affairs?

Be a man, God.

Instead of filling your pretty little head with all this inane gossip and gerrymandering, call people to action.

Okay, so you didn't like the jokes. There's no need to get all uppity about it, Jesus. All these men always overreacting to shit and exaggerating it. Vagina is a word, it's not that bad.

Better yet, instead of mindlessly complaining, why don't you face your fears, full-frontal. It's not like they're going to rape you.

It would be totally ballin' if you manned up right now, is all I'm saying.

Plus, if you didn't enjoy it, it's your own fault. Living in the 2000s means you're going to see some women outside the kitchen sometimes. You're pretty much asking for it, anyway. So don't expect me to feel sorry for you. Stop playing the victim all the time, God, you are so manipulative.

I'm just asking you to calm down. Seriously, are you okay? Stop being such a little bitch.

Think you can handle your business now, nancy-boy? Or should I get you your smelling salts?
... ...

The Golden Globes and all media messages need more estrogen, Kyle, because regardless of what you think about the style, content or structure of the individual shows, the disgusting diatribe above is basically 'the pep talk' every high school boy hears in the locker room when things in his life go wrong.

Media representation is important as a trend. I care not about the specific content right now because how much marginalized groups are represented in the media is important, and not just for feminists. For you, too.




 

There's Only One Rule for Being a Human in 2014

I'm not big on lists of rules. In fact, since I errantly read "The Rules" when I was a young teenager, I've pretty much hated them with a passion. This year's list is no exception.

So, before I get into it with the "24 Rules of a Lady" or whatever they are, here's my list for how to be a human, and it's a list only for me (but if you like, you can adopt it).

1. Don't make lists of rules for people who are not you.

Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's dissect this lady-list, shall we?

1. Master at least one dish that you can whip up on relatively short notice, for when you’re having people over and don’t want to be like, “There’s a box of stale Wheat Thins left if you want to fight over those.”

Okay...um, check?

2. Hold doors for everyone, especially older people or people carrying heavy things.

Yeah, I do that. I'm actually perpetually holding doors because my kids walk at .0000000000001 miles an hour, and I get to the door about 30 minutes before them, and then hold it open the whole time.

So far, I'm two for two.

3. Make plans with friends you haven’t seen in a while, and actually follow through with them. (This includes not scheduling things on a morning when you know you’re going to be too hungover to go anywhere.)

Okay, here's my first fail. But I'll try to pencil you in between the library and losing my damn mind, okay?

4. If one of your friends is a little too drunk to handle herself at the bar/club/house party, do the right thing and remain sober-ish enough to properly babysit and facilitate her trip home.

If one of my friends is a little too drunk to handle herself, it will be long after I left at 10 p.m. to pay off the babysitter and actually make my kids go to sleep.

5. Do not assign moral value to food items, on your own plate or anyone else’s. A mozzarella stick is a mozzarella stick, and nothing more.

Sorry, but these Doritos are evil. Just look at them. Sitting there. Being evil. I can judge them, you see, because they aren't people.

6. When another woman compliments your cute bag/shoes/dress and asks you where it’s from, it is your moral obligation to tell you where you got it — especially if it was on sale. Thou shalt not withold (sic) the deals.

It's from Walmart. The white band though only comes from wearing it for a year with no rest. Good luck achieving that kind of class.

7. When taking a boy shopping, always make sure there is at least a comfy place for him to sit if you’re going to be trying on more than one outfit (and you know that you likely are, even if you state otherwise upon entering the store).

Clearly, you don't know me (or all women) at all. I haven't tried anything on in a store in five years. Also, what's a boy? A boy? Really? (I mean, below, you tell us we're not 19 anymore, so...)

8. Always give someone the chance to make up for it if they’ve hurt your feelings, and the best way to start that process off is giving them the dignity of telling them how they hurt you. Ladies don’t subtweet, they earnestly reach out on Gchat.

I use a phone, but you know, I also don't tell people how to run their grudges, their boundaries and their lives.

9. Be happy for friends when they announce big life moments, such as engagement or pregnancy, if only on the surface. (Exceptions of course being made for situations that are seriously unhealthy or endangering.) When it comes time for your big moment, you’ll want the same kind of support.

