Recently in Masculinity Category

In response to the constant objectification of women, the recent gang rape of a 15 year old girl in Richmond, CA, the unjust incarceration of Sara Kruzan and even the highly publicized violence faced by Rihanna, conscientious rapper and activist Jasiri X has put out a track that discusses the injustice and inhumanity of these crimes.

Love it. Lyrics after the jump.

Michael Kimmel is an author, teacher and activist, and is widely acknowledged as America's most prominent and prolific scholar on masculinity. Kimmel is the author of a staggering number of books, including Men Confront Pornography, The History of Men, The Gendered Society and Manhood in America (noticing a theme?). Most recently, Kimmel's book Guyland examined the lives of young American men. To write it, Kimmel interviewed hundreds of men between the ages of 15 and 25, using their words and his expertise to draw a frightening picture of young American manhood today. Luckily, Kimmel has a one-word solution to the problem: feminism.

Kimmel lives in Brooklyn with his wife, Amy Aronson, with whom he frequently co-writes, and their 10-year-old son Zachary, a budding male feminist. He is a Professor of Sociology at SUNY Stonybrook, where he teaches on gender and masculinity, and has taught and lectured all over the world. He is also a frequent contributor at The Huffington Post. And as if all this wasn't impressive enough, last year he was brought in as a consultant on gender politics during the production of Feministing's favorite TV show, Mad Men.

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Michael Kimmel.

I'm showing this amazing film in my class at Rutgers today, so just thought I would share!

Related Posts: Hip-hop, Misogyny and the Beats (we hate to love).
Hypermasculinity, Hip-hop and Lady Rappers fighting Misogyny.

Feminist backlash: Better than spinach!

Via Wendy Norris at RH Reality Check, we find out that the Christian conservative think tank Family Research Council wants dudes to be more manly. Apparently, the way men become more manly is by fighting back against feminism.

According to the seminar description on "The New Masculinity," Pat Fagan, senior fellow and director of FRC's Center for Family and Religion, will discuss how "feminism has wreaked havoc on marriage, women, children and men. It is time to redress the disorder it has wrought and that must start with getting the principles and ideals for a new 'masculinism' right."

What always strikes me as odd about conservative discussions of masculinity is how closely they're tied with feminism and a fear of all things 'woman'. As if the only way to be a "man" is to not be a woman. This oppositional definition of masculinity not only seems to give men a pretty short shrift, but also just furthers misogyny. (It reminds me a lot of Stephen Ducat's great book, The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity and its discussion of femiphobia.)

Seriously, why is it that conservative masculinity is completely dependent on misogyny and keeping women in their supposed place? How many purity balls, dates with Dad and anti-feminism diatribes does one need before you feel like a "man"?

Since I've been hanging with my family this week, it occurred to me that it would be fun to ask my dad a few questions about feminist fathering. We have so many examples of anti-feminist fathering around, but it's rare that we hear from a dad who is truly committed to egalitarian parenting and gender justice. The other thing that makes my dad sort of unique is that he has all the trappings of a traditional dude--white, middle-class, retired lawyer, raised Catholic, likes to talk about the weather and wear embarrassing outfits to bicycle around town--but will surprise you when he drops some serious feminist insights. (He also hasn't updated his slang since the 80's, thus the subtitle of this post.) Read on...

Courtney: Do you consider yourself a feminist? Why or why not?

Ron: Yes, because I believe in equality in all respects.

Courtney: How do other men react to your feminist identity?

Ron: At first, I found it odd to own the identity among other men, but after awhile it became clear and comfortable. I am guessing that other men may feel the same. I think some men would never call themselves a feminist because they would view, wrongly, that it would mean that they are feminine, and at all costs, do not want to feel that.

Courtney: What do you think are the essential ingredients of feminist fathering?

Ron: Teaching your sons and your daughters that gender should never be a barrier to anything that you want to do. [My dad resigned from the men's only business club in my town when I was a little girl, citing that he didn't want to be a part of any institution that would one day accept his son but not his daughter.] In addition, you have to not only say the right words but you have to live those words. It is particularly important with your daughter, just like your son, to praise them for their minds and intellect, because the world will still tend to only comment on their physicality.

Josh Phillips and Rachel Griffin make one heck of a team. The pair met at Central Michigan University, where they were both members of Sexual Aggression Peer Advocates, CMU's sexual assault education and prevention group. Today, they're taking the mission of that group off campus and all over the country.

Dr. Griffin is an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication at Southern Illinois University. Griffin's written works, including her doctoral dissertation, address the intersection of gender and race.

Phillips is the founder of East Coast Walkers, a group of CMU students who, in the summer of 2008, walked from Miami to Boston to raise awareness about sexual violence. His book about the experience, 1800 Miles, comes out this fall. The Walkers blogged about their trek along the way, and one entry, written from South Carolina, filled me with hope:

"Something remarkable keeps happen on this trip: our restaurant bills disappear. We will stop in a small mom and pop diner, the waitress will undoubtedly inquire what we are doing, and an eavesdropping patron will sneakily pay our tab as we devour whatever food is on the table. It must be magic..."

It's not magic, but something better: it's a sign that Phillips, Griffin and the East Coast Walkers are not alone in wishing and working for an end to sexual violence.

Phillips and Griffin regularly team up to speak about sexual violence, and to teach workshops on awareness and prevention. Their team approach works well, Griffin says, because when they're addressing a crowd on the topic of sexual violence, "there are people who can hear Josh who can't hear me and vice versa."

And now, without further ado, the inaugural Feministing Five, with Rachel Griffin and Josh Phillips.

Apparently because scientists think men won't take it. According to an article in Science Progress, outdated ideas of who's responsibility birth control and contraception is, has put the burden on women's shoulders.

Via Broadsheet.

Let's pretend you are a straight couple, in a monogamous long-term relationship, and you don't want a kid. Consider your options: A woman can choose from 11 forms of contraception -- including barrier methods like the diaphragm, permanent sterilization, and that holy grail of the sexual revolution, the pill, and its more recent and even more foolproof sisters in hormonal birth control, the ring and injectibles. A man can choose two: condoms or a vasectomy.

Right, so according to science, if you are woman it is your problem if you get pregnant or end up with an STD, so it just makes sense if you take care of the birth control. Doesn't sound very scientific does it. Furthermore, the financial burden, time constraints and side effects of hormonal birth control on women has another implication on not only time, but unfair burden.

Via Lisa Campo-Engelstein at Science Progress

Not being responsible for some or all of these economic, health-related, and other burdens is a significant boon for men. Men typically do not have to dedicate time and energy to contraceptive care, pay out of pocket for the usually expensive and sometimes frequent (often monthly, or at least four times a year) supply of contraceptives, acquire the knowledge about contraception and reproduction needed to effectively contracept, deal with the medicalization of one's reproductive health, endure the bodily invasion of contraception, suffer the health-related side effects and the mental stress of being responsible for contraception, and face the social repercussions of their contraceptive decisions (such as whether to use a particular contraceptive or to switch contraceptives), and the moral reproach for contraceptive failures.

What both Lisa Campo-Engelstein from Science Progress and Amy Benfer at Broadsheet acknowledge is that this outdated ideology not only leads to the false belief that men wouldn't take contraception, but also leads to a disempowerment of men taking responsibility for contraception. As in, they benefit from the structural belief that it is a woman's responsibility and it is a lose-lose all around. To counter that narrative would take a leap of faith on behalf of women and an insistence by the science community around the effectiveness of male birth control and the corresponding research, development and distribution of such measures. So, it is possible, but sex education, the science community and health care providers would have to overcome the sexism endemic in the way we teach and distribute contraception.

As if David Zincenko's USA Today op-ed heralding "The Great He-cession," wasn't enough, now we've got Reihan Salam claiming "The Death of Macho" in Foreign Policy. Salam's argument, thank goodness, is a bit more sophisticated than Zincenko's--essentially he's arguing that the fall of the financial sector, loss of jobs, and psychological frailty of unmarried men (I'm not kidding), is going to lead to the end of macho culture. He uses lots of international examples--from China to Russia to Western Europe to prove his point. Men, he goes on, will have two choices when confronting this new reality--adapt or resist. Resistance could possibly be "very violent." Geez.

Claiming that sexism is over just because we're finally paying attention to these issues is like claiming that racism is over just because Barack Obama is president. Sexism has way deeper roots than Zincenko or Salam realize.

I don't think anyone can herald the "death of macho," or that men are an "endangered species" (Zincenko), until things actually change. Women still aren't making equal pay for equal work and still are disproportionately targeted with subprime mortgages. As Dana Goldstein reports in "Pink Collar Blues," sixty percent of impoverished children are living in female-headed households. The poverty rate is still higher among women than it is among men of any race. One out of six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

As I wrote in my column last week, this sort of men vs. women thinking is all a bunch of unproductive nonsense. Why does it have to be a man's world OR a woman's world? Why can't it be both. This either/or thinking doesn't acknowledge our interdependence. It just makes for shocking headlines.

And what about all these frickin' gender essentialisms being thrown around nilly willy? Amanda Fortini of Broadsheet puts it well:

If the recent mistakes of certain men at the highest levels of finance and government have altered our beliefs and opened our minds toward the possibility of more women in power, that's progress. But to conclude that the mistakes of a handful of men say anything conclusive about the entire gender is wrongheaded. And as for Salaam's assumption that women aren't aggressive or daring, well there's only one word for it, isn't there? Macho.

I'm taping a segment of CNN This Morning on the topic today. Will let everyone know when it's going to air...

If you're in the Brooklyn area, don't miss our intergenerational conversation in honor of Father's Day where we'll be exploring questions like:

• How were your ideas about men and masculinity formed while growing up?
• How did men shape your thinking about your own identity as a woman?
• What is the role for men in the contemporary and future feminist movement?

It's really meant to be a dialogue, so the more folks we can pack in for their perspective, the richer the learning. Best of all, it's basically free (voluntary donation on the way in).

