From One White Ally to Others

by: Liberate Zealot

Let me take a moment to explain that I'm on my tablet as my computer's mouse is haunted and so there might well be more spelling mistakes than normal and I won't be able to include links to sources as I would like.  Now on to actual content.

I'm sure everyone reading this is in some way aware of the police violence and protests in Ferguson, perhaps you're even aware of certain feminist and LGBT groups speaking up in defense of the protesters and stating the concerns of police violence and racism in America  need to be concerns of mainstream feminism and LGBT groups.   These are connections I've seen white people speaking out against, sometimes even while claiming to support and stand in solidarity for the people in Ferguson.

So this is my message to white people, specifically those who want to support Ferguson protesters and what they stand for.

Firstly, shut up for a while and listen.  I know this is hard, I like sharing my opinions too.  But honestly, unless we're addressing other white people, and unless we're basing on our opinions on the testimonies of people of color it isn't out place to speak.  So again, spend a long time listening silently, and trust the black people who do speak out and share their experiences.

Next, remember our privilege.  As white people we are given the benefit of innocence by the police and media in a way black people aren't and this has shaped every single one of our lives and opinions.  By growing up to see police as protectors and only having that view point challenged (and at a remove at that) as adults means we might not understand the impact police violence and racism has on reproductive justice.  This is not something that effects out lives.  But if we can remember the first point and listen and trust we will learn from black women how fears of police violence against their children impacts their reproductive choices and parenting.  Things do not need to be self evident to us for them to be obviously and automatically true to the people who are actually affected.

Third, we need to remember that people of color are necessary parts of our feminist/LGBT/differently abled/etc communities.  Their concerns (that our white privilege removed us from) are not ancillary but need to be reconized as fundamental parts of our movements.  To do otherwise is to say people of color are ancillary and not fundamental parts of our communities.  And I hope that I don't need to explain that this makes us at least passively racist.

Lastly, we need to take direct action in support of the people of color in our communities.  However, while doing so we need to remember our privilege and our proper place.  We, and our families, are not Trayvon Martin, Renisha McBride, Michael Brown, or Cece Mcdonald.  We cannot fully know their experiences, and the experiences, fears, and concerns of their families and neighbors, and so we cannot speak for them.  Our jobs are to be microphones, to amplify their voices so more people can hear them, not to speak over them or steal their words.  When we do speak with our own voices and words on these issues we need to do so at the right time and place and towards the right people.  At candle light vigils we stand in silent support.  We raise our voices to the predominantly white police, politicians, and media to call on them to act with justice and hold them accountable and culpable for their actions and words.  We challenge white people who tone police, and play respectability politics, or what want to turn the Ferguson protests and the extrajudicial slaying of Michael Brown away from the endemic racism of police violence.

And again we listen, we respect, we trust, and we support.  The concerns and oppressions of people of color need to be fundamental parts of feminist/LGBT/other movements, but in doing so we white people need to remember our support cannot include speaking for people of color.  

Rape, Rape Culture, and Recovery - 3 Years Out

By Liberate Zealot
*Content Warning - Discussions of rape, rape culture, and PTSD*

Let me begin by saying these are my own personal experiences and in no way meant to reflect the experiences of all victims/survivors.  Even victims/survivors with similar experiences of sexual violence might experience very different effects and have very different roads of recovery.

The one thing I think the vast majority of us share is that recovery is not an absolute, it is a constant journey of progress and triggers and backsliding and unlikely to fully ever end.

I know sometimes I have thought I've reached, or nearly reached, the end of my recovery.  Months have passed since I've thought of him, or that night.  Since I've felt that knot of anxiety in my stomach, or that strange mental disconnect where my brain seems to float partially separated from my body.  Since that dizzy, rushing feeling overtakes my ears, eyes, brain, and body.
Sometimes months pass, but then something happens.  His name shows up on my Facebook feed, I see someone who looks like him when I'm out and about, I hear about another woman's rape which is similar enough to mine that I cannot disconnect my own experiences from hers.  Perhaps I hear a rape joke, am watching some movie or TV show that features a rape (these are worst when I cannot prepare for them).  Perhaps I just surprisingly dream in some way of that night and awaken, shaking.

Statistics vs Lived Experiences for Women at College

By Liberate Zealot
*Content Warning for discussion of sexual assault, rape, stalking, domestic violence, and rape culture*

Recently in the feminist/social justice sphere of social media that I inhabit a variety of people have been naming Cards Against Humanity and one of its originators, Max Tempkin, as good examples of those with privilege listening/learning/and properly apologizing for when they harm others.  And this regard for the game, and its creators, especially of Max, is something I take great issue with.

Not only because it is a game created by a bunch of (to my knowledge) heterocis white dudes who are upper middle class and therefore its hard to take any of its racist/sexism/homophobic/transphobic/ableist jokes as "ironic".  After all Max Tempkin wrote a lovely apology about that using all the appropriate language of "privilege" and how irony doesn't "punch down."

The issue with this apology and Cards Against Humanity is that I know Max.  We attended the same small liberal arts college, we have many mutual acquaintances, and Max Tempkin is a rapist.

