framing

Kathryn Jean Lopez, Patriarch, Predictably Uses Patriarchal Framing to Discuss Contraception

Sat, 2010-05-29 23:28

Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon has another one of those silly moments where she forgets that anti-feminists know so much more about feminism and what it really means.

[Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online] is the first to line up to explain to all the stupid feminists why we’re so stupid thinking we actually enjoy contraception, sex, and having choices. 

In an otherwise largely celebratory forum on the pill at CNN’s website, Republican strategist and book publisher Mary Matalin cleverly and jarringly wrote: “Packages of portable liberation ushered in a generation of women determined to break free from their inferior patriarchal oppressors. And how did they manifest their superiority? Their freedom? Thanks to The Pill, by casual, drive-by sex. Whoa. That really showed those stupid boys.”

They can keep telling us that feminism is about hating men, and therefore we’re breaking our own rules by having good relationships with them and (if we’re straight) enjoying sex with them, but it’s not sticking.  Perhaps they’re wrong about what feminism is?  I don’t know; I’m just an actual feminist.  So when I say that feminism is about women’s equality and creating a non-patriarchal world where men and women are freed get along as equals, I don’t know what I’m talking about.  The only people who get to define feminism are people who oppose it.

She said it here.

Say what you like about Sigmund Freud but I think the world is a better place for his articulation of projection — the tendency to see in others the evils one perpetrates, or at best most wishes to perpetuate, oneself.

I mention this because for all that anti-feminists claim they’re standing up for the definition of men as… well… by-definition superior to women, they’ve got some seriously, seriously man-hating tendencies.

I mean yeah, Lopez is dumping on women for having Teh Sex with men but… but… some times you just gotta ask yourself why she’d think that would be a problem. And the answer, I’m pretty sure, boils down to one of three possibilities:

1) she thinks men are disgusting creatures who’s penises by their very existence sully women. Or

2) she thinks men are lazy animals who can’t be persuaded to do anything at all, let alone anything productive, couth, or genteel, unless they’re positively starved for sex. Which starvation will never take place if women succumb to their own “animal” instincts and “give it up” for free. Or

3) both #1 and #2.

Lopez, who hates men, projects this hatred onto feminism. Which she also hates. Furthermore, she then hates feminism worse for “contradictions” she perceives between how feminists behave and how she thinks feminists ought to behave.

The problem being that Lopez confuses “patriarchy,” which feminists rightly oppose, with “men,” who feminists can get a little impatient with but with only the occasional exception feminists don’t hate at all.

Clue time? Patriarchy is not limited to men. Patriarchy is a coed enterprise. Lopez isn’t a dupe or a thrall of patriarchy, nor a collaborator with it, nor is she a “useful idiot” of patriarchy (though, sorry, she is an idiot!) Instead she’s a fully-invested, active agent of it, a would-be architect of it. And as part of the patriarchy she hates men even worse than she hates women who have sex with them.

Now as to the substance of Lopez’s claim I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if you go on the pill just so you can let men have “casual” sex with you then… then I think it’s a good idea to maybe rethink both your relationship to men and your relationship to sex and who your sexuality it’s really for. And about. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to rethink your relationship to the pill, as Lopez would have you do. The main thing the pill does, or any other contraception does, is help couples, of whatever duration, avoid pregnancy. Who one has relationships with, and why, is an issue contraception really isn’t going to help, except possibly to the extent it helps avoid obstacles that make exiting an unfortunate relationship very much more difficult.

Oh and can I just add one more thing about Lopez and the pill in particular but contraception in general? Who does she thinks uses contraception here? It’s at least as common among married and/or partnered women as it is among “casual” sex-having single women. And if you take into account the married women who are currently actively seeking planned, wanted pregnancies I’m… pretty sure married women who aren’t trying to get pregnant are even more likely to use contraception. So WTF with her implication that the pill primarily enables casual sex? As opposed to sex inside established and even long-term committed relationships.

When you see patriarchal framing you probably want to call it. Lopez is a patriarch. Framing contraception in terms of “casual” sex and “letting” boys have sex with you? That’s patriarchal framing.

In Defense of Bob McDonnell Gail Collins Frames Slavery as Mainly a Concern of "Purple State" Perverts

Sat, 2010-04-24 07:48

Via a news roundup on Daily Kos, Gail Collins, a columnist at the New York Times attempts to rescue extremist Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell with a subtle but vicious slur against his opponents. Check this out (emphasis mine.)

The country may have moved to the right, but conservatives tend to underestimate the amount of blue that’s still out there. The new Republican governor of Virginia seemed stunned that his state reacted badly to his call for a Confederate History Month that did not mention slavery. But really, the very definition of a purple state is a place where, when you devote an entire month to recalling the glories of the confederacy, you have to give some time to the bondage angle.

She said it here.

Let’s read that last sentence again, this without that middle clause. “But really,the very definition of a purple state is a place where … you have to give some time to the bondage angle.”

If you’ve got access to Nexis or Lexis could you do me a favor and look for historical references to slavery as “the bondage angle?” Because when I Googled the phrase at 8:00 AM Pacific Time it was pretty much wall-to-wall references to BDSM. (Google suggested I instead try “bondage-angel,” for which there are 1,400,000 matches compared to “bondage-angle” for which there are only 84,000!)

There you go. Some four centuries of slavery reduced to an eyeball roll for the offended sensibilities of perverted New York and San Francisco liberals. Talk about the “very definition of a purple state!”

Instead I’m… pretty sure that in addition to insulting men who wear chaps and vote for Barney Frank, Gail Collins may also have insulted oh, say, any number of the 41 million U.S. citizens who’s ancestors were brought to labor as slaves in McDonnell’s beloved Confederacy.

Her column was titled “Running on Empty,” but Collins is so full of it she should wipe her nose with toilet paper.

Common Ground Sense Negotiating Strategy

Wed, 2009-07-01 10:52

Matthew Yglesias says (emphasis mine)

It’s precisely because of stances like this that it’s very hard to take the “abortion is murder” crowd seriously when they say abortion is murder. Their revealed behavior indicates that they don’t actually find abortion especially problematic, but just place it on a spectrum containing a general aversion to women controlling their own sexuality

...

Atrios sees this as a reason to mock those who advocate seeking “common ground” with abortion proponents. I think we’re arguably seeing here the real fruits of seeking common ground in good faith—their real views are smoked out.

He said it here.

Atrios is technically correct that seeking compromise never works with ideologues. But Yglesias is absolutely correct that simply making the effort forces those ideologues to show their true colors.

Which, since they’re very ugly colors, drives a wedge between them and the vast, vast majority of Americans for whom efforts to prevent unplanned, unwanted pregnancies through contraception, sex education, and empowerment for girls and women, are perfectly acceptable.

User login