Liberal Minded Ladies of Substance @lmlos - Tumblr Blog

Ansari, Sexism, and the Normalcy of Assault

This week after the Aziz Ansari discussion has been difficult for feminists, to say the least. I feel like the story has lifted up a rock and sent a whole bunch of creepy things scurrying into the light. To that end, I have a lot to say (unsurprisingly.) I'll include relevant links in the comments, but in the meantime, sit back, because this is going to be intense.

First of all, if you haven't read the Babe piece, I recommend you do so. At the very least, you'll have the background knowledge directly from the source in the discussion. The article details a woman's (alias Grace) date with Ansari. By her account, it started out well. They bonded over photography and he asked her out to dinner. He rushed through the meal and took her back to his place. From there, as Grace told her friend and the reporter, “things got really fucking weird, really fucking fast.” What follows is a horrible account of push-me-pull-you as he chases her across his apartment, promising to back off only to turn around and redouble his efforts to sleep with her. He ignores both the verbal and non-verbal cues that indicated this was not something she was interested in doing. This went on for a while until finally it ended with him calling her an Uber under an assumed name and her crying in the Uber on the ride home. She came out with the story when she saw Ansari at an awards' ceremony wearing a #timesup pin.

Cue the internet. Everyone has an opinion about this one. Articles and blog posts have been written dissecting people's reactions to this, weighing in on whether this should have been classified as a bad date or be part of the #metoo movement and what it all means. I have my own opinion, obviously, and I am sure it will become clear as we discuss this. But, right now, I want to start with The Atlantic article.

Caitlin Flanagan wrote an article castigating Grace for “humiliating” Aziz Ansari for what, in her opinion, amounted to a bad date. The article contained the subtitle: “Allegations against the comedian are proof that women are angry, temporarily powerful—and very, very dangerous.” Let's examine the nuances of those two words in the middle of that sentence. “Temporarily powerful.” It indicates a belief that we are going to return to the days of Weinstein and casting couches, Charlie Rose and open robes. That really sets the tone for the rest of Flanagan's article in the supposedly left-leaning publication. In the article, Flanagan gives Ansari a cookie for performing oral sex because gasp his counterparts in the 1970's wouldn't have done that. So, should Grace be thankful that he recognized his piece of meat had pleasure receptors? You've really come a long way, baby.

Flanagan and many others assert that Grace's story should not be part of the #MeToo movement because what she experienced was nothing more than a bad date. It wasn't outrageous, no one was raped, it was just bad. There are others who are saying that the fact that it is so normal is part of the problem.

I'm going to switch gears here. If I had to pinpoint an incident that really got the current attitude towards sexism and sexual assault going, I would point at Bill Cosby. The rumors of his assaults had been floating around for years. People tended to shrug them off because: “NOT MY FAVORITE TV DAD.” This time, though, someone floated the idea that we believe women. It doesn't seem like that should have been a radical idea, but the implementation of it took off like a stone rolling down a steep hill. There was the inevitable backlash, Gamergate, Red Pill, MRA groups, Trump... But there was also #YesAllWomen. Then came #MeToo. The stories came one after another after another. And then, people started naming names of abusers and rapists.

The most apt description of this might be a infected boil. We ripped off the scab with Cosby, the infection came pouring out, purging it from the body. But, just like that infected boil, we've reached a point where the infection is deep-seated. It's rooted in there and Aziz Ansari was unlucky enough to trigger it.

Grace spoke about how violated she felt, and people diminished her feelings. “Whoa,” they said. “All women have experienced a bad date like that, or else they know someone who has. It's just normal.” And this is where I circle back to the radical idea of “believe women.” If we accept that Grace felt violated and taken advantage of, that she experienced a form of coercive sexual assault, what does it say that this is apparently normal. As one blogger put it: “Women have had so much bad sex that our scale for sex has been skewed so it shows every shitty sex encounter as 10 pounds less shitty than it was. ” Once we BELIEVE what Grace says, it re-orients that scale.

