Skip to content

OBNOXIOUS: Katie Roiphe’s Harasser-Centered Sexual Harassment Ethos

Last Saturday Katie Roiphe’s “In Favor of Dirty Jokes and Risqué Remarks” appeared on the New York Times’ Op-Ed page. Roiphe took as her ostensible subject the Herman Cain sexual harassment allegations, but quickly abandoned that topic to meander aimlessly through a collection of every ignorant thing she had ever thought about sexual harassment in the workplace. She hinted darkly that sexual harassment laws have always had an “Orwellian purpose” but then neglected to elaborate on what that purpose was. I suspect because she made it up, and since she plays pretty fast and loose with words I assume she grabbed “Orwellian” out of a need to describe a bad thing she didn’t like that she felt went too far. Which is imprecise and incorrect and alarmist, the three words I’d chant at my mirror if I were trying to contact Katie Roiphe. This is her specialty.

(Continued)

What’s Your Slavery Footprint?

Free the Slaves estimates that 27 million people worldwide are enslaved. Many are bonded labourers, enslaved to work off debts which can grow over time and may be passed between generations. Others are forced labourers, compelled to work under threat, unable to receive access to basic workplace protections, and unpaid. They are all around us, in every country on Earth, at every step of the supply chain, from agriculture to fashion. As consumers, we are all complicit in this system.

A recently released application called the Slavery Footprint allows you to calculate exactly how complicit you are; I, for example, have 32 slaves working for me. The application uses data about a wide range of products to come up with a general score which you can refine further by drilling down into specific details about the kinds of products you buy and use. It is not without flaws; the shiny web application is not very accessible, for example, it mandates a binary gender selection to allow you to use it, and it doesn’t single out specific brands, although this supposedly will be supported in the future.

(Continued)

If you protest racism during Black Face season in The Netherlands, you will be beaten up and arrested

[Content warning for very racist images, links to videos of police brutality and depictions of State endorsed racism]

Ah, my home, The Netherlands. Tourists from all over the world wax lyrical about the tulips, the windmills and the widely available weed. What these tourists hardly ever get to see is how institutionalized racism works in this country and the lengths the State will go to in order to protect it. Or how, if you are personally affected by this racism and you summon the strength to protest it, you will be brutally beaten up and arrested.

Now, here is the thing: this is a small country. All matters of racism happen here but they go unreported in international mainstream media because the Dutch language is mostly inaccessible to the world at large. So, these matters remain untold, underreported, downplayed or just ignored. However, international media loves to talk about our most famous homegrown xenophobe: Geert Wilders. His influence is far reaching and international. His words repeated all over the international press; he gets invitations for public engagements and speeches; fellow populist and xenophobe politicians from all over Europe and places as dissimilar as the US, Canada or Australia cite him as a source of “inspiration”. Meanwhile, the general public abroad struggles to come up with an explanation of why, a country that is present in popular imaginations as “tolerant”, “multicultural” and “modern” could be represented by such a divisive and racist force. That is, because systematically, mainstream media misses the context. And I believe that the events that transpired on Saturday, during the official opening of what I like to call “Black Face season”, can provide some of that context.

(Continued)

But How Do You Know It’s Sexist? The #MenCallMeThings Round-Up

[NOTE: This article is about -- and hence contains copious examples of -- violent, highly triggering, and bigoted language. When the slur isn't something connected to my own identity, I have tried to bleep it with asterisks.]

[EDITED TO ADD: Since its publication, this article has been cited by many reporters and bloggers. Thanks, everybody! I appreciate it! Huge compliment, love you, etc. However, there is one major clarification I'd like to make. Several outlets are reporting that all of the slurs quoted in this post were aimed at me, personally. This is not the case. The insults I've listed with bullet points and introduced with "see, from my own life" were directed at me. The insults I've alphabetized, and introduced with "see, cited in the hashtag" were cited by other people participating in the hashtag. I have not named or linked to their targets, simply to stress the overwhelmingly impersonal, repetitive, stereotyped quality of the abuse. In my view, it doesn't matter so much who said what to which person, but that all of us are being called the same things, in the same tone; I've removed names, not because I don't want to give those people credit, but because I think reading this as "oh, somebody said that to Jill Filipovic," or "oh, somebody said that to Kate Harding," or even "oh, somebody said that to Sady Doyle" is fundamentally misleading -- the real point is, "oh, somebody said that to women and anti-sexist people."] 

