“I find the idea that I experience Star Wars or video games differently because I need tampons to be more than a little insulting.”

“Wow, really? It hadn’t occurred to me that THIS site was for men. I thought it was for GEEKS.”

“Why this need for gender stratification? I’m female and perfectly capable of enjoying geekosystem. I loved how there were male and female contributors here and how gender isn’t made a big deal out of, I’m offended that you feel the need to cordon off girl geeks from guy geeks.”

Not to mention the highly unfortunate copy in the site’s description: “an entertainment/news site for the the geeky girl, from the ones who love The Lord of the Rings but have never actually read the books, to the ones who want to know which movie stars are going to be at Comic Con, to those planning out their Minecraft cross stitch samplers.”

Really? Movie stars? That’s what you think we’re into? Sure, cross-stitching is totally rad, but you might want to save the semi-ironic stereotypes until after you’ve proven that you’re savvy enough to get your own jokes.

Now, unlike some of the less optimistic commenters, I think that a site for geeky women could be pretty awesome. Women, after all, tend to be systematically excluded from a lot of nerdy communities, both on- and offline, and we need our own spaces just to make up for that. The thing is, though, that this doesn’t seem to be the point of The Mary Sue at all. Geekosystem isn’t much of a community, so there isn’t much to be excluded from. It’s also about as “general interest” as a site could get without being Cracked.com (which I love, so STFU), and if its editors think that geek girls aren’t interested in inanimate objects that look like faces or suitcases filled with brass knuckles and whiskey, then I definitely don’t trust them to run a site for us.

On the other hand, there are some interests that are… specific to geek women, if not exclusive to us, that Geekosystem might shy away from talking about for fear of being deemed “gay” or “girly” by its less open-minded readers. And having spaces of our own does allow nerdy women to deconstruct the sexism and misogyny that run rampant in a lot of geek communities. But the fact is that we already have communities in which to discuss these things – from slash fiction to, well, the potentially oppressive nature of slash fiction – and they tend to do so in much more depth than I’d ever expect from a website that consists mostly of image macros and YouTube videos.

The question is, then, is The Mary Sue going to be Geekosystem-lite, with less science and more pictures of Tahmoh Penikett, or is it actually going to be a space in which lady geeks can form a community free from the shit that we deal with in the dudeosphere? And, perhaps more importantly, do we need either? Because there are plenty of spaces in which to discuss geek culture’s gender problems, and if I want to see Mr. Penikett take his shirt off, well, I can just watch Battlestar Galactica reruns. And more than anything, I really, really don’t want to see Geekosystem turn into a boys’ club. There aren’t nearly enough woman-friendly sites outside the feminist blogosphere. There’s an ongoing assumption that most sites that are not specifically for women are dudes-only spaces, where misogyny is king and if you don’t like it then you’re a humourless bitch. Having a women’s “sister site” only reinforces that assumption. And while Hipster Gandalf is awesome, I don’t think he’s awesome enough to make wading through sexist comments worthwhile.

In conclusion: The Mary Sue will probably be pretty great, but you know what would be even better? Cross-stitch patterns on Geekosystem.

Turns out I was wrong. According to conservative blogger Ace of Spades, women get late term abortions for one reason, and one reason only: because they feel like it. In an attempt to refute what Jill of Feministing wrote about the horrific Kermit Gosnell case Ace states:

I think that almost all of the women in question just showed up for a late-term abortion because they decided they wanted a late-term abortion. I do not believe literally hundreds of women all received the rather rare diagnosis of your-life-is-in-danger-if-you-carry-to-term. In fact, I would hazard a guess that exactly none of them did.

Which makes sense, right? It’s happened to me so many times – I wake up one morning, and I think “Hey, carrying a fetus for two trimesters has been fun and all, but undergoing a painful, expensive, risky, possibly illegal, and definitely hard to obtain procedure is so much more hip and modern than giving birth.” I guess that’s my irrational lady-mind at work again. I mean, George Tiller risked – and eventually lost – his life defending women’s right to have late-term abortions just for fun.

If you’re following that logic, then of course abortion access needs to be restricted. Women obviously can’t be trusted to make their own decisions. If we start giving them free reign over their bodies all hell might break loose. Which is why no one has been born in Canada since 1988.

Seriously, what is this, I don’t even.

Those of you who have been around the feminist blogosphere for more than a week are probably familiar with Privilege Denying Dude. I was a huge fan of the meme when it was first created, and followed the ensuing drama with an enthusiasm that I usually reserve for TV shows set in space. At the time, I was also in France, researching eighteenth-century political culture. It is possible that I had far too much time on my hands. That is the only explanation that I can provide for what I am about to show you.

