blueAlto

You got to love this Feministing youtube edition of Fuck You Feminist Friday. As usual, it cuts to the chase, is abrasive, and is bound to piss a lot of people off. But most importantly, they are right in their core principle. Even if it is hard to hear for some.

By the look of the comments after Jessica's post today, it would seem a lot of people were pissed. Good. As the title says, the woman has a point. It was nice to see it expressed without the platitudes and framing done to "not offend". So amusing were the responses,  Jessica wrote specificallyy about the comments she received on that post.  Interesting, amusing, but yeah, still very scary that these idiots exist.

It may seem like I am endlessly beating a long dead horse with this entry, but it does a very good job at getting to the heart of what is happening in these debates between women of color and the larger feminist movement.

Sitting down to put this entry together, I had not yet heard of the latest mistake to hit the feminist / women of color debate. This one is beyond the pale. Yes, I used the tonal reference purposefully. Deciding I don't have much to add to the latest BS, I am going to stick to my original plan and answer a question many have asked in email regarding the original issue.

A question about what was stolen, how exactly was it stolen, and was it direct plagiarism or not. This is an edited comment I submitted to the website Feministe, and I think it may explain and demonstrate exactly who is hurt in these debates when activist work, and previous research, go completely without attribution. I make the point that appropriation or plagiarism isn't the point. Silencing a movement, is.

I think Amanda Marcotte has made her position abundantly clear with respect to engagement on this topic. It is clear as hell to me that Amanda is not going to engage, period. Too wrapped up in the velvet cape of histrionic offense, talking about greater themes and patterns is not a good move for someone if they instead can maintain the focus on a discussion that will never go anywhere. Concentrating on what was never said, through the word semantics of personal offense, does a great job of keeping the focus off the actual grievance. The one that so far, still needs to be addressed.

So....if we are serious about a conversation that speaks to racism, that speaks to privilege, and speaks to an all too common dynamic of flawed thinking when we take time to consider our otherwise progressive outlook; the one that affords many of us with a false belief in our ability to understand dynamics of minority experience, we then begin to have a conversation which may be of benefit.

My main point being, idea appropriation or not, plagiarism or not, what we need to center this discussion and future discussions on, is the actual grievance, as articulated by the injured party. After making certain I am fully aware of just what that is, I will now ask Amanda Marcotte to answer my points below, clearly and minus the previous invective.

Amanda, how is it that in an online and real life activist culture which specifically deals with the issue of immigration and sexual explotation, and with the majority of people who work for, and fight for those organizations being the exact people this issue effects, how is it possible that a major article by a popular, well read and recognized feminist, has completely ignored and denied that entire community? 

By not linking, by not referencing, and by failing to mention that community, you not only invalidated them, you stole their voice and used it for your gain. Make no mistake, there are years and years of documented work and historical precedent done by local grassroots activists. The offense is not just “one woman who writes one blog who is throwing a hissy fit”. That is a complete mis characterization and is grossly unfair to not only that woman, but more so, it is abuse of that community that your derailing side arguments over semantics and picking the best "framing", for your supposed offense. Once again Amanda, your actions and aggressive disregard of the way this issue plays out, has served to ignore and invalidate minority experience.

No matter how you cut it, what did not occur was an acknowledgment and a reference to the people who do this work day in and day out and have been doing it in a time frame measured in years. Secondly, you have harmed the individuals that this issue takes advantage of. Invalidating people who are already often invalidated without any help from you, does nothing but ensure their continued subjugation and abuse.

This is light years more serious than the appaling way you attempt to frame this Amanda. Get over yourself, and just do the right thing for a change. Because hopefully what is becoming clear to you, is that your framing is pretty damn off at the moment. Good luck with that.

The very important issue that I have been writing about for the past couple of days, the active silencing of women of color bloggers, is finally gaining some momentum, and blogger Ico has written an open letter to the white feminist communityy, asking them to, quote, stop fucking up! She is amazingly on point in this letter:

The icing-on-the-cake, the piece-de-resistance, the ginormous-cherry-on-the-sundae-of-hypocrisy. If the issues concerned a bunch of women and men in arguing over whether something were sexist or not, there would be no question of who was right. When you have a group of men ganging up and claiming that the women in the room are being over-sensitive and irrational and seeing sexism where there is none (we have all been in this room before, I think), we all know the men are full of bullshit. It is an egregious show of male privilege.

So when all the WoC in the blogosphere are telling us that there are problems in feminism…

Um… yeah.

It's an uncomfortable, but highly required, long time in the coming message, and it is something that needs to be treated as a priority. If you would be interested in supporting the cause, then go to the site linked above and leave a comment, asking to be included and signed off on the letter.  

When I made the very scary decision to leave what was a rather cushy position in emergency medical research, and return to grad school for my MFA, it was with a lot of thought and some obvious goals. All of which were in some way based on my experiences reading literature and non fiction that had the ability to move me, change me, or make me consider something for the first time. If you stop to think about those things, and just what it means when those experiences happen for us, it can be overwhelming.

