Awesome image by Natalie Dee, of course.

As y’all know, I often get a good larf out of Audrey Irvine’s dreadful “Relationship Rant” columns on CNN. For retro anti-woman thinking and twisted “insights,” I crowned two of them the Most Ridonkulous Op-Eds of 2009 and 2010. But today, lo and behold, I found myself agreeing with one! SRSLY. Please mark this special day on your calendars, because it is not likely to come around again.

Her latest post is “Bought a house so I must want kids?” and in this episode of Audrey’s adventures, she has friends over to her new three-bedroom house for a cookout. Nosy questions abounded!:

Each group that I showed around the house –regardless of age or gender — had the same question when they saw the two spare bedrooms.

“So, what do you plan to do with THESE bedrooms?”

I pondered the question each time, realizing I couldn’t say I’d use it as an office since I had one set up downstairs. My answers varied from “how about a guest room” to “possibly a home gym” to “I really don’t know.” Their reaction each and every time was exactly the same: “How about some kids?” My first response was “with whom?” — seriously, I am not married– then I realized they were referring to my new beau.

Yes, mortgage + multiple bedrooms + boyfriend = impending kids. Truefax.

I admit, I sympathize. When I bought a one-bedroom apartment at age 27, certain people in my life assumed that buying only a single, lonely bedroom meant I was committing to permanent spinsterhood.

As one of my snarky dumbass peers put it, “why buy a place for yourself unless you already know you don’t want to share it?” Never mind that you can share a one bedroom apartment with a partner—as most couples I know do. Or that a two bedroom in New York City was well beyond my means anyway. A woman buying a home with her own money is seen as a declaration of intent, even if I was simply making a commitment to my own happiness and financial security. That was Audrey’s logic too:

I gave all the right answers: that buying a house made more sense than a townhouse in this market, I realized the amount of equity I could get buying in this neighborhood and of course the first-time home buyer credit was too much to pass up.

No one seemed interested in those answers, so the conversation quickly changed to something else.

Because if it’s not about a single woman’s path to marriage and kids, then, really, who cares? After all, marriage and children are the ultimate goal of all women:

Society does seem to put an enormous amount of pressure on women once they hit the later years of childbearing age. (ed: ya think?) Assumptions are made that every personal decision is a reflection of your desire to have, or not have, children.

What’s funny is that the majority of the comments on CNN—most of which are safe to read, for a change—seemed to say “fuck the busybodies, enjoy your house!”  I happen to agree with those too. Group hug, everyone!

(Tomorrow—a return to our usual contentious feminist caterwauling).

But I actually agreed with Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan yesterday when he decried the outing of a Minneapolis anti-gay minister who was exposed after attending a 12-step meeting for gay men “struggling with chastity.” Like all 12-step meetings, participants were guaranteed anonymity. The title of Nolan’s post was Infiltrating 12-Step Meetings Is Evil.

Would I have approved of a reporter busting Rush Limbaugh by sitting in on a Narcotics Anonymous meeting?  No. Anonymity is sacrosanct in any 12-step program; anything that breaches that trust threatens the sobriety and recovery of others. If you attend such a meeting, you know this. If you’re a reporter who attends such a meeting with the purpose of exposing the people there, you’re an asshole. In this case, Nolan wrote that “The ends don’t justify the means.”

Of course, this was Catholic Church-sponsored 12-step program to help gay people live chaste lives. Not exactly the same, to my mind, as the AA and NA meetings that have helped so many people cope with alcohol and drug addiction. But it’s still a place where this man thought he’d be safe and anonymous. He wasn’t caught with his pants down at a pride parade or a gay bar. He was outed when he sought help—or at least, the kind of help he thought he needed. My frisson of schadenfreude faded quickly.

People who want to be in the closet have the right to be in the closet, and people who want help remaining celibate should be allowed to do so without being exposed. If you’re George Rekers and you travel around with an escort you hired from rentboy.com, you’re in public; you lose the expectation of privacy. Same goes for Larry Craig trying to pick up men in a public restroom.

