Rabbits, Blinkity

Amanda Marcotte, as usual, has the answer. In summary: a men's movement is, by definition, about men. Things that are inherently about men are an extension of the patriarchy. Men sitting around talking about being men can only lead one place. Ergo, any men's movement, no matter how well-meaning, is doomed to either fail or turn into a slime pit of misogyny.

Truth.

Now it's probably true that there do need to be more spaces where men can say the offensive things they gotta say, so they can avoid derailing feminist conversations... but you know what? Plenty of women have the exact same misunderstandings and ignorant ideas. And if feminism tells us anything, it's that treating women and men differently is usually a bad, bad idea. We simply need more "feminism 101" spaces for everybody, regardless of gender.

So this just happened, and I just can't even with the blogosphere lately. I really, really want to start a decent men's stuff community blog now, but you know what? Ozy couldn't even really keep hir various communities under control, and zie probably had the best shot at it of anybody.

So blah.

Woody Allen movies are excellent in many ways, but they irk me on a very profound level. Let's talk about it!

I recently had a discussion with a friend (Hi Steve!) about Allen's work and morality, or lack thereof. (Mostly vis-a-vis Roman Polanski and that whole stepdaughter thing.) The end result was, not wanting to be the sort of person who complains about things they don't watch, I agreed to make an attempt at some of his films. Thus, I was in the curious position of watching a Woody Allen film in entirety for the first time, while having previously read quite a bit of criticism about both him and his films, especially about to his supposed misogyny or lack thereof.

So I had assumptions. I expected a couple of possibilities. First, that the whole thing might be overblown, that his films would be at worst reasonably well made, original stories, which due to their tremendous influence would feel just a touch stale. Second, that they might be the worst sort of 1950s sexist and classist tripe, only considered worthwhile because that sort of thing tends to go over the heads of the (white, straight, male) critical establishment. Or most likely, some combination of both.
Read More...

Pippa Mann just wrote a great article about the glass ceiling in race car driving, and her new role mentoring young women.

But according to this fine gentleman, Pippa Mann should just realize she's an obvious failure and go make him a sandwich. And yes, there are lots of comments telling him to be more civil, and that he's probably a sexist jerk, and other remarks defending her driving record, and the usual chorus of "me too" all around. It's mostly all noise, though.

The truth of the matter is that sexism is still alive and well, and definitely affecting Mann's ability to get rides and sponsorship, and she has a right to talk about this and help other women without people running their mouthes about it.

But just for fun, let's say the critic is right. Say she's personally gotten a bit of an unfair advantage because she's a woman. Hell, say his favorite driver (who we're all just sure is so much more talented) didn't get a chance because she got her grand total of three Indycar rides last year.

Big. Fucking. Deal.
Read More...

If I see one more obnoxious, anti-women, homophobic article/post/comment about Brittney Griner, I'm going to scream. Did you get pissed because Shaq was 7'1" and weighed 300 pounds? No, you didn't. You either though he was awesome because he could push people around and get those rebounds, or you didn't like him because he was beating your team, but respected his physical skills anyway.

And yes, this means you, Muffatt McGraw. Playing with Griner was not like "a guy playing with women." It was like playing a woman who is 6'8" and really good at basketball. Which, as it turns out, is remarkably like playing a person who is 6'8" and really good at basketball. (Besides, the reason ND lost so badly was that Novosel couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and Peters couldn't keep her fouls under control. Not Griner's fault anyway. But even if it was, the point still stands.) Heck, I could say the same thing about 5'9" Skylar Diggins, she kinda has "shoulders like a man," don't you think? See how ridiculous this sounds?

It's like the whole Hingis vs. Mauresmo business. Ironically enough, compared to modern players like Serena Williams or Stosur or Kvitova, Mauresmo of 1999 seems downright, well, average in terms of physicality. When "masculine" equals "good at sports," of course women who are good at sports will seem masculine. It's only going to become more true over time, and unless you're some kind of asshole who thinks women's sports are only supposed to be a mild, barely competitive diversion, this is a good thing.

Just stop already. Brittney Griner is one of the best female basketball players ever. I don't care if she did just beat your team; you've got to respect her anyway.
Read More...

Update: Here's the best thing you'll read all day on this subject

There's a trans theory concept called the "Cotton Ceiling." (Basically, it tries to explain why some, especially lesbian, women don't really see trans women as real women), Rad-fems don't like it, as one might expect. I'm not going to try and discuss the contents of that article, or the comments on it; I might do so later, but it's tricky and I'm only marginally qualified to talk about this.

I will link to someone who thinks it's all a big miscommunication. Others might suggest that the real issue is unsolvable: rad-fems will refuse to see trans women as women (or even, arguably, as people) regardless, while simultaneously refusing to really see trans men as men (which they're okay with, since women are generally beyond reproach). I don't really know the answer.

But I would like to make an observation. It's been made before, but it bears repeating: our culture is obsessed with penises, and this needs to stop.
Read More...

Over in the land of professional tennis, there's been a lot of talk lately about so-called "grunting". It seems certain tennis player make a noise when they hit the ball. And whether you call it grunting, or screaming, or growling, or "I-hate-that-turn-it-off," opinions can be found everywhere from USA Today to FOX Sports Australia to every tennis blog, forum, and TV commentator. Every time you turn around, somebody else has something else to say about it.

It's horrible and distracting. It's borderline gamespersonship, and the players should complain. It's not actually that bad, and people should just put the TV on mute on if they don't like it. It's not actually that bad live; it's just the microphones that make it seem loud. It's even worse live, you can hear it from the next stadium over. It's contrary to the spirit of tennis; it's a sign tennis is evolving beyond its country club roots.

So, naturally, I have some feelings about this too. And my number-one feeling is, get over yourselves! Here's why.
Read More...

So here's the thing about reproductive rights: if you're man-bodied, it doesn't really matter what you think. Not in the general sense. The reason it doesn't matter is because it doesn't affect you directly. You'll never carry a child. You don't have to worry about all the various risks surrounding pregnancy, birth-control, and so on. In short: you don't have female reproductive organs, so you don't know what it's like to have them either.

Reproductive rights are a big, confusing, important issue, of course. At the core is a simple question: is aborting (or preventing the creation of) a fetus morally wrong? If so, to what degree? And yes, it's complicated. The hardline Catholic position (sing with me, "every sperm is sacred / every sperm is great...") is pretty obviously insane. The extreme fem-power-whatever position (which I'm not sure actually exists except in the minds of some disturbed people on the internet) that it's okay to kill children after they're born up to a certain age under certain circumstances is pretty obviously insane too. But in between these extremes there are a whole host of complex issues. The most reasonable position, so far as I can see, really is "her body, her choice"—so long as the fetus is part of a woman's body, it's, well, part of her body.

But in the end, it shouldn't really matter what I think. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that abortion is actually equivalent to murder. How are we going to figure…
Read More...