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.

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.

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.

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!

Why Rush Limbaugh and the GOP Aren't Just Misogynistic about Contraceptives, But Also Blatantly Lying

By: Liberate Zealot

Content warning: Rush Limbaugh (misogynistic language)

So by now I'm sure everyone's heard about the US House of Representative's original panel on health insurance covering contraceptives.

It did lead to this striking picture after all.  

Where a bunch of men from different religious organizations testified about women's health and how unnecessary health insurance covering contraceptives was.  As horrid as it is, it serves as a reminder about how sexist this country still is, and proves that the GOP doesn't value women (or our experiences).  It certainly brought the overt misogyny of the GOP to the national stage.

And this has been further proven by the comments Rush Limbaugh made about Sandra Fluke (the woman who was excluded from testifying at this previously mentioned panel and finally got a chance when Nancy Pelosi held a second panel this past week. 

How to get her to suck *content warning*

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

This little charmer of a headline was waiting in my Spam mailbox this morning. Rather than see what glorious (read: gross/rapey/triggering) wisdom and/or product they have to offer, I thought I'd take the opportunity to offer my own sage advice.

How to get her to suck:

1. When in her presence, or posting anywhere online where the intended female may view your comments, reinforce gender stereotypes and laud women who do the same, whilst simultaneously complimenting and slut-shaming women you find sexually attractive. Make sure that you put out as many messages as possible, post them all over your Facebook wall, tweet them, blog about them, etc. Make sure she cannot escape reading them.
   
2. Compliment her on "not being like other girls" any time she does something misogynistic. Use it as a compliment of the highest order. Encourage her to prove how much better she is than other women, especially if that means degrading other women in the process.
   
3. Sexually harass her. If she reacts badly, tell her it was a joke. Get other female friends to tell her to lighten up. Keep this up until she accepts the sexual harassment as complimentary, ordinary, and something to look forward to. Encourage her to brow-beat other women who speak out against sexual harassment.
   
4. Tell rape jokes around her. Commend her if she laughs at them. Encourage her to tell some herself. Applaud her for being so "edgy" and "not like typical girls" and "just one of the guys".
   
5. If she has a grudge or grievance with another woman or girl, encourage her to slut-shame them. The other person's sexuality doesn't even need to be remotely connected to the issue. The more acrimonious her slut-shaming, the more you should laugh and cheer her on.
   
6. Have movie nights where you watch sexually violent and degrading movies and make fun of the female characters who are brutalized in these films. If she acts uncomfortable or tries to leave the room, make fun of her, saying "it's only a movie." Make sure she knows her feelings of discomfort are both unwelcome and completely unwarranted.
   
7. Any time she is mildly unhappy or not enthusiastic, accuse her of being on her period. Use her objections as proof of her being visited by her Aunt Flo. If she admits to being on her period, say "I knew it", and make a generalized statements about how menstruation makes women inferior to men. Make sure she laughs at the joke, otherwise it's further evidence of her menstrual moodiness.
   
8. Don't let her do anything for herself. Whether it be changing a tire, changing the channel, updating her computer operating system, or anything other than shopping, cooking, and child-rearing. If she doesn't let you do things for her, accuse her of being an uppity feminist. If she does let you, use it as proof that women can't do these things.
   
9. Always use her as an example of her entire gender when she's doing something wrong/ bad/ weird, etc, and as an exception to the rule any time she does something good/ right/ cool, etc. Make sure she agrees when you point these out. If she doesn't agree, go back to #7.
   
10. Make exaggerated and sexually-charged comments about women in the media who benefit from personal trainers, plastic surgery, and air-brushing. Point out all the flaws in women you see at the grocery store, on the news, online, etc. Make sure to add a few digs here and there about her complexion, figure, hair, and how they don't match Angelina Jolie or Megan Fox. If she remarks on the personal trainers, etc, go back to #7, and/or any of the other tactics.
    
11. Ensure she's never confident in her own opinion. Even if she's 100% right. If she has evidence, say she's misunderstanding your original point, or that her evidence doesn't quite apply exactly to the particular way you've phrased the issue. Correct her at every opportunity. And when she looks to you for validation, point out that she's not confident. 

There. Now, if you go through all of the above steps with the intended woman or girl you were originally posing the question about, she will be one sucky human being. Or, she'll stop returning your calls and completely block you out of her life and devote the rest of her days to feminism and challenging schmucks like you. Really could go either way.

Now, if you are looking to know how to get someone to consent to sexual activity for you, here's a couple pieces of advice:

1. Be a decent human being.
2. Treat them like they're a decent human being.
3. If they expresses interest in you beyond friendship, try kissing them first. If they're not interested in kissing you, then stop. 
4. If they kiss you, ask if they want to go any further. If you're not comfortable verbalizing what you want, stop. If they're not comfortable verbalizing what they want, stop. 
5. Accept that sometimes, no matter how nice or decent or charming or helpful or attractive or rich or funny or brilliant or utterly amazing you are, the person you like won't want to be sexually intimate with you. Or may only want to be sexually intimate with you once. Or in a limited way. It happens. No amount of advice will get you beyond that point, because the other person has a right to not want to be with you for any reason at all, even if they can't or won't verbalize that reason.

