My boss is smart.
She has a Ph.D. She's done research in aquatic biology, conducted wetland restoration work, taught at the university level, and now she's running the premier environmental organization in my region. She's got a quick mind, strong opinions, and makes friends easily. Because she works in a field that has been traditionally dominated by men, and because she worked in a hypermasculine environment (the Department of Defense) where she was not only "the only girl" but also younger by 20 years than most everyone, she developed a thick skin. She's not one to cry "sexism" or "misogyny" at ever turn.
But she has her limits.
Last year, she was asked by the director of one of our region's chambers of commerce to serve on a committee that would look at the energy needs of our county and try to come up with some solutions. She came back from her first meeting knowing she was up against it: most of the business leaders who were on the community have no love for environmental organizations, even one like ours, which is generally not a lawsuit-happy, jump up and down and scream, anti-progress, trees are more important than people kind of organization. Over the course of 50 years, my organization has been pretty good at being reasonable and finding ways to work with all sorts of people.
Anyway, she started coming back from these meetings increasingly frustrated. She was not being listened to. She was not being taken seriously. Her ideas were repeatedly shot down. She was being patronized. The committee chairman said, "You're like my crazy little sister." My boss, who is not one to see sexism everywhere and has worked in hypermasculine environments, takes it as a compliment. Meanwhile, the other women on the committee, including the chamber's executive director, sit back and say nothing and contribute little to the conversation.
After a series of increasingly frustrating interactions with this committee, my boss told our board last week that she wanted off. She was backed up by a 20-year-old intern of ours, who attended a couple of the meetings and said she couldn't believe the way my boss had been treated. One person on the board suggested it was because she's from an environmental organization, but it was pointed out, by the intern, that the committee several times accepted and applauded ideas that were put forward by a man on the committee (one who is actually working as a subcontractor....for us!) right after they shot down the same ideas. From my boss.
This young lady was shocked and outraged by the behavior she witnessed. Good for her, and I hope she keeps that outrage whenever she encounters it. My board? Not so much. "Welcome to our county," said more than one--including several women.
It was a real eye opening moment for me. Not to hear about the crap my boss has been taking--I've been hearing about it for the last eight months or so. No, it was the way it was shrugged off so casually by men and women on my board. Men and women who should know better. Men and women who should not accept this with a shrug and an easy comment. "That's the way it is," as Bruce Hornsby sang so many years ago.
It's funny how it hits home that much more when it's someone you know, isn't it? We can read all the stories we want about casual or institutional misogyny, sexism, racism, every -ism out there, but until we see it in action, until we see it bite someone we know, until we see how it is so casually embraced, I don't think it's possible for many men to really understand it on a gut level. Those of us who think we are enlightened, who wonder how this sort of thing gets perpetuated in modern times only have to look at that "Welcome to our county" comment to understand how it continues. I can only hope our young, outraged intern isn't having this same conversation with her board when she's my boss's age 25 years down the road.
Showing posts with label misogyny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label misogyny. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 2019
Monday, October 1, 2018
Another year, another post like this
I may have told you this story before. Perhaps not. Whatever the case, I'm not sure what it is about this time of year that seems to bring this sort of thing out. Last year around now, I was writing about Harvey Weinstein. The year before that, Donald Trump and locker room talk. Maybe it's something in the change of seasons that brings this all about, I don't know. At any rate, the stuff going on now serves to remind me of this.
For nearly the entire decade of the nineties, I worked for the Central Park Conservancy, a great organization that works with the City of New York to manage and protect and promote that fantastic greensward in the heart of New York City. For all of those years, I commuted to work, a journey that involved a minimum 40-minute train ride and two subway lines, but it was a good job with a good organization in a great location, and I've always liked trains so I tolerated it for quite a while.
Two of the years I worked in Central Park, we lived in southern Connecticut. Metro North took me all the way down to Grand Central. From there, I had to take the Lexington Avenue subway back uptown to 103rd Street (my office was just outside the Park at 103rd Street and Fifth Avenue). It seemed a bit of a waste, going all the way down to Grand Central just to have to come back up, and the Lexington Avenue line at that point sucked, to put it honestly, so I looked for--and found--an alternative: get off Metro North at 125th Street and walk 21 blocks to my office. And so I did.
I don't remember how I got to and from the station, to be honest. I think I got off at 125th Street, cut over to Madison, and went all the way down Madison to 104th, and vice versa, but I honestly couldn't tell you after all this time. When I walked (and in the winter, I did not do the walk if it was dark), I walked with purpose, fast but not running. I kept my head up and my eyes moving, but also tried not to attract attention. It was a little unnerving. Mine was pretty much the only white face on the street there, and the route took me through just about every kind of neighborhood: bustling commercial sections, upscale homes, bombed-out crack houses (it was the nineties, after all). It seemed quite possible that I could get mugged for money to fuel someone's crack habit, or mugged--even killed--simply for being the wrong race in the wrong neighborhood. Not once, however, did it ever enter my mind that I might be dragged off into an alley or wrecked building and sexually assaulted.
The allegations against Brett Kavanaugh that surfaced last month have once again served to highlight the vastly different worlds men and women live in. When do men worry about being sexually assaulted? Never. For men of my generation, it's a "Dueling Banjos" reference when we go camping or find ourselves in some backwoods area. Maybe younger men joke about pawn shops and the Gimp. But that's what it is for men: a joke, something to laugh about. When do women worry about being sexually assaulted? All the time? Half the time? From the stories that have once again been shared in the wake of the Kavanaugh accusations, they'd certainly be forgiven for worrying about it all the time. It happens too damn often, and that's got to change.
For nearly the entire decade of the nineties, I worked for the Central Park Conservancy, a great organization that works with the City of New York to manage and protect and promote that fantastic greensward in the heart of New York City. For all of those years, I commuted to work, a journey that involved a minimum 40-minute train ride and two subway lines, but it was a good job with a good organization in a great location, and I've always liked trains so I tolerated it for quite a while.
