Filed under: 3rd wave feminism, college, dating, equality, Feminism, feminist, feminist allies, flirting, gender roles, love, patriarchy, pro-feminist males, women, Women's rights, young feminists
Recently, I’ve been told – by more than just one woman – that the actions I take when around them tend to me misleading – and that I tend to be, according to some, a “flirt.”
I find this problematic and interesting because I am a pro-feminist male, and as such, I tend to treat everyone equality without regard to gender, but I cannot help but think somehow, because of my behavior, I am ending up confusing the shit out of some people, and in a sense, “leading them on.”
Because of my activism on and off campus in the feminist as well as progressive politics movements, I often dine with a lot of women – and have a lot of what I call “friendly outings” with them.
That’s certainly not the problem. The problem comes in when, in our interaction, I may say things that – in a gendered society as we know it, be considered flirting.
A touch on the shoulder here, a brush on the lap there, a “you’re amazing here,” a “you’ve got a beautiful mind,” there. Just compliments – and just friendly touching – all of which are welcomed. But then I’ve been accused that, because of this, women are taking it as a sign of a come on, and that I somehow don’t “follow through” with my actions, because I then go on and gloat about Emily and how wonderful she is and how much she means.
Perhaps that’s what bothers me the most about the gendered world as we know it – people can’t appreciate and show affection for one another – albeit a very platonic and friendly one, without having to feel as though they are somehow showing signs of romantic interests.
It’s not that I feel bad for myself – I live in a world with male privilege and have absolutely no rights to bitch or complain. I just feel bad that I may be leaving people with the wrong impression.
Really, in the end, is a brush on the lap, stroking someone’s face, or a compliment about how much you like them as a person, really a sign of a come on?
I mean – as a straight male, I do that to male friends, too. It’s a sign of affection. It’s a sign of closeness.
I don’t know. Maybe I’ll just be a robot, sit there and show no signs of emotions or affection whatsoever. Maybe then, no one would accuse me of being “well on [my] way to be America’s Next Bill Clinton – in behavior.”
Filed under: Feminism, feminist allies, feminists, gender roles, misogyny, patriarchy, pro-feminist males, rape, sex education, sexual assaults, single mothers, Unitarian, UU, Women's rights
At feminist conferences or during the first few days of the new semester, often times I’d get the inevitable question of: “You’re a man, why do you care so much about women’s rights?”Often times, because I am at these events to network, exchange ideas and build for a political future, my answer is always something like: “Because it would be a profound and utter act of immorality for me to idly stand by as half of my fellow human population is being discriminated against.”When speaking to a woman of interest, the story of my passion for feminism is one that is based on my religious background: I grew up a Unitarian, and we didn’t know any differently.
But just last night, I realized the very reason why I am a feminist, and I will, for as long as I live, devote my life to fighting for women’s rights. Coming home at around midnight, I heard yelling and screaming and two burley men in suits and ties wrestling down a man, and pointing guns at the apartment downstairs from me. It turned out the men were undercover police officers who staked out the area because they’d received a call of a suspicious person in our neighborhood, and had observed the intruder jump over the porch and break into my neighbor’s house. The undercovers yelled at me and told me to call my neighbor (a female) to get out of the house.
When I made that phone call, she had already locked herself in her room and refused to open the door for the officers. It took some coaxing from my roommate for her to eventually open up. My neighbor, whom I’ll call Sue, is a single mother. When the intruder was trying to break in, the three-year-old child was sleeping on the couch and I was told that the intruder saw the child, too. Obviously, my neighbor is shaken. One of the reasons for this is we’d spoken a few days ago about how the screen door was taken down by the landlord, and when she raised the issue, she was told, “Look, if someone wants to rape you, a screen door isn’t going to help stop that.”
It upsets me. It upsets me that the landlord passes off her concerns about being raped as just a trivial matter, and that those who truly are concerns about women’s lives and experiences don’t have the means to change things. It upsets me that the patriarchy still exists, and the ruling class has no knowledge or concerns for women issues. It upsets me even more that in America, in 2007, women are still having to worry about certain acts of violence directed toward them, just because they are women.
It upsets me that women have to live in fear for their livelihood, and are treated differently simply because of the nature of their biology. More over, it upsets me that we still need feminism in 2007 here in the most powerful and supposedly progressive nation on earth.
For me, feminism isn’t sexy. It’s not supposed to be a good time. It’s not supposed to be enjoyable. It should be fought with vigor and passion – the same passion that’s devoted to fighting terrorism. After all, sexism is a form of terrorism.
As a pro-feminist male, my fight for feminism isn’t about earning the attention or affection of women. It’s not about getting laid for standing up to fight for women. For an aspiring politician, it shouldn’t be able earning votes or tapping into a certain group of voters.