To Those Being Dismissive of the Seriousness of the SCOTUS Ruling About Hobby Lobby

By: Liberate Zealot

For everyone claiming that women just have to pick better employers or it is no big deal to pay out of pocket for hormonal birth control, I urge you to deeply consider the realities of employment and health care in this state and country. More than 10% of women are unemployed, countless more are employed in minimum wage jobs from corporations that already seek to avoid covering health insurance. For many people they need to take whatever job they can. Spending extra time to seek carefully for the one (increasingly rare) job that has the best health insurance for them isn’t an option for the majority of Americans. And considering that 90% of corporations now have the right to refuse to include hormonal contraceptives makes this a bigger issue than one employer (even if they are a large corporation). 
Likewise, let us remember that employees pay into their health insurance policy, these women have already paid for their contraceptives, and now, because of the “strongly held” but factually inaccurate religious beliefs of their employers they must pay again, out of pocket. And some of the contraceptives that have been ruled against (like the IUD) can cost up to a month’s wages when not covered with insurance.
This is not a small issue. This ruling negatively impacts the lives of millions of women and their families.  This is a ruling that dehumanizes women, while granting even more powers to the already legally bloated corporate “person hoods”. 

Yes, I Hate Men

By: Liberate Zealot

I’m sick and tired of having to moderate myself.

Yes, I hate men as a class, and I hate the majority of individual men I meet, Including my one brother. 

No, this isn’t just intellectual.  It’s a visceral hate, knowing they see me as less than, and that the majority don’t even care enough to hide their disdain. 

So really. I Hate the majority of men.  And if you’re one of the few I don’t hate (like my father) you know enough about feminism to get why you don’t deserve an exception. 

Men’s hatred diminishes my economic worth, it attacks my freedom, my sexual health, my ability to live free of PTSD.  Random men murder and assault women (in every imaginable way) but I’m supposed to forgive.  Never mind I’m more likely to be attacked by a man than a shark or dog, and that’s not even getting into the moral, emotional, and mental attacks waged by my brother and his ilk. 

But, love one’s neighbor they say.  Never mind that one’s neighbor, and  his brother, and his club, are holding the knife.

By Liberate Zealot

Because watching my drink

And white knuckling keys between my fingers

And wearing jeans and sensible shoes

Was supposed to be my contract with the world

Providing safe passage

Protection against rape from the shadowy stranger

Haunting the corners of the club or streets. 

Because in the years of safety advice

From teachers, friends, chain letters, and police

Never once did they admit I would know him

That he would look me in the eyes and smile

He would wait days or weeks or months

And say all the right words before ignoring my own. 

Because even after that night

They still won’t admit its not the stranger in the street

I should fear

Or that the predator in the clubs is the ex-boyfriend

Or that it wasn’t caused by the length of a skirt

Or having long hair and a glass of wine.

Because they won’t admit

That following the rules isn’t protection

I know other women will have

The same realization that the one that will hurt you

Isn’t the shadowy figure in the night

(Though we’ll still fear him too).

They're Not "Bad Apples" They're the Whole Barrel

By: Liberate Zealot

Women are expected to see the actions of Elliot Rodger as a “lone gunman” someone suffering from mental illness.  Just as we’re supposed to view the other men who commit violence against women through domestic abuse, rape, or sexual harassment as “bad apples.”  Not all men are like that.  Maybe they too are crazy. 

However, if there is any illness its one shared by society. These actions are not those of insane individuals.  Rather they are the natural results of a society that finds sexualized violence against women as more acceptable than female sexual agency. 

And this is acceptable to these men and much of society.  Because they do not see women as fully human, (Rodger’s screed, praised in the MRA/PAU movement, proves he saw women as objects or animals, but not people) it is easy for them to prioritize their ideal sex lives over are actual lives. 

So many men see women as nothing more than some type of toy or sex doll, to be used, destroyed, and disposed of based on their whims. And it isn’t that surprising considering this is how so much media portrays us.  We’re trophies, tragic backstories, and catalysts of revenge, not independent characters with out own motivations.  Not people. 

Not *All* Feminists Are Like *That*

By: Liberate Zealot

I've recently seen some posts on tumblr by feminists going on about how not all feminists are lesbians, or butch, or man haters.  And I get they're trying to dismantle the stereotypes around being a feminist, because I used to do this too.  However, intentions are not magic, and the results are straight feminists trying to validate themselves and feminism in the eyes of the kyriarchy (primarily straight men) by throwing lesbians and gender non-conformists under the bus.

And that's what the people who make the lesbian, hairy, man-hating feminist comments want.

• They want feminists to be on the defensive. 
• They want to divide us, and have the ones with more privilege (straight, gender-conforming) refusing to support our lesbian sisters. 
• They want us to suggest there's such a thing as a good or bad feminist.
• They want us to say, "no I'm not like *those* types of feminists, you should like *me* and side with *me*" because that means we're also saying "you have feminists permission to hate and mock and oppress *those women*."

Feminism is about liberating women, it is about ending oppression for women, it is about creating equality.  But the majority of feminists have various privileges which make us ignorant about, or down right prejudice against, other women who do not share our privileges.  This is the reality of the kyriarchal world we live in.  Which means being a feminist entails constantly policing your actions, thoughts, and mind to do our best to ensure our attempts at feminism don't involve harming our less privileged sisters.  It means admitting we can be wrong, and admitting and apologizing for those wrongs when they actually happen, and educating and changing ourselves so we do not commit those wrongs again. 

