Believe her - even if she's saying #NotMe instead of #MeToo

It is outstanding that we are having conversations about sexual assault, harassment, power imbalances, consent, rape culture, privilege, and many of the complex issues that go into improving relations between people regardless of who they are. The conversations are long overdue. It is crucial that we are beginning to understand that sexual assault can encompass a lot more than a stranger-rape with a weapon. We must listen to the stories of those who have experienced sexual misconduct, and believe their assessments. As I've written before, we must also allow people to grow and learn things about their conduct that they might not have realized when eyeball deep in the culture that has evolved so much. Finally, we must believe the stories of those who continue to insist that they were not victimized.

In a Vanity Fair piece she wrote four years ago, Monica Lewinsky discusses how she was victimized in the aftermath of the publicity surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton. I had not thought about her situation in those terms when I read the piece, and I was ashamed to recognize my complicity in her humiliation. It is clear that in the writing of that piece, she sees two distinct phases in the Clinton situation: the relationship itself, and the aftermath. I think it's pretty undeniable that her treatment in the aftermath was unforgivable and anti-feminist.

This piece, written in 1998, is painfully true about feminists' complicated but ultimately regrettable relationship with Bill Clinton. The author was prescient about Hillary Clinton's eventual run for president. We really should have demanded that Bill Clinton acknowledge his shitty past behavior, apologized, and contributed a bunch of money to a relevant and reputable organization. I believe both Clintons have grown since his presidency, and I think both ought to publicly acknowledge that. There is no doubt, in retrospect, that Bill Clinton was a very very big part of the culture that we've learned to condemn.

Recently, Ms. Lewinsky wrote a new piece reflecting on her experience in the age of #MeToo. It deeply provokes thought about the wider implications of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and its effect on the nation, as well as its role in the expanding discussion of sexual misconduct. Ms. Lewinsky also reflects on her involvement with Bill Clinton in light of the expanded discussion abuse of power as a manner of sexual assault. I'm sure there are already thousands of comments in every type of media saying ugly things about her, and probably, I hope, there are a lot of supportive comments as well.

I appreciate Ms. Lewinsky's story. It's an extremely important part of the conversation, and I firmly believe that her story is hers, and only hers, to tell. And my story is mine.

Around the same time that the scandal was coming out, I engaged in one of the classically imbalanced relationships: Student/teacher (about twenty years my senior).

For those who think abortion should be illegal: continued

Last week, I made this post, hoping to survey people who think abortion should be illegal. It's not going so well; the post is getting hits, but nobody is answering the survey.

Well, not nobody. One person has. So that person is lucky enough to get personal responses today. Please keep sharing! I want more data.

Q1: What ought to be the criminal penalty for (a) the doctor; (b) the woman; (c) any coconspirators in the commission of an abortion?

Well, that would depend on whether it's going to be classified as a civil or criminal offense. I would push for it to be a criminal offense, which carry harsher punishments. I would want to do more research before providing more of a response.

I apologize for any confusion, but I am specifically talking about making abortion criminal. It doesn't really make sense to call it a civil matter, as I don't see who would have the standing to sue the pregnant person, the doctors, or the coconspirators. I suppose the argument could be made that someone has the right to sue on behalf of the fetus, but that opens up the same nightmare that any "personhood" amendment does. If a fetus is subject to all rights and responsibilities that go along with personhood, lots of legal absurdities would result, like the possibility of me being able to sue my fetus for various torts associated with the pregnancy.

Regarding having to do more research, do it. If you want to push to criminalize abortion, you need to be able to answer this question.

Think Abortion Should Be Illegal? Please take this survey.

I have never been pregnant. I have many friends who have had abortions and none of them regret it. I believe that the choice to terminate a pregnancy belongs to no one but the pregnant person.

I've explained before why, if your opposition to abortion is based on the idea that fetus should have the same rights as a person who has crossed the bright line of birth, you must be in favor of some sort of criminal penalty for the pregnant person seeking the abortion. If you are not, then you are dishonest with yourself somewhere; it's up to you to figure out where.

Some shoeshit politician in Idaho finally got honest and alluded to advocating the death penalty for people who have abortions (though he quickly walked it back). I hate his politics, but I admire his consistency. So I'd like to know what others who would like to make abortion illegal think ought to happen in various circumstances.

If you would like to make abortion illegal, please take the following five-minute survey below. I'll write a future post about the results. Thanks for your participation. Please share.

