I don't know. I thought it was sort of funny. And his point was that women do not, in fact, need saving. He seemed to be making fun of himself for his sexism.

I will add that I did think his comments about girls night were offensively sexist.

Come ON...that's the infuriating headline of the day? 133 women killed in Basra last year and THAT's the infuriating headline of the day?

Oh, give us a fucking break! A humorist writes an obviously funny piece which is clearly making fun of the very viewpoint you hate, and you find that offensive??

Yeah... I agree with the above posts.

Good thing I had a woman to rescue me.

Scenario: I was driving up I-95 (I was stationed in South Carolina about eleven years ago) and the tread on my tire flew off. I pulled into the median to change over to the spare, only to discover my the jack that came with the car was too tall to fit where I needed it to. In what was impeccable timing this woman came up and offered her assistance, as well as her jack. I took her up on that offer and put my spare on the car. What is the male equivalent to "damsel in distress"? Dude with a conundrum? I don't know, but I was grateful to that woman and offered what little cash I had for her trouble. She, predictably, refused. What a nice soul! Were it not for her, I would have been shit out of luck, stuck on the side of the road, and late for duty that night. Leave it up to a goofy nineteen-year-old jarhead to not verify his car parts.

Our culture doesn't encourage this kind of self-sufficiency in women. That's sad.

I think everyone is overreacting and while I find it personally offensive in some ways it really was meant as a "harmless" piece.

I was going to write something snarky, but I'm feeling to faint from all of the exertion of reading that column.... Ehhhh.... (fainting away....)

this is fucking ridiculous, (including most of the above comments.) I saw this on the post-dispatch website yesterday and was outraged.

I agree that the point of the story is that women actually don't need rescuing but the way he presents the story is completely sexist. he can't be around his wife when she's having women friends over because the only thing they'll be taking about is tampons, periods, and babies?

I tried to light a fire,� she started.

Of all the ways for her to start a conversation, that phrase is among the worst. Not nearly as bad as “I tried to fix the computer,� and really really not as bad as “I think I might be pregnant,� but all in all, still pretty bad.

can't let the wimmins light fired, know anything about electronics or god forbid, the bitch tricked me into another baby.

it portrays horrible stereotypes of women as powerless, at least in the sense of this is what is going to through this man's thought process when talking to his wife. i understand that he's attempting humor, but it has such a negative view of women embedded in it, the overall message that women actually don't need saving is lost on me...

I found it to be offensive. If he was being sarcastic about his Man Mode then he wouldve made himself look like an idiot. For an claims that it couldve even remotely been making fun of men then it wouldve gone something like this: of course every woman needs a man to do...oh, you've already got that, huh...well alright.

Hes using these situational circumstances to attempt to play up to a character he feels inside himself: his man Mode.

In no way does he make fun of himself, but the woman for being 'airheaded.'

Come ON...that's the infuriating headline of the day? 133 women killed in Basra last year and THAT's the infuriating headline of the day?

I get very tired of pointing this out, but we can be “infuriated� by the headline and the women killed in Basra. Both…at the same time. I know, I know, it's madness. (actually, a hell of a lot more than just those two things infuriate me, yet Feministing is in no way obligated to post about any of them)

"I paid up and hustled the kids to the car. They seemed a little freaked out. It was to be expected. A man in Man Mode is an awesome thing to behold."

Freak your kids out while pissing off your wife. Great idea. Was "It's a good thing for men but a bad thing for children that women need rescuing" too long of a headline?

Humor doesn't have to involve tired stereotypes. It certainly doesn't require painting your family life as an endless cycle of confusion and resentment. Or maybe I expect wit from my humor columnist, I guess that's my problem.

"But beneath his jokey demeanor you know he takes some of this shit to heart." - Ann

I know no such thing.

I think we need to be concerned (or infuriated) about sexism coming from all places. This sort of "journalism" can be just as effective as anything, and it's unfortunate that it's even allowed to be published. I also love how it implies that the woman was completely dumbstruck by complications in the kitchen. Oh wait, isn't that where she's supposed to stay?
Now that's just confusing.
And I do think that his "humor" came from a very real place. Most humor does.

