AM Leibowitz, Author at A.M. Leibowitz

The Not-So-Good Men Project

Yesterday, I inadvertently got involved in a Twitter battle of sorts. I retweeted someone else’s opinion about the Good Men Project, with which I happen to agree. This is what it said:

Why don’t @goodmenproject just be honest & call themselves The Good Misogynist Project?

Well. I didn’t start the controversy, but I certainly ended up in the thick of it. You can read a good part of it here.

There’s enough overt misogyny in the articles themselves, as evidenced here, here, here, here, and here. But the thing that bothers me is the attitude that “men need space to be men without having to be feminists.” Guess what, dudes? That already exists for you. It’s called all the time, everywhere. Just because we don’t want you all up in feminist space with your non-feminism doesn’t mean that you can’t do it someplace else. You don’t need a whole web site, a whole magazine, a whole online kingdom in which to be manly men who aren’t “feminists.”

Additionally, it would behoove men to stop looking at respect for women as something to do because it hurts you if you don’t. As in, “We men can’t be our authentic selves because Big Bad Patriarchy says we must be assholes to women, and if we treat them that way we won’t get what we want. Which is actually to be Big Powerful Manly Men who can wear aprons and stay home with our progeny. Rrrrr.”

It’s absolutely true that patriarchy is bad for men. You won’t hear me arguing. But the reason for respecting women shouldn’t be because patriarchy is bad for you. If we all based our treatment of others on the idea that it will hurt us if we don’t play nice, we will never actually achieve mutual respect. Consider schoolyard bullies, for example. Punishing them with trips to the principal and out-of-school suspension rarely deters them. That’s because the rule is, “Don’t bully or you’ll get in trouble.” That’s not enough of a reason for most kids to stop.

Respect for others should come from the fact that we’re all people—living, breathing humans with hopes, fears, failures, ambitions, passions. Every person deserves respect. And to bring this back to my original topic, women deserve respect not because men will be hurt if they don’t, but because we are every bit as worthy of respect as men.

Real Good Men exist. I know because I married one. I am related to them. I have befriended them. I have read things they’ve written. I’ve met them in my travels and my online circles. I saw them speak up in the Twitter conversation yesterday.

Good Men, use your voices. Stand up for yourselves and stand beside us as we work toward ending misogyny. Don’t let the Good Men Project speak for you.

The married elite

LGBTQ+

I found out recently, the way one sometimes does, that a casual acquaintance had gotten married. She didn’t mention it the last time I ran into her over the summer. That’s perfectly fine, of course. No one is under any obligation to divulge any information to others if they choose not to do so. I have no idea why she didn’t tell me. Perhaps she’s an intensely private sort for whom those matters are personal. Maybe her mind was on other things and she was distracted. Possibly she thought I already knew. Whatever her reasons, she wasn’t going out of her way to fill me in on the details of her life.

When I found out, I briefly wondered if she didn’t say anything because she had married another woman. I felt bad that she might have thought I would react negatively. It’s also possible that she was tired of having people impose heteronormative ideas on her about the person she’d married (as in, “Oh, who’s the lucky guy?”). As I said, I really don’t know her reasons (we only know each other through mutual friends, and she isn’t required to tell me anything). It reminded me how much privilege I have.

In most situations, when one ties the knot, it’s a pretty big deal. Even the people I know who had lived together for years before their wedding were thrilled to announce that they’d obtained a state-sanctioned contract. When I got hitched, I didn’t have to gauge anyone’s reaction. I was free to show off my ring and tell anyone who would listen.

I also didn’t have to worry that my job working with children was in jeopardy because of my sexuality (yes, this has really happened). I could show up to my reunion at my (conservative) Christian college with my family, introduce them around, and not fear negative reactions. Heck, I could even have skipped the reunion without wondering if my classmates were going to gossip about my “lifestyle” (yep, that’s happened too). My marriage is not only legally recognized in my state, but if I move anywhere else, it’s recognized there, too.

That, my friends, is what privilege is.

And that is why I fight so hard for equality. I fight with my words and my votes and my actions. What I have shouldn’t be limited to me and people just like me. I want to live in a place where even a casual acquaintance is able to share her exciting news because she knows that the love she’s found is every bit as worthy of celebration as anyone else’s. I want to go to reunions and spend time with all the people I remember fondly, not just the ones who fit the expectations imposed on us.

As for the casual acquaintance that I mentioned above, I hope I run into her again. I hope I have the chance to tell her that our mutual friend shared her good news and that I am thrilled for her. I hope that, in some small way, I can be part of breaking down the wall of privilege that stands between us.