I have always been deeply affected by a personal narrative, the act of an author writing and expressing a strongly felt declarative statement. When the prolific blogger brownfemininepower took down her website recently, the blog world lost a very strong, powerful voice. One that I really wish more people had a chance to read. I remember when I first stumbled onto her site almost a year ago, the first article I read was discussing her initial experience with women's studies, and her first experience with the brilliant and cutting edge Andrea Smith, author of Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide.

While I had never had the opportunity to hear her lecture, or experience the teaching of Ms. Smith, I had read her books, and I had very specifically garnered much of my pedagogical ethic of student safety, from her writings and philosophy. What became increasingly clear to me as I read brownfeminepower's essay discussing Andrea Smith, and the ensuing comments, was what that particular community of women of color bloggers had more of than any other blog community I had come across. In a few very large and meaningful ways, they were rich.

Odd you might say, given the dynamics that have been laid out over the last several months, it seems like a somewhat contradictory thing to say. And if we were just talking about acceptance and validation from the mainstream, I would agree, they are anything but rich. Though what I was feeling, what I was seeing, and what I am trying to get at, is the community that these women have created with and for each other, is extremely rich.

It's something that you can't help but notice and it's a flavor that runs through all the women of color blogs that I have read. They are there for one another, they support each other, they hold each other up, and when it gets bad, as it has lately, they have each others back. And no, they don't always agree. Though there is always a core respect, and a core support. And it's something that makes me angry when I think of some of the darker reasons for that highly developed trait I see in women of color.

That is something I envy, and it is something we in the liberal mainstream blog world - feminist, gay, anti racist, pick your theme, we could all do a bit better at. The following video We Belong: Women Of Color & Online Feminism is one made by Sudy, who also writes a great blog. I think the video does an exacting job of conveying my point here. It was shot around the recent WAM conference (women and media) and when I first saw it, I was overwhelmed by the genuine support that it demonstrates so beautifully. I think it's a great, inspiring way to close out this topic. 

 

Because too often I hear that abortion rights are "not my issue", or the dismissive and contextually lacking "I'm not pro abortion". If anything, the following story I wrote about last year drives home the point that reproductive justice is not simply about the right to safe and legal abortion, it is about nothing less than the right to self destiny and bodily integrity, in the most literal sense of both words and meanings.

As an aside, the comment thread is an interesting example of how opposition to this fundamental right is usually framed by those who fully realize the inherent weakness in their flawed position.

*** 

This tragic and heart wrenching story, one I have followed closely for the better part of a year, reached its inevitable conclusion today. Early this morning, in a small hospital room in Bogota Colombia, Martha Gonzalez, thirty four, died. Sad, yes, but why tragic, you may ask. Because there exists no compelling reason that this woman had to suffer and lose her life the way she did. A lack of choice surrounding her right to safe and legal abortion, and in a greater sense, the denial of self destiny, is what killed Martha Gonzalez.

To many women in this very Catholic country, this woman is their hero. A street vendor who sold food and souvenirs to tourists with money to spend, Martha was a mother of five girls. Her daughters, now orphans, are seventeen, six, five, two, and a newborn. The compelling legacy their mother left them is huge, and something that has turned a tide in the fight for womens rights in a country whose policies strongly echo the church. But the brutal reality is, they may have a legacy, but what they're missing is their mother.

Just over a year ago, Martha discovered she was in the initial stages of uterine cancer. A pathology that, if caught early, has an extremely high rate of success with aggressive treatment. For Martha, the perfect candidate for aggressive treatment, that was never an option. Because she was also one month pregnant, and the laws of her country would see her carry the fetus to term, even though to do so would be an almost certain guarantee of early demise.

With a government intimately connected to the power of the Roman Catholic church, abortions are illegal in Colombia, even when the health of the mother is at risk. The doctors explained that waiting until the baby was able to be delivered would be a fatal decision. One that unfortunately, was absent available recourse.

Three weeks ago, due to a lengthy court challenge by Martha and a local women's action group, this oppressive law was amended to allow for medically necessary abortion when the life of the mother is in question. While the decision is a huge victory for women's autonomy, for Martha and her family, it was also bitter sweet. Shortly after the legal victory, the family was told that due to the advanced progression the cancer, nothing more could be done.

I wonder if those in opposition to this decision, the same people who prevented this woman from a chance to save her life, will be there to provide for her five children. Including the newborn who was carried to term, and then promptly lost the only person who had ever cared for her.

Women's Link Worldwide is currently raising funds for a house to be built for the orphans. Earlier today I sent off a small donation. If this story moves you, and it is within your means to donate, please consider doing so. If you are not able to donate, then please make a commitment today to help ensure that in this country, a woman's right to chose what is best for her, is something we continue to place great value upon.

