Tags: dworkin, jamba juice, mackinnon, sexual harassment
okay i am feeling a lil bit cynical, so sue me! the above video is a PBS special on “teenagers” (read: girls) being sexually harassed at work. this girl got her first job at jamba juice, and within a few months she was run out of the place by a male supervisor twice her age, who aggressively and violently harassed her. early on, she had a feeling that something was wrong…but she “didnt know enough about how things worked” to know for sure if it was wrong or not, so she let it go. (note: this *is* how things work, in the world of work, when you are female. sorry! really, i am.) later, when things got really really bad…she still didnt report it, because she wanted to keep the job. eventually she did report it. and in the end, even though this doods behavior clearly violated jamba juices corporate policy on sexual harassment and the assistant manager asked her to come back, and promised to fire said dood…dood kept his job. it ended badly for her, and not for him. in her words: “he didnt go, i went.”
yep, that sounds about right! welcome to the world of work baby girl! it totally bites!
now…lets just get a few preliminaries out of the way. first, make no mistake: workplace sexual harassment is all about men asserting male power as rapists and impregnators of women. okay? thats obvious. when women dare venture out into the public sphere, men routinely and immediately threaten them with rape. they exploit womens specific vulnerability to male bodies, to deliberately elicit a predictable terror response. male workplace harassers are terrorists. period. this is obvious, where they call specific attention to our biological femaleness, using rape threats and allusions to unwanted PIV, when rape (and in fact all PIV) is known to kill us. rape threats also serve to remind women, specifically, that we are not like men. that all this bullshit about “equality” is just that: complete and utter bullshit. that we are there on mens turf for many reasons perhaps, but our “equality” is not one of them. and that we had better toe whatever line they decide to draw, or we might find ourselves
raped impregnated, against our wills.
take a deep breath, and accept that this is true about both men, and the workplace, if you havent already. it will save you time. seriously.
also preliminarily is this: most of what men do to women at work, terroristically, using rape threats, is not against the law. see for yourself: its not technically (meaning: legally) sexual harassment, unless dood tells you you have to fuck him to keep your job, *or* his behavior is so extreme that it would tend to repulse a dirty old male attorney (yeah its a dubious standard to be sure):
catharine mackinnon has written extensively on workplace sexual harassment: in fact, she made it up. before her, what women experienced at work, at the hands of sexually predatory men, was just “womens reality.” workplace sexual harassment didnt even have a name, until she named it. she wrote about what “reality” is for women, and sexual harassment is a HUGE part of that reality: studying federal workplaces (in the US) for example, she notes that sexual harassment occurs more often than it doesnt. that is STUNNING, but not surprising. not for any of us who have ever had a job, anywhere, ever.
see, women cannot put down roots in any profession, in any environment, because we are constantly, constantly harassed and objectified. by men. at work. it causes us to have less job satisfaction, and NO economic security, as we continuously seek out a better environment (there isnt one) and lose seniority and respect (and money) with every move. men have no idea what its like to be on the receiving end of this, and yet mens success in the workplace is very much tied to this, to womens transience, low pay and lack of and loss of seniority, caused by being deliberately objectified and continuously sexually harassed and threatened, BY THEM. and thats the way it fucking is. we ARE being constantly harassed and threatened, with rape. the data is there, if only anyone were willing to believe it. they arent: instead, they prefer to believe gendered fantasies about women “prefering” to stay home and raise kids for example, where they are only fucking sexually harassed by ONE man, and not all men. but i digress.
but, what i really want to say is this, and i say it to the young uns reading: professionalism, education, student loans etc will not take you out of the system. all women are stuck within the concentric circles of sexualized oppression that dworkin described in right-wing women, and theres no getting out of it. none. its tempting to believe that theres an empowerful-ization attached to education and the career track etc, but theres really not. because STEP ONE in living in a woman-centered reality has to be this: NEVER become dependant on a man, for any reason. to be dependant on a man means to be subjected to a male-centered reality, central to which is dangerous PIV-centric sexuality and regarding women, all women, as whores. they fucking demand it. they make it so. but in the workplace, men are everywhere: they are your bosses and colleagues, and you are dependant on them, if you get out here alone, saddled with debt, needing a job. thats the part i apparently missed when i was planning all of this out. at the time, i *thought* i was doing the smart thing, but the result is just a variation on the same theme.
