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.

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. 

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. 

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". 

Part of the solution: Providing info on services for men in Toronto

The following is cross-posted from the Damsel in de Tech blog. Click here to see the original.

Yesterday morning I caught wind that U of T is going to be hosting an MRA speaker. A friend shared this lovely and daintily-written article on her wall (caution - it goes to A Voice for Men - if you don't want to give them page hits, then you might want to pass):

For the University of Toronto Student Union

The baiting part is probably my favourite. This way if counter-protestors show up and are impolite, well by golly, we were "warned" and they can be as violent and vitriolic as they'd like because, heck, why not. If no one shows up, well by golly! They scared us all off! Success!

Not that they could ever hope to harness or emulate the awesome of Freddie Mercury's nipples.

Anyways, as fun as that all is, I've decided that since no one else was up to organizing a counter-presence, I'd arrange one myself. I was at that previous "infamous" counter-protest and I noted that one of the elements missing was an offering of tangible alternatives to people who may get sucked in by such speakers, so I thought I'd set up this event with a different tone and intent. 

From the Facebook event page:

Once again the U of T campus will be playing host to a speaker that relies on sexism and racism as scapegoats for some of the legitimate grievances that men in our society currently face, to forward their bigoted agenda. 

This article gives a thorough background on the speaker coming to campus:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2013/03/guess-whats-coming-u-t-mens-rights-movement-janice-fiamengo-pau 

Information on the event here, that won't give their page undue hits (it still has info on the old location that has since been updated): 

http://wx.toronto.ca/festevents.nsf/591df5f4e9bb95b0852572ff00502015/8b64bf07cf5bb4d885257b1a00785c5b?OpenDocument 

It can be useful and cathartic to simply protest hate speech on campus, but we recognize that events like this so often take advantage of vulnerable people who are sincerely looking for answers. Let's make this counter-presence a productive one and provide as much information as we can gather and distribute to attendees. 

If anyone has contacts with organizations that support men in Toronto, please post links here to help us distribute them more effectively. Let's work together to make sure the men who are facing hardships are heard and actually given something tangible and constructive to walk away with.

Being reactive can be very useful and appropriate, but I personally want to build up a collection of resources so when these issues continually come to fore (and they will), we'll have some alternatives already on hand. And, just as importantly, if there are gaps in services (as there very likely are), this will give us a good way of finding out what those gaps are. Heck, we might even be able to get the participants at these events on board to help close those gaps and create or expand services within Toronto to support them.

For any readers, please let me know about what services you know of that are available for men in Toronto. I mean any services, such as addiction counselling, housing assistance, suicide intervention, support for survivors of sexual violence, court support, etc. If you know of services that are missing and needed, please let me know that, too. Let's use this opportunity to be productive and address these issues in a real way.

Identities Are Not Insults: Addressing Oppressive Language Among Children

By: Liberate Zealot
Content Warning: Discussions of oppressive language and slurs, use of oppressive language and slurs as examples

Part III of the Feminism and Children Series : Feminism and Children MasterPost

So the roommate and I are both teachers and we're both concerned with challenging oppressive language and the normalization of slurs. I'm with elementary schoolers and she's with middle schoolers so our approaches are a bit different.  But a recent purchase of hers, and some recent conversations with my students have brought this topic to the forefront of my mind, and so I wanted to share some resources, techniques, and conversations we've used to challenge the ubiquitousness of the kyriarchy in the language of children.

Buffet Feminist

By: Liberate Zealot

The Patriarchy/Kyriarchy is pervasive, it is entrenched, and sometimes it feels absolute.  It's in the schools, the courts, in politics, in doctor's offices, in media, in pricing and advertising, in religions and atheist organizations, sex and dating advice, cultural standards and stereotypes.  The Patriarchy/Kyriarchy is in economics and banks, it's in psychology, and promotions and pay raises, nerd/geek culture, it's in grocery stores and the price of food, in personal interactions.  The Patriarchy/Kyriarchy is in every person, our selves included.

No person can hope to overcome the Patriarchy/Kyriarchy on their own.  And similarly no Feminist theory, or social justice group/movement, can address every aspect of the Kyriarchy. None of us can hope to understand, focus on, and fight against every aspect of the entrenched Kyriarchy.  And similarly, our relative privileges make us blind to many of the causes, branches, and results of the Kyriarchy.

Just as the Kyriarchy has many voices and arms (and heads) so must we who fight against it. We need Radical Feminism, and Liberal Feminism, and Communist/Socialist feminism, and Sex-Positive Feminism, and Womanism, and PostColonial Feminism, and all the branches of Feminism to combat the many permutations of the Patriarchy/Kyriarchy.  Similarly we need people and movements to address the areas that Feminism fails to address (while working to make ourselves better allies).

