…his (former) mistress, a known hellcat who has been flummoxing boy-men since the ’80s and whose rage over Elizabeth’s book is held in check only (and here I’m admittedly basing my speculation largely on what [...]]]> Not that she let’s John Edwards completely off the hook, but this passage by Caitlin Flanagan describing Rielle Hunter is appalling:

…his (former) mistress, a known hellcat who has been flummoxing boy-men since the ’80s and whose rage over Elizabeth’s book is held in check only (and here I’m admittedly basing my speculation largely on what I’ve come to learn about women’s dreams and desires) by her hankering to live in Tara. Hers is not an intelligence or an ambition difficult to plumb, and her dream is almost certainly to have Elizabeth shuffle off the mortal coil so that she can instate herself in the North Carolina pleasure dome and become the fun, hip, “Being Is Free,” bleached-blond, super open-minded, videographing, Power of Now stepmom, a prospect so hideous that it makes Elizabeth Edwards’s last-chance book tour look like what it is: a desperate attempt to protect her sweet, sad children from the influence of this erstwhile cokehead and present-day weasel after she has died.

Really? I harbor no love for Hunter — she was the second party in a deceitful conspiracy that brought down the progressive presidential campaign that I supported — but this seems like an absurd attempt to throw the rhetorical kitchen sink at her.  Ta-Nehisi calls it “gender-nationalist,” and I think that’s right in the sense that only Hunter and Elizabeth Edwards are really granted any agency in the piece, whereas John Edwards, party one in the previously mentioned conspiracy, is a dolt who decided to blow up a campaign that was incredibly important to millions of people…why exactly? Because Hunter is a mean slut?

Certainly writing a piece that focuses on Hunter ties in much better with an examination of the life and beliefs of Helen Gurley Brown and gives Flanagan license to critique revisionist feminist historians who would turn Brown’s “how to win a millionaire” guidebook into a liberatory text.  And while the magazine-long-form is long, it’s not infinite, so one can excuse the absense of a socio-biological (or whatever) critical framework to explain John’s actions.  However, none of that explains the vitriol directed at Hunter, who for all her flaws was not the one tasked with being faithful to a partner or honorable to a movement.

Very disappointing to find out that the problem’s just that the women are all uppity and so now men [...]]]> When an article begins with the line “Modern women are turning their husbands into ‘male-female hybrids’…”, it really needs to be about an evil Doctress Frankenstein creating genetic monstrosities beyond the wildest dreams of Ursula Le Guin.

Very disappointing to find out that the problem’s just that the women are all uppity and so now men also feel the need to clean in formal wear.

Should a queen fly by, she may be mobbed by a dozen or more males, each seeking the chance to love her to death: bee flinging, like bee stinging, [...]]]> Today’s NY Times article on how animated animal blockbusters distort/fabricate animal gender roles is fascinating, especially when it starts imagining what a realistic Bee Movie would include:

Should a queen fly by, she may be mobbed by a dozen or more males, each seeking the chance to love her to death: bee flinging, like bee stinging, is a lethal affair. After a male deposits sperm in the queen, his little “endophallus” snaps off, and he falls to the ground. In her single nuptial flight, the queen will collect and store in her body the sperm offerings of some 20 doomed males, more than enough to fertilize a long life’s worth of eggs.

Now it’s true that I would be more likely to go see a movie where Jerry Seinfeld falls to his doom (about time!), but I think most parents would pass. The point of these movies isn’t to explore what it would be like to be a person living in a society organized like Bees or Ants, as that is a pretty horrifying premise. Behavior that’s interesting to learn about in biology class (strict hierarchy and biological class divisions) is distasteful when applied to humans. The way many animals mate would have to be considered rape if emulated by humans.

I’m all for fictional depictions of dystopias, but that hardly seems a sounds basis for the feel-good children’s morality tale genre. It’s unsurprising that instead, screenwriters choose to reimagine animal society as more like that of people. What makes this sinister is the heteronormativity.

These movies are allegories, and among the things they teach children is gender relations. It’s irritating, not to mention harmful to the subset of said children who will not go in for the Man-Woman-Monogamy institution, that all fictional characters must have “normal” romantic interests. Worse, the requirement remains even when the depicted animal’s real social organization is dramatically nontraditional; handed a golden opportunity to show a different kind of world, these movies take a pass and opt to be the same old propaganda.

(H/T Feministing)

Also, if I’m expected to have a trimmed or shaved puss, a guy can at [...]]]> As someone who rocks a beard, and has had bedroom-related insecurities about said beard, April Smear’s LAist anti-beard screed hit a soft spot. Until I realized the porn industry was the cause of my discomfort, then I just got mad:

Also, if I’m expected to have a trimmed or shaved puss, a guy can at least extend the same courtesy and have a shaved face. Truly, if a woman grew an Amazonian Forest below, most men these days would have a problem with it. And you know it. And before you lie, ask yourself when the last time you saw an Amazonian Forest on any of the women you gawk at in your men’s magazines and in your porn.

Horrible porn industry beauty standards: not just for women anymore! Clearly a hair double standard does exist, but it has nothing to do with beards (since sexual dimorphism should probably be discounted as a form of inequality). Sans-bush fashion made the leap from video to suburb among the female set some while ago (with what prevalence? I know of no study.), but men have thus far been spared; the male beauty standard remains less prescriptive than its sister. So the real argumet of the essay should be that what’s good for the chick, is good for the cock.

