Portmanteaus That Should Die in a Fire Lit by Pages From the OED

...with apologies to Shakespeare.

1. "Mom" + "Fill-in-the-blank"

*shudder* 

Here are just a few examples: 

Mom + Entrepreneur = Momtrepreneur

Mom + Delicious = Momalicious

Mom + Sensational = Momsational

Mom + Orgasm = Momgasm

Mom + Ridiculous = Momidiculous

Thanks to Jezebel for these, except the last one, which I may have made up on the spot. 

And can we just—I mean—what—I can't—

Being a mother is not a niche, just like being a woman is not a special category. I object to it all:

I object to the term "Mommy Blogging."

I object to ever calling someone a "Mommy Blogger."

I object to the weird fetishization of motherhood generally.

But I especially object to jamming the word "Mom" or "Mommy" together with another word to create a new word (actually not a word, people, unless you're Shakespeare, are you Shakespeare, no, I didn't think so). 

Just, no. 

2. Feminist + Nazi = Feminazi

Fun fact, I first came across "feminazi" as a young preteen reading Rush Limbaugh's bestselling books, See, I Told You So and The Way Things Ought to Be, proving that even if you are 12 years-old and living in China, you can still grow up reading the classics. 

Did not!

How many times have I had some version of this conversation:

"So, you're a feminist. What kind of feminist are you?"

"Um, just a normal one, I guess."

"But—I mean, you don't hate men, right?" *laughs awkwardly*

Why is it always about you, random dude? Are you afraid I'm going to round up your kind and send you to a concentration camp because I believe that women should be treated equally? 

Yeah. 'Cause those things are totally the same.

3. "Fit" + "Inspiration" = "Fitspiration" or "Fitspo" for short

Don't even get me started. 

F*** you. (Photo via lovelivegrow)

Fitspo appears to be short for "an excuse to post a picture of my abs on Instagram." Now, explain to me how this is inspiring? 

Am I supposed to instantly go out and join the nearest Crossfit gym? Feel bad about my flabby stomach? Put down that cookie? 

"Fitspo," not only are you a crime against the English language, you are a crime against the human (usually female) body. 

Now, excuse me. I'm going to go eat cookies and read incendiary feminist literature about solving the "Man Problem." 

10 Literary Alternatives to "Netflix and Chill"

*SPOILERS*

Wait, who am I kidding? No one reads anymore. Proceed.

1. The Catcher in the Rye and hire a prostitute just to talk

2. Middlemarch and marry the wrong person

"But...but marrying you would make me so happy. That won't do." 

3. Lolita and rape your prepubescent stepdaughter

4. Catch-22 and for a brief moment believe that your dead friend's prostitute girlfriend wants to have sex with you before realizing that, no, she is still trying to kill you

5. Much Ado About Nothing and publicly shame and humiliate your fiancee at your wedding because you have been tricked into believing she is cheating on you by a man referred to as "the bastard prince"

"You whore!" Awkward.

6. The Great Gatsby and idolize the man in love with your married cousin who throws extravagant parties and always calls you "Old Sport"

7. 'Tis Pity She's a Whore and skewer your sister/lover's heart with a dagger before parading it around at her husband's birthday feast

Best-worst last line in the history of English literature

8. The Scarlet Letter and secretly father an illegitimate child, leaving your partner to take the fall

9. Jane Eyre and torture the man you love, who is also your boss, by consenting to marry him then leaving him after you discover he has stowed his mentally insane wife in the attic—that's right, he's already married!

Actually, Penguin Classics, Jane describes herself as plain and unattractive. Get it together.

10. The Odyssey and lynch the 12 unfaithful maids who fraternized with your wife's 108 suitors while you were away on business

A romance.

Women, Men & Mixed Messages

Photo by John Wiley 

So, I came across this quote on a guy's online dating profile. Although there was no attribution, I instantly knew where it came from: the infamous "Sexodus" article that inspired this response.

This same gentleman states in his profile: "I believe in gender equality, feminists need not apply"--which is hilarious in its own right. 

But I am not here to make fun of some random guy on the internet (okay, maybe just a little bit). I am here to dissect this passage of text, because I was an English major and that's what you do.