Right as I sat down to write this post, my phone beeped.

It does this! For some reason, it is broken so that its “ring” settings are reduced to either “silent” or “beep every time you get any sort of message whatsoever including Twitter @s.” It’s been beeping a lot these past few days. But since all of these, including the Twitter @s, are often work-related, I check it every time. This one was from Twitter.

“I will fuck your ass to death you filthy fucking whore, ” it read. “Your only worth on this planet is as a warm hole to stick my cock in.”

Ahhhh. I love the smell of a good hashtag.

#MenCallMeThings has taken off, in these past few days. I didn’t expect it — if I had, I would have put more work into it than a simple Rebecca Solnit rip-off and a few top-of-my-head quotes — but then, I shouldn’t have been surprised. And, since it’s taken off, there’s been lots of coverage: requests for interviews (which I’ve turned down, as I’m on too many of my own deadlines at the moment, and also don’t want to be Face-Of-The-Movementing again any time soon or, you know, ever), op-ed pieces, meditations on Men Call Me Things As Phenomenon. And, of course, plenty of those op-eds have been about precisely what we set out to protest: The idea that the Internet is “equally mean to everyone,” that putting up with name-calling was something “everyone” had to do in the same way and at the same intensity and volume, the idea that “Internet cruelty” (whatever that means) isn’t gendered.

How do you know it’s gendered? These op-eds tend to ask. How do you know you’re getting it just because you’re a girl, or just because you’re feminine, or just because you oppose sexism? It’s not like there are any recurring themes, or anything. It’s not this stuff is intrinsically tied to stereotypes, to structures, to your oppression. It’s not like “everyone” doesn’t get this, or like ladies can’t be mean to men sometimes. Maybe you’re just overreacting! Maybe you just need to calm down! In other words, maybe you are just

THEME #1: THE WEAKER SEX

Lists of feminine stereotypes often include descriptors such as “sensitive” and “emotional.” Lists of masculine stereotypes often include descriptors like “stoic” and “rational.” Those feminine-stereotype lists, not coincidentally, also include the term “weak.” Women are emotional, hence not rational, hence not like men, hence bad. See “hysterical,” which currently means “exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement,” and which used to mean a disease exclusively diagnosed amongst women or those mistaken for them, thought to be caused by a dysfunctional or “wandering” uterus. See also “shrill” and “shriek,” two words for “overemotional” and irrational speech which also mean “high-pitched,” which women’s voices are more likely to be. To discredit a woman — or anyone perceived to be woman-like, such as genderqueer people, “effeminate” men, and male allies — you must determine that they’re acting from feminine emotion, which is always wrongheaded and bad. See, from my own life:

(Continued)

Roma women in Europe: the silenced, underreported gender oppression

European countries are always praised for the strides they make towards gender equality. European nations consistently rank on top of quality of life rankings and measurements. Moreover, the EU is held as a sort of modern gold standard for the promotion of human rights and the values of “reason and enlightenment”. Gender equality and anti discrimination laws are enshrined in the European Constitution and the upholding of human rights is considered one of the measurements for admission of new member states to the Union. However, while so many paternalistic European politicians claim to want to save Muslim women from their “oppression”, there is a group that hardly ever gets the same kind of “savior complex” discourse: Roma women. Their status as “Other” invisibilized and erased from mainstream discourse; their systematic persecution, more often than not, State endorsed, a small item in the back pages of European press.

This week, the European Human Rights court in Strasbourg issued a verdict in favor of Slovakian woman of Roma ethnic origin.