Create your own user feedback survey

#LaughCryMad

Lately, on the Facebook, I've been using the phrase "laugh cry mad," perhaps better expressed 😆😭😠. It's a sentiment common among people who use humor to cope.

Today, this was the cartoon that evoked that triple-emoji:

It's funny - hilarious, actually - because it's true. And the fact that it's true makes me sad. And the fact that we're still fighting this battle and making these jokes to cope in two thousand muthafuckin' eighteen makes me really, really mad.

You'll know when the right time to use it is. You'll hover over the "laugh" emoji for a second, but you won't really want to laugh at it, and maybe you should use the "cry" emjoji but then you get pissed off so you click "like" and put "laugh cry mad" in the comments.

I'm going to try to make it a thing. #LaughCryMad. Hashtags are for searchability, after all, and it might be handy to catalog all examples of the phenomenon. I could turn that into an inspirational speech or some shit. 

Remember: #LaughCryMad. Use it.

#IAmComplicit

"A product of its time" is not an excuse, but it is a reason. I am embarrassed about some ways I've contributed to the culture. I can only apologize.

The Facts of Life, my very, very favorite show, a show that I believe was hugely ahead of its time regarding its commentary on many social issues of the time, a show that can do just about no wrong in my eyes, is guilty of minimizing sexual assault and contributing to rape culture.

In Part 1 of the 2-Part fourth season finale "Graduation" (1983), Roy the delivery man makes an appearance. His unrequited crush on Jo is a running joke for a couple of seasons (the entire storyline is problematic and will be discussed elsewhere). In this episode, Roy arrives announcing that he has a graduation present for Jo. What is it?

Following Jo's assault, the other girls proceed to make jokes about and to make fun of Jo for "kissing" Roy! Jo tells them that it's not a laughing matter, but no one makes the connection to the last time Jo was sexually assaulted or to the time Natalie was the victim of an attempted rape.

The phrase "a product of its time" is meaningful. It is certainly not an excuse for sexual assault. It is hard to explain what I am trying to say without sounding like a rape apologist.

I liked restroom equality before it was cool

In a law school class in the spring of 2013, I mentioned in passing that I thought that there shouldn't be gender-segregated restrooms. There was an understated gasp, and one classmate confronted me after class, suggesting that the notion was absurd. "Tell that to a sexual assault victim!" he declared. Ignoring his presumption that I was not one, I tried to respond by explaining that the specter of the sexual assault in the bathroom is a myth and the assumption that a gender-neutral mixed restroom will automatically lead to sexual assaults is grossly insulting to men. He brushed me off as though I'd suggested that Earth is flat, coming just short of actively mocking me, and I lost a little respect for him.

Conservative states continue to use dubious justification try to introduce legislation to keep penises and vaginas in separate restrooms, despite the fact that the number of assaults by trans women in women's restrooms remains at zero and the sky has not fallen in places like Colorado, which prohibits discrimination against trans people in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation.

I stand by my trans sisters and brothers in their continued effort to be able to pee in whichever segregated restroom matches their gender identity. Even more than that, though, I desperately want to get away from the notion that restrooms must be segregated into penis/male/masculine and vagina/female/feminine in the first place. Most discussions start with taking that notion for granted, and I refuse to accept it.

Many religions have strict mandates about behavior of men and women and whether and under what circumstances they can even be in the same space. It is not uncommon for progressives to criticize such rigid mandates regarding gender, while expecting tolerance of those who choose to practice such religious mandates and also being aware that "choice" is itself a loaded word that is meaningless in certain environments.

What does this have to do with piss and shit? I'm here to tell you that the thing that makes you cringe when thinking about a mixed-gender restroom is the same thing that drives religions and cultures of varying extremism to impose gender-based requirements and expectations on their members.

Heh. Members.

Look, it shouldn't even be controversial for a single-use restroom to be non-gender designated. Most of us have gender neutral restrooms in our homes. I bet more than half of randomly-selected responders would admit to having used an other-gender-designated single-use restroom because of a long line or an 'out of order' sign, or because they really really had to go.

I would very much like to understand what it is that opponents are really afraid of when I suggest that the default for a large restroom should be gender-neutral mixed use. Picture a restroom at a baseball stadium with fifteen or so stalls and a wall of urinals or a piss-trough. And I would also advocate a proportional number of single-use rooms to accommodate those with religious objections, PTSD, or people who just can't bring themselves to accept a mixed-use room.

