In which I am indistinguishable from one of those crunchy health-purist types

Well, you guise, it seems this is the month when I spend a lot of time at medical appointments. I will count the dentist as a medical professional. I had what was the first of at least 3 medical-professional visits today.

Barring any ominous phone calls 7-10 days from now, I’ve got a good explanation for this weird GYN crap that’s been bothering me since the last visit from Aunt Flow, two prescriptions to clear it up, and that should be sufficient for the time being.

And this is the part where you’ll be glad I put this under a cut.
Continue reading

The terrorists can fuck themselves.

In case you’re wondering whether we can call the Orlando shooting a terrorist attack: yes, it most assuredly was a terrorist attack. It was terrorism in the same way the attempt on LA Pride would have been terrorism: they were doing terrorism on us queer and gender-non-conforming folks. They want us to be ashamed of our existence. Too bad, sorry-ass fuckers: we still exist. Dudes will kiss dudes and girls will keep on licking pussy as long as humanity stands. Get on board or get off the planet.

Don’t like that we exist? Frozen pineapples. They also still exist. Find a frozen pineapple and fuck yourself sideways with it. I’ll be over here, licking pussy along with other bossy fat bitches.

I still exist.

What you all need to understand is that we had family biz this weekend, what with my brother getting married. We could not have asked for a better addition than my new sister-in-law Sarah, and we had a most marvelous celebration of their union on Saturday.

The practical upshot is that I was occupied this weekend along with my fam in New Jersey, which is a mild shlep from our home in Maryland, so I was not in position to blog about events revealed in the past 24 hours.

I saw the news of the Orlando shooting early morning on Sunday, and after so many years of living with Americans shooting each other, my reaction was, “Ah, geez, again?” That says something. Cynicism aside, this is the biggest mass murder in American history since before the beginning of the 20th century, and that’s nothing to sneeze at. Pulse was a gay club, and the shooter (I know his name and am uninterested in spreading it around) did not like that queer people exist and live their lives, and he had weapons and made sure to use them. He’s on the wrong side of history. I’m a queer woman and I still exist. I encourage straight allies to amplify the voices of their LGBT (emphasis on the T, in particular) peeps and ignore the hatemongering from vicious bigots who don’t care about LGBT folk nearly as much as they hate people with foreign names. I repeat: I exist as a queer woman. That bothers some people. Find our voices and spread them around.

 

The best defense we have is knowledge.

Continuing from last post: the main problem as I see it with people like Dan Linford is how many people they hurt, and how long they get away with it before people start talking about their behavior in public settings.

To the extent that women and those-seen-as-women are able to protect themselves from men who don’t respect consent, it’s usually because they were warned beforehand about which men can’t be trusted. This communication tends to take place in back channels.

It may not be realistic to bring the back channels into the sunlight just yet, but we can make the back channels more extensive and comprehensive.

This is where our feminist-sympathizing dudes, who understand the value of consent and women’s autonomy and want to be part of the solution, can help.

If you’re communicating in a private setting with another dude, and he confesses to some violent, predatory, or even just unethical behavior with women, those-seen-as-women, and people whom he sees as potential sex partners? Take screenshots and start passing them around.

Depending on the seriousness of the behavior in question, how long ago it happened, how much remorse he feels about it, and how he’s conducting himself now, it doesn’t necessarily need to make him a pariah. But if we’re interacting with an admitted rapist, we’d like to be aware of that so we can protect ourselves accordingly.

When the communication around the admitted rapist reaches the public discussion level, you can help by signal-boosting women writers when they talk about who has hurt them and their friends. It should not be the case that people tend to hold men as so much more credible than women, but the reality for now is that they do, so you can be part of the solution by reblogging and sharing women’s accounts of who has hurt them and their friends. Speak with us, not over us. Retweet, reblog, link and quote. Believe us, and show up.

Can I trust anyone anymore?

What do we say to the God of Real Life?

“Yeah, let’s have a moment today.”

I haven’t been posting on social justice much outside of occasionally working it into my Game of Thrones analysis. There are reasons for that, mostly having to do with the fact that I am a tall stack of anxieties and neuroses held together by carbs, alcohol and Twitter interactions. Making a long story short, I have to face up to the fact that I am too sensitive to be the activist I once thought I could be.