Judges today ordered Slovakia to pay €43,000 in damages, costs and expenses after finding that the sterilization of 20-year old Roma woman in a public hospital without her informed consent violated her human rights.[…]

The applicant, V.C., is a Slovakian national of Roma ethnic origin. She was born in 1980 and lives in Jarovnice (Slovakia). On 23 August 2000 she was sterilized at the Hospital and Health Care Centre in Prešov (eastern Slovakia) – under the management of the Ministry of Health – during the delivery of her second child via Caesarean section. The sterilization entailed tubal ligation, which consists of severing and sealing the Fallopian tubes in order to prevent fertilization.

The applicant alleged that, in the last stages of labour, she was asked whether she wanted to have more children and told that, if she did have any more, either she or the baby would die. She submits that, in pain and scared, she signed the sterilization consent form but that, at the time, she did not understand what sterilization meant, the nature and consequences of the procedure, and in particular its irreversibility. She was not informed of any alternative methods. Her signature next to the typed words “Patient requests sterilization” is shaky and her maiden name split into two words. She also claims that her Roma ethnicity – clearly stated in her medical record – played a decisive role in her sterilization.

(Continued)

In Praise of Bad Sex

Bad sex has a bad reputation. It’s not hard to sort out why when it gets conflated with rape all the damn time. The idea that someone violating your body can be written off as “bad sex” has a lot of awful ramifications, many of which, as clever readers of this exceedingly fine blog, you’re probably familiar with. But one that we don’t talk about much is the way it confuses us about what bad sex really is, and what it’s for.

To be clear: “bad sex” isn’t when someone holds you down and forces your legs open, or penetrates your passed out body , or corners you in a hotel room. Just in the same way that shoving your hand up an employee’s skirt isn’t just shitty management technique, sexual violations have nothing to do with bad sex except that they both can be described using the word “bad.”

(Continued)

Why Are You In Such A Bad Mood? #MenCallMeThings Responds!

In 2009, I was a far more cheerful person.

It’s true! You can see it, in the posts and such! I was exclamation-point-y, and elaborate-DFW-sentence-ripoff-y, and oh, oh so very droll about all this wacky sexism. I got mad, a few times. Who doesn’t? But for the most part, I was just darn chirpy. “Hey, bros! Maybe you don’t want to oppress women any more, amiright? Ha ha, you sure don’t. L8RZ!” Is my general summary, of Tiger Beatdown Tone, circa 2009.

If you haven’t guessed yet, I find Former Me very, very annoying.

And yet, a sadness comes upon me. Now that I have regenerated, Whovianly, into my current form — all serious-faced and irritable and SAD TIMES ABOUT SEXISM — I find myself missing her carefree ways. Moreover, I find myself wondering how she pulled it off. How the Hell did she stay in such a good mood all the time? And I think I’ve found my answer: In 2009, I genuinely believed people were going to change their minds about being sexist, because they read my blog. 

I know, right? If only someone had come up with this plan before! All I had to do was register a WordPress domain, compose some charmingly ironic yet pointed analyses of Ye Aulde Patriarchy, cite some academics so they knew I wasn’t stupid, throw a lot of jokes and references to oral sex in there to prove feminists weren’t “humorless” or “frigid,” and the sexists, they would be delighted. So delighted they decided to stop being sexists! “Hmmmm,” they’d say. “Sady sure doesn’t appreciate it when I do the sexism. Since she’s my new Internet Best Friend, I had better cut that shit out pronto! Then we can all join a bowling league!” BLAM. REVOLUTION ACCOMPLISHED. No more problems, for anyone, ever, because I blogged.

I hate to tell you this, friends. But I think my plan, it had a minor flaw. Which is: Misogynists don’t like women. It doesn’t matter how uniquely charming and witty and acquainted with various fine bourbons you are. Are you a woman? Then they don’t like you. And they especially don’t like you telling them what to do. By, for example, asking them to cut it out with the misogyny.

What I got, friends, were comments. Comments about myself. And blogs about myself. And message-board discussions, also about myself. And e-mails. What I got was what every woman (feminist or not) and openly anti-sexist person (woman or not) on this our Internet gets: I got targeted. With threats, with insults, with smear campaigns, with attempts to threaten my employment or credibility or just general ability to get through the day with a healthy attitude and a minimal amount of insult.