But the gay man being exposed in this case was not caught doing something sexual, rather, he was trying extremely hard not to do something sexual and he was desperately trying to keep it private. Essentially, he was trying to practice what he preaches. It’s a small distinction, I’ll grant you, but I think it makes him less of a hypocrite and and more of a sad closet case. I have a certain amount of compassion towards people who are so obviously tormented.

The Gawker commentariat was (typically) harsh, both towards the reporter for outing the minister and towards the minister himself for being an anti-gay gay man. Said one:

The bottom line is that if a reader of this article needs to attend a 12 Step for any reason whatsoever, and decides NOT TO because they are worried about their anonymity, then this [magazine] article is a big fucking fail.

That would be my concern. I’m a big fan of 12-step programs—the Sharper family is quite well-represented in AA and NA—and if they weren’t anonymous, they would be a lot less effective. Still, I don’t entirely disagree with the commenter who said:

Treating homosexuality as an addiction to be overcome is horrifying; destroying such groups by infiltration and exposure is a good act. Slime like [him] who spend their lives attempting to destroy the lives and rights of gay people to assuage their own self-hatred deserve to be exposed by any and all legal means.

Of course, Hamilton Nolan just posted this story with all the links and identifications intact, so while he may think the outing is reprehensible…he just doubled down on it, as one commenter pointed out:

So congratulations, while bitching about the damage outing someone in a despicable way has done from a magazine so small I’ve never even heard of as a gay man, you’ve taken that information and continued to pass it on to millions. Who do you think hurt his anonymity more?

It’s a fair point. I’ll throw this open to you, gentle readers. Did the journalist act unethically? Did Hamilton Nolan? Does this minister have the right to hide his homosexuality while publically attacking the homosexuality of others? Do even hypocrites deserve compassion?

Thomas J. Schetelich, chairman of the board for the Center for Pregnancy Concerns is quoted as whining saying:

Frankly, we would expect our city government to be supporting our sacrificial efforts rather than trying to hinder… We’re disappointed that our stand for life draws opposition.

No, Sir, your misleading advertising is what’s drawing opposition. The Archdiocese is arguing that the ordinance violates the rights of church members to freedom of speech and religion. I thought “Thou shalt not bear false witness” was a component of Christianity.

Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check made a great point:

I find this very, very strange! Because the anti-choice movement in the United States has been whistling while it works assiduously to pass laws in state after state restricting the freedom and compelling the speech–and the actions–of medical doctors, nurses, and clinic personnel in regard to the medically safe, legal procedure called abortion.

Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien said the law, which took effect in January, “is hurting the good people volunteering and giving so much of their resources to come to the help of pregnant women.” Anti-choice liars are so oppressed! Their practice of their religion requires them to mislead and deceive pregnant women in crisis! Won’t someone think of the Catholic Church?!

So McMillen–and the ACLU–are suing.

USA Today reports:

JACKSON, Miss. — The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi today filed suit in federal court against the Itawamba County School System, which canceled the prom for one of its high schools when a student challenged a ban on bringing same-sex dates. The federal suit asks the court to force the school board to reinstate the prom and alleges that district officials have violated the First Amendment rights of Constance McMillen, a senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School.

“It’s shameful and cowardly of the school district to have canceled the prom and to try to blame Constance, who’s only standing up for herself,” said Christine Sun, an attorney with the ACLU national LGBT Project. “We will fight tooth and nail for the prom to be reinstated for all students.”

PhDork correctly summed up the school’s reasoning as: OMG LEZBOHZ!  Honestly, there’s absolutely no logical way you can argue that Constance McMillen’s going to the prom with her girlfriend and wearing a tux poses a threat to anyone. SRSLY.

According to the Associated Press:

The school board issued a statement announcing it wouldn’t host the event, “due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events.”

The statement didn’t mention McMillen or the ACLU. When asked by the AP if McMillen’s demand led to the cancellation, school board attorney Michele Floyd said she could only reference the statement.

“I guess they would rather do that than what’s right, what’s constitutionally correct,” McMillen said.

I expect the court will be constitutionally correcting the Itawamba school board’s ass pretty soon. As for “distraction to the educational process”–give me a fucking break. We’re talking about the prom. You get dressed up, you dance awkwardly to a slow jam or two. Nothing educational happens at prom, unless it’s learning what happens as a result of too much Southern Comfort and/or unprotected sex. And hell, one of my high school friends–occasional Harpyness commenter veggiewood–wore a chic pantsuit to our prom, and it was never an issue. That was 18 years ago! Come on, Itawamba County…get a fucking grip!

