2008-10-24 12:41 | Polygeosexual? Multilocalesexual?

Miriam at Feministing posts about the importance of dating locally.  I responded there, so I'll reprint my comment here:

[...] I wouldn't have been so put off if the post had been phrased as an awareness-raising thing.  Like "That's a good point, Slate – what is the carbon footprint of LDRs versus local relationships?".  Then the post would contain stories about how LDR-folk cut down on costs where they can (both personal and ecological), and perhaps how they got into that LDR in the first place.

Instead, Slate says LDR-folk should feel guilty, and Miriam is joking about campaigning against LDRs and "Why don't we date locally?".  The post comes off as wicked insulting, at least to me – it assumes we haven't considered the ecological cost, it assumes we haven't god damn tried dating locally, and for heaven's sake, it compares relationships to food.

Not to mention, are there statistics on how many LDRs are due to things like a partner being in the military, or economic pressures (so one person moves for their job, and the other stays back for theirs), or other situations I haven't thought of because I'm hungry right now?  The prevailing assumption seems to be internets lovers, and that's bothersome in/of itself.

In conclusion, this whole thing is just a new twist on the old "The only way to build community is in person; the internet is destroying society!" thing.  Which I reject, so articles and posts admonishing me to date locally in order to build community don't work on me anyhow.

2008-10-22 08:56 | Two DV items of note.

#1: Jessica Lenahan

At Feministing, Ann writes about Jessica Lenahan and Castle Rock v. Gonzalez. In essence, Lenahan had a restraining order against her estranged husband, Simon Gonzalez. He violated the restraining order, kidnapped their three young children, killed them, then… I don't know what was in his head, but he opened fire on the police station and was killed.

She took this as far as the Supreme Court, who told her that it's not Colorado law enforcement's job to enforce restraining orders, sorry. So she's taking this to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

I wish her all the luck in this. And I wish we had something better than restraining orders.

#2: Shadayra Kilfoy-Flores

Via Livejournal, ginmar posts about Shadayra Kilfoy-Flores and her incompetent assistant DA. The things that are disgusting include (but are not limited to):

* The domestic violence itself.
* The plea bargain, that dropped the potential sentencing from over 11 years to 18 months.
* The fact that burglary has a larger sentence than "substantial battery".

Contact information for DA Brian Blanchard:

Dane County Courthouse Room 3000
215 S Hamilton St
Madison, WI 53703-3297
Tel / TTY: (608) 266-4211
Email: blanchard.brian@mail.da.state.wi.us

I'm composing an email now, and may post it once I'm done.

2008-02-19 22:55 | "Jesus fucking son of an asshat shitstick!"

The very next time anyone even jokes about "feminazis", or how women hate men, I'm going to put my motherfucking fist through the wall.

At Feministing, Jessica posts about Natasha Hall's murder by her ex-boyfriend.  Notably, the police allegedly said that if she kept calling them wrt her ex, they would arrest the both of them.  What the shit.

In comments, one MedicalStudent29 (oh god, he's my age) really wants to know why Hill didn't do everything in her power to prevent this:

The anti-stalking laws are there, but they only work if the female victims actually choose to exercise their rights to file charges. Far too often, they still dont understand the gravity of the situation.

Aghghghg.  People tried arguing with him.  I tried arguing with him.  And then a different commenter responds with this utter tripe:

He's probably going to go to prison for many years to come. She's still dead. As a doornail. All the blame spared her and heaped upon him will not give her another breath of life.

At which point, I stopped being able to see any colour other than red.

I can't stand it.  I can't stand it, that this is the world I live in.  That this world, that has sunsets and laughter and wine, also has shitstains on society who, without irony, state that gosh, we shouldn't punish people for their crimes, for the crime has already been committed, it's in the past, lighten up!

And sometimes I actually wonder why I don't leave the house unless I have to.

2008-01-22 14:20 |

* Jessica at Feministing posts a YouTube link: Practical joke show "rapes" mom to terrorize daughter.  As someone said at Feministing, "Oh good. I think rape hasn't been funny enough in the past. This sort of humor is just what we need."  This is truly vile, and is not helping humanity's case any.

* Jill writes: 10 Reasons to Support Reproductive Justice on Roe Day.  Her post is full of excellent points and linkage.

* PortlyDyke writes about Christianity and the US.

2007-10-11 08:49 | The best "feminist card" comment ever.

This is, by far, the best comment I've ever seen that had to do with "If I don't do [xyz], am I no longer a feminist?":

While I'm all for fighting this on principle, do I have to turn in my feminist card if I want to choose my battles?

The goal of posts like this is consciousness raising; let's look at the sexist subtext of these things so many people for granted. That doesn't mean if you choose to do those things you are Cast Out of the Feminist Circle for All Eternity. It's not about maintaining ideological purity, it's about analyzing the attitudes underlying this sort of thing. We all compromise with the patriarchy just to survive, so if that's one of the compromises you feel like you have to make, so be it. Just acknowledge that it's a compromise. So many people feel attacked when things like this are analyzed through a feminist lens, but it's absolutely necessary to do it in order to show the omnipresent patriarchal attitudes. This isn't about judging the individual people living their lives, but challenging the meaning of traditions that demean women and treat us as possessions without autonomy.

- LivvySidhe

2007-03-01 16:23 | I've always had a soft spot for analogies.

This was posted by Thomas over at the Feministing post "Quick Hit: Drinking and Rape".  I'm posting it here for posterity.  I definitely advise reading the main link, as well.

I think the key to changing the rape culture is to change the view of sexuality from a commodity model to a performance model.

What I mean by a commodity model is the view that sex is something women have and men get; what Amanda Marcotte refers to as the "pussy oversoul" that women are guardians of and that men make applications for access to. Sex is like a ticket; women have them and men try to get them. Women may give them away or may trade them for something valuable, but it's a transaction in a good.

The commodity model is shared in common by both the libertines and the prudes of a patriarchy. To the libertine, guys want to maximize their take of tickets. The prudes want women to keep the tickets to buy something really important: the spouse; provider, protector, etc.

That whole model is wrong. Under that model, consent is not an affiramtive partnership. Instead, if someone tries to take a ticket and the owner doesn't object, then the ticket is free for the taking. Under this way of thinking, consent is the absence of "no." It is therefore economically rational to someone with this commodity concept of sex that it can be taken; rape is a property crime in that view. In the past, the crime was against the male owner of women (let's not sugar-coat it; until very recently women were in a legal way very much male property and still are in many places and ways). Even among more enlightened folks, if one takes a commodity view of sex, rape is still basically a property crime against the victim.

The better model is the performance model, where sex is a performance, and partnered sex is a collaboration between the partners; like dance or music.

Under a performance model, consent is not the absence of "no." Consent is affirmative participation. Who picks up a guitar and jams with a bassist who just stands there? Who dances with a partner who is just standing there and staring? In the absence of affirmative participation, there is no collaboration; forcing participation by coersion is not a property crime, but a crime of violence like kidnapping.

Under this model, looking for affirmative participation is built into the conception. If our boys learn this from their pre-adolescence, then the idea that consent is affirmative rather than the absence of objection will be ingrained.

The performance model has the added feature that it eliminates slut-baiting. A commodity is finite; if women give or trade away their tickets, they have lost something of value, and the relevant question is what they got in exchange. If sex is a performance, then the question is how well it worked out. There's no finite commodity to run out of, and nobody gets called a slut for jamming with too many musicians.