Tag Archives: WTF

License to Blog?

Posted on by elizabeth
Reply

I’ve been running in to blogs written by men from the “Men’s Rights Movement”.  I don’t know how it happened, where the first link came from.  But once one popped up others followed.  Too many others.

Some people say “Ignore this nonsense.”  Wish I could.  I notice that many if not most of these blogs have lots more people commenting than I do.  That is if they’re not generating comments themselves.  The point is, some of the attitudes displayed on these blogs are more common than I’d wish.  Some of these attitudes find their way into public policy and even legislation.  For instance, child custody and divorce legislation.  [for instance, this pdf]

So, we’d better pay attention.  For instance, here’s “MarkyMark” on domestic violence or “DV” as he calls it:

DV basically is anything Wifey doesn’t like, guys! Did you deny her money for that fancy, new SUV she wants, even though you can’t afford it? Guess what, you’re guilty of withholding funds! Did you prevent her from leaving with the car keys while under the influence? Guess what, you’re guilty of DV! Being a man and putting your foot down = DV these days guys. IOW, putting a stop to Wifey’s excessive spending can land you in jail.

Needless to say this is a stunning display of ignorance.  And misogyny.  Feminists have put “economic abuse” on a continuum of spousal control that often leads to or is part of actual violence.  No one that I know has ever said that it is violence in itself and it sure isn’t a criminal offense.  Scoffing a woman’s car keys isn’t an offense either though I’m sure we can all imagine circumstances in which it would be controlling and abusive.   

What’s interesting about all this?  Men constructing themselves as victims of powerful women who have usurped male privilege and legislators and the law itself.  Haha.  Ha.  Choke.  Matriarchy has broken out!  What planet am I on then?

Notice though that the all-powerful woman is referred to in a way that diminishes her.  Wifey.  Wow.  Sounds like a ballbuster.  It doesn’t seem to take much to intimidate poor Marky.

BTW his blog is called MarkyMark’s Thoughts on Various Things.  I think it’s going to be a long time before Marky has any actual thoughts.  Contradict yourself much?

Patriarchy in Sheep’s Clothing

Posted on by elizabeth
2

WTF?  From Penney Kome at Straight Goods:

[George] Lakoff maintains that we all think in metaphors, rather than in issues or even in words. And our earliest experiences with governance occur through the metaphor of family life. After months of studying political language, he had an epiphany that the active metaphor in American politics is the family.

George Bush and the Republicans appealed to the yearning many people feel for a “strict father” to protect them and tell them what to do. This strategy encouraged divisiveness and competition between regions and racial groups, and heightened public fears about terrorism, so that people would look to the strict father to take care of them, and to keep the family in line.

Conversely, Barack Obama’s campaign embodied the “nurturant parent” who encourages people to put their best foot forward and take care of themselves. He expressed confidence in the American people and welcomed the public’s participation in shaping his campaign. He talked openly about empathy and compassion, and reaching beyond divisiveness. Implicitly and explicitly, Obama’s campaign refuted all the scare tactics of the “strict father” campaign, and encouraged nurturing (that is, maternal) behaviour.

In other words — and this idea took a while to sink in, even for this committed feminist — Obama’s victory represents an overthrow of patriarchy, if only temporarily.

I confess, I’ve not read George Lakoff so I guess I shouldn’t critisize.  But just on the basis of what Kome has said he said, what kind of breakthrough was it that he had about “the family” being the metaphoric lens through which Americans practice politics?  This is a breakthrough?  He ought to have read some latter-day feminist work [see FN 7 here for good sources] on the traditional, nuclear hetero-family written a few decades ago.  Some of that work followed from Wilhelm Reich’s belief that “the family” was generally repressive and responsible for the formation of authoritarian character structure.  Anyway …

Lakoff’s claim (if this really is his claim) and Kome’s is utter nonsense.  There is more than one pattern for the traditional, heteonormative family.  Check out those kinder, gentler beneficent patriarchs who wear velvet gloves on their iron fists, whose power might sometimes be masked or sold softly, but nevertheless remains intact.  Yes folks, patriarchy can be subtle – in fact, things might work “better” that way – if you can get people to subject themselves to authority willingly, without physical coercion, you save a lot of time and energy and likely, weave stronger bonds.

If Obama was about overthrowing the patriarchy, even temporarily, how come he let Hillary Clinton drown in sexist, misogynist crap?  Why didn’t he pound a few heads for her?  As it turns out, Hillary is only allowed to be successful through Obama, as his potential Secretary of State.  Note – Secretary.  He’s the boss.  Maybe he’ll be a nice guy and not demand that she bring him coffee, but that doesn’t call for a celebration of the end of patriarchy.