50 Shades of Monday

Books

Warnings: The Fifty Shades series is extremely sexually explicit and involves BDSM. Because of that, and because they are not exactly well-researched or high-quality literature, I will mention things such as abuse, rape, rape culture, male dominance, sexism, relationship violence, and consensual BDSM. Also, the books began as Twilight fanfic, so I will be mentioning Twilight (which is a major squick for a lot of people just by itself).

Happy Monday, everyone! Shall we get on with the continuing review of Fifty Shades?

Last week, I talked about the subtle (cough, cough) messages of unhealthy power in the first few chapters of the book. This week, I’m bringing you a Public Service Announcement: Singles interested in dating, please stay away from the ones who could be classified as Creepy Stalkers.

First, I promised I would address the crappy writing of the Big Interview. Our heroine, Ana, has agreed (for some unknown reason) to interview Christian Grey, despite her lack of experience and enthusiasm. As expected, she pretty much sucks at it. Even worse, however, is the fact that her budding journalist roommate does as well. Not all of her questions are strictly appropriate. I suppose she was going for some of that hard-hitting journalism, asking how being adopted affected him and whether or not he’s gay. However, it’s so abrupt in the interview that it feels like it was just thrown in there. Perhaps this was the author’s attempt to demonstrate upfront that she wasn’t writing Twilight slash?

Following the actual series of interview questions, Christian begins grilling Ana on her own life and plans. This is the point at which I was already starting to be a bit creeped out by him. It’s lovely that he wants to offer a soon-to-be college graduate an internship, but he’s had no indication from her that what his company does would even be of interest to her or helpful in her career. Here, again, we see the strange writing that marks a lot of the book. He cancels his meeting so he can continue the interview, but the rest of the conversation takes about five minutes of real time. Couldn’t he just as easily have postponed it?

One can only hope that this is the end of the story. Christian goes back to his job amassing wealth and saving the world’s poor from starvation (he may hate women, but he sure does love investing in feeding the hungry; what a saint!). Ana goes back to her boring life working at a Home Depot knock-off and finishing college. Sadly, one’s hopes would be dashed, because Christian Grey is actually a freakin’ creepy stalker.

Folks, I don’t know about you, but I would not merely be surprised that a big-shot I interviewed showed up at my place of employment even though I never revealed where I worked. I wouldn’t be merely confused. I’m sure that Ana was dazzled by his good looks, which for some people, might make up for scary behavior. Honestly, though, speaking from experience here, it shouldn’t matter. When a guy is a creeper, everything else pales in comparison.

To be fair to Christian, the next time he comes after her, it’s because she drunk-dials him. On the other hand, the whole situation she’s in at the time screams, “Blame the victim.” She’s so drunk she calls a man she barely knows, then refuses to talk to him or tell him where she is. Then she’s nearly raped by a guy who has supposedly been a good friend to her up until that point. Because, ya know, she was the one dumb enough to get herself into that position. Next thing we know, Mr. Creepy is showing up (does he have some kind of cell phone tracking device at home?) to rescue her from the Big Bad Rapist. I think I just got transported to Doug Wilson‘s world.

Herein lies my one and only praise of this book: At least the author recognizes the rapey sub-themes in Twilight. Despite the fact that I was entertained by the original series, I freely acknowledge the problems, one of which is—you guessed it—the creepy stalker. I’ve actually had this argument with people. I always saw Edward as a creeper. I mean, dude watches Bella sleep without her knowledge. That’s pretty messed up. And don’t get me started on Jacob, Mr. Won’t-Take-No-for-an-Answer.

Fortunately, in Fifty Shades, we get that taken to the extreme. Apparently, Ms. James didn’t find the rape tropes in Twilight subtle at all. She’s morphed Edward into Christian, the ultimate loveable creeper, and Jacob into José, the actual attempted rapist. If it weren’t for all the other problems with Fifty Shades, it would be refreshing to learn I’m not alone in my assessment of the male characters in Twilight.

Join me again next week when I continue my gleeful Fifty Shades bashing party. Meanwhile, stick around for the rest of the week and see what I have in store.

Notable News: Week of September 22-28, 2012

Cool Stuff, Links, News

Not so awesome this week in terms of progress towards women’s equality. We make up half the population, so why aren’t we making up half the featured blogs and authors lists? More classic examples of “Men are universal, women are specific.” Also, a just-for-fun article from the BBC news magazine (hey, I can’t just depress you all, for heaven’s sake!).

