Man, Jonathan Franzen is a critically acclaimed author.

It is like a bad joke, who is a well-known author with no self-awareness? You almost feel bad for the guy. Well, that passed. Let me begin by saying I like books, and I even like some of Franzen’s books. But he isn’t worth all the hype. Much like a lot of male authors, they’re good, better than me, but not super original or groundbreaking. I mean take The Corrections, a book that can be boiled down to a tale of a middle class family with a declining patriarch and the disappointment you find in others, and he’s not experimenting with form or language here. John Green’s Papertowns is about a young man projecting onto a girl something she can’t possibly be and thus being forced to grow up. You’ve read these stories before; we all have. This is the Western canon: man + decline or conflict (literal or metaphorical) / personal growth = Great American Novel. Man, I’m a genus. I have one story about a white male lead, and it deals with the ideas we hold about ourselves and others, and how you determine the truth if everyone is telling you different versions of the truth and no one is lying. Literally, a white guy learning about different people’s perspectives and recognizing their value. This will never be a great American novel.

But today is a day of Franzen. As reported by the Guardian, Franzen was considering adopting an Iraqi orphan to understand young people. Thankfully, his editor pointed out the problems with this. Which I imagine was just his editor writing colonialism and fetishism over and over again at Franzen in an aggressive manner. No, sir, you don’t adopt a child from a country your country has destroyed for research. YOU DON’T GET TO USE PEOPLE THAT WAY. Franzen is the Joe Biden of literature. He talks and talks, sometimes he does something right, but most of the time you’re yelling “FRANZEN!” at the top of your lungs shaking your fist in the air. I give Franzen a lot of room most of the time because he’s a writer, and they’re all weirdos with a lot of insecurities and usually self-loathing. However, there comes a point, and for me it was his terrible views on women writers (read about them here). Any man who says that about Edith should know they are on my shit list.

See Franzen is finding himself in that scary place a lot of men go when they think they are the victims:

“I’m not a sexist. I’m not somebody who goes around saying men are superior, or that male writers are superior. In fact, I really go out of my way to champion women’s work that I think is not getting enough attention. None of that is ever enough. Because a villain is needed. It’s like there’s no way to make myself not male.”

Ok, but for Franzen the canon is representative of the best work. It doesn’t matter it was determined by men for men in a time when women and people of color didn’t get attention they deserved. He is unable to see this. A great example of this is the novel itself, which was largely considered to be a feminine form, largely until the 18^th century, which is when things change. Men began giving up the epic and moved into this form. On top of it all, he’s releasing a book called Purity which has a man hating feminist in it who emasculates her husband so much she makes him sit down to piss.

This is the best response to that:

AFTER ALL THESE YEARS WE FINALLY GET TO READ A MAN'S TAKE ON FEMINISM BLESS YOU AND THE HARD WORK YOU DO, MR FRANZEN pic.twitter.com/2bK0okClFA

— Anne Thériault (@anne_theriault) August 11, 2015

I truly do think he lacks any self-awareness. That or he’s a master troll and this is all one big social experiment. 

State sponsored violence

Cecily McMillan was found guilty, remanded without bail, and is awaiting sentencing. Reminder, during Occupy Wall’s occupation in New York City, McMillan was accused of felony assault against Officer Grantley Bovell, but there is substantial evidence that Officer Boyell had assaulted McMillan. Molly Knefel wrote an excellent discussion of the implications of the verdict for The Guardian. To be clear, I believe McMillan, not Boyell, who continuously misidentified the eye she injured, while she had photos of the bruising on her right breast.

Knefel described more than just the consequences of the verdict for McMillan, which is up to seven years in prison because of disproportional punitive sentences. This is terrible, and we can discuss at length sentencing and the arbitrary nature of the criminal justice system. However, I wanted to discuss state sponsored violence, and the cultural embrace of it by the general populace. State sponsored violence is violence or terrorism conducted by the state against its own people. This is seen as an implication of corruption because states with the general support of their people don’t have to beat them into submission. Additionally, those who embrace it are usually not being threatened, while those who have a general acceptance usually fear becoming targets themselves. So, stop and frisk is a racist policy used to inflict violence against and terrorize the black community, but white people think it is ok because they aren’t being stopped. After this policy became actual policy, the black community was forced to either accommodate the policy or expect severe consequences.

So what do we know about state sponsored violence? Well, it is a problem:

1.      It is more common among vulnerable populations, and in the US that means in low-income and neighborhoods of color (both black and Hispanic).

2.      Police act as violent forces within these communities, which causes distrust among the populous.

3.      Sexual assault and the response to sexual assault are frequently seen as violence perpetrated by the state.

4.      Those who are seen to deserve a violent response by the state are dehumanized by the perpetrators of the violence.