We need all the Feminist voices to shout out against the incessant drone of the Kyriarchy.  And we need to work to support new voices, and make sure our own voices don't silence the voices of other people who are unheard in the Kyriarchy.

And because I believe most deeply in this need, because I think Feminism is doomed without its many and ever expanding voices and branches, I am a Buffet Feminist.

But, seriously, why can't we just shoot all the rapists?

The following is cross-posted from the Damsel in de Tech blog. Click here to see the original.


*CONTENT WARNING FOR DISCUSSIONS OF RAPE AND GUN VIOLENCE*

As a follow-up to the post "Kill all rapists!...", here are some practical considerations to take into account when trying to tell women that they all should arm themselves as a method of rape-prevention.

To start off, here are some quick groups that armament won't help, that I really don't think need any further clarification (or least I sincerely hope not):
- infants and children below the age that are legally able to carry firearms
- persons with disabilities that prevent them from being able to handle a firearm
- persons with mental health issues that would make possession of a firearm exceptionally unsafe and irresponsible

I hope we can agree that persons from those groups should not have to arm themselves. Unfortunately, those groups make up a large portion of the victims of sexual violence.

Next, there are some people who may not want to have firearms:
- pacifists who do not believe in responding with violence under any circumstances, including those whose religious beliefs dictate such
- parents who are afraid their young children may get a hold of their weapons
- persons with abusive partners that have not been able to move out and have reasonable fears around keeping weapons in the household
- persons who are not comfortable around guns due to a history of family violence, PTSD, having lost a loved one to gun violence, or any other of a million valid reasons

Now that we've got those groups out of the way, we'll assume that the advice of "carry a gun" is just being directed at this time towards women who are old enough to legally own and responsibly handle a firearm, who want to carry a firearm, and who can conceivably arm themselves at all times because of the particular gun laws where they live.

Let's say that I'm walking through an alley (I know, I know - why would I do that if I value my safety and vagina?) Let's just say that there's construction on the street and all foot-traffic is being diverted through the alley. Let's say I hear footsteps coming up quickly behind me.  I'm armed, I'm alarmed, and someone grabs my arm! I turn and fire off a bunch of shots into... a nun who was trying to return the wallet I dropped. Well, that was a justifiable homicide, right?

Ok, let's be more serious. Let's say that I'm on the subway and it's later at night, maybe around 8 or 9pm, and this far up on the line it's deserted except for me and a man who is staring at me. His stares are making me quite uncomfortable, so I try to keep myself occupied by reading Facebook on my phone. Then, I realize he's masturbating. Can I shoot him, yet? Do I have to wait to see if he approaches me? If I wait, am I just giving him signals that he's safe to assault me because he's already violated my boundaries and I haven't done anything about it?

How about I'm at a house party and a friend is drunk and being really overly friendly and handsy with me. She pulls me in for a kiss, even though I've been trying to keep her at bay all night. Do I shoot her now? Do I wait until she tries to stick her hand down my pants? And if she does, is that enough to shoot her? Or am I only supposed to be shooting men? And what if it's a woman sexually assaulting a man? Can he shoot her? Is this just the kind of protective violence we sanction in theory coming from straight ciswomen to straight cismen, or can people of any gender identity shoot anyone else who attacks them without concern for how the law sees them?

Let's say that I'm fast asleep in bed at home and I wake up and my husband of 20 years is having sex with me in my sleep? Can I casually reach over into the nightstand and grab my gun and shoot him? Do we run drills like we would fire drills so I can practice going throught the motions of shooting someone when suddenly woken up out of a dead sleep?

What if it's a Thursday afternoon and I'm catcalled on my way home from work? Can I shoot the catcaller in the face? I don't know if I ignore him or respond if he'll react with anger. I don't know if this interaction will escalate. I don't know if I'm in physical danger or if he just wants to spook and publicly humiliate me. How long do I have to wait to make sure?

What line has to be crossed before I get the go-ahead?

What threshold has to be met in order for me to shoot any of the people who make me sexually threatened in the course of a day or a week or a month or my lifetime?

Do I have to wait until it's "too late" and they've already penetrated me? How is carrying a gun then a prevention measure as opposed to a measure of vegeance and inhilliation afterthefact?

Does the advice of "carry a gun and shoot all rapists" have anything at all to do with a realistic notion of safety, or is it a gratifying way for people to feel like they're adding something constructive to the conversation without having to do any of the heavy-lifting of understanding how rape happens?