Of course, historically, Southern bigots have always found a way to pay for something privately so they can exclude whoever they want, be it private schools, swimming pools or proms. So in the the best Mississippi segregationist tradition:

The school district had said it hoped a privately sponsored prom could be held. McMillen said if that happens, she’s sure she’ll be excluded.

“It’s a small town in Mississippi, and it’s run by an older generation with money. Most of them are more conservative and they don’t agree with it,” she said.

This event is reminiscent of how schools in nearby Charleston, MS, had separate proms for black and white students until 2008, when actor Morgan Freeman agreed to pay for an integrated one (of course, he’d first made the offer to do so in 1997; it took 11 years for it to be accepted.) The first integrated Charleston, MS prom was the subject of a documentary called “Prom Night in Mississippi.”

A Facebook group just started, asking Mississippi-loving Ellen Degeneres (her family is from Pass Christian) to organize Itawamba High School’s prom:

I’m asking Ellen DeGeneres, an awesome spokesperson for the LGBT community, and all-around cool person to organize a FABULOUS and unforgettable prom, for ALL the students, to which they can bring whomever they wish as their date. We need to send a mesage to the people of that town, and all towns, that if they target our kids with their hate, and intolerance, we will shower those kids with our love, and support, and isn’t Ellen is the perfect messenger for this? Please help me ask her, she is a busy woman, and there are so many people approaching her for things, but if enough of us are asking, we might just be able to get her attention, and maybe make it happen.

The comments on the FB page are really heartening. It would be great if Ellen would help. It would be even greater if the ACLU opens a giant can of whoop-ass on the Itawamba School District.

Let’s all send some serious Harpy love and support to Constance McMillen, who told the AP:

“My daddy told me that I needed to show them that I’m still proud of who I am,” McMillen told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “The fact that this will help people later on, that’s what’s helping me to go on.”

HOLY SHIZZNIT! Via Christopher Ware @ Flickr.

A few weeks ago, PhDork, Pilgrim Soul and I met fellow fem-blogger Amanda Marcotte for some drinks and a mountain of fries at a local bar. Amanda happened to walk in right as Tha Dork and I were chatting gaily about how, as kids, we received conflicting messages about whether we should wear panties or not, and when and what kind, etc. This is a fairly typical conversation in Harpyland, and bless Amanda, she rolled with it, even though she had never met us before and probably wondered WTF was up with these women talking about their panties in public.

It was a lighthearted conversation, but the wearing of underwear, like so many things involving women’s clothing and women’s private parts, is fraught with socio-cultural bullshit. Some are just plain ridiculous, but some can be pretty damaging. Join me and PhDork as we discuss feminism and the politics of panties.

Full disclosure: I’m not wearing any as I write this (but I am wearing a sweatsuit, since it’s cold in my apartment.)

BeckySharper: I distinctly remember MamaSharper saying when I was very young that I didn’t need to wear panties to bed at night. I don’t remember exactly how it was phrased, but it was something like “your vagina doesn’t like to be covered all the time.” Heh. True on so many levels!

PhDork: I don’t remember hearing anything from my mom about not wearing knickers, and I pretty much always had them on, unless I had a swimsuit on, which was a lot of the time when I was a kid (I was on teams from ages 5-12). She did seem to be concerned about that, and about wearing cotton panties. I remember hearing from her that synthetic fibers would give me “infections.” I had no idea what she was talking about.

BeckySharper: I still pledge allegiance to the cotton briefs, myself. Your mom was right–synthetics are just asking for trouble, particularly if one is prone to yeast. And thongs are…well, we know how I feel about thongs. They’re only as a last resort if I can’t go commando.

PhDork: Definitely commando rather than a thong. And whenever you feel like it. Snug jeans = panties, fer shure, though. I mostly have microfiber, since they’re stretchy and comfy and aren’t likely to show under anything drapy or clingy. Also good to travel with, since you can wash them out in a sink and they’ll dry overnight.