i have said it before and i will keep saying it: i now believe that if me, my sister and our best childhood friend had teamed up early on and decided to have a go of it, of taking care of each other and committing to do so always, it wouldve been so much smarter. my mother could have benefitted from this arrangement too. the four of us essentially blew it, and with compound interest (and seniority) working like they do, it might be too late to properly cure it. and thats IF i could get them all on board! right now, my sister and our friend, arent.
my mom and i now are starting to see what we’ve done, and are exploring a better way for the two of us…but in the meantime we’ve wasted decades. its so painful to realize, but its true. professionalism, individualism, empowerfulization, WHATEVER, for women, is not the way out. it never was.
Failure of Application vs Failure of Reason December 18, 2010Posted by FCM in books!, entertainment, international, liberal dickwads, politics, pop culture, race, radical concepts.
Tags: discrimination, mackinnon, monty python, pregnancy, womens lives mens laws
i wanted to expound on the concept of “application versus reason” that i mentioned about a month ago (help! i’m being repressed!). analyzing social inequities using the “equality model” is standard liberal dickwad politics 101, in that it allows self-identified progressive males to analyze “unfairness” without being distracted by the ugly realities of male privilege, and the ways that women are and continue to be victimized as women, by men and male institutions. in the above clip, the monty python players make hi-larious fun of class-based inequities, and their extreme silliness and ability to absolutely hit the nail on the head with regard to analyzing class assures monty python its place in history and in the hearts, minds and living rooms i mean ipods of good liberal dickwads everywhere. i mean lets face it. they are funny mkay? and smart. and they know it!
but the equality-model as the foundation for modern liberal dickwad politics (ie. liberal politics) was first advanced in the male civil rights context. in other words, the idea that there is no legitimate reason to treat black men any differently than white men are treated. but disenfranchised men, and only men, were meant to be included in the arguments against slavery, and all race-based anti-discrimination discourses that came later. in her essay “reflections on sex equality under law,” catharine mackinnon notes that including women in federal workplace discrimination legislation was an afterthought, and sneaky politicking by a racist senator that was intended to bring about the failure of anti-racist legislation by including teh wimmins in it. (heartwarming isnt it?) for some reason, it passed anyway:
but just because women were now technically protected under anti-discrimination law in certain situations, it doesnt mean what we might like it to mean, when the laws were drafted and intended to apply to only men, and in fact have only men in mind throughout. and where the favored liberal-dickwad argument is “but thats not fairrrrrr, you wouldnt do that to a white man.” for example, in an employment context: you would never stick a white man in the kitchen of a restaurant instead of letting him wait tables. or, you would never execute a white man for sticking his dick into someone. etc., etc. male-centric anti-discrimination discourse addresses and prevents failures of application only. meaning: if it makes sense for a white man, it makes sense for a black man. if it doesnt make sense to make a white man do something, then it doesnt make sense to make a black man do it either. not surprisingly, unfair-application isnt the issue though, when addressing the ways women are victimized as women, by men. namely, female-reproductive issues and the sexual abuse of girls and women by men:
what the failure-of-application or “equality” model doesnt address, doesnt anticipate and doesnt care about at all, is the failure of reason that comes into play when any male-centered discourse is applied to women. for example, sick time, and the 40-hour workweek. its all well and good (under an equality model, its not “unfairrrr”) to give everyone (or no-one) 5 days a year of sick-time right? its all well and good (under an equality model) to force everyone to sit at their desks for 8 hours a day, every day, if they expect a paycheck. but women are subjected to medical events that men arent, just by virtue of being biologically female (care to name them?). they are also more likely to be the caretakers of the home and of children because they are socially female. you see where i am going with this. and it gets worse.
inapplicability insanity of applying of male-centric disourse to womens bodies and lives becomes glaringly obvious when observing the mental (and legislative) gymnastics regarding the fetus, and its relationship to the pregnant woman carrying it. the best they have so far been able to do (bless their clueless hearts!!!1!!11 actually, no. fuck them all. srsly.) is to regard the fetus as a body part. because men have body parts tooooo!!111!11 but a fetus is NOT a “body part,” and its in fact completely irrational and unreasonable to regard something as something it isnt:
ignore the dangling words at the end there.
