Apparently I have a plethora of psychic powers that I've just been too lazy to develop my whole life. Funny world, isn't it?
I apparently have the power to molest children with my thoughts through a photograph. It's strange, but apparently all pedophiles have this power. It's why the government thinks it's so important that pictures of children should never be in the hands of pedophiles. At first, I thought this was only supposed to work if the kid was being molested in the photo, but apparently it works just fine whether the kid has ever been molested or not, and the effect isn't blocked by clothing. Pity it only works on pictures of children, but at least it works long after those children have grown up.
I've also apparently got laser vision. If I look at someone long enough, I'll bore a hole right in their bodies like Superman. Only good explanation I have for the fact that folks work so hard to control which direction I point my eyes. Weirdly, this one apparently has nothing to do with the powers I get from being a pedophile. Apparently all men have this ability.
I hear women get mind reading powers. I think I'd have more use for that in my everyday life than the heat vision.
I do at least get the power to unconsciously and undetectably mind control women and children. It's apparently impossible for either group to refuse to do anything I ask of them. In fact, apparently I don't need to say a word for it to be me controlling their actions.
So, any suggestions on a costume for my new career as a Superhero?
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Affirmative Consent
Since this concept has been making its rounds on the various boards and blogs I read, it feels appropriate to weigh in, in detail, on this subject.
Affirmative consent is the idea that avoiding a "no" in a sexual encounter is insufficient for true consent. That only a verbalized "yes" to each and every act performed is sufficient.
I'm actually quite fond of the idea.
The biggest stumbling block I run into when quietly contemplating a better legal situation than the current age of consent, or arguing for its abolishment in open forum, is the fundamental fact that our current system of consent for adults is fundamentally broken. We let adults abuse and manipulate one another in ways that should rightly horrify any human being of good conscience. Thus the idea of exposing children to those culturally and legally sanctioned abuses rightly causes us all to recoil from the idea.
I don't like recoiling from ideas. When I get that impulse, I choose to dig deeper. To find out WHY that reaction strikes me. Because if I recoil, I can't learn specifically what about the situation is so inimical to me, and I can't examine if those distasteful parts can be excised.
The way I figure it, if it isn't acceptable to do inflict something on a five year old child, it isn't acceptable to inflict it on an adult either. If you think we need an age of consent to protect children from predatory adults who would lie their way into bed with them, there is no valid justification for treating those same predators as harmless or even admirable just because they're doing the exact same thing to other adults.
Now, that isn't to say there aren't serious flaws with the concept of affirmative consent. Firstly, like all aspects of sexual consent in this culture, it's gendered, in that males need to get consent, and females need to give it, never the other way around. Not a problem specific to the concept itself, but a problem inherent in our culture and one that rightly needs to be called out whenever the subject of changing the standards of consent come up.
Second is that how far it needs to be taken is never sufficiently defined, nor will its proponents ever submit to limiting cases, always shreaking about their "better safe than sorry" nonsense. Under reasonable standards, this practice could force better communication between sexual partners, make everyone take accountability for their own agency in deciding to participate, and reducing the tragedies that currently result from our current standards of "implied consent". If stretched beyond reasonable boundaries, however, it becomes a standard no one can ever live up to, and thus redefines every sexual interaction as rape, with all the gendered and ageist asymetries that go along with rape accusations in our culture.
Some claim that this standard infantalizes women, because it denies their ability to speak up when something is bothering them about a sexual encounter, and instead relies on the man to ask for confirmation. Aside from the obvious sexism in the idea that only a man would need to be held to this standard (not that it isn't an objective fact of our culture that this would be the case), I actually agree that it's infantalizing. That's why I like it so much.
Maybe if we can get the level of discourse and behavior of the general population to a place where a child would have no difficulty navigating it, why would we need the age of consent or anything to replace it?
Affirmative consent is the idea that avoiding a "no" in a sexual encounter is insufficient for true consent. That only a verbalized "yes" to each and every act performed is sufficient.
I'm actually quite fond of the idea.
