Was that a duck?

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


Pop quiz! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a __________.

Can you spot the duck?

Yup. Definitely a duck. Look at that perfect example of a duck. I've got my eye on you, duck. 

Uh... yeah. Still a duck. Just, like, with a nose job or something.

Ah, there we go. Back to the definitive duck-action.

Uh... heh. Ok, you got me. It's a goose. But geese are like ducks, so nice try. 

Ye-ah... ok, so it's a swan. Point taken. Still, it could break your arm if you went up to it and called it a duck, so it's up to the swan to differentiate itself from ducks.

Ok, that's just mean. Yes, it's a duck even if it has mobility issues and can't walk quite like other ducks. Geez.

Uh... that's a movie character. It's some dude dressed up as a duck with animatronics and stuff.

Now you're just being sarcastic.

Ok, ok, I get it. Some animals have duck-like qualities and are otherwise totally not duckish at all.

.... you don't have to be rude ....

What the... what end is the...

To break it down for the uninitiated, when talking about issues including sexual violence and victim-blaming, etc, often we hear the aforementioned justification of "if it looks like a duck." Insert for "duck" anything ranging from slut, whore, n*****, f**, etc.

As you can see, it's not even straight-forward to describe a duck. Is it the bill? Is it the feathers? The affinity for water? Are loons ducks? Are geese just a tall and lankey species ducks? Do all ducks quack?

When it comes to women and the label "slut" (as just one possible example), it's even more complicated. Women and girls are frequently labelled sluts for every manner of perceived indiscretion, from the length of their shorts or skirts, amount of skin shown, number of sexual partners they're perceived to have had (real or imagined, really doesn't matter when slut-shaming), how they carry themselves, their profession, their hairstyle, their makeup, their height, their weight, their breastsize, colour of their skin (racism and exoticism of women of colour is a huge factor), who they associate with and family makeup (if one of their friends or family members has been labelled a 'slut', so much easier to label them as such), if they're perceived as flirty (again - reality doesn't matter so much as perception), marital status, etc etc etc.

This isn't hyperbole. This is what women and girls and queer not non-gendery-binary persons experience. Anyone who declares that there is a solid definition of whom can reasonably be labelled with a slur against their sexuality and that the lines aren't easily blurred to envelope whomever the slur-slinger wants to slander, is either blissfully ignorant or a baldfaced liar.

And, even if one happens to fall under the so-broad-as-to-be-meaningless definitions of slut, what then? If you are saying that sluts get treated as such, then you must have some idea as to what that treatment entails. And, here's a hint, it often involves violence.

If you aren't saying that you are sanctioning sexual violence against any one of the myriad of persons who, at one point or another in their lives or the course of a week, could be called a slut, then you really need to think more deeply about your words and their implications. Words matter. Words have meaning. Words can make the difference between supporting survivors of sexual violence or of supporting rapists.

Please think about your words and their implications, because they matter.

Just because they're awesome, doesn't mean they can't be awful

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

Don't hate! He helped me with that thing that time!

I keep coming back to this issue, and it is such a frustrating one. Someone says or does something problematic (in some circumstances illegal and horrific), and yet they have supporters who will try to dismiss the seriousness of the offense because of how "good" or "nice" or "honourable" the person is. Other than that thing. And potentially that long series of things committed against minors in their charge over a span of decades.

On the one hand, I get it. Someone you care about personally, and/or respect a great deal is being challenged and you want to protect them. They were there for you before, or you've read some of their great speeches/ books/ published papers, etc, and it distresses you that someone so amazing is being insulted in this way.

I get that it can be very hard to listen to criticisms of people we love. When a stranger is making accusations against them, our first instinct is often to go into mama-bear mode and protect them, regardless of the substance or severity of the accusation.

Take for example, my mom. My mom's super. Sometimes I have issues with my mom. Sometimes my sister and I talk about issues we're having with our mom. But if anyone else outside that tiny circle of my sis and I start talking smack about my mom, I won't stand for that. That's when I go into the "My mom's a saint! You best back off my mom lest I bring your mom's faults into this!"-sort of mode. So, I get the reaction. I do.

The thing is, sometimes the people we love and respect make bad decisions. Sometimes they may be good to us but horrifically terrible to others. Sometimes even when they're not that great to us we still feel a sense of loyalty that urges us to defend them.

This is obviously problematic. First off, it largely leads to victim-blaming. If we are so unwilling to believe that someone we know/ trust/ respect, etc, is capable of being anything but awesome, despite all evidence to the contrary, there really is no place else to go but to blame and/or disbelieve their accusers.