People are reacting to this as people do. They are rejecting it. Why? Because if they accept it, they have to examine what they've come to accept as 'normal.' Men who, until now, have prided themselves on being good allies and never harming women have to look at their past a lot closer now. Women who, until now, have prided themselves on not having it that bad, suddenly are faced with yeah, them too.

What all of this comes down to is, yes, our society is sexist and messed up. We have, over the course of generations trained women and men to be toxic towards each other, and what women are saying right now is not that Ansari is as bad as Cosby, Weinstein, Spacey, et al. Rather, it is almost worse because he is a NORMAL GUY. This is a NORMAL EXPERIENCE. Our society has not only created the horrible assaulters, but by allowing them to thrive, also created a situation where yes, all men are perceived as threats by women because even nice men, men described as “woke bae”s, still treat women as an obstacle to the actual objective of getting laid.

Ansari did not approach Grace with, well, any modicum of grace. He did not treat her as a person, worthy of and deserving of respect. He treated her as an object, a warm bag of flesh surrounding a vagina, essentially no more than a living fleshlight with a slightly more complicated set-up. Women can dismiss it as a “bad date” because women are used to being treated like objects. I think any reasonable person can see that this being normal says nothing good about where we are. And Flanagan, in her piece, talking about the bad old 70's just shows how far we HAVEN'T come.

LMLOS out.

References:

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/the-humiliation-of-aziz-ansari/550541/

http://www.katykatikate.com/2018/01/not-that-bad_15.html?m=1

#timesup #aziz ansari #metoo #Sexism #feminism #Sexual Harassment #sexual assault #bad date #yesallwomen #RapeCulture

brunette-nymphette

binthawa

spankmeagainplease:

Feel free to sexually harass me if you’re male. You know what they say “Boys will be boys.”. Although I’m not sure any of you will want to do that since I’m not very modest, therefore not attractive. - - - - - - - - The new principal at my school used two phrases while addressing new dress code rules to a class. "Modest is hottest." and "Boys will be boys." He should have said something more along the lines of: “The school dress code was established to provide our students with a safe and orderly learning environment that is free from distractions.” Let’s start with the phrase “Modest is hottest.” Shall we? Modest-Having or showing a moderate estimation of one’s own talents, abilities, and value. If modest is hottest, then it’s not modest. You are literally sending the message to young girls, who are already struggling with self confidence, that hiding their body makes them more attractive. You are establishing a sense of shame in these young, developing minds and bodies. A human has the right to wear whatever they feel comfortable in. Showing less skin doesn’t make you any more attractive. Showing more skin does not make you any less attractive. When someone calls you attractive that just means that they are attracted to you. At what point in your career did you find it appropriate to define my “hotness”? Why are you at all concerned with how “hot” I am? You are teaching us, through modesty, to be objects of sexual arousal. I’m sorry, but I don’t dress myself to look “hot” for anyone. I dress myself as a way of expressing myself and my body. “If covering up my body is supposed to make people sexually/physically attracted to me, then how would those people feel if I decide to have sexual relations with them, without clothes on?” “How am I supposed to love and feel proud of my naked body and develop a sense of sexuality when exposing my body is deemed shameful and unattractive?” Since when should being “hot” be my concern. I don’t want to be with someone who just thinks I’m hot. I want to be with someone who loves and respects all the parts of my mind, personality, and body. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “How to be hot.”. My body is not a sinful temptation that needs to be hidden. My body is not your personal, sexual object. My body does not overshadow my character. My body is not any more sexual than a man’s body. My body is not here to look “hot” for you. Next up is “Boys will be boys.” Being a boy refers to your gender. That’s all. It does not make you constantly sexually aroused, animalistic, or sexually uncontrollable, but for some reason society has come to the conclusion that you are this stereotype. This is extremely sad. This gender stereotype is unfair to all men. By telling them who they are as a man you are absolutely taking away their moral agency. “But he’s a teenager. He’s raging with hormones.” You don’t think I’m raging with hormones as well? Believe me I am. Men are not stupid. They are not unable to see when someone is not consenting to sex. It’s not ‘in their nature’ to rape because they are a man, it’s not ‘in their nature’ because IT’S WRONG TO RAPE SOMEONE. Raping someone is a cognitive choice. (how modestly the victim dresses does not affect them being raped). When the few people that do sexually harass people happen to be male and you use the excuse “Boys will be boys.” you are not only excusing their behavior, you are condoning it. It’s this “Boys will be boys.” mentality, culture, and attitude that condone sexual assault. Whenever the excuse “Boys will be boys.” is used, it’s just an exercise of male privilege. It’s this attitude that condones sexual assault. You are giving them a free license that makes it okay for them to be sexually violent, that says “Well I’m a boy, it’s just who I am.” Sex needs to stop being about “no no no bad dirty gross shameful” and start being about “Yes. Let’s have consenting sex because I want to.” Consent. THAT’S what you should be teaching, not “Well you know how they are… Boys will be boys!” Boys are not sexually uncontrollable. Boys do not have a genetic, animalistic, violent nature. Boys are not born with a natural desire for destruction or control. Despite what society and culture keeps trying to cram down everyone’s throat, having a penis doesn’t make it okay to sexually harass someone. The false idea that men can’t control themselves is so unfair and completely ridiculous.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

