Adding To A Feminist Discussion

I lurk on Tumblr somewhat commonly. My favorites that I subscribe to are what I refer to as the STFU's. A few of them have become less amusing and more philosophical and debate-happy, but I couldn't help but get swept up in a discussion on STFU, Sexists. A commenter/troll started up a pretty nasty discussion about rape, the word "slut," and more.

A longstanding defense of rapists has always been the "Slut had it coming" line of thinking. Basically, cretins argue that a woman who has had "too much sex" cannot be raped, because she clearly invited it upon herself. You can't rape someone who likes sleeping with everyone, right?

Wrong.

The STFU, Sexists author (Miss Ogny) and others came up with a lot of good analogies, and the points that pop up most in my mind are probably not original, but I wanted to add to the discussion.

First, I agree with their consensus that the word "slut" has no real meaning and is useless in discussions. A "slut" does not exist. Sluts, some would argue, have too much promiscuous sex, but how do you quantify that? It's not always used in the rape discussion, and sometimes it's a word used jokingly amongst friends, but it is essentially a harmful word that should be stopped.

Nobody can tell you a number that would equal too many sex partners, or too many sexual encounters. Beyond that, nobody has the right or ability to tell someone that it's even possible to have "too many" of these things. Sex is personal, and involves only the bodies of people who consent to be involved.

So, if you can't understand why a girl has the right to say no to sex at any point in her life, whether she's slept with hundreds or zero, whether she's just finished a hand job or a blow job, or whether she's drunk or high in front of horny fratboys, maybe this will help. Maybe.

STFU, Sexists used the analogy of a boxer, which I have a few issues with. It went like this, though: Professional boxers probably get punched a lot. You could argue they even enjoy getting beaten up. However, no amount of boxing would excuse the professional boxer getting jumped and pummeled in an alleyway after dinner one night. You can't excuse a violent crime by saying "but he enjoys it normally!"

Problems with this analogy: Professional athletes get paid for their sport. Thus, this boxer engages in sport, gets paid, wins awards, etc. He also probably does this in the public arena, and people probably know him. This does not translate well for our argument.

Women (and men) have sex privately, most of the time. Even sexual encounters that are made public are still, in essence, the private business of the people engaged in the encounter, providing no crime is being committed. So to talk about people who are "professionals" enters into a new argument about prostitution, and while the argument is still valid (prostitutes can be raped, too), it doesn't apply to your average person.

I'd consider it like a monthly donation to an organization you believe in. Consider this: Person A wins the lottery and wants to donate once to an organization fighting world hunger. Person B tithes monthly to a church or the Salvation Army. Person C gives $5 to her friend every week so she can get lunch. In all of these situations, money is being given away. Freely. Do I have the right, then, to walk up and take the money they're giving? To steal the giant gimmicky lottery check? To take $100 out of the tithe money for my own groceries? To beat up her friend and take $5 for a footlong sandwich at Subway?

No. It doesn't matter that they are giving away something to someone else, asking nothing in return. It's not mine to take.

If Person A realizes before they hand the check over that the organization they're donating to is corrupt, they have the right to take their check back in the middle of the act. If Person B can't afford to tithe one month, the church or Santa Clauses do not have the right to beat down B's door and take what they normally would have gotten. Person C has the right to say no to their friend, and the right to only give them $4, or $3.

Sex is something you can share with someone. Or not share with someone. It doesn't matter how often you engage in it, or how many people you share it with. It is still yours until you give it freely, and until the deed is done all the way, you have the right to change your mind. Nobody can drug you and take your money without suffering punishment. Nobody can raid your purse while you're drunk of your own choosing. The same goes with sex, only more so.

So STFU.

"Praise the Lord!"

I'm getting really tired of God getting the credit for things other people have accomplished. Too many people respond with something like "Praise God!" when, for example, someone finds a job after a long period of unemployment. Or when medicine starts to work, and a disease or a disorder stops wreaking havoc on someone's life.

Nobody seems to remember the crap that someone had to live through before the miracle came to pass. Worse, nobody would dare blame God for that period of suffering. A lay-off is merely God testing you. A child with a developmental disorder is God trying to teach you patience. When a job appears, or medication begins to work, it's God answering your prayers. No matter how long it takes, it's always God coming through.