Two of the years I worked in Central Park, we lived in southern Connecticut. Metro North took me all the way down to Grand Central. From there, I had to take the Lexington Avenue subway back uptown to 103rd Street (my office was just outside the Park at 103rd Street and Fifth Avenue). It seemed a bit of a waste, going all the way down to Grand Central just to have to come back up, and the Lexington Avenue line at that point sucked, to put it honestly, so I looked for--and found--an alternative: get off Metro North at 125th Street and walk 21 blocks to my office. And so I did.
I don't remember how I got to and from the station, to be honest. I think I got off at 125th Street, cut over to Madison, and went all the way down Madison to 104th, and vice versa, but I honestly couldn't tell you after all this time. When I walked (and in the winter, I did not do the walk if it was dark), I walked with purpose, fast but not running. I kept my head up and my eyes moving, but also tried not to attract attention. It was a little unnerving. Mine was pretty much the only white face on the street there, and the route took me through just about every kind of neighborhood: bustling commercial sections, upscale homes, bombed-out crack houses (it was the nineties, after all). It seemed quite possible that I could get mugged for money to fuel someone's crack habit, or mugged--even killed--simply for being the wrong race in the wrong neighborhood. Not once, however, did it ever enter my mind that I might be dragged off into an alley or wrecked building and sexually assaulted.
The allegations against Brett Kavanaugh that surfaced last month have once again served to highlight the vastly different worlds men and women live in. When do men worry about being sexually assaulted? Never. For men of my generation, it's a "Dueling Banjos" reference when we go camping or find ourselves in some backwoods area. Maybe younger men joke about pawn shops and the Gimp. But that's what it is for men: a joke, something to laugh about. When do women worry about being sexually assaulted? All the time? Half the time? From the stories that have once again been shared in the wake of the Kavanaugh accusations, they'd certainly be forgiven for worrying about it all the time. It happens too damn often, and that's got to change.
Monday, October 16, 2017
And Here We Are Again
Stop me if you've heard this one before. A man holds a position of great power and influence. He's at the top of his field, the top of his company. He rubs shoulders with the rich and famous and influential. He is rich and famous and influential. With a word, he can make or break careers.
And he is a sexual predator.
This week, it's Harvey Weinstein's turn in the spotlight. Last year, it was Donald Trump's. Before that, it was Bill Cosby's. The list is long and it stretches back forever, and I can tell you this: in the coming weeks, Hollywood will almost certainly be rocked by reveals of other predators amongst their ranks. Producers, directors, stars, casting directors: I expect we're going to be hearing a lot about men who have been using their power to make women miserable (yes, there are tales of men being harassed, too, and that is terrible, but the board is tilted far the other way).
The question is, "What causes this?" What causes a man to decide that it's okay to greet a woman in a hotel room while wearing nothing but a bathrobe, or demanding she watch him shower, or masturbate in front of her? What makes a man think it's okay to make what is essentially a job interview into a quid pro quo, I'll give you this job if you give me that job kind of thing? Are these men--the Harvey Weinsteins and Donald Trumps and Bill Clintons and Cosbys and Louis Mayers of the world time bombs of predation that will go off sooner or later, regardless of where they are and what they do, or are they products of power, corrupted by knowing they have so much control over another person's destiny?
The good news--in as much as there can be good news in all of this--is that women are becoming emboldened, are starting to speak out. Now we have to figure out a way to stop this from happening in the first place.
And he is a sexual predator.
This week, it's Harvey Weinstein's turn in the spotlight. Last year, it was Donald Trump's. Before that, it was Bill Cosby's. The list is long and it stretches back forever, and I can tell you this: in the coming weeks, Hollywood will almost certainly be rocked by reveals of other predators amongst their ranks. Producers, directors, stars, casting directors: I expect we're going to be hearing a lot about men who have been using their power to make women miserable (yes, there are tales of men being harassed, too, and that is terrible, but the board is tilted far the other way).
The question is, "What causes this?" What causes a man to decide that it's okay to greet a woman in a hotel room while wearing nothing but a bathrobe, or demanding she watch him shower, or masturbate in front of her? What makes a man think it's okay to make what is essentially a job interview into a quid pro quo, I'll give you this job if you give me that job kind of thing? Are these men--the Harvey Weinsteins and Donald Trumps and Bill Clintons and Cosbys and Louis Mayers of the world time bombs of predation that will go off sooner or later, regardless of where they are and what they do, or are they products of power, corrupted by knowing they have so much control over another person's destiny?
The good news--in as much as there can be good news in all of this--is that women are becoming emboldened, are starting to speak out. Now we have to figure out a way to stop this from happening in the first place.
Monday, July 24, 2017
"The Doctor is a--"
In 1974, Mel Brooks released Blazing Saddles, which is at once a brilliant and intelligent satire of racism and a typical, infantile Brooks film. In the movie, the Attorney General of some unknown state tries to force the residents of a town to sell their land cheap in order to build a railroad through it. After intimidation fails to work, the Attorney General convinces the governor to appoint a black man as town sheriff, reasoning that that will be the final straw. In the scene below, the residents prepare a welcome ceremony for the arriving sheriff (NOTE: one obscured very bad word):
I thought of this scene a lot last week after the announcement came out from the BBC that the role of the Thirteenth* Doctor on the iconic British television show, Doctor Who would be played by...gasp!...Jodie Whittaker, a...gasp...a w-BONG!
I don't travel in the squicky corners of the internet where Breitbarters like Milo Yiannopoulos live, so I don't exactly know what the reaction has been from that end of things--no doubt, it's not all that different from the initial reactions of the residents of Rock Ridge to the black sheriff in Blazing Saddles. The fact is, there are always going to be misogynists out there who oppose it on principle, and there are going to be misogynists out there who cover up their misogyny with, "Yeah, but canon!" Here's the thing: we're not dealing with Batman, or Superman, or Tolkien. Canon is mutable, especially for a show like Doctor Who, which has been making it all up as it goes along. The fact that the Doctor can regenerate at all was due to the necessity of replacing the First Doctor, when the actor's health wouldn't allow him to continue in the role! And speaking of mutable canon, I seem to recall that it was established that Time Lords only had twelve regenerations, and here we are on the Thirteenth* Doctor. The showrunners invent and bend and dodge to serve both dramatic purpose and to keep the money flowing.