Oh, look! I'm back on the lady list! Huzzah! But I guarantee you, I'm happy for all my friends all the way through. There is no surface-happiness here.

10. Have at least one outfit in the closet for job interview, one for first date, and one for going home to see family (yours or someone else’s). The amount of headaches that can be spared by simply having a versatile blazer and pencil skirt at one’s disposal are incalculable.

Job interview, first date, and home to see family. Bam. One tidy package. (I'm beginning to think this list isn't for moms. But did you know that moms can be ladies, too? Shocking.)

11. Never disparage another woman for choosing and embracing the domestic/housewive (sic)/stay-at-home-mom life.

Yes, all this could, too, be yours!

12. Never disparage another woman for choosing a really demanding career instead of family life, if that’s what she wants.

Why does this one have a "if that's what she wants" tacked on the end of it, but housewifery gets a free implication pass?

13. Keep a small bar in your apartment with the basics to make a few classic, tasty drinks for a small variety of tastes. There is a time and a place for having only a bottle of Mad Dog and some Boone’s in your cupboards, and that time is 19 years old.

Oh, so, so classy over here. I really enjoy the juxtaposition against the kids' artwork and pictures. Anyway, ask me how many "classic, tasty drinks" I make. The answer would be all of them. Ain't nothin' tastier than a shot from the bottle, amirite? Have I lost my lady pass yet?

14. Learn the worlds of options there are between “orthopedically (sic) criminal high heels” and “computer programmer running shoes.” Find something stylish that also works for your life and tastes.

Okay, first, I look fabulous in both and I can walk in both. So, what are you saying up there? Also, I got them off shoedazzle and ebay, respectively (since you're all about the deals, and I feel the need to prove to you that I haven't tried anything on in the better part of a decade.) And finally, may I direct you to your own number 15? Because, damn.

15. Never base your feminism in telling other women what makes them a “good” or “bad” feminist. Being a good, compassionate person should be your only criteria, and wearing makeup or liking Sex and the City should not be an issue.

See above.

16. Keep fresh-cut flowers in your house.

Yeehaw! Back on the lady train! (Hey, you didn't say how often to change those flowers, dude, and we've only got money for fresh ones once every two weeks. They're fab. Like me.)

17. Be a good hostess — learn how to make people feel comfortable and welcome in your house, and leave feeling like they got to be themselves.

Spoken as if it's that easy. Have you ever met an introvert? You can't just have a rule like this and not tell anyone how to do it.

18. Stop looking at marriage as the defining endeavor in a woman’s life, no matter how much it has been ingrained into you. It should neither be something you actively disdain, nor something you seek out with white-knuckled deadlines.

Have you read #15, though? Just wondering.

19. While you are not obligated to like any other woman strictly on the basis of being a woman, and there are certain things that are totally fair criticisms, her weight is never one of them.

Oh, hey, I run a website about this.

20. Do not consume media which you know, before you even see it, is going to make you feel badly about yourself. If you watched the VS Fashion Show and spent the whole time liveblogging about how ugly and inadequate it made you feel, do not give it your mental health next year. It doesn’t deserve it.

BUT HAVE YOU READ NUMBER FIFTEEN YET? Let people do what they want, Jeebus.

21. Always have a backup plan.

Yeah, otherwise this could happen. Oh, did you mean in general? Because that's pretty general.

22. Give other women compliments when they are sincere and non-selfish, because girl-on-girl compliments are the greatest thing and the mark of a true lady.

I mean, what's a selfish, insincere compliment, anyway? Are you listening to yourself?

23. Do not hold gender-based expectations about who is “supposed” to pay for things. Everyone contribute, everyone do what they can, everyone take pleasure in being the one who gets to treat the other sometimes.

I thought this was a list for 2014. I didn't realize we were back in 1987.

24. Be the one to kiss first sometimes, and don’t ever think that makes you weird or too forward. First kisses are too great a joy not to be shared by all genders.

Oh good. I'm glad you said something. Now I have the confidence I need to kiss first. Here's me, kissing your list of ridiculous rules goodbye.