Think of the porta-potty setup at your average music festival, where there is either one line or several, non-gender designated, and men and women use the same stalls. It would be exactly like that except in a room and with plumbing. When porta-potties are gross, it's usually not about the fact that there were men/women/other all using the same ones, but that you're not flushing and you have limited access to sinks.

The bathroom debate is only one symptom of the real problem, which is the fact that we are so OK with early and insistent grouping of "boys" and "girls" based on their genitalia and with a whole giant host of assumptions attached. Sure, if procreation is a consideration for a particular relationship, then the individuals in that relationship should talk about what is biologically possible, but that's really no different from what every relationship should do. It is my opinion that failure to communicate regarding a future with children is a huge reason that relationships end, but that's another blog.

I'm glad the dialogue is happening. The gender binary has frustrated me for a long time and I'm glad that my voice is finally in the discussion. I don't have much expectation of my vision occurring any time soon, but still, I feel vindicated.

I Am Pro-Life

Image courtesy of Jonathan Fitch
at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

It might surprise many who know me well to find this out. I'm the last name that would come out of your mouth when asked who your "pro-life" friends are. But I am, and I'm here to set the record straight.

Prince is dead! Long live gender ambiguity!

I believe I was among the first to find out that Prince died. A friend posted as the news about a death in Paisley Park broke (and let's take a moment to raise a glass to the awesome name of the estate), and I watched coverage live as it was confirmed that it was indeed His Purpleness. That sucks; he was so very talented and way too young to die.

It's not like when David Bowie died and I received personal condolences from many; I wasn't that much of a Prince fan. But boy did I enjoy the hell out of his music, and I appreciated his eccentricity and his experimentation and his general vibe. And although I was aware that the symbol he used as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince was a combination of the traditional male and female symbols, it never seems to have entered my consciousness that like David Bowie, like the character Jo Polniaczek on The Facts of Life, Prince influenced my understanding of what I would now call gender fluidity. but among the coverage, I heard a reporter refer to Prince's gender-bending ways and compare him to David Bowie, and OF COURSE.

Admit it anti-choicers: If abortion is murder, then Trump was right

Yesterday, the celebrity who is the frontrunner in the GOP race to the presidential candidacy commented that women who have abortions should be punished somehow, and the Internet exploded. The pro-choice contingent obviously found that position abhorrent. The anti-choice right-wingers quickly distanced themselves as well, declaring that their position has never been to punish women seeking abortions, even if they achieve their goal of most (if not all) abortion being illegal. As a result, The Orange One himself backed off, “clarifying” that he “misspoke.”

If you are opposed to legal abortion and you don’t think women who have them should face legal consequences, then you are either a liar or you are a hypocrite.

It was my understanding that the majority of opposition to abortion comes from an idea in the vein of life begins at conception, a fetus is a person, therefore abortion is murder. I can’t speak for the right wing, but I am generally of the belief that if a person is complicit in a murder, then that person should face consequences for said murder. Typically in the law, an accomplice faces the same legal consequences as a principal in a crime.

So if you are opposed to legal abortion, and you are also opposed to legally punishing women seeking them, then you either don’t really believe abortion is murder, or you believe that society shouldn’t punish criminals.

This gymnastics that the anti-choice crew espouses to try to get away from the icky mental image of putting abortion-seeking women in jail is solely political, and it exposes a major problem with the concept of making abortion illegal: how to punish the women you’ve just made criminals. Making abortion illegal does not make abortion go away, and if you believe that abortion is murder, then you must believe that women who specifically ask for and pay for abortions (murder for hire?) are murderers.

But that’s the easy part. The harder part is what you do with women who, rather than seeking abortion and risking running afoul of the law, self-induce abortions in one way or another. I used to say that if abortion ever became illegal and I found myself accidentally pregnant, it’s nothing playing a few rugby matches couldn’t fix. Alcohol, drugs, an accidental fall down the stairs...

Or a miscarriage.

Make no mistake. If abortion is illegal, people getting and performing abortions become criminals, and every miscarriage must be investigated to determine whether it was a clandestine abortion. If such steps are not part of the plan, then illegalization of abortion has no teeth. Women wishing abortions can just induce miscarriages and claim they didn’t know they were pregnant or that it was spontaneous or that the fall was an accident.

Murder is a big deal. If you really think abortion is murder, you cannot believe that miscarriages (possible abortions and therefore murders) should not be investigated. If you agree with me that the investigation of miscarriages is not a good use of police resources, then you don’t think that abortion is murder.

Start being honest with yourselves.

