The Default Male

“Why the Default Male is Not Just Annoying, But Also Harmful”

check it out at

Why Women are Leaving Law Firms

“Here’s my theory: women aren’t leaving law firms at an abnormal rate. They’re leaving law firms at a perfectly rational and normal rate. It’s men who are staying in law firms at an abnormal rate. Women aren’t the faulty outliers; men are.

“When you look at the situation that way, a lot of things start to make sense. Women who enter law firms quickly and accurately diagnose that these are amateurish organizations that employ archaic workflow systems, inept pricing mechanisms, skewed compensation structures, and largely ineffective management, not to mention a whole lotta personal dysfunction. The typical contemporary law firm is nobody’s idea of a good business model, a satisfying workplace, or a solid bet for long-term future success. It shouldn’t surprise us that women abandon this model in droves. The question we ought to be asking ourselves is, why are men sticking with it in greater numbers than should rationally be expected?”

Jordan Furlong

The Hawkeye Initiative – Go Take a Look NOW!

This is the best thing I’ve discovered in a LONG time. Hopefully millions will discover it and maybe, just maybe, men will begin to ‘get it’.

We are tired. So tired.

“We are tired of being forced to see the world through [the heterosexual male gaze].” Missfit

Rape on campus…

“Rape on campus occurs with such alarming frequency that most colleges now incorporate sexual awareness training into their freshman orientation practices (apparently students not only must learn how to find their way around campus and how to use a library, but they must also learn how not to rape their classmates)” (Michael Kimmel, Guyland, p57-58).

(And apparently authors must learn when to use gender-neutral words and when not…)

Permitting Abortion and Prohibiting Prenatal Harm

I think abortion should be allowed. And I think prenatal harm (especially that caused by ingesting various legal and illegal substances while pregnant) should not be allowed. Some accuse me of hypocrisy or, more accurately, maintaining a contradictory position: either women have the right to control what happens to their bodies or they don’t. No problem. Women, and men, have that right except when it causes harm to someone else: I can move my arms any way I want except straight into your face.

Ah, you may jump up and down, you said ‘someone else!’ So the fetus is a person! That’s why you’re saying prenatal harm is wrong! So that makes abortion wrong too! You can’t have it both ways!

Yes I can. The fetus can be a person and it may still be okay to abort. Killing in self-defence is permissible; killing in mercy is permissible. So if the pregnancy or birth poses a risk to me, I can kill the fetus. Or if the fetus is discovered to have some awful excruciatingly painful genetic disease, I can kill it. (I should kill it.)

Not only does being a person not mean I can’t kill it; not being a person doesn’t mean I can harm it. It’s wrong to hurt a chipmunk, barring extenuating circumstances, because it can feel pain.

And in any case, I would argue that personhood is not all-or-nothing. Sentience, brain activity, the ability to communicate, the capacity for rational thought, consciousness, interests – all of these attributes, typically proposed to determine personhood, exist in degrees. So creatures can be persons in varying degrees.
And since personhood is typically established in order to establish rights, it makes sense then to assign fewer rights to ‘lesser’ persons. While there is cause for concern about the impact of such an argument on ‘disabled’ people, I believe this slippery slope should and can be avoided. For example, if a mentally disabled adult lacks the cognitive competence to vote, that right is justifiably denied. But it doesn’t follow that other rights, such as the right to a livelihood, also be denied.

In fact, we already assign rights according to various capacities and competencies: children, because of their lesser capacity for rational thought, and perhaps also because of their lesser interests, do not have voting rights; only a few adults, because of their superior knowledge and fine motor skills, are awarded operating room rights. The acceptability of aborting a being with minimal personhood would not then contradict the unacceptablility of harming a being with considerably more personhood.

In fact, going back to the matter of the right to control one’s body, it might be reasonable to consider, in the case of pregnancy, the boundaries of one’s body to be somewhat elastic. While the woman generally has the right to control her body, what is considered ‘her body’ changes through the pregnancy parallel to the changes in the personhood of the zygote/embryo/fetus: the less it is a person, the more it is her body; the more it is a person, the less it is just her body. Thus aborting when ‘her body’ is very much just her body may be acceptable, whereas harming when it is not may not be.

