Nobody Fights Sea Monsters in Daisy Dukes

You know what I love about BioWare, other than Anders? I love that female characters are never saving the world in daisy dukes or chainmail bikinis*. Seriously.

That's the female version of chainmail from Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. That is my favorite game of all time. I still play it. It's six years old and still holds up, in my opinion. However, for some strange reason, while men are covered head to toe by chainmail, women can't even wear a bra with it (it would show through the slit). Why? C'mon, you know why.

See that? That's BioWare's Dragon Age II. Every other character is female, but you can't tell the difference just on armor, can you? The women's chests, stomachs, hips, thighs and butts are as covered as the men's. You know, so the armor will do what armor is intended to do.

Look at that. That's Bonnie Lass. She commands a ship and saves the day. She's also at risk for a labia popping out if she moves too fast. And if you've ever worn thigh high pantyhose (hey, I used to be interesting), you know you aren't kicking sea monster ass in them. You're too occupied pulling them up every time you move. And don't get me started on garter belts. (I used to very, very interesting.) And why, exactly, is she so opposed to 3" of her thighs being covered? Is that small strip of flesh constantly hot, so hot she cannot bear the touch of fabric? No, it's sexy. Because being a hero just isn't enough, you also have to titillate every teenage boy in a 500 mile radius.

Gah! Hey, look, it's not just teenage boys that play video games and read comics. Women do, too, increasing numbers. Please, please, please stop treating female characters as existing only to titillate teenage boys. Start treating them like people who select appropriate clothing for the task at hand, and chainmail bikinis and daisy dukes are not appropriate for saving the world.

*Yes, yes, Isabella. Isabella is charmingly slutty. (Actually, I despise Isabella, but not because she enjoys her sexuality. Because she ran off and left me and then I had to do a huge fight with 3 people instead of 4 and it took me 17 tries to get through it. I hate her!) It's just who she is, and she's not the player controlled character or the hero.

Man Up. Now, How Would I Do That

Man up.

Cowboy up.

Do you have balls for that?

If you have any doubt our culture is a patriarchy, you have 5 seconds (that's how long it took me to come up with those phrases) to type 3 phrases with the exact same meaning in common use that articulate the female in the exact same way.

I'll save you some time. You couldn't do that if I gave you 5 days. There are none.

Think about that for a second. It's women who regularly push something the size of a watermelon through a hole the size of a lemon, but you need testicles to be brave.

It's women who raise the majority of children after divorce or breakup, by themselves, often with little or no help, but acting like an adult is masculine.

Women still, after all this time, make less than men and do more housework and shoulder more of the child rearing responsibilities, but we need to "cowboy up" not "mommy up".

Throw like a girl.

Scream like a girl.

Cry like a bitch.

It only took me 3 seconds to come up with those. Go ahead, you have eternity to come up with three phrases in common usage to express the exact same level of deliberate contempt, only using the masculine as the shaming device.

Go ahead, get back to me when you give up.

It's okay, I'm just a feminist with no sense of humor. It's not that you're not funny. And the patriarchy, it's fucking delicious.

Why Does Building Up Men Inevitably Mean Tearing Down Women

I am highly suspicious of anything that calls itself a "men's movement", probably because this [trigger warning: rape] calls itself a "men's movement", as well. Yet again, I am right to be suspicious.

The Christian Men’s Network will be putting on a conference designed to serve as “a radical revolution calling men to a higher standard of masculinity.”

Men from around the world will converge in Dallas, Texas, next week to learn how to be “a real man.”

Oh, yes, "real men". You know that's just going to be horrible. I have promoted my concept of femininity here before, but in case you're new, I believe that anything a woman does is feminine. So a woman playing hockey is as inherently feminine as a woman baking a cake while wearing a pink dress. Whatever floats your boat. I feel the exact same way about masculinity. Anything a man does in inherently masculine. A man baking a cake while wearing a pink dress is as masculine as a man playing hockey. Men are, by definition, manly.

Ergo, we don't really need to teach men to be manly and that's not what they're talking about, anyway. What they're really talking about is teaching adults to act like adults, i.e., fulfill obligations responsibly. Is there some reason we can't say that without invoking adulthood as masculine and femininity as lesser?

Apparently not.

Cole says he bases this movement on Timothy 2:2.

