Monthly Archive for April, 2006

Dude Week: The Gripping Series Finale

Just a few final remarks on the Male Feminist chimera, after which I’ll swill my own hot cup of Shut The Fuck Up.

[Just joining us? The plot so far: In series of increasingly asinine comments on recent post, 20-something porn-loving white dude claims feminist cred. Smackdown ensues. White dude issues apology here; readers divided on whether to forgive and forget. Meanwhile, author posits that, re: male involvement in women's liberation from male oppression, dudes can support cause all they like as long as they stay fuck out of way.]

One of my points was that it’s easy for men to “support” feminist causes, since ultimately it’s not their ass on the line. Apparently I was sorely mistaken on this. One commenter, who identifies as a “male ally,” wrote that he wouldn’t mind a little “recognition”—of what sort and from whom I cannot fathom—for his pro-feminist habit of sauntering around town sticking up for women whenever he encounters guys engaging in “misogynist bullshit.” He contends that his ass is indeed on the line, because the thankless practice of suggesting to men that women are human actually puts him at risk for physical assault (unfortunately, he did not enlighten the group as to the precise nature of his pro-feminist sojourns—does he tag misogynist billboards under cover of darkness? Does he chuck Molotov cocktails into strip clubs? Does he inform Kyle, his cubicle-mate, that it’s rude to leave Xeroxes of his ass on Stacy’s desk, and then run for his life?—or whether any such assaults had ever actually occurred).

I feel this dude’s hypothetical pain, though, because what a coincidence! Physical assault is precisely what I found myself at risk for just last night! I was engaged in the super-sexy provocative take-me-now act of waiting at a long, deserted stoplight alone in my convertible, listening to AC Newman and minding my own fucking business. In the next lane rolled up a Ford F-150 ClodCab full of shirtless white fucks yelling through a cloud of reefer, “Nice car, baby! Take me for a ride!” It’s times like those when I am pleased that the Twistmobile is fleet of rubber, and that on abandoned straightaways at midnight can hit 70 MPH before red-lining in 2nd gear while I flip the bird at rapidly receding truckfuls of asswipes.

But I digress.

Possible bodily injury gone unrecognized by ungrateful feminists may indeed be vexing this guy, but if it is, he’s not letting on. Jeff Passan, the guy in question, is a sports writer who demonstrates the principle of Speaking Out Against Honky Male Oppression While Not (as far as I know) Demanding To Get His Ass Kissed For It. His article illuminates the rampant misogyny in major league baseball with a brief profile of Kim Ng, sexism-plagued female assistant general manager for the Dodgers. One of the highlights is his description of professional knob Keith Hernandez’s professional knobbery:

When New York Mets broadcaster Keith Hernandez saw San Diego Padres massage therapist Kelly Calabrese in the dugout, referred to her as a ‘girl,’ asked ‘What’s going on here?’ and followed with ‘You have to be kidding me,’ only to top himself with this doozy:

‘I won’t say that women belong in the kitchen, but they don’t belong in the dugout.’

I won’t say that pigs belong in the pen, but they don’t belong in the broadcast booth.

Passan goes on to summarize the reason this spinster aunt would rather have root canal than sit through a major league sporting event of any kind:

“Of course, that someone in baseball disparaged women was more a matter-of-time issue than an isolated incident. The baseball environment rewards male empowerment and breeds sexism. It’s a Petri dish for testosterone.”

Mercifully, Passan’s knight in shining armor rhetoric doesn’t quite rise to the level of that Kristof guy from the New York Times who emotes on behalf of Pakistani rape victim-turned-activist-turned-political-prisoner Mukhtaran Bibi. He merely quotes Ng as admitting she’s resigned to the debilitating sexism she encounters in her professional life, and comments, “Baseball should be embarrassed that one of its bright young minds must weather such ignorance by internalizing it.”

That’s all it takes, dudes. Say it, don’t spray it.

[Gracias, Kate]

Comment de la semaine

“Wouldn’t it be great if there were a Blame Squad that could kick in the door — like those guys in Minority Report — just before a woman fails to blame the patriarchy?”

–Redneck Mother

Intervention

Can anyone identify this poor woman, named here only as “my girlfriend”? I need to send her a link to this blog, stat.

NOTE: you are not complicit in anything by clicking this link. It’s fake. Sort of.

The Lone Cojone Hones His Bone Alone

As if you didn’t know.

