Fried Shrimp Tacos

Fried shrimp tacos at Chango. I have not sworn off'em, but I probably should.

One thing that’s really fun to do is, to mock the comments made by goobers on other peoples’ blogs. So let’s get started!

If you regularly make the rounds of the feminist blog circuit you have probably heard about the women-only Kenyan village of rape survivors. These are some go-to gals who’ve conquered adversity and enjoy a certain economic success.  As a result, their village has been summarily attacked, ostensibly for no reason other than profound insecurity, by club-wielding dudes from the neighboring burg. Bitch.PhD, noting the enthusiastic male mania for keepin’ a sista down, was moved to remark, “It's stories like this that tempt one to swear off men forever. What assholes.”

Uh oh. She said “swear off men.” Not only that, she said “forever.” Not only that, she called the men “assholes.”

It is a blatant heresy and and a sin against patriarchy even to hint at the possibility that a woman might consider men irrelevant to her pursuit of fulfillment, and an even blatanter heresy and a sinnier sin against patriarchy to intimate that the patriarchal ethos is, perhaps, not fundamentally dissimilar to that part of the human body that excretes shit. So I am not even a teeny bit surprised that certain of Dr. B’s male readers have taken exception (of course, they are posting on a feminist blog, so they are careful to condescend rather than to aggressively antagonize, possibly imagining that feminists won’t realize they’re being patronized if nobody’s actually called them “cunts.”). Some suggest “gently” that the “better resolution” is not to swear off men, but to  “swear off assholes.” The known existence of female assholes is trotted out, ostensibly to even the score, although the comment fails to include any evidence that hordes of raging feminists have attacked Dudeville with clubs. Funniest of all is one class-conscious commenter who wonders “...did you just make a generalization to [sic] ALL men based on the actions of a bunch of guys who live in dung huts?”

Showing remarkable restraint, Dr. B undertakes to suffer none of this bullshit: “With all due respect, the fact that your primary response to this situation is to worry that you're somehow being insulted does, I'm sorry, reveal the same kind of self-centered world view demonstrated by the men who feel threatened by the women setting up on their own.”

She said “swear off men.” She can say whatever she likes, of course, and although she has made it abundantly clear that she has not sequestered herself on GuysMakeMePuke Island, she accurately points out that this fact of her personal life is irrelevant. But here’s my question: so what if she were to advocate swearing off men for real? That’s not a legitimate choice? Because, check this out:

What if every time you ate fried shrimp tacos you got sick? I’m not even saying that the tacos are starting to get a little bossy, or even leering at you suggestively, just that you aren’t quite yourself after you eat’em. Or what if you just never liked fried shrimp tacos to begin with? What if you just prefer fois gras? Should you not then swear off fried shrimp tacos? Are the shrimps going to get huffy and take offense at your failure to be inclusive?

A human being is free to keep the company of whatever tacos she likes. Swearing off men is not an act of aggression.

Comments

[Mistress]

Ugh. I hate man-hating. Everything from the patronizing of men in advertising ['I have three children-- one being my husband'!], to the girly shirts/wallets/shot glasses/ANYTHING you can put a logo on that say 'Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them!' How the fuck is that any different from the vast array of bullshit that the patriarchy gives us?

Surely, there are awful, awful men in this world with great capacity to inflict badness. I've known a few. But less widely acknowledged is the existence of women capable of doing equally horrible, deceptive, violent things. I mean, www.crimelibrary.com has a separate category for 'women who kill.' Why?

For the love of fuck, people. Generalizing is bad.

[res publica]

But less widely acknowledged is the existence of women capable of doing equally horrible, deceptive, violent things. I mean, www.crimelibrary.com has a separate category for 'women who kill.' Why?

Um, I'm gonna go ahead and call "bullshit" on that. Of course women are capable of doing bad things. The point is that there is no pervasive ideology that not only legitimates the violence of women against men, but makes it an essential part of womanhood. But there is a universal and pervasive ideology that legitimates the violence of men against women and makes it an essential part of manhood. It's called patriarchy, and all men are shaped by it to some extent.

I participated in that threat at Bitch, Ph.D., and I can personally attest that the bullshit was flowing deep and strong from the Righteously Offended Men’s Chorus. All the old canards were brought out...the anecdotes from college dorms, the stories about brutal women, the assertion that men get raped too, etc., etc. Because I’m lazy, here’s an except from my comment over there:

“Totally not surprised at the "not all men are assholes!" whine-and-cheeze-fest that has immediately ensued on this thread. Hey guys, check this out: Not all men are assholes, but...umm...most are. You could open your eyes to the experience of the women around you, or you could try what I do - date guys yourself! Because I can assure you that gay men are still men, no matter how gay, and therein lies the secret of the difficulty gay men have establishing long-lasting relationships. In a male same-sex relationship, you not only get to be subjected to masculinist assholery that your upbringing programs you not to tolerate (because hey, i'm a guy, I don't have to take this shit), but you get to enjoy your very OWN masculinist assholery getting bounced right back at you by the guy across from you, because hey, he's a guy, he doesn't have to take this shit. So who's gonna take the shit? The answer to that question will tell you everything you need to know about patriarchy.”