 

One Size Fits Some - Contributor Post

Today, I'm lucky enough to have an important topic discussed by Pollychromatic. When it comes to defining women based on their experiences...perhaps we shouldn't. She says it better than I ever could in this piece.

...

Kelly Rose Pflug-Back wrote this piece that appeared on The Feminist Wire. Then it appeared on Huffpo. Then it appeared within my social media.

Then I went crazy.

So here’s where I present my creds, right? Here’s where I state that I’m part of the estimated one out of every four women who have been sexually assaulted. And yes, it’s true. Multiple times, in multiple ways, and with multiple accompanying levels of other trauma that were inflicted at the same time.

It’s also true that that does not define me. Nor does it define my sexuality. Nor does it define my ability to have a healthy sexuality. And frankly, I’m kind of getting sick of this presumption that it does, or that it should. Or that there’s something wrong about me if it doesn’t.

The assumption that all women should be treated as victims of sexual assault, or even that all women who have been victimized by sexual assault want to be labeled as victims of sexual assault forever and ever is a pretty big assumption.

It’s not all of me, and it seems part and parcel of the kyriarchal worldview that the actions of those in oppressive power positions leave no option for those who aren’t in those power positions to be nothing else but receiving vessels of the oppression. As I said angrily after reading this article, I am more than the sculpture that was left behind after the wax and mold of the assaults have been removed. I resent the implication that it was a molding act at all for me. I don’t resent it if it was such to someone else, but for me, I resent it.

Culturally we do not expect a man who has been held up at gunpoint and robbed to feel defined by that forever. Nor do we expect them to always live in fear. Or to always need to be approached with caution. Or expect them to want to be called victims of gun violence forever. Yet we do so with women who have lived through sexual assault. We expect them to feel broken. To feel as though all sex is suspect. To have flashbacks if touched wrong, perhaps, and then we give them the title sexual assault survivor forever.

That doesn’t really work for everyone. It certainly doesn’t work for me. I don’t want to be treated with kid gloves like I am a wounded creature ready to bolt at the first sign of a trigger warning. There’s a level of condescension in the assumption that you know how I feel that is pretty intolerable for me.

I caution that I do not feel it is wrong to feel any of these large spectrum of things, from the man who was held up at gunpoint having flashbacks to the woman (or man, because hey, it happens to men too) who was sexually assaulted to feel however they feel about it.

Maybe instead of assuming that there is one right way to behave, we treat people as the individuals we all are. There definitely is a universality in the spectrum that is the human existence, and common experiences often tie us together, but our actions and reactions are so much larger than a simple narrative gives room for. Let’s start actually asking people how they feel and how they want to be treated, and give room for any answer to be acceptable, even if it doesn’t fall within what we can personally do. There’s a few billion people on this planet. We don’t need everybody to treat everybody like lovers, best friends, family, co-workers, or even acquaintances. There’s this concept of boundaries within psychology wherein we expect different levels of deference and awareness from different people. Boundaries are often some of the first things to blur when we start having any sort of trauma or tough time, mentally. This is sort of my plea to get back to some level of them.

If we are coming to a place of acceptance that beauty is a spectrum, can we also come to a place of acceptance that sexuality is a spectrum, and that also the sexuality and psyche of those who have lived through sexual assault is also a spectrum?

If the point of feminism is to open the door of possible expressions of human existence, rather than closing them, should we not also leave this door open?



 

FYI (If You're a Human Being)

If you're a parent, you've probably by now seen the cocky, controlling, pretty weird letter written by Kim Hall to all teenage girls her teenage boys may ever come into contact with online.

There have already been a number of amazing responses, including my favorite one by Iron Daisy Writes, in which she uses the exact tone and phrasing of the letter to show how this message really sounds, and addresses her letter, instead, to teenage boys.

There's also this piece by Put Down the Urinal Cake (amazing blog title, by the way), which goes the compassionate, friendly, educational, gentle route, kindly explaining all the things wrong with this piece (and doing well to separate the words from the "scantily clad" pictures of Hall's boys that she chose to post with her piece shaming girls who don't wear bras to bed.)

Jezebel also wrote a typical but well done piece taking the letter apart bit by bit so that people could actually see what really was written there.

