Does my "feminist" card get revoked because of this post?

Today in my Facebook news feed, a friend posted this article:

His caption expressed how this action was so stupid, as this is how males naturally sit. I commented on the post with the following:

There is something to be said for the differing socialization of men and women regarding sitting. "Proper ladies" have historically always been instructed to keep their legs closed, whereas men have never been subject to such an admonition. A comical yet fictional example of how men and women are (or at least were) socialized to sit in different ways is told in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, when Huck dresses as a girl, and the woman whose house he visits can sniff him out based on how he sits and uses his legs while wearing a dress.

Littlemermaid Disney GIF from Littlemermaid GIFs

[Note: This gif wasn't actually included in the comment.]

The point is, men can sit however is comfortable for them without retribution, which is not necessarily the case for women. I get that the woman in this video is pointing this out--she's creating consequences for a behavior for which women already experience consequences. In other words, her thesis is that sitting with spread legs comes with consequences, regardless of gender. However, it's unclear whether she's asserting that this is how it ought to be.

All that being said, pouring bleach on a man's pants in a public space in order to make such a point is just asinine.

My relatively thoughtful analysis (if I do say so myself) went unnoticed, as the poster's response was, "I love your explanation! I didn't know where you were going with this, but I like the conclusion!"

Eyeroll.


* * *


Today was also the day that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As an introductory comment, I don't know if I've seen another picture that more accurately sums up the USA in 2018:

Look at the expressions of every single woman in this photo.

This half of the post is the why the post's title is what it is. Brace yourselves...

The allegations against Kavanaugh seem a lot like grasping at straws to me. People--myself included--desperately do not want to see him appointed to the Supreme Court because of his horrifyingly regressive stances. People want to find some dirt, ANY dirt, on Kavanaugh to block his nomination. So what happens? Dr. Christine Ford comes forward and states that he assaulted her at a drunken house party...in high school. Three-and-a-half decades ago.

Before I say anything else, it must be said that I believe Dr. Ford. Traumatic experiences such as sexual assault stay with you for your entire life, even if they are remembered in incomplete narratives. Asking her to recall details of the evening of the assault such as the address of the house or what she had had to drink is utterly absurd and irrelevant. I can only imagine the pain she feels seeing the perpetrator of the crime against her being considered for one of the most esteemed positions in the country.

With that said, I'm left with a feeling of, "so what?"

I am not attempting to minimizes Ford's pain. Rather, I find it unlikely that a single action that a horny, drunk, teenage male did decades ago is indicative of his character now.

I don't think it's even a question of "did he do it?" It's more of a question of "does it matter?" On the one hand, I absolutely believe that it does matter. People should have to live with the consequences of their actions. Additionally, the concept implanted into men's (and women's) heads from birth that men are entitled to women's bodies is shameful, to say the least.

But on the other hand, are we so closed-minded that we believe people cannot change? Do we really think that how a horny 17-year-old acted in high school is how he will act decades later? God knows I'm a vastly different person now than I was when I was 17; and such is the story with most sensible adults. Now, this would have been a very different issue if the allegation were from an incident five years ago or ten years ago. But this allegation is from an incident decades ago. It begs the question: where does one draw the line? How far back must one go in order for it to be acceptable to say, "That is no longer who I am"?

 

I was listening to an NPR Politics podcast last night in which the speaker reported that additional allegations against Kavanaugh had been made. These allegations claimed that while in high school, he had attended parties at which drunkenness abounded and several young women were raped. Kavanaugh was not accused of any of these rapes; he merely attended the parties at which they occurred.

Come on.

How is this allegation considered valid? Why should Kavanaugh be held responsible for what these other young men did decades ago? It is completely possible that he was unaware that this was happening at these parties; generally, sexual intercourse, non-consensual or otherwise, is not performed in the middle of a living room.

Am I really defending someone who believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned? God, I sound like the wrong side of history.

Of course, sexual assaults against individuals tend to come to light in concentrated bursts. So I may have to rescind this entire portion of the post if more compelling evidence and incidents are revealed. But given what has been made public to this point, I do not believe that the allegations are sufficient to block him from the Supreme Court nomination. Goddammit, Republican majority, block him because he would destroy and undo years of progress!

I close with this thought-provoking cartoon.