Why Men Call Women "Crazy" - Turns Out That It's Total Bullshit Like We Thought It Was

From "On Labeling Women 'Crazy'" by Harris O'Malley on HuffPost:

"Back in the bad old days, I was notoriously self-absorbed. It wasn't that I thought that I was the greatest thing ever, it was just that I didn't really stop to spare too many thoughts for others. I was willing to make an effort for others, but only so far as it didn't really inconvenience me past a "reasonable" point. I didn't want to have long drawn out conversations about how my behavior made my girlfriend feel and I certainly didn't want to get dragged into what I saw as unnecessary drama. In fact, I was incredibly drama-averse, thanks to an early unhealthy relationship.

As a result... well, I wasn't willing to consider how others were feeling. When the woman I was dating would try to explain to me how the way I treated her felt, I would tell her that she was seeing things. She was overreacting to inconsequential stuff. She was being over-sensitive, reading things into what I was saying or doing that just weren't there.

The subtext to everything I was saying was simple: "You are behaving in a way that I find inconvenient, and I want to you to stop." I wasn't willing to engage with her emotionally and address her very real concerns because I was too wrapped up in my own shit to think about other people. As a result, I would minimize her issues. By telling her that she was reading too much into things, I was framing the situation as her being irrational.

I didn't realize it at the time, but what I was doing was, in effect, telling her that she didn't have the right to feel the way she felt... because I didn't want her to feel that way."


I would love to see more of this kind of thought process from men. The patriarchal status quo ain't helpin THEM out either, making them all out to be emotionally-challenged, overgrown children who are incapable of interacting with others without gratuity. That's not healthy for anyone, and its not true. Following the societal norms of  traditional gender roles to the letter; fearful, skeptical, and cynical of any deviation, does nothing more than entrap us in unhappy lifestyles and a dangerous, violent culture.

The Feminine Context

Anita Perry Can't Stomach Uttering Total Bullshit Out Loud, Media Frenzy Ensues

I'm thinking that Rick Perry is shitting platinum bricks right about now..




OH MY GAWD.. A PROMINENT REPUBLICAN STATE FIRST LADY EXPRESSED A PERFECTLY VALID AND HUMAN VIEWPOINT ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!

From the HuffingtonPost:

"When pressed on women's rights by Texas Tribune's Evan Smith at the 2013 Texas Tribune Festival, the First Lady of Texas said, "That's really difficult for me, Evan, because I see it as a women's right. If they want to do that, that is their decision; they have to live with that decision."

"Mrs. Perry, I want to be sure you didn't just inadvertently make news," Smith replied. "Are you saying that you believe abortion is a women's right, to make that choice?"

Smith pressed again, asking if she believed it's a person's decision within the law, to which Anita Perry replied, "Yeah, that could be a women's right. Just like it's a man's right if he wants to have some kind of procedure. But I don't agree with it, and that's not my view."

You can understand that women should have the right to choose what's best for them and, at once, not be all pro-abortion. To be pro-choice means that you realize that abortion is one of several choices a woman can make in the face of an unplanned pregnancy, and it IS in fact, OKAY to know that you yourself would not make that particular choice.

Kudos to Mrs. Perry for having the chutzpah to say this out loud in front of cameras. You can tell she's feeling backed down toward the end, but she didn't bail out entirely, either.

oh, and also VOTE WENDY DAVIS FOR SENATE!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Feminine Context

"Not Really" Is Still "No". One Man's Introspective Article

Anyone who has read this blog can easily detect my feminism within a few posts. It's not something I hide, I don't consider "feminism" a bad word, and I don't use feminism as a way to assault men. As a feminist, I tend to worry less about what men are doing, and find myself most often taking offense at the behaviors of other women who want to reap the rewards of feminism while abandoning the personal responsibility of earning them.

That being said, I'm not a mysogynist. Sexual politics within any culture are complex by nature, built upon historical, religious, economical, and other factors. To unravel an issue, means that one must take the time to untie all of the good intentions and practical measures that somehow developed into a likely unintentional problem. With the efforts of many individuals on different ends of the discussion, there can be some understanding and resolution.

This is why I ADORE you, Hugo Schwyzer.

His bio, from his website:

"Hugo Schwyzer is an American author, speaker and professor of history and gender studies at Pasadena City College. He presents workshops on body image, sexual harassment, rape prevention, and the “myth of male weakness.” He is also a frequent guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and has appeared on CNN and CTV (Canada) as an expert on body image, sexuality and gender justice."


I came across one of Mr. Schwyzer's articles today, and simply HAD to share it..


From "Accidental rape. I knew I hadn't committed a crime but..."


"Most “good guys” take a woman’s firm “No!” for an answer. (Those who don’t are best left to the ministrations of our criminal justice system.) But lots of men are like the guy I was at 19—assuming that while “no means no” anything short of a firm “no” is either a “yes” or a “keep at it, boy, because you just might get a ‘yes’ soon.” Call it male sexual legalism, the first rule of which is “All that is not expressly prohibited is assumed to be permitted.” That legalism can turn many men into accidental rapists"

We need more of this guy, and less of this guy..