The identity of the Doctor in terms of race, religion or gender doesn't much matter to me. What's important--to me--is that the show tell good stories with quality actors portraying all the roles. But I also recognize that as a white man, I've had the luxury of never really having to worry about it, and that I've never been under-represented. And when I see reactions like the one from the little girl in the embedded tweet in this this article, I realize how important it is to other people. (sorry, I'm not on Twitter, so I don't know how to embed that stuff; Youtube is my limit). To the good folks at Doctor Who, I say "Huzzah! The Doctor is a woman!" Maybe I'll even start watching again.
What about you? Do you watch Doctor Who? What do you think of the new casting choice?
*As far as I can tell, John Hurt's "War Doctor" from the 50th Anniversary special should count as one, and then I'm pretty sure either David Tennant's 10th Doctor or Matt Smith's 11th Doctor kinda, sorta regenerated as himself (maybe they both did it), so we might actually be on more like Doctor 14 or 15 now.
I thought of this scene a lot last week after the announcement came out from the BBC that the role of the Thirteenth* Doctor on the iconic British television show, Doctor Who would be played by...gasp!...Jodie Whittaker, a...gasp...a w-BONG!
I don't travel in the squicky corners of the internet where Breitbarters like Milo Yiannopoulos live, so I don't exactly know what the reaction has been from that end of things--no doubt, it's not all that different from the initial reactions of the residents of Rock Ridge to the black sheriff in Blazing Saddles. The fact is, there are always going to be misogynists out there who oppose it on principle, and there are going to be misogynists out there who cover up their misogyny with, "Yeah, but canon!" Here's the thing: we're not dealing with Batman, or Superman, or Tolkien. Canon is mutable, especially for a show like Doctor Who, which has been making it all up as it goes along. The fact that the Doctor can regenerate at all was due to the necessity of replacing the First Doctor, when the actor's health wouldn't allow him to continue in the role! And speaking of mutable canon, I seem to recall that it was established that Time Lords only had twelve regenerations, and here we are on the Thirteenth* Doctor. The showrunners invent and bend and dodge to serve both dramatic purpose and to keep the money flowing.
The identity of the Doctor in terms of race, religion or gender doesn't much matter to me. What's important--to me--is that the show tell good stories with quality actors portraying all the roles. But I also recognize that as a white man, I've had the luxury of never really having to worry about it, and that I've never been under-represented. And when I see reactions like the one from the little girl in the embedded tweet in this this article, I realize how important it is to other people. (sorry, I'm not on Twitter, so I don't know how to embed that stuff; Youtube is my limit). To the good folks at Doctor Who, I say "Huzzah! The Doctor is a woman!" Maybe I'll even start watching again.
What about you? Do you watch Doctor Who? What do you think of the new casting choice?
*As far as I can tell, John Hurt's "War Doctor" from the 50th Anniversary special should count as one, and then I'm pretty sure either David Tennant's 10th Doctor or Matt Smith's 11th Doctor kinda, sorta regenerated as himself (maybe they both did it), so we might actually be on more like Doctor 14 or 15 now.
Monday, October 10, 2016
In Which I Make a Horrible Admission: Locker Room Banter
(Author's note: I wrote this piece yesterday in Writers' Circle. I'm very much troubled by the recently-unearthed audio of Donald Trump on the "Access Hollywood" bus with Billy Bush. This has been very difficult to write, and pressing the "Publish" button is a little scary. I fear I may not have articulated things that well. Let's hope I have.)
Words matter. Words have the potential to influence the thinking of others, to change their actions and behaviors, maybe even their lives. But sometimes words are just words, not uttered or written with any particular intent beyond entertainment. They're used to funny, or to shock, or to gain attention. Whether we're aiming for influence or just throw-away entertainment, we still need to think about what we say, how we say it, and to whom.
I'm a guy. I hope this comes as no surprise to you after all this time. And as a guy, I've engaged in my fair share of locker room banter. Also golf course gabbing. Barroom bombast. I have told--and laughed at--jokes that cover every -ist and -ism out there. Racist, sexist, misogynist? Been there. I have slurred and slandered, engaged in stereotyping and objectification. Gay bashing? That, too. In certain situations with certain people, this side of me comes out.
I say all of this not because I'm proud of it. I'm not. I say this not to excuse it, because there's no excusing it. I say this because it's simply the truth. And the other truth is, in the right setting with the right people, I will almost certainly engage in "locker room banter" again. It's the simple truth of the matter.
What would you do if you heard me say these things? Would you become angry, tell me off, then leave and tell everyone you know that I'm an utter ass? Perhaps you would chuckle politely, then change the subject and find an excuse to leave soon thereafter, never to see me by choice again. Or maybe you'd join in with gusto. It depends on what kind of person you are. What will you do now that I've confessed these things to you? Will you comment? Stop following? Spread it far and wide on Twitter and Facebook and bring the hammer of Internet Outrage down upon my head? It all depends on what kind of person you are.
And now we come to Donald Trump. The recently-unearthed "Access Hollywood" clip has Trump bragging about putting the moves on a married woman, just kissing women, whether invited or not, and that as a rich, famous person, he can do whatever the hell he wants. Trump has brushed all of this off as locker room banter, and, in his typical fashion, has used his best second grade "I know you are, but what am I" rhetorical style to say that Bill Clinton is far, far worse (and he may well be, but this is not about Bill Clinton).
Do we let Donald Trump off the hook for his ten-year-old crudities on the "Access Hollywood" bus, or for the things he's said while guesting on the Howard Stern show five, ten, or twenty years ago? Do accept his excuse that he was just playing a role, or playing up (or down, as the case may be) to a particular crowd, and that it doesn't reflect who he is as a person? At this point,
And what's my excuse? What's the difference between me and Trump on this (besides the millions of dollars and millions in audience, that is)? I'd like to believe the difference is that one of us means what he says, and puts it into action, while the other is just engaging in locker room banter. I can tell you that I have never forcibly kissed a woman or put my hands on one uninvited. Nor would I. Meanwhile, there's mounting evidence that Trump's words to Billy Bush were not just him being "braggadocious." The allegations that continue to surface about Trump--from former business partners, from cast and crew of "The Apprentice," from contestants in the various pageants he has run--indicate that he these are not mere words.