Well, you can thank RealSanDiegoWoman for this one. Consider it the straw that broke this camels back, with regard to the ignorant assertions that suggest everyone but Andrea Dworkin knew what it was that Andrea Dworkin was apparently saying, every time the issue of intercourse came up. No pun intended.

So let's start with a tough one. What do you get when you put right leaning, Republican "real women", men with feminist "issues" (translated out to usually mean their all encompassing blissful maleness was not noticed by an attractive woman who makes decisions for herself), and the mere mention of anything, dare I say it "feminist"?

The answer sadly, is along with all of the other vitriolic bullshit that is engaged when the issue of a movement that works for a woman's full humanity is brought up, is what I have dubbed the "Dworkin derail". The type of assertion that is meant to invalidate the idea of full human rights for women, because the object of the statement, Andrea Dworkin, one of the most notable second wave and anti pornography feminists of the past century, dared to be....fat. She also dared to not shake her hair, blink her eyes, and say "tehe", every time she made a declarative statement.

But that is not all the Dworkin Derail is meant to do. No, it is not bad enough that we invalidate the woman's opinion on the basis of her weight. Which, really isn't the issue anyway. The real kick in the pants with Andrea Dworkin  is our cultural unease with Andrea's perceived complete lack of concern over how she comes across to men. "Fat", it seems, is not really the issue. The rub, is fat in addition to not attempting to mitigate that supposed deficit.

Of course no one will admit that, but it's the underlying dynamic present in all of the anti Dworkin narratives that occur in feminist discussion. The fact that her feminist scholarship includes twelve non fiction books, five books of fiction and poetry, eight peer reviewed academic articles, seven speeches before a national audience, and four critical film reviews, is apparently irrelevant. Because even if that were the case, it doesn't matter, since the anti Dworkin crowd will then unleash their smoking gun, the "fact", that Andrea Dworkin says all intercourse is rape! A fact that in one foul swoop has labeled every men, both figuratively and essentially, a rapist.

Interesting. Especially since I have never seen or been given a reference for this sweeping indictment of the male species. In any of the books and articles and speeches Ms. Dworkin wrote and made, she never once suggested that idea by statement, by tone or by inference. Instead, those with an anti feminist agenda have misused her words with a fair amount of artistic license. A problematic scenario, given the amount of feminist theory most with an agenda hold. These are the people who would miserably fail a feminism 101 exam. If we were measuring just ideology alone. When it comes to the language and politics of feminist discourse, these people have usually been around the block more than once.

So, once and for all, let's deal with the age old question: 

Did Andrea Dworkin ever say all intercourse is rape?

No, she did not.

I realize that a simple assertion to the contrary is a somewhat weak refute, therefore allow me to offer the following five points. Teaching cultural studies, I have found I often need to come up with a relatively contingent refute to the assumptions about Dworkin's words on rape. This is a framework that I use for discussing the issue, and hopefully, it meets the mark.

1. The Set Up: Perhaps what Ms. Dworkin was suggesting on the topic of intercourse, was that because heterosexual women live and exist in a culture that is and always has been structured on a patriarchal framework, heterosexual intercourse then, becomes the default or paradigm activity for all sexuality; other forms of sexuality are typically treated as “not real sex”  (an interesting connection to the Frot movement theory base), or as a type of foreplay, a mere precursor to intercourse, and they are al;ways framed in words and terms that analogize them to intercourse. So we have the framing of sex, and through a tacit understanding then becomes the assumption that "sex" = intercourse
2. The Cultural Depiction: both academically and culturally, heterosexual vaginal intercourse is and always has been depicted in ways that are first and foremost male-centric, and phallic based, suggesting the activity is initialed by and for the man, and is most often based in power dynamic of entitlement. Consider our descriptive terms here. Penetration is quite the descriptor, and one with a  high amount of cultural assumption and carry over. If we can consider that view, then we must also consider that the male is being “engulfed” by the woman, or if we want to be particularly egalitarian about it, we can see them as “joining” together. But we don't see intercourse that way. We never hear of intercourse as anything beyond penetration, or a man, "giving it" to a woman.To be fucked, to be screwed, to be nailed to the wall.
3. The Lived Reality: Taking the two points above and placing them in the context of our culture is key. In general, cultural attitudes are reflective of, but also serve to reinforce, the actual and theoretical lived realities of women. Realities which always include, therefore must take into account the prevalence of violence against women committed by men, and the very real and vulnerable circumstances of many women to extreme poverty. Poverty and need have the potential, and in this culture often do, substantially constrain women’s sexual choices, available options, and level of power with regard to heterosexual intercourse.
4. Connect The Dots: Consider that points one through three must be seen as a serious obstacle for women to effect power and change over their own lives and identities. Escaping that is something that is multi layered, and for most women to whom it applies, most often difficult.
   