The biggest stumbling block I run into when quietly contemplating a better legal situation than the current age of consent, or arguing for its abolishment in open forum, is the fundamental fact that our current system of consent for adults is fundamentally broken. We let adults abuse and manipulate one another in ways that should rightly horrify any human being of good conscience. Thus the idea of exposing children to those culturally and legally sanctioned abuses rightly causes us all to recoil from the idea.
I don't like recoiling from ideas. When I get that impulse, I choose to dig deeper. To find out WHY that reaction strikes me. Because if I recoil, I can't learn specifically what about the situation is so inimical to me, and I can't examine if those distasteful parts can be excised.
The way I figure it, if it isn't acceptable to do inflict something on a five year old child, it isn't acceptable to inflict it on an adult either. If you think we need an age of consent to protect children from predatory adults who would lie their way into bed with them, there is no valid justification for treating those same predators as harmless or even admirable just because they're doing the exact same thing to other adults.
Now, that isn't to say there aren't serious flaws with the concept of affirmative consent. Firstly, like all aspects of sexual consent in this culture, it's gendered, in that males need to get consent, and females need to give it, never the other way around. Not a problem specific to the concept itself, but a problem inherent in our culture and one that rightly needs to be called out whenever the subject of changing the standards of consent come up.
Second is that how far it needs to be taken is never sufficiently defined, nor will its proponents ever submit to limiting cases, always shreaking about their "better safe than sorry" nonsense. Under reasonable standards, this practice could force better communication between sexual partners, make everyone take accountability for their own agency in deciding to participate, and reducing the tragedies that currently result from our current standards of "implied consent". If stretched beyond reasonable boundaries, however, it becomes a standard no one can ever live up to, and thus redefines every sexual interaction as rape, with all the gendered and ageist asymetries that go along with rape accusations in our culture.
Some claim that this standard infantalizes women, because it denies their ability to speak up when something is bothering them about a sexual encounter, and instead relies on the man to ask for confirmation. Aside from the obvious sexism in the idea that only a man would need to be held to this standard (not that it isn't an objective fact of our culture that this would be the case), I actually agree that it's infantalizing. That's why I like it so much.
Maybe if we can get the level of discourse and behavior of the general population to a place where a child would have no difficulty navigating it, why would we need the age of consent or anything to replace it?
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Feminazis
I am a feminist.
I believe that men and women deserve full legal equality. I believe that the overwhelming majority of differences that can be observed between the genders in this culture are social constructs, and that forcing people into those boxes is harmful to them and to society as a whole.
Unfortunately, when I self-identify as a feminist, I have to defend that identification. I'm called upon to answer for every sexist, bigoted, or ill thought out statement ever made by anyone who's described themselves using that label. I have to clarify, "I'm not like those feminists."
The thing is, I don't like referring to those feminists as feminists at all. People who espouse sexist and gender essentialist views not only fail to fit my definition of feminists, but they are at the polar opposite of what it means to be a feminist.
I've seen feminism defined in any number of ways. Some of them would preclude sexists from the word go, while others would be welcoming. To take one example I see frequently, "the radical notion that women are people," has nothing present to bar sexists from operating under that flag. So long as you hold that view, you're qualified to be a feminist, regardless of how narrowly you define the word "women" and regardless of whether you think anyone other than women are people.
So, how does one address the presence of sexists who claim membership in a movement for social justice and equality? What do you call someone who uses the label of feminist, but doesn't care one whit for equal rights? Do those of us who care about equal rights just stand back and let misandrists sully the name of a legitimately positive social movement?
Which brings me to the title. I've seen individuals flying a false flag of feminism in an attempt to legitimize or deflect criticism of their sexist positions. And I've seen those selfsame misandrists called "feminazis".
The word feminazi was coined by Rush Limbaugh, and he has used it as a pejorative in reference to all major feminist organizations. But I would contend that the meaning has shifted. In every instance I've encountered the word "feminazi" in the wild, it was never being used to refer to the movement as a whole. It has always, in my experience, been a term used to identify individuals who claim to be feminists, but who display sexist attitudes.
