Dear "Community"

Note for gendered slur in quotation and the mentions of rape, rape culture, racism, abuse, and apologia:

If we don't treat him like such a dick, well, he'll probably still be one 98% of the time, but the 2% he's tolerable, it might be worth it.  -Jeff Winger, "Community" (episode 4.7, "Economics of Marine Biology")

Dear "Community",

In a recent episode, you had your show's hero espouse two ideas:

1.) Nasty, bigoted people are nasty and bigoted because we expect them to be and treat them poorly.

2.) If someone's tolerable 2% of the time, it makes up for the 98% he's terrible.

The first is ridiculous, and I frankly don't feel like entertaining it.

The second immediately raised my hackles, though, so let's discuss!

The character under discussion was Pierce Hawthorne, a one-man bigot parade who says cruel, hateful things about every marginalized population he can think of, wears blackface, and never met a stereotype he didn't like.  I wouldn't call him a gendered slur, as Jeff does, but I would call him a lot of other things.

The premise, then, is that even if someone is a bigoted oppression machine a majority of the time, if he's marginally tolerable once in a while, it's "worth it."  We should put up with someone's vile, oppressive antics because he's occasionally tolerable.  The joy of someone acting like a decent human being 2% of the time is so significant that we should gloss over and accept the 98% of the time he's a harmful jackass who belittles, mocks, and insults everyone around him.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree.

There are a lot of people who would agree, however.  This is a familiar, beloved concept to them.  They're the ones who say, "Well, sure, he did something absolutely atrocious, but he's a great guy!  You can't hold it against him!"

The ones who say, when a friend makes a video mocking homeless people, trans people, and addicts, "My friends are good people," as if that makes everything okay again, because how can anyone be disgusted by his actions and demand an apology and think that there's anything wrong when he's a friend, a good person, someone we certainly can't accuse of being hurtful and ask to re-examine his behavior.

The ones who say, when someone's accused of rape, "But he's on our side!  It can't really be that serious!  He's one of us!"  Because if you're a whistle-blower, that automatically cancels out any harm you might cause elsewhere.

The ones who say, when someone's accused of rape and molestation and sexual assault, "But he's a role model!  He helps underprivileged kids!  He started a foundation!"  Because if you've ever helped kids, that automatically outweighs any harm you can do to those same kids or any others.

The ones who weigh "rape" against "important cinema" and decide that movies win.

The ones who weigh "felony assault" against "music I can dance to" and decide that music wins.

The ones who weigh "gang rape" against "promising football career" and decides that football wins.

I could go on, but I'd go on forever.  It's everywhere, it's all around us.  Sure, your boss made some inappropriate jokes during the meeting, but he's a great guy, you can't hold it against him.  Sure, your brother-in-law made some insensitive comments at dinner, but he's a good guy, he didn't mean it.  We have to let it go, we have to understand, we have to accept, we have to forgive, because if anyone is funny or inventive or entertaining or meets the bare minimum of human decency once in a lifetime, that good outweighs the harm of sexual assault, of a rape joke, of a history of racist comments.

Whatever the people around you deem good enough to hit that 2% tolerable bar cancels out bad behavior.  Renders it null and void.  They'll tell you that you're wrong to be angry, you're wrong to be disgusted, you're wrong to hold his crimes against him, because he's a good guy the rest of the time!  He contributes important things to the cause!  He makes great art!  He's funny!  He's entertaining!  Don't you know that he gives to charity?!

No.

No, I will not put up with the 98% to bask in the 2%.  No, I will not excuse rape and sexual assault because I love a good football game.  No, I will not excuse nasty, harmful jokes and bigoted comments because the rest of the jokes are hilarious.

We all fuck up in one way or another.  We all say and do hurtful things over the course of time.  It's okay to point out those things.  It's good to hold us responsible.  You're not doing anyone any favors by excusing foul behavior; you're just ensuring that it'll keep happening.  It's when we point this stuff out and examine it and push each other to do better next time that we become better people.  If we make excuses and cover it up and say "it's okay because he means well," what's going to stop him from doing it again?  What's going to stop everyone else from learning that it's okay to make racist jokes if you're generally a friendly person, and it's okay to make rape jokes if you're popular, and it's okay to rape someone if you're good at something people deem valuable?

There's no magical calculator that deducts 15 points for sexual assault, awards 20 points for donating to Greenpeace, and decides that you come out ahead.