“Paul commanded Tim , find faithful men and teach them and they’ll be able to teach others. What God is looking for is what every woman is looking for – not a man of great power, but a man who will be faithful. When we develop faithful men, we develop mature men,” he said.

Are men not looking for faithful women? Are women looking for nothing else in men? Is faithfulness really the end all and be all of maturity, and if so, why is not the end all and be all of maturity for all adults, women and men alike?

All I can conclude is that women aren't ever really mature, no matter how old they are. Women are children forever.

The younger Cole explained that there is a need for teaching leadership and maturity in culture. In dealing with various cultures around the world, he finds that maturity in men is lacking across the board.

Women are either not a part of culture, or not in need of possessing leadership and maturity.

“The issue in our culture today is the immaturity in our men,” he noted. “To be a real man is to be more like Christ. Jesus was a strong man; he wasn‘t a wimp man, he wasn‘t a feminine man, yet he was highly compassionate. The stronger a man is at the core of his character, the more compassionate he can be in the outreach of his hands.”

*sigh* The "wimp man". The "feminine man". Because strength and maturity are the traits of men and femininity is weak and to be despised. Immaturity is bad in men, and to be expected in women.

Every damn day. Every damn day girls in our society are exposed to this message, that strength is for boys, leadership is for boys and "girly" is an insult.

Every damn day.Every damn day boys in our society are exposed to this message, that strength is for boys, leadership is for boys and "girly" is an insult.

It's just as bad for the boys as it is for the girls, and it's just as bad for the adults they grow up to be. I'm all for adults acting responsibly and fulfilling obligations. I'm all for fathers fulfilling their parental duties. I just don't think it needs to be accomplished by means of degrading women and forcing a particular gendered ideal upon us all.

pic link

Anytime Someone Invokes Ontology . . .

Here is RC Sproul, Jr., fundy extraordinaire, explaining why the wimminz must stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

I can’t imagine ever speaking to a more likeminded crowd than those to whom I was speaking that hot August day. First, the audience was crowded with children. Every one of them was being home schooled. The girls not only looked both modest and feminine in their jumpers, but I’m confident that the girls had made them themselves. This was a crowd where the men were men and the women were women.

Where men were men and women were women. What does that even mean? If I'm wearing a store-bought skirt, I'm no longer a woman? Am I then a man? No, that doesn't make any sense, either. (In case you haven't guessed, not making sense is a bit of theme with Mr. Sproul.)

I don’t remember what point I was trying to make, but to illustrate the point I made a passing reference to the chain of command in my home. I mentioned that my second born child, my son Campbell, who at the time was five and is now seven, knows, as does his older sister, who was seven then and is nine now, that a day was coming when he would be in a position of authority over his sister.

Why? Why would a boy ever be in a position of authority over his older sister? Is there any reason for this?

As soon as the words were out of my mouth, all the older sisters in the crowd were both in combat mode and instantly united. Their enemies were proximately their little brothers, but ultimately, me. When I finished my address, I found myself surrounded by a mass of angry, feminine, pulchritude.

First of all, learn how to use a comma, asshat. Secondly, even removing the extra comma, "angry, feminine pulchritude" does not make any sense. Pulchritude is beauty. Angry, feminine beauty? That's utter nonsense, but I assume what you meant was, "Oh, those girls are so pretty when they're angry!"

The younger brothers did not bother to back me up. They were too busy demonstrating their maturity by doing end zone dances in celebration over what I had said.

Yes, which is exactly why they should be "in a position of authority" over the angry, feminine pulchritudiness, right?

For all their obvious anger, the ladies did manage to remain ladies.

They remained the daughters of nobility? I had no idea it was that sort of crowd.

They were polite, and demure, as they graciously asked out of which specific pit in hell my fool idea had come from. Unable to spot a lawyer in the crowd, I chose to defend myself. “Suppose,” I asked the young ladies, “your mom and dad were away some afternoon. While they were gone your baby sister, in mid-diaper change, decided a nice brisk walk in the front yard, in the snow, would be invigorating. Before she can do too much damage, you rescue the child from the cold and complete the diaper change.

Mind you, in the specific example above, we were discussing girls far too young to be left in charge of small children, but notice at this point, it's the girl who's responsible for chasing down naked children and changing diapers, not the boy.