BeckySharper: As a kid, going commando was totally acceptable at my house. My very proper grandma was not happy when she found this out–I think she was getting me ready for bed one night and I picked out a nightgown to wear but no panties, and then explained that “Mommy said I shouldn’t wear panties at night.” My mother and I still joke about the consternation that ensued when Grandma realized that I had been running around the house with no panties under my (floor length flannel) nightgown. Grandma and Mama had a Big Discussion about this and it was decided that I would wear panties at Grandma’s house at all times–even under the long nighties–but could take them off at bedtime.

PhDork: I did have a grade school friend, Lisa, who was like you–no panties at night. The first time I slept over at her house and her mother came in and asked “Lisa, did you take your panties off?” I was shocked. Why would you need to take off your panties at night?

BeckySharper: That happened to me in college, when the nice Southern Baptist girls in my dorm learned that not only did I not wear underwear at night, but I walked down the hall to the showers in my calf-length fuzzy bathrobe with no panties on. I mean, the robe was about as concealing as a wool overcoat, but somehow the knowledge that my ladyflower was just breezin’ around, uncovered, underneath it was horrifying to them. It was like they expected it to leap out and attack passers-by.

PhDork: Well, it does have nasty pointy teeth.

BeckySharper: True. And it doesn’t like Southern Baptists! I think our popular culture really does believe that a woman’s privates must be wrapped at all times or bad things will happen. Remember when Sharon Stone uncrossed her legs in “Basic Instinct?”  The audience knew immediately that she must be a crazed, stabby nymphomaniac because she wasn’t wearing any panties! QED!

PhDork: There is a weird double-standard about going without undies. For dudes, “commando,” and “free-ballin” means you’re kinda badass-adventure-y or XTREEM! A woman sans undies is a tuh-ramp, askin’ fer it, or “dirty.”

BeckySharper: So true about the “asking for it.” I confess, I’ve had times where I felt paranoid and worried that if I were the victim of a sex crime, some sleazy defense attorney would undoubtedly cross-examine me by asking “Well, you weren’t wearing panties, were you?” And some jurors might actually buy it: Oh, well, she went out of the house without her cotton-and-elastic chastity belt, so she must have been asking for it!

Ladies, do you go commando? What kind of messages did you get about underwear as a child? Do those messages still rattle around in your mind as adults?

Can love, forgiveness, and holding grudges really go together? Yes, they can — depending on how you define grudge.

A good grudge is simply an acknowledgment of another person’s foibles — it keeps you at a safe emotional distance from people who could mess up your life. Depending on the person, you might hold a grudge as light as a parasol or as solid as a titanium shield.

Beck’s essay goes on to describe the three types she feels are most worthy of a good self-protective grudge: gaslighters (people who make you feel creepy and self-doubting), les pitiables (people who take advantage of your pity) and Mr. Hydes (those given to sudden, inexplicable rages or personality shifts). In many ways Beck’s advocating a version of Gavin de Becker’s advice to always trust your instincts; if your interactions with someone feel wrong, you want to leave that person alone–or if you can’t avoid them completely, be vigilant. Holding a grudge, she says, is just a useful way of keeping your guard up.

Beck’s article hit home because, I confess, I am a big ol’ grudge holder. I have joked with my boss that, like Colbert, I keep ongoing On Notice and Dead To Me lists in my office. They feature people who I’ve caught lying or doing something shady during business dealings. This might seem judgmental, but in my professional life, that kind of judgment is essential. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…well, a healthy grudge means you won’t get that chance.

Like a lot of people, I have a few Gaslighters and Mr Hydes in my family, and they make Sharper family gatherings…interesting. When it comes to family conflict, we often get told to “move on” or “just let it slide off your back” rather than nurse a grudge. After all, you’re stuck with these people.

On one hand, this can be good advice; I don’t want to stay angry about some mean bullshit someone said at a holiday dinner 15 years ago. On other hand, a grudge has some real upside; it makes me way more inclined to avoid certain people. I’ve learned who to minimize contact with, and that has minimized the drama significantly. Sure, it’s a grudge, but it’s a self-protective one, and we should never have to apologize for being self-protective. As Martha Beck wisely points out:

If you’re in a constant mouth-foaming rage at someone, get away and get a shrink. But if you simply find your mood dipping whenever you encounter a certain person, I suggest holding a grudge.

