A Feminist Rant, Part 2: Emulation for Female Audience

The other day a friend tipped me to "A Feminist Rant", a wonderful article by "pruriginosus". I had an unusually strong positive reaction that compelled me to understand the author's rhetorical methods. The more I analyzed the article, the more I needed to emulate it. 

In the first step I took notes, which turned into an exercise in parsing my reactions to the piece. This was to be the second of three steps, but as I tried to write my own version of the first sentence, I realized it would be the second of four. I'm too scattered to write a single version to all the people in my life, both male and female, whom I'd want to read this. So this one is addressed to women.

The original article appears on the left. My version, with notes, is on the right.

Addressed to the male friend whom I will probably be forcing to read this in the near future:	Addressed to any woman willing to read.
I can understand why you might not, at first, be inclined to see things from a feminist perspective. This is one of many aspects in which I see sexism as akin to racism: I don’t think about race – at all, ever – because I don’t have to. It doesn’t adversely affect me. I was born white, so society gives me the default settings. So it follows that most men probably don’t think about gender because they don’t have to; it isn’t a constant detriment to them. But I don’t expect men to apologize for being men any more than I would be willing to apologize for being white. We didn’t choose to be what we are, and we can’t always help the shitty things that other people do.	I can understand why you might not, at first, be inclined to see feminism from a male perspective. This is one way in which I see sexism as akin to racism: I've spent my life working to be a version of myself who did not have my racist upbringing, yet as a white man I tend to be disqualified from conversations about race. So it follows that most women probably don't think about a man's pain because they don't have to; it can't compete with their own. But I don’t expect women to apologize for being women any more than I would be willing to apologize for being white. We didn’t choose to be what we are, and we can’t always help the shitty things that other people do.
So understand that I’m not trying to assign blame. I’m not trying to evoke sympathy or make you feel apologetic. I just want you to understand this stuff because it’s important to me; understanding feminism is crucial to understanding me and my perspective. And I only care that you understand my perspective because you’re important to me. So really, the fact that I’m trying so hard to make you get it is a compliment. Trust me.	So understand that I’m not trying to assign blame. I’m not trying to evoke sympathy or make you feel apologetic. I just want you to understand this stuff because it’s important to me; understanding my involvement in feminism is crucial to understanding me and my perspective. And I only care that you understand my perspective because you’re important to me. So really, the fact that I’m trying so hard to make you get it is a compliment. Trust me.
Commencing rant:	Commencing rant:
Over the past year or so, I’ve come to the conclusion that the worst thing about being a woman – at least, in the context of my own time, place, ethnicity, age, etc. – is the notion that women are for fucking. Sure, it’s the 21st century; you can become a scientist or major in business. You can be tough, smart, funny, whatever – as long as you’re also, first and foremost, sexy. Because sex is what women are for, and sexy is the most important thing for them to be.	Over the past two months or so, I’ve come to the conclusion that the worst thing about feminism – at least, in the context of my own time, place, ethnicity, age, etc. – is the notion that men have no place in it. Sure, it’s the 21st century; you can become the feminist equivalent of an LGBT ally. You can be sensitive, tender, supportive, whatever – as long as you’re also, first and foremost, passive. Because passivity is what men are for, and passive is the most important thing for them to be.  "Obsequious" feels a tad overwrought, but "deferential" seems too weak. I went with "passive" because it connects with the point I want to make about having always felt constrained from violence when the women around me showed no restraint.
That’s the message I feel inundated with on a daily basis. Even when I was a kid, before I’d started really analyzing these things and forming concrete opinions, I noticed it. When confronted by various media, I wondered, “does it seem like the women are only there for the men? Why do the men get to be serious and dignified, and the women are just coquettish and exposed? Why is it that every attack on a woman seems to involve rape?” These things unnerved me, but I hadn’t quite figured out why.	That’s the message I've feel inundated with ever since I was four years old. One day my sister had me pick up a large hammer so she could show her friend how strong I was. I could hold it in one hand, and she couldn't. Until that moment, I had no idea that I was already far stronger than her, even though she was more than two years older. Over the following years my sister would lash out at me verbally, hit me, spit on me, pull my hair, scratch me until I bled, and spray hair spray in my face. And I always took it, because I'd been trained all my life never to lift a finger against a woman. During my twenties I was in a relationship with a woman who was emotionally and physically abusive. Among other things, she tried to convince me that I had a developmental disability, destroyed my possessions, and threatened, in front of our daughter, to hit me. Once she did hit me in front of our daughter. I never lifted a hand. Again, I am not comparing the sort of abuse I suffered to that of a woman who's been bruised and broken. I just want you to understand. I want you to know what it felt like to have been socialized to be big and strong, to have a body that was surging with hormones and was much stronger and tougher than the bodies around me, and yet to be utterly forbidden to manifest that strength.  Can you understand what it's like to feel the rage well up as someone you could kill with your bare hands is bellowing at you, pounding on your chest, drawing your blood, and hurting you worst of all with their words? Can you feel the implacable conditioning that blunts every natural urge to defend yourself? Can you feel those urges being bottled up inside you? Can you taste that particular flavor of madness? All my life I've wondered, “Why do the women get to be fiery and violent, forcing me to be the calm and rational one? Why is it that I'm full of guilt over how men have treated women, yet every argument I have with a woman escalates into her abusing me as I lapse into helpless passivity?” These things unnerved me, but I hadn’t quite figured out why. To say that I feel inundated with this message on a daily basis would be dishonest, so I truncated the first sentence. I'm showing that I don't try to equivocate my experience with a woman's. I had to abandon the close emulation on this paragraph. Again, it didn't feel honest. I haven't had her experiences, so it started to feel like I was aping her. Now here's the main problem I've noticed: when I deviate from strictly following her framework, I speak from personal experience rather than making general statements. Usually I consider generalizations a bad thing, because I don't consider someone who presumes to speak for men in general, or about women in general, to be a trusted narrator. However, in this context, my method of writing about personal experiences has a drawback; the reader may think I'm equivocating my experiences with those of women.
