Another new series: Hill is shrill!

I'm seeing a lot of dumdum shit from progressive White guys in the last couple of days since Hillary Clinton secured the Democratic nomination. It occurred to me that this election might create an opportunity for feminists/womanists/women from the future to educate misogynist progressives (ha).  I'm going to (try to remember to) keep a running list here of the "teachable moments" I encounter.  Sometimes I get so astounded by something shitty said to me that I forget to throw a little knowledge  back at the shit-sayer.

(Note: A lot of times, I'm going to say "we," "us," "girls," and "women" knowing full well that I cannot and do not speak for all women, particularly not women of color, women with disabilities, queer women, transwomen, poor women, immigrant women, incarcerated women, etc.)

(1) Don't tell us that Hillary's nomination is an important thing for women and girls (and trans folk, but I'm not seeing trans folk come up in the rhetoric at all.  [Shocker.])  First, don't tell us anything about what's good for us. Further, it's a great thing for men and boys, too. Figure out why.

(2) Related to (1), but definitely it's own thing:  Especially because Hillary is a White woman, you should learn something about the history of feminism because saying something is important for women and girls is just a super White thing to say.

(3) Code words!  There are so many code words!  For today, I'll do shrill. A personal example: When Rachel and I first started teaching, she was advised by a dude teacher that she should raise her voice when necessary to assert her authority in a class where she had some rowdiness.  Yeah right.  When a dude raises his voice, it's most of the time commanding.  When a White woman raises her voice, it's most of the time received as either ridiculous or annoying or both, but definitely not authoritative.  Y'all get to raise your voice, and we don't.  Don't call us shrill.

(4) Don't ask us to teach you this stuff.  Do your own work because you're exhausting me.  And insulting, but the insulting is kinda whatever.  It's just tiring to talk you through things from step one. Read something.

Really truly collaborating is really challenging,

and when it's done well, it's so cool.  Probably my best thing.  And whenever I'm part of a group that collaborates well and pulls off something awesome, I'm more interested in claiming that collaboration than I am in taking credit for my work.

That's all I want to say about that.

Exactly!

staying single forever and ever and ever

Here’s something that’s true for me and will probably not be for others.  And it’s something steeped in my experiences of sexism as it intersects with hetero, White, and thin privilege:

When a straight woman and a straight man are coworkers (or even classmates, friends, whatever), it is sexist and horrible for the man to initiate anything romantic/sexual, but it is fine for the woman to do so.

I can think of five times in the last three years that this has happened to me, that a straight male co-worker/friend/whatever has tried to get fresh or something, and every time it’s been… ugh yuck.  Bad.  Awkward.  No.  Shit.  Ugh.  Needlessly anxiety- and guilt-producing for me.  

Most obviously, it’s sexist because it’s a reinforcement of the woman-as-sex-object thing that’s straight up old school sexism.  See any Gender Studies 101 class for more information about this.  Women are just ogled more than men are.  It’s more (potentially and/or actually) damaging for men to ogle women, too – especially when that ogling gets all up in there with the combination of masculinity as virile (powerful, in control, instinctually violent, etc.) and femininity as submissive.  When men ogling women becomes normalized.  It’s “natural” for men to be obsessed with sex.  Boys will be boys.  Blah blah blah barf. 

(And I don’t mean that men aren’t ogled often.  I ogle men all the time.  I once initiated a game of Hot or Not amongst my coworkers in our shared office space.  Pictured below.) 

What’s more insidious for me than this obvious my-face-is-up-here type enactment of sexism is the way that women and girls, myself included, are so often socialized to internalize male supremacy to the point that we, I, feel compelled to do what I can to avoid “emasculating” men I care about.  (Again, holy heteronormativity, I know.)  My friend Amy noticed this tendency in me years ago and used to try various ridiculous activities to condition me to be better at saying “no” to men who were creeping on me: She’d repeatedly put her hand on my lower back, for example, and try to get me to swat her away at faster and faster rates.  It’s embarrassing to admit it, but I have so many times let men who are friends do that – put their hand on my lower back, hug too close for too long, or put their arm around me – while I’ve cringed inwardly.  But I didn’t say anything because of the particular way that I guess I’ve internalized sexism.