So without further ado, and with apologies to the Marquis de Lafayette (he just has such a great face!) I give you…

Privilège Denying Dude.

(Eleven more after the jump.)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: the original PDD?

Privilège Denying Dude is a big fan of the Tableau de Paris, but I don’t think he really gets it.

And here’s the template, of course:

It’s good to be back.

And then I thought, what the fuck.

Trans women are not the problem. RAINN is the problem. The fact that people who claim to be feminists, who claim to be helping women, would actively deny services to trans women – that is the fucking problem. And I’m the problem, too. I’m the problem because I’m so comfortable in my little cis privilege bubble, that when someone points out transphobic tendencies in an organization that I support, I get mad at that person, and not at the organization and their cissupremacist bullshit. That right there is privilege at its finest: getting annoyed with a marginalized group when they have the gall to point out that maybe they should be treated like people.

Granted, those thoughts of mine lasted about thirty seconds, after which I realized just how ridiculous, and transphobic, I was being. And after those thirty seconds were up, I got angry, and I directed that anger at the people who continue to promote the idea that trans women are women. Because that’s stupid, and it’s wrong, and it hurts people. And by dismissing trans people’s arguments as trivial or overblown, I hurt people too.

I admire the work that RAINN has done, and I hope that the controversy generated by the #Mooreandme campaign will force them to take transphobia more seriously. If they do, they will definitely have my support. This year, though, I will be donating to the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre instead.

A lot has happened in the last six months. The relationship I had been in for two and a half years ended. I lost my job. I stopped blogging. I spent three months in Paris, before running out of money and coming back to Toronto to crash on my sister’s couch and beg local businesses to hire me. I tried, and failed, to start blogging again. And then, to top it all off, two days ago a prominent third-wave feminist argued in a televised debate that I was not “really” raped.

I started this post several days ago, before the Wolf/Friedman debate took place. Like many feminists, I’ve been following the Assange case for a while, but I deliberately avoided discussing it. Better writers than me (and I should include a thank you to Sady Doyle, who is absolutely incredible writer and, from what I’ve seen, a pretty fucking amazing human being) have taken it on, and personally, I didn’t have the energy or the courage to engage with something so huge and so polarized. What I did want to write about, however, was Edmonton’s recent anti-rape campaign, which was briefly covered on a few blogs some weeks ago. The Don’t Be That Guy campaign is one of the first I’ve seen to fight sexual assault by placing the responsibility on men not to rape, rather than on women to avoid all contact with alcohol/taxi cabs/skirts/other human beings to protect themselves. Specifically, the campaign tells men that taking advantage of intoxicated women is rape. It may not seem like much, but it’s a pretty big step forward, and I am grateful that it exists.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who aren’t. Men have a tendency to be uncomfortable with this approach to the subject of sexual assault because they feel like the notion that men need to be taught not to rape essentially implies that all men are rapists. I was browsing a blog by a dude named Miguel Bloomfontosis, who makes this exact argument in a post about the Don’t Be That Guy campaign. Bloomfontosis (rightly) points out that the majority of rapes are premeditated and committed by serial rapists. These guys, he says, are psychos, and won’t be deterred by a couple of PSAs. In his opinion, all this campaign does is stigmatize male sexuality as inherently predatory. The campaign, in his opinion, “communicates that rape is something an average, decent guy might tend to do if he becomes disinhibited and has a moment of poor judgment” and “contributes to a culture that narrows the range in which a man can express his sexuality, to the detriment of the sexually isolated man, but not so much to the detriment of the predator.”

I disagree with this guy’s argument, but he got me thinking. Specifically, he got me thinking about the way we tend to look at rape as a black-and-white issue, and how this might contribute to rape culture. And then, in spite of myself, I started thinking about Julian Assange.

The feminist approach to rape culture often treads a fine line: we – most of us, anyway – think that rapists are basically worthless pieces of shit, but we also acknowledge that their actions are, in part, the product of a degree of cultural conditioning. We cannot help but hate rapists. I know I can’t. But we also must acknowledge that rapists are human beings – vile, terrifying human beings, for sure, but human beings nonetheless – and that their actions do not take place in a cultural vacuum. Their actions are excused, enabled and sometimes encouraged by a society that does not value people’s boundaries, and that does not fully acknowledge the importance of sexual consent.