When you reward someone for that 2% and say that it makes the 98% "worth it," you're telling everyone who's harmed by the 98% that their lasting pain is meaningless and your fleeting enjoyment is everything.  You're telling them that Pierce Hawthorne is special and important, and the hurt he causes is outweighed by the positive contributions he makes, and the harm he does to them is just the price they have to pay so that the rest of us can enjoy the star in our midst.

It all boils down to: Look, I know that he beats you, but he does a lot of important stuff otherwise, okay?  So shut up and take it, because his genius is worth more than your pain, and if we start holding him responsible for his actions we might not get any more great stuff out of him, and things might get unpleasant.  You're just going to have to take one for the team.

Here's a radical notion.  How about we hold people responsible for their behavior?  How about we put away our magical calculators and admit that the bad things people do cause genuine hurt that isn't washed away by their occasional decency?  How about we admit, as a society, that one individual is capable of both good things and bad things?  "But he's such a good guy" is not a defense.  It only means that he, like everyone else, is a complex human being capable of multiple behaviors.  It only means that he acted like a good guy around you.  It only means that he treated you well, not that he treats everyone well.  It only means that you ignored the evidence and waved away the testimony because it made you uncomfortable, and there's nothing people with privilege hate more than being made to feel uncomfortable.

Jeff Winger: Pierce may be an atrocious douche 98% of the time, but 2% of the time, he makes me feel all sunny and warm inside!
Me: Not to change the subject or anything, but did you hear about the rape-joke dickwolves nonsense?
Jeff Winger: But those guys founded a charity!
Me: Not to change the subject or anything, but did you hear about those college guys who raped that woman?
Jeff Winger: But they were athletes!  Their team was doing so well!  We had a shot at the championship this year!

I don't care about how warm and sunny Jeff Winger feels; I care about the people who feel like crap every time Pierce spews his vile stereotypes.  I don't care about the charity because the charity is not the point under discussion; I care about the perpetuation of rape culture.  I don't care about a team's win-loss record, I care about the woman who's just been raped.

I wish that were the sitcom lesson-of-the-week.

I wish that were everyone's reality.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Audi

This post contains a description of sexual assault.

Dear Audi,

I saw your new commercial the other day.

Here's how you describe it:

A slightly insecure teenager is unhappy about going to the Senior Prom without a date. But when Dad lets him borrow the new Audi S6 for the night, he gains more and more confidence with every mile, arriving at the Prom a changed young man.

Here's how I would describe it:

A teenager is getting ready to go to the prom, but he's feeling self-conscious about going alone.  His mother tries to tell him that it's fine to go alone.  His father tosses him car keys.  He drives to the prom.  (There's some odd moment here with a girl yelling at him from another car, but since I can't understand what she's saying or why, I don't know what the significance is.)  He parks in the principal's spot (bad-ass alert!) and strides into the prom.  He walks right up behind the apparent prom queen, grabs her, and kisses her.  Judging by the "wow!" sounds in the background, this is supposed to be a great moment.  The prom king (presumably the prom queen's date/boyfriend) charges over.  We next see our "hero" back in his car, now with a black eye, looking happy.  There's a brief shot of the prom queen smiling, and then a shot of the guy in the car howling at the moon in celebration/victory/triumph.

Let's replay the key moment here again: he walks up behind her, grabs her, and kisses her.

It's a crowded, noisy, busy, dark room.  She's busy speaking with her friends and doesn't see him come up from behind.  She has no idea that he's even in the room, much less directly behind her, much less about to touch her.  Suddenly, someone she doesn't realize is on the premises and hasn't had time to recognize has seized her and is holding onto her and kissing her.

This is what we call sexual assault.

There's no indication that she wants this to happen.  There's no indication that she expects this and every indication that she doesn't.  There's no indication that she even knows who he is, given the "popular girl at school is so shallow and in her own world that she doesn't even recognize the nerdy guy who sat beside her in class all year" theme we keep seeing in movies/on TV.

Even if, generally speaking, she'd like to kiss this guy, there's no real chance for her to recognize that he's the one kissing her.  It happens too quickly and with no warning.  (Is his scent so overpowering that she smells it and recognizes him immediately, as he grabs her?  This isn't an Axe commercial.)

To sum up: Guy feels insecure, guy's dad lends him a bad-ass car, guy feels more confident in himself, guy commits sexual assault, guy gets punched in the face, guy feels great about it.  Then you slap on an image of the prom queen smiling, because some complete stranger sexually assaulted her and wow, wasn't that dashing and romantic of him!