Locker room banter is not going to go away. Men and women (but mostly men, I suspect) will continue to engage in it, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that--provided it remains just that: banter. Words, not action, exagerration, not reality.
Thank you for reading. Thank you for commenting.
Words matter. Words have the potential to influence the thinking of others, to change their actions and behaviors, maybe even their lives. But sometimes words are just words, not uttered or written with any particular intent beyond entertainment. They're used to funny, or to shock, or to gain attention. Whether we're aiming for influence or just throw-away entertainment, we still need to think about what we say, how we say it, and to whom.
 |
| Image from Wikipedia |
I'm a guy. I hope this comes as no surprise to you after all this time. And as a guy, I've engaged in my fair share of locker room banter. Also golf course gabbing. Barroom bombast. I have told--and laughed at--jokes that cover every -ist and -ism out there. Racist, sexist, misogynist? Been there. I have slurred and slandered, engaged in stereotyping and objectification. Gay bashing? That, too. In certain situations with certain people, this side of me comes out.
I say all of this not because I'm proud of it. I'm not. I say this not to excuse it, because there's no excusing it. I say this because it's simply the truth. And the other truth is, in the right setting with the right people, I will almost certainly engage in "locker room banter" again. It's the simple truth of the matter.
What would you do if you heard me say these things? Would you become angry, tell me off, then leave and tell everyone you know that I'm an utter ass? Perhaps you would chuckle politely, then change the subject and find an excuse to leave soon thereafter, never to see me by choice again. Or maybe you'd join in with gusto. It depends on what kind of person you are. What will you do now that I've confessed these things to you? Will you comment? Stop following? Spread it far and wide on Twitter and Facebook and bring the hammer of Internet Outrage down upon my head? It all depends on what kind of person you are.
And now we come to Donald Trump. The recently-unearthed "Access Hollywood" clip has Trump bragging about putting the moves on a married woman, just kissing women, whether invited or not, and that as a rich, famous person, he can do whatever the hell he wants. Trump has brushed all of this off as locker room banter, and, in his typical fashion, has used his best second grade "I know you are, but what am I" rhetorical style to say that Bill Clinton is far, far worse (and he may well be, but this is not about Bill Clinton).
Do we let Donald Trump off the hook for his ten-year-old crudities on the "Access Hollywood" bus, or for the things he's said while guesting on the Howard Stern show five, ten, or twenty years ago? Do accept his excuse that he was just playing a role, or playing up (or down, as the case may be) to a particular crowd, and that it doesn't reflect who he is as a person? At this point,
And what's my excuse? What's the difference between me and Trump on this (besides the millions of dollars and millions in audience, that is)? I'd like to believe the difference is that one of us means what he says, and puts it into action, while the other is just engaging in locker room banter. I can tell you that I have never forcibly kissed a woman or put my hands on one uninvited. Nor would I. Meanwhile, there's mounting evidence that Trump's words to Billy Bush were not just him being "braggadocious." The allegations that continue to surface about Trump--from former business partners, from cast and crew of "The Apprentice," from contestants in the various pageants he has run--indicate that he these are not mere words.
Locker room banter is not going to go away. Men and women (but mostly men, I suspect) will continue to engage in it, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that--provided it remains just that: banter. Words, not action, exagerration, not reality.
Thank you for reading. Thank you for commenting.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Better Things
I'm feeling a bit disjointed as far as posting this morning. I really, really want to post about Curt Schilling. I have a 4 page mess of a draft that I was working on yesterday and the day before, but time is short this morning (Fridays are early days for the Catbird) and I don't trust myself to write off the cuff on this one. Short answer: what was said on Twitter about him and his daughter was vile, reprehensible stuff. The fact that at least one of the "men"--and yes, the quotation marks are there for a reason, these are not men--has been suspended by his school is a very good thing indeed, and because the internet is not quite as anonymous as we would like to think, I'm guessing suspensions, or firings, or somethings are coming for the others.
It's the "somethings" that worry me in all this. Remember Stop The Goodreads Bullies? Remember Kathleen Hale? If Schilling were an author going on the offensive after bad reviews, we would be rising up to call him an a-hole. Same thing if Schilling were a Goodreads Reviewer of Some Renown riling up his Internet Army of Followers to go after an author who had the nerve to comment on a review. Right now, the tide of support is overwhelmingly in favor of Schilling, and it's unlikely to change. The optics on this are simple: you're either with Schilling, or you're standing up for rape threats, rape culture or misogyny.
I am not standing up for rape threats, rape culture or misogyny.
Let me be absolutely clear on this: what was said by those assholes on twitter is horrible. It was beyond low. It was stupid, and unfeeling and crass, hurtful, rude. Word cannot express how awful these things were. I do not support it, I do not condone it. I'm not sure if these "guys" did this because they hate Schilling that much, or they thought Schilling would think it was funny and turn out to be their best buds and buy them beers next time he's in town, or if it's like the internet equivalent of shanking Scott Peterson or Charles Manson. Whatever their rationale, it was stupid. Beyond stupid. And on a certain level, I think, "Yeah, well, they'll get their comeuppance."
What worries me, though, is this: Schilling says, "If I was a deranged, protective dad I could have been face to face with any of these people in less than 4 hours. I know every one of their names, their parents, where they go to school, what they do, what team they are on, their positions, stats, all of it. I had to do nothing to get ANY of that information because it's all public." And at the end of the blog, he posted two screen grabs from twitter, and says this: "These guys went to town. If any of you guys reading this that know how to find people on the 'net want to have at it, please do."
And that's where I get off the bus.
Schilling's a smart guy, and pretty savvy when it comes to social media. What does he think is going to happen here? He's encouraging people to track down these low-lifes and...what? Out them to their schools and coaches? Fine, but where will it end? Will these guys get suspended from their teams? Put on probation? Kicked out of school? What if one or more of them gets jumped coming home from class and ends up in the hospital, or on the coroner's slab? Is that what he wants? The mentality that makes idiots want to take down Schilling on social media also works the other way--there will be plenty of people who want to feel important to a celebrity like Schilling, and there's no telling what they'll do. And that's pretty damn scary.