And let me add one final note: there is nothing more offensive and intellectually dishonest than men who think they’re making a point when they note that “men get raped, too”, because men get raped by other men, and it is exactly the same act of violent patriarchal aggression to force the victim into what the perpetrator sees as a feminine submission. Same patriarchal bullshit, so the existence of male rape victims does not make one iota of difference for the feminist point about the role of rape in the larger cultural system of patriarchy.

Lord, Twisty....now they're all going to come over here and start it up in YOUR comments section.

[CafeSiren]

"I mean, www.crimelibrary.com has a separate category for 'women who kill.' Why?"

A better question: why doesn't crimelibrary.com have a "men who kill" category? The answer to both questions: male violence is the norm within the larger category of violence. Men are "expected" to be violent; when a woman (who, by nature, is nurturing) committs violence, then it's shocking (especially if the victims of violence are her own children -- but we won't start up on that).

In other words, Mistress, I believe that your example, quoted above, actually argues against the point you're trying to make: The existence of a "Women who kill" category suggests that killing (and perhaps all violence) is, in our culture, gendered male. If true, then wishing to swear off men, as a precaution ("Not all shrimp tacos make me ill, but I'm gonna play it safe, since so many do.") is not an unreasonable reaction.

Reading about incidents like the one in Kenya, though, does NOT make me want to swear off men forever. But multiple examples of such behavior, great and small, make me wonder why I ever despaired at being single. I would never generalize about ALL men -- I know too many enlightened ones, and too many women who I'd gladly drop off the end of the pier -- but our male fellow-travelers do seem to have a greater tendency towards high-profile acts ranging from boneheaded to outright repellent. I don't think it's "natural" or anything. I just think they've been getting away with it for so long that it never occurs to them that they should do something different.

Addendum: Now that I think of it, perhaps "high-profile" is the key? Maybe men just get more coverage, and more opportunity to be idiots on a grand public scale. And for that, my dears, we CAN blame the patriarchy!

(BTW, Twisty: the pup is cute)

[Mandos]

I think part of the sensitivity is the fear that men may not only be noncentral, but actually peripheral. Let me say that I'm not 100% sure I agree with this logic, but:

1. Sans (some aspects of?) patriarchy, the Basic Indispensible Family Unit is either mother and child or solitary individuals.

2. If so, men are socially "optional" in a way that women aren't.

Then the idea of "swearing off men" has a large number of perhaps subconscious connotations? If a man swears off women for everything but reproduction, he's basically exiled from the human family. If women do the reverse, they've exiled men...

That's assuming my take on it is, if not exactly true in a reality sort of way, then at least true in a very subliminal psychological kind of way, and thus accounts for the reaction.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

Lord, Twisty....now they're all going to come over here and start it up in YOUR comments section.

Nah, who can be bothered?

I read somewhere once that a person got poisoned by bad shellfish. Twisty's decision to swear off shrimp tacos, crab sticks, fish fillets and sharks-fin soup because of this makes perfect sense.

[Kate]

I think you've got it there, twisty, when you say that is extremely threatening to men to think that women can do just fine without them. Whether in Africa or the first world.

And yes, Mandos, I've heard theories which suggest the whole genesis of the patriarchy (once, in the distant mists of time) was all about the fact that women have the babies. Men can't. Men don't even know for sure that a baby is theirs. In order to control the passage of their genes, men therefore 'needed' to control the bodies of women, and ensure they weren't up to anything. And this power is not one they're willing to give up.

Simplistic? Maybe...

[Mandos]

Well, ask yourself this...would you be willing to allow the hospital to switch around all the babies in the maternity ward?

But even without the DNA business, no one wants to be born peripheral. But that is the fear here: are men born to be peripheral?

[Christopher]

Amazingly, I don't really care when a woman says she's going to swear off men, or when a t-shirt say mean things about boys.

Why? Because we don't live in a matriarchy. These are not expressions of a culture that oppresses men, they're isolated expressions of distaste for the dominant culture.

When men make less money then women for doing the same jobs, and when women actually start stoning men just for their gender, then I'll care about anti-man rhetoric. Until then, I say men suck. Screw 'em all

[Kate]

Of course Mandos, I wasn't arguing with you, just adding to the discussion.

And what Christopher said.

I read a really good quote from Margaret Atwood the other day (summarising here madly). She asked a man why men were afraid of women and he said "because women might laugh at us and undermine us." She asked some women why they were afraid of men and they said "because we're afraid of being killed."

Just about sums it up, no?

[Mandos]

Just about sums it up, no?

Sort of, but the picture is not complete until you notice that one feeds into the other and vice versa.

One think I've always wondered: if a large portion of patriarchy is about ensuring male control of genetic resources, then are old family trees where men are more than leaves actually the record of a crime?