I used to respond to anti-feminist jokes and comments by expressing something about the idea that *I* wasn't *that type* of feminist, that most feminists weren't like *that*. 

I was wrong to do so.  

I hurt other women, the people I supposedly fought for and with. 

The feminists who make those kind of comments now are wrong and harmful. 

If you're one of them then do what a feminist is supposed to do.  Change yourself. Stand with *all* women against oppression. 

When 15-Year-Old Girls Highlight Issues with Traditional Canon and Academia

By: Liberate Zealot

In class my students had to perform a summary and theme analysis of Chang'e and the Archer, a Chinese myth that is also known as the Moon Lady. It's the story of an immortal couple punished and sent to earth through the husband's attempts to save the people of earth.  His wife is upset and he goes in search of a way to become immortal again.  Versions of the myth disagree on wether it was a pill, potion, or magical apricot, but he gains one of these from the Queen Mother of the West. and it should be strong enough for both of them to return to heaven as immortals.  However, the archer doesn't tell his wife of this, instead he hides the pill/potion/apricot away because it must wait to mature, or be taken on a cloudless night.  He leaves and Chang'e finds the pill/potion/apricot and eats it.  However, she overdoses, or the night is cloudy, and instead of going to heaven she flies up to the moon instead.

Traditionally this story is meant to warm about the dangers of curiosity, taking things that don't belong to you, or warn women to be obedient.  However tradition is often most influenced by men.  My students, who generally don't have much experience in traditional critiques or theme analysis, and a girls raised in an increasingly feminist society, interpreted the myth quite differently.

Instead of being a lesson for Chang'e the morals were directed at her husband or men in general:
"Women will always find what you try to hide."
"Be honest with your partners."
"Don't hide things from you wife."

When it was a moral directed towards Chang'e it was about "don't allow yourself to be punished for someone else's actions."

And I know in so many classes or places my students would have been called wrong.  The morals they found were so far off from the "traditional" that many wouldn't pause to consider their validity.  Despite their answers being text based and ones they could argue and support such interpretations go against centuries of (male) thought that they must be wrong.

This ties into issues with academia, tradition, and interpretation in general. For so long the literary canon has been decided by the people with power in academia.  The proper interpretations of this canon were decided by these same people.  Centuries of traditional and academic correctness have been built by the values and ideas of these people.  And the vast majority of the time these people are men, mainly white men, who come from the upper and middle classes.
I'm a feminist, and I like to think I challenge such hegemonic and kyriarchal structures, but the truth is I was brought up in accordance to this structure.  I was brought up to accept the literary ideas of this culture, and I was brought up to articulate ideas in line with the culture.  And I was good at this.

But these black teenaged girls, from a poor city, who most would consider under-served by the educational system came up with interpretations that were more complex than the moral messages of tradition.  And in hindsight, I think their interpretations are also more correct.  Because why should a wife be punished for something her husband did that she had absolutely nothing to do with?  And what decent parter gains access to a powerful and potentially dangerous substance and doesn't warn their spouse?

Sure, "don't eat things when you don't know what they are" is an important lesson to teach.  But do we have to use grown women to teach lessons that most children learn by the time they're three? 

Where are the Young People?

By: Liberate Zealot

It's been several months since I've been able to write for Feminist Armchair Regime.  During this time I've been taking classes and teaching, first at a summer school, and now at an all girls public high school.  I've been so busy that actually seeing my live in partner is a struggle never mind writing for this blog.

But during this time I've seen and heard such amazing things from these teenagers.  Thoughts and beliefs and concerns that society seems so bent on refusing to acknowledge teenagers can have, especially the teenagers I work with. The vast majority of my students are black and living in or near poverty.  Some of them are teen moms, or homeless, or practicing Muslims who wear hijab.

Society has so many ideas about what teenagers like my students are like. Stereotypes about black people, and teen girls, and Muslim women, and poor children, and teen moms.  That they're unengaged and don't care about politics or feminism or LGBTQ rights.  I've heard so many people in power decrying the youth and their values.  And I constantly wonder what world these people are living in.

Because I live in a world where every feminist org or protest or rally I've been involved in has had at least half of the people participating be under the age of 30, and depending on the time there are a significant number of teenagers involved.

Some of my students regularly discuss if characters in the stories we read are feminist, none of my 150 students have ever questioned the importance of feminism.  Most find Malala Yousafzai inspirational and want to learn more about her.  Many are doing extra work to research women in literature.  They love Rosa Parks and are disappointed that more black women aren't commemorated in the Civil Rights movement.

And it isn't only the girls who are interested in these discussions.  Several black young men in my summer school class discussed the relationships between power and masculinity, wealth, and mental illness.  One knew the term and concept of Patriarchy as it's used in academia and social justice and was enthused to learn of Kyriarchy and the articulation of power structures that he was struggling to name.

And this high school I work at, full of African American teenagers, is one of the most LGBTQ friendly places I've been outside of official LGBTQ spaces.  Students who present in gender queer or butch ways are accepted.  The girls speak as positively about the lesbian relationships as they do about straight ones.  There is an active GSA.

And numerous students are interested in local and national politics, specially the government shutdown.  The day that happened several students came in to homeroom early to ask about the repercussions of the shutdown, and were horrified at museums being closed.  Some of my 13 and 14 year old students discussed the possibility of defaulting on our loans triggering another Great Depression.  And every single student is concerned about what this means of WIC and Head Start.