Yeah... I saw this last night too. I was outraged reading through it. The little 'oops, guess my wife wasn't so stupid...this time' at the end doesn't really make up for the rest of it. I sincerely hope that he made the whole thing up, because if he really has such a low opinion of his wife's practical abilities, it must be infuriating to live with him.

He's wrong about not being able to open the damper while a fire is lit. We have a long piece of metal for that purpose. It works just fine. Forgot to open the damper? Use the piece of metal. Problem solved. That guy is not an advanced problem solver, obviously.

BTW, what's with the influx of (to use the kindest possible word) dissenters up top? Did Feministing get mentioned somewhere questionable recently?

Not to mention, not opening the damper won't "almost set the house on fire" it just means there's a fuckton of smoke in the house.

sigh

Given the points above regarding actual dampers in real life, I suspect he made the whole anecdote up. Which is weird.

"I found it to be offensive. If he was being sarcastic about his Man Mode then he wouldve made himself look like an idiot."

Hmm yeah good point I guess this guy is some kind of assh

"“I’ll be there in ten minutes,� I said, and hung up. The worst kind of damsel is one who doesn’t realize she needs to be saved.

I got home in nine minutes – I’m an excellent driver – and raced inside. What I saw shocked me.

There was no smoke in the house. The fireplace was closed and dark. Colette was stirring the pot of warm cheese dip she was preparing for her friends. Candles burned tastefully on the coffee table. Music played softly from somewhere.

There is nothing as frustrating as entering the dragon’s lair, sword in hand, only to find it filled with fuzzy kittens and warm muffins.

“I put the fire out,� Colette said, scowling at me.

I stomped over to the fireplace, yanked out the wet, cold fire log, and marched it straight out to the trash. Take that, log."

Oops.

Yes, sgzax. We didn't simply think it was a slight over reaction. We're regular Men's Rights Activists over here. Please.

Yeah, it was a dumb sexist anecdote, and not that funny.

But, don't knock Dave Barry! I love him! He is hysterical! And multi faceted - he is in a band, and he leads the Great Shark Hunt (scavenger hunt) every year in Miami.

I secretly took pictures of him from afar one year at the Miami Book Fair when he was in the Children's Pavilion with his kids, like I was. (I hope he doesn't come here and read the comments and think I am a big stalker freak.)

BTW, what's with the influx of (to use the kindest possible word) dissenters up top? Did Feministing get mentioned somewhere questionable recently?

Yowza! Is that John Ashcroft incognito up there? No dissent allowed? What would be the first choice for an UNKIND word for a dissenter?

I think the column was pretty inoffensive, since it was self-deprecating and made use of (IMHO) a lot of hyperbole.

In the scheme of all things sexist, is this the worst? No, but it certainly is full of the most played out patriarchal cliches. I say he deserves to be called out for it even if it is a "humor" piece. Ojectively, it could have been a funny story if he had only squeezed in a thimble full of originality.

I can't let the typo rest! I meant objectively. I guess that's what the preview button I've been ignoring is for...

It's a problem when a tacky, idiotic, and yes, sexist piece of writing gets played down because "Come on, it's funny!" or "Come on, the writer's a funny guy!"

That doesn't stop the article being sexist. All it does is *permit* sexism when enough people think it's "not a big deal".

Still, in before "ZOMG you feminazis has no sense of humour!"

ZOMG, you feminazis have no sense of humour!!1!!1

Good story syndicalist! I had a similar rescuing the other day during a blizzard when I was trying to shovel my car out from under a good 2 feet of snow. A wonderful woman stopped by and not only helped me shovel, but helped rock and push my car out too, completely unasked and unrewarded. Some people are just fantastic and renew my faith in humanity. :)

"I agree that the point of the story is that women actually don't need rescuing but the way he presents the story is completely sexist. he can't be around his wife when she's having women friends over because the only thing they'll be taking about is tampons, periods, and babies?"

