Manboobz Writer Shows His Ass

David Futrelle is having a bit of trouble understanding ableism, language, and the concept of “a thousand cuts.” Founder of Manboobz, he is currently guest-posting on Feministe, and in his last two posts, he uses ableist language. We all slip up occasionally, right? We fuck up, apologize, edit the post, and move on. Not this guy.

I’m starting to wonder if the MRAs that flood his blog are starting to have a negative influence on him, because the way he has reacted is abhorrent. You wouldn’t know, once you got past a certain point in the comments section, that you were even on a feminist blog at all.

He reacts in a very typical MRAish fashion. In one comment (#34) he pulls the whip-out-the-dictionary-to-prove-I’m-smarter-than-you trick, accuses commenters (fellow feminists! WTF!) of being whiny, oversensitive, and of being unable to function in the world, accuses commenters of being bad feminists for pushing others “who are not in fact ableist” away, and being counterproductive. He also very much takes offense (as in, hand on heart indignation) at being “equated” to misogynists. Because ableism isn’t as bad. Or something.

Despite that bit of trolling, many commenters patiently explain to him why ableist language is wrong, that Feministe is a safe space, why his reaction is inappropriate, etc. Unfortunately, they get nowhere, trolls jump out the woodwork, and David jumps at the opportunity to “prove” Feministe’s regulars wrong.

He whips out the “I have a FEMALE friend who is a FEMINIST (!!!) and she AGREES with me. So there. I win.” and “SEE those PWD that agree with ME?!?! So you’re WRONG and I’m RIGHT! Ha!” Right. Because all feminists and PWD are supposed to be a monolith, and if he can find one or two that agree with him, the rest of us are wrong, and should…shut up?

Another galling thing here is that he’s not even doing this on his own fucking blog. He’s a guest poster, a guest, and he’s acting like a jerk.

Then there’s this comment, by Florence, at #42:

“The constant chorus about ableist language is distracting and frustrating. As a person with several disabilities I think it’s condescending and ridiculous to problematize language for the purpose of blog-gotchas.

Language has history. A lot of words that we use on the regular have extremely socially colorful roots. To insist that we change or constantly mitigate the use of standard English to participate in discussion demonstrates a lack of understanding of how language spreads, works, and grows, and encourages us to police and silence one another despite clear authorial intent and meaning, which is in itself an appropriation of power and privilege.”

Ahem. As a woman with a disability, who has studied language, this is ridiculous. If you’re a PWD that has no problem with ableist language, that’s cool. Go on with your bad self. But some of us do have a problem with it. It’s not your place to tell me that I shouldn’t have a problem with ableist language. I have to wonder where this commenter gets the idea that we PWD that take issue with problematic language are simply being malicious and engaging in “blog gotchas.” (What the hell are those, anyway? Some type of word-tag?)

On language: this commenter clearly has no idea how “language spreads, works, and grows.” Language evolves, and is constantly evolving. Words change meaning over time. Words die and words are created. Eliminating ableist language is a form of activism–you cut out bigotry in our very language, you cut it out of society–a deliberate effort to evolve language, if you will. But, this commenter has no issue with ableist terms (do they take issue with sexist and racist language, or is that okay, too?) so it is not surprising that they know little about the importance of language, and it being the very foundation of society.

I hope that Feministe will kick this rude and demeaning guest to the curb, and flush the comments of that post quickly of the trolling and ableism.

Women Are Boys’ Toys

This is probably going to be the first part of an ongoing series, because there are so many ways that women are used, spoken about, and advertised as toys that one post is not going to suffice. Today I want write about a very specific instance in which women are treated as toys by men.

Intimate relationships are a complicated thing to navigate. We have an entire fictional genre devoted to it, relationship self-help books have a huge market, movie producers make millions using the same basic storyline in dozens of different films, and we spend our entire lives trying to figure intimate relationships out, and how to get in the Perfect Relationship™.

Being human, we want the people we care about to be happy. Being involved in an intimate relationship is one of the many meaningful things someone can do, and when someone we care about is not in a relationship, we often find ourselves trying to set them up with someone they might like. And this is fine, provided it is done in a respectful manner, and with the consent of all parties, at every step of the way.

Respect.

Consent.

These two concepts are the very basis of all human relationships. Without both, no relationship, casual or intimate, can be meaningful or healthy.

Often, men will talk about the woman one has had an intimate relationship with, but for some reason is no longer with. Sometimes, a friend will express interest. This is fine. Here is the problem:

When the man gives permission, and they set about manipulating the woman or the circumstances in order to set up The Friend with The Man’s (former) Woman, who Owns Her For All Time, Since He Has Possessed Her Once.

This kind of thing completely ignores the woman, except in the context of Something to be Had. In 2010, it is assumed we’ve come ‘so far’ but in reality, we haven’t made it as far as others would like us to believe. We haven’t come as far as we’re told when a woman’s desires, consent, or personal agency as an individual human being is ignored.