This advice may seem counter productive insofar as it won't necessarily "get you laid". That's ok. Sex isn't something you're owed. It's not something your partner is owed. It doesn't have to be in the context of a long-term, monogamous, heterosexual relationship, but it does have to be with enthusiastic consent by everyone involved at all times. 

Consent and respect and very sexy. If the person you're interested in doesn't seem to think so, time to move on, because your boundaries and safety are important, too.

Who's the victim? Co-opting activist language is en vogue.

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

Who's the boss? Who's the victim? Evidence of a feministicalogical conspiracy
to enslave teh menz? You be the judge...

I'm not the sort of blogger who is able to keep on top of every new topic that comes along. Not least of all because there's so much shit that happens all the time. If this were a full-time job, I'm still not sure I could do it. I'd likely miss deadlines as I cowered under my covers, hugging my teddy bear and softly singing to myself, "It can't rain all the time".

Actually, it probably can.

So, given that I'm not trying to keep up with the minutiea, sitting back and watching from a slight distance provides some clearer perspective on overall trends that I've been noticing (I'm certainly not the only one, as you'll see, because I'm quoting posts from Manboobz.com).

For example, it's interesting (read: ridiculous & depressing) that the term "victim" is being simultaneously misappropriated and maligned by groups and individuals who wouldn't know what it is to be a victim if it came up and slapped them upside the head (which would be ironic, because then they'd be victims of assault). I know that this isn't just something that MRAs do, I just know that I'm more aware of their hijacking of the term because I find it deeply offensive and obnoxious.

They seem to have recognized that people tend to sympathize with "victims". So, in wrenching sympathy from those who deserve and need it (i.e. - people who have been actually victimized), they've adopted a tactic of "Don't sympathize with them! They're chowder heads! Look at us! We've got hangnails because women are teh debbil! We don't like it when people criticize us for being so shitty, so we're going to co-opt their language unironically to excuse and pretty-up our abuse."

One of the more frustrating things about this tactic, is that genuinely nice people who actively work to support survivors of various forms of violence and oppression don't always know how to react to it. When someone states they are being oppressed or victimized, the standard response from good people is to try to support them and work with them to alievate what it is that is affecting them. When it's cis people claiming that the existence and acknowledgment of trans people are oppressing them by "reinforcing negative gender stereotypes by trying to conform to the opposite-sex" (I shit you not, I've seen that argument), good people are often gobsmacked into silence. Like, what do you say to such a bizarre misappropriation of the language of anti-oppression work?

Here are my suggestions for how to deal with people who usurp activist language to justify their bullshit:

1. GIF party - when people are being absurd, sometimes the only logical and sane response is a lolcat

2. MEME party - similar to GIF party, but can also be done without pictures. Eg. - "What is this? I don't even"
3. Short answers, "That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard." - unfortunately, while this is often the first response that comes to mind, it often leads the OP to demand that you "prove" what they said is false, inaccurate, misleading, batshit insane, etc. Sometimes that can be difficult in the moment, because their claims are just so bizarre that no rational breakdown rebuttal immediately comes to mind.
4. Post links stats and studies to the contrary - this can be helpful when you are so gobsmacked you can't formulate a response other than to point to someone else who has already laid out an eloquent response
5. Ask questions. This can be very helpful in getting over the initial "O_________O" response. Keep asking questions, like: "How exactly does recognizing and honouring the experiences of transgendered persons negatively affect you as a cis woman?", and "And you came to this conclusion how?" and "And how has denying and ignoring the existence of oppression helped women so far?" and even "Are you posting ironically? Because it's pretty bang-on if you're being facetious in order to highlight the absurdity of the claims of those who find it expedient to discount their own levels of privilege."
6. Take a break. I know that with discussions online, sometimes 5 minutes can feel like an eternity, and any time away from the topic can feel like the other side is "winning" by filling up the conversation with venom that echoes when not addressed. But, seriously, if you're gobsmacked or your face is turning red because you are so irate that someone could post something so offensive, it's ok to take a break. Often, with a bit of distance (even as short as 5-10 min) comes greater clarity in how to respond. And, in your absense, it's possible someone else will also chime in and put into words what you have been trying to express. Allies are awesome that way.
7. Stop responding. This may be counter-intuitive, but sometimes it can be very effective to let a ridiculous comment stand on its own without comment. Posts can echo, and sometimes the silence that follows can be more powerful than any other response.
8. Copy and paste. If you've been posting online about social justice issues for any length of time, chances are you've repeated yourself, and perhaps have repeated yourself so many times you can't be arsed to type the entire response out again. That's why I started updating a document with my most-common arguments. No sense reinventing the wheel. If people are going to keep lazily rehashing insults and out-dated arguments from a half-century ago, then you're allowed to repost something you said last week.
9. Build a group of allies. I've got a great collection of amazing people that I rely on as a sounding board and comic relief when dealing with these issues. Sometimes I'm too close to the issue or too upset to respond in a timely manner, so I go to them to see if they're able to respond, instead. It's not 100% assured someone is around to respond, but having people there to vent to helps regardless.

Now, I'm sure there are many other ways to address these types of arguments, and your mileage may vary on any and all of these suggestions. Whatever happens, know that you're not insane and, yes, they are really maliciously co-opting activist language, and yes, it really is fucking offensive. But at least you're not alone.