The Feminine Context

Occupy Humanity: Can Empathy Be Saved?

Like most Americans these days, I have worked a variety of jobs over the years. Somehow I have managed to maintain a common thread of occupational skills between jobs, because almost all of the positions I've held have been associated with caregiving. Each new employer could look back on my resume and see that I had been charged with the responsibility of caring for living beings that whose very survival depended on me in one way or another. Whether I cared for children, older adults, disabled persons, or animals, the rules are pretty much the same.

No matter who or what you are responsible for, you must treat them with respect and attempt to maintain the dignity and comfort of that individual. I don't care if you're caring for a sick, aggressive pitbull, or a sick, aggressive older man with dementia; you keep BOTH your prejudice AND "values" the hell out of the room and treat either scenario with the same amount of respect and concern. If you think you can treat either the dog or the man with less respect than the other, then you obviously have no business caring for the one who (due to your bias) receives less of your respect. When it comes to caring for that other living person, their rights are up there nearer to the ceiling, whereas yours are somewhere down below the sewer lines.

That's not an exaggeration or veiled complaint. It has to be that way. Placing the utmost emphasis on the needs of the being who is dependent on you is the only way to ensure that you meet those needs appropriately. Working within this structure of "them before us" prevents neglect, and oddly enough, high turnover of caregiver employees. If you can complete the tasks necessary for your job, do them correctly, and adhere to the standards expected from someone in your particular position, it's a lot easier to "leave it at work" and feel good about what you've done. Those who can achieve some level of "job satisfaction" are a lot more likely to remain in their line of work.

Certain things really came into focus for me when I became certified as a nurse aide. I decided that I eventually wanted to become a registered nurse. Having researched the field of nursing, I became aware that in a hospital or nursing home, nurse aides perform basic nursing tasks under the direction of registered nurses. RNs have more education and authority than nurse aides, and are paid better because of it. It makes no sense from a financial standpoint to pay for a floor's worth of RNs when you can pay a few of them to supervise a team of aides who are trained for basic nursing tasks. I got that part. What I didn't understand is how anyone thought they could be a good supervisor when they'd never done the actual job of the person below them. Thus, I decided to learn the "grunt work" and become a certified aide. I figured if I could get through physically challenging part of nursing, I could get through the academic parts a lot easier, PLUS I'd be a much more effective supervisory nurse than one who'd never had to work as an aide.

I realize now that I had identified a need to develop empathy.

At the time, I just figured it would be in my best interest to be prepared, and that the discipline of learning the job that "real nurses" didn't want to do could only help me in my studies later on. In retrospect, I think there was some part of me that wasn't quite "ripe" yet, and even then, young and stupid, I knew it. I was trying to develop a part of me that could extend the necessity of my career beyond simply meeting my own needs. An ever nagging, "pragmatic" part of me kept whispering in the background, "This is a waste of time. You're practically a straight-a student and you're dicking around with this diploma when you could be putting time into a degree". The "pragmatic" voices outside of my head, namely two friends who were (respectively) a dentist and a doctor, were both pretty busy calling me a fool for not pursuing a degree that would lead me to medical school. They treated my decision to become a nurse like a mental illness, or some sort of self-destructive habit. Upon finding out that I had chosen to first become a nurse aide and not even a full nurse, they began avoiding me whenever possible. My dad, who I'm sure wanted nothing but the best for me, wanted me to do something with my mad computer skills, but the idea of sitting on my ass working in an office (and the few times I had done so) made me sick. Sometimes I wonder if he didn't get some sort of 1980's power-suit idea in his head, and likened that and the presumably accompanying business/marketing/information technology degree to "success". In short, the thought of me changing bedpans seemed to make him feel like I was pursuing a diploma program as a scullery-maid, or worse, scullery-maid trainee. He thought it was "beneath" my capabilities, which didn't exactly make me feel great about my chosen career when things were tough. I took a little bittersweet solace in the fact that almost every one of my friends who had gotten degrees in those aforementioned fields had ended up working jobs in coffee houses or in offices that I, without a degree of that kind, could easily talk my way into. Even though I felt bad for my friends, whose own dads had clearly won the day, at least I knew I'd have a job eventually taking CARE of their dads.

I think it's kind of funny, in a dry sort of way, to recall that all the disapproving people in my life were politically conservative. I'll get back to that in a moment, though.

During the course of my later work in elder care, I realized that by putting my opinions and feelings on hold while I was on duty, I was actually able to not only do my job, but thrive in it. I've met a lot of "retired" CNAs who are working in other fields, usually due to their decision that caregiving work was "too depressing" for them. It's not like these women are making any more money than they were as aides, but the idea of being around people who were either actively dying or just irreversibly on their way to death, was more than they could bear. I had been taught a lot in my courses and a few rules still stick out, even after all the time that's passed between then and now. Notably..