Men like Bloomfontosis want to treat rape as a black-and-white issue, because that’s how it appears from their vantage point. They live in this culture too, and it hasn’t turned them into rapists. Dudes who rape are Bad People, and nothing is going to change that. But the uncomfortable truth is that the line between Good People and Evil Rapists is not as clear as this worldview dictates. For one thing, there isn’t just one type of rape. Despite what you might here on certain parts of the internet, it isn’t “real” rape when the perpetrator is a stranger in a dark alley with a knife, and “imaginary” rape the rest of the time. Moreover, sexual assault is not an isolated phenomenon. Our culture encourages a whole range of violations of people’s boundaries and bodily integrity, of which rape is only the most serious. And the worst part? You have probably committed some of those violations. I know I have.

We may agree – by and large – that rape is bad and that rapists are bad people. But sadly, a lot of us don’t see a problem with violating people’s boundaries in less serious ways. Hitting on someone after they’ve made it clear they’re not interested, for example. Touching someone’s hair or face without their permission. Pressuring your partner to do something they’re not into. Cat-calling women on the street. These things are so commonplace that many of us fail to acknowledge that they are wrong. That they exist on the same continuum as rape, and that they need to be taken seriously.

We cannot stop rape until we understand that people have the right to set their own boundaries and have those boundaries respected. And I have been deliberately gender-neutral up until this point – because this does apply to everyone – but the fact is that our society dismisses and disregards women’s boundaries far more often than men. And even moreso when the women in question are otherwise marginalized – when they are trans women, or women of colour, or women with disabilities. People who belong to marginalized groups are told, throughout our lives, that our bodies are not our own and that we don’t have a say in what happens to them. And people with more privilege – men in particular – are taught that we owe them access to our bodies, whether we like it or not. Many of us are lucky enough to escape being sexually assaulted, but we deal with these smaller violations on a continuous basis. Often these violations are committed by people who have no idea that what they are doing is wrong, because it has not occurred to them that our bodies are our own. This is rape culture.

Rape culture gives rapists the privilege of not identifying their behaviour as sexually violent. I’m not saying that rape is just a “misunderstanding”. Quite the opposite: I fully acknowledge that the majority of rapists are repeat offenders and conscious predators. But I also know that they do not self-identify as rapists. They don’t have to; they can get off on hurting and controlling other people – people whose boundaries our society values so little – without consciously acknowledging that this is wrong. How could it be, when it fits so neatly with our society’s values?

If there’s one thing that the media shitstorm surrounding Assange is proven, it is that we cannot agree on what constitutes rape. We have so-called feminists arguing that penetrating a woman in her sleep isn’t rape because she didn’t say “no”. Now, I’m not saying Assange is guilty – only he and his alleged victims know that for sure – but what was described there? That’s rape. And if he did that, he is a rapist. If Naomi Wolf can go on TV and state that that isn’t really rape because it’s “ambiguous”, then I think it’s safe to say that we all need to be educated about the nature of consent.

And that’s where campaigns like Don’t Be That Guy come in. True, we can’t stop psychopaths from being psychopaths, but we can talk about what rape is, and why it’s wrong. Sure, we can probably all agree that sex with an unconscious woman is rape. But what if, say, that woman is your girlfriend? What if she’s a girl who flirted with you then passed out on your bed? What if she said yes, then changed her mind? What if she agreed to sex with a condom, and you didn’t wear one? To most of us, I hope, these are all unambiguous rape scenarios. But there are people – a lot of people, unfortunately – who would disagree. These people are everywhere. Some of these people are rapists, and this rhetoric allows them to never acknowledge the impact of their actions, let alone be brought to justice. Most, of course, never rape, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t part of rape culture. They sit on juries, they write op-ed pieces, they go on Keith Olbermann’s show and laugh at rape survivors – and then they dismiss all criticism of these actions with “well I’m not a rapist, so it’s okay.” Fair enough, people. You’re not rapists. You’re just making it really easy for other people to rape and get away with it.

True, rape is often committed by psychopaths. But a person does not have to be a psychopath to engage in sexual activity where consent is not always clear. A person does not have to be evil to violate someone’s boundaries. If we assume that all rapists are moustache-twirling villains, we fail to acknowledge that they might be our friends, our brothers, our fathers. We fail to acknowledge that someone can have great ideas – someone like, say, Julian Assange – and also be a rapist. We fail to acknowledge that we all engage in behaviours that perpetuate rape culture. When we build a simplistic picture of rape – and of rapists – in our minds, it becomes easy to dismiss any instance of rape or assault that doesn’t fit within our worldview.

