We're all entitled to things. I'm entitled to this cup of tea I made. I'm entitled to receive my textbooks I bought online within the next 4-6 business days. I'm entitled to not getting the car I paid for smashed into. I'm entitled to have my place in the classes I signed up and paid for.
But most importantly, I'm entitled to my body. And is it really so hard for men, the government, and my health care provider to let me keep this entitlement?
If you didn't know, a little over a week ago George Sodini shot 12 women, killing 3, a little over a week ago. Why? Because he was frustrated since no woman was willing to go out with him. (Jessica posted about it , but I thought I'd recap anyway.)
Men's Rights Activists are defending him by saying he was A Nice Guy.
A decent looking man who earns a good living and does not abuse women DESERVES to get laid. Period.
(There are more comments about Sodini at the link)
Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was Prince Charming, had oodles and oodles of money, and was just the nicest guy that there ever could be, does that really take my bodily entitlement away? The problem with Sodini and the problem with those MRAs who made those comments is that they don't see women as individuals who can decide what they chose to do with their lives and bodies -- they see women as objects that they "deserve."
Sodini's sentiments are not unique. They are the very heart of MRA ideology and conservative politics. True, most MRAs and social conservatives don't go around shooting random women, but how far is the leap from saying "Women are not entitled to reject me if I'm a good guy" to "Women are not entitled choose who they have sex with if they're wearing a skirt or walking down a dark street alone" to "Women are not entitled to decide if they want to use birth control or get an abortion."
If there are people in this world willing to defend George Sodini, then how far away has my bodily entitlement slipped?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Entitlement.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15476
You've hit the nail on the head Lefthandedpenguin. I think Susan Sarandon (or somebody) said "George Bush stay out of my bush!" Wonderful post!!!
Wow, I know this shouldn't be shocking, but I'm still surprised at how much these guys equate sex as a monetary exchange.
They need to go to church and learn that sex is about love, not money!
Also, I thought it was ironic that all these guys called women "moochers" yet they are really pissed off that women have jobs, make $$ etc.......well, honey, your woman will literally be a moocher if you took that all away! LOL
"well, honey, your woman will literally be a moocher if you took that all away! LOL"
Well, that's the point, then she'd be completely helpless and under their control. She wouldn't be mooching then, he'd just be making upkeep payments, like with a car. Ugh.
They're upset that the women they date don't believe they're prostituting themselves for meals the way the fellow seems to believe they are.
Well, in a lot of times and places, sex IS a monetary exchange!
Especially in the most of the world that still has arranged marriages!
As for the church teaching that sex is about love - ever read the bible?
Or studied the history of Christianity?
For most of the 2,000 year history of Christianity, sex was something men either purchased directly from prostitutes, or was a part of marriages that had more to do with money, property and inheritance than love.
So, actually, if you go to church (and really carefully read your bible) you could easily draw the conclusion that sex is a commercial exchange between men and women - the man gives money and status to the woman, and the woman gives sex to the man in return.
"Well, in a lot of times and places, sex IS a monetary exchange!"
Eh, isn't this the system feminism takes issue with? Marrying off women and girls for money (or even, having to pay the groom and family for taking a woman in) is not in the women's best interest.
Plain old dating is not supposed to be an exchange for sex, without both parties' consent.
Athenia,
I understand what you're trying to say, but sex isn't about love for lots of people. You can have sex without love and vice versa and that's perfectly fine and acceptable.
Also, why do you have to go to church to learn values about how to treat women or be in a healthy relationship (which is I think what you were mainly trying to get at)? Many people wouldn't call church (and I'm not picking on any one faith, they all have their flaws) the great place to go to learn what sex, relationships and women are really about.
Sorry for the kind of sidetrack but the one part of your post just kind of bugged me. I know plenty of really really sexist assholes that go to church every Sunday.
I just searched Glenn Sacks's website and could not find anything condoning the attacks or defending the deranged killer.
Obscure comments on the obscure blogs of obviously crazy men cannot logically be used to make broad, sweeping claims about their beliefs.
I googled Glenn Sacks and I have no idea why you're even talking about him here.
And these aren't obscure comments. That link has tons of comments on it, and the blogs that those comments lead to have even more. There's nothing obscure about this.
You don't know why I mentioned him?
The latter half of your post is a general criticism of MRAs. Glenn Sacks is THE leading figure of the Mens movement, he is the most reliable source of gauging MRA's opinions. I'm positive that Glenn Sacks gets 100x as much web traffic as these blogs, which are pretty obscure in relation to the scope of your condemnation.