I don't know if the people who give the advice of "carry a gun and shoot all rapists" know how often women feel sexually threatened. The thing about sexual violence, is it's a part of a continuum of unwanted sexual behaviours, and we never know whether or to what degree it will escalate. That's not because we're not aware of our surroundings, or we're inexperienced, etc. It's because the degree of escalation is not up to us - it's up to the perpetrator.

Things like peeping, public masturbation, groping, breaking and entering, etc, can all be a pre-cursor to more extreme levels of sexual violence. Or the perpetrators may not escalate. The people they target do not know whether or not this will escalate, because we are not psychic.

If you really, sincerely think that giving a good number of the population access to and permission to use lethal weapons against people who they fear will rape them, then be prepared for a lot of bloodshed, because these transgressions against our physical boundaries happen to a lot of people on a regular basis.

Or, you can passing along some tangible, effective safety advice that can start working right now, today, towards reducing the instances of sexual violence, and that doesn't require people to kill each other.

We Are Women Recap

By: Liberate Zealot

So after some issues (damn metro!) the roommate and I made it to the We Are Woman Rally right around noon.

Check out our Facebook Album for more imagines!

We missed several speakers and one performer. Mara Keisling, who spoke at the Unite Against the War on Women Rally, was back, but sadly I didn't see her speech.  However, all the speeches are up on-line if you care to check them out yourself.  And the bands, sounds system, and over all organization of the Rally was the best I've seen yet.

My favorite speakers were Rev. Charles McKenzie of the Rainbow Push Coalition in Florida and Soraya Chemaly of the Huffington Post, fem2pt0, Btchflcks, and more.  They were both eloquent and impassioned speakers who, in my opinion, out shone the other speakers, in their ability and skill and the resonance of what they were saying.  Both spoke about current political and social issues, discussed individual acts, and connected them to the larger mentality and methods of the Kyriarchy.  Soraya Chemaly spoke about internalized misogyny and how the social and political issues are related to that and society's failure to see women as fully human.  This tied very nicely into discussion about the ERA which was the focus of most of the speakers. (along with plenty of disparaging comments about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan).

As a reminder the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) which would result in Constitutional recognition of women's humanity and personhood, has never passed.

However, I have to admit to a sense of disappointment with the We Are Woman Rally. Maybe it was the heat, or the length of the rally (10:30-4:00), but it just wasn't as good as other ones.  The speakers became repetitive after a while, and while they were all knowledgeable and "accredited feminists" many of them just weren't stirring speakers.  Most disappointing was the diversity of the speakers.  The vast majority were late middle aged white women. Few of them self disclosed as queer or from the "lower" class.  It was too homogeneous to feel representative of all US women.  And if I noticed this I can only imagine how alienating it might have felt to women of color, or those who've grown up without class privilege.

I can't help but compare it to last week's #sheparty which was led by Flyover Feminism and about the diversity within the feminist movement. To go from a discussion about needing better representation and the feminists in power, the privileged feminists, needing to be the ones to open their conferences, to reach out and gain the trust of our less privileged sisters, to a rally full of "official" feminists, dominated by white women.  Well, it was upsetting, and it made me angry.  We're supposed to be getting better in truth, not just paying lip service to diversity and intersectionality.

The BFD (Big Fucking Dictionary) of Activism and Inclusion

By: Liberate Zealot

An evolving dictionary/glossery of words and terms used by the Hivemind.
*If I've missed any or you know of alternative definitions please let me know!

*I'm trying to be as gender neutral as possible, for a list of gender neutral pronouns see here.