In addition to rights and personhood (though personhood ‘reduces’ to rights), there is another, perhaps better, consideration: consequences. Barring the capacity to feel pain, as long as there isn’t going to be a human being who will at some future time suffer from any prenatal harm – that is, if the woman decides to abort the pregnancy – such harm, whether caused by the woman or some third party, isn’t a wrong. In fact, assuming no such capacity, and given that it is has no interests or desires (which might justify pain, making it morally acceptable, as in the case of vaccination), it’s weird to even call it harm. (Do I harm a virus when I take cold medication? Or cancer cells when I receive chemotherapy?)
However, if there is going to be such a human being – that is, if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy and give birth – there will be an infant, a child, an adult who will suffer the consequences, which can range from vomiting, inability to sleep, reluctance to feed, diarrhea leading to shock and death, severe anemia, and excruciating pain, in the newborn, to the more permanent growth retardation, mental retardation, central nervous system abnormalities, and malformations of the kidneys, intestines, head, and spinal cord (Madam Justice Proudfoot, “Judgement Respecting Female Infant ‘D.J.’,” Madam Justice Proudfoot). Add to this the consequences to others, and the wrongdoing increases: the healthcare system (the rest of us) may have to pay (dearly) for newborn intensive care (Mathieu, in Preventing Prenatal Harm: Should the State Intervene?, estimates the average cost of prenatal intensive care to be about $2,000/day); the education system may have to deal with one more ‘special ed’ student; chances are the welfare system will be involved (Oberman, in “Sex, Drugs, Pregnancy, and the Law: Rethinking the Problems of Pregnant Women Who Use Drugs,” estimates the cost of lifelong care for fetal alcohol syndrome to range from $600,000 to $2.6 million ); and so on. Thus there is no contradiction in holding that abortion is morally acceptable and prenatal harm is not: generally speaking, abortion does not lead to morally unacceptable consequences, whereas prenatal harm does.

Of course, consequences to the woman must also be considered. For example eating a well-balanced diet is little to ask to ensure a healthy newborn, and giving up alcohol for nine months is well ‘worth’ a newborn free of mental retardation. But staying in bed for nine months may be too much to ask just to ensure the birth is not a week premature, and giving up life-saving treatment may not be worth the mere possibility of a healthy fetus.

[Hell Yeah, I’m a Feminist is a feminist blog, often radical feminist (radfem), always anti-gender and anti-sexism.]

Why Do Men Seek Arousal?

So I’m reading Robert Jensen (Getting Off: Pornography and the end of masculinity), and he says porn is intended to provide sexual arousal.

Sexual arousal? Not sexual satisfaction?

If you’re not aroused in the first place, why would you intentionally try to get aroused?

Because then you’ll just have to find a way to deal with it.

If you don’t happen to be itchy, you wouldn’t intentionally go sit in a patch of poison ivy to get itchy. Because then you’ll just be uncomfortable until you can scratch. If you’re not hungry, you wouldn’t intentionally fast in order to feel hungry. I don’t get it. It makes sense only under three conditions.

One, the state of arousal is itself pleasing. This may be true, but since men seem to prefer ending the erection to maintaining it all day, I’m rejecting this possibility. The arousal is clearly just a means to an end.

Two, the satisfaction of sexual arousal is mind-blowing—a pleasure far beyond the satisfaction of an itch or hunger. If that’s the case, and if men are therefore intentionally seeking arousal in order to achieve that pleasure, we’re talking addiction. Which, actually, makes sense of a lot. Imagine that boys become naturally addicted to something (the endorphins released with orgasm) when they hit puberty, and that they stay addicted well into their forties. Their gross misconduct (look around—this is not the best possible world)? Explained. Imagine that the best supply of the pleasure is a female body. Their misogyny? Explained.

No doubt only cultural conditioning keeps them from seeking castration. Which takes us to three: the socialization we put males through from day one ensure that sexuality—arousal and satisfaction—is not just a physical phenomenon. It’s inextricably bound with their identity, their self-esteem, their self-respect. Sex arousal and satisfaction are measures of masculinity. And masculinity is the measure of (a) man.


[Hell Yeah, I’m a Feminist is a feminist blog, often radical feminist (radfem), always anti-gender and anti-sexism.]

Men and Words

As a result of a recent exchange on a blog in which I felt insulted enough by the patronizing tone taken by the moderator that I decided not to participate any further, while another commenter (a male) responded with a mere “LOL”, I asked yet another commenter (also a male) why he thought our reactions were so different. “Don’t men know when they’re being insulted?” I asked.