And one reason so many of these students are engaged, and so knowledgeable is because these concerns touch their lives so intimately. The pay gap is a much more pressing concern for black teenage girls than 20 and 30 something college educated white women.  It's the same for limitations to sex education, birth control, and abortion.  WIC and Head Start are what provided for many of my students when they were younger, some need it now for their children, otherwise they'd have to drop out of school and work full-time.

Police abuse and institutionalize racism in the legal system is something these children grow up knowing, elementary students can discuss Trayvon Martin, and not one of my freshman was unaware of lynchings or segregation or have hope for Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mocking Bird. My sophomores understand the struggle of Malala for an education much more so than the white kids in the suburbs that I've worked with, they understand it more personally than I do myself.

They also understand the concerns of health care and mental illness more personally than I do. They know what lack of health care feels like, they know the value of having it.  They know the importance of getting diagnosed and treated for mental health issues.  They know because they see their family members, or themselves, lacking that care, being under diagnosed.  They see that mental illness in poor black people is as likely to lead to prison as a psychiatrist.

They're much more knowledgeable and engaged than I was at their age. They care so much.  But their knowledge and experience and concerns are ignored by the very people in power who claim to lament their absence.
"Where are the young people?" they ask, "why don't young people care?" while they broadcast another interview with Taylor Swift or Justin Beiber or other wealthy, white, young people for whom feminism or politics can be concepts where engagement is unnecessary.

These people in power, very often white and middle class themselves rarely engage with the teen activists of TAP who are taking a stand in New York against Stop and Frisk. Or De'Jaun Correia a teenager who speaks internationally against the death penalty, and whose uncle is on death row, and remains unacknowledged outside of The ROOT.  A quick google for "black teen activists" contains more first page hits about the Trayvon Martin activists not speaking out against the beating of a white student than about current teenage African American activists.

So we have to look at the reality.  The young people are there, already as activists, or with all the passion ready to be engaged.  The issue isn't with them.  It's with us, the people in power who don't want to reach out.  Who don't want to work with poor black or immigrant teenagers.  Whose feminism or political activism doesn't actually care about the concerns of the passionate and informed youths in the US.  We'd rather maintain our privilege and decry the lack of youth engagement than admit it's not young people who are the problem, it's us. 

Choice, Motherhood, and Being a Woman.

By: Liberate Zealot

Sometimes it is difficult for me to reconcile my feminist identity with that of me as a part of my family. Other times it's it nearly impossible to reconcile my upbringing with that of a woman (in the United States).

No matter the aspect of myself, or my actions and beliefs, there seems to be an incongruence.  This touches every part of my life, but for most it is the idea that my identity as a person is not completely recognized, within society or even my family.

I imagine this is a recognition many people experience.  Those of us who are in some way outside, be it because we're queer, or people of color, or disabled, and non-Christian or women.  And rebelling against the established norms only exacerbates our lack or personhood and belonging.

So often society/politics/my family makes me feel incomplete. A not fully actualized version of a person.  And oddly enough it is my upbringing that makes me able to recognize this incongruence.

I was brought up to be opinionated; and confident in my voice and experience and opinions. I was brought up to see myself as a being of worth, as a full and independent entity. And yet, as I age, that full and independent worth and identity is stripped from me.

Once upon a time I saw myself with children, even if I never had a partner.  But as I've left my upper middle class upbringing, and as political and social spheres has turned more pro-fetus and anti-woman, I've experienced a great change in that regard.  Now I know I'll never be willingly pregnant or a mother.  And when I expressed that to my (mainly feminist) parents the question wasn't centered around what had made me change my mind, but what my male partner thought of this. As if my decisions about my body and life were incomplete without a man's opinion.

And I have a brother who goes to pro-life marches and studies to become a priest in the Catholic Church.  And I have so many other family members who seeks to do right and help others but cannot conceive an existence of worth without it being one in line with their own views and beliefs.

And these views and beliefs are the ones that say I should be incomplete without offering up my body and life to motherhood.  That my male partner is the primary actor in our partnership.  That to be a true  women I must be a mother.  And that to be a mother I must sacrifice all for my children.  And that my body, mind, and desires are secondary to that.

And so many of them cannot understand my virulent objection of these ideas.

They cannot understand that my primary objective to motherhood is that of being unwilling to sacrifice my personhood. Instead they convince themselves that it is about a lack of love and understanding of children (despite my decade of work with children).

I cannot conceive of being pregnant in a country where so many people prize the life and humanity of a pregnant person as secondary to the fetus they willingly (or unwillingly) carry.  And that this is a devaluation of humanity that only effects pregnant people.  No one else is expected to sacrifice their organs or living conditions for another person.

And I cannot conceive of being a parent, a mother, in a world that devalues mothers.  Where father's are praised where mothers in the same situations are hated and mocked.  Where women are hated for being working mothers, or for needing more than motherhood to experience a complete life.

I am a person, a human, first and foremost.  And many aspects of my identity means that society seeks to take that personhood away from me.   And I cannot imagine willingly ceding more of my personhood.

Some people must give up parts of their personhood to live the lives they want, and I cannot blame them for such.  Certainly I have done the same in different areas.  Some do not see these identities or lives as a ceding of their personhood.  Some glory in the chance of rebellion.