Miss Piggy: life coach

Last month when one member of my life coaching team passed away, I wrote about it on my blog about the 80s television show The Facts of Life. David Bowie and Jo Polniaczek from Facts are two of three famous/fictional influences that significantly shaped who I am today. Their influence on my acceptance of my own gender nonconformity was crucial. I don’t want the third member of my life coaching team to be overlooked, though, so I want to dedicate a few words to her today.

Here’s to you, Miss Piggy.

Jo and Bowie have the whole gender-nonconformity thing going for them, and that speaks to me for obvious reasons. Piggy, of course, is the femmest of the femme. She’s obsessed with clothes and hair and makeup and has a large number of “way to not be a stereotype” moments. She is also a pig. Who dated a frog. Talk about nontraditional expressions and preferences.

An Open Letter to Peyton Manning

Dear Peyton,

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post defending you with respect to the expanding coverage of your 1996 incident with trainer Jamie Naughright.

It continues to not sit right with me that people take this incident and its aftermath to dismiss every other part of your reputation. However, by now you must know that you made mistakes throughout the handling of the incident, and the only thing you can do is own up and apologize.

I understand that you were probably motivated by nothing but immaturity and very stupid judgment when the incident occurred. I understand that you then followed the advice of your coaches and other parties, believing that they properly knew how the system worked. I understand that an adolescent can easily think that the goal should only be to avoid punishment rather than to reflect on the incident and consider what the right thing to do is.

In 2000, when the Manning book was published, I understand how you thought - and maybe were told - that as long as you didn't mention her name, that describing your version of the incident would not be in violation of the previous settlement agreement. Maybe you thought that since readers of the book would likely be your fans, no one would dig out the briefly described incident and resurrect it.

Of course, someone sent the relevant pages to Ms. Naughright's office. If that was you, surely by now, you know that was very stupid. If it was someone else with your knowledge and encouragement, you know that was stupid too. If you have no idea how that came about, you should probably say so.

Ms. Naughright went back to court in 2005 after you apparently made some more comments about her in an ESPN story about you. I can't find any clips of those comments; the ones that I have seen show other people talking vaguely about you and the incident. If you did bring it up again, surely you know that was very stupid. If you didn't, you should probably say so.

I suspect that for the last nineteen or twenty years you probably haven't had much of an opportunity to think for yourself. But advice from your family and agents and lawyers and handlers to refuse to apologize for the incident is not sustainable. Much of the outrage directed at you as more people learn about the story is not necessarily about the original incident, but about the refusal to acknowledge it.

I understand that you perceive the incident differently from the way Ms. Naughright does, and perhaps you think you've already done enough by issuing the initial apology letter and acknowledging the incident as "crude." I understand that you were in the midst of a different, less enlightened environment in the 90s when the culture forgave and even encouraged such behavior toward non-athletes. I can see how a person who otherwise has no blemishes on his record is in no hurry to dig up the one that exists.

But that's the only choice you have now. Part of moving toward an environment that is welcoming and open to all of us is accepting responsibility for our indiscretions, regardless of the age, regardless of the motive.

Hold a press conference. Make a public statement that in 1996, you did a very stupid thing that you regret. Acknowledge or sincerely deny any subsequent involvement you had in resurrecting the incident. Be humble. Never say "but." Contact me. I'll write the speech for you.

Now's the time where, regardless of what you think about the situation, you have exactly one path to restore your credibility. You look as bad as you can possibly look right now; owning up and accepting responsibility is the only way to proceed if you want anything but a checkered legacy.

In Peyton Manning's Defense: An unpopular post

A few weeks ago, during the standard Broncos-Patriots trash-talk before the AFC Championship, I learned that while a student at the University of Tennessee in 1996, Peyton Manning had an inappropriate incident with a female trainer. Since the Broncos have won the Super Bowl, I’ve seen the story more, usually the New York Post's version with the headline, “Peyton Manning’s Squeaky-Clean Image Is Built on Lies.”

I’ve read quite a bit about this story, and while the incident was undoubtedly completely inappropriate and offensive, I’m afraid I can’t join the mob that wants to string him up by his testicles and declare him an enemy of women everywhere in 2016. I am not a sexual assault apologist, nor do I have any particular affection for Peyton Manning even though I’m a Broncos fan (I’m actually more excited about Brock Osweiler getting to have a shot outside of Peyton’s shadow). And for whatever it’s worth, I also thought the uproar about Cam Newton’s actions after the Super Bowl was unwarranted; to me he was acting exactly like a very disappointed young man who was frustrated that he didn’t perform at his best on the biggest stage of his life.