He thinks it is humorous. I can't speak for everyone, but I believe experience will show mixed groups, groups of women, and groups of men, at the very least, will not spend the same amount of time on the same topics, if they ever do cover the same topics in conversation. Women I know do spend a lot of time on women's health, relationships and family, particularly their children, their development, their schools and school performance, their children's teachers, and their children's activities. Also TV shows, shopping, travel, fashion, and flattering and not so flattering gossip about other women.

Men I know might talk awhile about their children IF their sons' achievements in sports are worth bragging about. They don't talk about their daughters in girl scouts, soccer, softball, basketball, volleyball, swimming, gymnastics, ballet or hula, the way mothers do, nor do they talk much about sons with non traditional or low key pastimes like my son who loves cats and reading, or lackluster achievements like how my son (lowest 25th percentile for boys in height/weight for age) does so poorly at sporting activities.

The only groups of women I like being with and would choose to be around, are other nurses or nursing students, because at least we have something in common to talk about, like work, job searches, and the going ons of former classmates. Of course I have never met readers of Feministing, where I may spend a few hours daily, and currently the only output for my writing, to have our exchanges in person. I wouldn't ever choose to be with my wife or mother's female friends, except for my former high school teachers. I would sooner stay home and spend time with my guinea pigs, the least friendly and least interesting of my pets.

I don't know... I think this may be a bit of an overreaction. I know lots of men (my husband included) who like to feel that the women in their lives need rescuing once in a while. And there are times (and maybe this will make me lose my feminist membership card) that I let my husband rescue me, because whatever I need him to do is gross or disgusting or I don't want to do it. And I think the author of this article was making the point that even though he feels that he needs to be "manly" and "rescue" his fair maiden, he's also quite clear on the fact that his damsel in distress is very independant and can take care of herself.

And with regard to the not wanting to hear about periods and babies - that doesn't offend me either. I don't particularly want to sit around with Husband and his friends listening to them talk about football and naked lady bars. I know that's not all they talk about it, just as they know we talk about other things besides periods and babies.

I thought the article was funny.

I agree with the comments criticizing the "whats with the dissenters" comment. Im a long time Feministing devotee and this didn't really set off any "grrr" bells for me. To me that article is obviously about a guy trying to feel more needed and necessary when he is clearly not. Hell hath no fury like a man devalued.

I decide to check out Feministing. There is a blog entry entitled, "Infuriating Headline of the Day." Does it say, "ZOMG, this is the worst thing ever!!!"? No. I read the headline: "It's a good thing for men that women need rescuing." The article is written by someone whose work has annoyed me in the past. I think, "What an ass." There doesn't seem to be much more to it than that.

But apparently stopping in the middle of my busy day of advocating for things that really matter in order to call an ass an ass is an unworthy pursuit. I'm so glad there are so many people here to remind us when we're allowed to be annoyed.

It pissed off one of the editorial staff of this blog today. That is enough justification for the heading. Who is the judge of what is important enough for feminists in general?

what's with the influx of (to use the kindest possible word) dissenters up top?

I was wondering the same thing.

Dicko,
Hes given credence to his attitude. Hes emphasizing his inate male attitude to preconceived inabilities with a female. Hes saying all men have this Man Mode torwards women, almost as if its some sort of genetic trait. He follows through with his impulse to always have to compensate for a womans inabilities to handle matters. Its like he has it in storage mode whenever his wife calls because hes always anticipating a woman will screw up and he'll have to dig her out.

Nah. The most enfuriating headline of the day is HuffPo's "Sex Assault Suit Against Halliburton Killed"

Which is right here Jessica and Lucinda...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06/sex-assault-suit-against-_n_85314.html

The first enfuriating thing about this headline was that it's dead wrong -- the EEOC written policy is that civil rights cannot be signed away in a binding arbitration agreement. So having it sent back to arbitration is just a setback, not it being "Killed".

The second enfuriating thing about this story is that Feministing DID NOT cover it -- and it's been in the news for MONTHS now.

The third enfuriating thing about this story is that Jessica Valenti lied her ass off, over on the Feminist Peace Network,
in claiming "yes we did cover it" -- and then cited four articles on...the Jamie Leigh Jones Case!

http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/02/08/actuallyfeministing-has-covered-the-halliburtonkbr-scandal-repeatedly/

Gee, do all rape victims look alike to you, Jessica?