Then these words come onscreen:

Bravery.  It's what defines us.

Bravery.

Let's not play around.  You just called sexual assault brave.

It isn't brave to commit sexual assault.  It isn't daring or courageous or heroic.  It's criminal and common and wrong.

Do you know what's brave, actually?  Reporting sexual assault.  Admitting to yourself that you were sexually assaulted.  Telling someone about it.  Standing up and announcing it in public.  Testifying about it in a courtroom.  That is brave.  That is daring and courageous and heroic.

Oh, and while I have your attention: I'm not entirely thrilled with your gender stereotyping, either.  The boy's mother tries to tell him that he'll be fine, because women are nurturing like that, but it doesn't have any effect, because moms, man, they just don't understand, they're so out of touch, they don't get the harsh reality, am I right?  But the boy's father, a man of few words, a man of action, he gets it; he just tosses over those keys, and that solves everything.

I hope that you'll reconsider your disgusting advertising choices.  I hope that you'll stop promoting criminal behavior as romantic.  I hope that you'll learn the difference between "bravery" and "sexual assault."  Coincidentally, Liss at Shakesville opened up a discussion thread the other day about bravery.  Here's a sample comment from whistlewren:

I was brave when Ieft an abusive relationship of seven years last year. 

I had been trying for years. I thought it was just leaving, actually packing my bags and finding a place of safety, that I needed to be brave for. And I did it! I left! I was ecstatic! I was shaking uncontrollably the whole time but I got out that door, and got myself and my two kids to a friend's house. 

Then came all those other things I hadn't counted on. Going to court to apply for restraining order. Going back to court to stand in the same room as my abuser to defend the restraining order. Finding legal advice I could afford. Finding a refuge to stay in when threats to my friend from my ex made it unsafe for us to stay there. Commuting 2 hours to work via public transport each way to work with two kids under five because the only refuge that had space was many suburbs away. Fighting in court for supervision on access visits when my ex started custody proceedings. Not jumping whenever my phone rang. Facing friends, other parents at school, my boss, all of whom now knew everything. Finding a therapist I could afford for my daughter and for me. Having to see and talk to my abuser every week at handover after the supervision period ended and he got unsupervised access. Doing all this while trying to keep up with my study, negotiate extra hours and pay, getting my daughters epilepsy diagnosed and dealing with PTSD, and the general panic of making ends meet, finding childcare, getting more temporary housing... 

It has been a big year :-) I never thought I could do even a half of what I have done. I learnt early on in the year that bravery isn't necessarily about not being scared. Sometimes it's about being so scared you can hardly move, your limbs are shaking so much, but you just breathe as best as you can, do it anyways, and collapse in a heap later on when it is safe to do so. Preferably with friends, and chocolate.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Blizzard

Notice for discussion of misuse of the word "rape."

Dear Blizzard,

Anyone with a subscription to the game can post on the World of Warcraft general forums.  There's no "are you a decent human being" test to pass in order to gain posting privileges.  While the rules state that certain words and behaviors aren't allowed, you know that some posters will break those rules.  So you gave us a profanity filter.

It was one of your better ideas.  Knowing your playerbase as you do, you didn't stick to the typical curse words.  You also included words like "homosexual," because some of your players are homophobic douchebags.  You also included obvious racial slurs, because some of your players are racist douchebags.  You also included "rape."

I was glad that you chose to censor "rape."  Gamers use it often as a metaphor for general in-game violence. Putting it behind the censor indicated that you didn't want it to be used that way, that you understood that to be an inappropriate and harmful use of a word with great significance to victims and their allies.  It seemed as if you were exerting your influence against misogyny.  I appreciated the effort; it's good to discourage the use of "rape" as a win/loss metaphor.

I've played WOW for years and visited the forums for years.  "Rape" was censored to the extent that we couldn't type "grape" or "drape" or "therapist" without tripping the filter, and forum regulars knew that.  It was understood that "rape" was censored.

Suddenly, it's not.

A little while ago, I noticed that "drape" and "grape" weren't censored anymore.  Cool, I thought.  Looks like the filter's more sensitive now, and can differentiate between "rape" and other variations.

And then I read a post where someone claimed to have been "raped by tigers" in-game.

And I noticed that the word "raped" was right there, uncensored.

You removed "rape" from the filter.