Two hours later you peak

Really? I would imagine that you peek, but what do I know? I'm a pulchritudinous man, apparently.

out the window and see coming toward your front door a Hillary Clinton clone. This one isn’t the nanny from New York, but your friendly, neighborhood Lady from Child Protective Services.

I'm not sure where to start here. First of all, he's using CPS as to the bogeyman in a speech to children. That says an awful lot about his audience, doesn't it? I don't fear a visit from CPS. Most people who aren't abusing their children don't. Teaching your children to fear CPS says so much about what you may be doing to those children that I should just call CPS on you right now, Mr. Sproul and save us all the time.

Also, Hilary Clinton clone? WTF? Oh, that's right, she's another nonwoman, and an Evul Librul to boot. Carry on.

Who,” I asked them, “should answer the door? Who is responsible to make sure that this woman doesn’t cart off all of you?”

O.o I guess I now know why fundys hate and fear the rest of so much. We must show up in their nightmares on a regular basis if this is their introduction to the wider culture.

But, to answer your question, Mr. Sproul, how about the person responsible for changing diapers and chasing naked babies? After all, they were good enough to take care of all the grunt work, why shouldn't they talk to Teh Evul Librul.

They all agreed that in the face of this enemy, the oldest son should step in.

Enemy. Enemy. Culture wars, forever baby. Anyway, why should the oldest son answer the door? He's not good enough to change a diaper, why should he answer the door? Plus, wouldn't it be advantageous to make it at least appear that a child old enough to babysit is, in fact, babysitting?

“Alright,” I continued, “now suppose he thinks it would be a grand idea for the Lady from Child Protective Services not to see the still-rosy cheeks of baby sister, nor the gaggle of middle children. He thinks this ‘intervention’ would go more smoothly if all of you were out of sight. Does he not have the authority to instruct his siblings, even his older sister, to head down to the basement until the danger has passed?”

Danger. Fantastic. Think about this for a second. A neighbor sees a naked baby running through the snow and calls . . . fuck it, why would they call CPS instead of 911? Anyway, A neighbor sees a naked baby running through the snow and calls CPS. So, CPS is fully aware there is at least one child possibly being neglected. Now they are greeted at the door by another, older child, with no other children in sight. Isn't that going to look suspicious? Wouldn't hiding all the children be the worst option for allaying concern? Apparently, oldest son shouldn't be left in charge of a pet rock, because he's a fucking moron.

Also, does Mr. Sproul assume the Evul Hilary Clone is going to talk to a 9 year old boy, accept the missing, possibly dead from exposure baby is now disappeared and then leave without speaking to the parents or calling the police and searching the house? Really? I can't think of any behavior that would make anyone more suspicious.

All I can really say is, again, O_o The misogyny is bad enough, but this terrible fear of the rest of the world? That's not going to end well.

Oh, the ontological invoking:

The feminist movement, like every strategy of the devil, has failed on all fronts. When you make a deal with the devil, not only does he always get what you offer, but he never delivers on his side of the bargain. Feminism does not set women free from the tyranny of men. Rather, it imposes on women the tyranny of men. The truth is that “Boys protect girls” is not just a moral imperative. It is an ontological reality. That is, men will always lead women. The only question is whether that leadership will be servant leadership. The only question is whether men will lead by ordering women off to battle, or to serve men’s petty wants, whether we will send our sisters to face off with the Lady from Child Protective Services, or have them shine our shoes. Or, will we lead as Jesus led?

Basically, "because shut up, that's why!" Never trust an ontological argument.

I will leave you with this:

There is no denying the authority of Jesus. As C.S. Lewis rightly pointed out, compared to Jesus we are all feminine.

In a room full of girls, Mr. Sproul said that compared to Jesus, we are all feminine. You know, the worst thing you could be. Yeesh.

pic link

I Think Someone's Calling for a Crusade

Haven't you noticed recently how feminine traditional Christian churches in the U.S. have become? I mean, what with all the male-only preachers and the antibirth control teachings and the women should be seen and not heard . . . Oh, right, that's not exactly prolady, is it?

Apparently, if you're not actively engaging in a Crusade, you're being feminine. And that's bad.

"This church system offers little to stir the masculine heart, so men find it dull and irrelevant," he states, adding that men who do go to church seem passive and bored.