Turns out, it’s because sex is depicted as women’s ultimate purpose. This makes it quite easy to feel, as a woman, that you can be 1 of 2 things: a sex object, or invisible. If you suit the Western heterosexual male standard of attractiveness, then congratulations, you get to be masturbation fodder. If you don’t, then you’re worthless. That’s why inadequacy means so much more than undesirability – it means being disregarded entirely. I think that’s why “unattractive” women, or women who refuse to indulge certain socially imposed practices like shaving, are the object of so much hostility; lots of men seem to feel this sense of entitlement toward women, like it’s our obligation to make ourselves attractive to them. So when you don’t, you’re an affront to them; you’ve failed at what they see as your most basic purpose. Bear in mind, these are usually men you don’t even fucking know, yet they still think that you owe it to them to please them and that they’re within their rights to comment on you and your choices.	Turns out, it’s because passivity is men's primary requirement. This makes it quite easy to feel, as a man, that you can be 1 of 2 things: passive, or a villain. If you suit the white liberal heterosexual male standard of obsequiousness, then congratulations, you get to be included. If you don’t, then you’re the bad guy. That’s why inadequacy means so much more than undesirability – it means internalizing the sins of your gender. I think that’s why "unenlightened” men, or men who refuse to intone certain politically imposed Shibboleths, are the object of so much hostility; lots of women seem to feel this sense of entitlement toward men, like it’s our obligation to make ourselves deferential to them. So when you don’t, you’re an affront to them; you’ve failed at what they see as your most basic purpose. Bear in mind, these are usually women you don’t even fucking know, yet they still think that you owe it to them to agree with them and that they’re within their rights to comment on you and your choices.
This creates very high stakes for women who don’t measure up. We live in a society that constantly tells you how important it is that you live up to this standard, while simultaneously telling you that you don’t. This can easily make you feel like you don’t count. After all, if the most important thing you have to offer is sex, and people don’t want to have sex with you – what are you good for? The answer, of course, is nothing, and countless women and girls really do start to believe that; so they become desperate to modify their appearances and begin to loathe themselves if they can’t.	This creates very high stakes for men who don’t measure up. We live in a society that constantly tells you how important it is that you live up to this standard, while simultaneously telling you that you don’t. This can easily make you feel like you don’t count. After all, if the most important thing you have to offer is obsequiousness, and people don’t want to listen to you – what are you good for? The answer, of course, is nothing, and countless men and boys really do start to believe that; so they become desperate to modify their behavior and begin to loathe themselves if they can’t.
So please don’t fucking tell me that there is nothing to be unhappy about. I understand that sexism is more understated here than it is elsewhere; women here are allowed to drive, own property, travel unaccompanied. It’s illegal to throw acid on us. Basic human rights, fantastic! Societies and governments that endorse human rights are not to be congratulated; the ones that don’t are to be condemned. There is a difference.	So please don’t fucking tell me that there is nothing to be unhappy about. I understand that sexism hurts women more than men; men have the luxury to think less about their sex appeal, command more respect, travel unaccompanied without worrying about being raped. It’s illegal to literally gag us. Conditional tolerance, fantastic! Movements that endorse conditional tolerance are not to be congratulated; the ones that don’t are to be condemned. There is a difference.
So don’t tell me, “So what if you feel dwarfed and invisible and worthless on account of being a woman? That’s nothing!” Yes, there is a difference between harming a group psychologically and harming them physically. But think about it: slavery, segregation, and unopposed lynchings are no longer norms, but that doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t exist here. We don’t have a Ugandan-style death penalty for homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean homophobia is not at play. So, similarly, you can’t use the extremes of misogyny to claim that nothing is wrong.	So don’t tell me, “So what if you feel dwarfed and invisible and worthless on account of being a man? That’s nothing!” Yes, there is a difference between harming a group psychologically and harming them physically. But think about it: slavery, segregation, and unopposed lynchings are no longer norms, but that doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t exist here. We don’t have a Ugandan-style death penalty for homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean homophobia is not at play. So, similarly, you can’t use the extremes of misogyny to claim that nothing is wrong.