Besides, I'm fascinated by what provoked a guy to quote it at length on his online dating profile.

Surely, there must be something here--something compelling that resembles an actual thought. Because at first glance, I'm feeling a bit dubious. 

Here's the quote, presented completely out of context because that is how I found it: 

"Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women, which perhaps explains the strong language some of them use when describing their situation. As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things."

"Women" - Who are these women? Do women represent some monolithic entity that speaks and acts as one, has a unified message and point of view, perhaps holds secret, underground meetings about the mixed messages they plan on sending men to keep them confused and under gynocentric control? [If you are part of this underground society, please email me. I bet you guys have awesome snacks.]

"Men" - Also presumably a monolithic entity representing all male humans.

"Mixed messages" - I'm so intrigued. What are these mixed messages and how can I start sending them. Seriously feeling out of the loop here. Was it that time I contradicted myself and said I like Coke better than Pepsi? Sorry about that.

"The last few decades" - I feel like the timeline here is a bit vague: So...starting in roughly the year 1985, women started sending men mixed messages:

Man: What do you want to eat?
Woman: Italian. No, Chinese. No, Korean BBQ. No...I take that back, Italian.
Man: God, Woman, make up your mind!!!

I could see how this would be frustrating, but unless there is a memo out there from "All Women" to "All Men," I'm not sure how the author can prove this multi-decade mixed-message sending conspiracy. I've been alive for at least some of this time period, I think, so I'm also wondering at what point I began sending mixed messages to men. I doubt it was when I was born, though I suppose my birth could have been sending out some kind of message.

Just trying to assess my role in the damage here--especially since, as a feminist, this is probably all my fault.

[Side note: If a guy texts me "Sup" and I answer "Not much" is that considered a mixed message? Asking for a friend.]

"...leaving boys utterly confused..." - Wait a minute--I thought we were talking about men here, but now we've somehow reverted to boys--who I am sure spend at least 80% of their waking hours thinking about those insidious mixed messages women seem to be sending them. You're right, this does seem wrong.

"...about what they are supposed to represent to women" - Now, I don't mean to be insulting, but I spend exactly zero seconds of my time thinking about what I am supposed to represent to men. In fact, I spend the same amount of time thinking about what I am supposed to represent to anyone.

Huh. I'm starting to see why women have all the power. If boys/men are spending that much time contemplating what they are supposed to represent to women (A partner? A sperm bank? A guy on the street? A father? A brother?), then maybe men are ultimately subservient to women.

"Strong language" - I think you mean misogynistic language.

Those mixed messages I've been sending make it totally okay for boys/men to call me a "castrating bitch." I get you. Is it the fact that I made more money than you last year? Please don't hate me.

"Role of breadwinner" - Men don't automatically inherit this role because they are men. Yeah, I guess that could be confusing.

"...taken away from them" - Wow, those feminist assholes. How dare they earn more than men do. I think women should earn less by default, then maybe those poor boys will stop being so confused by the mixed messages.

"...by women who earn more and do better in school" - Since these are the only two metrics of comparison that matter, I can see why men would be upset. Someone is better than you at something, and that someone is a woman. Unacceptable!

"Men..." - Oh. We're back to men now. What happened to the boys?

"...are left to intuit what to do" - Intuition is hard. I guess before this shift in power relations the men's monolith simply issued a manual on how to be a man, and things like shifting gender dynamics and evil mixed messages were a thing of the future. Times really have changed.

"...trying to find a virtuous mean..." - Shoutout to Aristotle! I like it.

"...between what women say they want..." - There I go again--missing the semiannual gathering of all women during which we discuss what we want and then tweet about it to the male masses.

"...and what they actually pursue..." - I'm a little bit lost here as to how all women pursue the exact same things. I mean, I could be wrong here, but it seems like not every woman has the exact same goal in every situation. I mean, have you talked to any women lately? No? That's what I thought.

"...which can be very different things." - Women! They're contradictory! Unlike men who always say and do the exact same thing. None of those confusing mixed messages.

Damn. That was disappointing. I thought I would learn something about how people I disagree with think thoughts, but instead I feel like I was hit over the head with a frying pan. There's less than a thought here. There are -18 thoughts.