• Ableism - Prejudiced thoughts/speech/actions against people with mental/physical/emotional disabilities (differing abilities). 
• Accesibility - The extent to which a place (often but not always a location) is accessible to everyone, generally, but not always refers to people with disabilities. 
• Advocate - A person who speaks for hirself, hir community, and/or a disadvantaged community.  See self-advocate. 
• Ally - A person from one (normally privileged) group who stands up with and supports members of an oppressed group.
• Androgyn* (e, ous, y) - A person whose biological sex and/or gender is not readily aparent, and/or identifies between the two main genders, who presents as both masculine and feminine, and/or has cast of gender/gender roles completely.
• Appropriation - Specifically cultural appropriation is as aspect of racism where people from a dominant group take on a part of the culture from an oppressed group that they continue to marginalize. Different from cultural appreciation, but it's a thin line. http://www.racialicious.com/2008/09/18/cultural-appropriation-homage-or-insult/
• Aromantic - A person who does not feel romantic attraction/feelings for others. Sometimes, but not always related to being asexual.  
• Asexual - A person who does not feel sexual attraction to others. It can be, but not always is related to being aromantic. 
• Benevolent Sexism - A type of sexism that is based on protecting/caring for men.  Often confused for chivalry and/or female privilege. 
• Bias - Prejudice, an inclination, world view, or preference that limits understanding and impartiality.  Everyone has some biases.
• Bigotry - Intolerant prejudice which glorifies ones own group and denigrates people of other groups/identities. 
• Biphobia - Fear, dislike, hatred of people who are bisexual.
• Bisexual - People who are sexually and or romantically attracted to people of at least two genders. Often is used interchangablely with pansexual. 
• Cis*(gender/sexual/man/woman) - A prefix that means on the same side as. A person (man/male, women/female) whose sex and gender are the same as what they were assigned at birth. 
• Cissexism - Discrimination and prejudice against trans* people. 
• Classism - Discrimination/prejudice against people of different classes, often used specifically for when done by upper-class people against low-classes.  
• Color Blind - The idea of treating everyone "equally" by ignoring (not "seeing") differences.  First used in regards to race, but the idea is used in other areas of inequality/oppression.  Has sense been proved to actually increase/support racism http://www.blogher.com/new-study-finds-links-between-colorblind-ideology-and-racism
• Disability - A physical/mental/emotional "impairment" that results in special needs.  One can be born with, or gain a disability. Some people with disabilities prefer the term differently abled. When discussing disabilities remember to use person first language (person with Autism) and/or the terms/language prefered by the person/group with the disability.
• Discrimination - Prejudiced treatement or people/groups.
• Dominant Culture - The cultural values, practices, and beliefs that is considered the most common, mainstream, influential within a society. Very tied into the white, straight, (Christian), able bodied, able minded, cismale, masculine identity (though this can/does change between cultures and sub-groups). 
• Empower(ed/ment) - When oppressed group members take/feel power, often by refusing to accept the dominant/oppressive culture.  Very tied to choice and liberal feminism. 
• Ethnic(ity) - Divides people into smaller groups based on culture and/or country of origin.  I'm some places it's tied very closely to race in other's it is more seperate. 
• F to M/FtM/F2M - Female to male.An abbreviation used to signify a type sex/gender change, normally used by transsexual men. 
• FAAB - Female assigned at birth. Used in trans* and genderqueer communities to describe the sex/gender doctors/parents assigned/believed one to be.  Can be used by cis/trans/genderqueer people.  
• Female - A sex identification, seperate from gender.  It's based on genitals, genetics, and mental sex. 
• Feminism - "The radical notion that women are people". The belief that women deserve equality and the actions taken to ensure this. A large theory with many subgroups. 
• Gaslighting - Emotional/mental manipulation or policing used to control discredit people who are disagreeing/challenging the gaslighter.http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2011/09/12/a-message-to-women-from-a-man-you-are-not-%E2%80%9Ccrazy%E2%80%9D/ 
• Gender - The idea of women and men, sometimes considered to be a social construct, very assosiated with presentation - feminine/masculine and gender roles.  Depending of the person these things are seen as all the same or seperate but informed by each other. 
• Gendered - Assosiated/Having to do with a gender, often tied to presentation or gender roles. Ex. pink and blue are gendered colors. 
• Gender and Sexual Minorities - People who are not heterosexual or cis*. Normally used as an umbrella term, generally not used as an idenity. 
• Genderqueer - People who identity as both/inbetween/neither men and women and or male and female or is in anyway gender noncomformist.  Both an umbrella term and an identity.
• Hate Crime - A crime motivated by the actual or percieved race, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, gender identity, or disability of the victim.  Different states and countries protect different groups under hate crime laws (if they classify crimes as hate crimes or offer any protections/punishments for hate crimes). 
• Heterocentric - Placing heterosexuality as the dominant culture. 
• Heterosexism - The belief that everyone is or should be heterosexual.  growing to replace the word homophobic. 
• Heterosexual - A person who is attracted to the opposite sex, specifically refers to male/female, but can refer to to people who care more about gender and less about genitals. 
• Homophobia - Fear/hatred of people who are homosexual (and other non-heterosexual people). Some people dislike assosiating this is phobias which are a legitimate medical problem. Heterosexism is replacing this word in some spaces.  
• Homosexual - A person who is attracted to other's of the same sex.  Sometimes used by people who feel an attraction to only the same gender, but don't care about genitals. 
• Inclusive - Open to and accessible to all peoples (or at least as much as is possible).
• -Ism - A word that means prejudice + power.  Ex. racism can only be down to people of color, sexism can only be done to women.  Not everyone uses this defition and they will probably use insitutional/cultural when discussing this dynamic.  