5. Consent Is More Than A Soundbite:  When we look at how intercourse as it actually happens between the men and women you see everyday on the street, it is not something practiced in a vacuum. There is always a social context, and for the vast majority of American women, that context is in varying degrees, laid out in the points above. Intercourse then, is a real social institution and a real experience in individual women’s lives. Therefore, we arrive at the crux of the issue The framing of the issue of consent as simply *choice*, is false. It is always shaped and constrained by political-cultural forces, never merely by individual choices; It is important to note, this is not some weird, post modern relatively new theoretical deconstruction. It is classic and textbook social anthropology!

So now we tie all this up. When we draw ethical lines that view our sexuality in line with what we call personal agency, it can never be solely on the basis of individual formal consent, as opposed to a viewing which will always consider the important social, cultural, and economical based conditions on which sexuality, negotiation and formal consent occur. Individual agency is never a solid line in the sand. It is contingent on, as well as references, varying degrees of circumstance and context. Decisions born out of inequity which are based in survival, fundamentally limit agency. When we steadfastly take issue with, or never acknowledge that when it comes to sexuality and the idea of consent, we then become a society where intercourse, by mandate, must always be viewed in a context of potential rape

That is, in a nutshell, the essence of the whole "all intercourse is rape" debate. As demonstrated, that is simply not what Andrea Dworkin said. Though for the people who will leave this article bleating, once again, like sheep, why don't you just read her fucking book. Intercourse. Get it here. She outlines her views much better than I could hope to.

Hello, what feminist icon are you? I'm Andrea Dworkin. Did anyone really think I would come up as being anyone else? Well, I thought maybe bell hooks, but no my feminazi credentials showed their muscle I suppose. Maybe I could pass this on to all the gay men who insist that they are feminists "if they say they are". But most wouldn't want to be Dworkin. And Britney isn't one of the options either. And I didn't see Liza on the list....

Anyway, take the quiz and let me know who you come up with. Oh and one last thing....Since at the moment I suppose I am supposed to pretend I'm Andrea Dworkin, just a small point: I never said all intercourse was rape you vacant puritanical asshats. Read my books already!

 

Which Western feminist icon are you?

You are Andrea Dworkin! A few radical feminists love you, but most of the world thinks of you as the definition of "feminazi." Of course, you also know that most of them haven't read your books. Anyone who has knows that you're smart as hell, committed, passionate, and right on (at least some of the time). Take this quiz!

Dear Mr. Rush Limbaugh

From: Every man and woman everywhere who has even once been credited with having an autonomous and original, critical thought. 

TOPIC:: When Speaking On Issues Of Which You Are Ignorant

This afternoon, while doing background research on four timed best selling author, Rhodes Scholar, and post second wave, though not quite third wave feminist icon Naomi Wolf, I had opportunity to come across a brief, yet characteristically in bad taste, sexist, frat pack mentality, rhetoric disguised as analysis, sound bite you made, regarding Ms. Wolf.

But since my pedagogical style has not been threatened by petulant, anti feminist nonsense for quite some time now, and since I prefer to instruct referencing more than the proverbial choir, I considered adding your....opinion, let's say, to the dull hum of the severely and hopelessly off key, right wing contingent shouting from the cheap seats.

Then I happened to take a closer look at the weight and substance of your points regarding Ms. Wolf, and managed to see the error of my progressive ways, in thinking you capable of anything more than your usual offerings of borderline at best, somewhat culturally relevant, bigoted swirl, and came to my senses.

Because Mr. Limbaugh...Okay then, Rush. Because Rush, telling Naomi Wolf that she should:...

...put a sock, or 'something else in it honey', and plop those perky tits back in your bra (if you haven't burned it yet), and run on back to life on the reality side, will make you happier than hanging with the women who use feminism to get a pass to mainstream society. Because all things considered, you are sweet, hell you have pretty hair, and let's face it - you are damn hot! Don't waste your time with the man haters....

....is rather self defeating in some very substantial ways, Rush. But I suppose that would be understandable if you had even a measurable chance anyway. Hate to tell you bigot boy, you and your oxycontin addicted relic of a once has been, now largely irrelevant ass, are way, way, out of that, or any other American woman's league. Most of them don't like you Skippy!

So, back to the memo, Rush. When speaking about issues of which you are ignorant, such as anything to do with Naomi Wolf or any other American woman, please, do your country a favor, and shut the fuck up!

Kisses,

 alto

Some of you may recall that last year around this time I wrote about my friend Natasha, a young Russian woman who was being considered for a position teaching in the brand new women's studies department at Moscow State University.

Well, a bit of an update. Natasha finally did get that position in the first women's studies department in the country, and she couldn't have been happier. A phone call last evening marked the first time I had heard from my friend in quite a while, so it didn't take long for her to positively burst with the news that she was just awarded a permanent full time teaching position with a definite eye and path toward tenure. 