This is a test. We have no joy. Anyone out there use WordPress and MacJournal’s “send to blog” feature?

Twisty: Woman of Fiber

As a special treat for all you knitters (if you’re not one, you wouldn’t believe how many thousands of patriarchy-blamers knit in their spare time. Redneck Mother, for instance, can knit an entire hat in, like, five minutes. I have the hat to prove it), I thought I’d share my first ever knitting project, which, after many months of intense labor, I finally completed today. I call it “Yarn-Covered Stick.”

And you thought I was just a one-twist pony.

[Many thanks to my excellent friend Liza for supplying me with the gorgeous yarn and needles. I'll email you soon!]

Can A Liberal White Dude Be A Feminist?


But first: the can at Flipnotics. Good iced coffee. Really funked-up soap dispenser.

My post on fizzy wine in a pink can recently drew a “male feminist” out of his pin-up encrusted lair and into the open patriarchy-blaming field, with predictably hilarious consequences.

This male feminist (let’s call him “MF” for short), after apprising the group of his high testosterone level, his genius-level “IQ,” and his penchant for porn, announced that his feminist work (which consists of giving money to NARAL) is nothing less than a princely and altruistic gift to all womankind. Why were we to cheer MF’s selflessness on behalf of the public good? Because “[he's] married, meaning that the sexual advantage to [his] support of feminism is zero.” I’ll let you chuckle over that for a minute.

MF couldn’t seem to grasp why, after so excruciatingly dudely an outburst, there was no enthusiastic clamor to book him as the keynote speaker at the next BlameCon in Bali. His pussy was hurting pretty bad by the end, and by way of delivering a parting zinger, he chastised some of us for using—dear god—sarcasm.

Not having just fallen off the tiny tomato truck yesterday, I am familiar with this MF’s MO. It’s always the same. Dude alights from on high, beaming with his extraordinary magnanimity (“I’m supporting your cause with my bandwidth”). Expresses shock when his blithe what-about-the-men remarks about the boffosity of porn are met with curled lips and stink eyes. Enlightens me that porn empowers women. Gets defensive. Says he is too a feminist because he watches porn with his wife (whom, he’ll have me know, he doesn’t even beat). Gets on high horse. Informs me that I’m not a real feminist, because he happens to know some real feminists, and they love pole dancing, and porn, of course, him. Oh, and they aren’t the least bit hostile. In fact, they lovingly embrace the male point of view. In fact, they’re strippers. I should be more like them if I want influential and good-hearted MFs like him to listen to me. Then demands that I explain what, if it isn’t about equal pay or the freedom to pole dance, feminism is. Can’t understand why I’m so mean. Gets on higher horse. Bitches about my sentence structure, calls me “shrill,” deploys a few boring clichés, and accuses me of “not doing anything” to change the world.

I have to say, I wonder why so many people think that spending hours and hours each week writing feminist critiques of the dominant culture isn’t “doing” anything. What do they think it is, then? Some fluffy conceit? Lying in bed all day eating bonbons? Chopped liver? But that’s another essay.

Anyway, here is Ron Sullivan’s synopsis of the MF phenomenon, which is way too good to leave mouldering in the comments:

One thing an old broad like me has seen many many many times already is some huffulacious oh-so-sincere dude walking in to a group of women almost at random and telling them

a/ what they should be doing in their free time;
b/ how to do it right;
c/ how to be feminists;
d/ why he has their best interests at heart, really;
e/ why he’s qualified to give them orders;
f/ that they’re intolerant, which is self-evidently a Bad Thing;
g/ that they’re preaching to the choir (and the biggest surprise is that they’re preaching);
h/ that some of his best fucks are women;
i/ how to be better feminists;
j/ that they’re not serious enough;
k/ that his wife thinks he’s the greatest;
l/ what God thinks;
m/ why whatever he’s doing this month is more important then feminism;
n/ that feminism is boo-zhwah, and that’s self-evidently a Bad Thing;
o/ that they’re shrill — wow, I almost forgot shrill;
p/ that they can’t pee standing up;
q/ that they should be ashamed of themselves;
r/ that they just don’t welcome open and vigorous debate;
s/ that he needs a beer (this is followed by an expectant silence);
t/ that they’re taking everything he said wrong;
u/ that they’re unreasonable;
v/ that they’re ~touchy~;
w/ that they’ve never said anything about oppression of women in (choose sauce: Iraq, Afghanistan, China, sub-Saharan Africa, the southeastern USA, the ghet-to, Brazil, Antarctica)
x/ that they should apologize to him because his parents had him circumcised;
y/ that he Is Too A Feminist (which evidently means something);
z/ how they should transcend feminism and embrace humanism.