Are you grudge-y? Do you think it’s helpful or hurtful..or both?

I'm glad I saved this image from the last time I posted about Audrey Irvine.

When last I wrote about Audrey Irvine, author of the erstwhile CNN column “Relationship Rants”, she was blaming everyone from Beyonce to the US Census for the fact that no one respects unmarried relationships anymore (her outrage started when a random skeevy guy hit on her and didn’t seem to care when she told him “I have a boyfriend”). For its sheer lack of logic, crappy writing and the negative messages it sent to women, I dubbed her essay, “A Boyfriend is No Defense from Being Hit On“, the most Ridonkulous Op-Ed of 2009. It’s still early in the year, but I think Audrey’s already written a real contender for 2010. This time she’s outraged that no one respects married relationships either! And she’s got something completely fucking ridonkulous to say about it! The essay’s entitled “Dear Married Men: Keep Your Distance” and…well…let’s strap on the barf bag and take a look:

Audrey tees up her rant by telling how one of her friends posted a Facebook status saying: “Maybe it’s just me, but I am extremely uncomfortable with any married man calling me “just to say hi.” Not good! Respect your wife!” This, and subsequent musings on married men socializing with single women led Audrey to conclude:

Drama is exactly what you get when a married man tries to befriend a single woman without mentioning his wife, much less an introduction. With that said, I’m declaring it is almost impossible for a married man to be friends with a single women if she doesn’t know the wife.

Well, if Audrey declares it, it must be so! Never mind that most women have plenty of platonic or business relationships with married men without a speck of drama (even if they don’t know their wives!). Yes, we sometimes cross paths with skeevy married men men who hit on single women (and married women, too). Thing is, when you meet these skeevsters, their motives are usually pretty transparent. It’s easy to simply avoid them, or give them the brush-off. But not Audrey. Just like last time, Audrey can’t encourage women to simply say “go away” to the skeevy guys. Instead, because there are skeevy guys out there, Audrey thinks every man and woman everywhere must change their behavior! To wit:

…my advice to married men is simple: You are married and cannot enjoy some of the same luxuries as single people. That includes befriending single women under the guise of business ventures without introducing your wife.

Does this mean a man’s wife has to accompany him to every business or social event? Audrey seems to think married women should expect to be dragged everywhere on some kind of cockblocking duty. Not only is this completely ridiculous–do you think they might have something more useful to do with their time?–but it’s also completely unnecessary: the vast majority of married men are perfectly capable of engaging in conversation or business relationships without being unfaithful.

There’s a whiff of real anti-male sexism at work here: OMG, all men are hound dogs!  If his wife isn’t there, he’s going to try to fuck you! as well as the usual anti-female “woman as temptress” sexism: Don’t talk to my man, bitch! Cuz he’s gonna want to fuck you and that’s YOUR fault!

What I found almost as amusing as Audrey’s muddled brain-droppings is that most of the commenters on CNN–not usually a thoughtful crowd–think Audrey’s as full of shit as I do, and called her on it. A quick sampling:

Did CNN pay for this article? Frankly it looks like something written at the last minute by an author desparate for something before a deadline. Utter trash.

Frankly, this is how all of Audrey’s articles read to me. Her writing is as bad–or worse–than her message. One reader managed to cut through the shitty writing to get the only decent take-away message in this mess:

I agree with the message of this article, but I disagree with how it’s been cleverly hidden behind the subtle “don’t sleep with my man” message. Yes… single ladies…if it feels icky, than it probably is – so walk away. But I am personally insulted by the insinuation that my married men friends are out to sleep with me and further more that because I am friends with married men – I am putting your marriage at risk. Ladies (married ones) if you don’t trust your man to hang out with a female friend – then you’ve got bigger problems in the marriage that need addressing.

Well, yes. And given this article and her previous one about the importance of everyone respecting the territorial rights of boyfriends, I do wonder why Audrey seems to want everyone to walk around with “I BELONG TO [INSERT NAME HERE]” badges on their chests. Bad past experiences, maybe?