And if you really dont know who Glenn Sacks is, then you really aren't informed enough to be judging them.
Yes, MRAs are misguided and some of them are venom-spitters, but you cannot attach nefarious labels to groups of people without sizable proof of collective guilt.
He looks like just another typical White Dude Douche Bagger. I've heard of Limbaugh, FOTF, Jerry Falwell, they don't seem all that different. That's like saying you can't judge feminism unless you have extensive knowledge of Simone de Beauvoir.
Comparing mainstream conservatives to MRAs is like comparing mainstream liberals to feminists. They are not the same, they may have vaguely similar views, but they are not the same.
A better analogy would be a conservative ragging on liberals, but has never heard of Obama or the Clintons.
Glenn Sacks is the current leader of a movement, Simone has been dead for quite some time and isnt a key figure in the current wave.
Current mainstream feminism does have links to liberalism. Why else would Feministing have supported Obama so vigilantly?
Becuase he was a better option than McCain and he beat Clinton in the primary, and if they supported anyone else then they would have wasted their time?
Don't forget that many were critical of his tepid support of LGBT issues.
That's right. I know I've been guilty of using MRA as a broad ambiguous umbrella term in the same way Feminist is thrown around.
And just because folks comment on certain sites does not mean they are active in that particular community or cause. A lot of people just want a place they think they can get away with spouting off. And serious forums tend to moderate content well.
As for the rest of the post, I agree 100%. This act and the accompanying chatter fits into exactly what women have been saying about the clouding of consent, victim blaming, anger on the street directed at us in the form of harassment, etc. Sodini just took things to the next level. He may be an outlier but his sentiments are not.
The point is that if these MRA members wanted gender equality, they'd be joining the feminist movement, not creating their own movement to bemoan feminism.
Let's stop defending MRA's in saying they're some sort of misunderstood creatures. Their position is clear: they are against feminism.
I actually interviewed Sacks about two years ago - and he in talking feminism, I had to remind him of what the difference was between the waves. You can't be against something if you know nothing about it. Yet, this guy is the leader if the movement?
Of date rape, Sacks said that while many men act ungentlemently toward a drunk woman, it shouldn't be considered rape.
If not anti-feminist, Sacks and his followers are, at the very least, quite confused.
Was your interview published? Do you have any documentation of him saying that date-rape cannot happen? I can't take this seriously otherwise, no offense, there is simply too much shit on the Internet.
Anyhoo, I'm not "defending" MRAs. I'm asking that all-encompassing contempt should at least not be made from ignorance, and should be supported with reliable sources.
Marc said:
"The point is that if these MRA members wanted gender equality, they'd be joining the feminist movement, not creating their own movement to bemoan feminism."
I have to disagree. I have perused this site for a long time and I do not find that feminists want gender equality. Of course, SOME do (like most movements, it has varied points of view). And, I have gained useful insights and new ways of looking at things. However, as a movement, it has little to offer me.
When a typical complaint is "what about teh menz," I know it is a movement that has no concern for me.
When "Patriarchy hurts men, too," is used to dismiss my concerns about equality, I know it is a movement that has no concern for me.
The MRA's have lots of valid concerns about inequality between the sexes, but those are dismissed outright because they deal with men, not women.
The way I see it: when feminism is able to recognize and address those inequalities, the MRA's will not exist any more and you will be in the Fourth Wave.
(And, as far as that goes, I lurk on Sacks' site as well. While I disagree with him on many things, I find him far more fair-minded and even-handed than most bloggers, including those on this site.)
-Jut
Of course there are rights that men lack. The entire construction of the words 'manly' and 'un-manly' (or its synonyms: pussy, fag, wimp) prove that. But I want men to be able to do the things that they want to do, and women too, of course, without the fear of gender normative behavior attacking them.
MRAs love nothing more than gender norms. They want women to be 'in their place' -- and as an effect of that, men too. It's probably because of his failure to fit into 'a man's place' that he developed rage and violence as an answer. After all, wouldn't that be the best way to prove that he's a 'real man'?
Destroying gender norms would greatly benefit men (and of course, women, too.) But MRAs would hate that, because that would mean that gender and sex don't really mean much about a person, and that men have no biologically greater position in society instilled on them by a higher being. Feminism is what's best for men, but a lot of men will never admit that, because it's really, really hard to.
"MRAs love nothing more than gender norms. They want women to be 'in their place' -- and as an effect of that, men too. It's probably because of his failure to fit into 'a man's place' that he developed rage and violence as an answer. After all, wouldn't that be the best way to prove that he's a 'real man'?"