1. The title says it all

Insert major eye roll here. This article, Jeffrey Eugenides: I don’t know why Jodi Picoult is bellyaching, is an exercise in stupidity. It starts off just fine, a discussion of Eugenides’ work and his latest novel. Read it if you like; it’s long and not terribly interesting. About two-thirds of the way through, it turns into a random bashing of Jodi Picoult and a bizarre conversation about the way works by men and women are received. To refer to Picoult as “bellyaching” reminds me a lot of the way women who rise up against our inequality are usually branded as “shrill,” “bitchy,” or “whiny.” Eugenides says that Picoult isn’t “starved for attention,” as though that’s what she was after in her criticism of review coverage of women. Good going, guys. You just proved her point.

2. Gender bias and Facebook

Oh, goody. So it’s not okay to be a racist, but it is okay to be a misogynist? Well, gee. Hey, women? I think we need to fight harder against this kind of thing. Slut-shaming? Not cool. Using pictures of strangers without their permission? Not cool. Facebook pages about punching women? Not cool. And again…we make up half the population. How is it that we haven’t stopped this shit yet? Let’s get busy making sure that it gets taken down.

3. Keep digging, Kent Shaffer

Last week I was critical of Dianna Anderson’s post about privilege. This week, I am once again in her debt for voicing exactly what needed to be said in exactly the right way. She offers two posts in response to Kent Shaffer’s Open Letter to Women Blogs, which you can read here and here. Shaffer seems to think that there aren’t enough popular “church” blogs written by women to make up—again with the 50% thing—half the list of top blogs. Of course, the definition of “church” blog is pretty nebulous, and, as is typical, the idea is still that men are—you got it—universal, while women are special. And of course, we who make up 5o freakin’ percent of the population are eager to read only blogs by white men. Gah.

Finally, before I get too worked up about this, I offer you…

4. Britishisms in American casual speak

Apparently, we Americans are letting common British terms and phrases creep into our own speech. While I think it’s fun to take note of the ways in which our language may be changing or blending, I think this particular article is kind of…crap. For example, I’ve never considered the term “sell-by date” to be particularly British, especially since I’ve used it, oh, since my own childhood. Friends who are from/have been to England assure me that the common term is “expiry date” (though if anyone has another experience, by all means, let me know). Also, whoever wrote this seems blissfully unaware that there is indeed still some lingering prejudice here toward people we would call redheads (but are referred to as “gingers” across the pond). According to the article, there’s been an “uptick” of people using the word “ginger,” possibly attributed to Harry Potter (again, someone can correct me here, but I don’t think the word appears in the American versions of the books). Ah, well. The article is still an interesting read, and it doesn’t change the fact that UK English has better slang than US English, as you can see here and here.

Have a great weekend, everybody!

Shame, shame

Body Image, Health

There is so much shame out there for us to use against our fellow humans. It’s so easy to claim-and-club, to bludgeon each other in the name of making others into better people. And doesn’t it feel good, knowing that we’re doing the right thing, the moral thing, while others wallow in their guilt?

I read an article yesterday about how restaurant portion sizes can be an issue for people wanting to have healthier lifestyles. In the article, a study was cited in which people were given cookies labeled “medium” and “large,” but the cookies were in fact the same size. People who had the medium cookies ate more, and it was suggested that the labeling convinced them that the portion was smaller so they could indulge. The implication is that if restaurant portion sizes were standard (a medium soda is always the same number of ounces everywhere, for example) then it could be more effective than laws restricting the maximum size. The article went on to mention that clothing sizes have gone down in the last 50 years, meaning that larger people fit into smaller sizes because of resizing (called “vanity sizing”).

I have no problem with the research or even the thesis of the article. It was mostly factual, providing information. What did bother me was the comments on the article. It was a string of people claiming to be very thin and unable to find clothing that fits. (I find that hard to believe, as I have noticed neither an epidemic of nakedness nor large numbers of skinny people in baggy clothes.) In fact, the majority of the comments ran along the lines of, “Let’s not make excuses for the fat people sitting around on their lazy asses stuffing themselves with supersized fast food.”

In other words, fat shaming.

I will never understand why it’s so appealing to say hateful things on a public forum. I’m not even talking about the stupidity here, the conflating of fat and lazy or unhealthy. I’m talking about the name-calling, the character assassination of people we don’t even know. I don’t get the desire to verbally thrash complete strangers, as though we ourselves live flawless lives. Nor do I relate to the underlying fears that lead us to disproportionately shame fat people as though being overweight is among the worst things one can do.