And I say all this as a person who did some really terrible shit when I was in my 20s.

Counter-protesting with Deafening Silence

Apparently the Beyoncé backlash is not over. There is a big anti-Beyoncé protest scheduled next week at NFL headquarters. There is also an anti-anti-Beyoncé protest in the works. There’s no sign yet of an anti-anti-anti-Beyoncé protest, but give it time.

I generally believe that any protest should include concrete demands, otherwise it’s very difficult to figure out when the protest has achieved its goals and is “over.” Some protests, like those that are part of the Black Lives Matter movement, have demands that include massive paradigm shifts and social change, so there isn’t really an “over” and the demands can be less concrete.

Apparently, the Beyoncé protesters want to “tell the NFL we don’t want hate speech and racism at the Super Bowl ever again!” Let’s assume for a minute that Beyoncé’s performance indeed constitutes hate speech and racism (I do not believe it does). I can only guess that the protesters want the NFL to pre-approve all halftime shows henceforth? And reject anything that is the slightest bit controversial, whether it’s presented by a group of elderly British men, a middle-aged white woman from Michigan, or a young Texan black woman?

And what do the counter-protesters want? Presumably they watched and enjoyed the halftime show, as did I, and are perfectly OK if the selection continues as usual, that is, a committee identifies which performers are hot and reaches out to them. While I get the concept of showing numbers in support of a thing that a group is protesting, I wonder if the plans to counter-protest give the protesters more legitimacy than they deserve.

And that is really the question. When idiots like Westboro Baptist Church, Roosh V, or Donald Trump squawk and screech and pout, are we better off yelling back, or giving them exactly as much attention as they deserve?

Several months ago I suggested that the best way to deal with the Trump candidacy is to stop paying attention to it. The man is an attention-hog who is likely to stay around as long as he’s in headlines. If the media takes him out of their coverage, the candidacy loses its point.

Some friends told me that it was dangerous not to take him seriously. I’m not sure that was the case back then; now that he’s become the frontrunner, it might be impossible to stop the train, and indeed, the prospect of his election is terrifying. But in the initial stages, I wonder if ignoring him would have prevented him from getting the support he now has, and if that lack of support, or even just the lack of attention itself, would have nipped that disaster in the bud.

Last week, Roosh V, self-proclaimed pick-up artist and leader of the laughable “neomasculinity” movement, cancelled a set of secret meet-ups once the plan got out and the likely backlash became apparent. I guess it’s probably a good thing for those meet-ups to not take place, but if they had, would they have been more than a handful of grumpy dudes I wouldn’t associate with anyway complaining about the yucky wimmins who won’t go out with them? Can that group of outliers really be said to be dangerous?

Instead of helping, I fear that backlash gives validity to an invalid position. It creates attention for the position, and in many ways validates their distorted worldview. They think everyone is out to get them; the backlash just proves it.

I think a strategy of non-acknowledgement of such positions is something that at least ought to be tried. The NFL Beyoncé backlash is the perfect time to give it a go, because there will likely be no real consequences. The NFL is unlikely to promise not to feature the hottest artists if they’re too controversial, and even if the protesters manage to turn the protest into a boycott, the NFL isn’t going anywhere. And even if they get everything they want, big deal. Super Bowl halftime shows will become a little less interesting. That’s a small price to pay for shutting down fools.

No, Gloria, I'm Not Boy-Chasing

Hillary v. Bernie. As a registered Democrat in a state with a primary, I’ve been giving much thought to this decision. I have supported Hillary in the past; I supported her in the 2008 primary. I am aching to see a female president. I am frustrated that progressives’ new hope is another old white man. I want very much to believe that Hillary Clinton is the right candidate for president.

Over the last couple of weeks though, I have learned a lot. I have delved more deeply into each candidate’s history, evolution, and own words, and the more I learn and contemplate, the more I am reluctantly dragged into understanding that when it comes to the policies, Bernie Sanders is the far superior candidate for my worldview.

This weekend, Gloria Steinem informed me that suchevaluation is just a march to where the boys are, and Madeline Albrightinformed me that there’s a special place in hell for me.

Oh no, ladies. You don’t get to do that. You don’t get to guilt-trip smart, thoughtful, legitimately conflicted women into supporting Hillary just because of her vagina. I certainly wouldn’t support a Fiorina or Palin candidacy; your comments suggest that I should.