5.      There is usually little consequence for the individual perpetrators of this violence because they are actors of the state.

There should also be a consideration of the history of state sponsored violence. For example, slavery is obviously an example, but that includes the systematic rape and sexual exploitation of black women. There are strong parallels between the violence perpetrated by the state against blacks during slavery, and contemporary mass incarceration of black men and the violence subjected upon them. Organized labor has been on the receiving end of state sponsored violence, and so have student protestors (Kent State).

Clearly, I think what happened to McMillan is a miscarriage of justice. There was a substantial response on Twitter about the black experience and police brutality, which is also very true and should be discussed. However, what I hear and see with McMillan is that the state sponsored violence is branching out, and what will the ramifications of that be in the long term? Obviously, I’m not arguing that black communities should be used to this violence, what I’m trying to get at is that if those who traditionally have some privilege (racial privilege in this case) are being targeted then how long until the police state can response with absolute violence against all citizens without repercussions? This is how repression works, they target a vulnerable group, and those with power and privilege shrug their shoulders and continue on with their business. Then the repression spreads to other groups. We are witnessing an evolution how state sponsored violence is used and accepted. And the Department of Justice just said it is ok.

Dude on the Internet writes stupid shit

I don’t know if you heard, but there is a white guy somewhere on the Internet lamenting he can’t yell at women because street harassment is a thing and being called out. But the real problem is that men are now sexually repressed which is why their behavior is deplorable. Sounds legit.

A little background, the piece was written by Dr. David Foster for the Guardian, and specifically it is in reference to Laura Bate’s Everyday Sexism project.  Bates and her project are kind of great, and the project keeps growing like many projects that focus on the harassment and violation of women there are a lot of people who want to be involved and feel as if they have a voice for the first time.

Foster’s thesis is that the Everyday Sexism campaign makes all sexual advances “misogynist.” Because Foster doesn’t know what any of those words mean. Foster like most men telling women how to think and behave begins by stressing that harassment is wrong and that misogyny is a real thing in society. However, cue the handwringing, he’s worried that this campaign is going to equate any sexual advance and harassment, “If directly propositioning somebody for sex is automatically condemned as misogynist, as the campaign appears to assert, then the movement risks being highly counterproductive to the feminist cause and playing into the hands of the sexually repressive, patriarchal ideology that feminism strives to counter.”

See sexual repression is the enemy, and feminists need to get on board with the sexually liberated man. It all makes sense now. Foster seems to believe that feminists are sexually repressing men by rejecting their harassment. Foster goes on to say that sexual assaults and genuine threatening behavior is not the same as the casual proposition. Of course he doesn’t explain the difference, and some guy yelling at me on the street is different than some guys saying something sexually explicit in a bar…however in appropriate the later might be. Of course, he does want to separate the “offensive and clumsy sexual remarks with respectful, courteous sexual advances” but yet again doesn’t note how they differ or what falls into which category. Foster presents a rather superficial analysis of sexual liberation brought to you by the Pill (I jest, kind of) and invokes Freud, you know in case anyone was still taking him seriously to let them know to stop. Essentially, everyone should be free to explore sexual gratification…except, Foster is only really interested in the sexual exploration and not consent.

Foster continues, “The liberal left should be envisaging a society where adults of both genders are comfortable both with making and receiving straightforward sexual propositions.” Foster appears to be basing a lot of his argument in the flawed idea that we’re all on equal footing in society. Who can make these advances within society differs depending on their power. For example, a woman who is sexually liberated and propositions a man might be seen as “asking for it” if she is assaulted some point in the future. A man of color who makes a polite sexual advance toward a white woman might face some awful consequences as well depending on the situation. Straight men “defending” themselves from the sexual advances of gay men was an excuse for killing gay men. But what Foster is really saying is, “White cis hetero upper middle class men should be able to make sexual advances however and whenever they feel like it and the target of these advances should thank them.” It is worth nothing that Foster cites adults, but many of the stories on Everyday Sexism are about being underage, I know mine was. But this just goes to underline the Foster is committing the cardinal sin when talking about feminism, sexual assault, or really anything, he isn’t taking any time to think his privilege over and how that influences his perspective. I don’t think Forster is an awful person, but I don’t think he is a particularly nuanced person either.