I’m not sure if this is Lakoff or Kome – I guess it’s Lakoff through Kome:

Strict fathers do dare to discipline — that is, they are punitive, thus leading to the USA’s skyrocketing incarceration rate [under George W. Bush].

This is a completely nutty idea.  The USA’s skyrocketing incarceration rate began with the massive suffering, waste and injustice of Ronald Reagan‘s war on drugs.  Another iron-fists-in-velvet-gloves kinda guy. 

More:

Obama achieved the goal of framing issues his own way. He doesn’t say, “progressive” or “liberal”, he says, “American”. He doesn’t say, “equality”, he says, “Yes, we can.” To counter some Republican frames, he qualifies his answers. For example, he said he was opposed to late-term abortions — except to save the life or health of the mother, which would be the only conditions under which most doctors would even consider such a procedure. He speaks softly and lets his actions tell the story.

Obama doesn’t say “progressive” or “liberal” because he doesn’t mean “progressive” or “liberal”.  He is neither.  He calls himself “American” because he doesn’t want to say he’s mildly to the left of Republican  [Besides, since so many people were saying he was un-American, he really needed to pound on that word]. He doesn’t say “equality” because he doesn’t mean “equality”.  What the hell does “Yes we can” mean when it comes to equality?  And Obama betrayed women when he said he would only favour third trimester abortions in cases where a woman’s life was in danger.  That is not the only circumstance in which doctors perform third trimester abortions.  Obama said that abortion should be a matter between a woman, her doctor, her family (read “husband” unless you think he meant women should consult with their fathers as well) and her pastor.  That is a deeply patriarchal position and one that was and is deeply disturbing to most feminists I know.

This just blows my mind.  Since when does being good Daddy = the end of patriarchy? 

I’m off to read some Lakoff.

When Is Sex “Consensual”?

Posted on by elizabeth
1

How fucked up is this:

The notorious ex-hockey coach and player agent David Frost is pleading not guilty and in the end, Judge Geoffrey Griffin of the Ontario Court of Justice may decide that, if Mr. Frost did anything, it wasn’t criminal.

But the testimony of a young woman here yesterday indelibly marked Mr. Frost at the least as a perverse creep who, she said, had sex with his players’ girlfriends, directed them down to the last sordid detail in threesomes and arguably was as interested in seeing his players naked as he was the girls.

The woman, now 28, was testifying about the time she was 16, the new junior hockey team had come to her eastern Ontario town and was the biggest thing in it, and how she went from a being a virgin one month to having sex with her boyfriend and his then-29-year-old coach the next.

Now 41, Mr. Frost is charged with four counts of sexual exploitation involving two of his former charges when he coached the now defunct Quinte Hawks in nearby Deseronto, Ont.

The allegations are rooted in the fact that as the coach, he was in a position of trust or authority over vulnerable then-teenagers. Comparable charges relating to the girls, including the woman who testified yesterday, were withdrawn because Mr. Frost wasn’t similarly a figure of authority to them.

The case is further complicated by the fact that the two players, who can’t be identified because of a mandatory publication ban, are not being called by prosecutors and apparently deny anything happened, and because the then-girls who allegedly participated admit, as did yesterday’s witness, that the sex was consensual.

Read the whole article at The Star

Where there is coercion used with respect to young women, I can’t think how we can call it “consensual sex”.  The Court, by the way, did not and would not issue a publication ban with respect to the names of the young women involved.  The Globe and Mail argued against the ban and then decided to publish only this young woman’s first name.  Just as long as we’re clear who’s in charge, right?  Asses.

There’s a problem with the law here:

Someone under the age of 18 cannot legally consent to have sex with a person in a position of authority such as a teacher, health care provider, coach, lawyer or family member

Surely it’s clear that if David Frost can be charged with having exploited the young men who he was coaching, surely the same goes for the young women he involved in the exploitation.  The law needs to be clarified.

Struggle for Words

Posted on by elizabeth
1

[HUGE TRIGGER WARNING]

I just came upon this story at Apostate.  I am struggling for understanding of some sort, and for words.  Can this be understood?  Or is it just pure evil of the kind I am usually loathe to acknowledge, since it indicates that we can’t change some kinds of behaviour.  More later.  From the Chicago Tribune:

A former Army paratrooper who served two tours of duty in Iraq and was facing charges of raping a 3-month-old girl in Michigan has pleaded guilty to attempted child abuse.Friday’s plea by 27-year-old Kirk Coleman in Jackson County Circuit Court came as part of an agreement with prosecutors, who plan to drop first-degree criminal sexual conduct and child abuse charges.

Coleman told the court he had been drinking alcohol and the girl may have been injured during four incidents.

Authorities say Coleman attacked the baby Sept. 14 in her home in Blackman Township, about 65 miles west of Detroit.