Pick any two menu items and get the third half-price; pick any three and get the fourth free. With five you get a can of wine. And if you’re the guy in question, you get a free hot cup of Shut the Fuck Up.

Thus doth the discussion, when MFs show up on the blog, often turn, as this one did, into another dazzling and effervescent debate on whether men can be feminists at all.

Yesterday a commenter opined that men can be, at best, sympathizers, but suggested that even that’s no good, that the temptation to “leech” off the cause without having to assume any personal risk is just too great, and renders them suspect.

Mandos Mandos Mandos, I Blame The Patriarchy’s self-proclaimed “scapegoat,” responded that “if men can only be sympathizers, and sympathizers are not particularly positive, then [...] there is no way for men to be positive. That has a lot of interesting consequences.”

Chris Clarke, who says he’s no feminist, likens the male feminist conceit to cause-glomming. “I read Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua’s This Bridge Called My Back the year it was published, and found it invaluable in understanding a part of American culture I had until then missed. Were I to call myself a Chicana as a result of my political support, I would be laughed out of the planning meeting.”

Now we’re getting somewhere. MFs protest the rock and the hard place between which they find themselves with this whole “get out of my face, I will never trust you for all the reasons Ron listed above” thing, but how, exactly, is a guy claiming to be a feminist different from Chris claiming to be a Chicana? It is much the same when white girls try to “sympathize” with black girls. I am not surprised when the efforts of my upper-middle-class-prep-school-honky-self, absent any actual experience of racial discrimination, are met with suspicion at the Women Of Color Unite Against Honky Oppression convention. There are inner circles of class solidarity into which an outside “sympathizer” simply cannot tactfully incurse or reasonably expect to be invited. Raise money for causes? Sure. Vote for progressive legislation? Duh. Support the movement rather than pretend to sympathize, risk-free, with individuals? Word. But there comes a point at which one must be content to align oneself with the ideology, and then politely get the hell out their way.

But do MF dudes grasp this? No. Unaware that they are still flaunting precisely the white male privilege from which feminists aspire to be liberated, they insist on joining the rank and file so that they can explain feminism to the stupid women. They must infiltrate right down to the core (one example of which core would be, say, this blog, which expressly caters to a female audience of radical feminists). Once in, they start leaving the seat up and throwing their weight around, with the result that they either get laid (or its blogular equivalent, successfully hijacking the thread), or start whining and threatening that we’re nothing without them and accusing us accursed ungrateful humorless prudey hairy dykes of not kissing their asses with sexy enough lips.

But this is all bullshit posturing. The real issue is that a thing is ultimately right or it is ultimately wrong, regardless of how its PR is managed. Racism, for example, is wrong, even if some black chicks think I have my head up my ass and don’t invite me to the cookouts. Likewise, these white fuckwads who say “you’re just too shrill, I don’t like your unsexy tone, the liberation of women will never happen and it’s all your fault” are not seeing the larger ideological and/or ethical picture. It is either wrong to oppress people or it isn’t. What’s it gonna be, assholes?

Although, like I said before, I don’t give a rat’s ass what these honky liberal motherfuckers do, as long as they do it somewhere else.

You Say Tomato, I Say My Mouth Is Full


Microscopic tomato salad with fresh mozzarella, microgreens, lemon zest, and olive oyl

I am so discomposed over these outrageously tiny tomatoes that I just had to post a portrait before I ate’em all. They’re like vegan caviar or something. When you put’em on a bed of tiny arugula sprouts, the resulting salad is so miniscule you cannot see it with the naked eye. The magnification factor on that photo is 100X, I swear to God.

Fizzy Blankity-Blanc In A Can

Plus: porn addles male brains!

Why no post yesterday? I guess I just forgot.

Maybe because I had a couple of Sofias for lunch. Single-serving cans of carbonated blanc de blancs from the Coppola are cute, pink, emblazoned with vapid teenisms like “petulant” and “reactionary,” come with extendo-straws so you don’t muss your lipstick, and according to Texas law may be consumed only by underage girls (I get mine from a slutty neighbor kid). In spite of all that, I love these Sofias.

