There's been an interesting discussion about yesterday's post on conservative macho in a repost Pseudo-Adrienne put up on Alas. (Yeah, the good mediagirl.org shit happens off mediagirl.org.) There are a lot of interesting threads there, in fact, despite the MRA trolls who all seem to write from the same cheat sheet.

There seems to be a pretty consistent theme from a few (mostly) men: by fighting back, we women are as bad as the abusers. I paraphrase, but that's what it comes down to.

It goes back to the politics of victimization:

Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).

Back on the Alas thread, I wrote in part:

The Kos thing was not about the pie ad, it was about his, and his defenders’, reaction to exception taken by a few women (and perhaps men). It was about how women and women’s concerns are shouted down and dismissed as not part of the “important shit� in today’s political landscape.

What we’ve seen in this thread is some of the same attitudes — the I actually agree with you, but you should STFU kind of response. What some people really don’t like is when we don’t back down and be meek like an abused woman is supposed to. The abuser shouts and draws blood and pushes her around, but when she shouts back she is suddenly the offender.

To me, there are good men and the rest, and it doesn’t depend upon political stripes. But as a movement, the conservative movement — and I’m sorry, they are “conservatives,� no matter how unlike Goldwater they might be — exploits what runs through our culture: a subtle misogyny that makes it okay to beat women, shout women down or try to shame women into silence. Robert may claim virtue in the honesty of his misogyny (I hope he was kidding), but with the epidemic of violence against women that has gone on for ages, and the deliberate dehumanizing of women by the right in their effort to take away women’s authority over their bodies, women’s knowledge of their bodies and women’s privacy regarding their bodies, I find it especially offensive.

My original post quoted here has a photo of a bumper sticker: “Liberal Hunting Permit,� implying it’s now time to start shooting anyone who dissents from the government propaganda. What I’ve seen lately in the intensity of the blogosphere is that “Feminist Hunting Permits� have been legal and held by all too many people for far too long. Since when does standing up for equal rights make us deserving of being targeted?

Especially ironic is when we are targeted by other feminists who claim to hold the golden keys to feminist virtue. To be less cryptic, I'm referring to the accusation that somwhow I'm buying into the patriarchy by having signed up with Shakespeare's Sister's Big Brass Alliance blogroll:

NO ONE gets a free pass. That special privileges shit is an earmark of bullies and people who think they're better than anyone else.

Doesn't every living person deserve the right to be considered as a rational creature and not a body part?

What the hell is someone who professes feminism doing equating fortitude with testicles? At my most charitable I might call it short-sighted and foolhardy. I like the words traitorous and cowardly better.

To follow along with this "balls" mindset, we women will bargain away all our rights to control pregnancy, too, because we have to do whatever it takes to get the chimp out of the White House. And if it means giving up hope, well... It's not like we were ever considered more than walking pleasure boxes.

Call me out for what I say and do, or use wingnut fantasy logic to entertain us all, but I would prefer that people not knock me for things I didn't say and don't believe. If I actually felt that the Big Brass Alliance had anything to do with testicle power or whatever, I'd not have joined. If I actually felt that the name of the Alliance were balls-oriented, I'd not have joined. I've avoided a few alliances and organizations for just such characteristics. I'll admit to being petty about it at times. For example, I find it hard to contribute to DailyKos now with the new design that makes it look like an Army recruiting site. I'm all over subliminal messages and what they can reveal about the people behind it.

But I don't see the Big Brass Alliance to be of that ilk. I was motivated by the mainstream media's ignoring the Downing Street Memos and the lies that led to over 100,000 deaths so far. Maybe I lived in New York too long and have become inured to the expression "brass balls." Maybe it's simply because I grew up in the age where "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" was an important childhood lesson. But to me, Big Brass Alliance does not evoke nightmarish images of male genitalia. The fact that Shakespeare's Sister was an organizer convinced me that this wasn't another macho pose. In fact, even if one sees a "brass balls" reference, to my mind that means standing ones ground, not asserting ones privilege.

Then again, I'm not the arbiter of feminism, either. People will believe what they believe. I'll just keep trundling along. It's ironic, though, that aside from her particular attempt at framing my -- and Shakespeare's Sister's -- intentions, values and awareness, I agree with her overall point about sexism embedded in our culture. I think this is but one post here that speaks to that.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.