I could try to interpret this generously and assume that your reasoning was, "Hey, our players are mature and sensitive people, they don't need to be censored like this, we aren't giving them enough credit."  But we both know that's not true.

No.  No, your playerbase hasn't changed.  The word "rape" hasn't changed.  Common misuse of it hasn't changed.  The only thing that's changed is your stance.

By changing your stance, you're signaling to your players that it's okay to use "rape" as a metaphor.  You're letting everyone know that there's no need to be sensitive to victims.

You were doing the right thing.  Then you stopped doing the right thing, turned around, and said, "LOL!  Never mind!  Ugh, what was up with that?!  Why be so sensitive?  Let's go rape some elves!"

You just gave forum posters your blessing to be more hostile to rape victims (and more hostile to populations already under threat of rape, like women and gay men and trans people, all of whom already deal with plenty of other hostile bullshit in the gaming community).  You just removed that minor check that might have discouraged rape jokes and made some posters and readers think twice about rape as a metaphor.  You've mentioned that only a minority of players visits the forums, but even a small percentage of people in such a popular game is a significant number of people, and those forums are busy.  Even if only a small percentage of players visits the forums, turn that around: how many people reading and posting on the forums play the game?  How will this new freedom to misuse "rape" affect conversations in-game?

It would be one thing if you'd never taken a stance at all.  Instead, you chose to take a position and then reverse it.  In that reversal, you sent a very clear message.  Maybe it wasn't the one you intended to convey.

I hope that you'll reconsider.

With love,
Frank Lee

P.S. That other little problem I have still hasn't been resolved.

Dear Rape Apologists

Discussion of rape, rape culture.

Dear Rape Apologists,

At Feministe and Shakesville lately I've seen discussion of a site called the Good Men Project, where rape apologists and friends of rapists and actual rapists are having a lively conversation about how rape is such an abstract thing, and consent is such a tricky thing, that it's easy for good, well-meaning, decent guys to be rapists.

(More on Feministe: one two three.)

Jill and Liss and tons of feminists all over since forever have been discussing and explaining why all of that is bullshit.  As you can see from the linked posts, studies and stats and everyday experience demonstrate that's not how it works.  But here's my question: what about the men?

Yeah, I went there.

You see, arguing on a site called the Good Men Project that "Nice Guys Commit Rape Too" (actual title!) is a really nasty insult to all of the actual good, nice, decent men out there.  Talking about how it's so easy for nice guys to be rapists and how good men slip up, too, lumps good men who've never raped anyone into the same category with actual rapists.

This guy is a rapist:

When I sit down and think about it, it seems like I’ve accepted a certain amount of rape as the cost of doing business, and so have most of the people I know.

Compare to:

Last summer, I was at a party and had two drinks, which is a lot for me because I drink very occasionally (2-3 times a year) and am also on medications that amplify alcohol’s effects. I was half passed out on the couch, and a dear friend of mine, a man who I know has in the past been sexually attracted to me, came in and found me on the couch. What did he do? Did he stick his hand up his shirt? Did he get on top of me? He’d been drinking, after all! No, he fucking got me a glass of water and talked to me until I was awake enough to rejoin the goddamn party.

My brother hung out with a really wild crowd a few years back, and after partying with them one of the roommates told me I was welcome to go crash in the bed downstairs. What he didn’t tell me was that that bed had an owner who showed up a couple of hours later very, very drunk. I woke up to the guy saying “alright!” and crawling in next to me; he threw an arm around my waste, cuddled up to my back and promptly fell asleep. The next morning he brought up the idea of having sex over a glass of water. Turns out the creep who’d told me where I could sleep undisturbed told him he had a girl waiting in his room for him. He wanted to get laid, was informed that he had an invitation for sex, but because he wasn’t a rapist he put the matter on hold till I was fit to respond. He missed out getting his dick wet, but he was also spared the guilt and moral confusion that these accidental rapists claim to be so tortured by.

I drank myself blind when I was young. I drank until I had multi-day hangovers, and I was drinking in bars with other people who were–wait for it–also drinking. Some of these people, in retrospect, almost certainly had drinking problems. They were drunk, I was drunk, here’s what happened: we made stupid jokes, fell off barstools, flirted outrageously. On one occasion, I threw up and passed out in the bathroom (I know, I know: I’m very sophisticated). And yet–I know this is amazing, it’s going to blow your minds–not one of my drinking companions raped me. Not once. Not the bartender who found me in the ladies’ room and drove me home. Not the guy I had a crush on, whom I had to call once to find out how I’d gotten home from CBGB. Not the 6’2″ amateur boxer who was the bouncer. Not any of them.