And yet someone, somewhere is nodding their head vigorously in agreement about women and their mixed messages.

So here's an anti-mixed-message:

That quote was stupid as ****.

If the above message was too mixed for you, please contact me and I will endeavor to make it less mixed, perhaps by doing some skywriting.

Have a good one.

What you believe about race doesn't matter

I don't care if you're racist. 

Really. I don't. 

I don't care if Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, I don't care if Alec Baldwin is homophobic, I don't care if you're racist. 

It's a moot point. 

Listen, I don't give a **** about your personal character. 

I care about what you say. 

When you say racist things, I care, because this about the content of your words, not the content of your character.

Whether or not you're "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" can be a question between you and God, or you and yourself, or you and your next-door neighbor, Bob. 

Go ahead. Search your heart. Send a team of resourceful and dedicated spelunkers into the caverns of your soul. And if in the end, you find not a single hateful thought toward anyone at any time for any reason related to gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, then great. I'm sure you'll sleep soundly tonight. 

But when you say, "Asian people always ____"

Or, "Gay people are ____" 

Or something about Us v. Them--

I care. Because words matter. Words like "bitch" or "slut" or "fag" or the N-word have power. They have history. They have baggage. 

So let's skip the wounded indignation, the part where you insist that there is nary a hate-mongering bone in your body:

Who me, a racist? Me, a homophobe? Me, a sexist? But I love women. My best friend is Asian. My favorite color is purple.

Why do I care?

I care because your words, whether you mean them or not, are part of a larger system of injustice.

I'm strongly with John Stuart Mill on this one: Say whatever you want to say. But saying whatever you want to say and then demanding freedom from censure because "I'm a good person" or "That's not what I meant" is the exact opposite of taking responsibility.

So let's skip the non-apology, the sorry-I'm-not-sorry: 

"I regret that you've mistaken me for someone who treats others poorly because of their race. You must have me confused with an actual racist. If you could only peruse my personal history at length, you would find that I've always treated every single person with the utmost respect, regardless of the color of their skin."

It may never be conscious. It may never be active. It might look nothing like hate. But you are making the world just a little bit worse. 

So, who cares if you're racist (or sexist)? You are participating in and perpetuating a system of discrimination, exclusion, prejudice, abuse, violence, hatred and death.

Like I said. Who cares.

Inspired by: 

What You Believe About Homosexuality Doesn't Matter

"But I don't have any power" or Why "privilege" is a dirty word

The more I'm not supposed to talk about something, the more I want to talk about it, so:

Privilege. Privilege. Privilege. PRIVILEGE!!!

The other day, some guy called my friend a "slut."

Now, it was all in good fun. [Not in good taste, perhaps, but certainly in good fun.]

Not to get into the semantics of it all, but my friend is not a "slut."

Guess what. He was using the term ironically.

I know. I KNOW. So freaking clever. I cannot even.

So--back to my story:

He called her a slut. [As is his God-given right.]

She objected to the term. [As is her God-given right. Assuming God grants rights for these sorts of things.]

"It was a joke."

[There's nothing worse than a girl who won't take a joke--especially if it concerns her sexual honor.]

As jokes go, I guess it was passable if a bit too easy [ha ha].

But besides being politically incorrect, what's wrong with playfully calling someone a slut?

Power.

That's right. You are implying that you (a man) have the power to make a value judgement (slut) about me (a woman) based on [the number of people I've slept with, the clothes I'm wearing, the way I carry myself, how I choose to interact with you, etc.]

Playful? Yes. Affectionate? Perhaps. Power play? Absolutely.

"But I don't have any power."

To determine if you have any power, ask yourself:

If the tables were turned and a woman called me a slut (in jest), would the word carry the same negative connotations [mean the same thing]?

The icky, uncomfortable truth:

Women, historically, have been shamed for their sexuality in ways that men never have. Words like "slut" have been used and are used to shame and control women and their sexuality.

[Notice that this is not about what you actually believe. Maybe you think women should never be shamed for their sexuality, or maybe this is all part of your plan to subtly shame even women who fit within your narrow definitions of "not a slut," in which case, bravo.]

I realize this is not your fault.

But realize that you have the power in this situation.