You see, this is why people need to read what MRAs are really saying (and by MRA I mean "activists" like Glenn Sacks, not his readers). In fact, Glenn Sacks and many of his readers would like nothing better than seeing women doing the same kinds of jobs as men (e.g. coal mining, not just "nice" white collar jobs), and earning enough to support themselves and their children (because they do not like alimony or child support). MRAs and their supporters would love fathers to have the same opportunities to have child custody in divorce as women, as opposed to having women be assumed to have sole or greater custody. They would love for female criminals to have the same treatment in courts as male criminals.
Some goals of MRAs are in common with feminists, but the reasons are different. Reading what MRAs have to say does not mean you have to agree with or like them. I don't like MRAs, and I am not one. The reason I do not like MRAs, is they e.g. minimize rape and victim blame.
As long as we live in a society based on patriarchy this kind of thing is going to occur. I know people don't want to hear this but just because massive amounts of women are not killed in one centralized place, doesn't mean this kind of violence does not occur every day. Men beat women until they suffer severe trauma or death. Men rape women and sexually assault them every day and only 6% of them ever result in a conviction. Let's face it violence against women is rampant and I think that now is the time to step it up and bombard our senators and representatives with letters saying that we are going to take no more of this. We need to act as soon as possible.
Totally agree, and love this post. I often feel the same way about men who regularly visit strip clubs or prostitutes (and that is not to vilify the women doing these things obviously) who also feel that if they can't get sexual satisfaction the 'normal' way, they then have the 'right' (read entitlement) to buy and use other womens bodies for their own pleasure.
Also, i think it is highly likely (from being around people who have this opinion), that those women who actually DO 'put out' are labelled as sluts, skanks, etc purely because they are not putting out with the guys doing the name calling. So not only are women's bodies for their consumption and desire but as soon as a woman shows any sign of sexual autonomy, it is the wrong kind of sexuality. The slutty kind.
What exactly is so terrible about men who cannot get sexual satisfaction within relationships going out and paying for sex with sex workers?
As long as the sex workers in question are adults, not victims of human trafficking and well compensated for their work, I really don't see the problem here - it's a fair exchange of cash for sexuality.
But is it really ever fair? Given the economic desparity between women and men, and given the way sex workers and porn actresses are portrayed and treated, is it ever appropriate for feminists to use the services of sex workers?
Until the world actually reaches gender equality, and until women are seen more than just a piece of meat, sex work will always contribute to the oppression of women.
Yes this is what i was trying to get, also the massive difference between how many female vs. male victims of trafficking etc there are world wide.
I have issue Gregory with the ENTITLEMENT these men feel they have to use women's bodies whether it be free or with money, seeing as they have some sort of opinion that their sexual gratification is a right they hold inherently. I would not be surprised if the sex workers these men paid were treated like crap or that these men would even ask if they were in fact a victim of trafficking.
Also there is a great disparity between those who tell me time and time again that 'it's a woman's choice to go into prostitution etc etc' when they will turn around and call them 'dirty whores' in the same breath. Honestly, if the men who did use this service were respectful all the time and actually viewed the women giving this service as HUMAN, maybe i would not have such a negative view on the whole thing.
I say again that I'm not vilifying a woman's agency in choosing something like this. I just think that there would be so many other social circumstances that would drive a woman to prostitution other than a 'love for sex'.
If in a wonderful world there was true equality, I'm not even sure prostitution would exist. However since we don't live in a vaccuum i will echo marc in saying that the vast amounts of women who are forced into prostitution through drugs, slavery, monetary issues etc are not considered to be anything other than a piece of meat used for a quick root by all of the guys i know who have used them. And i agree that i don't really consider it to be conducive to equality.
"If in a wonderful world there was true equality, I'm not even sure prostitution would exist."
That would assume that people had all their sexual desires fulfilled by their partners, if they could find partners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_de_Vries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asta_Philpot
Based on reading George Sodini's essays (and extrapolating from my own upbringing and life experience - which was very similar to Sodini's) I draw the following tentative conclusions.
I suspect that Sodini was a sad, lonely and deeply disturbed man.
He was the victim of systematic emotional neglect by his father, systematic emotional abuse by his mother (abuse that apparently continued well into his adulthood) and systematic physical and emotional abuse from his older brother.
Much of his brother's abuse took the form of systematically sabotaging all of Sodini's attempts to date while he was in high school.