 

The girl sustained brain damage and 17 broken bones.Coleman faces up to five years in prison when sentenced July 17, and could have faced life under the original charges.

 

I wouldn’t add this second piece of news coverage, but that it adds (at least) one further piece of information:

Jackson, MI Kirk Coleman, the Jackson County man accused of raping and beating his three-month old daughter, pleaded guilty Friday afternoon to attempted child abuse. It’s a plea that carries a much lighter sentence than the life in prison term he could have faced if found guilty of the original charges. A maximum of 5 years is the potential sentence for attempted child abuse.

Coleman’s trial was set to begin Monday. He had been charged with first degree criminal sexual conduct and first degree child abuse. Those charges were dismissed in the plea agreement.

Jackson County Prosecutor’s office says that their primary goal was to ensure that Coleman would never again gain custody of his daughter, and this plea accomplishes that. Since he did not pleaded to criminal sexual conduct he will not be required to register as a sex offender.

Coleman will be sentenced in July.

In September of last year, Coleman was accused of the beating and sexual assault of his three-month old daughter in their Blackman Township home. Police investigators said the infant was left in Coleman’s care, while the mother went to work. Officer said they believed Coleman beat the baby for two days. The girl had to be placed on life support at U of M hospital, and had multiple bone fractures. Jackson County Prosecutor’s office says that the girl will never fully recover from her injuries.   link here

It’s so difficult to think after reading these items.  My brain is working so hard just to allow the information in.  I am simultaneously trying to imagine what happened here and working to shut it out lest it just kill me, render me incapable of continuing with life or just plain fuck me over.

My first problem, actually, is that there is so little information here.  These are such small stories for such a horrendous event.  Is this man severely mentally ill?  Does he have PTSD as a result of his service in Iraq?  Did he have a criminal record that was ignored so that he could serve in the military?  Or is he just the spawn of Satan?

Why, why, why did he get off so lightly?  I am no fan of eternal incarceration but, thus far, we haven’t developed an alternate system for rehabilitating broken people whilst protecting others.  And frankly, that would be my primary goal here.  Why was the focus on just this one dear child?  Why no sex offender requirement?  How in the devil’s name does no one see that this man is likely to re-offend?  Will he receive some miraculous curative treatment while languishing in prison for (probably less than) five years?  What about when he moves out of state and hooks up with another woman and fathers another child who gets left in his care while its Mom goes out to work?  Or any one of almost innumerable scenarios that I can think of.

Attempted child abuse?  This makes a plain and simple mockery of the plea bargaining “system”.  If someone was dead, would we allow a plea bargain of attempted murder?  Surely there was absolutely no possibility that this man was going to get custody of his daughter.  Why was the focus solely on preventing that unlikelihood?  Why were the charges not RAPE and attempted murder in the first place?  These “child abuse” charges seem to minimize the nature of the crime at the very core.  Brain damage, seventeen broken bones … attempted child abuse.  It makes the brain flap in the wind.

Perhaps there are details here that I do not know or understand.  But I can’t imagine that any fact could change the abject horror I feel upon reading this story.  A precious three-month old (THREE MONTHS!) has been raped and battered to the point that her life has been forever altered.  She has injuries from which she will never recover.  And the best we can do is send this man, Kirk Coleman, to prison for a few years.  Are they counting on the fact that he will be a prime candidate for murder in prison?  Is that any way to mete out justice?

I have no answers.  I am as appalled by the response of the injustice system to this case as I am by the behaviour.  It makes all of us into aiders and abetters.

And my final questions:  why does this story merit such little space?  is this a case of military cover-up, like all those suicides of Iraq veterans?  and finally, where is the outrage?

I hafta go look at pretty pictures now, and give thanks that I can.

Hillary Flogged Again … The Nonsense Continues

Posted on by elizabeth
1

For reasons that I just cannot understand, the Obama campaign has chosen to make a big deal of Sen. Clinton’s comments regarding her bewilderment as to why people are so hot to force her out of the Primary.  In contemplating this, she mentions that Robert Kennedy was still in the race into June and we remember that because he was assassinated in June.  She points to this because it’s likely something that many people can remember.  I certainly remember that and have been thinking about it all year.  It’s been forty years, putting it squarely on my mind.  Ted Kennedy’s illness brings it to the forefront as well.  What, she’s not allowed to mention an historical fact?  Why not?  Exactly what is it that they think she’s saying?  Listen for yourself.

There have been many campaigns that have gone into June and Clinton’s bewilderment is more than justified.  The fact that David Axelrod, and not Clinton, has chosen to go nuts over these innocent comments says something about the Obama campaign but I’m not sure what that is.  They sound desperate but why?