Further, beyond allowing these micro-unwanted advances from male friends, I have felt tremendously responsible for smoothing out the social awkwardness they cause.  In one instance, the male friend in question and I were working together in a very tenuous context that he was officially charged with facilitating.  Later in the night after the meeting during which he slipped me an unwanted romantic note, I agonized about how I was going to let him down firmly without messing with his ego in ways that would slow or stop the progress of our committee’s work.  But I didn’t fucking do anything wrong, so why the hell did I feel so responsible?

And the thing is, it’s not like I have any male friends who are pronounced misogynists.  Actually, I would be surprised if very many of my male friends didn’t identify as feminists.  I’ve never been afraid that one of my male friends would assault me, sexually or otherwise.  But I don’t think that the kinds of fake male feminism I have encountered amongst some of my male friends is unrelated to our larger rape culture.  Um: 1 in 3 women experience physical or sexual violence.

And I don't think that any unwanted advances from female me toward a male friend exists on that same continuum of violence.  Again, it's sexist for them to do it, but not for me to do it.  No such thing as reverse sexism. 

I really like what this woman says here about fake male feminism.  She recounts,

I would meet a man who led a feminism reading group and become involved with the women, pissing them off to vision-blurring rage.  I would meet a man who writes his thesis on Audre Lorde’s idea of a lesbian consciousness but was always the last to leave a party, eyes darting around for inebriated women, prospective bedmates.  I would meet countless self-proclaimed feminists whose mouths would ask, “Have you read Gender Troubles?” while their body language asks, “Is that the passcode to your pants?”  And I would pardon these men over and over again, because they behaved, at least initially, like my male feminist role models.

And I’m like, yeeeah. But including and beyond dudes using their feminist credentials to get laid, I’m pissed about men who use their feminist credentials to get ahead professionally.  I’ve seen that shit several times in academe.  Male grad students publishing articles that lean heavily on feminist theories and blabbing to male classmates about sexual exploits with female classmates. All dudes involved in said blabbing sesh keeping it hush-hush because “guy code.”  

Feminism for Facebook likes but not within intimate relationships.  Fuh-hu-huuuuuuuuuuuck that.

Heck. We’re never going to elect Hillary.

shockingly shameless

Check out two of the most popular articles on the Time website right now:

Ex-Wives and Others Eagerly Await UBS Tax-Cheater List
Michelle Obama and the Shorts Heard Round the World

Sorry for being so unladylike (...NOT), but what the FUCK.

Maybe if the one about offshore bank accounts had any sort of statistic -- gosh, even some sort of unconvincing "fact" even -- to back up their presumption that the holders of such are men, then maybe that sort of shit wouldn't be so outrageously fucking sexist, but even then, probably no. I find that woman as sort of bitter, ruthless, gold-digger bullshit incredibly offensive. In fact, I actually feel kind of personally insulted by this suggestion. And y'know what, the article is pretty heteronormative, too, huh?

Maybe it's because I read this article after reading about how Michelle Obama "just didn't look particularly good in shorts. Her arms are much admired. her legs are just, you know, legs." I've posted before about how infuriating it is to me the way the media so often belittles Mrs. Obama, but this shit is... GOSH.

I mean, the way this article ends sounds like it was written in the 1950s. Srsly.

For women, Michelle's shorts were long on significance. They give accomplished, glamorous people license to do what the power brokers at Vogue do, and that is to wear whatever the hell they like sometimes. So, ladies, get out your least flattering outfits — your terry shorts, your oversize T-shirt, those extra comfortable arch-supporting shoes — and wear them with pride. All the fashionable women are doing it.

Oh, really? I can? *bats eyelids* Thanks! *punches Time Magazine in the face.*

feminism: sooo annoying!

I'm going with my Mom to see Mary Poppins: The Musical tonight! So lucky!

When I was little, it was my favorite movie. Like, my watch it, rewind it, watch it again, and persistently press "tracking" because the film was wearing thin, favorite movie.

At this part, I used to get so mad at the mom with her sister-suffragette-bullshit. I would just be so frustrated that she wouldn't shut the eff up and listen to the nanny. ha