Deets:
Brooklyn Museum of Art
Saturday, June 20th, 2-4pm
Courtney Martin, Gloria Feldt, Deborah Siegel, and Kristal Brent Zook

And for those of you who liked Spy vs. Spy, the DJs that started the anniversary bash out right, consider ending the day lovely at Underwater Lounge in D.U.M.B.O. Brooklyn (no cover). They claim that if you show up in summer gear, they'll buy you a drink?!

I remember this guy at Columbia College (I went to Barnard) who was sort of known as "too smart for school." He walked around with his floppy hair and his bemused scowl and started up what began as innocent little conversations about this or that, but quickly turned into all out assaults on the feeble minded person (usually a woman) that he had set his sights on. For a time, I was deeply intimidated by him. Once, I almost cried when we got into a conversation about ethics of one kind or another. Now, when I look back, I realize that he was Bill O'Reilly in a skinny hipster body with post-modern aesthetics. He was a blowhard who got off on making other people feel not as smart, especially if those other people were women.

I thought about him today when I read this Chicago Tribune article about a new group on the University of Chicago campus called Men in Power. Apparently the group evolved when Steve Saltarelli, a third-year in the College majoring in Law, Letters, and Society, wrote a satirical article about starting such a group in the campus newspaper. An excerpt:

next quarter will feature a number of events aimed to raise the profile of Men in Power on campus. Firstly, we will be hosting weekly study breaks/screenings of movement-oriented films, including: A Few Good Men, 12 Angry Men, Men of Honor (and many other Cuba Gooding Jr. masterpieces), All the President's Men, and--of course--X-Men.

Additional upcoming events will include an open-mic night on issues concerning body image, a tutorial on barbecuing, and our much-anticipated workshop "Protecting What's Yours: Drafting a Prenuptial Agreement." Given the lack of similar groups on campus, MiP will have to establish a broad base, merging social issues and activities with a pre-professional slant. Through our fishing, hunting, and flag-football retreats, we hope to cultivate close relationships with many individuals and organizations in different sectors of power--including business, politics, and academia.

But then ol' Steve started to get emails from people actually interested in joining and he decided--gosh darn it--there was a need for such a group on his campus. Many of our readers have sent us the article, wondering what we think here at feministing. I can't speak for my co-editors, but I can tell you what I think.

I think Steve would be totally radical if he would spend less time providing networking opportunities for men on his campus (one of the goals of Men in Power) and more time deconstructing what "power" actually means. You see, that was the analysis always missing from that old Columbia blowhard bully's repertoire.

The reality is that a certain kind of power still rests squarely in the hands of a very small number of white people, usually white men, usually Western white men. I'm talking about power that comes in the form of college degrees from fancy schools, inherited wealth, access to other wealthy people who can fund/employ/encourage you, the capacity to walk into a job interview and not have any of the following questions going through a potential employer's mind (Will she have babies and leave the company? Will her looks be distracting? Will s/he fit into this environment given that we don't have many people "like" him/her?), a childhood home far from toxic chemical plants and/or gang violence etc. etc. etc.

Chances are that Steve has a lot of the kind of power I just described. Maybe not, but I'd put money on it. My guess is that Steve doesn't have a whole lot of another kind of power: one born of authenticity, wisdom, humility, empathy.

This whole group seems like a pretty hair-brained scheme to get himself some attention and test out how the world will react to a reactive group. And he's getting attention, indeed. But he's not gaining wisdom if he thinks that putting his energy into organizing networking opportunities for already privileged dudes is where his happiness is going to take root. As those of us who have been around the block a few times, met our share of blowhard Ivy Leaguers, faced them down with tears in our eyes, know: happiness comes from getting to be who you truly are while owning the privilege you come from, and working to dismantle it because you want to be part of a more just world, not a cog in the wheel of the current broken system.

Steve didn't ask for my advice, but if he did, I would tell him to take a step back and use some of that energy, humor, conviction, and creativity to start an organization that gets men and women to think together about ways to make the world more equal, more just, and a more hospitable place for all of us. I'll give my guru Audre Lorde the last word on this one:

The true focus of revolutionary change is never the oppressive situations which we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within us.

Thanks to all the readers who wrote in asking for our take on this issue.

My best friend in high school was gay and I still tear up thinking about the harassment he received. We were freaks, outcasts, geeks, and we became close friends because I was teased for being a "smelly Indian" and he was straight up harassed for being gay. We were teenagers and we built power amongst each other against the ignorance of those around us, but that doesn't mean I am not still angry. Well, I guess I made a career out of my anger. That was 15 years ago and I still remember how poorly the school treated the bullying received by not just him, but all my friends that were "different."

In the last month there have been two incidents of young children that have committed suicide from homophobic harassment at school. Things haven't changed. Bullying is passed down from generation to generation.

NC has anti-bullying legislation going to the house that has added sexuality as a cause of bullying. Of course, there was opposition, but it was added anyway. Opposition to anti-hate legislation is bone-chilling since it so clearly articulates the stand-point of these crazy people. They don't believe in the rights of those with different sexualities, ethnicities, backgrounds, whatever it might mean. They are essentially saying, you are not a valuable person we don't value your life.

What frustrates me about bullying and therefore bullying legislation is that bullies grow up and become politicians, cops, lawmakers and apparently wing-nut Christians. Assholes continue to bully, just the mechanisms through which they bully changes. Trying to convince people that were bullies that bullying is a problem feels like an uphill battle. Obviously, legislation is a step in the right direction. In addition to policy that supports the rights of victims of bullying, we need education for young people around masculinity, sexuality and what the impacts of bullying are.

The NY City police officers that were charged with the rape of an intoxicated woman have been indicted.

A grand jury in Manhattan has voted to indict two New York City police officers in the December rape of a woman who claimed she was sexually attacked after the officers escorted her from a taxicab to her apartment in the East Village while she was intoxicated, according to law enforcement officials and other people familiar with the case.

The grand jury last week charged both officers -- Kenneth Moreno and Franklin L. Mata -- though the details of the indictment were not immediately disclosed, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The officers, who have been on modified duty, stripped of their guns and badges and working in administrative assignments, are expected to surrender on Tuesday morning and face arraignment in criminal court.

Ugh, what a scary case.

Via NYTimes.

This is the second incident this month of a young man of color that killed himself because of anti-gay bullying. The first was an 11-year-old Massachusetts boy, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover. The second is eleven year old Jaheem Herrera hung himself last week and speculation suggests it was due to homophobic bullying.

Jaheem was bullied relentlessly, his family said. Keene said the family knew the boy was a target, but until his death they didn't understand the scope.

"We'd ask him, 'Jaheem, what's wrong with you?'" Keene recalled. "He'd never tell us."

He didn't want his sister to tell, either. She witnessed much of the bullying, and many times rose to her brother's defense, Keene said.

"They called him gay and a snitch," his stepfather said. "All the time they'd call him this."

In an interview with WSB-TV, Bermudez also said her son was being bullied at school. She said she had complained to the school.

She said she asked him about the bullying Thursday when he came home from school and he denied it. She sent him to his room to calm down. It was the last time she would see him alive.

At what point do we start paying attention to kids that are being called "gay" as an epithet? It is never OK and no matter how much it is happening, it seems that our cultural fixation with masculinity and homophobia subsides. My heart goes out to his family, this is truly devastating.

Also check out GLSEN's 4-steps you can take to stop anti-LGBT bullying in your school.

(h/t BiancaLaureana via Twitter.)

Sitting in an all-star panel at WAM 09 called In/Out of Focus, Broadening a Feminist Lens: Gender, Non-Conformity and the Media including our very own Miriam, Julia Serano, Jack Aponte and Kate Bovitch. It is excellent. They are discussing the different ways that gender variance intersects with feminism, femininity and the idea of woman and its relationship to identity based movement building. Also, what is the role of gender variance in media production and best practices on how to write about trans, gender non-conforming and gender variant community. Follow the discussion on twitter here. I am not even capturing the half of it, this panel is amazing.

To clarify, I did not create this picture but was created to accompany this piece. When the creators put up a statement I will add it.

Update: The artist's statement here.

Last week, Lovelle Mixon allegedly shot 5 cops, killing 4 of them. This fact is tragic. It is not only tragic because 4 public servants who have families were killed, but also because the retaliation in the black community in Oakland by police will be severe. If you know what I know, angry cops are capable of anything.

I suppose you are thinking what many Americans are thinking. How could he do this? He deserves to die. Armed dangerous gunmen deserve to die. Why are black youth so violent? But I want to push your thinking on this situation.

As Kevin Weston points out in a really controversial piece at New American Media,

If there were a scoreboard that displayed the number of police killed by black people versus the number of black people killed by police - it would look like the scoreboard of the Lakers playing a junior high school team. So when an aberration like Mixon appears - a once in a generation kind of event -- the implications are cosmic.

When police officers are found to have murdered young black men, they are almost always let off the hook, they do not face life in prison and they are not then hunted and killed. This is not to suggest that the murder of cops is justified, but to ask that we look at it within the context of police brutality and the damage it has wreaked on the black community.

The power that resides in the laps of armed police officers is terrifying. Imagine living in these conditions, in the kind of world where you can be gunned down just for being young, black, male and walking down the street. This story is almost impossible to understand given dominant narratives around race, class, gender and black masculinity. It is considered OK to kill young black men, often violently. We may be outraged, but not nearly as outraged as when cops are killed.

I do not deny that Mixon was armed, dangerous, a career criminal and potentially linked to the rape of a young woman. Lovelle Mixon's actions are deplorable. But if we look at them within the context of police brutality, they sadly start make sense. Lovelle Mixon was trying to get out of going back to jail and this compounded with not finding work led him to desperate actions. Earl Ofari Hutchinson reports,

A general consensus is that it was a deadly mix of panic, rage, and frustration that caused Lovelle Mixon to snap. His shocking murderous rampage left four Oakland police officers dead and a city and police agencies searching its soul about what went so terribly wrong. Though Mixon's killing spree is a horrible aberration, his plight as anunemployed ex-felon isn't. There are tens of thousands like him on America's streets.