All of these lives and choices have worth.  And I hope, with all my heart, that they are centered around a freely made choice.

I just wish society recognized the choices of women.  And saw us as full humans worthy and capable of making choices about our own lives.

Do Not Mistake My Calmness

By: Liberate Zealot

Content Warning: Mentions of rape, street harassment, and rape threats.

Don't mistake my projection of calmness for a lack of emotion.
I'm a woman, brought up not to rage.

Please Sir, Tell Me More About How to Feminism

By: Liberate Zealot

Originally posted on Tumblr

Lady Feminists we all owe Charles Clymer of Equality for Women a big “Thank You”!

I especially like his telling women what words they can reclaim or not reclaim, almost as much as I like straight people telling me not to use the word queer.

Also he’s right, I should be exceedingly thankful for my period.  After all it’s only 5 days a month (~900 days so far) of sometimes crippling pain and the hundreds of dollars of added expense for pads, tampons, pain medication, and stained underwear.

And it’s true, reminding male feminists/allies that they have male privilege is totes disrespectful.

And promoting classism and dismissiveness to women are surely the ways to do feminism right.

And If I was being sarcastic in this and actually have nothing but contempt for men like Charles Clymer, well I’m just one of those 1% feminists who has nothing better to do then foam at the mouth.

Plus I’m totally a misandrist. 

When Male Feminists/Allies Aren't

By: Liberate Zealot

I'm so sick of these "feminist" men who in attempting to recruit more men to feminism start telling women feminists how to feminism, or what language we should use, or the proper tones and measures to take to end patriarchy/kyriarchy.

Male feminists/allies should be attempting to turn their places feminist.  They should discuss feminism and bring feminism to men.

But in doing so they don't get to declare the death of "women's issues".
Or say the male hierarchy should/will be the main factor in ending patriarchy.
Or claim it's necessary to make feminism more appealing and comfortable for men.
Or co-opt and rebrand feminist/women's terms to appeal to men.

They don't get to take feminist theory (built and centered around women) or issues that primarily target women and other uterus havers and re-name and re-center it around (cis)men. Those actions are not the actions of a feminist/ally, but a perpetuation of the patriarchy.

I have absolutely no patience for these types of men.  Especially when they speak as "accredited" feminists/allies and representatives of feminist/women's orgs.  I'm not going to waste my time "educating" them and providing a detailed break-down of why that they're saying/writing is patriarchal.   They obviously have the resources to learn why such behavior is inappropriate.  If they cared enough about dismantling their male privilege they would attempt to do so, instead of glorifying in their high brow version of WATM.

If you can't handle something being woman centered, where the primary actors of change are women, then you'e not a feminist/ally. And if you think the only way to appeal to a certain group of men is centering feminism around them, then you're failing, because you're not creating allies, you're creating in-group oppressors.

Resource in dismantling the claims and "proof" of MRAs/"Humanists"

By: Liberate Zealot

One thing trolls/MRAs/"humanists" love doing when they come into feminist spaces is share videos from girlwriteswhat and all her awesome proof that its much harder being a man, patriarchy doesn't exist, and feminists are stupid and man haters.  I'm guessing their propensity to share her videos verses other attempts to discredit feminism is partially because she's a woman and partially because if you're not educated on the topics she discusses then her points can seem persuasive.

Now I'm going to respond to some of her claims, but the focus is responding to people who use girlwriteswhat as proof that feminism is unnecessary.  This post is not directed at girlwriteswhat herself.

General response when people post her videos:
The points made by girlwriteswhat can seem persuasive, however a majority of them are based on inaccurate or misrepresented history/law/practice/science.  A lot of them rely on popular tropes that upon further investigation from reliable/academic sources proves untrue.  In the rare cases what all of girlwriteswhat information is correct she's still faulty in her focus on feminism.  The causes of the issues she correctly names is the Patriarchy/Kyriarchy, which feminism fights against.

The two most popular videos that people share (in my experience) are the ones on "Feminism and the Disposable Male"and the almost two parter about rights of the child, paternal rights, men's responsibility in preventing pregnancy and financial abortions.

The myths within the "Disposable Male"
"Women and Children First" as a successful policy of life saving pretty much began and ended with the Titanic.   Other British ships did claim this policy, but when it came to maritime disasters it was almost never followed. Generally men are much more likely to survive a disaster, this is even more true for the captain and crew ("going down with the ship" was basically another Titanic exception).

Also unlike her claims, current standards of saving people on ships/from fires makes no distinction between men and women. People might need and receive special assistance because they're children/have disabilities/carrying multiple children. Basically you take care of people who need the most care/assistance first which is generally not an able bodied adult of either gender. 

Almost no society in history or our modern era provides resources or care for men last. Now the resources and care people get are very class dependent, but if families/communities don't have enough wealth to care for all their children male children receive the food/healthcare/education first (infanticide and sex based abortions really don't happen to boys). The primary exception to this is when the woman is pregnant/breast feeding (a son). And that's because so many women had miscarriages (1 in 3 or 4) or died in child birth (1 in 3 again) that the extra resources were necessary for them to have a chance of a healthy pregnancy/delivery. 

As for the continuing of the species, child creation is easier for a man.  Men *can* father children on a variety of women.  The costs of pregnancy (time and the 1 in 3 death rates) are much harsher on women.  But when it comes down to it genetic distribution necessitates almost as many reproductively viable men as women.  