With all of this writing back and forth, I've only got one thing to add.

Ahem.

Dear Human Beings,

Letters like the one Mrs. Hall wrote to teenage girls are a prime example of how rape culture perpetuates itself in today's society in an insidious and innocent-looking way. Let's start with the small stuff, shall we? The whole letter is a practice in condescension, really, which is something we ought not be teaching either our girls or our boys.

In it, Mrs. Hall writes in a patronizing tone, "Wow -- you sure took a lot of selfies in your pajamas this summer!" (Translation - Those are so fucking stupid.) She follows that up with, "I get it – you’re in your room, so you’re heading to bed, right? But then I can’t help but notice the red carpet pose, the extra-arched back, and the sultry pout." (Translation: You little whore, I know all about you.)

I mean, sure, maybe Mrs. Hall is not saying what's in the translations, but you can see how one might read her words in such a manner. The all-knowing adult half-playing along with a child's game all while accusing her of a siren-like power over men.

Which really is two-steps away from victim blaming. Maybe one step away. Sounds an awful lot like, "look at how she's dressed, she was asking for it," to me.

And you know what? At 14 and 15? She is asking for it.

It being attention. It being the security she would like to expect from a world that will not accost her, assault her or harass her for being...her.

Because she's learning. She just got this new body, her whole life is changing, she doesn't quite yet know what it all means, but she likes attention, she likes being pretty, she likes exploring who she may eventually become. And that isn't wrong.

And your boys paying attention to that isn't wrong, either. They are growing, too. This is a natural step in the boy-girl process and rather than shield your poor, innocent sons from the brazen, wanton come-on of the duck-face pose, perhaps you could empower your boys, use those creepy, family-stalking-the-Facebook moments to instill in them the notion that they can be attracted to a girl or woman, and they can still treat her with respect and obey certain boundaries.

Like picturing them in their school clothes as they talk to your sons in their school clothes.

A statement like this: "Did you know that once a male sees you in a state of undress, he can’t ever un-see it?" is not only false, it's harmful.

First of all, I've never been a young teenage boy, but I'm guessing neither have you, and before I hop on the "it cannot be unseen" train, I'd like to see some researched citation that this is a fact. Because, otherwise, how would husbands talk to wives? More to the point, how could your boys even stand themselves at the beach (where they clearly are a lot, based on your photos) with bikini-clad women flouncing about? If your line of thought does happen to be true for your boys, I think you might want to consider forbidding them to go to the beach, or swimming, or dancing. May as well cut out that devil pop music, too. And television. All of it. Actually, the Internet, too. Why are your boys even on Facebook? It's too dangerous, ma'am. They cannot un-see.

As an interesting sidenote when you ask this patronizing question,"You don’t want the Hall boys to only think of you in this sexual way, do you?" you totally already know the answer. And that answer is yes.

And this is not a bad thing. They are learning.

Think of it like training wheels on a bike. Only instead of these harmless photos being training for these girls' eventual fall into sin, think of them as training for your sons on how to be upright human beings and treat all the people in their lives with the respect they deserve simply for being people.

Finally, as a parent of five-year-old girls, and as a former 14-year-old girl, I would like to ask you politely to step off. It's not your place to parent other people's teenagers, and shaming other parents into pruding up their daughters is simply not a long-term solution to the "impurity" in this world. It's like abstinence-only education. (Look it up for its mind-boggling success rates.) If your letter actually does what you'd hoped it would do, all you are doing is taking the training wheels off the bike of life. So that when these girls hit their late teens and twenties, their own parents haven't been able to have the wholesome, respectful talks about sex and image they would have otherwise had, because they're all too busy setting up concrete walls around their daughters and burning any offensive clothing. (I'd like to see someone burn the absence of a bra, actually. Can we make that happen?)

All I know is that my mom didn't need someone like you telling her passive-aggressively what a little slut I was because I snuck short skirts into school. She was handling it. Appropriately and individually, and through her kind, loving guidance, I was able to figure life out. Thank God it was her and not you.

The parents of those Facebook girls are handling it. Kindly step off.