I am not standing up for rape threats, rape culture or misogyny. But I'm also not with Schilling on this. Not completely, anyway.
*****
And now, it's Friday. On Wednesday this week we had our first day in quite literally a month where the temperature went above freezing (literal literally, by the way; the last time it happened was February 4). And while it's below zero again this morning, by weekend's end we're supposed to be back up again. So, music! Have a great weekend, everyone.
It's the "somethings" that worry me in all this. Remember Stop The Goodreads Bullies? Remember Kathleen Hale? If Schilling were an author going on the offensive after bad reviews, we would be rising up to call him an a-hole. Same thing if Schilling were a Goodreads Reviewer of Some Renown riling up his Internet Army of Followers to go after an author who had the nerve to comment on a review. Right now, the tide of support is overwhelmingly in favor of Schilling, and it's unlikely to change. The optics on this are simple: you're either with Schilling, or you're standing up for rape threats, rape culture or misogyny.
I am not standing up for rape threats, rape culture or misogyny.
Let me be absolutely clear on this: what was said by those assholes on twitter is horrible. It was beyond low. It was stupid, and unfeeling and crass, hurtful, rude. Word cannot express how awful these things were. I do not support it, I do not condone it. I'm not sure if these "guys" did this because they hate Schilling that much, or they thought Schilling would think it was funny and turn out to be their best buds and buy them beers next time he's in town, or if it's like the internet equivalent of shanking Scott Peterson or Charles Manson. Whatever their rationale, it was stupid. Beyond stupid. And on a certain level, I think, "Yeah, well, they'll get their comeuppance."
What worries me, though, is this: Schilling says, "If I was a deranged, protective dad I could have been face to face with any of these people in less than 4 hours. I know every one of their names, their parents, where they go to school, what they do, what team they are on, their positions, stats, all of it. I had to do nothing to get ANY of that information because it's all public." And at the end of the blog, he posted two screen grabs from twitter, and says this: "These guys went to town. If any of you guys reading this that know how to find people on the 'net want to have at it, please do."
And that's where I get off the bus.
Schilling's a smart guy, and pretty savvy when it comes to social media. What does he think is going to happen here? He's encouraging people to track down these low-lifes and...what? Out them to their schools and coaches? Fine, but where will it end? Will these guys get suspended from their teams? Put on probation? Kicked out of school? What if one or more of them gets jumped coming home from class and ends up in the hospital, or on the coroner's slab? Is that what he wants? The mentality that makes idiots want to take down Schilling on social media also works the other way--there will be plenty of people who want to feel important to a celebrity like Schilling, and there's no telling what they'll do. And that's pretty damn scary.
I am not standing up for rape threats, rape culture or misogyny. But I'm also not with Schilling on this. Not completely, anyway.
*****
And now, it's Friday. On Wednesday this week we had our first day in quite literally a month where the temperature went above freezing (literal literally, by the way; the last time it happened was February 4). And while it's below zero again this morning, by weekend's end we're supposed to be back up again. So, music! Have a great weekend, everyone.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Am I the Only One...
...who sees a problem here?
As you may have heard by now, super-famous author John Grisham did an interview with the British paper earlier this week in which he made some...interesting...statements (the interview will run on Saturday). Somehow in the course of the interview, they ended up on the topic of incarceration. And from there, they ended up on the topic of incarceration for people who download child pornography. In Grisham's view, the sentencing for people who do this are too high, and he points out instances where some people who were caught with child porn on their computers got heavier sentences than those who actually raped a child.
This is very touchy and sensitive stuff, and may well be a debate that needs to be had, but it's not what got me ratcheted up. During the interview, Grisham related the tale of an old law school buddy of his (it's not clear how long ago this happened, or how close Grisham is to this man at this point in time). His old buddy dowloaded pornography. Quote from Grisham:
Okay, hold on, I'm not sure I read that correctly. I must be wrong.
OH, okay, then, sorry for the misunderstanding, off you go, sir. We can't give you your porn back, but don't worry about jail time. You were only looking at 16-year-old girls. If you had been looking at 10-year-old boys, however....
For the record, I think this is a case where what Grisham said and what Grisham meant are two different things. I don't think he's a man who gets his freak on by looking at child pornography (though I have to say one of the creepier passages in the interview came when described how a man might find his way into it, quite by accident, of course. It sounded a little too experiential, if you know what I mean, but then again that's what writers do: we make things sound and feel experiential.). But that statement...oh, that statement.
Two problems with that statement. First, is the sliding scale of age thing. We have laws that designate when someone is defined as being 'of age' for a whole lot of things: driving, voting, buying cold medicine, marriage, age of consent. You may not agree with these laws, but you damn well better obey them. As adults, we're supposed to look out for children, not look for them. We tend to react more viscerally to sex crimes in particular the younger the victim. Guess what? It's horrible no matter what the age.
Worse in my view is the girl/boy thing. Grisham seems to dismiss it as trivial. After all, his friend only had pictures of 16-year-old girls on his computer. This statement says to me that he views pornography, as something normal--provided the subjects are female. The sad thing is, I think society backs him up. It's an idea that is reinforced all over, in the images we see on TV and in movies, on billboards and in magazines. The mainstream imagery that focuses on women's largely undressed bodies makes pornography more acceptable, something we just sort of shrug off. It's something we really need to change.
Thoughts?
As you may have heard by now, super-famous author John Grisham did an interview with the British paper earlier this week in which he made some...interesting...statements (the interview will run on Saturday). Somehow in the course of the interview, they ended up on the topic of incarceration. And from there, they ended up on the topic of incarceration for people who download child pornography. In Grisham's view, the sentencing for people who do this are too high, and he points out instances where some people who were caught with child porn on their computers got heavier sentences than those who actually raped a child.
This is very touchy and sensitive stuff, and may well be a debate that needs to be had, but it's not what got me ratcheted up. During the interview, Grisham related the tale of an old law school buddy of his (it's not clear how long ago this happened, or how close Grisham is to this man at this point in time). His old buddy dowloaded pornography. Quote from Grisham:
"It was labelled 'sixteen year old wannabee hookers or something like that'. And it said '16-year-old girls'. So he went there. Downloaded some stuff."Turns out Grisham's law school buddy got caught up in an FBI sting operation. He was arrested within a week and spent three year's in prison. The very next sentence in Grisham's interview?