In 2007, the National Institute of Justice found that 60 percent of ex-felon offenders remain unemployed a year after their release. Other studies have shown that upwards of 30 percent of felon releases live in homeless shelters because of their inability to find housing. And those are the lucky ones. Many camp out on the streets.

A significant number of them suffer from drug, alcohol and mental health challenges, and lack education or any marketable skills. More than 70 percent of all U.S. prisoners are literate at only the two lowest grade levels. Nearly 60 percent of violent felons are repeat offenders. They are a menace to themselves and, as the nation saw with Mixon, to others. In some cases, they can be set off by any real or perceived slight, insult, or simply lash out from bitter rage. Mixon was one and he made four Oakland police officers victims and left a terrible trail of grieving and distraught families and a shell-shocked city and police department.

I don't support young people in Oakland suggesting that this is somehow fair revenge for Oscar Grant, but I think it is apparent that Oakland is fed up with watching our young men die at the hands of our public servants. While the conversation in mainstream media is really focused on Lovelle Mixon's history of crime, violence and imprisonment, let's try and change the dialog and have a honest conversation about police brutality, the production, harassment, imprisonment and murder of "angry black men" everywhere, and ways we can work collectively to bring peaceful solutions to our communities. And I ask the youth of Oakland to hang back, look at the bigger picture and think honestly about what will help your community the most in this volatile situation.

1. comprehensive sexual education that include critical conversations about rape, power, and violence with men AND teaches men what and where the clit is (just sayin')
2. advocating for more family friendly work policy for all and changing the culture of work machismo among men
3. reflecting on how much $$ goes into male athletic culture, and how linked it is to violence off the field
4. changing the culture to give men more permission to identify, manage, and talk about their emotions
5. an intersectional approach to incarceration, poverty, and race that includes a gender analysis

What about you?

Chris Brown's alleged violence against Rihanna has sparked intense debate and discussion about these celebrities.

I decided to ask Traci C. West, PhD, a professor of ethics and African American studies at Drew University's Theological School, for some perspective on the violence and the public's reactions. She researched the historical legacy of violence against black women for her book, Wounds of the Spirit: Black Women, Violence, and Resistance Ethics.

Here's Traci...

Hi,
My question is this: I have found it really hard lately to have sex with my boyfriend (5 year relationship). A little over a year ago he told me that he's a cross-dresser and while he doesn't want a sex change, he does think of himself as significantly female. We lived separately due to my work for about 6 months, and it was fine when we visited each other (about twice a month), probably because there was no sign of it, but we've been living back together again for another six months. He still looks mostly the same as ever (except for shaving legs and chest), and he's keeping a cap on the behavior, but I think I see him differently. For the last four months, I think we've had sex three times. It's weird, he doesn't dress much, but it's in my mind a lot. What's weirder is, it's not penetrative sex that's the problem or cuddles, I just don't like kissing him anymore, or him doing anything downstairs. I kindof just want him to get on with it. I've also been pretty down, probably due to stressing about his "hobby".

Is there a way to get around this? I tried to make myself do it a lot because I read somewhere about fake it til you make it, but I just felt sad.
Sorry, this isn't much of a question -
Q

Hi Q -
I've been staring at your question for a few days now and what keeps hitting me over and over is how difficult a situation it is. First, I want to clean up a couple of misconceptions. Most cross dressers are heterosexual men. While for some people, this is a step for transitioning genders (male to female in this case), the majority of cross dressers are not interested in transitioning. Rather, they are turned on or comforted by wearing women's clothing. I think you get this at least intellectually.

You are writing in to a feminist sex column, so I am going to make the assumption that you want to be accepting of his CD.

Here is the heart of it - things have changed. You acted and built on certain assumptions for the past four years and now, after four years of intimacy and relationship, you are discovering a new aspect of him. Are you pissed that it took him four years to tell you? It's ok to be. You can understand how it took him time to be accepting of himself and to work up the courage to tell you, yet you can still be pissed. You give him deserved credit for "keeping a cap on his behavior" while you are trying to work through this, but at the same time his shaved arms and chest are actually a pretty constant and consistent reminder.

Gender matters in relationships. I don't mean gender as in sex. I mean gender as the percentage we want our partners to be masculine and feminine. You found someone whose percentage worked for you - both sexually and in a relationship - now that percentage has changed. What does this mean for your own percentage?

I think fake til you make it works in certain situations, almost all of which are nonsexual. You need to stop faking and start being honest with yourself about how you feel. Do you have friends you can talk to about this? An online support group for women dealing with the same issue? You need a place to vent without worrying about hurting anyone's feelings; you need to talk this out for yourself before you can work it out with him. You are having sex, but I don't think you are having intimacy. You are trying and it is commendable. I just want you to put yourself first right now.

You may have depression, you may just be sad. I think finding a therapist for at least a couple visits would help. Check out the American Associations for Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists for a therapist who is less likely to be judgmental of the CD and more able to focus on the actual issues.

At the end of the day, this relationship may work and it may not. We want to be GGG (Good, Giving and Game - to borrow from Mr. Savage), but there are some things we just can't be ok with. And this may be yours. But you need to give yourself time and space to really flush out what you are feeling. And then you need to talk to him about it. What compromises can be reached? Maybe he can have other partners who he dresses up for? Maybe you can have other partners who are not into CCD? Maybe he does it ever third Thursday? While being caring for him, you also need to be caring for you.

Did everyone catch conservative pundit George Will's "You know how I know you're gay?" moment last night? (Answer: You like to hug the president.) Remarking on members of Congress -- MALE members of Congress -- embracing Obama after his speech last night, Will said:

"I don't know when men started to hug each other, but hug they do, and look at that"

He clearly pines for the days of the Bush administration, when two men NEVER ever hugged in public. (See Dick Cheney and George Bush, Sr. getting their hug on, too.)

I know, I'm being a bit hyperbolic. But this throwaway comment really is indicative of a sad traditional view of masculinity in which two Real Men (read: hetero dudes) never show physical affection for one another. And if they do, it's something to be played for laughs. Just look at almost every one of the Judd Apatow films, every one of them a huge hit, in which this theme shows up: The 40-Year-Old Virgin (referenced in the first paragraph above), Superbad (as the two guys fall asleep next to one another near the end -- and in countless other scenes), the upcoming I Love You, Man. Most of these films are about men who form really close bonds, but are embarrassed to acknowledge the depth of their relationship because that would be, well, kinda gay. This theme has also arisen in a lot of style-section type reporting, with articles on the "man date" and "bromance."

On the whole, I actually think that these movies and articles have made it more culturally acceptable for men to show some affection for one another and acknowledge the depth of their friendship. (Yes, the films might be mocking this aspect of male friendship, as well as playing on homophobia, but overall I think they have done some good to help normalize the idea of meaningful male friendship.) George Will is clearly a product of a different era.

And it took a white director to make sure we got there! OK, OK, I will try to be less cynical. I know, I should be totally psyched that Slumdog Millionare won so many Oscars, including best picture. Any visibility for South Asians is good right?

Right. And wrong. I personally didn't think Slumdog Millionare was an Oscar worthy movie. I thought it was creative, beautiful, interesting and had a great soundtrack, but I didn't understand how it was Oscar worthy. Where was the complexity of the characters? Where was the deep cross-cultural analysis that helps us understand the South Asian condition? Where was there any agency displayed in the character of Latika? How did this story help the plight of the South Asian national citizen outside of reinforcing stereotypes of India?

I guess I have more questions than I have answers. And the questions I ask were certainly not the ones considered by the Academy in choosing this film. To be clear, I loved this movie and I saw it twice. The second time I brought my family, and my father a staunch Indian nationalist, hated it. He didn't like the way it portrayed India. I do not hold the same politics as my father and I felt that it actually held more truth about poverty and corruption in India than we would like to admit. But once you sift through the amazing imagery, adorable kids and soundtrack you are left with a coming of age story, only the story is not really for Indian audiences.

And despite its attempt at a narrative of social progress, Slumdog reinforces that which is hopes to ameliorate. Mitu Sengupta has an excellent piece up at Alternet about the policy implications of films like Slumdog Millionare that lump together the stereotypes of the poor.

It is ironic that "Slumdog", for all its righteousness of tone, shares with many Indian political and social elites a profoundly dehumanizing view of those who live and work within the country's slums. The troubling policy implications of this perspective are unmistakeably mirrored by the film. Since there are no internal resources, and none capable of constructive voice or action, all "solutions" must arrive externally.

After a harrowing life in an anarchic wilderness, salvation finally comes to Jamal, a Christ-like figure, in the form of an imported quiz-show, which he succeeds in thanks to sheer, dumb luck, or rather, because "it is written." Is it also "written," then, that the other children depicted in the film must continue to suffer? Or must they, like the stone-faced Jamal, stoically await their own "destiny" of rescue by a foreign hand?

Go read her whole piece, it gives a vastly different view on the film than what has been discussed in the mainstream media.

Finally, as a feminist, I had a really hard time with the character of Latika. I understand that in Boyle's imagination, Latika was like any third world woman. A helpless victim that can't speak up for herself and stays in an abusive relationship, until she is saved by another man. Outside of oversimplifying the complex ways that women of color experience AND resist violence within their own communities, it reinforces stereotypes of helpless third world women. I must say, I tried to ignore this plotline in the beginning. Perhaps if I thought about it too much, I would come out against a film that is supposed to "help" my people or because I just wanted to enjoy something for once without the nagging reality that this story doesn't make sense without the depiction of a violent patriarchy. But the unfortunate reality is that in order for South Asians to make it into the mainstream, they have to cater to the lowest common denominator of universal experience. And that is of course one where women have no agency, especially in the context of the third world. I mean that is why we are fighting all these wars right? To save women!

So yes, of course I am excited that Slumdog did so well at the Oscars. It makes me happy that all these South Asian actors are in the spotlight along with the genius of AR Rahman and MIA. However, it is only one step and we must resist the desire to homogenize the Indian experience that we know so little of in actuality, based on a fictitious film directed by a white man.

"Excuse me miss?"