Oh, and just because I feel like this post needs a totally inappropriate picture to offset its points, here's a toddler making her first duckface, for your time. Try not to let your boys see it. I don't want them to have to picture my daughter as a two year old with that silly look on her face for the rest of their lives.

 

Seven Decidedly Normal Fashions That Could Get You in Big Trouble

Looking around at the working and school world, it seems to me there are an awful lot of rules about what one should and shouldn't wear, and some of them, honestly, are downright ridiculous.

In this world of third-wave feminism, where individual choice is at the forefront of the women rights debates, we're still having debates about appropriate woman fashion.

Many are having trouble distinguishing personal style from work-wear, and it's the women that are suffering on all counts. Some are getting fired, some are losing out on promotions, and some aren't even getting hired in the first place, all thanks to their "look".

While private employers and other bastions of authority can set their dress codes as they see fit, there are some losses in the battle. Here are some of the total banal rejects. Is it stuffy in here?

1) Peep-toed Shoes




Like it or not, toes can be the subject of intense debate, even in (or especially in) a court of law. That's right. If you're a lawyer and you're arguing your heart out for a decision on the floor, other people are probably arguing about what you're putting on the floor. The debate in 2008 took off in several legal blogs, including Above the Law, and The American Bar Association Journal, spurring hundreds of comments about lawyers and their footwear.

The blogs found that women professionals may risk losing their credibility by showing their toes in the office.

Former Cahill Gordon associate Kat Griffin, the founder of the Corporette fashion blog for lawyers, said peep-toe shoes may be inappropriate. "Peep toes are marginally better than flat-out open-toe shoes, but even then a closed-toe shoe is the preference.”

That's right, women, you tell your little piggies to stay the hell home because they're not wanted in the workplace.

Judge Kim McClane Wardlaw had this to say to Above the Law:

"My view is that if you have a question about the appropriateness of your attire, don’t risk it. Women appearing in court should never wear anything that draws attention to their anatomy over the merits of their case. You just never know how your audience — judges, jurors, clients or senior partners — will react. It’s better to play it safe in formal settings and save the peep-toes for after hours."

Now, this may have to do entirely with location. In California, apparently lawyers just go nuts, letting their toes hang out all over the place...as long as their nails are painted.

Or maybe it's just seniority-based. Even on the East Coast, perhaps it's okay to show your lower-most regions, so long as everybody else is doing it. (This is a huge boost for women's self-esteems, don't you think?)

Former Cahill Gordon associate Kat Griffin, the founder of the Corporette fashion blog for lawyers says on the American Bar Association's website,

"Don't wear open-toe shoes unless you've seen a much more senior lawyer do it."

Alas, it's probably all for the best. It must be easier to climb that corporate ladder in running shoes, right?

2) Yoga Pants

You don't have to be a career-minded woman to get into sexy, sexy trouble with clothing. Even teenage girls are suspect, but not for the mini-skirts we used to see in the early nineties. Oh, no. Now it's yoga pants in the hot-seat (see what I did there?)


Yes, yoga pants. Long the bane of the stay-at-home-mom's existence, apparently when put on a teenager's body, they become so incredibly attractive that teachers can no longer teach and students can no longer learn.

In Loveland, Ohio, for example, one high school instituted a ban on the stretching, distracting pants which look more at home with spaghetti sauce stains on them than on a teenager anyway.

Loveland's student handbook prohibits "revealing clothing" and does not permit clothing that is "distracting."

Fifty students wore those racy-as-hell sweatpants the next day to make a point. When told to change, 17 of them didn't.

On the students' side of the stretchy-pants debate, Olivia Legg (no, I didn't make that one up) had this to say.

"We ended up in 'in-school' suspension for most of the day and weren't allowed to go to any of our classes"

3) The Maxi Dress

What could be more conservative than covering your entire body in a loose garment, head to toe? While maxi dresses don't show off a woman's curves, it appears people find them "too bohemian for the workplace."

Forbes Magazine lists the maxi dress as one of the worst women's fashion faux pas in the office. They go so far as to indicate that a woman's reputation may be irreparably damage by the offending material.