"It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys."
"It was stupid, but it wasn't 10-year-old boys."
OH, okay, then, sorry for the misunderstanding, off you go, sir. We can't give you your porn back, but don't worry about jail time. You were only looking at 16-year-old girls. If you had been looking at 10-year-old boys, however....
For the record, I think this is a case where what Grisham said and what Grisham meant are two different things. I don't think he's a man who gets his freak on by looking at child pornography (though I have to say one of the creepier passages in the interview came when described how a man might find his way into it, quite by accident, of course. It sounded a little too experiential, if you know what I mean, but then again that's what writers do: we make things sound and feel experiential.). But that statement...oh, that statement.
Two problems with that statement. First, is the sliding scale of age thing. We have laws that designate when someone is defined as being 'of age' for a whole lot of things: driving, voting, buying cold medicine, marriage, age of consent. You may not agree with these laws, but you damn well better obey them. As adults, we're supposed to look out for children, not look for them. We tend to react more viscerally to sex crimes in particular the younger the victim. Guess what? It's horrible no matter what the age.
Worse in my view is the girl/boy thing. Grisham seems to dismiss it as trivial. After all, his friend only had pictures of 16-year-old girls on his computer. This statement says to me that he views pornography, as something normal--provided the subjects are female. The sad thing is, I think society backs him up. It's an idea that is reinforced all over, in the images we see on TV and in movies, on billboards and in magazines. The mainstream imagery that focuses on women's largely undressed bodies makes pornography more acceptable, something we just sort of shrug off. It's something we really need to change.
Thoughts?
Friday, September 5, 2014
Anita Sarkeesian and More Ranting!
As you've been aware, I've been somewhat irritable and ranty lately. Oddly, I don't actually feel quite so cranky this morning (just tired, mostly); nonetheless, this post is likely to come off in a similar vein to recent posts. In this case, it's the subject matter as opposed to my general mood.
Some items of interest from the week. First, I don't subscribe (but I should) to Anita Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency page, though I should. If you don't know Sarkeesian, take the time to check her out. She's been doing a video series examining women in media, particularly with regards to video games that is always thought-provoking, and, often, downright disturbing.
I realized early in the week that I hadn't checked her page for some time. It's not uncommon for there to be several months between video releases, and for good reason: each runs about 30 minutes long, are well-researched and are of professional quality. To my pleasure, I found that she had one that had just come out a week or so earlier, and I had missed her previous installment, which came out in June (time flies). However, I also found I had missed this, from a few days earlier. In short, Sarkeesian had received threats that forced her from her home.
Sarkeesian is no stranger to threats. After her Kickstarter campaign to fund her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series took off in 2012, Sarkeesian was actually the subject of an internet video game herself, in which players could beat up her image. Every installment is met with threats; I can only imagine how bad this must have been to make her leave her home, and once again, it makes me ask: are we still going through this shit? Seriously? Why are guys so threatened by a woman who dares to think and ask questions? Pointing out problems in our society should not unleash an avalanche of threats that include murder, rape and torture. Enough, already.
On a related note, I found myself involved in a Facebook discussion about this article (covering the theft and posting of nude (female) celebrity photos this week), which was posted by one of the Magpie's friends (hereinafter referred to as the Robin). A young man who graduated with the Magpie (we'll call him the Roadrunner) commented on the article, arguing that people were dicks, and that separation—physical, socio-economic, class, etc.—facilitated dicky behavior. In essence, his argument was this:
He's not wrong. Even in places like Facebook, where you may well be using your real name, the layers between people undoubtedly fuel what can only be called douchebaggery. It's not just the internet, replied the Robin, it's everywhere, and related how she had been verbally harassed while hiking in a state park that very same day. The Roadrunner suggested the internet was, in essence, a lost cause, that you would not be able to control their behavior, then went on to talk security and how, in essence, we shouldn't be putting things online because of security. He then compared it to cars of the 1940s, when no one wore seatbelts and there were accidents and asshole drivers. A good try, but he clearly missed the point.
Now, I don't know the Roadrunner especially well. He wasn't one of the Magpie's better friends, but she got on well enough with him, and she never indicated that he was a dick or a tool or anything like that (and to her credit, she has a very low tolerance for those sorts of people). I believe he was both sympathetic and trying to understand, despite his use of the "you have to protect yourself" line and his awkward analogy. It was clear, however, that he just could not understand, likely because: he's young (19, 20 years old); he's inexperienced; and he's a guy.
My own question in response to this was, if we write off the internet, where do we stop? It's okay to try to stop men from groping women on the subway or bus, or to try to stop them from staring or making rude comments on the street or in the elevator, but we'll just leave that internet, it's a lost cause. Oh, and construction sites. Construction workers have been whistling and catcalling forever, we'll give them a pass, too. Sorry, not good enough. Not when you have a young woman says, "I'd like to think that there is such a thing as 'safe' but I certainly have yet to feel that way."
This must change. I don't really know how we get it to change, but we just can't accept this, can't excuse it as 'boys being boys' or write it off as being due to internet anonymity.
Maybe next week I'll be less ranty. Have a pleasant weekend, all.
Some items of interest from the week. First, I don't subscribe (but I should) to Anita Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency page, though I should. If you don't know Sarkeesian, take the time to check her out. She's been doing a video series examining women in media, particularly with regards to video games that is always thought-provoking, and, often, downright disturbing.
I realized early in the week that I hadn't checked her page for some time. It's not uncommon for there to be several months between video releases, and for good reason: each runs about 30 minutes long, are well-researched and are of professional quality. To my pleasure, I found that she had one that had just come out a week or so earlier, and I had missed her previous installment, which came out in June (time flies). However, I also found I had missed this, from a few days earlier. In short, Sarkeesian had received threats that forced her from her home.
Sarkeesian is no stranger to threats. After her Kickstarter campaign to fund her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series took off in 2012, Sarkeesian was actually the subject of an internet video game herself, in which players could beat up her image. Every installment is met with threats; I can only imagine how bad this must have been to make her leave her home, and once again, it makes me ask: are we still going through this shit? Seriously? Why are guys so threatened by a woman who dares to think and ask questions? Pointing out problems in our society should not unleash an avalanche of threats that include murder, rape and torture. Enough, already.