do we get it now? its not merely unfairrrrr when male-centric discourses are used against women, as women. its literally insane. its not rational. so, when the liberal dickwads snort and knee-slap over the monty-python players in the “witch village” clip, what is being criticised here really? men murdering women of their own class based on misogynist religious superstition (literally, insanity masquerading as logic) and sex-based discrimination in the legal system? HA! not likely:
taken in the context of monty pythons usual social class-commentary and criticism of the ruling elite, this is clearly a criticism of religion and superstition sullying the legal process, which is usually rational, although perhaps unfairly applied, against men, by other men. whew! thank (us rational men) this doesnt happen anymore! except that it does. this very type of shit happens all the time, when you are a woman. reason, fails. logic, fails.
more examples! the male-centric discourse surrounding sex, which is that PIV = sex = PIV. you went over to his house because you wanted to have sex, and he stuck his dick in you against your will…well, sorry, but you actually asked for it. HUH? yes! reality of course being completely irrelevant here, which is the problem when we are dealing in INSANITY. a mother abusing her child gets an extra-harsh sentence for “abusing a trust relationship” because we are allegedly, as a civil society, horrified when people abuse trust-relationships. right? not so fast. even *if* the male-centric legal system applied this one equally to male abusers of children (they dont), we are still left with a significant problem, in that its not even fucking true. we *dont* value trust-relationships, at all. or at least, when a trusted man rapes a woman, its not really rape at all in most peoples minds, because she knew him, and trusted him. HUH? the examples of this kind of shit are endless, and the legal frameworks of both motherhood and “sex” are extremely…fertile…ground.
the equality-model and liberal-dickwad politics dont work for us, because they dont protect us in the way we need protecting: from men, exploiting girls and womens biological femaleness for our destruction and their gain.
and we have to understand that its not intended to. men create this chaos, this unreasonableness, and force women to live in it, because it benefits men to do so. our adpoting male-centric liberal dickwad politics isnt going to help us a damn bit, when men *are* our problem, and they always have been, and they fucking revel in it.
Tags: freud, mackinnon, psychotherapy, rape, sexual abuse, womens lives mens laws
this essay from catharine mackinnon’s “womens lives, mens laws” addresses how pornified medicine and psychotherapy/psychiatry really are, and how female patients with histories of sexual trauma are treated by male doctors. namely, womens stories of having been sexually abused, molested, and raped give male doctors boners, and anything that gives men boners is both good, and not real, at the same time. sound familiar? male doctors are also known to go out of their way to mansplain to everyone around them how sex, violence and rape are completely different. and how nothing thats violent can be sexual too, and nothing men percieve as sexual can possibly be violent, even where male violence directly targets womens breasts and genitals. now thats good mansplaining!
in another essay, mackinnon (a lawyer and law professor) mentions how the legal standard for what is “obscene” and therefore illegal sexually-themed material must both appeal to the “prurient interest” (aka. it induces boners) and be “patently offensive” at the same time. otherwise its just, you know, perfectly legal porn. and theres nothing wrong with porn, right? right?
well…only the very obvious problem that if any “questionable” material thought to be obscene is ever taken in front of a court of law to determine whether it is or isnt, and the material gives men boners, in order to make the material illegally obscene, they must also acknowledge that whats making them hard is also patently offending them, at the same time. and they never will. because if it gives them boners, its generally good. and if it is just obviously patently offensive, at the same time, so much so that they might actually be embarrassed to be sporting wood at such a disgusting display, a strategically-placed notebook (or a lie) can easily hide the evidence that its also very much appealing to their prurient interest, too. thus, we have all kinds of boner-inducing, patently-offensive material widely available to just about anyone, at any time, and noone is willing to name it. material thats so vile, violent, and offensive, and without any redeeming value at all, that it should be illegal, and would be, except that men are fucking liars and literally cannot tell the truth about obscenity, and what it is, and how it affects them. this is what we know as porn.
oh, and its extremely likely that doctors and psychiatrists use porn, as described above, and they always have. enjoy!