Which is not to say I’m giving up on being a good intersectional feminist writer. I still care about social justice in the real world. I also need to take care of myself, however, because if I rely on anyone else to take care of me, my needs will go unmet and my mental health will suffer accordingly, and I’m a much better contributor to society when I’m healthy. I’m gradually figuring out how to take care of myself while doing activism for the real world. I’m not there yet.

One of the hazards of Real Life is that people whom I thought were good eggs keep turning out to be awful. This is a hazard of social life from any angle, but when the social circle is built around progressive activism, it’s especially upsetting when a supposedly decent guy turns out to be a predator.

I would like you to take the time to read Heina’s post on the reality of Dan Linford, who was among my Facebook friends up until he deactivated his account.

He has behaved inappropriately in a deliberate way that lent itself to plausible deniability (a classic manipulation tactic), up to and including his confessions of sexual assault, along with the stock-standard patriarchal use of women and people perceived as women for emotional labor.

He uses autism and mental illness to excuse his behavior, but that’s not a reasonable excuse or explanation especially when many of the people caught up in this latest round are autistic and/or mentally ill themselves. Indeed, in my own case, I feel my autism made me more vulnerable to his tactics. Furthermore, his pattern of predatory behavior speaks to a level of manipulation and sophistication rather than to random social blunders or awkwardness. The dots connect into a clear picture. As of this writing, a conservative estimate places about two dozen people as having put forth personal accounts of his predatory behavior, many with eerie similarities.

That’s the beginning. Please follow the link and read the rest.

I am not among the people who were affected by Dan’s predatory behavior; I suppose I never got close enough for him to pull his fuckery on me. It probably helps that other Real Life upheavals have largely driven me away from Facebook in favor of Twitter. Anyway, Dan never did anything inappropriate to me, but he hurt others, and he got away with it for much too long.

What is possibly the most offensive aspect to his story is the part about him using autism and mental illness as distraction tactics. I’ve seen this before in the atheist/skeptical community and I’m sure I’ll see it again and again. Dan may (or may not) have mental illness, but that does not give him the right to disregard boundaries. Dan may (or may not) be autistic, and I’ve seen the “but what if he’s autistic?” derailment used to scold women away from pointing out men’s predatory behavior enough times to suspect Dan saw it as a matter of his own self-interest to be seen as autistic in this context.

Short version: I don’t know whether Dan is actually autistic, but he should NOT be able to use that as an excuse.

On that note, please read this Facebook post by Radical Neurodivergence, in which she details how “but what if he’s autistic?” is used to prevent women, especially including autistic women, from defending themselves against male violence.

STOP saying “well he’s autistic; he doesn’t know better” to excuse autistic or possibly autistic men for creepy, predatory behavior.

He does know better or he needs a behavioral aide and SOMEONE is failure. Autism and creep are not the same thing. There’s loads of effortlessly non predatory autistic men.

Also, a WHOLE LOT of these men who you are defending with this ableist crap? They are targeting autistic & otherwise neurodivergent women.

You know what happens to us?

We’re told we have to be nice and gentle because he’s autistic and doesn’t understand and don’t be mean to the poor autistic man.

We’re told that we have to send the ‘right’ signals.

Nobody ever looks at a woman who’s complaining about a man who didn’t respect her boundaries, and comes to her aid with, “Well, what if SHE’S autistic?” There’s no allowance made for women to struggle with reading nonverbal cues, or for women to have sub-par social skills, or generally to have been less than perfect in interacting with other people.

I have chronic anxiety and intermittent depression, and I’m expected to regulate myself well enough to avoid lashing out at other people, even when I’m sick. My mental illness isn’t an excuse to hurt people.

I have some neurological quirks that may be familiar to many autists, and I was rather delayed in learning social skills, but I’m still held responsible when my behavior makes other people uncomfortable.

You’re either responsible for your actions or you’re not. If not, why should anyone trust you?

Silly lady-hater thinks he can make us jump through hoops.

Dave at We Hunted the Mammoth shows us this adorable idea from some guy at Reddit who thinks women will soon resort to offering threesomes to get men’s attention. This is really…special.

Women used to maintain a pussy cartel. To get any pussy you had to get married. Men want pussy so they got married. The cartel broke down a bit and women started giving access to pussy after engagement. Then the effort was lowered some more and the couple only had to be “going steady”. Next was “in a committed relationship” and eventually the “3 date rule”. Today you just swipe right on a smartphone.