You have probably heard about this, but pop-star Chris Brown was arrested Sunday night for allegedly attacking a woman. He is currently out on bail. At first there was speculation as to whether the victim of the attack had been his girlfriend Rihanna. Most newspapers protected her identity as they would any victim of domestic violence. The LA Times decided to run her name as the victim of the crime.

R&B singer Chris Brown has been booked tonight on suspicion of making felony criminal threats in connection with an incident involving his girlfriend, pop singer Rihanna, according to Los Angeles Police Department sources familiar with the case.

Is it OK that they ran her name? Celebrity culture currently thrives on depicting the stories of women's demise. We have seen this with Amy Winehouse, Britney Spears, among others. There is an obsession with making spectacle of women. So, all the more reason to keep her name out of the initial press materials.

On the other hand, Rihanna is really famous and one would hope that she has the resources and support to deal with a situation of domestic violence. She is a model to young women and they are affected by how she responds to this problem. This is a tremendous amount of pressure for anyone, let alone a young woman who is a victim of domestic violence. So it is the double edged sword of fame. She has the power and influence to make a statement, get the help she needs and take whatever legal means she needs to. But what if she doesn't want to? What if she doesn't have the support she needs? There is a strong possibility she will be demonized by the media as well. When the mainstream media covers domestic violence, it is generally not on the side of empowering women, but instead how the legal system victimizes men.

I had a conversation on my facebook about this with some of my friends and one of them said, "what if she doesn't want to be the posterchild for DV?" I think this is an apt point. What if she doesn't want to become the spokesperson for this issue? Is it already not traumatic enough about what happened, let alone have it happen in front of millions of people watching?

I think this so sad for a variety of reasons. Rihanna is a model for young women of color who statistically have a close relationship with violence in their communities and historically a lack of access to resources. Chris Brown is a role model for young men of color. What do we tell our youth when our stars are plagued by the same realities they face in their homes? This startling example lets us know that it doesn't matter how successful you are or how rich you get, you can still be a victim of a violent assault at the hands of a man. I am almost scared to see how this will play out in the media.

via HuffPo.

MSNBC discusses a growing trend of stockings for men which many call "mantyhose," as well as other "feminine" clothing that are renamed and altered in quality to dodge the stigma of being deemed feminine. On the one hand, they're making the hosiery as masculine as possible. On the other, the way the companies and their consumers humorously embrace its femininity is interesting.

Most companies name their stockings, girdles for men and the like almost indistinguishable from the "feminine version" of the product by completely omitting the use of words like "hosiery" or "stockings." For example, a product that's claimed to be "spanx for men" is called a Core Precision Undershirt. There's also a pantyhose for men called Comfilon's Activeskin Legwear for Men.

And while men's pantyhose is used for the same reasons anyone would wear hosiery, including support, comfort, and warmth and yes, aesthetics, the author makes sure to appease the reader:

European men have been sporting hose for several years, but the trend has been slow to catch on in the U.S. (It is important to note that the trend has no connection to men who wear hose to cross-dress, since they prefer to wear pairs that are more feminine.) The "mantyhose" is also part of a larger trend of untraditional men's underwear designed to lift, sculpt and suck in that beer belly... (Emphasis mine)

It's of the utmost importance you know that these are manly stockings! No cross-dressers here!

But while their makers and users try so very hard to distinguish themselves from women's stockings, girdles, what-have-you, they still manage to make a joke out of the fact that - whatever name you give it and whatever manly material you make it into - it's still women's clothing. The word "mantyhose" itself could make one chuckle. In fact, simply adding an "m" in front of many of these clothes masculinize but also mock them, like "mantyhose" or the "mirdle" (man girdle). Even the companies use humor in their marketing techniques; the tagline for Comfilon is, "This is NOT your mother's pantyhose."

This seems indicative of the general male hetero response to anything they do or wear that's "feminine" - if you mock it while you're doing it, you can get away with it. Same thing with male hetero friends who pretend to make out when they're hugging each other, or skip around the room in their face cream - it's more or less a way of defying gender norms without having to catch shit for it. And that makes me sort of sad.

At the same time, the article seems to imply that men aren't embarrassed, but their wives (of course they have wives!) are the skittish ones. Thoughts?

I generally love RedEnvelope for their nice gifts (though a bit overpriced), yet this made me laugh out loud. Of course the picture of their monogrammed branders (of your monogrammed choosing) has to be of "son" and "dad." Because there's nothing manlier than doing some grillin' some steak and branding your manliness into the meat.

Last week I had the good fortune of going to see the play, "Angry Black White Boy," based on the Adam Mansbach novel of the same title at the Intersection of the Arts. If you are in the Bay Area, I strongly recommend you try and check it out. It is pay what you can on Thursdays.

It looks into the world of a young white man from the suburbs who becomes obsessed with black culture and overturning racism, only to find out that it in an effort to make whites pay for historical racism, he ends up caught in a self serving cycle. And watches the world around him collapse around his poorly thought out, yet bizarrely revolutionary, racial awareness.

It is excellent and if you are not in the Bay, pick up the book. That is what I am going to do.

Pic from Grant Neufeld.

There's a great article in Minnesota's Star Tribune about college activists' attempts to focus sexual assault training and education on men.

Instead of teaching women not to walk alone at night or to carry Mace, some colleges are trying something much harder -- changing college men.

..."The fact of the matter is that prevention comes down to, largely, males. Because males are primarily the ones perpetrating these crimes," said Lauren Pilnick, sexual violence education coordinator at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

The piece also tells the story of Tyler Jones, a senior at the University of Minnesota who went through sexual assault prevention training and found himself using that education in a barroom exchange:

"Hey, see that girl over there?" Jones recalled an acquaintance asking, nodding toward a woman he wanted to take home. "She's almost drunk. Not quite drunk enough. ... What shot should I buy her?"

There was a time, Jones says, when he might have laughed off the remark. Not anymore.

"You want to buy her something really strong to like, basically knock her out?" Jones, a University of Minnesota senior, recalled saying. "Man, that's not right. That's rape. That's sexual assault."

The acquaintance looked stunned. "Whatever," he mumbled, and walked away.

I think moments like these are incredibly important: Having men name assault, and calling it what it is to their peers - especially in a culture that so often puts the focus of sexual assault prevention on women.

In no particular order.

1. You are expected to dress nice and act a certain way "waiting" to get asked out.

2. You have to play by the rules which generally give men most of the power. (wait till he calls you, don't be too forward, be mysterious-you don't want to scare him off, etc)

3. If you show emotion too early on or too much of it, you are needy.

4. If you don't show enough emotion, you are making the other party insecure forcing them to wield social privilege to silence your daring attempt at independence from self obliteration via coupling.

5. It fetishizes unequal power relations between women. He'll get the tab, he'll get the door as long as he gets the vagina, and that is considered "romance."

6. It makes same sex couples feel "less than."

7. It dictates your interaction in most social settings and social circles, whether you are single or coupled. It is either/or, there is no 3rd identity or in-between.

8. If you have sex too early you ruined it.

9. If you don't have sex early on you are a prude.

10. It is expected to lead to marriage (and if you don't have a ring on your finger you are "on the market.")

This just looks really good. Aaronette M. White, an associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz has a book out called, "Ain't I a Feminist? African American Men Speak Out on Fatherhood, Friendship, Forgiveness, and Freedom," that delves into the intersection of race, manhood, sexism, family and feminism. It is a series of in-depth interviews with man who have transformed their relationship with themselves and the women in their lives by embracing feminism. White's main point being, sexism hurts everyone.

For black men, feminism can be a positive force that enhances romantic relationships, friendships with other men, and relationships with children, said White, whose findings are based on in-depth interviews and an extensive written survey administered to each participant. Her subjects, whose identities are not revealed in the book, were hand-selected from a pool of about 50 men, all of whom were self-identified feminists.

"These men have defied the odds," said White, whose book breaks new ground in the empirical study of black feminist men. "Their lives help define what it means to be a feminist and an ethical human being."

Via.

And as her title suggests borrowing from Sojourner Truth's pivotal speech, she calls her subjects the sons of Sojourner because, "they refuse to place race above gender, or gender above race."

This looks like a powerful read, and I appreciate the juxtaposition of black masculinity and feminism as they are usually diametrically opposed. I guess the question begs to be asked, which is what makes this a controversial book on some level, is can men be feminists? I think they absolutely can, but what do you think?

Thanks to George for the link!

Reader Julia sent us a link to this posting on Madison, Wisconsin Craigslist. Pretty amazing stuff:

I'm married. Been married for 14 years. I moved away from my family to be with my wife's family, left my career, friends, & family behind. I now work out of my house because my wife got a "better" job else where and now I do ALL of the cooking and cleaning and take care of my 3 kids. She's the typical MALE now...comes homes, I have dinner ready. She works more at home. I play with the kids. She goes to bed, I have to go to bed. My whole life revolves around her now. She's the Sun and I'm Uranus. She leaves dirty clothes on the floor. Trash on tables. HAIR everywhere!! I SIT to pee now cuz I hate to clean up pubic hairs off the toilets....it's disgusting.

Yes, he's experiencing what many women have experienced for decades. But no one deserves to feel this way about their life or relationship. What I dislike about the entire tone of this post, however, is that he's not just pissed off about the unequal nature of his relationship. He's pissed because he's "THE WOMAN" -- as in, women are the ones who should doing all the shit work:

I feel I'm being converted to a female in some sick way. I AM NOT A WOMAN! I love women. But I now know what they put up with. It sucks. No thanks for dinner....not even "dinner was great dear...how 'bout I clean up the dishes"....NNOOOOOO. Just a couple of grunts and it's off to work....kinda like a guy going to the garage for the evening. I have tools. I'd love to go to the garage and work. But I think my kids come first. I'd love to have an affair but don't think I can deal with the guilt. If I start to PMS.......I'll scream. Oh...and don't think she's "MAN" enough to mow the yard or shovel the drive...nope...that's me too. Who gets the groceries....ME. My nipples stick out in the frozen food section too by the way. No one tries to pick me up though. I did get asked by the cashier what was for dinner once!!! I must have something written on my forhead. So women, ladies, how do you put up with it???