“But Twisty!” you protest, “carbonated wine in a cute pink can?” As a matter of fact, yes. The wine really doesn’t suck. And anyway, a spinster aunt can have facets.

Meanwhile, reader Henry sends along this link to an article about a study assessing the degree to which studly muthafuckas are affected by the sight of a hot babe en deshabille. The degree is—believe it or not—a high one, which finding has understandably sent absolute shock waves through the global studly-sexual-response community.

According to the study, so-called “high-testosterone” men, so determined by the length of their ring fingers (yeah, that’s not what I would have measured, either), go absolutely to pieces over two-dimensional images of women* capitulating to the sexbot mandate, to the extent that the aforementioned dudes will stop driving “hard bargains” and accept crummier deals when in the presence of porn. The same result obtains even when they have so much as handled a bra. When these same men view pictures of old women, surprise, they are not affected in the slightest.

On the other hand, “low-testosterone” men, who are identified, I suppose, by their comparatively larger brains, appear to retain their dignity even when exposed to “the effect of a well-turned ankle.”

Who funds these stupid studies? Is it not obvious to everyone that dudes only conduct asinine research like this as an excuse to get paid for looking at porn all day?

* Women are defined by the article as “sultry sirens” and are illustrated as a concept by a stock photo of a young blonde hottie in her underwear.

I Have To Admit It’s Getting Worser


The Ankle-Sprainer relaxes with his Puffy Ball

When last you saw Bertie, my golden retriever puppy, he was deeply immersed in his public art project. This project involved excavating my back yard, at irregular intervals, to a depth of about one foot, and festooning the resulting holes with found objects (shoes, newspapers, CDs, electric bills, checkbooks, autographed copies of “Meet the Beatles” on the Capitol label, etc) that he had personally ripped apart with his bare teeth into tiny, unrecognizable fragments. The piece is, he says, a commentary on the myth of sustainability (completion of the piece is currently on hold until his grant money comes through; Bertie now spends his free time digging holes and ripping shit up for personal pleasure).

Anyway, so my yard is fuller of holes than Blackburn Lancashire, and last night, as I was out there cavorting around (ill-advisedly, it would turn out) in the dark with the aforementioned pooch, into one of these holes went my foot. Ordinarily I would not have given this a second thought, except that the thing that appeared when I pulled the foot out again was not quite a foot, but rather a tangled, swollen mass of tendons and ligaments dangling feebly from what had once been quite a nice leg. I could not fail to notice, also, that I seemed to be prostrate on the ground, writhing and shrieking in pain, and that Bert, about whose continued existence, I confess, I was beginning to entertain grave doubts, had seized the opportunity to commence humping the crumpled master enthusiastically.

I supply you with this intelligence, not to extort your sympathy (however well-deserved it is), but to explain why I was up at 3 in the morning watching a Nova re-run (the intense pain was by way of inhibiting my beauty sleep). Why mention this Nova re-run? Because none of you smug nu-agers will cop to watching television, and my suspicion is that if this is true, and that if you don’t subscribe to professional science journals, many of you may be in the dark about the topic of last night’s show. I allude to a recently discovered and properly horrific climatological phenomenon called “global dimming,” the ghastly consequences of which are supposedly extraordinarily imminent. Like, 15 years from now imminent. Or worse.

What’s global dimming? As I understand it, it’s the evil twin of global warming. Both are the result of the same post-industrial excess. Whereas the latter is caused by greenhouse gases trapping the sun’s energy in the atmosphere, global dimming is the result of particulate matter from air pollution suspended in the atmosphere, where it keeps anywhere from 3% to 30% of the sun’s energy from reaching the earth’s surface. According to Nova, global dimming, which has the effect of lowering the earth’s temperature, has been masking the true horror of global warming, and we are all well and truly in for it. Ironically, if the sources of global dimming are addressed and removed, the full fury of global warming will be unleashed. Greenland will melt. New York and Florida will disappear into the ocean, which will be on fire. The Amazon rain forest will dry up and burn away. Then, famine and disease. Everything—trees, flowers, puppies, my cute niece—will die, because this could all conceivably happen before the middle of the century.

In other words, reducing those auto emissions will only hasten disaster!

Why are we only just now hearing about this? Because for 20 years nobody wanted to listen to the nerdy scientists who figured it out. But I mean, come on, people! Haven’t we all seen enough disaster movies to know that dire predictions from nerdy scientists always come true?