It's not fair. It's not right. It's not your fault. I get it.  You're poor and have no health insurance. You take the bus everyday because you don't have a car. You're uncomfortable with the idea of power. You voted for the other guy. You've worked hard for every break you ever got. You have a lot of black friends. You don't go through your day thinking, "I wonder what's on Netflix, AND OH BY THE WAY, who can I oppress next?"

It's uncomfortable. It's unfortunate. It's unfair.

But I'm not sorry for pointing it out. I'm not sorry at all.



More on privilege:

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

The Male Privilege Checklist

Femininity & The Blank Slate or Why I'm Not Flattered When a Stranger Tells Me I'm Pretty

This has bothered me for a while. 

Every time (yes, generalizing) a girl/woman tells a story about unwanted male attention (catcalling, harassment on the street, being asked out by a stranger, having her personal space invaded,  getting a sexually explicit fb message), someone chimes in with the equivalent of: 

"Jeez, he was just trying to pay you a compliment / be friendly / make a personal connection / ask you on a date." 

In every other situation I encounter in life, I'm supposed to be an adult, which means I have thoughts, I have values, I have past experiences, I have a modicum of practical sense, etc. 

But in this one specific scenario, I'm supposed to be a complete blank, approaching every fresh encounter with a new man as if I had just stepped off planet xx and this was the first time someone had ever told me to "Smile, Beautiful!"

And instead of thanking him or smiling sweetly, I flip him off.

And when I tell the story, someone I know (male) defends that guy on the street (or on the social network). 

"Why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt?" 

So...it's okay for him to objectify me and reduce me to an adjective [My name isn't "Beautiful," you asshat. Oh wait, it is. Nevermind.]

But I must ascribe to him thoughts, feelings, a deep and meaningful history of respect for all women, and, especially, that "he's not like all other guys."

He gets to be an individual with a unique background, history and cultural context, and how dare I treat him as anything less than a unique and special human being. I get to be "a pretty little thing."

"You're being so judgmental."

I mean, right. Maybe he's a really nice guy. Maybe he wouldn't hurt a flying cockroach if it landed in his beef bourguignon. Maybe he loves children, candy necklaces and riding escalators at the mall.

Well, welcome to my world, where making snap judgments about strangers based on past experiences and not making snap judgments about strangers based on past experiences can mean the difference between life and lying dead in ditch somewhere, to put it subtly.

Have you not watched a single episode of Law & Order: SVU? Evolutionarily-speaking, it's better to assume the worst.

This is what doesn't make sense to me. It's okay for me to follow my instincts EXCEPT when I don't respond favorably to a man's romantic overtures, or at least act a little bit flattered that, gee whiz, someone thinks I'm pretty!

"You should be flattered that someone finds you attractive."

The opinion of a total stranger > My safety, sanity and desire to appear in a public place without being harassed.

There's also the not-so-subtle threat: 

Someday you won't be attractive anymore and no one will think you're pretty or make obscene gestures at you from the safety of their motor vehicles AND THEN WHERE WILL YOU BE, HUH?? AT LEAST SOMEONE WANTS TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU, CAN'T YOU SHOW A LITTLE GRATITUDE!!!

Yet another reminder that my primary value as a woman lies in how attractive I am to the opposite sex.

And how to explain the anger some men seem to feel when a woman resists objectification or even--how dare she--complains about it.

I mean, a woman who finds her value within herself without any reference to outside male validation--

How unappealing.

Why You're Not Angry Enough

Because he's a really nice guy. One of the nicest you've ever met.

Because if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

Because you don't want him to think you're crazy, emotional, irrational, PMSing, or all of the above.

Because maybe this is God's will.

Because you don't want to scare the boys away.

Because what's done is done. You can't change the past.

Because if you're angry, you might start crying.

Because if you're angry, you might be told to "calm down," "don't over-think it" (too late), "you need to lighten up."

Because what happened to me wasn't all that bad.

Because God doesn't like it when you're angry.

Because if you're not nice, then you're a bitch, and you don't want to be a bitch.

Because women are allowed to be angry, but not too angry. [See, "And you'll scare the boys away," above.]

Because your parents did the best that they could.

Because anger feels like a destructive emotion, and you don't want to destroy anything (except patriarchy, of course).