On a related note, I found myself involved in a Facebook discussion about this article (covering the theft and posting of nude (female) celebrity photos this week), which was posted by one of the Magpie's friends (hereinafter referred to as the Robin). A young man who graduated with the Magpie (we'll call him the Roadrunner) commented on the article, arguing that people were dicks, and that separation—physical, socio-economic, class, etc.—facilitated dicky behavior. In essence, his argument was this:
He's not wrong. Even in places like Facebook, where you may well be using your real name, the layers between people undoubtedly fuel what can only be called douchebaggery. It's not just the internet, replied the Robin, it's everywhere, and related how she had been verbally harassed while hiking in a state park that very same day. The Roadrunner suggested the internet was, in essence, a lost cause, that you would not be able to control their behavior, then went on to talk security and how, in essence, we shouldn't be putting things online because of security. He then compared it to cars of the 1940s, when no one wore seatbelts and there were accidents and asshole drivers. A good try, but he clearly missed the point.
Now, I don't know the Roadrunner especially well. He wasn't one of the Magpie's better friends, but she got on well enough with him, and she never indicated that he was a dick or a tool or anything like that (and to her credit, she has a very low tolerance for those sorts of people). I believe he was both sympathetic and trying to understand, despite his use of the "you have to protect yourself" line and his awkward analogy. It was clear, however, that he just could not understand, likely because: he's young (19, 20 years old); he's inexperienced; and he's a guy.
My own question in response to this was, if we write off the internet, where do we stop? It's okay to try to stop men from groping women on the subway or bus, or to try to stop them from staring or making rude comments on the street or in the elevator, but we'll just leave that internet, it's a lost cause. Oh, and construction sites. Construction workers have been whistling and catcalling forever, we'll give them a pass, too. Sorry, not good enough. Not when you have a young woman says, "I'd like to think that there is such a thing as 'safe' but I certainly have yet to feel that way."
This must change. I don't really know how we get it to change, but we just can't accept this, can't excuse it as 'boys being boys' or write it off as being due to internet anonymity.
Maybe next week I'll be less ranty. Have a pleasant weekend, all.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Rick Ross and the Unlearned Lesson of Steubenville
This weekend, I was tooling around on the internet and a headline grabbed my eye. "Rick Ross speaks on rape lyrics controversy." Now, I have to be honest, I have no idea who Rick Ross is. I have now read this story, I even searched out the song in question, and I still really don't know who Rick Ross is, except he's finding himself under fire for some lyrics in a song, and as always happens when any celebrity gets caught saying or doing something wrong, he's in damage control mode.
At issue are lyrics Ross penned as part of a song he performed with a couple of other artists, U.O.E.N.O.(You Ain't Even Know It):
"Put molly all in her champagne/ She ain't even know
it/ I took her home and I enjoyed that/ She ain't even know it."
'Molly', according to
all, is slang for the drug Ecstasy, and the implication in the lyric is of
someone slipping some to a girl, taking her home, and having at her. And she
ain't even know it.
With the disturbing images from the Steubenville
trial still fresh, the timing of this song is bad, to say the least.
In an interview (which can be seen in the first article, about 7 minutes long), Ross defending his lyrics:
"There are certain things you can't Tweet and certain things you want people to hear and I want to make sure this is clear, that woman is the most precious gift known to man. You understand.
"There was a misunderstanding with a lyric or a misinterpretation. The term rape wasn't used. I would never use the term rape in my records. Hip-Hop don't condone that, the streets don't condone that. Nobody condones that. I just want to reach out to all the queens on my timeline, the beautiful ladies that were reaching out to me... we don't condone rape and I'm not with that."
I don't know Rick Ross. Rick Ross may be a prince of a guy. I'm sure Rick Ross really doesn't condone rape, but Rick Ross just doesn't get it, does he? Even if his lyrics were being taken out of context and misunderstood, he reveals a complete lack of understanding of rape. "The term rape wasn't used." So, because he doesn't use the term 'rape,' in his mind, the song isn't about 'rape.' And, presumably, because he* wasn't using force—fists, or choke holds, or a knife to the throat, or "I'll kill your family if you don't"—it wasn't rape. The hopefully-fictional girl depicted in the song's lyrics was high from Ecstasy, thus willing, thus consent was giving, so it's not rape. (*BIG FAT NOTE: I'm not saying Rick Ross really did this. 'He' in the song can refer to some narrator/personality who is not necessarily Ross)
Sound familiar?
One of the things that came out of the recent Steubenville trial, revealed in testimony, text messages, disturbing images culled from cellphones, and in the often vile comments people made in response to online articles about it, is that so many people seem to believe it's not rape if you don't use force. There's a strong feeling in our culture that believes "Inebriation equals invitation." This attitude that must change, and it's the boys and men who must get this message. It's all well and good to teach our daughters to always be aware of their surroundings, to teach them to carry whistles, or the art of self-defence, to never go anywhere alone (and let me tell you, when we brought the Magpie to college, it was disconcerting to see signs in the dorm room warning girls not to to go out alone), but how do you teach them about this? Don't leave your drink unattended, never accept a drink from a stranger unless it's in a sealed container, travel in packs, what else?
I've said this before, I'll say it again. Yes, we need to teach our daughters all this, but what are we teaching our sons? I surely hope Rick Ross reconsiders his stance and revises his thinking. We need to change our thinking, and change what we show the young boys out there. Rape does not require fists, and inebriation does not equal invitation. It's past time we learned this. It's past time we made this part of our culture.
Friday, February 8, 2013
A lot of time and analysis these days is spent on examining women in the media and rethinking how they are presented. We want—we need—to see more quality presentation of women and girls in movies and TV in particular (books are far better at presenting women who are not merely arm- or eye-candy, or there to be rescued).
But as much as we can bemoan the state of women in the media, when we see things like the following commercial, I have to wonder about men, and how we are presenting ourselves, and what we think of ourselves.