Not bad I would say for the woman who, now thirty, has lived through communism, homelessness, Chernobyl, KGB interrogations, poverty, ongoing civil war, and yet somehow managed to complete a graduate degree, learn three languages, navigate a feminist identity, and still have a hopeful outlook at a time where nothing looked hopeful. As I indicated, I briefly mentioned her story before, though I think it deserves a closer look.

Natasha is about ten years younger than myself, and hails from Usinsk, northern Russia. Working in a remote western medical clinic in the mid nineties, was how I came to know this woman who also served as my translator. From that relationship I learned quite a lot, and often had occasion to challenge many perceptions around what I thought to be issues for women in former eastern block countries.

Today, Natasha lives in Moscow with her finance, and as I indicated, has secured a full time position with the Moscow State University. I recall the last time I was in Moscow, Natasha and I met for lunch at the architecturally stunning MSU campus; literally one of the most beautiful academic institutions I have ever seen. Speaking with her last night, she was so happy to be a permanent part of the faculty of that very historically rich institution.

In writing this I can only begin to contextualize the differences between modern North American second or third wave feminism, and the type of feminism now being imparted through an academic lens in a former communist nation half a world away. While both have the underpinnings of equality at their core, the goals, methods, and most importantly, the identity that is based on specific positioning, both politically and historically, with patriarchy, can often be very substantive departures from the academic feminist theory and discourse of America.

Detractors of feminism will often say that difference should be a given, thus indicating the lack of need for European women to "bother themselves" with the petulant temper tantrums of the west style of feminism. Discussing this issue in my last article, here is a comment that sums up my point very clearly:

"When you have to worry about what to put on the table, or your government taking your husband away in the middle of the night, the appropriate way to spell woman suddenly means fuck all".

Well of course it does, but nice wedge detractor, and besides, it is so not the point. But even more so, that mindset serves to ignore, thus trivialize, the vast difference of experience between North American women and those women who have lived under extremely corrupt and very unstable regimes. Coming to a feminist awareness in those circumstances requires a certain deference to history, tradition, and the vastly different role women play in Russian family and society.

I recall Natasha often telling me stories that did a far too accurate job of imparting a collective and widely felt sense of instability in what was a pre Democratic Soviet Union. Even entertaining concepts of individual agency, let alone autonomous control of our own lives, was something never even discussed in most of Natasha's formative years. Compound that with a sudden fall off a centuries old political system, followed shortly after with massive economic destabilization, and the daily concerns of life become, out of necessity, very essentialist concerns.

In 2008, the fact that the theory and discourse of academic women's studies is being given serious investigation in Russia, is something that leaves me both positive and hopeful. A very persuasive argument could be made that just by the very fact this discourse is now something to place priorities on academically, that many concerns of the past have been effectively managed. I'd be cautious on that front.

While it is true that when stripped of all posturing rhetoric, simply, feminist issues are feminist issues are feminist issues. But whether in Canada, the US, Russia, or central Africa, the important differences and distinctions still remain. Putting the large elements of context and regional variations aside, to maintain a historical sense of relevance and correlation is very key, and central to fully understanding at its core, the issue of women, Russian or otherwise, and their relation to society and each other.

Above: The main campus building of MSU, Moscow State University.

Above: The faculty of social sciences at MSU, where women's studies classes are held.

Interesting how timing works. Someone had just recommended the following video to me after reading my post entitled Hey Men. I had viewed it, was moved by it, and had planned on posting it later this week. Then I received an email. I won't print the entire version, just the following excerpt to give you the idea. It's one I have received more times than I care to count.

"...most gay men are really tiered about hearing how everything is a 'woman's issue' and that we are somehow responsible for the continued oppression of the female race..."

And on and on and on. The writer might wish to reexamine his definition of 'race', but really, that's not the point. The point is, this is sadly typical of the usual bullshit that spews from the mouth of those who refuse to look at their own male privilege, while extolling the virtues of all progressive causes.

So, instead of another long winded, angry rant that often falls on a few deaf ears, while preaching to the already converted majority choir (of my readership), I'm making it personal. Please, listen to what this woman is saying, and then maybe think twice before you complain about "those uptight feminists".

Thought that would get your attention. Fooled you! Well, not really. Let me explain....

The "pro life movement" has done an exacting job of positioning their cause against most other progressive causes. The pro life movement, or as I've taken to calling them, the forced pregnancy contingent, relies on their position coming from a place that is seen as life affirming, pro personal responsibility, and family centered. The reality being, the systemic effects of anti choice legislation and policy, combined with the spill over effects of these anti empowerment decisions on women's (particularly poor women's) lives, have far reaching effects that are routinely and purposelly never addressed.

This video by Quinn Gorges is a wonderful and passionate example of how taking a pro choice position with regards to reproductive freedom and bodily integrity, is actually something that would be more effectively called; pro life!