Because you want to protect him.

Because you want to protect her.

Because maybe I led him on.

Because maybe I deserved it.

Because maybe it was my fault.

Because you don't want to "hold onto unforgiveness" or "allow bitterness to take root."

Because why can't you let go already and stop blaming other people for your problems?

Because anger hurts.

Because we don't talk about that in this house.

Because no one will ever love you if you're angry.

"That's Not Cool, Bro": Homosociality, Objectification and the Uses of Social Media in Rape Culture

I've been contemplating writing this for a while now. This is the "nice" version, believe it or not. The hide yo' wife, hide yo' kids, hide yo' husbands version is in the works.

Upfront disclaimer: I'm going to talk about rape. And feminism. And Twitter.

Maybe you've heard about the Steubenville, Ohio rape case. Maybe you haven't. You can read about it here or here, but if you don't care to, a few facts about what allegedly took place:

1. Two high school football players sexually assaulted a girl at a party.
2. Many other people were present.
3. Some of these other students / partygoers posted to YouTube or Twitter about the rape.
4. They expressed positive and/or approving thoughts and feelings about the rape [There's a YouTube video of a guy talking and laughing about it].

Now, I think you and I have at least a little bit of difficulty getting into the headspace of a rapist. We probably also have a problem getting into the headspace of anyone who would think of rape as a good thing.

Nevertheless, these people and these reactions exist, so let's think about it for a minute. Okay, more than a minute:

Why would someone think that rape is funny?

There's a lack of identification. There's a lack of empathy. There is perhaps a sense that the victim of rape deserves to be raped.

Then, think about the dynamics of two intersecting phenomena: homosocial approval and social media.

What is homosocial approval?

For the purposes of this blog, homosocial approval is explicit or implicit social approval from other dudes. In the case of Steubenville, this could be an over-identification with football, with high school social status, and with the approval that comes from other guys when you boast about your sexual conquests.

Of course, homosocial approval is not always negative. It can be very positive. But when combined with sexual violence and social media, it becomes something else entirely. See also this incident in which two high school boys took pictures of a girl as they assaulted her (because what's a sexual assault unless you can show pics to your friends later, amiright?).

Like most of us, I have borderline racist and misogynistic friends and/or acquaintances. [I'm sorry, is that harsh? You know what I'm talking about, though. Maybe it's because I have a lot of Christian friends (low blow).]

And the friendly misogynist-next-door--he's unlikely to ever rape anyone. However, he does continue to perpetuate the idea that women are objects. Or, that a woman's primary value is in how she looks. Or that she's fair game as long as she's legal. Or that a woman is responsible for a man's behavior. And that, my friend, is destructive.

I started writing this with a question: How do my male friends respond when their friend says something borderline racist/misogynistic? Does it bother him? Does he say something? Does he shrug it off? Does he laugh nervously?

I guess that was actually a series of questions.

I'm asking you, hypothetical guy friend, to do one thing: withhold your approval. Don't agree. Don't fist bump. Don't retweet. Don't hit "like."

Maybe the phrase "rape culture" makes you mad--because you believe that there is no such thing. That it's a phrase coined by feminists to victimize men. Fine. Forget that phrase. Call it whatever you want. Call it dude-thinks-rape-is-super-funny-in-youtube-video culture. I don't care.

And what about me? I'm female. Guys are supposed to be trying to impress me. Doesn't my approval or lack thereof count too?

It doesn't. Not in the same way. I'm not the target audience here. You try lecturing a guy on manners after he calls you a bitch for turning him down. Or giving a crash course on sexual harassment to the gentleman, and I use that term loosely, who won't take "No" for an answer. It's not gonna happen.

He doesn't care what I think. That crude joke was not for my benefit. It was for you. Not me.

So hey bro, dude, man, whatever. Do me a favor and don't laugh.

It's not that funny, anyway.

The Burden of Fear

As I walked past the seedy--yet somehow comfortingly familiar--entranceway to the local crack den on my way to church, I couldn't help but think about respect, and its importance in my life.