Inaccurate representation of causes

Work place death - Men are more likely to die at work, because they're more likely to take dangerous jobs like mining/oil rigging. The reason is women are still often excluded from these jobs. When it comes to dangerous factory jobs and the fire in them women are as likely, if not more likely to die (because they've been locked into the factories). Work place safety is a definite issue, but it's caused by classism/Patriarchy/Kyriarchy, not feminism. And plenty of feminists do work to fight classism and engage in labor movements. 

As for war, women have been soldiers (at lesser numbers then men) for millennia. Also the main attitude of women at battlefields was not about them being locked up and protected, but rather tortured/murdered/raped. Many feminists fight to gain women more fair access as soldiers. Many feminists are also anti-war activists. Some of us even do both. 

Paternal, Maternal and Child's Rights

Preventing pregnancy - Everyone engaging in sex is equally responsible for preventing pregnancies.  Now there isn't a male pill, thought it is scientifically difficult yet possible, but there are two good ways for men to prevent pregnancy. Condoms, which have the extra bonus of protecting from STIs and STDs, and vasectomies which are relatively simple and safe (especially compared to tubal ligation).  If you happen to be in India there's also an even better way for men to control their own birth control.  In India there is a gel injection which can block semen.  It's cheap, lasts for 10 or so years, is easily reversible, and has very few documented side effects compared to hormonal birth control. MRAs also seem to have a great fear of reproductive coercion where women sneakily get pregnant (through the sabotage of birth control) against the wishes of her male partner. And this can and occasionally does happen, but birth control sabotage most commonly is done by men as a form of domestic abuse.   

Abortion is not just an answer to not wanting to be a parent, but is also about body autonomy and not wanting to be pregnant.  Which is why the idea of "fiscal abortion" is rather offensive.  Sure, you don't want to have the legal and financial responsibility of being a parent, but that's what adoption is about.  

Adoption and parental rights also comes up in the case of men wanting to keep a child but the women giving them up for adoption.  Which in the US doesn't happen.  Adoptions can't go through without the father's consent.  Men have the right to raise their children and can challenge adoptions and the other legal methods people can give up children.  The exact rights vary based on location, but birth father's have rights and it's a complete falsehood to state that birth mothers can give their child up for adoption no matter what the birth father says. 

When it comes to divorce and custody parental responsibility and "rights of the child" are the main concerns.  This means that if equally shared custody is not possible than the primary or sole custody is determined on the best interests of the child and who is the primary caretaker.  The is determined by which parent is more active in the day to day life of the child, who picks them up from school/when they're sick, who helps with homework, who prepared their meals.  Patriarchal gender roles mean woman are more likely to do this so mother's are more likely to get primary or sole custody.  (This isn't the case if the parents are unmarried and/or have never lived together while raising the child).  In my experience working in child care and dealing with lots of divorced/never married families (and sometimes being involved in the divorce/custody proceedings) the mothers are more likely to be awarded custody, however if the father is an active parent and wants custody of his kids then the custody will be shared equally or he'll get primary custody. 

Other generic claims - 
Benevolent Sexism really is a thing, and while it's more prevalent in places with high hostile sexism something being less worse than the alternative doesn't make it acceptable.

Actually feminists aren't man haters, hating the patriarchy isn't the name thing as hating individual men. Feminists are less likely than non-feminists to believe the male-hating ideas of "men are dogs" or "rapist is a natural state for men". 

Plan B and Why It Should Always Be Available Over the Counter

By: Liberate Zealot
Content Warning: Mentions of rape and child abuse.

So I've been working part-time for a prominent reproductive and sexual health and rights group for a little over a month (which is one reason I've been posting a bit less).  And, as I'm sure many of our readers know, on Friday there was a massive explosion in the US on these issues.

I refer, of course, to the federal ruling that Plan B become available over the counter to people without age limitations.

Which I think is awesome news!  Yay for increased reproductive rights!  Yay for better protections against unintended and unwanted pregnancies!  Yay for increased youth rights!  Yay for science and logic and medicine!

Of course this being the US this awesome news quickly became big and controversial.  And thus I spent much of Friday researching the issue (specifically the anti side) to prep one of our board members (and a doctor practicing at one of the premier hospitals in the country) for the several interviews she gave with local news stations.  And Saturday I received a media briefing where 60 major state and national media outlets wrote about the ruling (and had to read the majority of them).

So now I want to sit down and write about my thoughts on this ruling, specifically to counter all the myths about Plan B and the negative response to this ruling. (Because after this being my life for two days I have so many thoughts).

Women's History and Reproductive Rights

By: Liberate Zealot

It's the last days of Women's History Month in the US and in that time I haven't really written anything about the topic for Feminist Armchair Regime.  Women's History Month is a time to celebrate woman and their achievements from the past and sharpen our gaze on the continuing concerns and causes faced by women.  This year much of the focus is on women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, but like every year, it’s important to consider reproductive justice and the role family planning plays in equality for women. 


The individual women who achieve notice in the annals of history, the Elizabeth's and Hypatia's, had extraordinary privileges for their times, one of the most significant being the ability to choose not to marry or have children.  And so it seems obvious to me to state that family planning is the bedrock of women’s rights.  The ability to plan when to have children, and when not to, is a necessary part of achieving parity in education, in income, in the work force, and in government.