So God's in a pretty sweet position, isn't he? He makes your life go to hell, and he's in the right. He fixes the mess he supposedly made, and he's being so merciful and giving. He can't lose! It's not as though saying "I still haven't found a job" would get anyone to respond, "I guess God has given up on you!" They just say, "I'm praying harder for you!" And when something good eventually comes along (not even necessarily related to the original problem), everyone will morph whatever it is to fit the twisted view that God has come through for you, and your prayers have worked.

What a mindset to be in. Any God I'd worship should be capable of keeping me from suffering. Otherwise, what's the point of worshiping him? Oh, right, I have to worship this one because if I don't then my innate sinful nature (that he created) will send me to hell.

How useless a deity to serve. Benevolent? Pshaw. Chaotic and cruel is more like it.

The most frustrating thing about this set-up is that it's almost impossible to point out to people. Psychology pretty much explains the whole phenomenon as a mix between a self-fulfilling prophecy and delusional thinking. People twist their realities to fit into constructs that seem to make the most sense to them, and when you spend years believing in a God, you're not going to start listening to reason without a long, hard fight.

I just hope I can build people's esteems up as they go, so they realize that they are the ones in control of their own lives. Hopefully before it gets too set in their minds that they are powerless.

If anyone is reading this - You're not powerless. God doesn't exist, and therefore cannot grant your wishes. But think hard about this: If he did exist, and he really loved you, would he let you get hurt? Would he let you suffer as you undoubtedly have in your life? Would he let millions starve to death? Would he let pedophiles preach his gospel without any kind of reprimand? Would he create this world in such a flawed manner, only to punish the creation for displaying those same flaws?

It doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is you. Your intellect, your abilities, they have gotten you this far, and they will only continue to grow and carry you forward. Don't waste your brain cells and your future on an imaginary being (who really isn't all that great even if he was real).

Spend your present on your future. Don't spend it on maybes and fantasy. You're worth more than that.

Writing Bombs, Not Songs

I went to a concert last night. It was a smallish affair in a crowded local bar, so while the opening band was droning on, I had a lot of time to think. After all, it was either that or realize how sweaty I was getting or how uncomfortable I felt brushing up against other people's elbows.

The opening band was... well, I can't speak from a lot of experience. I haven't been to a lot of local music shows, so I don't know how common this kind of band is. But basically, there were three members. The drummer, a white guy wearing a stupid hipster vest, had on a straw hat with brown feathers taped to the back in some sort of ironic headdress fashion. He also had bracelets with feathers on them, and I'm pretty sure the last set of drumsticks had feathers on them, too.

The she-bassist was wearing shoulderpads with blue feathers on them, along with some strange combination of a bikini and a prom dress. She also had a perm that looked like she was going to prom in the 80's.

And the lead guitarist/singer? An attractive lady with a small 'fro, wearing a simple purple dress. No feathers in sight. How... ironically unlike the rest of her band?

She also used a 12-stringed purple stratocaster. It was a beautiful, matte purple. Unfortunately, this guitarist was not a guitarist. She had the guitar tuned to a certain chord (I couldn't tell you which one), and just strummed and plucked as necessary. Any time she played a melodic "solo," she did all of it on one string.

This, of course, meant that all of her songs were done with one chord. The same chord. Over and over. Even the melodic solos were similar. Bo. Ring.

But, music critique aside, here's what I wanted to talk about: Her lyrics. Even without being in the scene, I know that there is a trend in indie music to make songs that sound really, really deep but are utterly meaningless. As I commented to my husband, if you have to introduce every song with "This is a song about..." then you probably aren't doing a very good job with your lyric-writing. Especially when all of the songs are about death and sex, arguably the two easiest things to write about.

For example, this group liked to throw the words "body" and "mind" into every song, as though making an edgy statement by differentiating between body and mind. Edgy in the 16th century, maybe.

There just seems to be far too many artists now that make vague references to deep philosophical arguments, but leave most of the mental work to the listener. Whether this is because hipster musicians don't know what they're talking about, or because they think everyone should know this stuff because only idiots don't, I don't know. Either way is equally pretentious and annoying. Sidenote: This is also why I don't like postmodern literature, now that I think of it.

I mean, music is art, and artists are free to do whatever they want for whatever reason they can justify it with. Far be it from me to say whether something is "good" music or not. I can't make a value judgment like that for anyone but me. Personally, though, I'll take music with something to actually say over music that tries to sound like it has something to say.