• Internalized * (Racism/Sexism/Heterosexism) - When an oppressed group has bought into the oppressive ideas/actions and supports the dominance and supremacy of the dominant group.
• Intersectional(ity) - The connecting/relating/intersecting oppressions faced by people who are some combination of non white/straight/cis/male/Christian/wealthy/ablebodied/ableminded/and more). Also refers to the belief/understanding/action based on intersecting oppressions. FAR Intersectionality, http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/10/10/my-feminism-will-be-intersectional-or-it-will-be-bullshit/
• Intersex - A person who with born biologically intermediate between male and female.  Refers to gentials and genetics.  Can also refer to ambiguous genitals but only one time of sex tissue/organs/genes. 
• Kyriarchy - A continuation of Patriarchy theory that addresses Intersectional oppression/structures. On Archy.
• Lesbian - A woman who is attracted to other women. 
• LGBT - The most mainstream acronym that addresses GSM people. Stands of Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans. It critiqued for lack of inclusion, and also that many communities that call themselves LGBT are less accepting of Bi and Trans people. 
• LGBTQIAQAT - Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, Questioning, Androgynous, Two-Spirit. An acronym that lists more types of GSM people. It's rare that all of these will be used at once. 
• M to F/MtF/M2F - Male to Female. An abreviation used to refer to a type of sex/gender change.  Mainly used by transexual women.
• MAAB - Male assigned at birth. Used in trans* and genderqueer communities to describe the sex/gender doctors/parents assigned/believed one to be.  Can be used by cis/trans/genderqueer people.
• Mansplain - The act of a man condecendingly explaining things to a women, speficially about things she knows more of.  Often related to feminism, sexism and/or a woman/female experience. 'Splain is used for the same attitude/dynamic when it does not involve a man 'splaining to a woman. 
• Marginalized - Excluded or ignored opressed people/groups. 
• Misogyny - Hatred of women.  Seeing them as less than and Other.
• MRA - Men's Right Activists. Classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. See http://manboobz.com/ for info on their beliefs/rhetoric. 
• Multiplicity - The quality of having multiple and simultanious social identities. Unlike intersectionality it is not always assosiated with oppression. 
• Naming - "When we articulate a thought that has normally not been discussed." Can refer to the culture and/or individual. 
• Oppression - The systematic and pervasive inequality that results from institutional privilege and power where one group benefits at the expense of another. 
• Othering - An oppressive and kyriarchal/patriarchal method of stereotyping characteristics/roles onto groups as a way to explain oppression. Results in Us and Other categories with Other, naturally, getting the short end of the stick. 
• Pansexual - The attraction to people are various/all types of sex, gender, and presentation. Some people use this interchangably with bisexual, other's see them as distinct sexualities. 
• Patriarchy - The system of oppression that favors men and results in the Othering and oppression of women. On Archy.
• People of Color - A collecting term for people who are of Asian, African, Latin, Middle Eastern, and/or Native/Aboriginal backgrounds.  As opposed to white people from a European background. 
• Polyamory - The practice of having multiple open and honest love/romantic relationships. 
• Prejudice - A, usually negative, bias or preconcieved belief/judgement about a person or group of people.
• Privilege - A right, license, and/or excemption that only some people have access or avialability to because of group memberships. 
• Queer - An umbrella term and/or identity for anyone who is a GSM. 
• Questioning - Someone who is uncertain of hir sexuality/gender identity.
• Racism - Discrimination and/or prejudice against people based on their real or percieved race.  Usually refers to the actions/thoughts of white people against people of color. Can manifest in many ways. 
• Religion - A system of spiritual beliefs, often tied to culture, and normally of an organized variety. 
• Safe Space - And area/location where people are free of oppression and feel able to honestly and openly express their feelings and experiences.
• Self-Advocate - A person who advocates for themselves.  This differentiation from advocate is mainly used amongst disability activists.  
• Sex - The biological classification of male, female, intersex that is based on genetics and or physiological features. 
• Sexism - Discrimination and prejudice based on sex and/or gender, usually by men against women. Can manifest in many ways. 
• Sexual Orientation - A person's sexual/romantic preference/attraction/interest in others. 
• Silencing - The intentional or accidental process in which the voices and participation of people of oppressed groups are ignored, discredited, excluded, and/or inhibited. 
• Social Justice - A term for actions intended to increase the equality/fairness/justice for all oppressed peoples. 
• Stereotype - Blanket beliefs/views about people from different groups. Ex. Blonds are dumb, black people are lazy. 
• System of Oppression - The conscious and un-conscious, organized, insitutionalized discrimination, prejudice, and exploitation of oppressed peoples. 
• Tolerance - Acceptance of the differences of others, does not always mean agreement or support and so is not always the prefered term of activists/advocates. 
• Transphobia - Fear/hatred of people who are and/or are perceived to be trans.  Has the same critiques as the term homophobia and expresses the same ideas as cissexism. 
• Trans* - an umbrella term that includes as variety of people who defy/change their sex/gender.  Normally used to refer to people who are transgender and/or transexual.  Can also refer to drag queens/kings, cross-dressers, and anyone who is any type of genderqueer.
• Transgender - People who identify as a gender different than the one which they were assigned at birth. 
• Transmisogyny - Misogyny as experienced by trans women.  Specifically the increased attention/fear/hatred/violence they experience compared to other trans people. http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2012/04/trans-misogyny-primer.html
• Transexual - A person who identifies as a different gender and sex than the one they where assigned at birth.  Can refer to people who have had genital reconstuctive surgery and/or those those have not had any surgeries. 
• Two - Spirit - A Native American/First Nations term with no exact English relation.  Best translations assosiate it with the word queer, and/or people who are both men and women.  Can be used to describe several types of GSM identities.
  