The right to reproductive control over ones own body is a right that has long been denied to the majority of women.  And the more intersectional oppression one faces the harder it is to access ones reproductive rights.

For decades before the legalization of the Pill or Abortion wealthy and middle class white women knew how to access safe options of birth control.  Not so for poor women and women of color. This disparity is the reason Margaret Sanger (who is also not the massive racist so many people believe her to be) protested the Comstock Laws and opened the majority of her clinics in neighborhoods with high populations of poor people, immigrants, and people of color.  Currently access to contraception and abortion in the US is still very much based on class, race, and location.

And we know the limiting of reproductive rights is about hurting women.  It isn't about viewing fetus' as children and thus worthy of protection, because the protections of poor children are being stripped away.  And it isn't a secret that many of the states which are the focus of the anti-choice movement have high populations of people of color and people living in poverty.  Mississippi, the state with the most focus around Personhood Bills, and until this month was the state with the most restrictive abortion ban, is also the state with the most African-Americans and the most people living in poverty.

If we can't control our own bodies and whether we become pregnant or not than it's much harder to control our education and careers.  Certainly if we can't control out bodies or plan when, or when not, to have families then we can't live full lives of relationships and pursuits outside of the heart and home.  And should we pick one we'll be shamed for being lazy, for denying our womanhood, for being cold-hearted, for "mooching" off a man.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

There is no chance for us if we're denied the most basic human right of deciding what to do with our own bodies. 

I've learned the history of women.  How one must be exceptional, come from immense privilege, to be afforded a place as a woman in general history. How the many amazing unrecorded women faced impossible choices, if they had any choice at all.

Shaming vs Call-outs and Being Ashamed

By: Liberate Zealot
Content Warning: Discussions of sexism, rape culture

In the world of internet call-outs, specifically the calling out of oppressive behaviors like sexism or racism, a lot of people seem confused between public shaming and publicly showing the actions that people should be ashamed of.  As someone who works in childcare and has studied discipline techniques and the psychology around them I need to be aware of the difference between shame and ashamed.  And considering Adria Richards and some of the "discussions" I've gotten in I think it's important to try to pass on understanding about the distinction between shame and ashamed, especially in the public sphere.

First the basics:
Shame is a noun that describes deep and painful feelings brought about a disgraceful state, or can include having brought about that disgraceful state. When used in regards to public shaming it's a transition verb that is used to describe punishments or ways to negatively motivate people to doing things. (Negative motivation don't necessarily mean bad, but the taking away from, in this case it's the taking away of pride/happiness).

Ashamed is an adjective that describes a sense of guilt over wrong doing.  It can include feeling shame, but remember shame is the feeling, ashamed is the act of feeling.

But this undergoes a bit of a change when we talk about public shaming vs public call outs.

In this case the shaming is meant as a punishment, generally THE punishment.  Past examples of shaming as the main form of punishment include the use of stocks and dunce caps.  Modern day examples include a teacher speaking loudly to a kid about their bad behavior in front of the whole class,  or parents forcing their kids to stand with signs (describing their bad behaviors) in public areas.  In this case the public shaming is the act of punishment, its very purpose is to cause such emotional harm that the person no longer engages in such actions.  Psychologically we know this generally causes feelings of victimization, mistrust, and doesn't stop bad behaviors.

Now lets talk about call outs and how they fit in.  Call outs are meant to be used to highlight oppressive attitudes and actions that harm not just an individual but a group.  Call outs, to a certain extent, are meant to be public because they are in response to an action that is public and harms the public.  In the classroom when my students engage in oppressive speech I do a public call out. I say the speech is inappropriate and explain why. Now this is pretty easy, in the class I'm in a position of power.  But let's say the person calling out the oppressive action isn't.  Maybe they're not just lacking a position of power, but are in a hostile environment (like many STEM conferences and jobs are for women).  Then an immediate, in person, and educational call out might not be an option.  Maybe the person wanting to call out the behavior doesn't know the perpetuators name (which makes reporting instead of calling out an issue).
Either way when it comes to public call outs the internet is a powerful tool that can provide some safety and also a stage and microphone to the person calling out.  Now remember, the point of call outs is not to cause emotional harm to the person being called out, but to hold them accountable and high-light their oppressive actions. Call outs can name or not name, they can provide pictures.  Famous call outs include Elevatorgate, and the recent mass call outs of CNN for their coverage of the Steubenville rape trial.  Some sites and groups exist for the very reason for callouts (and to a certain extent warnings) HOLLABACK or SexistFacebookDudes for example.  We've engaged in many call outs on this blog (our previous post was a call out).

Now call outs are about behaviors that people should be ashamed of.  They should be ashamed of their sexism, racism, homophobia, perpetuation of rape culture, transphobia, microaggressions, harassment or whatever else they did that was oppressive and harmful to an individual and a group.  But public call outs are not about shaming or punishment, though they can potentially result in both.