I’ve never met anyone who had long-term success becoming a better person as the result of being shamed into “proper” behavior. I’ve met plenty of people who have become fearful and depressed and have hidden some of the best parts of themselves because they believed that they weren’t worthy of love. Not only that, I’ve seen perfectly healthy people become ashamed of their bodies because they are curvier, more muscular, large-boned (and I mean that literally), or even because they are pregnant. Is this what we’ve become as a society? People who are afraid of natural variation and even natural biological function?

The thing is, I’m not even laying this one on the church. While I think that in large part the church has a role to play (Christian “diet” programs, anyone?), that doesn’t explain why there are so many people who are not now or never have been Christians who believe the same things. In this case, it’s not necessarily the direct actions of the church but the passive failure to act that is the problem.

As Christians, we have a responsibility to end the cycle of shame. We need to stop buying into the lie that thinness is God’s plan for humanity or that there is any such thing as “righteous” health behavior. I don’t mean that it’s our job just to make people feel good about themselves. But we need to separate what society says from what God says, especially if we claim to be “Bible-believing.” (I’ve never seen a commandment in Scripture that says, “Thou shalt be thin.”)

I’m not really a “fat activist.” I was merely bothered by the rude and judgmental comments (along with the bragging about being too small for normal clothes; if that’s not fat shaming, I’ll eat my hat). But if you are interested in the subject, here’s a woman who does just that. Her blog is fantastic and she regularly gets all sorts of interesting feedback. Check it out (and especially check out her Hate Mail page if you want to read a cross between hysterically funny and rage-inducing).

Movie Review: Diary of a Wimpy Kid Dog Days

Movies

To make up for subjecting you all to the horror of Fifty Shades, I’m giving you something considerably lighter and more fun today.

On Saturday, for the sake of spending quality time together as a family, we did something we rarely do: we went to the movies. I had promised I would take Jack to see the latest installment of the big-screen versions of his favorite book series, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days. We dragged Dad and little sis along for the ride (the former less reluctantly than the latter). Surprisingly, all four of us enjoyed the movie. Even more surprisingly, it was more than just a kids’ comedy.

My son has read every book to date at least twice, and we own both previous movies on DVD. I’ve never read or watched any of them. Having seen Dog Days, I can honestly say I think I’ve been missing out. My son assures me that this particular adaptation was very close to the book. I now want to read it for myself to find out. I can honestly say that I haven’t laughed that hard at a movie in years. If that’s any indication of what’s in the books, it’s no wonder that kids everywhere, boys and girls alike, are devouring them.

As I watched the film, I was struck with the thought that this is The Wonder Years for the current generation. The hero (and narrator) of the series, Greg Heffley, is a cross between a gentle everyboy and a complete screw up, for lack of a better term. The way he stumbles through pre- and early adolescence is a brilliant mix of side-splittingly funny and achingly endearing. Despite never having been a boy that age, I still found my own gawky, uncertain teenage self in him.

Fourteen-year-old Zachary Gordon, the star of the film, is impossibly adorable and absolutely perfect. He does, in fact, remind me very much of Fred Savage at the same age. Having literally grown up with The Wonder Years (I am only a few months older than Fred Savage, and his character was a grade level below me), I would not be surprised if this is intentional. After all, my generation is just now old enough to have children that age, or at least old enough to read the books. Either way, Gordon is the perfect choice for this role. I found myself simultaneously laughing at his plight and wanting to give him a hug and tell him it would all be okay.

The rest of the cast is surprisingly talented for a group of young people. Ordinarily, I’m not impressed with the young stars of book-to-movie translations. They seem more often than not to have been chosen because they “look” the part, rather than for their skill in front of a camera (see Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, for example). I hope that we will be seeing more from these young people in the future.

As for the movie itself, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Usually when a movie’s laughs are based on embarrassment or humiliation, I feel uncomfortable laughing at someone else’s mishaps. But in this case, the fun came from being able to relate to the characters and their awkward situations. Viewers should be prepared for the fact that there is some rude/gross humor, though it is far milder than most films aimed at Dog Days‘ target audience. There is no “mature” content of any type, including swearing, which meant that I was comfortable taking my seven-year-old to see it.

It isn’t necessary to have seen the previous films, nor to have read the book. The movie makes sense on its own, and each story is a self-contained plot. If you are looking for a family-friendly movie for ages five and up, then I highly recommend this one. Where I live, it’s currently playing in the second-run theater. Otherwise, you may have to rent it in a couple of months. Trust me, it’s worth it.

The Not-So-Good Men Project

The married elite

50 Shades of Monday

Notable News: Week of September 22-28, 2012

Shame, shame

Movie Review: Diary of a Wimpy Kid Dog Days

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

AM Leibowitz

More Content