(Continued)

You Can’t Fight Child Abuse Without Fighting Ableism

The Internet was abuzz last week with the Hillary Adams case; a young woman bravely videotaped her father beating her as a teen, and uploaded the video to YouTube several years later, sparking an international discussion about child abuse. It’s a horrible video to watch, made more chilling when you realise the level of planning and thought that must have gone into it.

Fighting child abuse is challenging on so many levels because it can be hard to identify the victims, especially when they are too terrified to speak. It’s telling that Adams didn’t come out about her abuse until she was in a safe environment, outside her home, many years later. Clearly she lives with the memories not just of what she experienced, but the systems that failed her and allowed that abuse to continue, because people thought her dad was a good guy, a stand-up kind of fellow, reputable, because he was a judge.

In the ample analysis of the video and discussions about how Adams’ father should be punished, one element of the case has been minimally examined: Hillary is disabled. She has cerebral palsy. This is a key aspect of the story that shouldn’t be left out, because it’s central to a larger discussion. You cannot talk about child abuse without addressing, specifically, the abuse of children with disabilities. A UNICEF report in 2005 stressed that any action on child abuse needs to fully integrate children with disabilities. Disability-specific interventions are critical because of the disability-specific issues children experience globally, and 10% of the world’s children are disabled or will become disabled by age 19, which makes them a nontrivial population.  (Continued)

I’m the Patriarchy and your War on Drugs keeps me healthy

I.

There was once a Mazatec curandera, Maria Sabina, living in the mountains of Southern Mexico. She sang of other worlds and she made poetry with her songs. She sang like this:

Because I can swim in the immense
Because I can swim in all forms
Because I am the launch woman
Because I am the sacred opossum
Because I am the Lord opossum
I am the woman Book that is beneath the water, says
I am the woman of the populous town, says
I am the shepherdess who is beneath the water, says
I am the woman who shepherds the immense, says
I am a shepherdess and I come with my shepherd, says
Because everything has its origin
And I come going from place to place from the origin…

Maria Sabina spoke of “the holy children”, the spirits that visited her during her “veladas” (she didn’t use the word “ceremonies” for what she did, instead, calling them vigils). In these veladas, Maria Sabina shared her ancient knowledge of healing and other worlds. People from all over her village visited her for help and guidance. They would sit at night, and she would sing and the holy children would come and speak to her. These children she saw after she ate Psilocybe mexicana mushrooms. The magic mushrooms brought them to her.

And then there was a man from the US. This man was the vice president of J. P. Morgan & Co. This man, R. Gordon Wasson, an investment banker who fancied himself an “ethnomycologist” in his free time. He traveled around the world documenting substance use in religious settings. Then, one day, while in Mexico, someone mentioned that there was a Mazatec woman who used mushrooms, something that nobody had heard of before in the American continent. And of course, Wasson had to see this firsthand. In 1955, Wasson finally met her and sat in a velada. He, too, met the holy children.

(Continued)

Unionbusting at Qantas Causes Global Travel Nightmares

On Saturday, chaos erupted at airports across the world as Australian airline Qantas declared that it was grounding all flights ‘until further notice,’ stranding tens of thousands of travelers who scrambled to make alternate arrangements with no advance warning. Why, one might ask, would an airline do such a thing? Was there possibly a critical safety concern that required evaluation of the entire fleet? Maybe a credible terrorist threat? A need to reroute aircraft for humanitarian reasons, perhaps to carry loads of goods to Turkey, which was recently rocked by a severe earthquake? Why would an airline make a move that would cost it $20 million AUD per day?

The answer? A labour dispute; the airline abruptly halted operations in a bid to heighten the stakes in negotiations over wages and working conditions. Qantas helpfully provided multiple unionbashing updates over the course of the day to keep passengers apprised of the situation:

This is in response to the damaging industrial action by three unions – the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA), the Australian International Pilots Association (AIPA) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU)…We understand that this will have a significant impact on our customers and apologise for the inconvenience that the damaging union action has caused. (Emphasis mine.)

(Continued)