Yes, I was thinking about the suspect(ly) named Love and Respect Ministries and how as far as I can tell, it's mostly about women learning to respect men, not men learning to love women. As it turns out, I have a theory as to why this is:

Books, conferences, and ministries focused on making marriage better are primarily marketed toward women. And the primary marketing tool at work is fear. Fear of infidelity (his). Fear of a less-than-great marriage. Fear of not being good enough (as a wife, mother).

But the core fear, that coveted, prized, and beloved of advertisers the world over fear--is the fear of abandonment. How do I know this? 'Cause Google tells me so. One of the most persistent, recurring ads I get online warns me: "Why Men Pull Away: 10 Ugly Mistakes Women Make That Ruins [sic] Any Chances Of A Relationship."

[Then there's this Christian book, "What Your Husband Isn't Telling You" by the same author of "Why Men Hate Going to Church." This guy has got this angle on lock. I love the contradictory messages: men are simple and have basic needs (food, sex); men are a mystery, buy this book.]

Christian or secular, it doesn't matter. The fear is the same. The message is the same: If he leaves, it's because of you. You did something wrong.

This plays out on a larger scale as well. Why are men leaving the church (or why don't they attend in the first place)? Women. The feminization of Christianity. The predominance of xx chromosomes. Who's supposed to do something about this "crisis"? Women, particularly if they hope to ever get married to a Christian man.

Seems a bit backwards to me--men aren't stepping up and being men in the church! Who's to blame? Women! The most manly thing we can do is blame someone else (Eve) for our problems.

But, sadly, it seems that this kind of fear, no matter how poorly articulated, sells.

I've been writing about the burdens that women are expected to bear in our culture, and I feel like this is a key burden.

It fits so neatly with a pressing temptation women face: To take on blame for the failure of a relationship. Or I dunno, maybe it's just me.

There's something oddly comforting about taking on the burden of blame, perhaps because it's easier than anger, or perhaps because it turns into something you can control. If I change my behavior, repent, respect, submit, then he won't leave me.

There's the fear too, that men always cheat. That they can't keep it in their pants. It's in their very nature to stray. And this fear too, sells.

And as far as the feminization of church goes...color me confused. I get the part about wanting "adventure to live" and "battle to fight" and such, but I doubt that this translates into "What I really want as a Christian man is to literally go into battle and die for my family/faith/country" or "I could really use a few more disfiguring knife wounds so that everyone will know I'm a real man" or "I want nothing more than to do the back-breaking, manly labor of a lumberjack for the rest of my life" or "I wish that disemboweling scene at the end of Braveheart could happen today."

All this "Men were made for battle" stuff seems to translate into, "Get back, woman! Let the men lead." Am I wrong?

I am not a man. And far be it from me to offer here a definition of masculinity. However, I am a daughter and a sister and a friend, and I'd like to challenge this conception of what it means to be a man.

To return to this article, my favorite article, from the website Love and Respect Now, I think we need men who can honestly and non-defensively talk to their own daughters. I'm not sure what, in the name of Mel Gibson, this has to do with battle, or MMA, or adventure, or knife throwing, or rescuing wenches from dragons, but it seems important to me. And probably way, way more difficult. Is that not true strength?

Burdens and the women who bear them

Zora Neale Hurston famously called black women the "mules of the world" in her book Their Eyes Were Watching God. I find this image, resonant within the book, resonant without too. In brief, I've been thinking about burdens, and the women who bear them.

I am also inspired by the article "A Message to Women from a Man: You Are Not Crazy," particularly this quote:

"It’s a whole lot easier to emotionally manipulate someone who has been conditioned by our society to accept it. We continue to burden women because they don’t refuse our burdens as easily. It’s the ultimate cowardice." 

Here are some of the burdens I think women are expected to bear: 

The Burden of Intention

This is a burden that I take on a lot--way more than I should. Perhaps I have mostly myself to thank for that, or perhaps evangelical "purity" culture should get some of the blame. But folks, today we're talking about intention. So let me just put this out there: I worry about the intentions of other people. All the time. 

Yes, I'm talking about romantic intentions. If I'm nice to this guy, will he think that I like him? What if I'm leading him on? What if he thinks I'm leading him on? Is this guy asking me on a date or just asking me to hang out? What if he likes me? Crap. MUST AVERT SITUATION. 

