My problems with the Duggars, children, and lifestyle decisions

So here’s the thing, I support your right to live however you want. I mean I don’t care as long as what you’re doing doesn’t harm anyone else. See and there is the rub. I have friends who are deeply concerned that I’m judging them, particularly friends with babies. This is always news to me, because while I like playing with your babies, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about them. I mean occasionally, I’ll think, “Jesus, if I had a girl and had to bring her up in this rape culture like C does” or “L’s baby boy is going to have to navigate these unreasonable gender standards and perform to them.” I don’t care if you want to stay home, if you can afford it more power to you. Hell, if I could I would do nothing but read, craft, and bitch about politics FOREVER. So you want to spend time with your shiny baby, that’s cool.

But back to that rub, I take issue with people who harm others, and that includes the advocating of bigoted legislation. I can’t tell you you’re lifestyle is ok if it advocates for limiting the rights of others so like reproductive choice, medical access, welfare, housing, SNAP, marriage equality, employment equality, and on and on and on.

I say all of this because the Duggars. I can’t with these people. For real. I almost made it through one whole episode! My sister M loves the show. I don’t know how or why. But outside of that one episode where the family got whacky and the boys and girls did each others' chores because what could be zanier than girls doing boy work and boys in the kitchen. *head desk* The show seemed harmless, well it pushed some seriously conservative propaganda, but I wouldn’t want my nephew to have the Kardashians or the Duggars as role models. The Kardashians are uber-capitalists (which reinforces racism, classism, and sexism), and the Duggars are misogynists and zealots. Let’s call it a draw. My real exposure to this family like most celebrities is through politics. See the Duggars stump for anti-choice, antigay, anti-the American way candidates, just kidding on that last one. What else do I know? I know the women in this family spend more time talking to tabloids about their sex lives than the Kardashians. I know they are part of a conservative Christian movement that teaches women have no right to refuse sex to their husbands, and their goal is to out populate liberals and atheists (and probably all other groups that aren’t them).

So let me be clear, almost if not everything this family stands for I am against:

• Antigay, no thanks
• Anti-choice, you can have my rights when you pry them from my cold dead hands
• A woman’s worth is purity, *laughing/gasping for air* Um, no
• Women should be submissive, only if they want to be and preferably with a working contract, and tell me what to do, see what happens
• Men have to perform to rigid masculinity standards, nope, nope, nope.
• Waiting for marriage, not my thing, but I have poor impulse control, whatever works for you and your partner, but see there has to be some kind of discussion with your partner so no one is doing anything they are uncomfortable with and expectations are laid out
• Women should be constantly pregnant to populate God’s Army, I’m an atheist, but when I believed in God it was the turn the other cheek and love your neighbor one, God doesn’t need an Army he had all the superpowers
• I won’t even go near the exclusionary practices of these sorts of Christian cults, I can’t imagine there are many men of color being vetted to marry (all boyfriends/potential husbands are vetted by dad) a Duggars’ girl and absolutely no one outside their own faith.

These are values I would want children I care about far away from. I wouldn’t let them watch this show; I’d read them Harry Potter, which is scientifically proven to increase empathy among readers. I would talk about boundaries and how they don’t have to do anything they are uncomfortable with regardless of what adults may think. And from a young age I would try to explain what social constructs are and how they only have meaning because we give them meaning just like scary monsters. The Duggars are so dangerous because they seem harmless, right? They look like a large happy family with values about faith and love, as long as you conform to the molds they believe are worthy. It is the subtext; those things not actually said, but implied that are dangerous. I’m kind of against anything that teaches children there is an us and a them.

Excuse me, WTF did Bill Maher tweet?

I don’t even know where to begin with this one because between smacking a bitch up and the genocidal nature things are taking in Gaza, I’m at a loss.

Dealing w/ Hamas is like dealing w/ a crazy woman who's trying to kill u - u can only hold her wrists so long before you have to slap her
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) https://twitter.com/billmaher/statuses/489930991956262913">July 18, 2014

There is a kind of beauty to this kind of flippant sexism. Like, of course, you have to hit “crazy” women, which is a great insult to Gaza because who wants to be a woman? Iamiright? Aside, a dude who restrains both of my hands without permission is going to be kicked in the balls. Just sayin’.