Stingray and the Old Bat


Fried oysters (with fried calamari at the other end of the plate) at Ranch 616: highly edible

Stingray and I have embarked on the Fried Oyster Tour of Austin. The purpose of this endeavor is not so much to determine a gold medalist as it is to simply eat fried oysters as often as possible. Our exertions in this quarter have led us more than once to a huge black naugahyde booth at Ranch 616, where the excellent oysters come with a convenient side of fried squid and two sauces and, if you like (which I do), a glass of Zardetto brand Prosecco.

As far as this spinster aunt is concerned, the ubiquitous Zardetto is the new Budweiser. But this essay, perhaps ill-advisedly, is not about Prosecco, or even, to the extent that any post of mine ever abstains from so a succulent theme, oysters.* It is about the fear and loathing expressed by a woman who encountered Stingray in the washroom queue at Ranch 616 the other night.

Though Stingray is—to borrow a lunkheaded monosyllabic qualifier from Hub (you remember old Hub, the guy whose blogger wife famously opined that a post-nuptial weight gain is the moral equivalent of a vinyl siding swindle)—hot, she does not practice femininity. Her unwillingness to capitulate to the sexbot mandate is, frankly, a danger to the kidneys of certain members of certain classes. To wit:

As our story opens, Stingray, our hero, feeling the effects of the aforementioned Zardetto, was in line for the women’s john. Before long she was joined by an older woman of, it would transpire, somewhat provincial proclivities (we decided later she was Not From Around Here). This gnarly specimen gave Stingray the once-over, detected no “girly” appurtenances, and evidently decided thereupon that S. was a dude (or possibly, as I brightly suggested afterward, a pree-vert). The burning question of Stingray’s rightful claim to a position in the women’s queue thusly settled in her own mind, our villainess initiated butting-in-line maneuvers. But what’s this! She registered great displeasure when apprised, in mid-butt, of Stingray’s resolute intention to use the girls’ can no matter what assumptions had been made about anyone’s genitalia. The woman scrammed, apparently so flipped out by this…this insanity, that holding it in—which, any doctor will tell you, is no good—seemed preferable to hanging around a dimly-lit pissoir with so audaciously androgynous a character as young Stingray.

Why did a hasty retreat the old bat beat? Because Stingray was clearly a reprobate, if not a criminal. According to patriarchy’s gender fraud laws, women must be plainly labeled at all times to ensure that they are a) continuously and easily available for male scrutiny, b) more easily construed as “other,” in order to make discrimination and marginalization and violence against them justifiable, and c) properly processed in social contexts as subordinates or competitors for male attention or bathroom queue contenders. Stingray’s washroom opponent, an enthusiastic apostle of patriarchy, could naught but flee the taint of Stingray’s terrible sexbiguity.

All human interaction is directed by a universally enforced fetish for dominance and submission. Thus, any social encounter, however trivial, demands that sex identifications be established immediately—prior, even, to diagnoses of class and race. This requirement isn’t just some arbitrary folly. There is no room for ambiguity! A dude must know who to oppress, and oppression is often a split-second decision. Say a dude hasn’t leered at a woman in a few minutes, and he feels the need for a self-gratificational ogle coming on. The consequences of leering at another dude are dire; patriarchy permits him to leer only at women, who are constrained to the sex class for that purpose. But he shouldn’t have to interview the next person he sees just to determine whether they’ve got a pussy. For the sake of efficiency, pussy must be clearly marked and plainly evident from as great a distance as possible, so the requisite assholicity can commence with all speed.

This operation is facilitated by the practice of heterosexual femininity, which behavior is more or less mandatory. Our hypothetical dude easily recognizes the warning signs of femininity: there’s makeup and clothing and the tireless pursuit of “beauty,” obviously, but he also detects the deferential head-tilt, the going one-down in social stand-offs, the perma-smile and other supplicatory body language, and of course the quiet desperation.

A woman who repudiates this pussy-identifying feminine drag is an affront to the hive. Censure and other punishments await she who resists. She can also cause great excitement in public cans.

______________________________________________
*Indeed, whereas on the surface my blogular secretions may often appear with some regularity and no little venom merely to implicate patriarchy in various crimes against humanity , a close reading will reveal a masterfully occult molluscoidean subtext.