We need campaigns that emphasize the importance of consent, because many of us are exposed every day to a culture that tells us that consent isn’t a big deal. That it’s a buzzkill. That it’s something feminists made up to hate on men. The Edmonton campaign doesn’t address consent in all its forms because it was created to deal with the very specific problem of acquaintance rape facilitated by alcohol, but plenty more do. My personal favourite is the Consent is Sexy campaign, which addresses a whole range of ways in which consent – and, specifically, informed consent and communication – is an integral part of sex and relationships. Also worth checking out is this comic, which deals with many of the same issues, with bonus snarky Twilight references and tiny dinosaurs. Both emphasize the importance of consent not just for preventing rape, but for making sure that sex is safe and fun for everyone.

Rape is not a force of nature. It is a choice that a human being makes, and that our culture excuses, erases and ultimately condones. We need things like the Don’t Be That Guy campaign to show people that this is stopping, that from this point on we are taking this seriously. That we know what rape is, and who is responsible for it. That we will no longer blame the victim. One campaign can’t do this alone; it needs to be a part of broader cultural change. But we need campaigns like this to show everyone that we are making this change happen.

In the midst of the Assange case, Swedish feminists started a Twitter campaign called #talkaboutit (#prataomdet in Swedish), in which they encourage all women to talk about their experiences of sexual violence, ambiguous or otherwise. Silence is what rape culture uses to build the myths that let our rapists walk free, and we are done. In conclusion, then, I am going to talk about it.

I was reluctant to talk about Assange in part because his alleged crimes sound almost exactly like what happened to me. have never spoken about this directly, and I am still not able to do so in more specific terms than this. I will say, though, that it took me several years to acknowledge that what happened was rape, largely because I had never been told that my boundaries were worth respecting. I doubt that the man who raped me will ever acknowledge it as such, but I do hope that campaigns like Consent is Sexy, Don’t Be That Guy, and the many others that will follow do force other men to think critically about their attitudes towards women, consent and bodily integrity.

All men do not need to be taught how not to rape, but all people need to be taught about consent. We need to be taught what it means, in all its complexity. We need to be taught why it matters, for ourselves and for others. Our culture fails to teach this, and in doing so normalizes the violation of boundaries. This is rape culture, and I am so, so grateful that there are people out there fighting it.

Everything about this story is absolutely horrifying. As Jill at Feministe points out, it is an awful reminder of just how far we still have to go before abortion is really safe and accessible for everyone. I can only hope that this girl will make a full recovery and live a long, happy life free of abuse and unwanted media attention. I also hope that the other girls and women who find themselves in similar situations have better access to reproductive health care, and to supportive families and communities, and don’t have to take such desperate and dangerous risks in order to maintain some semblance of bodily autonomy.

Not so for Bryan Kemper. This so-called “pro-life” activist wants to remind us that, while rape is bad and stuff, this girl is still an evil baby killer:

“I am sure this story probably has most people wanting to vomit and cry at the same time as their hearts break for this little girl. I would also guess however that many of those same people would not even bat an eye if her method of killing her child had been a RU 486 prescription from the local Planned Parenthood,” Kemper said.

“I would goes as far as saying many would praise her for making such a brave choice,” he added. “The method of killing the child should not matter.”

Apparently, all of us pro-choice folk think that rape is totally okay as long as rape victims have safe abortions (because don’t forget, being pro-choice means you think that everyone should have abortions all the time). I mean, if we really cared about this kid, we’d want her to be forced to undergo nine months of pregnancy and risk her life giving birth to her rapist’s child, right? Right?

And it doesn’t stop there:

“If the girl had gone to Planned Parenthood he would probably still be raping her as I doubt they would have turned him in,” Kemper explained.

Like, this girl had had a regular, safe abortion and hadn’t had to go to the hospital with life-threatening injuries, her rapist would never have been arrested! That’s right: lack of access to reproductive healthcare stops rapists.

Hey, I have a better idea. How about we stop fucking condoning rape and making excuses for rapists and telling women what we can and cannot do with our bodies? That would involve acknowleding that women matter more than the contents of our uteri, though, and I don’t see the “pro-life” crowd adopting that idea anytime soon.

Listen, if I worked at a Planned Parenthood, and a 13-year-old girl came in after being impregnated by a 30-year-old man, of course I’d want to find the child rapist piece of shit who had been abusing her, and have said child rapist locked up for the rest of his pathetic worthless life. But the fact is that this girl probably didn’t get a safe abortion precisely because she was afraid of her abuser being reported to the police. If patients’ confidentiality isn’t respected – even when those patients are obviously experiencing abuse – the most vulnerable members of the population will avoid seeking care when they need it, and many will die or suffer permanent damage as a result. Abuse is complicated, and it cannot be prevented by infringing on people’s privacy, or by denying their rights. Even when those people are children.