And every time I see the term used in response to sexism displayed by the self-identified feminist, the discourse changes. Other feminists act as though their honor has been insulted, and immediately move to set the record straight on what feminism is all about. These feminists clearly and unambiguously state that feminism is about equal rights and treating women as people. And they are right to be offended. The problem is that they're offended by the person who used the word "feminazi" to attack the sexist instead of being offended that the sexist asshole was misrepresenting the movement in the first place.
Even if you believe the word feminazi is as unsalvageable as the word nigger, that doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of sexists of both genders out there. That's sort of why we need feminism in the first place. And when sexists use false claims to be feminists in order to shield themselves from criticism, that is a problem. When those false claims aren't called out, or worse when the people making them are defended, it makes it seem as though we reasonable feminists agree with the toxic views put forward by those individuals.
Now personally, I don't use the term feminazi anymore. I find "misandrist asshole" is usually more than sufficient for the majority of cases. And it keeps the well intentioned feminists in the audience from feeling the need to defend the honor of feminism from me instead of from the sexist jackass misappropriating the label.
I believe that men and women deserve full legal equality. I believe that the overwhelming majority of differences that can be observed between the genders in this culture are social constructs, and that forcing people into those boxes is harmful to them and to society as a whole.
Unfortunately, when I self-identify as a feminist, I have to defend that identification. I'm called upon to answer for every sexist, bigoted, or ill thought out statement ever made by anyone who's described themselves using that label. I have to clarify, "I'm not like those feminists."
The thing is, I don't like referring to those feminists as feminists at all. People who espouse sexist and gender essentialist views not only fail to fit my definition of feminists, but they are at the polar opposite of what it means to be a feminist.
I've seen feminism defined in any number of ways. Some of them would preclude sexists from the word go, while others would be welcoming. To take one example I see frequently, "the radical notion that women are people," has nothing present to bar sexists from operating under that flag. So long as you hold that view, you're qualified to be a feminist, regardless of how narrowly you define the word "women" and regardless of whether you think anyone other than women are people.
So, how does one address the presence of sexists who claim membership in a movement for social justice and equality? What do you call someone who uses the label of feminist, but doesn't care one whit for equal rights? Do those of us who care about equal rights just stand back and let misandrists sully the name of a legitimately positive social movement?
Which brings me to the title. I've seen individuals flying a false flag of feminism in an attempt to legitimize or deflect criticism of their sexist positions. And I've seen those selfsame misandrists called "feminazis".
The word feminazi was coined by Rush Limbaugh, and he has used it as a pejorative in reference to all major feminist organizations. But I would contend that the meaning has shifted. In every instance I've encountered the word "feminazi" in the wild, it was never being used to refer to the movement as a whole. It has always, in my experience, been a term used to identify individuals who claim to be feminists, but who display sexist attitudes.
And every time I see the term used in response to sexism displayed by the self-identified feminist, the discourse changes. Other feminists act as though their honor has been insulted, and immediately move to set the record straight on what feminism is all about. These feminists clearly and unambiguously state that feminism is about equal rights and treating women as people. And they are right to be offended. The problem is that they're offended by the person who used the word "feminazi" to attack the sexist instead of being offended that the sexist asshole was misrepresenting the movement in the first place.
Even if you believe the word feminazi is as unsalvageable as the word nigger, that doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of sexists of both genders out there. That's sort of why we need feminism in the first place. And when sexists use false claims to be feminists in order to shield themselves from criticism, that is a problem. When those false claims aren't called out, or worse when the people making them are defended, it makes it seem as though we reasonable feminists agree with the toxic views put forward by those individuals.
Now personally, I don't use the term feminazi anymore. I find "misandrist asshole" is usually more than sufficient for the majority of cases. And it keeps the well intentioned feminists in the audience from feeling the need to defend the honor of feminism from me instead of from the sexist jackass misappropriating the label.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)