If you are going to go the trail-blazing route, Dianna Baros writing for The Grindstone has some advice:

"Nothing too revealing, too clingy or too loud – Hawaiian prints and hippy tie-dyes are a no-no."

But, really, that's just good advice for anyone, at any time, isn't it?

4) Anything that's not a bathrobe

Seriously, sometimes your body is just so sexy that regular clothing cannot even handle it.

Laura Odes claims she was fired from her job due to her curves within her first week.

Her employers at Native Intimates (Again, not a joke. They are a lingerie wholesaler.) apparently gave her all sorts of work-attire suggestions after she tried wearing a purple dress, a boxy tunic-style dress and then a knee-length black dress to the job. Eventually, she says they made her wear a bathrobe over her clothing.

She says she tried another outfit that she thought would be appropriate, but was then fired. The irony, she says, is that the company markets very sexy clothes.

While her bosses were Orthodox Jewish men, Odes remains unimpressed by their religious fervor.

"I do not feel any employer has the right to impose their religious beliefs on me when I'm working in a business that is not a synagogue, but instead selling thongs with hearts placed in the female genital area, and boy shorts for women saying 'hot' in the buttocks area."

In fact, in Iowa, you can be fired for being too pretty, and it doesn't matter what you are wearing. The Iowa Supreme Court upheld its decision that Fort Dodge dentist James Knight had the right to fire his long-time dental assistant, Melissa Nelson, because he claimed she posed a threat to his marriage.

Nelson's provocative faults? Showing up for work.

Apparently Knight sent her some off-colored text messages, which she ignored, and came up with a whole little fantasy world involving her, then fired her when he couldn't handle his own putrid thoughts.

"Bosses can fire employees they see as threats to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious or other inappropriate behavior. The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender."

This case was decided by an all-male panel in December of 2012, then reopened as the decision came under righteous national fire, then upheld by the same court six months later.

Aces.

5) Curly hair, pencil skirts or turtlenecks

The jury is still out on whether Debrahlee Lorenzana was fired for dressing too provocatively, or for simply being a bad employee. The former Citibank employee filed a lawsuit against them in 2009. Amid other trouble, she says she was told she had to straighten her hair before coming into work.

"[Her two male] managers gave her a list of clothing items she would not be allowed to wear: turtlenecks, pencil skirts, and fitted suits. And three-inch heels.

"As a result of her tall stature, coupled with her curvaceous figure," her suit says, Lorenzana was told "she should not wear classic high-heeled business shoes, as this purportedly drew attention to her body in a manner that was upsetting to her easily distracted male managers."

Citibank says her poor performance is the reason she was fired.

6) Matching shirts

That's right. Stop calling your work bestie and coordinating outfits. It could be labelled as a protest and get you fired.

Fourteen workers at the Deerfield Beach law firm of Elizabeth R. Wellborn P.A. were called into the conference room one Friday in 2012 after they all wore orange collared shirts to prepare for payday Friday happy hour. Four of the workers said they dressed like that so they'd look like a group for the festivities and had been doing so for the past few months before the firing.

None of the employees were aware of any protest involving the color orange (and bear in mind, this was well before the Texas shenanigans), but an executive said there was and fired all of them on the spot.


"There is no office policy against wearing orange shirts. We had no warning. We got no severance, no package, no nothing," said Lou Erik Ambert. "I feel so violated."

Meloney McLeod, 39, of North Lauderdale, said her choice of shirt puts her in a tough spot: "I'm a single mom with four kids, and I'm out of a job just because I wore orange today."

Florida is an "at will" state, meaning an employer can fire you for any reason--good, bad or even wrong--provided it's not unlawful. Which is up for debate in this case, isn't it?

7) A Skirt

One would think that refusing to wear pants would be legitimate grounds for firing. But shouldn't a skirt also be acceptable? Not according to Burger King who fired a Pentacostal teenager when she refused to wear pants to work.

Seventeen-year-old Ashanti McShan was sent home on her first day at the job because her Christian faith prohibited her from wearing the uniform which included pants. Skirts are not acceptable (which probably makes sense, since Burger King probably doesn't want its employees accidentally spilling super-hot oil on their skin). But she was being hired as a cashier.