Sodini never sought psychotherapy or any other form of counseling as a teen or as an adult - so he, like many men in his situation, blamed all of his problems on his inability to form romantic relationships with women.
Basically, he came to believe his brother's narrative about him - that he was an unlovable loser who would never be found desirable by women.
He also came to feel that all he had to do to get his mother's long denied and desperately sought after love was to be successful in a relationship with a woman.
He also tended to let women stand in judgment over him - and to see those women as 50 foot tall monsters with the power to emotionally destroy him.
Basically, all of his terrified and abandoned "little boy feelings" came out when he dealt with women.
Big surprise, he was systematically unsuccessful with women - because what woman in her right mind would want to walk into that emotional minefield?
It also didn't help that Sodini turned to so called Pick Up Artists for aid.
Instead of guiding Sodini to the mental health care that he so desperately needed, they taught him various salesperson's tricks and head games that he, supposedly, could use to trick women into liking him and having sex with him.
They also reinforced Sodini's attempts to gain social status by dating so called "hot" women (that is, Maxim Magazine looking women half his age) - a delusion fostered by Sodini's desperate attempt to be liked and accepted by his male peers (and, ultimately, his brother who abused him and his father who abandoned him)
Needless to say, this fool's errand was hopeless and doomed to failure.
Sodini's rage and despair fed on themselves - a process accelerated by his social isolation - until he figured out that the only "solution" was to punish all women because of his personal inadequacies.
Needless to say, this was a horrifically and cosmically fucked up choice for Sodini to make - it led to the murder of three innocent women who had never done anything personally wrong to Sodini, and to the grave wounding of 15 other innocents, who, also had never wronged Sodini and now will spend the rest of their lives with the permanent injuries created by the military quality automatic rifle ammunition Sodini unleashed on them.
No, I am not justifying anything Sodini did - he became a savage murderer in those last pathetic moments of his time on this planet, and in fact, I think it's regrettable that he was able to successfully kill himself, because he will never face the very long prison sentence that he so richly deserves for slaughtering and maiming those innocent women who just wanted to do a little exercise after work, and who did not deserve that fate.
But I do think there is a lot to learn from Sodini's case - and, hopefully, somebody somewhere (perhaps a doctor, or a teacher, or a supervisor or coworker) will catch the next George Sodini before he goes from lonely sufferer to brutal murderer.
Wow that post was intense. Almost longer than my entry.
I love your heavy psychoanalysis. I think this brings up an ever broader issue of men who don't seek therapy, even though they desperately need it, because sharing feelings and getting help emotionally is un-manly. Jackson Katz discusses it in "Tough Guise" and mentions a book called "I don't want to talk about it."
I don't usually agree with a lot of things you say, but in this case, I don't think you need to throw in the apologetic phrase, "No, I am not justifying anything Sodini did."
I think it's important to understand the familial and social forces that shape the people we are and the decisions we make. This guy didn't just wake up out of the blue one day and decide to kill women because some crazy switch flipped in his head (which is what I feel like some people are suggesting when they dismissively say, "Oh, he was obviously mentally ill/crazy/etc. etc."). He didn't become who he was totally independent of the world around him. Whether he was mentally ill or not (I'm not going to armchair diagnose, I have no fucking clue whether the killings are prima facie evidence that he was sick), he was shaped by the world he lived in and the people he interacted with.
I think your analysis leaves out the idea of entitlement, though - if we lived in a society where men don't assume they're guaranteed access to women, I think something might have broken the chain of causation you laid out. And of course, at the very least, a patriarchy that discourages men from seeking help and speaking about their feelings is just shit that needs to be done away with.
What's deeply disturbing is not sex viewed as a monetary exchange but as *mandatory*. If it isn't for money it's always for something else, or for nothing at all - the kind of mentality that stems from "I took my dog to obedience school and it still won't sit when I tell it too, now I'm going to shoot it". Because, as Alas a Blog pointed out, women are still seen as property; and "pussy" is supposed to be some kind of collective property, like the commons, for men to enter at will.
oops - this is a double, with a typo in it. sorry.
What's deeply disturbing is not sex viewed as a monetary exchange but as *mandatory*. If it isn't for money it's always for something else, or for nothing at all - the kind of mentality that stems from "I took my dog to obedience school and it still won't sit when I tell it to, now I'm going to shoot it". Because, as Alas a Blog pointed out, women are still seen as property; and "pussy" is supposed to be some kind of collective property, like the commons, for men to enter at will.
My point was actually that mainstream liberalism doesn't have much in common with feminism.
supposed to be a reply to penguin....damn it.