I have tremendous respect for Hillary Clinton. I am well aware that the fight for true sex/gender equality is far from over. I understand, my own wishes for a non-gendered society notwithstanding, that we live in a culture which is much more difficult to navigate as a woman than as a man. She is impressive, and she is a role model for how to succeed within the system.

The problem is that the system is broken.

That is what the voices backing Bernie Sanders are saying. It’s not enough to take one step forward and two steps back all the time, pushing through policies that are solely for show, that don’t actually take any steps toward addressing the plight of the poor, of people of color, of the truly marginalized in our society. Some critics point out that even if Hillary Clinton is great for privileged straight cis white women, she has never been an advocate for the populations that suffer the most.

Ms. Steinem’s and Ms. Albright’s comments actually underscore what Hillary’s problem is in reaching progressive women. Both comments suggest that women who support Bernie are stupid, uninformed, or evil. I know I am neither, and I resent that suggestion. While I would never base my vote on being insulted by a third-party supporter of a candidate, these comments sure didn’t pull me any further into the fold. To these white women who have succeeded within the establishment, it is as plain as the nose on my face that obviously I should be supporting the female candidate. It’s a reflection of their business-as-usual mentality, and business-as-usual is exactly what we need to change.

Ms. Steinem “apologized” yesterday. I use quotation marks because her words don’t go anywhere near admitting that by suggesting that female Bernie Sanders supporters were all about the boys, she was engaging in the same kind of stereotypical assumptions that she has struggled to fight! She would do well to remember what she wrote last year when reflecting on the Clinton/Obama primary battle of 2008: “Soon, a person or a group’s choice of one candidate was assumed to be a condemnation of the other. I could feel fissures opening up between people who had been allies on issues for years. The long knives of reporters, plus a few shortsighted partisans in both campaigns, deepened those fissures until they bled.”

I agree, Gloria. That’s a bad thing. So stop doing it.

Privilege and Representation: The Real Implications of Tuesday’s Women-Only Senate

After major snowstorms hit the nation’s capital city last week, the morning of Tuesday, January 29, in the Senate was unusual. Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski noted that every single person in the Senate that day, from Senators to pages, was female. The revelation sparked predictable commentary of the “girls rule, boys drool” ilk. Senator Murkowski herself suggested that the phenomenon “speaks to the hardiness of women.” CNN’s coverage ended with the reporter rhetorically asking what the story says “about if you want a job done properly.” The popular message is clear: that only women showed up to Tuesday’s senate shows that women are inherently tougher, harder working, and generally better than men.

Or perhaps it suggests something entirely different. Perhaps it suggests exactly the opposite: it is learned behavior reflective of the fact that women have been historically excluded from the political space.        

When you're already a minority in the position of "representing," you can't risk being judged as lesser. A former co-worker of mine, the only other Latino/a in our office, told me on my first day of work, “Remember, you have to do twice the work to get half the credit.” Indeed, pioneers face significant obstacles. When you’re first, you’re carrying the weight of the entire group on your shoulders, and if you fail, you’ve shown that your minority group can’t hack it. That’s just part of the inevitable cultural aftermath of breaking down barriers. Women, even at the highest levels, still need to prove themselves in ways that men do not.

And so, if you’re one of a handful of women in the Senate and you wake up to waist-high snow but find out the Senate isn’t closed, you show up. It is a manifestation of the privilege the men had that they didn't need to fear being negatively judged by staying home.

People often bristle at the word “privilege,” thinking that the assertion that male privilege exists suggests that all men spend their lives lying on lounge chairs with buxom women serving them beer and fanning them with palm fronds. That isn’t what privilege means. Privilege refers to those little niceties that one takes for granted because one never had to think about being on the other side of them.

           

It did not have to occur to the men in the Senate that their absence might speak negatively of all men, because it wouldn’t. Society simply has never considered one white man as representative of all other white men. And while the pressure of “representation” is slowly lessening as we have these dialogues and better understand the implications of our assumptions, it is very much alive and well. The risk that one misstep will serve for some as proof that women (or Latino/as) can’t do the job is enough to keep me on my toes. It would have been enough to get me to the Senate on Tuesday if I worked there.

While it’s appealing to wave a female-superiority flag because of Tuesday’s Senate phenomenon, it is dangerous. It is at least as dangerous as any other belief that you can identify an individual’s talents and strengths by what is or is not hanging between their legs. It is perhaps more dangerous because it takes a phenomenon that probably is due to weakness by oppression, and recasts it as an innate strength. This sleight-of-hand prevents us from seeing and addressing the real issues facing pioneers of all kinds.