Of course, what we should be talking about how this whole hairless fetish is a creepy manifestation of body-hating (note: the fetish, not every individual instance of the practice), which is particularly visible in this passage:

If I wanted to smell that aroma, I wouldn’t be with a man.

That aroma being…your own body? The idea that “Great sex involves sweat, spit, and other bodily fluid,” but only on the part of the other person has problems. You’re denying your own body’s reality; requiring that it remain (or at least that you experience it as) a pristine, aroma-free object during sex. You’re saying the only reason you’re with a man is because you’re uncomfortable with your own body. That’s bad.

Of course, the exact same thinking is used in male rationalizations for demanding that women clearcut their “Amazon Forest” (which is a rather unfortunate metaphor, given the many creatures that call the forest home), with the added bonus of patriarchal power.

Really, we just all need to stop learning abut sex from porn. Especially dudes, seeing as you drive the mainstream pornography market. And nobody better come after my beard.

Update: An appropriately themed video by Rilo Kiley:

A history: In an earlier post I suggested that it was sexist to dedicate yourself to arguing against women, and came down hard on a male blogger for it. At the same time I ignored the female blogger, [...]]]> Wherein I explain why I am loathe to criticize posts or comments at the big Feminist blogs.

A history: In an earlier post I suggested that it was sexist to dedicate yourself to arguing against women, and came down hard on a male blogger for it. At the same time I ignored the female blogger, with whom I also had disagreements. This caused Mike to ask:

Don’t you think it’s more sexist to give women an automatic pass on their bad behavior than to call them out for it?

Short answer: Sometimes.

Long answer: I don’t generally call anyone out for “bad behavior” at all, because it doesn’t get you anywhere and I don’t like endless meta discussion. Run of the mill fallacious argumentation is certainly not enough to get me to speak up. My John Cain post is, I think, the only time I’ve done something of this type, and it was based on whole-blog problems, not bad arguments in a post. The two are not equivalent; I don’t need to speak on one to justify the other.

That said, I am more hesitant to criticize Feminist blogs, as they are different beast than pundit blogs. Feminist blogs are too raw; I’d critique GFR to my heart’s content, but tread lighter at Feministe. Why?

Feminist blogs are natural magnets for all the shit that patriarchy has to offer. They document the atrocities, and so reactionary people go to them to spew hate. They are safe places, so hurt and angry people go there seeking community. Peruse almost any comment thread and you’ll happen upon horrible stories that will make you want to hit something, or incensed anti-feminists who will…make you want to hit something. It’s intimate; It’s painful; it’s enraging.

This environment leads to basic stylistic differences with pundit blogs that tend to be one writer speaking in the abstract about an issue. Throw in a gender divide (not to mention race or class) and their’s a recipe for misunderstanding, offense, and hostility. These issues are just incredibly difficult to talk about, as even something as academic as an cross-cultural abortion study is very personal. It’s not called identity politics for nothing; it gets to the heart about who we are, and why we act a certain way.

Usually, you have to be good friends with someone to criticize their personal behavior, yet this is usually impossible in political discussions. A double-bind, so: group-membership is a stand-in for closeness. People assume you don’t mean well if you’re lobbing in a critique from beyond the barriers of the group (and do in fact experience you words as a grenade).

All this to say: I don’t critique feminist blogs because it’s hard; because I don’t think I’m a good enough writer yet to pose a critique in a way that wouldn’t get people’s shackles up and be counterproductive. At the same time, I know that there are plenty of female bloggers out there (at explicitly feminist sites and otherwise) who are perfectly capable of crafting criticism of feminist sites when needed; my commentary is rarely necessary. So, I write the critiques I feel I can, where/when I feel I can have an affect.

In practice, this means my writing does skew towards my own identity groups. Is that ideal? No. Is it sexist? I don’t think so.

Comprehensive list of woman criticized by John Cain:

Comprehensive list of men criticized by John Cain:

Note that these lists are based on a very small sample [...]]]> The abortion-study blowup (with posts by Jill and Mike probably the last gasp), caused me to look into something.

Comprehensive list of woman criticized by John Cain:

• Zuzu
• Jessica Valenti
• Garance Franke-Ruta
• Dana Goldstein
• Kathryn Jean Lopez
• Amanda Marcotte
• Deborah Tornello (in comments)
• Tania Head

Comprehensive list of men criticized by John Cain:

• Gregg Easterbrook
• Judah

Note that these lists are based on a very small sample size (Soberish has two months of posts), and it it possible that this ridiculous skew will correct itself with time. Additionally, I merely point to a correlation, which in no way should be construed as definitive.

That said, I think John Cain dislikes women. Or maybe just smart women.

To those who may ask, “But wasn’t John right on the issues?” I reply: Maybe, sometimes — but that is irrelevant. One can choose to be ‘right’ against any number of online personalities; they’re hardly scarce. Who you choose to debate is a commentary on you. Exclusively correcting the follies of women is repulsive, irrespective of how wrong they may be.

A related observation: “liberal male pundit attacks feminist blog” is something of a cliche at this point, and needs to be abandoned as a goto posting strategy. Possibly it’s just that male pundits don’t understand feminism and need to be schooled. Maybe we attack feminists because they represent the most radical sector of the liberal blogosphere (the commies play in their own sandbox) and we all feel the need for a Sister Souljah moment from time to time to reinforce our seriousness/intellectual honesty. I don’t know, but it grates.

Update: I deleted Tegan and Sara from the list since they’re not actually a “person” and I didn’t intend to include groups or organizations.