The fact that people are so quick to deny the existence of sexism, in spite of the claims of innumerable women, just goes to show how deep-seated sexism really is. It’s a vicious cycle: we don’t take women seriously enough to assign validity to their perspectives, and yet somehow fail to realize that this, in itself, is a sexist mindset. We refuse claims of sexism because it’s women who are making them. We claim to know their perspectives better than they do, dismissing those who protest as oversensitive, irrational, overreacting. In other words, we reject sexism in completely sexist terms. And the roots of the problem run so deep that, somehow, people don’t even make the connection.	The fact that people are so quick to deny the existence of misandry, in spite of the claims of innumerable men, just goes to show how deep-seated misandry really is. It’s a vicious cycle: we don’t take men seriously enough to assign validity to their perspectives, and yet somehow fail to realize that this, in itself, is a sexist mindset. We refuse claims of sexism because it’s men who are making them. We claim to know their perspectives better than they do, dismissing those who protest as insensitive, irrational, misogynistic. In other words, we reject misandry in completely sexist terms. And the roots of the problem run so deep that, somehow, people don’t even make the connection.
It’s largely a problem of representation. Even I, with my adamant feminist ideals, have been socialized to see men as the default and women as something extra – an adornment to the human race. That’s how it feels when you look at almost any group, whether it’s a writing staff, a boardroom, a movie cast; you see the overwhelming number of men, and you start to think automatically, “Oh, but that makes sense, because there just are more men, generally.” Even though we all know that’s ridiculous! That’s sure as hell how it looks though; the raw number of men in the world appears larger than that of women because that’s the ratio you see represented. And the women you do see tend to be there for sex appeal; remember, it’s sex object or nothing. This narrowness of number and variety has a huge effect on the way we perceive real women, develop schemas about gender, and form expectations of individuals.	It’s largely a problem of representation. Even I, with my adamant humanist ideals, have been socialized to see women's opinions as the default and men as something extra – an adjunct to feminism. That’s how it feels when you look at almost any group, whether it’s couple, an office, an internet message board; you feel the overwhelming pressure to fall in line, and you start to think automatically, “Oh, but that makes sense, because women's opinions just mean more than men's, generally.” Even though we all know that’s ridiculous! That’s sure as hell how it looks though; the raw weight of women's suffering in the world appears to trump a man's right to express himself because that’s the notion you see represented. And the men you do see tend to be there for subservience; remember, it’s passivity or nothing. This narrowness of expression and assertion has a huge effect on the way we perceive real men, develop schemas about gender, and form expectations of individuals.
So how do all of these overarching societal themes affect me as an individual? Why does it all depress me so much? Because it makes me feel like, no matter what I do with myself, my worth will always be determined by whether guys want to fuck me. It makes me feel like I can never have sex with a man as an equal because my sexuality is nothing more than a commodity. It makes me feel like I can never have sex for my own personal satisfaction because society typically uses women as mere devices to please men; the media promote the idea that women exist to facilitate male pleasure, so women’s enjoyment of sex must be secondary. The message that sex is all you’re good for seems to be everywhere; get that message enough, and the psychological effect is pretty devastating.	So how do all of these overarching societal themes affect me as an individual? Why does it all depress me so much? Because it makes me feel like, no matter what I do with myself, my worth will always be determined by whether I toe all the right lines. It makes me feel like I can never talk to a woman as an equal because my sexuality is nothing more than a handicap. It makes me feel like I can never engage in feminist discourse for my own personal satisfaction because feminism typically uses men as mere devices to support dogma; liberal politics promote the idea that men exist to atone for men's sins, so men’s ideas must be secondary. The message that obsequiousness is all you’re good for seems to be everywhere; get that message enough, and the psychological effect is pretty devastating.
I didn’t even touch on sexual assault (though there is a reason, male friend, why I double-check my locks and do a quick sweep of my apartment every time I get in the shower or go to bed, and you sometimes forget to lock your front door), the pay gap (which, despite what Republicans like to say, does exist, both between genders and among races), or race- or LGBT-specific issues (being a straight, white female, I wouldn’t be entitled to comment on either; my only input would come from statistics and secondhand accounts).	I didn’t even touch on sexual assault (though there is a reason, female friend, why I scrutinize my writing, and you sometimes forget to accord me the most basic decency when you write about men), or race- or LGBT-specific issues (being a straight white man I would not equivocate my experiences with blacks or gays, but as a human being, and as a man who has been scarred by racism and who has lost a friendship because of his LGBT advocacy, I would be entitled to take part in the conversation).  I hope the manner in which I mirrored the original article doesn't come across as fatuous or disrespectful. That's not my intent. It's striking how well some of the constructions work when I do nothing more to a paragraph than substitute "men" for "women" and vice versa. It's both satisfying  and unnerving, like tipping a sacred cow.