Stop Reporting Facts, Dammit

I tend to think of a distaste for facts to be a conservative trait these days, so it kinda pisses me off when liberals get pissy about relevant news being released because it doesn't mesh with what they want to believe.

Jeff Fecke over at Alas! pulled one of these today, with this post in response to an article about an increase in drunk women being raped in San Diego. To be fair, he was echoing a post from Feministing, but the Feministing post made a more defensible argument about wording, while Fecke seems to just be railing against the journalists for reporting the story.

Could the article have been worded better? Absolutely, and the Feministing article gets it right. But to argue that simply running this story is somehow blaming victims is horseshit, and dangerous horseshit at that. Rapists are to blame for rape. They are criminals, and they are scum. But when women get shit-faced drunk in unsafe situations with men they don't or shouldn't trust, they are putting themselves at a higher risk. That should not be true, but it is. Drinking to excess in public is irresponsible behavior for anyone. Rape is not the only concern; both men and women put themselves at risk of theft, mugging, assault, and a bevy of other awful things. Unlike, say, wearing revealing clothing or talking suggestively, which I assume are the kind of things Fecke is equating the issue to, getting plastered is a voluntary act that leads to an inability to maintain control over one's self. A woman who chooses to wear a high-cut dress is taking control over her situation, but a woman who passes out drunk in a bar is voluntarily giving up control. She is at the mercy of those around her because she has chosen to do so, and while I would hope that those around her will take care of her instead of taking advantage of her, we all know that this will not always be the case. This is not an excuse for those who would commit rape, but a word of caution to those who might be raped. There is an important distinction here: the rape is completely the fault of the rapist, but in the case of giving up awareness and control to alcohol, a woman (or man, for that matter) can be at fault for putting themselves into a situation that left them unable to prevent a crime being committed against them.

It does not help anyone to pretend that drinking to excess is not irresponsible behavior. It is. It does not excuse a rapist. Nothing excuses a rapist. But if more young women are getting raped while drunk in my city, that's something I'd like to be aware of, and it's something I would like women I care about to be aware of. Blaming a news outlet for reporting the story is irresponsible, as is the assertion that "when we spend our time bemoaning how those girls today drink too much and put themselves in jeopardy, we ignore the fact that those women wouldn’t be in jeopardy if those boys today would take the extraordinarily easy step of not being rapists." Young people of both genders drink too much. I've seen the awful results first hand. Apologizing for the behavior does not help them. I assure Mr. Fecke that I am not ignoring the fact that rapists are responsible for rape, any more than I am ignoring the fact that thieves are responsible for theft when I lock my apartment when I leave it. I simply do not like seeing anyone put themselves at unnecessary risk because they're convinced the risk isn't real.

Criticizing Tone

I really do enjoy a lot of the content at Shakespeare's Sister. However, there are obviously things I take issue with as well. More so than any of the other feminist blogs I read on a daily basis. I'm not entirely sure why this is, or if it even has a simple reason that one can point to and say, "Oh, yeah, that's it." It just is.

I was recently taken to task for suggesting that the tone of a post regarding Wil Wheaton was just as bad, and in some ways worse, than the original Wheaton post was. The tone was strident and condescending and infantilizing and exaggerated right up to the edge of dishonesty. Though I have no doubt anger was the driving force behind these attributes, I didn't really criticize the post for being too angry. That's too simplistic an argument. But I can see making that argument. I'm not even sure I'd agree, but I can understand making the argument just as well as I can understand the anger that fueled an irresponsible post in the first place.

What pisses me off, then, are blanket statements like these, meant to bully progressives into quietly accepting things that don't sit right with them:

If you are a genuine ally to feminists/womanists, you will never, ever, criticize a feminist/womanist's tone for being "too angry."

Now, I don't think this is aimed at me specifically. I don't rate high enough to warrant more than a few crass insults. But it could just as well be. And whether it's accurate or not - that is, whether I have or would criticize a feminist's tone for being too angry - is irrelevant; it's insulting and bullying to anyone who might not appreciate a tone 'so angry' that it causes the feminist in question to exaggerate the truth, make unwarranted personal attacks or alienate vital allies. I would never blame a feminist for being angry. I'm angry too. Misogyny and sexism piss me off on a daily basis, as do racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and any number of other forms of cultural bigotry. But to say that one's tone is above scrutiny is arrogant and wrong-headed.

Progress is dependent on people who get angry, because anger—productive anger, motivating anger, directed anger, rational anger—is the root of all progress.

No. Progress is dependent on people who get angry and who know how to focus that anger into persuasive arguments and cultural paradigm shifts. Anybody can manage to work up a temper. But nobody ever made progress by alienating the people who most wanted to see them succeed. I frankly don't care if you want me as an ally or not. I don't fight for feminism for you or for your insular clique. I do it because I believe it's right, and as a principle it's worth fighting for. But don't deign to tell me what I can and can not criticize. Attempting to regulate what can and can not be scrutinized is the last resort of an autocrat, not an intellectual, and certainly not a progressive.