Labatt Blue Light is a repeat offender, and their latest offering is especially bad. Their new ad, called "Better Bus," (and not currently up on Youtube) features three 'men' who miss their bus on the way to the game. One opens a Blue Light and a bus magically appears before them. A bus full of women in skin-tight, two-piece cheerleader outfits, hanging out the windows, shaking what they've got. Driven by a woman who leans suggestively against the door and asks the boys if they're …coming.
I'm up for a joke, I'm up for humor, and yes, there's a certain degree of humor in these commercials. But guys, come on: aren't we a little better than this? As much as we can bemoan the messages we're sending to our daughters, what are we telling our sons?
More on this some other time. Have a great weekend!
But as much as we can bemoan the state of women in the media, when we see things like the following commercial, I have to wonder about men, and how we are presenting ourselves, and what we think of ourselves.
Labatt Blue Light is a repeat offender, and their latest offering is especially bad. Their new ad, called "Better Bus," (and not currently up on Youtube) features three 'men' who miss their bus on the way to the game. One opens a Blue Light and a bus magically appears before them. A bus full of women in skin-tight, two-piece cheerleader outfits, hanging out the windows, shaking what they've got. Driven by a woman who leans suggestively against the door and asks the boys if they're …coming.
I'm up for a joke, I'm up for humor, and yes, there's a certain degree of humor in these commercials. But guys, come on: aren't we a little better than this? As much as we can bemoan the messages we're sending to our daughters, what are we telling our sons?
More on this some other time. Have a great weekend!
Friday, April 20, 2012
Casual Misogyny
On April Fools' Day, appropriately enough, I watched the Pittsburgh Penguins and Philadelphia Flyers square off in a heated late-season game with playoff implications. It got ugly, to the point where Flyers coach, Peter Laviolette (in the orange box) had to be restrained by his assistant, Craig Berube (and if you watched Berube play, you know how ironic it is that he's holding anyone back). The object of his ire was Dan Bylsma, Pittsburgh's coach. Bylsma, in the blue box, remained behind the bench, safely protected by Tony Granato, who is standing on the boards opposite Laviolette.
Late game shenanigans is not unusual between these two teams, especially not when they're looking at a first round playoff matchup starting in a week. Messages have to be sent, after all. The unusual thing was what NBC Sports personality Mike Milbury said the next day:
"I thought Dan Bylsma should have taken off his skirt and gone over there."
Actually, this is not that unusual, not for Milbury, not for the sports world. Milbury was a hard-nosed player, and he's an emotional guy with strong opinions who gets easily wound up, which is part of why he gets paid (probably handsomely) by NBC. He's clumsy and awkward when asked to analyze a defensive zone breakdown that leads to a goal, but he's fun when asked about officiating, or a suspension, or a team reacted to the rough stuff. This year, with the league supposedly cracking down on hits to the head and dangerous hits from behind, Milbury railed against the "pansification" and "wussification" of the league. Yes, he really did use those words on air. During last year's Stanley Cup final he referred to Vancouver's Daniel and Henrik Sedin as "Thelma and Louise" because they didn't fight back when the Bruins roughed them up (and this shows how much Milbury knows about Thelma and Louise – if Brad Marchand had tried this on either Thelma or Louise, they would have taken care of him, big time). I'm also pretty sure I've heard him refer to Daniel and Henrik as 'The Sedin Sisters', an insult which is more commonly heard in sports bars and read in the comments section of hockey blogs, where everyone also insists on calling Penguins superstar Sidney Crosby "Cindy" (hey, Carrie did that on Monday, didn't she?).
Milbury's statements started something ticking in my head. And a week or so later, the ticking got louder, courtesy of the the Washington Capitals-centric hockey blog, Russian Machine Never Breaks. They created an NBC Bingo game for the first game of the Caps-Bruins series. Note that one square in the top row: Casual Misogyny. If it's getting a square on the Bingo board, it must be getting some serious air, and I started to wonder about it. By the way, that's Milbury in the middle, the free square.We might be able to excuse Milbury. He's a polarizing figure, paid more for his opinions than for analysis. The interview where he called out Bylsma was for a Philadelphia-area radio station, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that he was at least in part playing to his audience. But can we forgive this item that came from The Chicago Tribune two years ago, when the Blackhawks played the Flyers in the Cup final?
Is this appropriate journalism? I'm sure the editors would say "It's all in fun" but what message is it sending, and to whom? Calling opponents girly names is a long-standing tradition in sports. These are things that are often said in the heat of battle on the field, ice or court, and I doubt it bothers most of the players. I'm pretty sure Chris Pronger laughed this off when he saw it. When I played sports, it never bothered me. But when sports journalists throw this stuff around so easily, I have to wonder how it effects women and girls.
Well, maybe I got a hint of this. Last week, Puck Daddy pointed me to this post on The Active Stick. This is the blog of a female hockey fan, and here's what she had to say about this:
If you’re a woman, and you call him Cindy Crosby, or you call them the Sedin Sisters … do you know what you’re doing? You are calling someone female to insult them. You are using yourself as an insult. Have a little more respect for yourself.For another opinion, I went to The Wife. She wasn't too fazed by any of it, and is of the opinion that some people are maybe too sensitive. And that pretty well jibes with my own feelings – I think, quite often, there are people out there who are looking to be offended, and that we should all have a little more sense of humor. But then again, I have to consider this: I am a man. I am a white man. And I'm not especially religious. It's easy, being in my position, to say, "Eh, so what? Laugh it off." But at the same time, I think maybe it's time to bring this sort of thing under control. Maybe it's time to put a stop to it.
If you’re a man, and you make Cindy/Sedin Sisters jokes at me to make me laugh, do you know what you are doing? You are using me as an insult. Why would I find that funny?
I've gone on too long for today. Next week I will actually look at a writing connection to this. In the meantime, I'd really like to hear what all of you have to say. I know most of my followers are female, so let me ask you: Do you think the Casual Misogyny tossed around by Mike Milbury (and others; I don't mean to pick on Milbury, I actually like him) is something to shrug off, or is it a real problem? All opinions are welcome, I just ask that you keep it civil (which I don't expect to be a problem). Have a great weekend, and thanks for stopping by and sharing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)