Foster concludes, “We can all agree that aggressive, lewd behaviuor is deplorable. But what lies behind some of the crude and boorish conduct catalogued by everyday sexism is repressed sexuality. It is only by becoming more sexually liberated that whose energies might come to be expressed in a respectful way.” This statement is deeply problematic as well, he is implying that aggressive sexual behavior stems from repression, but that isn’t true. In fact rape, sexual assault, and street harassment doesn’t always have much to do with attraction, instead it is about power and performance. Men who yell at you on the street rarely expect you to go home with them, instead they are posturing for the witnesses, for you, and really anyone around or to be able to share this story later. This is Western masculinity, and it is flawed. The comments I deem harassment aren’t invitations or propositions, they are overwhelming threats. Women are conditioned to fear men in our society, and told if we don’t die resisting unwanted advances then whatever happens it is our fault. Those are disturbing thoughts to have. All of this of course contributes to rape culture, which is an issue I haven't fleshed our much here.

At no point does Foster acknowledge that the target of a sexual advance might not be interested. Instead he presents this as if women were less sexually repressed there would be fewer instances of harassment either because women would be fucking the men yelling at them or the men would be less likely to yell because someone else is fucking them? I don’t know I can’t intellectually get there.

Finally, I think when discussing sexual assault and harassment the best thing to do is acknowledge Margaret Atwood’s universal truth: “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.” Keeping this in mind, people might make fewer stupid comments.

Once again a woman is blamed for her rape this time it comes from the Guardian

So I heard about this on a podcast I listen to and that everyone should listen to Citizen Radio. Then Friday morning I was skimming Jezebel to pause from data tables, and Jezebel’s Katie JM Baker has a post about it too. The Guardian’s Tim Adams’ piece reads: “Beeban Kidron: ‘We need to talk about teenagers and the internet’ The boy addicted to porn; the girl who endured sexual assault to get her Blackberry back…In Beeban Kidron’s sobering documentary British teenagers open up about how they use and feel about their smartphones and the internet.”

The paragraph about the woman who was raped read: “In one, a girl who does not reveal her identity, talks with heartbreaking candour about how she would do anything for her BlackBerry; when a gang of boys takes it from her she recounts how she allowed herself to be sexually assaulted in order to have it back.”

Previously it read: the girl who “let herself be gang-raped” to obtain her BlackBerry. Because as you know women are to blame for their own rapes. And the Guardian thought, let’s fix this by reclassifying the rape as a sexual assault. Take a minute. Also know while I was reading this some bro on the internet was blaming women for not killing their abusers because that works out for the best. Is it possible to hate everyone? I might be retreating to a hermitage.

So one doesn’t allow or get raped because that implies consent of some kind. Rape is unwanted sexual intercourse (including vaginal, anal, oral, etc). This language blames the victim instead of the rapists. This is a problem.

For fun, Baker mentions that Adams asked the filmmaker is she, “sees an inbuilt gender imbalance in some of the tone of social media. Does the medium itself work to encourage misogyny, in her view?” Yes, yes it does. And people who use victim blaming language aren’t helping the internet culture. 

So Internet and the Guardian:

Ordaining Women the same as the Sexual Abuse of Children?

Can someone explain to me how ordaining women as priest in the Roman Catholic Church as the same as sexual abuse of minors?

Oh silly Church. I'm pretty disturbed by this whole thing. Mostly, because equating these two things seem so monumentally asinine that it is a challenge to comprehend. Yep, ordaining women is the same as heresy, schism, and sexual abuse of minors by the clergy. Of course, any bishop who ordains a woman will be excommunicated with the woman being ordained.

The article also notes that these revisions were to a decree from 2001; the many purpose of which was to take on the sexual abuse scandals.

This is a pretty chilling idea that women being priests is as detrimental to the Church as sexual abuse. I'm really at a loss for words.

I love men support groups...

Really, I mean clearly men need support groups specifically for being men, because men are oppressed by the social constructions of society.  I'm actually being serious, but something tells me these groups aren't discussing the negative effects of patriarchy.  My guess is they are discussing the negative effects of feminism, liberalism, and equality movements.  

An article in the Guardian this morning pointed out the rise of men's support groups on British universities' campuses.  I'm all for examining gender roles and stereotyping, but I'm afraid these groups aren't about that.  My educated guess based on those in the U.S. are these groups are trying to alienate women and minority groups, because they feel these groups somehow threaten their rights...through equality.  

Kat Wall, the Oxford University's student union vice president for women, welcomed Alex Linsley, the founder of the Man Collective--Oxford, to participate in the discussion of masculinity with the women's group.  The article doesn't say if Linsley will come to the metaphorical table be claims men are being left out of.  

This whole thing bothers me because I welcome men in my feminism, as long as they are looking for equality and betterment of peoples everywhere.  This sounds like a bunch of privileged white men who feel like their power is being usurped.  Ridiculous...

Some news on men's rights groups in the U.S.:

Jezebel featured their misguided message on the subject of domestic violence here or Salon's take here.  They focus entirely on their rights and what they want regardless of what is best for the children in divorce cases.