Let me be clear; institutional misogyny and the various offshoots of, are huge issues in academic circles. And while that is a reality that is personally well known to any woman ever to enter graduate studies, the response I give to many of these nerdy windbags is offensively dismissive. Since really, their opinion deserves little else. Welcome to the first edition of Sexist Fun Wednesdays!

I direct your attention to the two teenage girls in the picture below, bottom of the page. Now people, don't let their freshly scrubbed, girl next door looks fool you. You need to be shrewd, you need to read between the lines. Because what those calculating young girls are doing, the little sluts, is nothing less than committing the atrocity which goes unchecked daily in this country. They are blatantly and with a decided fuck you edge, systematically raping the English language.

Or so says the academic nerd David Gelerenet, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, a far right think tank where the hoods and white sheets are replaced by polite society connection, Brooks Brothers suits, and class privilege.

We have allowed ideologues to pocket a priceless property and walk away with it. Today, as college students and full-fledged young English teachers emerge from the feminist incubator in which they have spent their whole lives, this victory of brainless ideology is on the brink of becoming institutionalized. If we mean to put things right, we can't wait much longer.

By that quote you would assume that Gelerenet's hand is uncomfortably close to the red button, though it's in the following little snippet where he does a better job than any deconstruction could hope to in identifying the  "I've been wronged by a cold hearted feminist bitch" motivation present in his vitriol. If you can stomach it, the full article is a treat unto itself. Though I was disappointed there was no comment section. No doubt because of all the screaming, horny feminists out to get a hot piece of Gelerenet ass. I know I'd be first in line.

But the real problem goes deeper. Why should I worry about feminist ideology while I write? Why should I worry about anyone's ideology? Writing is a tricky business that requires one's whole concentration, as any professional will tell you; as no doubt you know anyway. Who can afford to allow a virtual feminist to elbow her way like a noisy drunk into that inner mental circle where all your faculties (such as they are) are laboring to produce decent prose? Bargaining over the next word, shaping each phrase, netting and vetting the countless images that drift through the mind like butterflies in a summer garden, mounting some and releasing others--and keeping the trajectory and target always in mind?

Mounting some? Interesting how the dawn of what is clearly WW III has arrived in the form of a skirt that dare assert her right to be addressed by inclusive language. The nerve of that bitch.

 

Karen was going to leave this as a comment, but we had a very lively discussion about it and decided to turn this post into the official blueAlto fashion code.

That's right, I, the man who's understanding and interest in mens fashion will never go beyond the initials of J. Crew, MEC (mountain equipment co op), and a boot store named after a forest, has co authored an opinion piece / fashion code. Just because the concept of mens fashion both bores and amuses me, does not mean I cannot occasionally demonstrate my very exacting awareness of female style sensibilities.

But first things first. I think that given the tone of the current crop of OCM* additions to discussions, the suggestion by Doralong that we ignore the unpleasantness, is a very wise one. Secondly, since Karen is not available tonight (it's date night), and since I know what her very strong opinion is on feminism and fashion, and since it is an opinion I strongly share, and lastly, since it is our blog, on these pages this will be the once and for all final word on this nonsense about feminism and fashion.

Before you critique her fashion choice, please read the fine print:

Opinions on what a woman wears, her level of femininity, her lack of feminity, her attractiveness, her breast size, her weight, her personal fashion, makeup and hair choices, etc, etc, and on and on, are never the concern of anyone but the woman making the choice of what she will wear, weigh, and how she will groom. Period.

Anyone who thinks that the credibility of a feminist has anything remotely to do with hem length or heel height, needs to get their bogged down in advanced concepts of theory head out of their ass and into a history book, because if petty arguments over "lipstick as a tool of the patriarchy" are occurring, you can always be assured that important things are not occurring. Enough said. 

        ~ Al & Karen 

The above shall serve as fair warning that if one decides to engage the worth of opinion based on arbitrary worth of physical presentation arguments, they should be advised to wear protective gear when making a comment, since be assured you will be called on it. 

As Al will be tied up for a few days with some recent unexpected events, I will be your ever smiling and good natured blog hostess until his return. A somewhat out of context Julie McKoy, cruise director. Of course mentioning that seventies era TV and pop culture reference of The Love Boat, very quickly dates oneself, when expressed to ones group of nursing students. Students with a median age of no more than twenty two.

While certainly not viewing The Love Boat as a self defining element of my coming of age, hearing the late radical feminist Andrea Dworkin speak at a rally in High Park, was just that. Because one thing that she said hit me like a steam engine, and I knew that from that day forward I would never look back, or change my central identity as feminist. it was an identity that I would come to know and understand in some very deeply experienced ways.

Andrea Dworkin was a lightning rod for feminist controversy. Often espousing opinion that many viewed as suggesting intercourse is a fundamentally anti female construct that could not be separated from rape (that was not the correct interpretation of her opinions), her views were sometimes prohibitively aggressive and radical. I frequently did not, and still do not agree with many of her concepts. But it was in the following example of what she said in a description of what defines one as an anti feminist, that her words spoke to me on profound levels, and at fifteen, made complete sense.