I fight for feminism because the world isn’t fair. I fight for feminism because gender terrorism still exists. I fight for feminism because I know I wouldn’t like to be marginalized and harmed, objectified and trivialized, simply because of my gender. In short, I fight for feminism because of this reason: because I believe while we were all born very differently, some with more strengths and intelligence than others, we should all we treated the same. We may not have been born equal and into the same situation, but we all should be recognized equally, based on our individual worth and dignity, and not on the body parts nature has given us.
Filed under: abortion, Christianity, Congress, Feminism, feminists, Human Sexuality, Kim Gandy, male privilege, misogyny, National Organization for Women, Now, Pro-choice, Religion, Reproductive Rights, Science studies, Women's rights
It’s my intention that on Fridays, blogs will be light-hearted, yet still dealing with feminist issues. This here, then, is the first light-hearted post. It’s an article I wrote a few months back while in the shower.
NORFOLK. Va. – A 10-year study on human sexuality and reproduction showed that in the human species, 100 percent of those who get pregnant are women, while the percentage of pregnant men remains at zero, scientists from the National Organization for Scientific and Health Institute Technology announced Thursday.
Although the result of the study had always been widely speculated and believed by the majority of the population, NOSHIT leading scientist, Dr. Henry Anderson said the organization set out to do the study to prove conclusively that pregnancy is an ability inherently connected with the female gender, and males have very little to do with the carrying and birthing of the fetus.
“While there were certainly no disagreements in the scientific community that this was how human sexuality and reproduction worked, there were many organizations that showed characteristics of resisting such a belief,” Anderson said. “So we set out to prove it once and for all.”
The result came from a 10-year study, spanning across five continents that consisted of both field and clinical studies of more than a million couples of child-bearing age. In every case, regardless of whether the pregnancies were planned or a surprise, the pregnancy was carried out by the female half of the couple.
While the results won’t change any contemporary findings in the scientific community, both the religious and political communities are reacting with passionate responses.
“This proves that we’ve always tried to tell the world – that the responsibility and privileges of pregnancy belong to women,” said National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy. “Because of that, the choice of whether to carry out or terminate the pregnancy also belongs to women.”
Gandy went on to point out that while 100 percent of those getting pregnant will always be women, legislatures who make laws regarding a woman’s ability to make decisions about her own body are mostly men.
“Even with the current Congress, 77 percent of those making decisions about reproduction are men,” she said. “There’s a discrepancy, and we hope to change that.”
Armed with the new scientific findings, Gandy said she hopes to work with legislatures and local communities to ensure the reproductive choices of women remain in the hands of those to whom they matter most – women.
Not everyone, however, reacted to the findings with opened arms. Long-time science-denier and televangelist Pat Robertson, speaking at a prayer breakfast in front of a group of Biblical Science students at Regent University, said he is still skeptical about the study.
“Science has done many great things for the world,” Robertson said. “But it’s also created the atomic bomb, gas chambers and tanks and other weapons, all of which have caused pain and sufferings to God’s children.
“I see this finding as being similar to the creation of those weapons. It’s using something that is inherently good to do evil – by that I mean the mass murders of millions of God’s children each year.”
”To make such a bold proclaimation is to mean that rather than being humbled as we ought to be, we’re being prideful stating we know how God works, and that we know more than God. That leads to a society’s downfall.”
Along with Robertson and other religious organizations, the Christian Wives of America has also spoken regarding the findings.
“I don’t see what it proves,” said CWA president Bertha Green. “The fact of the matter is that we marry through the grace of God, and become one; so because of that, my body is my husband’s body, thus he will always have a say over what I do with my body and the choices I make.”
The mentality of those sharing Green’s belief, said Marc Lloyed, Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance of ODU’s, is the reason the battles for women’s rights continued to be take a step backward.
“It’s not a matter of politics, and it’s not a matter of religion,” Lloyed said. “It’s matter of what’s logical – the logic here is this: you can’t make decisions on what doesn’t belong to you.
“It astounds me how some women are still letting the men in their lives make decisions about their bodies. It makes about as much sense as letting a stranger decide who you’re going to marry or what you’re going to name your kid.”
What concerns him even more, the long-time ally in the women’s rights movement said, is that there are men who, despite the study, still think it’s their rights to make decisions about women’s reproductive choices.
“That line of thinking is as silly as going into another country, taking down its government and telling its people what kind of government they really want,” he continued. “Perhaps we also need to do a study that will find that Americans aren’t Iraqis and don’t know what Iraqis think.”
The findings are expected to bring about months of fighting between the left and right, and although it probably won’t settle anything permanently, will restart the debate between America’s pro-choice and-life.
“We’re ready,” Robertson said. “The feminist movement is the lifeblood of the AntiChrist. We’ve always had God on our side, and this time it won’t be any different. Science may be to answer certain questions, but it’ll never be able to answer how God came about. For my money – and I have lots of it, I’ll always pick God over science.”