Now, I over-think a lot of things (as if you didn't know that already). But why is the burden on me and not on the man to clearly define his intentions. I don't want to monitor my every word and action so I'm not sending out the wrong signals. I don't want to manage the situation. I don't want to have to straight up ask, "Are you pursuing me romantically?" I don't want to have to make my (non) intentions clear when he hasn't even asked me out.

Why would I think this is my responsibility in the first place? Maybe it has something to do with needing to be "nice." Or maybe it's the mantra to "guard the other person's heart."

This is a burden that I do not want to bear, a price I am unwilling to pay. And yet I pay it.

The Burden of Desire

This one is tricky, but I've been thinking about the different ways that women and men desire in our culture, or more specifically, how our culture thinks about the desire of men versus the desire of women.

Yes, I'm talking about sexual desire. One thing that's always struck me is that a woman's desire is so easily itself made an object of desire (fetishized). Sexualized advertising aimed at men often seems to hinge on [a simulacrum] of female desire--this woman, this beautiful woman, desires ME. 

For whatever reason, I could say something seemingly innocuous, like, "Brad Pitt is hot!" And that could easily turn into: "You think Brad Pitt is hot. Nudge nudge, wink wink." It's as if any acknowledgement on my part that I am a living, breathing and desiring human being makes me something of a tease. Means I'm doing it for the attention. Makes me into a sexual object when really, I was asserting my subjectivity (KEANU REEVES IS HOTTER THAN BRAD PITT). I don't see this happening when a guy calls someone hot.

Let's take this deeper. There's a common rationalization out there that has to do with female desire. I'm sure you've seen this snl video titled "Sexual Harassment and You." No? Go watch it and come back. 

Basically, women are shallow (and kind of dumb). It's only sexual harassment if the guy is ugly. If the guy is Tom Brady, well, I just met you, and this is crazy--

I'm really struggling here, because this rationalization appears to be taken as the God-given--so obvious it hurts--TRUTH. What exactly is this truth saying? 

Women prefer attractive men. Yeah, that makes sense. Is that shallow? Sure. 

Women will tolerate (even welcome) harassment, abuse, etc. from a guy, just because he's hot. Okay, now you're making me queasy. Apparently a woman's desire, her preference for attractive men, makes her sick in the head. What?

Along the same line of reasoning, a woman will only call a guy "creepy" if he is unattractive. If he is attractive and exhibits the same courtship behavior he is not creepy. Women obviously don't really know what they want. That guy wasn't really sexually harassing you. You were just comparing him to Ryan Gosling.

A man's desire, on the other hand, is almost always valid (and validated). It doesn't matter if she desires him (she's irrational, capricious, shallow, and probably likes jerks), it only matters that he desires her. She is not a person. She is a projection of a man's desire.

This explains the fixation on the sartorial choices of rape victims. She may not have desired sex, but what was she wearing? What kind of male desire was being projected? 

A man's desire is pure and unequivocal. The heart wants what it wants.

So how do women bear the burden of desire? Women are required to be open and accepting of the desire of any and all while also accepting that any desire they express could be ridiculed and sneered at (especially if they are considered unattractive).

Tune in next time for...

The Burden of Secrecy

The Burden of Shame
The Burden of Fear

The Burden of the Body

The Burden of Character

Feminist resolves to give up getting angry as primary free-time activity

After much thought, consideration, and eye rolling from friends, Laurie Merten, 33, has decided to give up getting angry as her primary free-time activity.

"It was getting out of control," said Merten's best friend, Lindsey Seville. "We couldn't go out for a quiet dinner at the Olive Garden without Laurie bursting into a tirade about the portrayal of women as thought objects in the post 90s cinema of Wong Kar-wai."

Merten, also affectionately known to her family as "Ragey McRagerson," used to spend the majority of her free time penning feminist screeds or lecturing strangers on the metro about the differences between second and third wave feminism.

"Cultivating rage really took a lot out of me," Merten admits. "I spent so much of my time working myself into a state of righteous indignation that I really missed out on a lot that life has to offer."

Initially at a loss about what to do with her newfound free time, she has quickly turned to other forms of less violent entertainment, including yoga, knitting, and posting videos of cute animals to her friends' facebook walls.