Anti feminism is a direct expression of misogyny: it is the political defense of woman hating. This is because feminism is the liberation movement of women. Anti feminism, in any of its political coloration,holds that the social and sexual condition of women essentially (one way or another) embodies the nature of women, that the way women are treated in sex and in society is congruent with what women are, that the fundamental relationship between men and women — in sex, in reproduction, in social hierarchy — is both necessary and inevitable. Anti feminism defends the conviction that the male abuse of women, especially in sex, has an implicit logic, one that no program of social justice can or should eliminate; that because the male use of women originates in the distinct and opposite natures of each which converge what is called “sex,” women are not abused when used as women — but merely used for what they are by men, as men.

– Andrea Dworkin,

And with that passage, and the hair on my neck standing at attention because of the truth of those words, I became a feminist. How that has personally applied, and on occasion directly challenged me over the past twenty years, I will address in several future entries.

I spent the better part of the past week immersed in a writing workshop, one where we were coached to "find our inner Zen". If that was not pretentious enough, we were directed to, upon capturing the elusive inner Zen, "excavate it for resonance". And for this, I'll be paying student loan bills well into my seventies?

As I mentioned to a friend in an email, that not only sounds packaged and formulated, it doesn't even make sense beyond some very lazy symbolism. So to say that by weeks end I was feeling the need for something with a bit of traditional literary chops, is putting it mildly.

So on to my very forced segue; speaking of traditional literary genres, and the inherent limitations of such, I give you the Sunday edition of From The Archives, a critical piece regarding none other than Jane Austen. Enjoy....

 
A Lack Of Sense & No Sensibility
 
!n the last weeks of February 2007, Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice' was given the honor of most popular book in a World Book Day survey. And with that decision, the next literary gender war was born. God forbid the mistress of humility might actually know the recognition of twenty first century success.

Predictably, it was left to the BBC to carefully, but skillfully trot out the English literary snarks; people who view it as nothing less than their royal duty to offer opinion meant to relegate Ms. Austin to the shelves of dusty complacency and irrelevance. After all, in their mind, Ms.Austen was not in fact a great novelist, satirist and social commentator, but only a mildly entertaining fiction writer for women. Celia Brayfield, author and lecturer at Brunel University, on Austen: 

"I think she betrays her time and I'm always gob smacked by what she ignores. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Napoleonic Wars going on at the time she was writing?

There is never any poverty, corruption, ambition, wickedness, or war. Her wit can be enchanting, and her human observation somewhat astute, but the world she writes about is very, very tiny".

I am not familiar with Celia Brayfield, but her assertions smack glaringly of a male centric argument, one which largely diminishes literature not traditionally aggression focused, not historically relevant to popular narrative, and is refreshingly oblivious to anything not of common interest or wide appeal to men.

I've heard the same, tiered old arguments before involving Jane Austin, Toni Morrison, Rita May Brown, and Judith Guest. Women who enjoy a specific talent for the chronicling of human experience. Not battle of 1812 like, but the normal and extraordinary occurrences which exist in the confines of our own lives. Often times there is a kind of contemplated antipathy for the novels, choice of subject, style and everything else about these authors who write from an intuitive, and oft perceived female persuasion.

But for the critics who lament the absence of war, do they not realize that with every war, hundreds of years go by, and few people really care about the outcome, or can even remember what it was all about. But the truths about human nature and society in the novels of Austen and others are even more relevant today than at the time they first knew publication. Characters and story lines never lose their complexity, and well written and well formulated humor and pathos will always be exactly what it is; funny, dramatic, and most importantly, enduring.

Ultimately, there are more than adequate numbers of books which abound detailing every minute example of war and military history. The absence of women in these texts, supporting to the main characters or otherwise, is jarring. One wonders what the women did exactly, during these great battles. Authors of the genre seem to have packed them off for a permanent girls weekend in the country, as it is a rare example to find a female character of any depth in these works.

The reality is that still, even in 2008, the traditionally male centric fiction narrative has become so much the norm, that anything else seems irrelevant, which consciously or unconsciously serves to paint history from the female centric point of view as non important or trivial.

In my mind, Austen was not writing about misplaced and irrelevant issues, she was just simply very shrewd in her choice of subject. True, her novels were largely only about romantic love and family life. Interestingly, two of the few things that haven't, to any great degree, really changed since she was alive. Both of these snippets of human experience still absorb us in equal measure. If Jane Austen had written detailed accounts of the Napoleonic Wars, I'm confident a large number of people would have never read her books. And that, would be a shame.

In my last entry I briefly discussed the events surrounding my personal experience with violent crime. I also touched on my decision to seek alternative justice measures for one of my attackers; the same man who I was convinced was largely responsible for preventing his partner in crime from raping me. That was a factor that weighed heavily in my decision to pursue alternate sentencing for this man. The following is a description of how that process played out in my life, the lives of those around me, and Trevor, the young man who was sentenced.

