Strong Opinions

Sometimes it's hard to hold a belief and not press it on people.

Right now, I'm talking about my own personal opinions on rape.  My values compel me to shut down any conversation, joke or comment that promotes the idea that sex can be "taken"; that women by nature don't want sex but will "trade" it for things (like dinner, commitment, jewellery, etc); that people don't mean what they say; and generally things that promote less than enthusiastic sex.

I'm (when awake, at least) a very enthusiastic person.  I like to describe myself this way:  If I like bread, and I just found an awesome new bakery that makes the best bread I have EVER had, then I will want to let everyone know about it, even if they vehemently dislike bread.  Of course, this is an imperfect analogy, because this extends beyond liking something and believing something is morally good or bad.

So how do I compare to, for example, someone who devoutly believes that the existence of homosexuality fundamentally damages their own world, and wants to educate everyone else about why this is true?

Honestly, I don't have a real answer--not one that I 100% believe yet, anyway.

I'd like to think that my values (on rape culture) are "better" or "correct", and that everyone would benefit from hearing me talk.  But wanting to "educate" everyone and wanting to convert everyone, I think, can be very similar.

Right now, I think the distinction between, "I disagree with what you say and will criticise your message" and "I forbid you to say those things and will shame you" is crucial.

I think one of the important things to remember in order to stay on the right track is to not guilt anyone for having values different from mine.  (Although sometimes it can be really, really hard to not call a misogynist an ignorant sack of shit.)


For anyone who's curious, here are some of the things my values on rape culture compel me to do:

• Kill the mood whenever someone tells a rape joke; 
• Describe sex as an activity (as opposed to a commodity for trade; eg: "We had sex" vs. "I had sex with her"); 
• Mention consent in sex stories ("I asked if he wanted to have sex, and he said yes" vs. "We had sex"); 
• Use the most accurate words to say what I mean (unless the difference between a good word and a great word takes so much time it impedes the effectiveness of my message); 
• Refrain from dividing populations into "men" and "women"; 
• Talk about sex; 
• Talk about talking about sex (eg: "My boyfriend and I talked about what we like best about sex", "He told me that it's uncomfortable when I do that, so now I know he doesn't like that", "I asked her where she likes to be touched and how", etc);
• Whenever someone describes rape as "random badguy jumping out of the bushes at night and raping people", clarify that rape is an enormously under-reported act of violence, and that there is likely a much higher incidence of rape among partners than strangers; 
• Bring up that better communication can prevent rape; 
• Insist that "unwanted sex" is rape, that coerced consent is not true consent; 
• Insist that rape is an act of violence, assault, that rape is when someone doesn't want to participate in sex, and is forced (or coerced) to participate; 
• Do not insist there are (only) two genders or that men are distinct from women; 
• ...more

It's late, will write more...later, when there's less schoolwork.  

---

Sensitivity

I've learned a lot about gender and "feminism" and consent and other branches of sexual ethics in the past year or two.  Maybe in a more focused entry, when I have the time to dig more thoroughly in myself and find the right wording, I will write about my beliefs.  But for now, I just want to write about something that happened earlier today.

I was at the campus bookstore, and saw a table full of Valentine's Day merchandise, mostly books, mostly red and pink and at least one with a blonde woman on the cover and something to the effect of "How to Pleasure Her".  Among the larger and more garish books, was a small, pocket-sized book, with a hard red cover with black text.  It was called "DON'TS FOR WIVES" (by Blanche Ebbutt) with the year 1913 at the bottom.

I had two reactions to this, in quick succession:

1. This sounds incredibly misogynistic and I am going to get offended!!!  
2. Okwait--why does it say 1913??  Ohhh, it's probably an ironic thing!  Someone must have found this publication and thought, "Wow, this is really ridiculous, I've got to show EVERYONE how ridiculous this is by re-publishing it!!"  

I read the preface (you can read it here).

Soo...  Marriage is by default difficult to maintain.  Marriage is the woman catering to the man.  Men are fickle and sane women can't understand men.  Oh, and men are unchangeable (women mush "reckon" with them).

Groaning, I read on...

The first DON'T was pretty ok:  "Don't think that there is any satisfactory substitute for love" (I've actually truncated this; Ebbutt continues, "between husband and wife.  Respect and esteem make a good foundation, but they won't do alone.")

But it turns out to be as dry as I expected.

Don't expect life to be all sunshine.  Besides, if there are no clouds, you will lose the opportunity of showing your husband what a good chum you can be. 

Because, the only reason anything should happen is for your husband's benefit.  Yup.

Then there are real gems, like this one:

Don't expect your husband to have all the feminine virtues as well as the masculine ones.  There would be nothing left for you if your other half were such a paragon.

By itself, the first half is pretty fair: "Don't expect someone to have qualities they don't have."  But there are presumptions behind these two sentences that just make me so angry sometimes!

(You can definitely argue that I am "reading too deep into this".  But if you argue with me, I probably won't argue back, because I don't like to argue over opinions and speculation about whether or not something is the case or isn't.)

1. You (and more importantly, everyone else) know what "masculine" and "feminine" are!  
2. "Masculine" is the opposite of "feminine".  
3. The purpose of the Wife is to service the Husband (it's not up to the husband to do anything if the wife is lacking in masculine virtues--but you can argue all you like that "maybe it's in the book Don'ts for Husbands" since this one is addressed to wives).
4. Someone who has both feminine and masculine virtues is perfect--and perfection doesn't exist, you silly goose (yes, I'm aware the literal interpretation should be "all the feminine and masculine virtues").
5. A Husband or Wife is a half-person, when you put the two together, they form a whole.  
6. A Wife's only purpose is to fill in her Husband's missing half (else there's nothing else for a wife to do).  