  Main Resource 

DC - Unite Against the War on Women

By: Liberate Zealot


So I promised to live tweet the rally, and then lost my phone (yay ADD!) right before heading down.  However, I had a roommate to be my photographer and I'm doing a post on it now.

The Washington DC rally was in the same place the Feb. March for Choice was last year (Upper Senate Park)  which I went to last year.  This one was much better organized, they had more time, so the sound equipment was so much better (there was a stage and we could hear everything, even at the back of the crowd).  There was music and a wonderful variety of knowledgeable and skilled speakers who came from a variety of organizations and perspectives.  It really was, at the title of the rally said, about uniting against the War on Women. 


The speakers included Catholics, protestants, atheists,  college students, middle aged people, men, women, immigrants, people born in the US, white people, people of color, cis and trans women, and poor and middle class people.  They were all very talented and insightful, but I did have 3 or 4 favorites. 

  Mara Keisling is the founding executive director for the National Center for Transgender Equality. In her own words she's a white, over educated, middle class, middle aged, transgender women.  She spoke about trans people having politically controlled medical care, how that and trans people in general relate to and suffer from the War on Women.  She also spoke about intersectionality, and violence and hate. She specifically spoke about CeCe McDonald.  A young, poor, black trans women who is undergoing trial this week for murder charges related to her and her friends defense of them selves while being targets of what should be classified a hate crime. 

Callie Otto and Eric Orantes started and head the The Catholic University Students for Choice.  They discussed the differences between Catholics and Catholic institutions when it comes to abortion, contraceptives, and the separation of church and state.  They also spoke about their work to educate their peers about safer sex and to help them get access to contraceptives (condoms) while facing the risk of expulsion if they didn't successfully navigate following the letter of the law. 

Melody Hensley is with the Center for Inquiry an organization that works for a secular and scientific society.  She spoke about being a foster child, and poor, and a statistic.  She spoke about her own abortion at the age of 20.  She spoke about the importance of choice and trusting women.  How having an abortion when you're not ready or able to be pregnant or a parent is just as responsible as having a child when you are able and ready.  She spoke about the connection of reproductive rights and economics. And the law and politics being based on science, not religious dogma. 

Derrick Ashong is a naturalized citizen.  He spoke about growing up in West Africa and Arabia among Muslims (while not being one himself).  He spoke about how the US can be an example to other countries, and a source of hope among people who are striving for equality.  He also spoke about the importance on continued struggle and not resting on our laurels.  How rights must be fought to get, and how we must fight to keep them while also fighting for all our rights and real, true freedom and equality.





Now one of my favorite parts of any protest/rally/march is seeing all the signs...

Femmephobia is Everywhere

By: Liberate Zealot

It's a sad fact that men/male is seen as the norm and thus better than female/women which is seen as a derivative and something Other.  This has come to include all things associated with the binary constructs of these two sexes/genders.  The exact role, interest, characteristic, or accessory can change between time periods and cultures (for example in the US math is a male pursuit and valued over the humanities/literature while in Japan math is seen as more female and literature as more male and literature has a greater value).  