For the record, Tracy Barker was the subject of the HuffPo headline, the subject of the Alternet article, and the subject of the FPN article.

Now both Tracy Barker and Jamie Leigh Jones were sexually assaulted and harassed by Halliburton/KBR employees in Iraq (and Tracy Barker by a State Department official as well), but that does not make them the same person, nor does it make their cases identical in detail, nor does it mean that by covering one case, you are covering both.

In actual fact, a quick google search

site:feministing.com "tracy barker"

reveals that, sadly, feministing missed this story entirely.

While Jamie Leigh Jones' case is far more egregious (drug gang rape vs. sexual assault) than Tracy Barker's case -- what disturbs me is the pattern of abuse this paints: it is not an isolated incident.

More like the tip of the iceberg.

If Feministing readers and posters find topics of interest that they believe are relevant to other readers, or to feminists or women in general, I believe the editorial staff have been perfectly willing to comment on and provide a link on said topic, with a "Thanks to [nickname] for the link."

I do not understand why the editorial staff or founder of the blog are subject to criticism or attack for their tastes or lack of coverage on select topics. This isn't CNN or the New York Times, and I mean no insult by that. This is maybe zero to ten personal commentaries per day on top of their regular activities or daytime jobs.

I see a number of posters have their own free blogs or websites, which may feature some of the same topics as Feministing, and others quite unique. People are free to put forth their own writing and opinions for others to appreciate, and provide links within their Feministing nicknames.

Hey, A male.

Feministing covered Jamie Leigh, but not Tracy Barker, both stories developing over the past several months.

Like you say, no one blog covers everything.

However, it is strange that they'd cover one and not the other. They support each other, for one thing -- it's Halliburton/KBR's pattern of sexual abuse, and the complicity of the State Department as well as the armed forces is far more apparent in the Barker story.

Granted, one is a pretty young woman with apparently very powerful connections in Washington and New York -- whereas the other is a working-class mother of five with (as I've heard) a penchant for drama and a bit of a chip on her shoulder, but still. It's also interesting that Halliburton/KBR don't just victimize the vulnerable -- they'll rape anyone female, even one with powerful connections in congress.

If a reader makes one offhand comment on another blog about Feministing's lack of coverage of the Barker story, then...according to your theory, SFW? Like you say, "A. male" no one blog can cover everything.

So why does Jessica write in to the FPN all huffy with "We covered that" and then gives four links to the Jamie Leigh story... when the comment was about the lack of coverage of the Barker story?

It's bizarre. I mean, if it's no big deal for one blog to cover one thing, and another blog to cover another, why does Jessica have to lie about it, and claim she's covered one thing when in fact she's covered another?

And then claim she's under "personal attack" when this is pointed out? Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Like I said, your anger, particularly over the Halliburton/KBR rapes (I have seen some other comments of yours in other threads), is justified.

I am unable to make way through your links to find a claim by staff that Feministing has already covered it, for me to consider anyone a "liar." No need to point it out to me, because I will respect them nonetheless for their other work, which is not limited to this blog, which was apparently originally started by Jessica at the age of 25 when she knew little about blogging, to express herself. (I'm 39, have been computer savvy since 1982, before color, mouses, and graphic user interfaces like Mac or Windows, and have used the Internet since 1991, but know jack about blogging to this day). Feministing was personal, and admittedly "random," not intended to be CNN. Bravo to all of them for becoming so well known and respected by many.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FizH6SBk5UM

Related videos: Valentine's Day Lingerie, From: fordmodels. lol.

December 20, 2007

"More women report sexual assault by Halliburton/KBR employees"

"Shortly after a Texas woman came forward stating that she was gang raped by her Halliburton/KBR co-workers in Baghdad, we find that (shockingly) she may not be alone."

The Feministing link to the AP story on other women is now dead, but it seems clear that the editorial staff are aware there are others, and have made mention of them, if not by name.