I'm Complaining, Not Bitching

I suppose the title of this entry is going to get me in trouble, but then, this whole post is likely to evoke trouble from people I deeply respect, so I might as well get right to it. What I'm trying to say is that I don't use the word 'bitching' in that context, because I'm aware that it carries with it misogynist undertones. 'Complaining' works just as well, so I use it instead.

Melissa over at Shakespeare's Sister wrote a piece about misogynist language that is, at very least, worth reading. A glimpse at my sidebar will make evident that I enjoy Melissa's blog and respect her work, as well as that of the other contributors to the site. The above-mentioned essay is no exception; it is well-written and persuasive.

I can not help, however, but to take some exception to parts of it. I realize this may get me stoned by any of Melissa's fervent fans who manage to find this entry... the comment thread is a warning sign to any who would question the piece, where poor behavior by critics is met with stunningly worse behavior by supporters. In fact, I'm blogging about it here because the environment on that comments log simply got too hostile for me to speak comfortably. Besides, I didn't want to monopolize a comment thread.

I am brutally clipping the article, which should be read in whole, but I've stammered on too long already.

Regarding the word 'cunt':

2. I use it. My using the word cunt to describe myself and a man using it to describe another man are fundamentally different contexts. To pretend that this difference is not patently fucking obvious is what August calls a fabricated belief. No one with two brain cells still knocking together honestly believes that white people using the n-word as an insult and black people using it for any reason are equivalent, nor that a gay man describing himself as a faggot is the same as Ann Coulter describing John Edwards as a faggot. And no one should have the slightest bit of trouble wrapping their heads around the idea that my (or other women) reclaiming the word cunt (or bitch, or other sexist euphemisms) to describe ourselves is not the same as a man using it as an insult.

I love the word cunt, and I'm all for reclaiming it—but reclaiming "cunt" is about a woman wearing it herself and wielding it ironically, which is necessarily as a compliment, not an insult. If I call my girlfriend "a beautiful cunt" for expertly handling a sexist wanker, that's got reappropriative power. If I call her "a dumb cunt" because she does something foolish, not so much.

Later in the piece:

I self-censor all the time. I'm not exactly proud to admit this, but it's not like the phrase "Bush is a fuckin' retard" has never entered my mind. But I don't use the slur—not because I'm oh-so-scared that the "PC police" will come after me, but because it's not a nice term. That's reason enough.

Here's where I have trouble. I do not use the word 'cunt' in context. I honestly have trouble using the word 'cunt' even in this descriptive manner. You don't have to convince me not to use the word 'cunt'. But if you want me to respect your wishes not to use the word, please have the courtesy to refrain from using it yourself.

I know that it doesn't mean the same thing coming from me that it does coming from you. Honestly, I understand that. But there's a place for mutual respect here. I am a male. I am not the patriarchy. I am on your side. Really. But if you get to have a 'secret handshake' involving a word you are allowed to use but I can't, it makes it harder for me to feel like part of your movement. You're turning me into the outsider... someone who isn't allowed to use the word the rest of you are. That I don't want to use the word is not the issue. The word is being held over me, almost like a threat. Do I feel oppressed by feminism? No, but I do feel excluded from it, and that doesn't do anyone any good.

The word 'cunt' is not nice, and Melissa is right, that's reason enough not to use it. I won't use it, even if I feel justified in a particular situation, which I think is what Melissa is asking of me. But the request would carry more weight if she would abide by it as well.

No. No, no, no.

From today's edition of the New York Times:

"John Edwards, specifically, as well as the press, would never attack Barack Obama for two hours they [sic] way they attacked her," said Geraldine A. Ferraro, the 1984 vice presidential candidate who supports Mrs. Clinton. "It's O.K. in this country to be sexist," Ms. Ferraro said.

BULLSHIT. Clinton is showing at 44% support, Obama at 25%, and Edwards at 14%. Frankly, if they hadn't gunned for Clinton, that would have been sexist, because damn straight they'd be gunning for a man that far in front, and failing to do the same for Hillary would have been patronizing.

Sexist describes the newspaper articles that preface any discussion of something Hillary said with what she was wearing. Her candidates pressing her on the issues has nothing to do with sexism. When you're 19 percentage points ahead of your closest rival, you're commanding almost half of your party's support, and your gender automatically buys you (for good or ill) extra publicity, you don't get to call it sexist when your opponents call you out for being evasive on points that you are clearly being evasive about.

Hillary Clinton says some stuff about something while wearing a sporty powder blue pants suit. Barak Obama ponders serious political issues nearby.

As much as I appreciate Amy's opinion on the topic, I can't see Hillary as an icon of feminism. She would not be where she is today if she were not married to Bill Clinton. I don't discount some of the positive implications of her strong campaign. But how can someone who started her career as a high-profile wife be an icon for female equality? I want to see a woman in the nation's top office. I want to see our society reach that pinnacle. But if I believe GW's station is compromised by his family's legacy, how can I think differently about Hillary? Does that make me as bad as Edwards and the media?

I guess my main issue with this story is that it misrepresents where sexism exists in this campaign. The way the press treats Clinton is sexist, but not because they press her on issues. It's because they tell us what she's wearing, and how her hair is done, and how she deserves to be protected from spirited debate because of her gender.