Bill Maher’s Twitter’s account had this posted at the end of last week. As everyone, even Rebecca Rose at Jezebel—where I originally read this—understands Maher gets to have his own opinions has radically anti-Muslim as they maybe. Obviously, I disagree with Maher’s opinion on Gaza, mostly because we have fundamentally different perspectives on religion. See I think religion is fine as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Maher believes all religion is detrimental however, Judaism appears to be the least bad while Islam the worst. In this respect Maher follows in the long list of anti-Muslim atheists, which as an atheist I can tell you they are our shame.

Personally, I love the way Maher has conflated two seriously different situations (while both serious, no hierarchy here) as an attempt to make violence funny. As we have learned from the great rape joke controversy of our time, jokes about unbelievable violence are only funny when you are making fun of the perpetrators of violence. What is happening in Gaza isn’t funny. The massive number of women in violent situations is not funny. Put these things together and you get really not funny. Of course, there is some man out there just waiting to mansplain humor to me, as if I’m not the funniest person you know. Save it son; the adults are talking.  

As I said last week, I’m tired of crazy being used as an insult to dismiss women and discount anything they have to say. I’m also real tired of the US and the United Nations doing nothing about Gaza. We’re watching pre-genocidal actions, and that is being kind. Five hundred Palestinians have been killed as of Monday. That is about one percent of the estimated population of Gaza, a lot of them children, and it has been about a week. Israel is bombing hospitals and killing children; this is their strategy. They want Palestinians to flee and essentially give up Gaza. That is what Israel wants. We need to be talking about that. We need to talk about how Israeli’s have gone on record as saying kill all the Palestinians.

Of course, the white, hetero, cis dude of the Bat-Signal went up because who know who is struggling here: Bill Maher. The struggle is real guys, and Maher has to be Maher every fucking day. I can just not watch his show.

Yeah, Elliot Rodger didn’t care about women, but he was a misogynist

I didn’t know what to think when I read that Rodger’s violence against women wasn’t really about women at all. Don’t get me wrong, toxic masculinity is a problem that feeds into misogyny. And I find it really uncomfortable to remove women from the conversation all together. This is kind of like those movements to stop violence against women by focusing on men and then lets men lead the movement resulting in women being objectified through silencing.

Dexter Thomas. Jr. has an opinion piece for Al Jazeera on Rodger and Japanese pop music. Thomas draws comparisons between a violent assault against Japanese pop singers and the Rodger’s attack. Both are disturbing. Both put the emphasis on women for “doing this to men.” Thomas rightly notes that in the US the conversation immediately becomes about gun control and mental health.

Then Thomas takes this turn toward, well Rodger’s cared about men not women. Well, yeah. In the patriarchy and a misogynist society everything is about men and the perspectives of men. Women are always objects, dehumanized, and irrelevant to the narrative. That doesn’t mean women aren’t important; that means women aren’t important to people who want to keep the status quo.

Rodger’s is completely wrapped up in white US masculinity. He doesn’t care about men of color either, but they should be included in the conversation too. See we can’t leave the white guys alone to handle the problems in their house…we also can’t use their tool because things will remain the same. For every individual dude who has a problem with men treating people this way we have many more who give exactly zero fucks about it.

I agree with Thomas that Rodger’s was consumed by not being white and what that means for his masculinity, but to say “To him [Rodger], his failure to seduce a white woman was embarrassing proof of his inferiority to his white peers. Elliot’s main problem was that he was not white.”

Nope, Rodger’s main problem was he sees women and people of color as subhuman there for him to use and judge as he will. Thomas goes on to say that Rodger’s entitlement to women’s bodies is second to his self-loathing due to his biracial heritage. Um maybe? But he did target women for violence. He didn’t do to the black student union to shoot people. It would have been horrible if he did, and Rodger’s was a racist, but he targeted women for violence.

Thomas then connects Rodger’s rants to that white privilege article from a few weeks ago…where the guy won’t check his white privilege because he will no long be oppressed by people of color.