I'll admit to laughing at the nipples-in-the-frozen-food-aisle line, but I genuinely feel bad for this guy. In light of our conversation last week about balancing relationships with chores and the ins and outs of living together, does anyone have advice for this man?

What is up with the plethora of disturbing sexist advertising for men's deodorant? Are they that scared of the simple joy of smelling nice?

Mitchum Man ads may just be your worst nightmare. And they're everywhere - on trains, on bar coasters, bus stops. Not only do they epitomize the worst of American masculinity, but promotes nonconsensual sexual behavior (see below). Change Happens covered this in August; our apologies for being super late on it.

Their website proudly displays a number of gems, like:

"If you're the only one who knows which remote controls what, you're a Mitchum man."

"A Mitchum Man's shirt is clean. His mind, not so much."

"If G is your favorite kind of string, you're a Mitchum Man"

"If your best man is holding onto your bachelor party pictures, you're a Mitchum Man."

And it goes on and on...

It is not effective, it is not on the market and would take millions of dollars to make legal, but some scientists in Australia have found that you can block ducts that release sperm, "zap" sperm, or interrupt its production.

Professor Derek Abbott and his team from the University of Adelaide in South Australia have invented the first remote-controlled key fob that allows men to control a valve that can switch their sperm flow on and off as required.

The size of half a rice grain, the "fertility control micro-valve" is injected by a doctor into the vas deferens, the duct that carries sperm from the testes, a process that needs only a local anaesthetic. The valve can then open and close to control sperm flow out of the body.

I think the question is, not only will it be made legal, but will men use it?

"Men want new contraceptive methods," says Elaine Lissner, director of the non-profit Male Contraception Information Project in San Francisco. "A decade ago demand wasn't there and it was assumed women wouldn't trust men to take charge of birth control anyway. That has changed."

I do think there are men that want alternative forms of birth control. I know many of my boyfriends would have preferred other methods to birth control than me using hormonal birth control that made me irritable and have a decreased sex drive. One of my boyfriends even had a vasectomy, which I thought was great, but not for everyone obviously.

I think it is interesting that it is so difficult to the find the money to support research and development of effective male birth control. Yet, there are so many different kinds of women's birth control. Why is birth control always the responsibility of women? Also, several of the side effects listed are assumed side effects to the birth control that women have been using for decades. Why is it OK for women to take on the burden of not only taking birth control, but dealing with its side effects, yet it is a red flag for men?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone taking any form of birth control or trying any method without knowing fully well what its side effects are going to be, however, I am just noting that these same considerations weren't as fully considered when it was a woman's reproductive health at stake.

Would you or your partner use remote control sperm control?

It's safe to say that evangelist John Hagee isn't a fan of stay-at-home dads. Yikes.

Via Shine.

Rev. Steve Emmett and Joe Kelly sent out an email this week announcing that their nonprofit advocacy group, Dads and Daughters, is closing shop after ten years of frustrating and failed fundraising efforts.

Over the last ten years they've committed themselves to spreading the word about the importance of fathers (stepfathers, male influences etc.) in daughters' lives, encouraging a renewed commitment to engaged parenting on the part of men, and particularly targeting the media's often gross misrepresentation of girls and young women.

When I was writing Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, I was really interested in the role that men play in influencing their daughters' body images, and Dads and Daughters was one of the only organizations that was looking at that issue as well.

Steve and Joe recommend these resources if you're looking to investigate the father-daughter dynamic in the future:

* Future of Fatherhood: DADs co-founder Joe Kelly's online & in-person resources for Dads, Daughters, and Professionals working with families.
* Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood: coalition making the world safe and fair for all children by countering harmful effects of marketing to children.
* New Moon Girl Media: girl-run media, plus parenting resources and blog by former DADs executive Nancy Gruver.
* Girl Scout Research Institute: valuable research on the healthy development of girls.

Thanks to both of them--and all their partners--for doing this important work.

Sometimes I google things like "feminism" or "sexism" and this time via a google search for sexism I came across this gem. It is a series of clips from Disney movies depicting masculinity and then deconstructing the ways these characterizations of manhood deploy as standard.

There are some other ones in the 'related' section such as this one on racism in Disney.

Now this is a good way to start the week off!

Thanks to Katie from MI for sending this awesome vid along.

This is the second time Snickers will have to pull a gay-hating commercial. (Remember this nonsense?) But this commercial is just one of many that punishes men for being too "feminine," whether it's growing breasts after having the audacity to cry at the movies or being crushed by a giant beer can after screaming "like a girl." Anxious masculinity, anyone?

Via Consumerist and community blogger shellchin.

UPDATE: Renee has more.

Check out this article from Dave Hill at Comment is free, "Gender stereotypes hurt men too."

I think Hill brings up a lot of important points about the ways in which sexism damages men, but I wish he would identify feminism (at least more concretely) as a movement that's already working to help men as well as women. For example, Hill writes of gender stereotypes affecting men, "Sensible, grown up, non-sectarian feminism recognises all of this and seeks ways for men to combat it." I'm not sure what "grown up" feminism is, but the feminism I know has always talked about the ways in which the movement can benefit men.

Thoughts?

Pic from longlostcousin.

So a reader sent along this article about a Pakistani man in Georgia that strangled his daughter because she didn't want to get married to the man they had arranged for her to marry.

The Clayton County Medical Examiner confirmed that Kanwal died of strangulation. Police recovered an iron by the young woman's bedroom doorway and a necklace on a family room table that may have been used in the killing, according to a Clayton County police report.

Authorities allege that Rashid killed his daughter because he feared that her resistance to a recently arranged marriage would disgrace the Pakistani-American family.

Sounds so simple right? He killed her because his "culture" made him. Not because he might be mentally ill or pathological. There is no denying that in basically every culture there is pressure put on women to act a certain way and especially with regard to marriage or the ownership of her sexuality. But the way that "honor" killing is discussed in the media you would think it is some normal cultural phenomena, when it is not. It is a sign of illness, culture gone awry and patriarchy at its most exaggerated.

In a ground-breaking essay, that I recommend you read if you are into theory, Leti Volpp talks about the notion of the cultural defense. One of the moments that this plays out is through the justification of violence against women as a cultural norm (usually based on racist ideas of culture).

It appears that there are two ways the mainstream US media talk about "honor" killings. The first is in a way the demonizes the horrid, brown, ugly, probably terrorist perpetrator, that is trying to hurt the innocent child like brown female that must be saved. Or making assumptions about the role of women in a given non-American culture as much more misogynist than our own and thereby engages in these forms of blatant abuse of patriarchal power that are cultural.

Neither scenario gives us much hope for how the case will go or allows for an intersectional analysis of the ways gender, culture and power play out. And when it is revolving around a violent murder of a young woman, it is very difficult to understand the nuance.

via.

This one's about Barack, not Michelle. As Susan Faludi described in The New York Times this weekend, Republicans and right-wing media are scrambling to define Barack as womanly because he doesn't hunt or want to bomb the hell out of the rest of the world.

The attacks are already under way, as is evident if one enters the words "Obama" and "effeminate" into a search engine. The effeminacy canard lurks in Mike Huckabee's imaginings of Mr. Obama tripping off a chair and diving for the floor when confronted by a gunman, and in the words of Tucker Bounds, Mr. McCain's campaign spokesman, who depicted Mr. Obama as "hysterical."

News media blatherers and bloggers are taking up the theme. On MSNBC, Tucker Carlson called Mr. Obama "kind of a wuss"; Joe Scarborough, the morning TV talk show host, dubbed Mr. Obama's bowling style "prissy" and declared, "Americans want their president, if it's a man, to be a real man"; and Don Imus, the radio host, never one to be outdone in the sexual slur department, dubbed Mr. Obama a "sissy boy."

We've discussed this phenomenon before. Just as it's not okay to say an assertive woman is actually a man because she desires power and won't put up with your shit, it's not okay to say a man is actually a woman because he won't play dress-up in a flightsuit and codpiece. Get over the gender binary, people. Please.

One of the things I've long admired about Obama is his refusal to play the gender card. And looking at the growing support for Obama among women, it's clear that I'm not the only woman who is comfortable with male politicians who don't hew to gender stereotypes.

Predictably, some Democrats fret that Obama's refusal to play masculinity politics will mean electoral death. Faludi warns that 9/11 is still too fresh in our national psyche for us to feel comfortable electing a non-swaggering president. But I'd argue: Look how well that worked for John Kerry. I'm relieved Obama isn't playing that game again.

(via Dana.)

Also, they pee by themselves.

This new trend of commercials defining what "real men" are and should like (and of course deriding women/femininity) is making me nutso.

RH Reality Check has a great piece up about Jackson Katz, an educator and activist who works on gender violence issues.

Katz says, "As a culture, Americans first must take the step in acknowledging that violence against women is not a women's issue, but a men's issue...The first problem I have with labeling gender issues as women's issues is that it gives men an excuse to not pay attention. This is also the problem with calling them gender issues, because the majority of the people in the status quo see gender issues as women's issues."

I'm especially interested in Katz's ideas about how the messages that women get about rape (don't go out at night, don't drink) are risk-reducing rather than prevention - and how those messages completely take men out of the equation.

"These programs focus on how women can reduce their chances of being sexually assaulted. I agree that women benefit from these education programs, but let us not mistake this for prevention...If a woman has done everything in her power to reduce her risk, then a man who has the proclivity for abuse or need for power will just move on to another woman or target," he says.

I highly recommend reading the whole piece - there's even a section where Katz explains how passive sentence construction in the media coverage of violence against women perpetuates the notion that rape is something that just happens to women, rather than something that's perpetrated by another person.

Robert Jensen, author of Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity, has an interesting article based on an exersise he does in his classes around masculinity.

What do you think?

This is crazy.

The best part is this letter that comes with it, "Why chose chastity?" My favorite line, "Actually, it is not their fault, men constantly have their own biology bombarding them with a physical need for sexual release." See, feminism is for men too.

I am hoping this is a joke.