"It seems to calm her," said David Li, Merten's live-in boyfriend. "She's already knitted five beanies and three scarfs for her nephew, Jason. He lives in Miami."

"It's really quiet around here," he added.

Merten, a marketing executive for a local company, first took up fury as a sophomore in college.

"The professor asked everyone who considered themselves a feminist to raise their hand. No one did. That's when I knew that becoming an angry bitch was my true calling."

"I was so naive."

Fourteen years later, Merten has relinquished her wrath. "I used to let every little thing bug me. Now, when a strange man gropes me on the street, I just shrug it off as a compliment."

Instead of burning her bra on the street corner every Sunday at 6am sharp, she has been spending an increasing number of hours on Pinterest.

"People don't tend to pin things that they're angry about," she explained. "I never see anyone pinning about child slavery or the the concussion her husband gave her for burning the cornbread."

Through Pinterest, she has already pinned over 30 popsicle stick crafts that she will never get around to actually making.

"It's amazing what you can accomplish when you're not spending your free hours haranguing against the patriarchy."

The road hasn't been easy. Merten admits that giving up rage has severely restricted her internet habits. She has stopped watching the news. When a co-worker starts talking about the republican primary, she puts her hands over her ears and starts singing loudly.

Recently, she found herself meditating vehemently in a bathroom stall after a male colleague was promoted after only six months in the same position.

"No, I don't think it has anything to do with gender. Men and women are basically equal in this day and age. They wouldn't have promoted him if they didn't think he was good at what he does. Would you like me to knit you a scarf?"

"I kind of miss the old Laurie," admitted Li.

"At least she would raise her voice when something was bothering her. Now I have to tiptoe around all the time."

An Unwritten Post About Masculinity

Men, men, manly men

• There seems to be a lot of anxiety about masculinity these days. 
• Witness "Last Man Standing," "How to be a Gentleman" (cancelled), and "Man Up" (cancelled). 
• Compare "New Girl," "Two Broke Girls," "Whitney." 
• The shows with "Man" in the title are imperative (man up!), prescriptive (how to), or direly descriptive (last man). 
• See also The Art of Manliness, a blog about the "lost" art of manliness.
• See also John Eldredge and Wild at Heart. 

No boys allowed

• What is the definition of a real man? 
• Does a real man have a certain physical build? 
• Does a real man hunt and fish?
• Does a real man ask girls out on dates? 
• Does a real man provide for his family and hold down a steady job? 

Answers, please

• Mark Driscoll on Marriage and Men
• Pickup Artists
• Hugo Schwyzer on "The Opposite of Man is 'Boy' not 'Woman'"

Summaries for the lazy

• "Get married. Have kids. Work hard to support your family. Buckle down, son." 
• "Have sex with as many women as possible." 
• "If we really are in a 'man crisis' in America, I suspect it’s rooted as much as anything else in this fundamentally mistaken belief that manhood needs to be about rejecting anything that smacks of the feminine" - Hugo Schwyzer

"Masculine Malaise"

• Men were dominant, now they are not (or not as dominant). 
• They are sad about this. 
• They are unable to express this sadness forthrightly or publicly. 
• They resort to misogyny or masculine malaise. (See also Schmidt in "New Girl")
• They write shows with titles like "Man Up." 

In which I have opinions

• I think Driscoll's vision of masculinity is kind of a drag. Plus, if your wife has to work to help support the family, you've pretty much failed. As a man. 
• Machismo is not masculinity. 
• I don't believe in a platonic ideal of manhood any more than I believe in a platonic ideal of womanhood. 
• Women feel a good deal of pressure to look a certain way. They feel less pressure to measure up as a "real woman." 
• I think fundamentalist Christianity might be the exception to the previous bullet point. Proverbs 31 anyone? 

An unwritten conclusion 

• Prescriptions or imperatives about being a real man or woman should be approached with skepticism. 
• Certain culturally specific gender roles tend to engender passivity--or, if men would only start acting like men or women like women, I could get on with my life. 
• If you need to do something, do it. Man up. Woman up. Ask him/her out. Provide for your family. It's doubtful that whatever you're supposed to do in this moment is directly related to your gender identity.