These presumptions make me angry because they're often simply not addressed.

I think this is why I like Math, by the way.  We state our axioms (axioms are ideas that are assumed to be true without proof--actually, they are typically impossible to prove, but that's a topic for another entry!).  For example, if we choose to agree with Euclid's parallel postulate (or any of its equivalent versions), then we get Eucliean Geometry.  If we choose to disagree, we enter Non-Euclidean Geometry (which encompasses hyperbolic and elliptic geometry).

The reason I don't like these presumptions is because they emphasise the differences between "men" and "women".  I think human beings have a lot in common.  (Whether that's more or less than what are different, is for another discussion).  I prefer to live in a culture that doesn't harp on dividing people into broad groups for, in my opinion, poorly-reasoned reasons.

(For example:  I kind of don't get gendered bathrooms.  Did someone think, "Men and women have differently externally shaped urinating apparati, so we should separate them"?  And if you give me the "safety" bullshit, I will call bullshit.  It is not in a "man"'s nature to assault a woman when left alone with her; that is a choice.  I don't actually know the history of the bathroom, so I can only speculate this reasoning.)  


...Argh, it's getting late.  One day, I will find time to address this more thoroughly and thoughtfully.


TL;DR:  Unstated and unaddressed presumptions about gender and gender roles lead to inequality and the division of humanity.  Also, misogyny often goes hand-in-hand with misandry (and vice-versa).  Also, I almost wish I didn't know so much about gender issues so I wouldn't get so...sensitive to it.  But it really is a subject that affects me very personally on an everyday basis.  And I'm sure it affects a lot of people more than they'd right now give it credit.

Gender

I don't wear a women's winter jacket.

Mostly, I wear an insanely warm sweater with a fairly genderless rain coat over top, and this keeps me comfy down to -30 with wind chill.  When it does dip below that, I swap the rain coat for the outer shell of a modular men's winter jacket.

I love that raincoat so much.  It's made with Gore-Tex (waterproof but breathable material), has a high collar separate from the hood, has big side pockets that can hold two pairs of gloves or a hat and a neck gaiter, and reaches down past my butt so I can sit on wet things if I really want to.

But after two years (almost three), it's starting to wear; the black outer layer is starting to fray in some permanently creased places, showing the tan Gore-Tex beneath.  So I've been keeping my eye out for a new winter jacket (or at least, a new piece to add to my modular winter jacket system).

I happened to be at MEC (who, coincidentally, also made my raincoat) and saw a parka on clearance--but only the purple ones were reduced.  It was a good price, and seemed of good quality!  But something about buying a women's winter jacket seemed.... extremely unappealing to me.

There are some logical possible reasons for this.  Being short and a little stout most of my life, I found I fit men's clothing much better.  Also, I usually can't stand women's pants for their lack of usable pockets.  And I avoid wearing women's pants in winter because the material is often thinner, and they're form-fitting, reducing circulation and making me colder (also, I can't fit long-johns under them!).  I dislike most women's shoes because they're impractical and uncomfortable and women's tops usually feel less substantial than men's (in both thickness/durability of fabric, and the amount of fabric!).

But I do wear women's clothes.  I don't find them extremely unappealing to wear, and I do buy them occasionally!  So what's the big deal about a women's parka?

First I have to define a word the way I want to use it.

Genderise
verb, transitive
1.  to assign a gender to something that does not have a biological sex; "he genderised his guitar, referring to her as Lola and handling her extra carefully"
2.  to divide a group into genders, whether or not its members have a biological sex;
3.  to market a unisex product differently for men and women; "she shook her head in dismay when she saw that toothpaste had also been genderised"

I live in Winnipeg, MB, sometimes referred to as Winterpeg.  I guess my thinking is that genderising something as practical as a parka is ridiculous.

A good parka usually costs around $100 (scientific wild-ass guess).  I usually buy my jeans for $30 or less; and everyday tops for $15 or less.  Understandably, I own more tops than jeans, and more jeans than parkas.  I don't have money to blow on umpteen winter jackets!  I don't have money to get "a jacket for every occasion!"  If it's cold, I wear a jacket.  If it's colder, I wear a warmer jacket or add a ridiculously warm sweater.

So if I only can afford to have one winter jacket, why, still, should it matter if it's genderised?

My first reaction was, "I don't want to go around letting everyone know I'm female."  I dug a little deeper.

I think it's that I don't like being identified by my gender in general.  I think I don't like being lumped together with half the world's population as if there's no variation among individuals.  My least favourite phrase to hear in a discussion is, "Because you're a woman!" as if having a vagina means I'm going to completely empathise with every other person with a vagina because I have a vagina.

Gender, in my opinion, is a rather poor and poorly-defined way of dividing a population into categories.



TL;DR:  I find wearing feminine everyday clothes to be fine because I can afford the variety in my wardrobe; but when I have to decide on an article of clothing that is less about fashion and more about practicality (and also costs a lot more), I'll spend the money on something I'm more comfortable wearing, which is typically not feminine.

The question of why genderised parkas bother me, still bothers me, but I feel I've explored a satisfactory portion of it today at least.

--Charlie


PS:  I bought the parka.  But it's also return-able!

---