This whole conversation makes me think of the race and gender conversations during the civil rights movement. Are you a person of color or are you a woman? It is an unfair dichotomy because you are no more your race than you are your gender or sexuality or any other part of your identity. Rodger’s racism and misogyny are linked; you cannot separate them out and we shouldn’t try. Instead, we should once again bring the discussion back to what is it about white masculinity in the US that permeates our culture with violence and hate towards people of color and woman. We know these men feel threated by the leveling of the metaphorical playing field. But I’m offended by the suggestion that we should erase women from the discussion because obviously Rodger’s is a racist. Because maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t continue to make everything men focused.

Sexual frustration isn’t an excuse for violence

Elliot Rodger killed 6 people and injured 13 others over the weekend because he hated women, and he subscribed to the entitlement afforded to him because of his race, gender, and class. That is all.

Naturally, I’m losing my shit over people defending Rodger’s actions and those calling him mentally ill. It is safe to assume anyone who decides to solve any problem with violence let alone mass violence they aren’t using the same operating program the rest of us are using. That said a lot of people with mental illness are not violent and do not harm anyone.

Obviously, I read Kimmel’s Angry White Men, last week, which is particularly poignant given Rodger’s mass shooting. Kimmel’s book includes a chapter on mass acts of violence committed by angry white young men who feel slighted because their entitlement has been challenged. That is exactly what happened here.

So what exactly was the slight that Rodger felt? Oh, his right to women’s bodies was violated. He is owed sex and love from women because…he’s a white dude? I don’t know I’ve never understood this line of logic. This feeling that you are owed anything but a shove down. I guess my class is showing.

Rodger wrote a “manifesto” about his plight. It is full of hate particularly directed at women and people of color. He also has tied to Mens’ Rights Activists (MRAs) and Pick Up Artists (PUA), which is completely evident in the language he uses in the manifesto. He also released videos including Elliot Rodger’s Retribution. Some of the lowlights:

“For the last eight years of my life, ever since I’ve hit puberty, I’ve been forced to endure an existence of loneliness, rejection, and unfulfilled desires. All because girls have never been attracted to me. Girls gave their affection and sex and love to other men, but never to me.”

The entire thing is all about his entitlement.  Women, are just objects to have as status symbols.

“You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me. But I will punish you all for it. It’s an injustice, a crime, because I don’t know what you don’t see in me. I’m the perfect guy. Yet you throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men. Instead of men. The supreme gentleman. I will punish all of you for it [laughter].”

Well, I’m glad he states he’s a gentleman because judging from his actions and associates (MRAs) I would never have put it together.

“On the day of retribution, I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB [University of California, Santa Barbara], and I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up, blonde slut I see inside of there. All of those girls that I’ve desired so much. They would have all rejected me and looked down upon me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them. While they throw themselves at these obnoxious brutes. I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I’m the superior one. The true Alpha Male.”

The points from the passage above that are particularly striking because of his presumed victimization. For example, “if I ever” strongly implies the rejection is in his head. Thus, the women are just a stand in for his assumed rejection. Additionally, we get to see once again his view that women are just objects to possess.

We know that MRAs and PUAs encourage violence against women through their rhetoric. They are hate groups. They hate women. There are a lot of articles about Rodger now. It has also come out that in addition to hatred for women, Rodger hates interracial couples and is racist.

Of course, more misogynists have come out saying that what Rodger did was wrong, but hey what do you expect if women aren’t perpetually sexual available for any white man who demands it. The actual quote is “more people will die unless you give men sexual options.”

Finally, I want to end with a truly depressing situation: there was another mass shooting targeting women over the weekend. But there was also a hashtag created #YesAllWomen. These are two articles with some of the best. The hashtage is an interesting read and very depressing, but there is some power in saying it; it being the violence and misogyny focused on women everyday, yes all women everyday.

I don’t know why some people have columns

I think I wrote about this guy once before, and surprise, surprise the topic was misogyny. Ross Douthat has yet another inexplicable opt-ed in the New York Times, you know that liberal rag, yes, yes, that liberal rag. He’s very excited one study corroborates what he’s known all along, being a father of a daughter makes you a republican…my father would disagree, but we’re always being difficult.