UPDATE: Having read the fine print this device is intended for fantasy play. So if you want to fantasize being a repressed boy that must be controlled, this is for you. It says at the bottom of the first page, " It must be understood that some acts discussed or depicted on the ExoBelt website on in email correspondence may be medically unsafe or harmful and that the description and discussion of and such act(s) is intended as purely anecdotal or "fantasy" material. You choose to engage in any such act(s), discussed or depicted, entirely at your own risk."

Men get to fantasize about having their sexuality controlled, while everyone tries to control a woman's. Funny, innit.

I think I saw at least three different bloggers (including myself) refer to yesterday's admission by NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's hiring of a sex worker with just the word "wow." Understandable given Spitzer's legal history wherein he has gained recognition for successfully prosecuting prostitution rings. Quite a contradiction it seems, but alas we see time and again, political power-which often manifests as hyper-masculinity-produces powerful men that just can't keep it in their pants. It makes sense to descend into the preconditioned response of chastising a politician for abusing power and trying to (stupidly) get away with paying for sex, not to mention transporting a human for the purpose of paying for sex. I think we can all agree, as Scott mentioned, that if a sex worker is going to get prosecuted, he should as well. No questions.

What I don't want to do is chastise a man for potentially having a sexual kink (I'll let the wing-nuts hypocritically take care of that), not because I am all for protecting Eliot Spitzer's sexual kinky rights (ew, barf, ew), but because I think it tells a bigger story of patriarchy, heterosexuality, legalization of sex work and the ethical treatment of sex workers. As Ann discussed a while back, as progressives, we shouldn't jump to attack politicians when we find out that they committed a sexual "indiscretion." As someone who supports the decriminalization (hello prison nation!), I don't think we need anymore fodder for the right-wing"I hate sex" machine to use in their purity crusades.

The over-reliance in the US political system for our politicians to be heterosexual and vanilla in the bedroom is like a recurring nightmare of puritanical ethics that continually allows for anti-sex, anti-gay, and anti-kink legislation to continue. If anything what these "outing" episodes should teach us is that everyone should be allowed to have the kind of sex they want and have the proper education about it, so we should stop pretending we are all "Republicans" in the bedroom. This story in particular, along with, the DC Madam drama, for me is an opportunity for us to talk about the rights and conditions of sex workers. Spitzer may get a slap on the wrist and be asked to step down, but sex workers nation-wide will continue to be subjected to harsh criminal proceedings, high incarceration rates, drug use, violence, lack of health-care and no protection from violent, retaliatory pimps.

It is obvious that Spitzer hiring a sex-worker is a gross abuse of masculinist political power and completely hypocritical, but let's not lose the bigger story of the horrid treatment of sex workers by the criminal justice system and society at large. And let's be real, $5500 dollars is still not enough for a woman's body.

Time magazine's Mark Halperin recently said, in an interview for a Sirius satellite radio show,

And I can tell you, [John Edwards is] really skeptical of her ability to be the kind of president he wants. But, he kinda thinks Obama is..he thinks Obama is kind of a pussy. He has real questions about Obama's toughness, his readiness for the office.

Halperin has since apologized for his oh-so-creative, junior-high-level insult. He really used "pussy" in the classic derogatory sense: men trying to show they're more masculine by using derogatory feminine terms to describe other men. So it's offensive not only to women (way to use a term for our anatomy as an insult! awesome!) but also to men (mocking them for not conforming to male stereotypes). The fact that he was paraphrasing Edwards when he said this is interesting, as Edwards has taken more than his share of gender-related abuse, mostly from right-wingers.

Unlike bitch or cunt (which feminists have made great strides toward reappropriating), I think "pussy" is pretty rarely used in a subversive sense. If I had to generalize, I'd say it still resides almost exclusively in the vocabularies of misogynists and dudes attempting to assert their masculinity.

On a note related to Hillary Sexism Watch: Wanna bet that many of the people calling Clinton a cunt or a bitch have also referred to Obama and Edwards as pussies?

And speaking of still-taboo vagina euphemisms, has everyone seen the video of Jane Fonda casually saying "cunt" on the Today show?

Meredith Vieira assures Today viewers not familiar with the "reclaimed" meaning of the word: "Jane Fonda inadvertently said a word from the play that you don't say on TV." And indeed, you probably shouldn't be using the C-word on TV if you're Chris Matthews. But if you're Jane Fonda talking about a segment of The Vagina Monologues? I think it's ok. Context is everything.

We've written a lot about steak or burger restaurants that employ exclusively half-naked women, using "meat" to sell meat. But is the flip side also true? Reader Lauren alerted us to the fact that there's apparently a vegan strip club in Portland, Oregon, where owner Johnny Diablo (his real name??) hopes to convert his patrons to veganism:

While it may not be the most orthodox way to win over new vegans, Diablo hopes people bring some green and eat some green at his new club.

“(It’s) vixens, not veal, and sizzle, not steak,� Diablo said. “We put the meat on the pole, not on the plate.�

There's a video segment here. Says the newscaster,

"You won't find any meat inside Casa Diablo, but you will find a whole lot of flesh."

Johnny Diablo has made sure to clarify, on his MySpace blog, "Don't be fooled by the political correctness posers out there. We aren't feminazis. We are femi-libertarians!" He signs the post, "Johnny Diablo, Lord & Master"

Wow. Just... let that all sink in.

This is definitely part of a trend -- starting with PETA ads -- in which women's bodies are used as a way of promoting veganism and vegetarianism. There's also L.A.'s Vegan Vixens, "sexy, trendy and fun loving women whose goal is to inspire men to live a longer and happier life, by making healthier decisions on what they consume." And now the vegan strip club.

One common thread here is that all of these efforts are aimed at making veganism appealing to men. The Maxim-like PETA ads, the Vegan Vixens, the strip club: All are saying it's okay to buck the stereotype of Real Men Eat Red Meat, because here are some naked ladies to reassure you that you're still a superhetero manly man! Almost as if they're saying, you won't even miss eating meat, because you'll get to look at so much of it! Or as Diablo puts it, “We put the meat on the pole, not on the plate.� It's a substitution. This trend seems to confirm much of what Carol Adams observed in the Sexual Politics of Meat -- and then turn it on its head.

I think the Skinny Bitch in the Kitch books are related to this whole thing, too. It, too, is using women's bodies to sell veganism. As Samhita put it,

But similar to what Debbie Rasmussen from BITCH says in the article, I too am all for an assault on the food industry, but I have major issues with demanding that skinny is the end all goal for being a vegan. That is not "girl power" to me. It is tacky and a dated way of selling books.

I'm not saying Skinny Bitch and Vegan Vixens are doing the exact same thing here. But both are using the "ideal" female body type -- something men want and women want to be -- as an incentive to go vegan. This is deeply fucked up, especially because there are dozens of real, compelling reasons to switch to a vegan lifestyle -- none of them based on sexist bullshit.

*Disclaimer: I am a vegetarian, and I am by no means asserting that every vegan or vegetarian supports the use of women's bodies as a way to recruit more people to their diet/lifestyle.

Check out this article from The Dallas Morning News on the state of young dudes. Kay Hymowitz, the author, sums up her argument:

Not so long ago, the average mid-twentysomething had achieved most of adulthood's milestones – high school degree, financial independence, marriage and children. These days, he lingers – happily – in a new hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. Decades in unfolding, this limbo may not seem like news to many, but in fact it is to the early 21st century what adolescence was to the early 20th: a momentous sociological development of profound economic and cultural import.

Hymowitz takes a decidedly negative tone from there on out, arguing that men's playing peter pan are a hindrance to their female partners. It hit a nerve with me in some ways. My take is that most of these young men behaving badly are really just full of fear (fear of their authentic selves, fear of growing up, fear of resisting gender norms, fear of women's power etc.) I've had conversations with my guy friends and boyfriend that echoed a lot of what Hymowitz is laying out here, conversations where I just end up feeling sad because I don't know how to convince my beloved dudes to get out of their own way and let themselves believe in their own right to good, mature love and a sense of peace and fulfillment. A lot of them seem perpetually unsatisfied.

In other ways, the analysis felt too reductive:

With women, you could argue that adulthood is in fact emergent. Single women in their 20s and early 30s are joining an international New Girl Order, hyper-achieving in both school and an increasingly female-friendly workplace, while packing leisure hours with shopping, traveling and dining with friends. Single young males, or SYMs, by contrast, often seem to hang out in a playground of drinking, hooking up, playing Halo 3 and, in many cases, underachieving. With them, adulthood looks as though it's receding.

I also don't like the idea of glorifying how totally ambitious most young women are because I see it, at times, as health-compromising and soul-sucking. I wish the hyper-driven among us ladies could get a little of what these child-men got...a sense of wonder and wander. Likewise, I wish some of these child-men could borrow a bit of our dedication and fearlessness.

Thanks to Girl with Pen for the heads up.

There is a controversy evolving around drag performance at a DC gay nightlife hot-spot in Dupont Circle, Club Chaos. Wednesday nights at Chaos are ladies nights, in addition to an occasional performance space for the DC Kings Drag King troupe alternating with a queer burlesque show.

According to the DC Kings, the Dupont Circle Citizens Association "doesn't want that kind of entertainment" in their neighborhood and have effectively banned drag shows at Chaos. While Citizens Association website does not have any information about this incident, they did have a general meeting on Monday, around the same time as news of the cancelled show began to spread.

Maybe this is too much to ask, but wouldn't you think that in 2008, in one of the gayest neighborhoods in DC, a couple of drag performers at a local gay bar wouldn't bother anyone? Apparently not. Check out the flyer for more information, but tonight's performance is being turned in to a protest.

Upon reading this post at Gizmodo about a new male contraceptive implant, I have to say: cry me a fucking river.

Scientists in Australia are developing a radio-controlled contraceptive implant that would control the flow of a man's sperm at the flick of a switch. The valve would be "push-fit" inside the vas deferens (duct that carries sperm from the testicles to the penis) and could be opened or closed remotely depending on the baby making needs of the user. This is making me a bit nauseous, but I will forge ahead...

Oh man, having an implant in your body so that you don't conceive? That sounds terrible. I can't believe anyone would willingly go through that!