Women currently sell into a hyper-competitive sex market where once they were buyers with a huge upper hand. The market is flooded and prices have dropped to $0.00. Gone are the days where they could demand any sort of commitment in exchange for access. Women still want men so they provide extra services to the men to compete for attention. Naked pics are extra services they use to keep up with the many women competing for the man they want. Either they send the pics or the guy moves on to the women who will.

I think the next major innovation will be women grouping together to offer threesomes to men in exchange for attention. Once naked pics become normalized they will have to do something. This is the next logical step.

Has it ever occurred to this cupcake that maybe, just maybe, the reason why “the price of pussy dropped” is that women were actually not so interested in long-term heterosexual monogamy? Like, maybe it was the other way around all that time? Maybe women appeared to be so interested in marriage because we kind of had to have husbands in order to get laid and not have to constantly lie about it? As soon as reliable birth control and increasingly permissive social attitudes made it okay for a girl to get some action without commitment, women became the ones who were less interested in marriage.

This kid (along with a whole lot of other Red Pill types) is somehow convinced that women are “giving away” sex because we want something else that men have to offer that they don’t currently give away for free. Does he think we want more of men’s attention? Seriously? Most of us would actually prefer to get less of that. These same guys act like women are degrading themselves by pursuing and enjoying casual sex, while said guys also make a part-time job of trying to manipulate us into giving them more access to our pussies, but, honestly, the sad truth of the matter is that women aren’t using sex as currency. We’re really not. If you can’t imagine why a woman would want to fuck you unless she’s trying to get something else, I guess that means you’re lousy in bed. Try being less lousy in bed.

If a woman’s acting like she really just wants a quick roll in the hay with some cute guy on Tinder, it’s probably because she really just wants a quick roll in the hay. He has nothing to offer her except a decent-looking bod with a healthy cock, and even that much, she might not want for more than one night.

As for threesomes…have you ever considered that if you happen to be in bed with two women at the same time, they’ll be there for each other just as much as for you? And that’s where you should be trying to be less lousy in bed. If you’re lucky enough to be in bed with two ladies at the same time, you don’t want them to ignore you.

 

They Don’t Want Us to Fight Back, Unless We Lose

Addendum to last night’s post:

Now I remember what the point is of all this talk about “self-defense” in preventing rape.

They don’t really want us to fight back effectively enough to make an attempting rapist think twice before he tries the same thing on someone else. They want us to fight as hard as we can, and still get raped. The idea is that fighting back is proof of rape, not prevention.

In this scenario, the victim may get beaten to a pulp, she may suffer permanent injuries, or she may even be killed, but at least we know she really wasn’t consenting and the rapist is a really bad guy. We may be willing to believe someone who fought like a mad dog and has the injuries to show for it, but of course even then, the goalposts are always shifting on what it means to fight back hard enough. If someone is upset and traumatized, but mostly uninjured, we’re only too happy to call her a liar.

The idea is that we use our defensive wounds to prove that rape is the worst thing that could happen to us. Here’s the thing, though: it’s not the worst thing that could happen. There’s always something worse than a completed rape. Getting beaten nearly to death is worse. Being disfigured is worse. Dying is definitely worse. Rapists know that we know it can always get worse, and they use this to their advantage.

Behind the idea of rape being the worst thing that could happen, though, is the obsession with female purity. This makes sense if we’re expected to be virgins until marriage, and everyone is expected to marry if at all possible. The social order demands that all women either be virgins until marriage, or become martyrs. The injuries of fighting back, no matter how painful, permanent or life-threatening, are the price we’re expected to pay for having failed to defend our purity.

We shouldn’t have to be martyrs. Rape is a bad thing even when it doesn’t ruin our lives. We should be able to live and fight another day.

 

Questions We Could Be Asking: Paying for Rape Kits

Another name for a “rape kit” is “evidence.” It’s the sort of stuff police use to investigate crimes. With pretty much all other crimes, the state pays for whatever work had to be done to get the evidence together. For example: we don’t expect murder victims’ families to pay for autopsies. No, the state pays the Medical Examiner’s salary so they can figure out how someone died. In some parts of the country, however, rape victims are expected to foot the bill for evidence to be gathered.

Continue reading