"Passive and bored" would be a good description of every church experience I ever had, except for that one time in the Church of the Holy Garage, and I can only describe that as O.o

At the same time, he maintains, the very definition of a good Christian has become feminized. Christians, he says, are supposed to be gentle, sensitive and nurturing, focused on home, family and hospitality. The godly are supposed to be calm, gentle, polite and sociable.

Well, it's clearly ridiculous to expect men to be focused on home and family or be polite and sociable. That's insane! You know how men are, they're like rabid wolves on meth!

Bumps, scrapes and bruises are not just associated with boyhood but are necessary in order to raise men equipped to exercise spiritual leadership in their homes [says] Randy Stinson, dean of the School of Church Ministries at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Why? Why would bumps, scrapes and bruises be necessary to exercise spiritual authority over your wife and children? Should I just call 911 right now?

Stinson said churches should focus on "ministry by men, not ministry to men."

"Men solve problems. They fix stuff. They get stuff done," he said. "When we give men such weak assignments -- we put them on the bereavement committee and the flower committee and the grounds committee and the fellowships committees -- give men a God-sized task that they know requires a man."

Men. They fix stuff. And get it done. Women don't do that. We're fucking useless. We need to give men a God-sized task . . . how the fuck does that make sense? Women can handle flowers, men can take over the work of God? Srsly?

Really, the only reading of this that makes sense is a Crusade. I can't think of any other suitably "manly" sort of thing for men to do.

pic source

I Wanna Start a Fight

It's funny how the patriarchy will sidle up next to you and pinch your rear end right when you least expect it, as evidenced by the conversation I had with a man who will remain nameless, a man who identifies as a feminist, btw.

Friday, as I was waiting for the bus, I got the above song, So What, by Pink, stuck in my head. (It was blaring from a car waiting at the light.) By the time I got home, "na na na na na na na, I wanna start a fight" was firmly lodged in my brain. Of course, the only way to remove a song stuck in your head is to listen to it again, so I found it on youtube.

The first verse is:

I guess I just lost my husband

I don't know where he went

So I'm gonna drink my money

I'm not gonna pay his rent

I've got a brand new attitude

I'm gonna wear it tonight

I wanna get in trouble

I wanna start a fight

At which point, a man who shall remain nameless said, "Trailer trash."

"What?!"

"I wanna start a fight? Stay classy, Pink."

"Not two weeks ago, [anonymous male friend] came over here after finding out his fiance was cheating on him and invited you to go to [notorious local bar] so he could, and I quote, 'bash someone's face in'. Why is that okay for [anonymous male friend] but not okay for Pink?"

"I, uh . . ."

"Oh, I get it, boys will be boys, but BITCHES BETTER BEHAVE?"

One of the most pernicious effects of the patriarchy is that way it defines male and female, lodging "truths" in your psyche that are true only because we all believe them, and we all believe them only because we are told they are true. It's a vicious circle that most of us can't even see we're trapped in.

Women want to talk, men want to fight. It's the truth, isn't it? Except that it isn't. I'm not advocating violence, but sometimes I do want to punch someone. Hard. But when I was a girl, someone stole that truth from me. They took away my right to be angry and to express that anger. Now I can't even admit to a violent impulse. When boys get into fights, we tell them it's unacceptable and ground them for a week. When girls get into fights, they're betraying their very DNA and all of society is on the verge of collapse. We're delicate little flowers, you see, and delicate little flowers don't want to break a chair over someone's head.

Men lust, women are nice enough to satisfy that lust sometimes, but women don't feel lust themselves. A comedian once said that the difference between male desire and female desire is the like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing it. No, that's not true at all. However, I'd better not admit to wanting to remove someone's clothes with my teeth, in a public restroom, at noon, because then I'm a slut. Actually, at that point, I'm probably a nympho. That's totally normal for a man. Nothing to see here.

I can't ask a man out on a date. It's in the rules, you see. If I tell a man I think he's great and I'd like to get know him better, his penis will shrivel up and fall off or something. Or I'm a slut. Ask him to marry me?! That's insane! I'm supposed to hint at him and pout and nag until he finally gives me something sparkly to shut me up.

Even the way women sit or walk is carefully defined. I will never forget being twelve years old, sitting on a bench with my knees apart, elbows resting on my knees, chin resting on my hands. A classmate of mine turned to me and said, "You're sitting like a man! Women sit with their legs crossed!" Well, how dare I be comfortable! I've heard, more than once, a woman described as "walking like a man" because she strode purposefully instead of sashaying her hips from side to side. Women don't swagger, you see, that's for men.