Unfortunately–as further painful proof of how ridonkulous Audrey’s writing is–I even found myself mostly agreeing with the “men’s rights” dude who wrote:

What a moronic article. Just another self-righteous woman getting off on bashing men. I am a happily married man and a darned good husband and father. I talk to single women all the time because they are PEOPLE. Most men DO keep it in their pants and don’t necessarily want to hop in bed with every woman they meet. It’s time men started standing up for themselves and started dealing with the sexism and prejudice that is being dumped on them these days. (ed: Oh noes! Think of the menz!!) Audrey Irivne, you are nothing but another angry sexist intolerant bandwagon jumper looking to satisfy your own ego.

That’s Audrey Irvine for you…so deeply wrong-headed about male-female relationships that she makes a feminist find common cause with a male chauvinist. Now if only she’d just rest on those laurels and spare us any further “insights.”

“Hi gals……..had this sent to me ……some fun for us only…just write in ya status the color of ya bra nothing else just the color. and send this on by inbox only to all ya female friends NO MALES it will be neat to see if this spreads the wings of breast cancer awareness. it will also be fun to see how long it takes all the men to wonder why all the girls have a color as their status”

I was not the only person who read this and thought Are You Fucking Kidding Me?

Muchos kudos to Feminazery for this most excellent response.

Living with an invisible disability can be exhausting – not only because chronic, searing pain is energy-draining (in my case), but because it leaves behind no evidence. Communicating with others about my pain often leaves me feeling misunderstood and isolated. Sometimes I want to wear tops that reveal my scar all the time, in order to silently “prove” there’s a *real* reason I just want to lie down, can’t carry that ten pound box, or don’t want to stay out all night partying. I cannot shake the feeling that other people doubt me or believe I use chronic pain as an excuse to get out of doing certain things.

Without revealing too much, I do a fair amount of traveling for my job. It’s not something I enjoy. Air travel is physically distressing; the long hours spent sitting in uncomfortable chairs are agonizing. Last week I jerked and squirmed in pain during lunch with co-workers and business associates. After the dessert course I turned to my co-worker, S – who knows about my affliction and is extremely understanding – and told her I was about to break down and I’d be back in a few hours.

I made it upstairs to my hotel room before I burst into tears. S knocked on my door a few minutes later and I explained that I could not be there for any afternoon sessions. She promised to take care of it and said she’d tell [one of our bosses] what was up. I took a nap after struggling through the pain to fall asleep. Sometimes my body will restore itself after an extended period of rest. When I woke up I did feel better, though my body was worn out after it’s assault on itself. I managed to make it to the banquet that night, and had a good time. Still, I was nervous that my cross-country flight the next day would send my body into a tailspin once again.

And so it goes. I wish I did not have to travel at all, but I don’t want to lose my job entirely. Although she technically knows about my chronic pain, my boss acts oblivious. I would love to say to her, “I will not be flying coach anymore,” but I am not confident enough. I would love to demand an Aeron chair for my office. When I take a sick day due to pain I wonder whether my colleagues think I’m a poor worker. Do people think I am a slacker for not going to business dinners after eight hour workdays? Even though I have been advocating for myself with medical professionals for years, I struggle to make sure my needs are met in other aspect of my life.

So, I guess I want this to be a reminder that just because a person does not “look sick” does not mean they are healthy or physically robust. If anyone reading has dealt with this sort of thing and had success advocating for themselves in the public world, I’d love to hear from you in comments.

But perhaps, when applied to women’s reproductive decisions, “selfish” has a separate connotation. Perhaps doing what you want, period, is bad, destructive to the community, and deserving of scorn. Although that does not seem to apply to straight, able-bodied white women who want to have children – most all of whom do so to fulfill some personal desire that could qualify as “selfish” (in either sense of the word).

My guess is that the busybodies who accuse child-free women of “selfishness,” having not thought about it too deeply, are simply going with an attack that (they believe) will hit women where it hurts. Women are supposed to be selfless and obedient, not following their own paths. Accusing a deviant of “selfishness” might snap her out of it and convince her to make babies, or it might inspire her to ask, “wtf?” and write about it.