[bitchphd]

Oh for Christ's sake, saying "this is the kind of thing that tempts one to swear off men forever" is SO FAR from a "man-hating" remark that, well, that even responding to the idea that it is is a waste of time. Christ.

Shrimp tacos, on the other hand, are fucking delicious, and anyone who wants to swear off them is hereby instructed to pass them to my side of the table. Thank you.

[Wordlackey]

Swearing off men is a joy to behold. It worked for Lysistrata and Athens, didn't it? Perhaps men might get the message of consequences for their actions if more women did renounce men and shunned them. Shunning actually used to be a quite effective punishment for people.

[Former Jose]

Um, Phoenician ... obviously YOU can be bothered ... because you, um, came and posted here. (Or was "who can be bothered?" ironic? In which case, I apologize for my obtuseness.)

Me, I said a few things over on Dr. B's comments and don't think I really have anything else to add. That comment thread is very long now so, really, all the things I didn't say but couldn't have probably been said (and said better) by someone else over there.

[Former Jose]

... didn't say but COULD have said ... apologies.

[BritGirlSF]

Damn, the guys are getting pissy recently. I had one over on Majikthise accuse me of "feminist bullying" and "feminist privilege" recently.
I am honestly confused as to why the leftist guys, the ones who are supposedly on our side, are getting so upset about all this. Can any of the guys lurking offer any insight? Because I don't get how anyone can honestly think that Dr. B, for example, is seriously suggesting that she hates all men and is planning to join a lesbian separatist commune. What would she do with PK?

[bitchphd]

We'd boil him in oil as an offering to the man-hating gods, of course.

[Kate]

Feminist privilege... ha ha ha. Oh the funny. That would explain why every western country has a woman president or PM and all the members of government are female and all the CEOs of corporations are female and women make more money than men and women are always raping and beating up men...

I had one commenter insist that the reason why the male birth control pill hadn't been developed yet was because of a feminist conspiracy to keep it off the shelves. I think he was serious.

[BritGirlSF]

"Feminist privilege" was pretty funny, but if you look at his definition of "feminist bullying" it's even funnier. I love the logic - if a guy tells me to STFU he's just telling me I'm wrong, but if I tell him to STFU I'm bullying him in that special way that only feminists can.
Cry me a fucking river.

Here's the thread, BTW. I am a technical ignoramus and don't know how to link to an individual comment, but the guy's name is Barbar.
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/07/nice_guys_.html#comment-7236476

It's impossible to "swear off men" in the same sense that one can "swear off" shrimp tacos. The cultural milieu is not full of shrimp tacos that seek you out despite your attempts to avoid them. Only not leaving your apartment (and how many of your apartments already have a man in them?) will let you swear entirely off men. Men exist.

If what she meant was that it's possible to "swear off having relationships with men," that's a valid choice to make, whether it means celibacy or homosexuality. So if she meant that, that's fine, that's good, that's a normative response to patriarchy. This seems to be what you're talking about when you say that this threatens individual men's centrality.

Separatism isn't normative, though, and separatism is pretty clearly what she's talking about. This one Kenyan village, containing no more inhabitants than a mid-sized city's domestic violence shelter, is to feminism what Catalonian anarchism during the Spanish civil war is to anarchists: the brief actualization of a pipe dream. Sure, it's a women's space in a place where no women's space previously existed, and for that it should be applauded, but it works now due to the alignment of the stars.

It would be nice if men and their biologial propensity to violence didn't exist, and it would be nice if a near-omnipresent patriarchal ethos had never developed, and if there were a real Amazonia to which feminists could retreat. The fantasy is tempting and counterproductive. Creating women's space in a man's world is not the same as bringing down the patriarchy that is making everyone miserable. The first is admirable, but the second is the final goal.

Dealing with systems that do exist, with men that do exist, and the often seemingly intractable problem of patriarchy is what we have to do. This involves exercise of power, ethical and philosophical uncertainty, negotiation with those that hold the power, and compromise. What this doesn't have is the moral purity of total hypotheticals.

-- ACS

P.S. Also, I realize that I've written four paragraphs in response to a single sentence that was written in total exasperation. Also, I am arguing with a straw man. Take this with a grain of salt.

[BritGirlSF]

And Kate, you are clearly forgetting that the existance of Margaret Thatcher proves that male privilege does not exist. Didn't you get the memo?

Um, Phoenician ... obviously YOU can be bothered ... because you, um, came and posted here.

In the words of the Mighty Steven Hawking, "All my shootin's be drivebys."

[CafeSiren]

"The cultural milieu is not full of shrimp tacos that seek you out despite your attempts to avoid them. "

::sigh:: If only that were true...

[res publica]

I think it's pretty clear that Phoenician can be "bothered", if his six million comments on the Bitch.Ph.D thread in question are any indication.

I should just like to point out that "normative" is not a synonym for "normal."

[Charles A. L.]

By definition, we don't have to worry about women who've sworn off men. I don't see why it's worth getting woreked up over. That's the definition of caddish behavior: to press your attention(s) on someone who's rejected you.