Every assault and coverup is deserving of outrage, but if I may make my own observation about this site, I would also like to see more followup on the featured topics, such as the Sartell, MN bar panty cutting sex assault. My Google searches since the incident have been unproductive, and others may know better.

I didn't know about those other Halliburton/KBR cases, or the outcomes, myself. I believe one important issue in those cases is not, is it even possible to sign ones' rights away as a condition of employment (I personally believe not); but can civilian crimes in Iraq be prosecuted under *American* law, in the US (crimes by military anywhere *might* be handled by US courts martial regardless)? It's ugly, but the issue is there. That issue deserves coverage all by itself.

Is Ms. Valenti claiming to be under personal attack?

I haven't read that, that is just what I am feeling, seeing certain posts being critical of her and editorial staff this weekend. Call me overly sensitive.

The shocking news, and news it is as of 6 Feb 08 is that, in sending the Tracy Barker case back to arbitration, the Judge on the case, Gray Miller wrote in his decision:

"Sadly,sexual harassment, up to and including sexual assault, is a reality in today's workplace."

Read it again. Read it and scream. Read it and weep.

Judge Gray Miller's decision affirmed the right of companies to conduct secret proceedings in arbitration -- which imposes a gag rule on the victim -- and in the course of doing this, essentially gives a green light to employers to engage in this "reality" which he's just made all the more real and far more likely to be ongoing with this statement.

This is huge news. And I am begging Jessica to give full attention to the implications of this story to your audience.

Now she's done GREAT coverage of Jamie Leigh Jones' case -- but
Tracy Barker's is different; related, but different.

One, it directly involves a State Department official (who's gotten off scott-free despite findings against him). Two, it more accurately reflects what happens to women who do NOT have well-connected parents, who do NOT have a well-off family behind them, and who do NOT necessarily have the MOST horrific story. i.e. the rest of us. And it gets swept under the rug.

Why does it get swept under the rug? Because it does not illustrate the popular narrative of justice ultimately served. It illustrates the actual reality of poor and working-class women with children who cannot provide infinite funds to a lawyer, who must keep it hid and just find another job.

It is terrifying, is what it is. Realistic. Unnerving. It is what can and will happen to the rest of us, particularly if we believe the popular narrative that 100+ members of the US congress will rally around us and change the laws of this nation when a great injustice is committed.

In general, they will not.

The shocking news, and news it is as of 6 Feb 08 is that, in sending the Tracy Barker case back to arbitration, the Judge on the case, Gray Miller wrote in his decision:

"Sadly,sexual harassment, up to and including sexual assault, is a reality in today's workplace."

Read it again. Read it and scream. Read it and weep.

Judge Gray Miller's decision affirmed the right of companies to conduct secret proceedings in arbitration -- which imposes a gag rule on the victim -- and in the course of doing this, essentially gives a green light to employers to engage in this "reality" which he's just made all the more real and far more likely to be ongoing with this statement.

This is huge news. And I am begging Jessica to give full attention to the implications of this story to your audience.

Now she's done GREAT coverage of Jamie Leigh Jones' case -- but
Tracy Barker's is different; related, but different.

One, it directly involves a State Department official (who's gotten off scott-free despite findings against him). Two, it more accurately reflects what happens to women who do NOT have well-connected parents, who do NOT have a well-off family behind them, and who do NOT necessarily have the MOST horrific story. i.e. the rest of us. And it gets swept under the rug.

Why does it get swept under the rug? Because it does not illustrate the popular narrative of justice ultimately served. It illustrates the actual reality of poor and working-class women with children who cannot provide infinite funds to a lawyer, who must keep it hid and just find another job.

It is terrifying, is what it is. Realistic. Unnerving. It is what can and will happen to the rest of us, particularly if we believe the popular narrative that 100+ members of the US congress will rally around us and change the laws of this nation when a great injustice is committed.

In general, they will not.

"This is huge news. And I am begging Jessica to give full attention to the implications of this story to your audience."

Through observation and personal experience, I have found Ms. Valenti and the editorial staff visit and read the threads irregularly. I recently received a response to an e-mail which required immediate attention (I was acting like an asshole at the time and asked to be banned), that I sent IIRC, before Christmas.