Putting people on pedestals is unhealthy. Full-stop. No one is perfect and absolutely no one deserves to be revered as more than human. Not our parents, our partners, our religious leaders, our political leaders, our teachers, our bosses, our siblings, movie stars, professional athletes, scientists, political activists, no one. Everybody has flaws and blindspots, because we're all raised in an imperfect culture that teaches us, up front and subliminally, very problematic things. We need to see them as human and fallible so we can both genuinely appreciate the good things they do despite their regular flaws (as in, non-criminal, non-oppressive flaws like not practicing dental hygene, not knowing how to parallel park, having the audacity to have cellulite, not being omnisciently intelligent, etc), and to hold them accountable when necessary.

Also, by defending people despite their problems, we are preventing them from becoming better people. We learn through our mistakes, but only if we acknowledge they are mistakes. If someone is making sexist comments and they're being egged on to not apologize because they're already oh-so-awesome the way they are, that can prevent them from self-growth in stepping beyond their misogynistic beliefs. If loving and admiring someone depends on them maintaining their misogyny, then they're not the only person with the problem.

In the more serious cases of heroes committing crimes, if you think that a person's positive contributions are more important than them being held accountable for the crimes they've committed, welcome to rape culture. You're in it.

Just play by these rules and you'll be fine

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


Let's play a game, shall we? Let's pretend this is only a game and not relevant to real life and that there really is a way to win.*

Now, in this game, you are a white, able-bodied ciswoman. You have class privilege from growing with up two parents who are not rich but are solidly middle-class and in a healthy, non-abusive family environment. What luck!

Now, in this game, pick one of the two:
You:

1. a) date or have dated people who are not 100% respectful of you.
   b) only date people who are 100% respectful of you at all times.
2. a) have had sexual contact outside of marriage
   b) are saving your viriginity for marriage
3. a) don't have kids
   b) have kids
4. a) are utilizing some form of birth control
   b) are not utilizing any form of birth control
5. a) are conventionally attractive
   b) are not conventionally attractive
6. a) are an atheist or agnostic
   b) practice a particular religion
7. a) are married and your partner makes more money than you do
   b) are married and you make more than your partner does
8. a) imbibe legal and government-regulated intoxicating substances
   b) do not partake of any intoxicating substances
9. a) you're married
   b) you're not married
10. a) you are not constantly thinking about your personal safety
    b) you are hyper-vigilant about your personal safety
11. a) you are knowledgeable about rape myths, and take calculated risks 
    b) you abide by every single "safety tip" just in case

Ok, pencils down! Let's see how you did!

In the interest of full-disclosure, I feel it's only fair to let you know it's all downhill from here.

1. a) Women only date assholes because they like being abused! - minus 5 points!
   b) Why don't you give him a chance? As if you're so perfect. - minus 10 points!
2. a) You've had sex with how many people? You disgusting slut! - minus 20 points!
   b) You're waiting for sex until marriage? What a prude. You're probably a dyke. - minus 8 points!
3. a) You don't have kids because you're focussed on your career? What a sad, empty life you must lead. - minus 50 points!
   b) You don't have a job because you stay at home with the kids? What a waste of potential. - minus B^2 points!
4. a) You use birth control? You must be a slut. - minus (Pi)R ^2 points!
   b) You didn't use birth control? You're such a stupid slut. - minus 100 points!
5. a) You're so beautiful. You could get any guy, so you must be a slut. - minus 150 points!
   b) You're so ugly. You must have to be a slut to get anyone to pay attention to you. - minus 42 points!
6. a) You're an atheist? No wonder you have no morals. - minus 500 points!
   b) You're a (insert religion here)? No wonder you're a mindless sheep. - minus the square root of infinity points!
7. a) Your husband is rich? You must be shallow and just with him for the money. - minus 37 points!
   b) You make more money than your husband? How immasculating. How does he put up with that? - minus 73 points!
8. a) You like to drink booze? You're such a dirty lush. - minus 60proof points!
   b) You're straight-edge? What an uptight bitch. - minus 100 percent points!
9. a) You're married? How were you able to fool him into getting stuck with you? - minus calculus points!
   b) You're not married? You musn't be good enough to get any man to want to stick with you. - minus a googleplex points!
10. a) Don't be so naive and trusting! All men are rapists! - minus uber lots of points!
    b) Why don't you trust men? You must hate them. - minus (GDP of Brazil) points!
11. a) Don't go down dark alleys because you'll get raped! - minus a bazillionty points!
    b) You never take chances. You're timid and pathetic. What do you think's gonna happen? The boogeyman gonna get you? - MINUS ALLLLL THE POINTS!!!!!!1!!1!1!!!ELEVENTY!1!!

And, you lose! Yay! What a fun game! Now, let's play again, only now you're non-caucasian, disabled, LGBTTQQ, poor, etc. You lose even more! Stop playing because your losing is harshing my buzz!!!!!

Now, for something completely different (because I don't wanna play that game any more, either).

*CAUTION! THIS POST MAY HAVE BEEN OVERSATURATED WITH SARCASM!