Lest anyone think that avoiding incarceration for this type of crime is a sweet deal that lets the perpetrator's off scott free, I assure you, the reality is very far from that pressumption. Meant to provide an option of rehabilitation while still serving retributive ends, the program is brutal. The following is only some of what Trevor was sentenced to during the three year sentence and two year probation. A one time slip up on any of these conditions, and he would have been sent to jail to complete the remainder of his five year sentence.

Trevor experienced ten months of house arrest, only being allowed to leave his front door once a month, supervised, for three hours to stock up on groceries. A year of community service served as a janitor in the non client areas of a women's domestic violence shelter, a fine of five thousand dollars in cash, mandatory drug and alcohol treatment, mandatory counselling and anger management, compulsory upgrading of his never completed high school diploma or GED, and successful completion of an introductory trades apprenticeship. There was one more condition. A mandatory impact encounter with his victim, where each person, perpetrator and victim, express what the crime, sentencing, and experience of the alternative justice process had been like for them.

Obviously, that last factor included me. Looking back on that now, it is interesting that at the time, I simply dismissed it as something I would deal with when the time came in five years. It was remote, it was in no way relateable, and six years ago, it was easily extractable. For the first four years after sentencing, I hardly thought of the event to come. For the year prior, I thought about it often. And for two months prior to the meeting, I thought of nothing else.

Out of all my friends who I was able to experience support and strength from, Al had been the most consistent, and the strongest. Though we had talked little about it, I realize how intense this experience must have been for him. He was the one to receive my hysterical phone call at four in the morning. He was the one who had to arrive at my apartment, seeing me half naked, bleeding, and inconsolable. And he was the one who had to spend over an hour attempting to pry my terrified and shaking dog Luby, from the closet where she had been hiding. Though he never mentioned it, I know Al struggled with those things. Not surprisingly, he was also the friend who had the most resistance to my decision regarding Trevor.

Though the one thing that stood out for me in this very strange scenario, even though he had huge problems resigning my decision around Trevor, Al never expressed that to me beyond an initial statement, albeit in no uncertain terms, that he felt it was a bad idea. It's interesting, we share a unique relationship in regards to the experience of reciprocity. For both of us, it is fundamental to our friendship. Being able to offer unstated respect, support, and most importantly, autonomy, in allowing the other to make the decisions that they know are right for them, without an interfering or medaling hand.  

So it was with his clear duality around the situation that I invited Al to the impact encounter. He accepted the invitation on the condition that if he felt he needed to express something, then that would be his decision, no matter what the content of his statement. Of course there was no way I could say no to that. Therefore, on a beautiful spring day in May of 2005, deep within the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department Headquarters, myself, Al and a court social worker, came face to face with a man who had been instrumental in the only violent crime and attempted rape I had been victim to in my entire life.

When Trevor walked in the room and met my eyes, every emotion, every fear, and every resentment I had carried since the attack came hurtling to the surface, spilling into the room in a torrent of anger, screaming, and overwhelmed energy. I surprised everyone with the outburst; though none more than myself.

Than it was Trevor's turn. Never deviating his eyes, tears flowing down his cheeks, he spoke for a full twenty minutes. What I heard was the voice of a man who was truly sorry, who never once used his deplorable background and horrible childhood as an excuse for his crime. He took full responsibility for everything that occurred, and then he offered a clearly painful and obviously guilt ridden apology to me, and to Al, who he had never seen before, for the incident that had occurred that July day three years earlier.

There are only a few moments that I can recall very viscerally from that day. One was the anger that I unleashed when I first laid eyes on Trevor. The other was when, at the end of the session, I crossed the room and embraced him, telling him that I forgive him, and asking him to please do the same for himself. That experience really was the first time I had been able to position that event of three years earlier, squarely in the past. I was very grateful for the opportunity.

Today, Trevor has successfully completed his sentence. He has also completed both AA and CMA (crystal meth anonymous), and acts as a sponsor in the AA program. He has received his GED, has graduated from a college certificate program in computers, and holds a part time job at the recreation center where Al sits on the community board. Indecently, Al was the one who hired Trevor. I think it is fair to say that whatever misgivings he had, they are now in the past.

I understand many will not view this event in the light that I chose to. And I understand that. But if that is your experience, please ask yourself this: If Trevor had been incarcerated for the five years he spent in the alternative justice program, what would his current reality be? Because one thing is clear, it would be a measurably different reality than is his today.

For those of you who have read what I contributed to Al's old site, you no doubt recall the events I write about today. Given the focus of the entry yesterday, as well as the news today from the CDC that suggest a full quarter of American women will suffer domestic violence, I thought today was an especially timely date for this entry to be revisited. 

I offer this experience to you as a cautionary tale. One that women will