Well, news flash: I am a woman and I do want to get into trouble. I do want to swagger, I want to sit any damn way I please, I want to be loud and curse, and yes, I do wanna start a fight.

Gender Norms, Tropes and My Hair

gender, tropes, hair, feminism, feminine, feminist, stupid,
I'm getting my hair cut for the first time in about 8 months on Saturday (engagement party. not mine, obviously). I want the above haircut. I've wanted that haircut for a long time. It would look better on me than long hair. My hair itself would look better, too. (Actual quote from my doctor: You're too sick to have healthy hair.) It'd be easier to take care of and style, a big plus if holding your arms over your head for any period of time reduces you to a quivering ball of pain. (Blow dry hair for one minute. Rest for two. Blow dry hair for one minute. Rest for three. Repeat literally ad nauseum and you have my morning.)

So, why don't I just do it? I'm independent, I'm a free thinker, I'm a feminist . . . I've looked through 16 women's magazines and found one person with short hair: Rihanna. Everyone else has the long hair I never will- lush, full and shiny like a horse's tail got together with a bolt of satin and made sweet, sweet love.

I watched a lot of tv while my xbox was away, and every sexy young thing has a head of hair to make Lady Godiva weep. You know who has short hair? The dumpy, the frumpy and the old. If a woman is a stressed housewife who lost her sexy long ago, she has short hair. If she's a grandma, short hair. If she's hopelessly geeky and not about to be transformed into a superhotty, short hair. (Oh, and lesbians. Apparently, lesbians' hair stops growing after it reaches 2" long.) Just because universe hates me, for the 30 seconds the tv was on before I turned on the xbox last night, I caught a preview for some new movie in which the male lead's solution to the female lead's lack of man was longer hair.

The worst part of all of this is that I know how stupid my hesitation to have the hair I've always wanted is. My hair doesn't look good long. Most people's hair doesn't look good long. I can count on one hand the number of women in real life I've seen with tv hair. Everyone else has a mop of frizz, split ends or grease. That's because models and actresses are paid to have great hair. They have a team of hairstylists placing every hair just so before any pictures are taken. I don't. Yet here I am, my own woman, independent and capable, being held hostage by gender norms and tropes.

Vagina as Leg Shackle

patriarcy, feminism, feminist, vagina, modesty, dress, feminine
This bothered me the first time I read it, and it's bothered me ever since, so I thought I'd bother you, and share the joy. (No need to thank me.)

From Modest Articles and Testimonies:

If you feel you can’t do something in a dress, I would encourage you to question whether it is an activity that you can do and be feminine.

First of all, I can think of one activity that it is easier to do in a dress than in pants*. Secondly, a vagina is not a leg shackle. Hi, this is Personal Failure, and I'd like to introduce you to the last 100 years. Honestly.

What does "feminine" mean anyway?

According to the dictionary: pertaining to a woman or girl. Okay, so being a woman, that would make anything I do feminine. And that, kids, is the point. I am a woman. I can't stop being a woman (not that I'd want to). Therefore, everything I do is feminine. I don't become a man the instant I put on pants** or pick up power tools.

I think my irritation with this stems from two underlying ideas. The first is that everything a woman does, thinks or wears must stifle her and hem her in. Pants allow one to participate in sports and construction, and we wouldn't want women thinking they can do that sort of thing, would we? The other is that people like this are so obsessed with form over function. It's not enough that I am a woman, I must appear to be stereotypically female as well. I need long hair and skirts and aprons to shout to the world, and myself, that a woman is all I am.

That's what it is, isn't it? A constant visual reminder to the woman herself that she is less. That her life is confining. A constant visual reminder of all the things she can't do, not because she isn't capable of doing them, but because the patriarchy doesn't want her doing them. Because the patriarchy knows that the instant women figure out their own strength, their own power, the patriarchy's free ride is over.

I recommend putting on some pants and grabbing some power tools. Strength, now that's feminine.

*Ever since the summer of 1999, I have not been able to view walls the same way.
** If the writer of the quoted piece looks like a man in pants, she is wearing the wrong pants. I could not possibly be mistaken for a man while wearing pants.