It's easy to see the call outs against CNN and its reporters as a call out vs a shaming because it was an organization, a group of people, and they're in the public eye.  Also they've yet to face any harm for their perpetuation of rape culture.  But people seem to be having a much harder time believing Adria Richard's was calling out harmful behavior instead of publicly shaming people.  Even though they were people at a conference, representing their companies, and speaking loudly in a public area, and adding to the inhospitable and hostile environment that STEM areas often are for women.  Perhaps it's because the call out resulted in punishment that people can't see that the call out itself wasn't the punishment/shaming (or the cause of the men being punished). These men engaged in sexist jokes, and when it was brought to light through Adria Richard's call out they were banned from the conference and fired.  Understandable if you're engaging in sexism at a conference while representing your company.

The men apologized for their sexist jokes.  Hopefully they were truly ashamed, instead of only ashamed of getting caught. But they weren't shamed, even if they did feel emotional distress over the call out.  The call out wasn't the punishment, it wasn't public for the purpose of emotionally hurting these men.  It was public because their actions were public, public sexism in a sexist environment, and it's purpose was highlighting the sexism and asking them, the conference, and STEM to do better.

Open Letter to CNN

By: Liberate Zealot

As many people are well aware, the primary Steubenville Rape Trial is over, and the rapists were convicted (and will likely serve 3 year or less between the two of them).
Justice is served?
Hardly, but that hasn't stopped CNN, specifically Fredricka Whitfield, Paul Callan, Candy Crowley, and Poppy Harlow for feeling bad for the rapists.
One way to fight this horrible example of rape apology and rape culture is to publicly call in out in the broad sense, another is to personally call out the people responsible.  I'm attempting to kill two birds with one stone.

"I'm writing to you because your reporters commentary over the Steubenville Rape Trial and its verdict has been absolutely reprehensible.  Reporter after reporter bemoaned the fate of the rapists and how their "promising lives were ruined" for being held responsible for the crimes they committed.  Whitfield, Harlow, Callan, and Crowley all expressed sympathy for the rapists and much of the footage was focused on the rapists and their families crying after the verdict was read.
I can think of no other instance where reporters try to heavy handedly drum up support and sympathy for people convicted of serious crimes. Certainly the other stations did not engage in this.  And the actions of CNN's news teams are especially inappropriate considering the ubiquity of rape and the lack of rape convictions that exists in the United States.  The commentary of your reporters and film shown not only speak poorly of your ability to show serious news without bias, but also perpetuates this serious rape culture.  Such actions are inexcusable.
I expect CNN and it's specific reporters and news hosts to issue public apologies for their inappropriate and harmful language while reporting on the Steubenville Rape Trial.  I also expect CNN to feature an expert on rape and rape culture so as to fight against the harmful ideas that you and your representative perpetuated.  I will continue to boycott and publicly call out CNN, and encourage all of my friends and colleagues to do so, until CNN, Whitfield, Harlow, Callan, and Crowley all apologize and explain why such coverage was inexcusable." 

Please feel free to copy and share the letter, and use it yourself when calling out CNN.


You can contact CNN on-line

Or tweet them and the responsible reports:
@CNN
@FWhitfield
@crowleyCNN
@PoppyHarlowCNN
@PaulCallan


Sign the Petition

And a follow-up, considering it's been five days with no apology:

I'm absolutely horrified that CNN and its reporters have refused to apologize for their abhorrent rape apology during their reporting of the Steubenville Rape Trial Verdict.  I cannot believe that any station with the pretense of serious reporting would not only engage in such behavior, but refuse to make restitution for their perpetuation of rape culture.
You had the opportunity to show growth and to educate America on a topic that we desperately need enlightened.
For too long has rape been framed as something that just happens, with rapists less than culpable.  Where making reports against rapists is treated as "ruining their lives", with no regard to the fact that the rapist is the active person, the criminal.
You've had the chance to apologize.   To turn this into an opportunity to educate America on consent, rape, and rape culture.  Instead you give us nothing but silence.  On top of the sickening dose of rape apology you've already spewed.
You and your reporters are completely unacceptable. 

"My Name is Not Annie"

By: Liberate Zealot

I’ve worked with children and adults from Ireland, Poland, Russia, French, Hawaii, China, India, Iran, and who are African-American, all of whom have had “traditional” names that could be difficult for people of other cultures to pronounce. 

I’ve always made the effort to pronounce people’s names correctly, and every other teacher and adult I know has made the same effort for Niamh from Ireland, Katarzyna from Poland, and Guillaume from France. Not so for Jinyue or WeiWei from China, Negeen from Iran, or the African-American La-a or Aungenette, or say, Quvenzhané.  When these white teachers and adults who struggle so much for white people with long names or sounds unfamiliar to English tongues don’t care.  A close approximation is good enough, or else it’s:

“Don’t you have an English/nick name?” 

“I’m going to call you…”

As if not working our white person tongues, or feeling embarrassed from mispronouncing a name while we struggle to get it right, is more important than the feelings and identities of people of color.  

And if your response to this is “Well I’d call Katarzyna ‘Kat’ or some other nick name, or everyone with long names has a shortened version” than you’re missing the biggest part, the historical/racial context.

For centuries white people, Europeans, have forced name changes upon people of color. We’ve done it to Asian immigrants.  To the Native Americans from “King Phillip” all the way down to the children in the Christian re-education schools in the 1960s.  We’ve done it to the Africans we enslaved, and in modern times by refusing to hire people with “black sounding” names.  Sure, that history isn’t *our* fault, but if you don’t want to be associated with it then don’t repeat it by refusing to call people of color by their real names.