So the study was cited by Pew, so it is good, factually speaking, “Study: Having daughters makes parents more likely to be Republican.” Back in 2006, this was not the case. I want to get this out of the way first. The Pew piece notes people may lean toward “conservative” values because they want more morally restrictive values…not the phrasing they used.

Douthat notes the war on women language that was thrown around. I read the Pew article, and skimmed the actual study, I got bored when I couldn’t find the n’s, what I like n’s. See they are using a rather dated survey, and without the n’s or the years they are pulling the data from, we don’t know who their sample was, but I digress. Regardless, Pew and the authors note that people might be drawn to perceived conservative values such as sexual purity, etc.

Douthat brings that home, “You can love your daughters, want the best for them, and find yourself drawn to…conservative ideas! Especially if you’re highly educated, which is where the effect was strongest! Better dust off a different set of talking points—maybe something about the family as the source of all oppression and how deeply international patriarchal norms make parents subconsciously inclines to tyrannize their female offspring and then we can argue about that.”

Well, he’s right at the end, except I don’t think they are subconscious, I think they are social norms that value female purity above all things. Oh, structural oppression and self-policing. It is as if Douthat wants to reference Foucault, but doesn’t know how. Oppression is a cycle that reinforces itself. So our parents give us ideas about gender roles, and then we employ those roles, which impacts society and policy, which impacts the parental ideas and ideals about gender roles, and so on FOREVER. Of course, all of this is dependent on perspective such as race, class, sexual orientation (Douthat’s argument is framed in the heteronormative, and presumably upper class and white).

Douthat then invokes a fictional character as to why a parent might lean conservative. I haven’t read the book, it is on my reading list, so maybe next year. Regardless, the character, Nathanial P, from Adelle Waldman’s The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P., he’s not the guy you want for your daughter; he isn’t a bad guy, but he is a toxic bachelor. The quote Douthat uses from Waldman about the character is, “Contrary to what these women seem to think he was not indifferent to their unhappiness. And yet seemed, in spite of himself, to provoke it.”

Nathaniel P sounds like someone who would annoy the hell out of me, and like most of the men I’ve dated. But I don’t think a fictional character should send fathers running to the Republicans because sex and marriage no longer walk hand in hand. Then Douthat notes that women are miserable because work and education…which fits in his argument if you know you want to raise Daisy Buchanan’s daughter, “I hope she’ll be a fool. That’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.” Preach Daisy. Hey, Douthat opened up the literary references. Be glad I’m not dropping Emerson.  Douthat concludes with daughters provide an insight sons do not specifically that if marriage is the goal and as only something men can instigate women must using sex as a form of currency, though Douthat obviously doesn’t say that. I have to wonder if he realizes that is the argument he is making for his daughters.An argument some would say sounds a hella lot like prostitution, but there he goes with the unintentional Foucault references (sex even in marriage as a form of domestic work).

See my father is a feminist of sorts, he’s completely pro-life (anti-capital punishment etc), which I’ve mentioned before, but he wouldn’t risk my mother’s life for a baby either so there is that. I also know my dad doesn’t want to know who I’m sleeping with. We never talk about it and never will. That said, my father is a big supporter of my sisters and me. We can do anything and everything. He doesn’t know anymore who is a better parent, smarter, funnier, etc. As a collective we’re pretty damn awesome. My father also doesn’t care if I ever get married. He wants me to put my career and education first. My father and I have discussed the possibility of me not marrying. He knows my stance, and more importantly I know his. My father doesn’t believe in divorce, so marriage is permanent, end of story.

So let’s take a step back and think about how that study sample might matter. If the sample has young children, then purity and perceived safety might top the list of important things, but if the daughters are older than health choices and equal pay should top that list. The later top the list for my father. He doesn’t want me or my sisters to be dependent on someone else. My father’s concern isn’t just with our happiness, which Douthat seems to be preoccupied with. My father wants us to be capable and independent, and yes he wants us to be happy, but that comes a little later on the list. Happiness is great, but it isn’t necessary for survival and thriving.