#DickheadDetox: Aaron Carter's #tipsforgirls

Aaron Carter, the Dude internationally reknown as the little brother of some other dude from some boyband from way back when, has taken to twitter to reveal his dating #tipsforgirls.

Bless his cotton socks, these are the pearls of wisdom from The Younger Brother of What's His Pickle:

Aaron Carter ‏@AARONCARTER16h Confident woman are sexy to any man. Don't pretend to be someone your not just to please a man. #TipsForGirls 

Aaron Carter ‏@AARONCARTER17h Be Approachable- men don't like rejection- a woman with an attitude to her look will scare a man away. #tipsforgirls 

Aaron Carter ‏@AARONCARTER17h A woman's appearance is a weapon to attracting a man- always look your best ( neatness, clothes,hair ,makeup,scent,etc... #tipsforgirls

I can not think Aaron enough for bringing these pearls to our attention, sometimes I actually forget that we live in a culture where women's value is based entirely on their ability to pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. I forget that women's intelligence and love is completely irrelevant unless they are white, blonde,  and thin. I forget that women have to ensure that their behaviour and appearance are pleasing at all times. God forbid, we hurt men's feelings but not actually wanting to fuck them. 

We must always be approachable; even when we don't want to be approached because men's feelings are more important than women's safety and bodily autonomy.

Some genius has suggested that Aaron write a book about his #tipsforgirls. No one try to dissuade him from this policy; just imagine the hilarity it would cause on twitter.

Read More

On Compulsory Heterosexuality by Michele Braa-Heidner

(Image from here)

The following was written by feminist Michele Braa-Heidner. I came across it on my FB feed. It is one of those pieces of feminist theory which was uncomfortable to read the first time but I've been rereading. I find all of Braa-Heidner's writing thought-provoking, inspiring and, frequently, a giant kick in the ass: 

If heterosexuality was expressed in a non patriarchal, male dominated scenario, heterosexuality may have merit, but as it stands, existing within the confines of patriarchy, we must question it completely. Why do women want to be with men knowing what we know about men? Knowing that all men disrespect and hate women most of the time? Seeing the devastating results of male violence against women historically and currently? Seeing men dominate, oppress, violate and murder women? We must ask ourselves is our heterosexuality healthy or is it an adapted survival behavior in response to male violence against females? Since we don't have any frame of reference for healthy heterosexuality where women and men are both respected free and equal human beings, we cannot say with any conviction that patriarchal heterosexuality is normal, healthy or natural. Since we don't have any frame of reference of a type of heterosexuality that exists without the component of male violence against women, we cannot come to the conclusion that patriarchal heterosexuality is normal, healthy or natural.

When women against all logic and evidence, continue to have relationships with men, regardless of how they treat us, we must conclude that there is another mechanism in play here. When we begin to question heterosexuality, I mean really question it and dismantle it within the patriarchal confines, we expose the insanity of women "choosing" to be with men on male merit alone because the hard truth of the matter is that men don't deserve women on merit alone. Consequently, this insane need for women to be with men begins to reveal itself as a symptom or reaction to the conditions of female enslavement and victimization. A means for surviving male violence. This becomes even more evident when you read the symptoms of oppressive/dominant relationships and how the behaviors of subservience are exactly the same behaviors as femininity. That even men display "feminine" behaviors when they are being dominated. What if women have adapted to male domination and violence by "sleeping with the enemy"? By getting close to their captors in an effort to be able to control their environment or to curtail male violence? We need to start asking ourselves these questions so that we can begin to analyze our relationships with men if we ever want to have healthy ones or further, decide not to.

If we do this, analyze our desire to be with men, we may find that there is no good reason. That our relationships are not based on reciprocal respect, but instead based on our own terror. Our individual man could be to us, a life preserver amongst a sea of potential male predators. We may find that on the surface we kid ourselves into believing that we need them or want them but underneath this surface level, we see that this is just a band-aide covering up our terror from the inherent memory, cell memory, of our violent enslavement at the hands of men. There is ample evidence that connects feminine behaviors especially in our relationships with men that mimic the behaviors of victims of Stockholm's Syndrome.

Another factor involved here is that most male violence against women including rape is done by the men that women know or have relationships with, not by strangers. The nuclear family is the playground for male violence due to the isolation of women under the roof and control of individual men. We are constantly inundated with threats of violence from male strangers, but the truth is this compared to non stranger male violence is rare. I believe the reason for this that patriarchy has a stake in keeping women terrified of the strange man out there, outside our safe homes, because this terror keeps women in their place, within the confines of the nuclear family, the individual man and of patriarchy on a societal level. Women then cling to their "men" in an effort to stay safe from the strange violent males--out there. Women stay in abusive relationships because they have Stockholm's syndrome, not because they are stupid or because they like it. She is merely trying to survive violence in the best way she knows how.

Women learn to see themselves as inferior and men superior because they must put themselves in their captors shoes to be able to feel safer to be able to figure out when an if he will be violent and try to curtail his violence. This is why women tend to dislike themselves and other women because they are seeing themselves through the dominant male eyes. Women then see themselves and other women as weak, stupid, petty and deserving of male punishment, yet another reason why women tend to like men over women. And this is also why women tend to compete with other women when it comes to male attention. Patriarchy teaches women this lie, that men are important and women are not; therefore, to be important, women must be with men thereby getting attention or importance through osmosis. All of these factors play into what we know as "heterosexuality" and all of these factors also play into the reasons for why we think heterosexuality is necessary. If we take these factors and or reasons out of the equation, would we be heterosexual? Would women want to be with men?