The next day He called me down to his office to discuss my concerns. (Students and teachers told him about it, which I expected)

I spent a good hour and a half arguing with the principle about his comments when he called me down to his office, today. I offered to send him what I posted if he was interested in reading it. He said “No, that won’t be necessary.” I explained to him that I wanted him to read what I wrote and I would appreciate it if he did. He said “No, I don’t really care to read it. That’s okay.” I asked him what he meant by the phrase “boys will be boys” and he explained that if a girl is inappropriately dressed that it can lead to inappropriate, sexual touching and staring (sexual harassment). If a boy chooses to sexually harass someone, it’s his choice no matter what his gender is. He explained to me that boys are more “wound up” than girls are. I didn’t quite understand what he meant by that so I asked him for a different adjective and after a minute of mumbling he chose the word “aggressive” but then followed that up with “…well I don’t think that’s the correct word to use…”. I agree, not the best word to use, eh? I asked him to explain why boys are different than girls in this regard and he said “Well to start, all boys are attracted to girls…” I interrupted with “No. There are actually boys who are attracted to other boys.” He laughed and said “Oh, yes of course!”… I guess that part must have slipped his mind. I asked him, in general, what the difference is between girls and boys. He said that boys “misbehave more” and are “outgoing”. He said that girls are “reserved”. That’s all. That’s the word he used, “reserved”. Boys and girls are different because they have different organs and hormones. Being a girl doesn’t automatically make me reserved. Just like being a boy doesn’t make you automatically misbehave. I explained to him that by using the phrase “Boys will be boys.”, he is excusing and condoning bad behavior from boys, such as sexual harassment and rape. “But that’s not reality, that’s your opinion.” he said. He explained that his daughters “behave” and that his nephews were disrespectful… because they are boys. I said “That has nothing to do with their gender. They act that way because of how they were raised, the environment they are living in, and the choices they make.” I told him that the phrases he used were sexist and stereotypical and unfair to all genders. I explained to him that many students and people of society were offended by what he said and the phrases he used. I told him that I thought he should apologize for what he said and explain to students and society that this kind of message is not okay or appropriate. He said he wouldn’t apologize for that, but he would give me an apology, which was “I’m sorry you feel that way.” After he dodged almost every question I asked by sharing his plans to improve LHS, he decided that he had had enough of not being able to answer my questions or concerns and ended our discussion by saying “I’m going to end this discussion.” and I was sent back to class.

There is so much wrong with what this principal is doing that I can’t even list it, but yeah here’s your takeaway:

He explained that his daughters “behave” and that his nephews were disrespectful… because they are boys. I said “That has nothing to do with their gender. They act that way because of how they were raised, the environment they are living in, and the choices they make.”

They are disrespectful because you have specifically told them they can do whatever they want and you will excuse it because they’re boys!

Lakeland Senior High School and his name is Mr. Martinez