White Man Tries (and Fails) to Comprehend Feminism

vs.

Modern society is littered with ambiguity. Indeed, you can't go anywhere these days without stepping in a gooey pile of ambivalence, causing you to question your morals at every turn. The culprit? A litany of social issues that prove time and time again that you are never right and that you're probably an asshole. The mature thing to do is to just accept that you've been wrong about a lot that you once assumed was right.

Enter Dewey Mullis, opinion writer for The Appalachian.

Mullis is just your average dude trying to wrap his head around this whole "feminism" thing. In a recent article that he wrote for the paper, Mullis spends several paragraphs scratching his head and trying to understand what feminism is. In a quest akin to Nicholas Cage's search for national treasure, Mullis pulls out all the stops to get to the bottom of our species' greatest mystery: women.

During his travels, Mullis stumbles across a dictionary, some people that also read the dictionary, and vague voices in his head that tell him that "men are pigs." The possibility of George Orwell's ghost aside, it would appear that Mullis is basing a large portion of his.....argument (?) on the ramblings of a minority. But we'll get to that later.

Our brave hero starts his journey with a disclaimer. 

Before the discussion gets foggy, let me clear the air. Women in the workplace deserve to make the same amount as their male counterparts. No one asks to get raped by wearing certain clothes or making certain decisions. Women should have control over their bodies – reproductive parts and processes included.

Well, that seems entirely reasonab-

What I don’t completely comprehend is feminism.

I....but you just....

There are definitions that differ between dictionaries, societies, political ideology and the spectrum of demographic categories. Reactions from onlookers, supporters and opposition are equally as varying.

I think this is where I tend to fall off of the feminism bandwagon. I can’t define it – for myself or for anyone.

Wait wait wait wait wait wait.....wait. So what you're saying is (and correct me if I'm wrong), unless *you* can define something for yourself, you can't ascribe to the ideology? And the reason you find yourself unable to define the movement is because there's just too many definitions? I can't help but notice that you are a criminal justice major. Law is going to be very difficult for you.

Look, literally anything is going to be varied from person to person. I could ask a hundred people what they think of hot dogs and get a hundred different responses. Variation in responses doesn't mean that I can't still enjoy hot dogs, however.

Then, the kicker. It is to build women up to the same playing field as men – the one they strive for and deserve. But then I hear, “men are scum,” or, “I hate men. They’re pigs.”

What? Equality just went out the window. 

 Yes, the one made-up feminist you heard about that one time spitting on a guy that opened the door for her is the spokesperson for the entire movement. Using these feminist boogeymen as a justification for hesitance in accepting the movement is a lot like freaking out over Muslims and blaming Al Qaeda. Fringe groups exist within any ideologically-driven effort, but assigning blame to the entire cause because of this is horribly ignorant.

Mullis spends the rest of his article bemoaning the lack of representation of men in the feminist movement and generally just missing the point entirely.

Men are parents and stay-at-home dads. We have fears and anxieties. Some things embarrass us and social expectations bar us from being upfront and totally honest. We have to man up. Rape culture among men is a hush-hush and men are gay, too. Men and women are not that far apart.

Somehow, feminism is to blame for our lack of acknowledgement of these things. I mean, male rape? If only an incredibly prominent feminist blog had addressed an issue like this! It would make this entire argument null and void. I mean, hell, what are the odds of that?

Oh.

Mullis, for all your musings about the movement, it doesn't seem like you've actually given it much thought beyond stereotypes you heard being spouted on the internet. People aren't feminists because they want to usurp men and replace all phallic shaped buildings with vagina altars. We're feminists because, as you mentioned, women in the workplace deserve as much as their male counterparts. Women have a right to control over their bodies. What a woman wears is not indicative of her willingness to have sex.

The reason there's no "movement for the sexes" is because men have nowhere to move. We're already at the top. I imagine you're also the kind of person that complains about there being no White History Month?

No one is saying that men have it perfectly and that there are literally no problems associated with possessing male genitalia. We're just saying that maybe it's worth treating the chick with the flu before you treat the guy with the cold.

I am all for freedom to express your opinion. It is, after all, my purview. That being said, I would expect a little more from a newspaper run by young, intelligent college students. The article is littered with logical fallacies and a general lack of evidence to support his claim. But I get that it's an opinion piece and not reflective of the paper's views. After all, I imagine this is a minority opinion among our progressive student body. But don't take it from me:

I honestly couldn't have said it better myself, Chuck. 

Did the Supreme Court Just Make Marriage Equality Legal in 11 States?

The law is complicated and dense, consisting of all sorts of bylaws, precedents, and other legal terms that I'm sure someone far more educated than I could spout for hours. Point being, the law is anything but swift. Thus, the idea of marriage equality becoming legal in a state over night is a bit of a stretch. The idea of it becoming legal in 11 states is just batshit insane.

But that's exactly what (potentially) may have happened today when the Supreme Court refused to hear all seven pending certiorari petitions concerning same sex marriage. For the uninitiated, what this means is that lower courts made a decision concerning same sex marriage (in this case, in favor) and when assholes tried to appeal this decision, the SCOTUS effectively said nah, "leaving intact lower court rulings that will legalize the practice in 11 additional states." 

Now, a lot of these numbers are conjecture by excitable journalists and underpaid bloggers trying to claw their way to the front page of the internet. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the enthusiasm that comes with such a (possibly) landmark decision and I'll be happy to celebrate once we know for sure. But it wouldn't be fair to those being truly affected by this decision to come out here and start waving the rainbow flag of victory just yet. Thus, in the interest of clarity (and at the risk of buzz killing) I am going to attempt to reconcile a few of these statistics and numbers. 

First of all, there are only five states that will see an almost immediate change in marriage equality laws. Those states being Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. This is what we know to be fact. Here's where the speculation comes in. 

It's worth giving a very quick and very cursory crash course in law before we proceed. The United States is divided into 12 circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. Unless I am mistaken, in the case that a circuit court makes a decision, it applies to the entire circuit. Now, I am sure there are all sorts of exceptions and loopholes and general fuckery that could invalidate my statement. But in the opinion of countless journalists on the internet, this seems to be the case today.

Your college law course out of the way, let's talk about what this actually means. According to a spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General, "the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit will issue an order at 1 pm that will allow same-sex marriages to begin." While Virginia may be the seat of the 4th circuit, the circuit also includes four other states: Maryland (which has already legalized same sex marriage), South Carolina, West Virginia (lol), and North Carolina. This means that there is a likelihood that the decision will also apply to those states.

Yes, you read that right. West Virginia may have legal same sex marriages before twenty other states. If that doesn't conjure up some sort of schadenfreude for you, I don't know what will. In all seriousness, if this really is the case and the decision does cause a domino effect, we may see widespread marriage equality in as many as 30 states by the end of this whole thing. That would mean that the majority of the nation would be marriage equality-friendly. Which, you know, is a big fucking deal.

But, once again, please keep in mind that the decision is still very fresh and still being hotly debated. I like to believe that the good guys win, but the assholes are still very adept at inserting their general assholery into these situations. Who knows what loophole some douchenugget will find to ruin this for millions of Americans? Take everything I've said with a grain of salt and do your own research. 

It's not yet time to break out the disco ball and celebrate, but you'd be remiss if you didn't let loose a single fist pump in the air, prematurity notwithstanding.

And to those of you that suddenly find yourselves legally allowed to marry the person you love: Congratulations and I apologize that we took this long to grant you a right you should have had all along.