"Femmephobia is the devaluation, fear and hatred of the feminine: of softness, nurturance, dependence, emotions, passivity, sensitivity, grace, innocence and the color pink."

Anything that is seen as female is seen as having less worth as anything associated with men and the masculine.  This is a basic tenant of Patriarchy and is a message we all internalize and must work to overcome.  Tomboys and exceptional women are awesome.  Even people who don't think women can be scientists understand our desire to do so, because it's a guy thing and cool.  Same with women who like sports, wear jeans, do geek things, have short hair, prefer beer over wine or cocktails.  However guys (and even woman) who are into sweet cocktails, dance, make-up fashion, or who are quiet, emotional, or caregivers are seen as less than, shallow or aren't taken seriously.  For things which are viewed as female to be marketed towards men they need a special title, like murse or guyliner.   For men it can be physically dangerous with bullying and hate crimes.  Which isn't to say that women who are gender nonconformists aren't attacked or harassed, but we have much more leeway in how we express ourselves and our interests before we are considered gender nonconformists.  

• Femmephobia is why fashion is seen as a shallow interest while more "masculine" areas of art are considered deep. 
• Femmephobia is why women can wear pants/trousers and men can't wear skirts. 
• Femmephobia is why "traditionally feminine" jobs like nursing, grade school education, and child/elder care are devalued and paid less than other jobs which require equal training and work.
• Femmephobia (and bi-phobia) is why queer women complain about two femme queer women being in relationships  
• Femmephobia is why gay men complain about fairies/flaming/femme gay men making "us all look bad".  
• Femmephobia is why this little girl can understand why the labeling of toys as for boys and girls, and the use of pink and blue for marketing is alienating and oppressive for girls.  But needs prompting to carry that thought over to it also being oppressive for boys.

Femmephobia is internalized.  Three year olds have internalized it.  For many years I internalized it in regards to my open disdain (which is very different than personal dislike) for the color pink.  I still struggle with it in regards to my opinions about emotions/logic and often have to check how I unconsciously think about emotional people.  It's in aspects of the feminist community that see feminine women as "tools of the patriarchy". (To be clear, when I or other's write and speak about "tools of the patriarchy" in regards to femininity and femmephobia, we're not talking about the phrase in the Audre Lorde sense.) 

As a woman and feminist you're a tool of the patriarchy if you wear dresses, or heals, or make-up, if you have long hair, are a stay at home mom, or are sexually submissive.  The thought is that Patriarchy created not only enforced gender roles and the idea of femininity and masculinity, but also the very things that are currently seen as feminine.  And thus these things are bad and to embody/portray any hallmark of "traditional femininity" is a perpetuation of Patriarchy. 

Which is absolute bullshit, both based on facts and feminist theory.

The idea of "traditional femininity" and the creation of strict gender roles is a result of the Patriarchy.  The categorizing of objects, roles, characteristic, or appearance as for men or women, or as masculine and feminine, is a result of the Patriarchy.  But the roles, objects, characteristics, and appearances themselves are not inherently male or female, and neither are they inherently sexist.  Throughout history and in different cultures long hair has been worn at different times by men, women, both, or neither.  The ideas that only women should have long hair, and/or that all women should have long hair are results of Patriarchy, but long hair in and of itself is not Patriarchal and anyone can have long hair without perpetuating Patriarchy.  Traditionally make up has been used to as protection against weather (Egypt/kohl) and to hide the pox.  It's only been with the creation of a smallpox vaccine that no make-up or subtle make-up for men and women (outside of the art scene) has become the norm.  The idea that women must wear make-up, or that men can't is Patriarchal, but make-up itself isn't Patriarchal. 

Yes, now a days these things are seen as feminine, and femininity in itself doesn't combat the Patriarchy.  Or at least femininity in women doesn't, an argument can be made about "feminine" men or genderqueer persons.  However, one can be a "feminine" woman and challenge the Patriarchy.   One can be feminine and fight for women's rights in regards to fair pay, reproductive rights, and an end to rape culture.  One can even be a feminine women and fight against enforced gender roles and stereotypes (shocking I know, but only if you've still internalized Patriarchal ideas about femininity).  One can be feminine and a serious feminist.  To say otherwise suggests that one cannot be feminine and serious and worthy of respect, which means that women who don't ape the ways of men aren't serious or worthy of respect, which means women aren't serious or worthy of respect. 

Femmephobia, no matter where or how it is expressed, is the internalization of the Patriarchal message that women/females and womanly/feminine things are less than.  It's completely unacceptable in anyone. 