She filed a religious discrimination lawsuit in 2012 and according to that documentation, Burger King management assured her that no pants were no problem.

"At the time of her interview for the job, Ms. McShan asked to wear a skirt instead of uniform pants as a religiousaccommodation. Defendant assured her that she could wear a skirt to work."

According to the Washington Times, these incidents are rising.

"Religious discrimination complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have been rising over the past 10 years. Last year, the EEOC received 2,541 complaints, up 48 percent from 1,709 in 1997."

Basically, what all these examples show us is that there is no way to go right when trying to get dressed.

Always remember, ladies, it's not just the outside world you've got to impress, but also your bosses and coworkers!

Okay, got it? Ready to go? Then those potato sacks, and let's get some work done!

 

Real Men of Feminism

After the "most notorious American male feminist" stepped down the other day (and then didn't, but definitely did after that) there's been a lot of talk about men feminists (like there ever isn't, am I right?). I'd like to take this moment, however, to turn the spotlight away from the preachy, narcissistic men of the feminist writing spaces and celebrate the real men of feminism. Oh, they're there. They're right here, in fact.

That is Billy Joe Cain, standing with his 14-year-old daughter who wins the award for best sign ever in the history of signs.

Before we move on, let's all get the meaning of this sign clear.

Jesus is not a dick (meaning, cleverly in this case, jerk, douche, asshole, ballseam, term du jour, and also penis).

So keep him out of my vagina (meaning religion has no place dictating a woman's rights to her and continuing beautifully with the little metaphor).

Got it? Okay.

As the pro-lifers came out in droves to attack this young girl, her father stood resolutely by her side. He did not once lose his cool with these monsters who called his daughter a whore, called him a pimp, called her a slut...well, here, read yourself. (And PS - these all came from this post, which you should all read immediately)

This was just one of dozens of calls to physically assault this child for her impertinent sign-holding. And throughout all of these awful, horrible, disgusting threats, her father was able to not end the twitter users' lives. How, I'll never know.

Billy Joe Cain makes the excellent point that holding a sign that says Jesus isn't a dick so keep him out of my vagina is not equal to holding a sign saying I'm having sex at 14 years old.

These two things are not the same.

He doesn't come out swinging, like, how dare you insinuate my sweet pea is having sex with people! He doesn't scramble to re-explain their actions in a this sign has nothing to do with my daughter; she's not having sex! manner. He does not put pressure on her one way or the other. He does not insert his feelings as a man, or as a father into her fight. He does not weigh in on her sexual activity except to ask others not to in a completely benign and calm way.

He stands with her, not for her, and patiently points out the obvious. Even after people too dumb to type words call her a gardening tool.

He gives no air-time to the utterly insulting ridiculousness aimed at both him and a 14-year-old child. He rightly knows that these people will never get the point. He instead spends his energy building up his daughter and her beliefs, protecting her rights and her body.

I mean, seriously, I would be flipping tables in rage right now. Billy Joe Cain? Rides it out. There is no hope for these people. Fanning their flames would only bring hardship on his daughter. They gave their message. They're allowing "discourse". They take their (awesome) sign and go home, leaving the world a better place.

Again, he is simple and directly to the point, cutting through all the garbage. I also do not understand why they are calling his daughter a whore.

Billy Joe Cain goes on to say briefly that his daughter had every right to hold that sign as 14 year olds can and do get pregnant and need to know they have a choice about their own bodies.

And then, you know what? He marches on. He doesn't dwell on his daughter. More importantly, he does not dwell on himself and the good he is doing for the feminist movement.

Instead, he continues to quietly fight the fight. This is his twitter, as of the writing of this post:

This is a man women can call their ally. This is a true male feminist. There's nothing about him anywhere on his feed. There's nothing there showing women how to do feminism correctly. There's no talk of feminism at all.

There is simply a man fighting for the rights of his daughter and her female friends and women at large through education and the works of others.

Billy Joe Cain. A true male feminist.

...

And for another truly wonderful take on this story from the Christian / religious perspective, head over to Corn Dog Mama. She's brilliant, as always with her latest post, "Vaginas, Jesus and Slut Shaming."