1 - Certain things are never to be brought in to your working hours with someone you are taking care of, specifically your germs and bacteria, your negative emotions, your religion (or lack thereof), your political opinions, and details of your personal life.

2 - Certain things are never to be brought out from your working hours with someone you are taking care of, such as their germs and bacteria, their negative emotions, their religion (or lack thereof), their political opinions, and details of their personal life.

3 - Thou shalt never violate, and always remain alert and in timely practice of the laws of the land. It is your place to adhere to them, not bend, alter, or disrespect them. In remaining vigilant in adherence to legal and ethical standards, the client and caregiver shall both be protected.

4 - Lots of things are simply none of your business. No, really, most things are none of your business. That doesn't mean you get to be snippy and make a comment, gesture, or other flippant, passive-aggressive action that indicates your opinion while somewhat satisfying the job requirement that makes this issue none of your business. If you cannot work with someone without making things your business that shouldn't BE your business, you should call your agency, explain YOUR failing, and ask to be assigned elsewhere (if they still want someone like you to work for them).

5 - It IS your business to care enough about the things that are important to your client (religion, politics, family) to listen, learn, and be able to carry on a conversation that addresses THEIR need for camaraderie, NOT YOURS. If it has to be an act, be Oscar-worthy for it.

6 - If you are treated unkindly or with disrespect, you are never to respond in kind. It is your place to avoid those sorts of outbursts. If your client is too hostile and you cannot seem to resolve the issue OR work with it anymore, contact your supervisor for advice or another assignment. Additionally, consider another line of work. Clearly, something about you that you cannot help is too agitating to your client for you to remain caring for them, OR you're not adhering to rule #1, and/or #2.

These rules are probably read as simply "common sense", but when they have to be put into practice, one finds that most people don't have the discipline to follow them. Worse still, most people do not possess the empathy needed to obviate the need for discipline. If you can empathize with others as well as you need to in order to take full care of another living thing, then it shouldn't be so difficult that you NEED strong discipline to adhere to these fairly simple rules. If this empathy is what it takes to look after someone as their caregiver, then it is reasonable to assume that other positions of authority require the same. In fact, these rules could very easily apply to occupations like teacher, policeman, doctor..

.. politician.

It's really starting to concern me as I watch the ability to empathize, a necessary skill for those in a position of authority or as a representative of others, is not only difficult to discover in our "leaders", it is now something that some of us are beginning to treat with derision. The current crop of hopefuls for the GOP nomination are promoting the poorer sides of human nature to such an extent that public displays of it are not only being accepted, they are being celebrated. Public displays like booing our soldiers for asking questions that someone doesn't want to answer, laughing at the idea of someone dying due to lack of medical treatment, and making rape victims legally and permanently responsible for the ramifications of their attackers actions. Since when did our public opinion change from "Oh how awful, we can't let that happen if we can help it" to "serves them right"?

The "53%" rails against those who "don't pay taxes" because they're old and retired or they are literally so poor that they wouldn't survive if they did pay taxes on the mere pittance they make. The "53%" forget sales tax, payroll tax, and property taxes that everyone pays. Tax refunds are NOT "free money". Tax refunds are exactly that, a refund, of money that very poor people had ripped out of their paychecks over the year, causing strain and hardship to the family hanging on tooth and nail for that paycheck. Worse still, the "53%" have been so indoctrinated with hate, fear, and anger directed at their "opposition", they won't even stop and look at the fact that they are essentially fighting for the right to live a way that THEY don't even want to.

Empathy is defined as "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another", which is something that politicians typically make grand attempts to feign, if nothing else. Historically, this has been done because the ability to empathize is typically demonstrated in those people we feel to be the "best" of us. Empathy is the reason your mother knew why you were sad, even when you didn't. It's why she still hugged you and loved you, even when you knowingly broke her rules. Empathy is the reason your friends call, make efforts to comfort, and listen to you cry when they never liked the stupid boyfriend who ended up breaking your heart exactly the way they KNEW he would. Empathy is the reason the best of your friends don't start off with "I told you so".

A massive load of "us against them" is being heaved upon our society, and the core premise is that the dirty, unwashed "them" is stealing undeserved resources from the noble, moral pockets of "us". Through misdirection of fear and anxiety, some (like the" 53%") are blinded to the fact that there's an effort to divide the ACTUAL "us", and apparently it's working. The truth is that there's only about 1% of "them", and they're doing all they can to bleed "us" dry and cast us into a million tiny factions until we don't recognize anyone else as one of "us". Worse still, "they" are claiming to be devout followers of Christianity, which requires empathy and love for others. "They" profess faith in an effort to make themselves appear moral, ethical, and inarguable. Real "faith" dictates that charity, tolerance, love, and concern for others is what makes you a morally upright human in the eyes of your God. Clearly "they" have no faith whatsoever in God, or they would trust that He would do His works and that their micromanagerial efforts here on Earth were not only unnecessary, but possibly an affront to Him.

With a bit of empathy for those that share your humanity, it's not hard to see that most of "us" are all suffering under the same tyranny brought about by just a few of "them".

The Feminine Context