Follow-up - Binary Bullshit: The "Feminine" and Feminism 

Can't we all just get along? Even though you're being stupid?

The following is cross-posted from the Damsel in de Tech blog. Click here to see the original.


I seem to have spent a lot of time already talking about feeling empowered to call someone out when they're being a caca doodie head (like here, here, here, and here). I feel it only fair to now focus a bit on trying to find middle ground during some of these potentially heated exchanges.

There are occasions when there is no singular right answer or response. Take, for example, the Slutwalk movement as a response to systemic victim-blaming and sex-shaming. Many people will not be able to feel comfortable supporting a cause with such a provocative name. Many people will never put in the effort to find out what the cause is really about and will dismiss it outright because of the name. This does't mean that it does not have an important place in starting conversations about rape culture, and it does not mean that the positive experiences of those who have found a voice and solidarity in the movement are invalid. And those positive experiences don't mean that movements like Take Back The Night have run their course and are no longer relevant. There is plenty of room to agree to disagree.

Disagreement itself can also be healthy. None of us are perfect or omniscient (even if yours truly comes breathtakingly close). When we're disagreeing with people (or they with us) I think it's important to decide if in our desire to stick to our guns we may not be missing some important and credible critiques. Sometimes we can skip over that concern - goodness knows I'm not missing out on something lifechanging that could alter forever my appreciation of the cullinary arts when I mock trolls who make "sammich" jokes on feminist forums.

But outside of obvious trolls, I think it important to consider giving the poster the benefit of the doubt and holding back our desire to immediately squash debate.

For example, again going back to Slutwalk, this past summer the issue came up of persons of colour not being adequately represented within the Slutwalk movement. On its face, to supporters who have been aiming to be as inclusive as possible from the start, this was a distressing accusation. But, the Slutwalk founders listened to this criticism and are now endeavouring it make the Slutwalks better. (I talked more about it here)

I also think it valuable to have people who identify as feminist who have different ideas as to what being feminist entails. For example, there seems to be a huge division between feminists who support sex workers, including those who are voluntarily in the sex work industry and want to continue to be, and feminists who oppose sex work in all its forms, including stripping, pornography, and prostitution. I think both sides are needed, because there is no single solution to ending abuse of sex workers. There are sex workers who want safer work conditions within the industry, and sex workers who want to exit the industry and need supports set up to make that feasible. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, because to impose one would, in my opinion, disrespect the breadth of experience of those who are within the sex industries and have different needs.

It's not always easy to be able to discern in the moment (or even in hindsight), when one needs to stick to their guns, or shut down someone who's obviously trolling, or try to be more diplomatic and try to reach some sort of compromise. There have been times when I've dived head-first into snark and GIF parties when someone was honestly asking a question. There have been times when I've let a misogynistic dillweed lead the converstaion for the better part of a day because I was trying to be diplomatic. There will be many days to come, I'm sure, where I will fall flat on my face in the effort to weigh both sides. It's ok. I'll learn and I will continue to get better at it.

It's very important to note sometimes people may not word their disagreement terribly well. I have the benefit of a good education, with English as my first language, as well as a background education in advertising, and so what I want to say usually comes across the first time. Take someone with less impressive English skills and a subject that sparks a great deal of emotion, and you'll often come across a first post that reads like, "WTF IS RONG WIT U?!!!!!!!!!" Antagonistic, yes, and it doesn't give a heck of a lot to build on, but sometimes conversations that start off less than ideally can lead to a mutual understanding at the end.

When you come across a post that initally sends your blood pressure through the roof, I urge you to consider reading it a couple times before responding. And when you do, I hope you'll consider posting questions to draw out the crux of the poster's concern to ensure it doesn't lead to people needlessly ALL-CAPS RAGING past each other when it might be the result of a misunderstanding.

Given the current cultural climate, I want to make clear that, despite all this nice talk of diplomacy, there are some issues where there can be no middle ground. If I'm talking to someone who thinks women are like cattle, there is no middle ground to be had. If I'm talking to someone who believes the rights of a zigote always trump a woman's right to bodily autonomy, there's no middle ground to be had. If I'm talking to someone who believes that women who dress like sluts deserve to be raped, there is no middle ground to be had. These, and many more issues like these, require a hard-line stance. That doesn't negate the ability to be open about other topics, and the ability to be open about other topics doesn't undermine the importance of drawing the line at these topics. One doesn't have to be one or the other at all times ever. Human interaction is more nuanced than that.

But, legit, the attacks on women's health care are bullshit.