But what if your doctor is an asshole? You know, the kind of guy that will mess with his patient's junk from afar? Or what if the controls were stolen? It would be worrisome to say the least.

Yeah, what would it be like if your doctor or other health care professionals -- or heck, even your partner -- wanted to mess with your reproductive choices?! Or what if they wanted to prevent you from getting such a device, or on the flip side, to force you to get one? That would suck!

That, and the very real possibility that the valve will clog with protein over time and the user will become permanently infertile. Still, this does seem like a viable alternative if it ever becomes a reality.

Gee, must be tough for dudes to have to weigh some health risks and potential long-term side effects with other concerns -- like not wanting kids yet, but also not wanting to opt for permanent sterilization. Can't imagine what that's like.

Further evidence that the real reason we don't have more male contraceptive options is not a lack of science -- it's a lack of will. Yeah, guys, it can be pretty scary to think about all of the problems and ramifications of certain methods of contraception. Welcome to our world.

I received this as a forward yesterday with the message, "This is how a real man uses post-its." It reminds me of oldie-but-goody Lakshmi Chaudry's "Men Growing Up To Be Boys," where she talks about consumer culture literally consuming more traditional concepts of manhood and spitting out a man-child.

So move over, beer commercials and manly meat ads; we've now entered the realm of sexist stationary. Sigh.

NOTE: We have found out that this is, in fact, a joke and not an actual post-it ad. At the same time, the fact that this is being disseminated very widely still perpetuates the same confused notions of American masculinity/man-boyhood we find in our everyday commercials and magazine ads. But we are glad to find that that Post-It has not taken part in it.

All this talk about Hillary's imaginary tears reminded me of an exhibit I saw in Chelsea not so long ago called Crying Men, in which Sam Taylor-Wood photographed famous actors mid-tear. The prints were giant, looming testaments to the idea that society is still only comfortable with men crying in movies (and sometimes, not even then); you could just watch people as they walked through, stunned by the sight of so many emotional dudes all at once. I remember there being an almost church-like hush in the gallery space.

It got me thinking a lot about the social norms we have for "acceptable" ways for men and women to express emotion, and further, the contexts in which certain emotions are considered "acceptable" for display. I asked my Intro to Women's Studies class that semester what they thought, and a sea of predominantly female 20-somethings admitted they were uncomfortable with men crying. There were a few exceptions, a few brave women who said they were fine with men's sadness, frustration, anger and the expression of those emotions in the form of tears, but others (I have to admit, to my shock) echoed the old-school "he's a pussy if he cries" mentality.

Why, after so much progress in the feminist movement and so much Dr. Phil, are we still so uncomfortable with people in power crying (i.e. Hillary and Teargate 2008), and relatedly, men crying? Do crying men remind us that there is, ultimately, no "invincible knight in shining armor," just as a crying politician reminds us that no one can truly protect us from "evil," that life is insecure no matter who's in charge?

I, for one, don't give a shit how you chose to express your emotion as long as its nonviolent and authentic.

Fox News' Your World recently featured "No Nonsense Man" Marc Rudov, who commented that "When Barack Obama speaks, men hear, 'Take off for the future.' And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage.' " The text on-screen during his appearance...well, you can see it for yourself.

Rodov's expertise? Well, he wrote what I'm sure is a page-turner called Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables, and has been featured here on Feministing for his warning to parents not to send their "actively heterosexual" to "gynoversities." And if that was telling enough, just check out the headline on Rodov's homepage: "YOU Are Tolerating Her Nonsense!"

Who knew that Frank T.J. Mackey actually existed in real life?!

Media Matters has the video.

Reading the relationship advice column on Askmen is like taking a trip down the dark and windy road inside the head of an emasculated and insecure man. It makes one wonder why men that read this type of advice on how to tame and train women bother dating women. It is clear they hate them, because you wouldn't treat your enemy the way that they are suggesting you treat your girlfriend.

When you first start dating a new girlfriend, you want to be on your best behavior. Sure, you want to make a good impression, but what you're really doing is catering to her to get sex.

The problem is, the power base shifts to her right from the outset and she knows it. She's in charge of access to the zipper and she counts on you bending over backward to gain entry. So she's got you.

OK pinch me if I am dreaming here, but who does that? I have, let's see, NO friends that don't have sex with a guy within the first week of dating him. It is a myth that men are more into sex than women in relationships. If anything, from what I have experienced and heard from my friends is it is quite the opposite. But clearly a magazine like this can only function if we believe certain innate things to be true about men and women, so for them, men are horny, control freak, man beasts and women are virginal prudes that must be conquered. I get the colonization metaphors.

But then it just gets nasty. Listed under "common obedience problems."

Aggression She's out of control and constantly acts up. Brainwashed by a steady diet of Oprah and "feminist" propaganda, she's now "empowered," meaning that her thoughts run somewhere along these lines: "Men have been holding me back, I want mine now, and I don't care what pair of testicles I have to step on to get it." Since a girlfriend's brain is unable to distinguish emotion from logic, this kind of fantasy thinking will prompt her to act in self-destructive patterns and will cause you undue stress around the house.

Perhaps this is a joke, but as I have said before--I have no sense of humor for this kind of crap--so I am not LOLz. But even if it is a joke, I am sure this site is heavily trafficked, so why is it OK to say virulently violent, misogynistic things about women and the rights they may have earned or the power they might have? Would this be funny if they were talking about an ethnic minority? And let me say, I don't think this publication would be above that by any means, but it wouldn't be funny at all. It would be fucked up and racist. It is amazing to me how certain men's magazines tap into the paranoia that men feel from women having power and couch it in tired recycled metaphors of slavery and submission. That to me is much more humorous then the same joke laughed at over and over by insecure, pathetic, grown-ass men.

By the way, we all know it is not just men who support these myths but often both genders complicit in the same cycle, so read comments carefully. They are offensive and may trigger you!

Thanks to Julia for the link.

Binge drinking is a nation-wide problem. It is a common problem and one many of us have been guilty of. It has also become par for the course for most young people in college and oftentimes continues into later parts of your life. It can be fun and usually it is, but it can also lead to depression, low self-esteem, anxiety and a handful of other great things that happen when you do too many depressants. I bring this up because CNN had a story today about the culture of drinking in college and a Facebook group that women post pictures of themselves completely trashed and passed out on.

One young woman dances on top of a bar. Another sits on the toilet drinking a beer. Several vomit. One appears with a bruised and bandaged face ("I just got drunk and fell out of a car," she writes.). In another photo, two women urinate into a waterfall.

I mean these days what is the big deal right? People post their entire lives, personal and professional, online without thought for what the consequences will be. But what are the consequences to young women posting pics of themselves drunk online?

According to CNN, a lot.

What you won't find on this page -- called "Thirty Reasons Girls Should Call it a Night" -- is humiliation and embarrassment. For the most part, the women post the photos themselves, seemingly with pride. This makes many adults -- teachers, counselors, parents -- worry that students aren't thinking through the consequences of showing themselves drunk to the world.

Many photos on the site are accompanied by full names and the colleges the women attend, apparently without much concern that parents, or potential employers, will take a look.

I can take the health line of approach that maybe binge drinking isn't good for you, but the young women should know better or should be ashamed doesn't work for me. I am always weary of shaming women for things that men do freely. Guys in college get wasted as a ritual, they don't have to hide it from future employers, in fact they are practicing to drink with future co-workers. But women have to be careful not to ruin their ladylike manners.

The lack of security in Iraq continues to astound as does the subsequent rise of woman hate that has been inspired due to the upsurge of Shiite vigilantes. You know, using Islam as a cover up for generic woman hate.

Via.

Religious vigilantes have killed at least 40 women this year in the southern Iraqi city of Basra because of how they dressed, their mutilated bodies found with notes warning against "violating Islamic teachings," the police chief said Sunday.

Maj. Gen. Jalil Khalaf blamed sectarian groups that he said were trying to impose a strict interpretation of Islam. They dispatch patrols of motorbikes or unlicensed cars with tinted windows to accost women not wearing traditional dress and head scarves, he added.

"The women of Basra are being horrifically murdered and then dumped in the garbage with notes saying they were killed for un-Islamic behavior," Khalaf told The Associated Press. He said men with Western clothes or haircuts are also attacked in Basra, an oil-rich city some 30 miles from the Iranian border and 340 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Our fight against the war in Iraq is a feminist issue, you already know that, but this is why. It is an especially disgusting form of woman hate that unleashes itself under dire circumstances, oppressive conditions and in war torn regions of the world.

Brian McFadden asks, "What do manly men do for fun?"

Click the picture to see. Stooopid. What do you do for manly man fun?

It's time for that semi-regular feature where I complain about Axe advertising campaigns. Reader Juniper alerts us to the fact that, in the latest series of ads for this disgusting cologne for the desperate, Unilever is clearly making light of hilarious issues like rape, sexual harassment, and stalking. The premise: Women are becoming sexual predators when they get a whiff of Axe. This video (sorry, it's in Spanish -- only one I could find) should give you the gist:

Ah, but as with all Axe campaigns, the actual ads aren't the worst of it -- it's the companion websites that are truly wretched. In this case, the site contains lots of cheeky faux headlines urging men to not walk alone at night (ha! get it? the threat of street harassment and sexual assault is hilarious when the genders are reversed! ugh), or making light of police abuse (hysterical!). The whole campaign is hinged on the idea that intimate-partner violence against men is not only a-OK, but completely desirable. Revolting. (Yes, I know they're just stupid ads and that this Unilever's way of appealing to a certain subset of male consumers. It's still not funny.) Plus the site's whole "naughty to nice" feature, which has yet to be launched, promises more clueless exaggerations of the virgin/whore dichotomy than you can possibly handle.

I feel like this would make a far more appropriate Axe ad:

Because there's nothing worse than being "girly," a South Carolina prison has taken to punishing sexually active inmates by dressing them in pink.

Of course, the prison punishment isn't the first to use feminization as a deterrent against "bad" behavior: Thai police officers who act up are forced to wear a pink Hello Kitty armband and let's not forget about our Man Can friends. But this punishment being tied up with sexual behavior strikes me as particularly fucked.