I’d go on, but Jill says it much better than I ever could:

We fail girls all the time. We put girls in impossible, heart-wrenching positions. We give girls little autonomy and few options, and then we’re surprised when they act like animals caught in traps.

Predators like Michael James Lisk, her “boyfriend,” are entirely responsible for the crimes they commit. But this girl needed a safety net, and she did not have one.

ETA: Apparently Pennsylvania, where this took place, has a parental consent law for minors seeking abortions. Yet another example of how these laws only put girls at greater risk. (So yes, Jill Stanek, this is your fucking fault.)

The world would be a much, much better place if these were real.

(Via Sociological Images.)

What, exactly, are you trying to achieve? I suspect that your goal is not to be seen as a misogynist or a bully, or to alienate any voter who happens to have a uterus – which is too bad, really, because if that was the case, you’d be wildly successful. Is this some kind of show of power? Are you trying to sneak your religious beliefs into policy decisions without anyone noticing? Or did you really just want to tell the women of the developing world to drop dead? Whatever your intention, Mr. Harper, you’re not doing yourself, or your party, any favours.

Let’s start with the basics: According to a Conservative party spokesman, “Canada’s contribution to maternal and child health may include family planning. However, Canada’s contribution will not include funding abortion.” [source] First off, may include family planning? Maternal and child health are nearly impossible without family planning of some kind. Women’s ability to take care of ourselves and our families depends on our ability to control our fertility. Second (and listen closely, Mr. Harper, because I get the feeling you weren’t paying attention the first 500 or so times you were told this), abortion is family planning. It’s not a separate category. Like contraception, it allows women to decide whether to have children. I think what your MPs were trying to say is that Canada’s contribution will involve the types of family planning that you approve of, and that aren’t too expensive, and that don’t upset your delicate conservative sensibilities.

Abortion is a last resort. It’s used only when something has gone wrong, when other methods have failed, or weren’t available in the first place. No one – least of all low-income women in the developing world – is having abortions just for fun. We have abortions because it is absolutely necessary, for us or for our families. When abortion is legally, geographically or financially inaccessible, women die. This is what you have committed yourself to. You and your party are allowing women to die because a necessary medical procedure doesn’t sit right with your ideology. I hope you’re proud of yourselves.

I doubt that Senator Ruth had your blessing when she told Canadian women’s groups to “shut the fuck up” about abortion, lest you and your cronies turn this into an Issue, but she was right, wasn’t she? After all, you folks do have a pretty nasty history of cutting funding to anyone who speaks out against you – including fourteen women’s groups that had the nerve to get worked up about you thinking that women’s rights are optional. The message was clear: shut up, or we’ll shut you up for good.

You know what? I dare you. Make this an election issue. Ignatieff would love that. Your stance on reproductive rights has held you back from gaining a majority in Parliament so far, and if you push it any further, you won’t even have a government. Personally, I’d be fine with that.

You know this, of course, which is why you’ve always stopped short of an attack on Canadian women’s reproductive rights, and which is why you’re cutting funding left and right instead of engaging in any sort of debate. Senator Ruth, for all her lack of tact or compassion, was right about another thing: this isn’t about Canadian women’s health. It’s about the health of women who are far less fortunate, and far more vulnerable. Unfortunately, it turns out that women don’t just get angry when our own rights are being violated. We get angry about human rights violations, like, all the time! Even when the people affected are in other countries! You made this an issue, and the Canadian people are going to hold you accountable.

As a Canadian, I’m ashamed to have a prime minister who thinks women matter less than the contents of our uterus. I’m ashamed to have a government that thinks it can intimidate women into submission. I’m ashamed that, with Canada’s reputation for humanitarian work, you think that it’s acceptable to pick and choose the types of medical care that disadvantaged women are allowed to receive. This is a disgrace. Feminists around the world are beginning to hear about it, and you continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper.

If there’s one thing I can promise you, Mr. Harper, it’s that we will absolutely not shut the fuck up.

Sincerely,
Brett K

Have you started reading A Softer World yet? If not, what is wrong with you?

(Yes, I’m still around; I’ve just been crazy busy these last couple of weeks and haven’t had much to write about. I promise I will eventually get back to writing posts whose contents are longer than their titles.)