Framing it as a friend’s consideration for the man’s feelings, again, ignores the woman. It’s hard to get men, who have never been treated as objects or property in any meaningful way, to understand this. They object, “But why would consideration for a friend ever be wrong?”

It is wrong because we’re talking about a woman. We’re not talking about the man here, the ex, the friend, the brother.

I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be difficult for an ex to see their former partner with someone close to them. I’ve been there, and done that. However, that’s between the two former partners. Depending, DEPENDING, on the degree of intimacy between the two former partners, it might be inconsiderate for one party to date a close friend, or sibling of their ex. It absolutely does not mean that anyone has to ask anyone permission for anything. Again, depending on the circumstances, it might be considerate for someone to give their ex a heads-up, but certainly not obligated to, though it is somewhat of a social rule.

One thing that I want to emphasize here is that it also completely ignores the feelings of the woman involved, in two ways. The most significant is her feeling about discovering she’s been spoken about in such a way. I’ve recently experienced this, and let me say, it was horrible. It was demeaning, embarrassing; I felt literally like a toy to be tossed around between buddies. I felt disrespected. I WAS disrespected. And that pissed me off. After living as a woman for 21 years, I expected as much from strangers (though I’ll say it doesn’t make it any less troublesome or disrespectful), but I expected more from people I cared about. I expected more from my former partner. I expected more from a friend of mine. They should, as people that are as close to me as these two men are, respect me more than their words implied. I don’t deserve to be treated like that. No woman deserves to be treated like that.

The second way in which a woman’s feelings are ignored in this situation is much less complicated: What if the woman has no interest in ‘the friend’? Asking permission of a former partner for a woman, ignores who she may or may not be interested in. Persisting, doing it anyway, sends a message that, hey, they don’t care what the woman wants. Friend wants her, Ex says “you can have her” and that’s that. The decision is made, no female input necessary. Or allowed. It sounds eerily familiar. Like, oh, I don’t know, arranged marriages? With “women’s liberation” being part of the justification for the continued war in Afghanistan, the hypocrisy of this practice astounds me. We’ll condemn forced/arranged marriages all the day long, but we socially ignore women’s autonomy every day. Just because it isn’t enshrined in law doesn’t mean everything is all better.

Here’s where women’s feelings, concerns, and anger are again ignored: we’re told we’re overreacting. To those who throw the ‘O’ word at women, I would say, stop, think carefully, put these same actions in a different context, and see if you don’t see any problem with it still.

Headlines say a thousand words.

Roland Martin, a political analyst for CNN.com, has a new opinion piece up.

It’s called “Time for Obama to go gangsta on GOP”

In the piece, Martin says what a lot of us have been thinking: that President Obama needs to stop playing nice with the GOP, and concentrate on running the government and keeping his campaign promises.:

This is where the president needs to show his toughness and just do it. Forget the threats. The actions of Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, and other Republican obstructionists will continue if President Obama allows them to run roughshod over him. When you’re the top dog, you do what you have to do to govern. Allowing Republican senators to continue to deny your appointments is nonsense.

Unfortunately, this message is lost under a much heavier cultural message: that because President Obama is black, getting tough means imitating gang members, and use intimidation and violence to get what he wants. There are are number of problems with this message. One is the assumption that every gang member is black, so, every black man is a gang member. This is not true. We all know it, I don’t need to dig up statistics to show this. This plays into a fear White America has cultivated, that certain people are to be feared because the color of their skin is different. Skin color does not a violent person make, contrary to what messages like this imply.

It also implies that black men cannot be ‘tough’ or firm without resorting to violence, putting them into a homogeneous group based on a basic physical characteristic, leaving no room for differences based on upbringing, education, individuality, religion, and so on.  This kind of thinking puts black men in the same “them” or “other” category as women, differently-abled, GLTBQIs, lower-income folk, and so on: that every “othered” has the same behavioral traits, education, economic status. To put it simply, it is stereotyping.

Secondly, messages like this make it seem like gang membership and imitating actions associated with gang membership is culturally acceptable. Intimidation, fear, violence, and drugs follow into a community with gang membership. These are all problems our communities struggle with. Yet, associated President Obama with this demeans him, while at the same time elevating gang members.

Resorting to this kind of language is intellectually lazy, and irresponsible journalism. Print media has a responsibility to avoid headlines like this, that stereotype and degrade entire groups of people. Trading human dignity, respect, and good writing for page views is detestable.  Martin, and others like him, need to be reminded to think before you type.

Unfortunately, I cannot find a way to contact Mr. Roland. If anyone finds his e-mail, please leave it in the comments, so those who wish to comment on his piece may do so.

As a side-note, I would avoid reading the comments on the piece.

Update (13 February 2010, 2:15am): Just checked the opinion page on CNN.com, and it appears, at least on the main opinion page, that editors have changed the name of the piece to “Time for Obama to get tough.” However, on the page of the piece itself, the original title remains. It’s something, at least.