Read More

If Heterosexuality is Compulsory, I want to Marry Batman

[image from here]

1. He's rich. 
2. He's never home. 
3. He has a butler to take care of his every need: so no Wifework!
4. He's either whining, brooding or hanging about in a cave with bats. And, therefore, not clogging up the living room. Or, whining, brooding or hanging about anywhere near you. 
5. You won't actually have to spend any time with him at all.*

Or, we could just lose the compulsory heterosexuality bit, because, frankly, marrying Batman is about as intelligent as advising young girls to "toughen up" about street and sexual harassment. Rachel Roberts' recent piece in the Independent demonstrates everything which is wrong with a rape culture rooted in compulsory heterosexuality. What is really depressing about the piece is that Roberts' clearly believes that Lib Dem spin doctor Jo Phillips was right about schools teaching girls to "toughen up" whilst simultaneously trying to situate her piece within feminist discourse around the prevention of violence against women through education. Any time a writer need to use the phrase "I would never wish to blame the victim", you know it is too late. Roberts' piece, from her homely quotes about her 13 year old niece to her failure to mention the the behaviour of boys and men is about blaming young girls for not being "tough" enough. 

Roberts seems to have misunderstood EVAW's Schools Safe 4 Girls campaign which isn't about teaching girls to be "tough" but rather ending sexual harassment within schools completely. This requires as much a focus on boys' education and a fundamental restructuring of sex education as it does teaching 13 year old girls how to be assertive: 

Aged 12-13, girls ought to have at least a few hours of tuition on how to be assertive when faced with difficult situations, such as street harassment. I do not mean to suggest the onus should be on girls to be able to defend themselves by means of a witty retort or a sharp kick in the knackers – although both of these methods have served me well on the long walk to womanhood. The goal should of course be to make sexual pestering and all forms of abuse unacceptable to both genders, but until such a utopia dawns, it makes sense to teach girls practical strategies, such as naming the behaviour (e.g. "That's very insulting", "You're invading my space") and removing yourself from the situation as quickly as possible. It might sound like simple and obvious stuff, but a surprising amount of adults, never mind young people, don't have the confidence to use this kind of language, or simply don't know what to do in a threatening situation.

How, precisely, will this help a 13 year old walking home from school who is harassed by a group of men? How will it help a vulnerable 14 year old cornered in the school cafeteria by a group of boys demanding to see her breasts? Why is the onus always on teaching girls "practical strategies" for dealing with male violence instead of teaching boys how to behave. Why aren't we seeing more support for campaigns like EVAW's in schools? Why aren't we seeing more support for programs dealing with sexually predatory behaviour of young boys? Why are we educating a generation of girls to believe that male violence is their problem because they weren't "tough enough"? Why aren't we raising a generation of boys to believe that violence against women and sexual harassment is wrong?

It is not a lack of confidence which prevents women from standing up to sexual harassment: it's fear. It's fear of the situation escalating and the possible consequences of it becoming physically violent. Within schools, one 13 year old girl standing up to a boy demanding a blowjob in the hallway won't prevent him from doing it to another girl. Nor will it prevent that 13 year old from becoming a victim of further bullying by being labeled frigid or humourless. We need to be tackling the behaviour of boys, rather than insisting that girls be held accountable for not being "tough" enough.

This isn't to say that Roberts' piece is entirely without merit. After all, I am firm supporter of sex education moving out of pregnancy prevention and into relationships and the signs of domestic violence. Roberts' piece just reflects current patriarchal discourse which makes women responsible for male behaviour. Her article focuses exclusively on the education of girls and her throw away line about "utopia" shows just how little Roberts' believes that male behaviour will change.

Teaching girls to "toughen up" is as sensible as telling girls to marry Batman as a career plan. It does nothing to change the fundamental problem our culture has with male violence. It also presupposes a heteronormativity that does not reflect the realities of the relationships of many adults. Instead of teaching girls to "toughen up", how about we teach boys that sexual harassment is a crime and will be prosecuted as such?

* This is liberally borrowed from a post on MN from years ago which I think was lost in the annals of chat. 

Read More

How to Tell When You Need to Invest in a Divorce Lawyer and a Vibrator

(Image from here)

This morning I awoke to this utterly brilliant piece by The Kraken Awakes on Paperchase's unbelievable misogyny. You have to read Kraken's takedown of these cards because it is just brilliant. 

There is nothing I can add to the Kraken's smackdown except to say that if you receive one of the following from your male partner, you need a divorce lawyer and a vibrator* because he's an arsenugget and you are worth so much more than him.

(Well, actually, being on the RadFem spectrum, I think women should spend more time learning how to pleasure themselves without the use of sex toys. After all, learning to love ourselves is an important part of feminism and that includes sexually. I'm not against sex toys. I just want women to feel comfortable and sexual  within their own bodies without needing external options. But, definitely, the divorce lawyer is needed.)

Read More