I agree your story is deserving of coverage, and your anger and outrage, once more, are well placed. Try e-mailing it to Ms. Valenti or another member of the editorial staff directly, by clicking on their name links.

Oh, god, Ann! I wonder why people think feminists have NO sense of humor! I think you were just looking for a fight today.

I've been reading this guy for a few years now. Every one of his articles of dripping with sarcasm. He's not the best writer, but his trademark is BLATANTLY saying the opposite of what he thinks to make a point about how stupid people can be. It's satire. My god, it was obvious. Arghghgh.

Ah well. In these times of trouble the thin line between social satire and Bushist fascist reality becomes very nearly invisible . . .

"I didn’t want to overhear any background conversation about tampons or babies on her end of the line."

Right, because thats all women talk about. Men dont talk about these things because theyre girly-ewwww!

"Man Mode a condition marked by a heightened preparedness for battle, accompanied by the complete certainty that women are helpless simple creatures who require constant saving."

So a women doesnt have the same thing? Apparently man Mode is different because it involves rescuing women, which is of course a gene carried by men that was created from evolutionary biology because women are incompetent.

" knew that if I tried to explain it, she wouldn’t understand. Our fireplace doesn’t have a handy lever on the outside. You have to reach up into the chimney a little bit, grab this iron ring thingamabob, and push up until it sticks. Despite my reservations, I told her this."

What made him think that shes incapable. If it was a mans voice on the other end, would he have gone into Man Mode?

"I was in danger of hearing about periods or Patrick Dempsey or baby food."

Because thats what women only talk about when they get together!

"You’re welcome, ladies."

Man Mode sounds more like Sexist Mode.
Maybe this is the Ultimate Theory that could explain sexism. Apparently men have an impulse that responds only to women that enables them to view women as being incapable, even when its wrong.This crap article only reinforces gender stereotypes like women only talk about babys, and tampons(I guess men dont talk about Rogaine, or other male products-or ever bring up their kids). His attempts to be funny by making his Sexist Impulse Mode the cornerstone of the article is offensive. If anyone thinks hes being self-deprecating, hes doing it about his accepted sexist impulse, not about having it.

(Longtime lurker finally posting.) This article and the negative response to Feministing's criticism of it remind me of a couple of things I've seen frequently elsewhere. First, there's the whole "she's the little woman but the dragon lady behind the throne, so why do we need the big, mean, offputting feminists?" tone that could be carried away from the article--hard to tell for sure, but the article does seem to prop up some of that patriarchal BS (even while mocking it using the dumb sitcom dad stereotype). Second, in the negative responses, we have the "you frivolous, spoiled American feminists, focusing only on these narrow, petty non-issues. What about your international sisters who are in dire need?" screed that gets whipped out A LOT as a silencing and shaming mechanism. As if, as another commenter pointed out, there's only one thing one can focus on at a time. I just thought of a third issue, too--the "he's only joking" thing. That's a way that a ton of racist, classist, sexist BS has endured, and it NEEDS to be called out.

Again, from his columns I've read over the last two years, he's not being a sexist, an ass or making a poor attempt at a "joke." He's trying to be satirical. He's not the greatest writer. You guys are making a gigantic deal out of this and it's embarrassing.

"Maybe this is the Ultimate Theory that could explain sexism. Apparently men have an impulse that responds only to women that enables them to view women as being incapable, even when its wrong."

Many men like themselves, their social standing, their "territory" and "property," and their own opinions and ways, period; also part of the reason for conflict between men, up to the world war level, and also seen among many species of male animals.

"He's trying to be satirical. He's not the greatest writer. You guys are making a gigantic deal out of this and it's embarrassing."

yosoypitufina,
You seem to be excusing his article. Prove that its satire. I know he thinks hes being funny, but its not. The content of what hes attempting to satirize does not pin-point his sexism. As a matter of fact, it purely pin-points his jokes about his 'man mode.'
He thought he was being creative by giving character to something he felt come from himself. Something thats probably come to acknowledgement about himself torards his wife in their day-to-day dealings and instead of confronting it to end it, he thinks it would make a funny piece.