State Corrections Department John Ozmint said the two-year-old punishment deters inmates and protects female officers.

..."We don't believe the United States Constitution protects an inmate's right to publicly gratify himself,'' Ozmint said.

Uh yeah. How exactly is a pink prison jumpsuit going to protect women? But more to the point, feminization as a form of punishment is sexist and foul. Rant over, back to playing with the puppy.

We are still fixated on the girls like pink and boys like blue thing. Seriously?

This joke site from Australia, the Worldwide Organisation For Men Exhibiting Nanciness, is the epitome of anxious masculinity.

Welcome… Maybe you had trouble understanding the difference between a V8 and flat 6. Perhaps you bought just a few too many hair products. Whatever the case, you acted in a distinctly unmanly way. And you grew yourself a nice little pair of Man Cans.

Don’t say we didn't warn you.

If you’re visiting this site, you’ve made the right move. The first step is always the most difficult and acknowledging the problem is crucial. Man Cans or, more importantly, the unacceptably soft behaviour that causes them, is something we all have to prevent.

There's even a little video that follows, showing a guy who dares to cry at a movie suddenly growing a pair of breasts. Because what better way to punish a man than to feminize him? After all, there's nothing worse than being a woman. (I would argue it's better than being crushed by a giant beer can, but that's just me.)

What's equally as baffling is the amount of work put into this site, and it's parody sister sites Man Can Do, Man Tape, and Bra Bro. Seriously. Happy Friday, folks.

For the most part, evolutionary psychology scares me. And studies that try and test what people find more attractive are usually full of variables that can't always be accounted for (cultural preferences, personal preferences, oh I don't know racism). Putting all that to the side, this study found that women are more attracted to "feminine" men.

Many women regard men with masculine facial features -- such as a square jaw, larger nose and smaller eyes -- as unsuitable long-term partners, because they're more likely to be domineering, unfaithful, unaffectionate and poor parents, U.K. researchers have found.

On the other hand, women believe that men with finer facial features -- fuller lips, wide eyes and thinner, more curved eyebrows -- to be more committed, less likely to cheat, and to make better parents, said the study by psychologists at Durham and St. Andrews Universities.

I don't appreciate physical characteristics identified as masculine and feminine as though there is a static way to look manly verses looking feminine. Why is a square jaw masculine? I have a square jaw and I don't think I am masculine. So I suppose this study relies on fixed categories of masculine and feminine to prove its logic, but we already know that is problematic.

Furthermore, I have met tons of men that are super nurturing and don't have what would be considered feminine features.

And what about gay men? Are they just not part of the equation?

But perhaps, I am missing the point. Is there some logic to this I am not getting? Superficial qualities have some role in how we behave?

via US News and World Report.

I noticed an item on Glossed Over last week about an article in Marie Claire called "Fembots: The New Breed of Women." The whole thing is posted on MSN now, and it's a doozy. Writes Theresa O'Rourke,

I came of age in the gut-spilling '90s, a time of Ally McBeal, "female bonding," Lilith Fair, and the explosion of the self-help section at Barnes & Noble. A decade has passed, but women still seem bent on suffocating themselves with an endless supply of self-indulgent hot air. We're due for a backlash, and I think it has arrived in the form of what I like to call the fembot: the cool, together, emotionally unavailable girl one cube over.

Um, didn't that stereotype "arrive" nearly a decade ago, in the form of Samantha, when Sex and the City first aired on HBO in 1998? She continues,

In 2007, fembotism is the next frontier in the great big gender divide. We can narrow the pay gap, outpace men earning degrees, helm a company, run the House of Representatives, choose to raise a child on our own, and match a man’s sexual appetite thrust for thrust. But there’s an unspoken disclaimer: We’d better not forsake our nurturing instinct while doing all of the above. Yeah, well, some of us are saying screw you to the fine print.

Hmmm... what sort woman might want to narrow the pay gap, advance women's educational opportunities, break through the glass ceiling, succeed in politics, raise her own children, and have lots of satisfying sex? I don't think "fembot" is the word we're looking for, here. Theresa, honey, it's "feminist." Say it with me now: "FEMINIST."

Problem is, she has to lump all the stupid "manhating bitch" stereotypes along with it, extending that "cold, disconnected" caricature of the young, modern woman well into strawman territory. I'm surprised she doesn't already have a book deal, because this sort of material makes people like Bill O'Reilly feel vindicated, and allows people like Laura Sessions Stepp to do more hand-wringing.

I know it doesn't make for clear-cut, black-and-white article, but most young women I know who possess a lot of these so-called "fembot" characteristics are in fact not afraid of intimacy, not disgusted by men, not self-absorbed. They fall in love and like to cuddle and sometimes cry at the movies. They just don't like flowers, Norah Jones, or traditional gender roles. And they don't feel a pressing need to get married.

Oh what a sad day when I found this piece of trash in my inbox today courtesy of reader Traci, found via CNN but originally in Oprah's mag. Oh Oprah, how could you do me like that?

More bad frenzy inducing advice on how to get through to your man. Gross.

"You're 100 percent correct"

It doesn't matter what you're arguing about -- he just wants to be right. This is his weakness; you can use it like judo, turning his own momentum against him.

Saying two little words, "You're right," is the verbal equivalent of darting a raging elephant with animal tranquilizers. It gives him what he wants, reducing tensions and leaving the way open for you to get what you want. Try it: "You're right, but I still want to go to the party."

Meet every protest and argument he makes, no matter how ridiculously false, with the observation that he is absolutely correct ... but you still want what you want. In boxing this is called rope-a-dope, and even if you don't know what the rope part means, the dope part sounds pretty applicable. This is called win-win -- except you did and he didn't.

No, wrong. That's right ladies, put to the side that you have a brain and just yes 'em to death. I think this is more insulting to men. Who wants to be some childish buffoon that needs to be right all the time? Grow the hell up. And who wants to date someone that is so insecure they need to feel reassured all the damn time?

The rest is equally amusing. I mean I know we Feministers know better. I am so disappointed with mainstream dating and courtship writing though. It seems to exist in a bubble. As though feminism happened everywhere, except behind closed doors.

Thoughts?

The New York Times has a piece today about how a number of typically male-played video games are now featuring options which allow them to "dress" their characters. And the boys are absolutely loving it.

Of course, this has to be cloaked in what some would call hypermasculine games like World Wrestling Entertainment and even the oh-so-controversial Grand Theft Auto. But nonetheless, it's nice to see men being portrayed in the media as fashion-conscious for a change.

This is pretty sweet. Concerned Women for America lashes out at Code Pink for not being demure and ladylike enough. How dare they wear pink, the color of quiet femininity, while aggressively demanding an end to the war?!

[Crouse] said Code Pink members "talk out of both sides of their mouths."

"They emphasize their femininity but advocate policies that are very aggressive and more often associated with men," she said.

Does CWA really think pro-peace positions have been historically associated with masculinity? Did I miss the part of the recent Republican debates when all the manly-man candidates were clamoring to assert their commitment to peace? I mean, sure, I'd love to see conservatives (and everyone, really) saying the peace is a strong and masculine goal to work towards. Don't see that happening any time soon, though.

"They cloak it all in a soft pink covering, when underneath they are hard as nails," [Crouse] said. "They advocate for the most radical of leftist positions," such as impeachment of the president.

Sounds like an awesome compliment.

via RightWingWatch, which notes that "Back in 1998, of course, Concerned Women for America called for the impeachment of President Clinton." Who's talking out of both sides of their mouth?

D.C.'s alt-weekly, the City Paper has a package of stories this week on street harassment. One, a catcall diary a woman kept for a year. Two, a very poorly-written essay by that same woman about how now she's a racist because of all the harassment she gets from Latino men. And three, a piece by some dude who was apparently totally unaware that your average woman experiences street harassment on a daily basis. It also has a companion video, in which exactly two people (a male harasser and a female harass-ee) are interviewed. Taken as a package, it's a real trainwreck. [Warning, massive post to follow.]

What I found most remarkable about the catcall diary is that she is careful to record what she's wearing when she's harassed on the street. While it's true that short skirts can sometimes bring a different type of harassment, I find that I get unwelcome attention even if I'm wearing dirty jeans and a bulky winter coat. But I suppose it's nice for those who don't regularly experience street harassment (i.e. men) to read and take note that a short skirt and low-cut top do not necessarily correlate with catcalls. (In fact, it seemed like the subtext of the diary was: Hey guys, this is what it's like to walk outside as a woman.) The male writer seems shocked by this. In his piece, he writes,

I am leaving the Chinatown Metro station when I see a blond woman standing well over 6 feet in platform heels. Her tight black dress hangs inches below her ass and drops deep in the front, exposing a good portion of breasts that are surprisingly large for her rail-thin body. Catcall bait for sure. I step in behind her as she walks.

Isn't his tone disgusting? It's as if he wants to find a slobbering harasser to channel what he wishes he could shout at this woman. And he's then astonished when no one -- not homeless men, not construction workers, not dudes in power suits, not young men at the bus stop -- calls out to her.

This is lovely. In a bizarre sexism-ridden PR effort, Israel is collaborating with Maxim magazine in order to improve the country's image among U.S. men. How? Oh, by publishing pictures of half naked former soldiers.

The pictures are part of a public relations drive to improve the image of the country within the US.

Maxim said it was "pleased" with the result of its collaboration with the Israeli consulate in New York, which came up with the idea.

But of course, not everyone is so pleased. Women members of Israel's Knesset are, well, pissed:

"This pornographic campaign sponsored by the Foreign and Tourism Ministries is an outrage," said MK Colette Avital, who was formerly Israel's consul-general to New York. "It's unfortunate that the Israeli consulate chose to emphasize Israel's relevance with a portrait of a half-naked woman, instead of with one of women of substance and accomplishments," adds MK Zahava Gal-On.

Well, what fun would that be, sillies?! Obviously you can't have a good PR campaign for a country without militarization, women's bodies and consumerism colliding in a big ol' misogyny clusterfuck!

Do you think this is what Cynthia Enloe's nightmares look like?