His response? “We know, we just don’t care. At the end of the day, it’s just words on a screen. Most of us don’t expect to convince anyone else, this is a social event of sorts for people who like to talk about stuff.”

He went on to say “We don’t expect to change anything, we’re just engaging in venting, observation, and entertainment. If we learn something new, all the better.”

I find this horrifying. Words have meaning! Meaning is important! At first I thought maybe that’s just a philosopher/non-philosopher thing, but then I recalled conversations with male philosophers in which I similarly felt like I wasn’t being taken seriously, in which I felt like, the man nailed it, “entertainment”.

I don’t feel that when I speak with women on these matters. So it’s a sexist thing, not a philosopher thing.

But it’s not that men don’t take women seriously, it’s that they don’t take each other seriously either. Suddenly their attitude toward debate—it’s a game—makes sense.

As for the convincing, the changing, maybe that’s a non-teacher-non-social-activist thing, but again, if it’s a male thing, then again, it’s horrifying. No wonder the world isn’t getting better and better: the people in power aren’t talking, thinking, acting to make it so. Their discussions on policy are just “venting, observation, and entertainment”!

I wonder if at its root, it’s part of the male relationship to words. Women are better with language, so it’s said, whether because of neurology or gendered upbringing; men are better with action, so it’s said, again whether by neurology or gendered upbringing. So that would explain why women consider words to be important, and men don’t.

[Hell Yeah, I’m a Feminist is a feminist blog, often radical feminist (radfem), always anti-gender and anti-sexism.]

The threats regarding Sarkeesian’s talk

This just posted at feminist philosophers:

An email sent to Utah State University officials threatens to terrorize the school with a deadly shooting over a talk to be delivered by feminist critic and Tropes vs. Women in Video Games creator Anita Sarkeesian, Polygon confirmed with the school’s Center for Women and Gender Studies. . .

“If you do not cancel her talk, a Montreal Massacre style attack will be carried out against the attendees, as well as students and staff at the nearby Women’s Center,” the message reads. “I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs.”

The Montreal Massacre, also known as the École Polytechnique Massacre, took place in 1989 in Canada. Marc Lépine, who the email references, killed 14 women, injured 10 and killed four men in the name of “fighting feminism” before committing suicide.

The sender claims to be a student at the school, and adds “you will never find me, but you may all soon know my name.”

This latest threat marks yet another in a growing history for Sarkeesian herself and women in the video game industry at large. In August, following the release of another episode of her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series, Sarkeesian fled her home after receiving “some very scary threats” against her and her family. During GeekGirlCon, which took place this past weekend, officials confirmed to Polygon that a threat was made over her appearance there.


WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GUYS SO AFRAID OF??  Seriously.  Answer me that.

Why are you so afraid of what we say that you have to kill us?

[Hell Yeah, I’m a Feminist is a feminist blog, often radical feminist (radfem), always anti-gender and anti-sexism.]

When does the magical metamorphosis happen?

Our brothers were bossy know-it-alls, and they did cruel things to us and to animals.

The boys in our class taunted us and always got into fights with each other. They were rude and forever demanding to be the center of attention.

In high school, they became socially awkward, struggled with the material, and became fascinated with sports.

In university, they used pick-up lines (i.e., lies) to impregnate us, seemingly unaware of the immensity of the consequence. In the lecture hall, they were always so full of self-importance, so full of themselves.

So how is it that they become our supervisors, our MPs, our CEOs? How is it they get to be in charge of things? How is it they come to have power?

Why do we think they magically become competent, mature, responsible— When they graduate? When they put on a suit?

Because apparently we do think that. I saw that magic with my own eyes happen with my brother. He graduated, put on a suit, bought an attaché case, and suddenly the world was his. His entitlement.

When did that metamorphosis happen? When did he become so qualified? So worthy?

We commonly joke that ‘B students’ become our bosses, because they’re the ones that go in to business, whereas the ‘A students’ go into the humanities and the sciences.

We’ve got it wrong. The ‘C students’ go into business. The ‘B students’ go into the humanities and the sciences. The ‘A students’ were girls. And they’re nowhere to be seen now.

[Hell Yeah, I’m a Feminist is a feminist blog, often radical feminist (radfem), always anti-gender and anti-sexism.]

Load more