Your narrative of "rape is a terrible thing that good guys accidentally fall into" and "drinking makes consent too blurry for anyone to negotiate ever" and "mixed signals" and all of the rest of it is disgusting, contemptible bullshit.  The difference between the tales of "I had a wild night of drinking and dancing and good times" and "I had a wild night of drinking and dancing and then someone raped me" doesn't hinge on the number of drinks, it hinges on the number of rapists.

Good guys aren't rapists.  Nice guys aren't rapists.  Rapists are rapists.

As EG explains:

And I’m not saying that all of these guys were good guys. Some of them were real assholes. But you know what they weren’t, at least with respect to me? Rapists. It’s a pretty low bar to clear.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Chris Brown 2

Dear Chris Brown (again),

In case my last letter didn't work for you, let me try again.

You're hanging out, tweeting, when someone says, "You're a worthless piece of shit."

Naturally, your response is to wonder, "Whoa, what's up with her?"

But then it kicks in: oh, right.

You're probably frustrated.  People keep bringing up your felonious past when you'd rather put it behind you.  It's aggravating.  You feel harassed and misunderstood.

Chris, these aren't simply haters.  They're not antis who jump on you just because you're a public figure.  As I reminded you earlier, it's normal and reasonable for people to talk about your history and to find it relevant.

So, here it is: someone calls you a worthless piece of shit.

You resent the insult, but you know why she said it.

If you don't want to hear it, you can block her.  If you think that she's harassing you, you could contact Twitter and push them to deal with it.  If you're upset, you can employ any of the techniques recommended in anger management.  (I assume that you've been through anger management therapy, or therapy in general.  I also sincerely, not sarcastically, recommend that you go back for more.)  If you want to reply to the insult, you can suggest that her remarks are inappropriate by tweeting back something like, "Hey, I'm just trying to talk to my fans, here."  If you want to address the more general point that you want people to stop bringing up your criminal past, you can say, "I've done some terrible things, and I'm sorry for them, but I deal with that every day.  I'm working towards being a better person.  #secondchances."  That's not 140 characters, but you get the idea.

If you want to trade insults, I'd recommend strongly against it for a dozen different reasons, but you could reply in a tit-for-tat fashion.  She calls you a worthless piece of shit, you call her a untalented jackass, and so on.  Point out that you're more wealthy and famous than she is, something like that.  "Who are you?  #questionfromaGrammywinner"

You skipped all of those routes and went straight for crude, sexual misogyny.

If you want us to believe that your abusive behavior is in the past, that it's all behind you now, that you're not that person anymore, you have to stop being that person.  People have a problem with you because you have a problem with anger management, misogyny, and domestic abuse, and when they bring it up, you react with more of the same.

If you're angry that people treat you like someone who abuses women, stop acting abusive towards women. Work on how you respond to women.  Work on how you respond when you get angry.  Your responses are all out of proportion to the situation.  Your responses are grossly misogynistic.  This is a problem.  You have a problem.  Don't be surprised when someone points it out.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Chris Brown

This post contains discussion of misogyny, sexual violence, sexual humiliation, and death threats.

Dear Chris Brown,

Here's something a fan of yours said recently:

Rihanna forgave him, they made up if they can get over it so can everyone else who it does NOT concern!!!!!!!!

Here's something similar from you:

"Just ask Rihanna if she mad??????"

This idea appears to be popular among you and your fans.  It seems as if you and Team Breezy want to believe that the problem, if one exists, is between two people: Chris Brown and Rihanna.  Therefore, the argument seems to go, if Chris Brown and Rihanna say there's no problem, there's no problem, and everyone else should stay out of it.

No.  See, you're a felon.  In a court of law, you were deemed guilty of committing a felony.  It wasn't a civil case, Rihanna v. Chris Brown.  It was People v. Christopher Brown.  The people of the state of California are the ones legally involved here, but since California is a state in the larger country, I think that the entire nation has some interest in the situation.

You didn't break Rihanna's laws.  You broke California's laws.

It's okay for Californians to be upset with you.  They follow those laws.  They vote people into office to write those laws.  They pay taxes to fund the upholding and enforcing of those laws.  The rest of the country has a vested interest in how every state's justice system works.  You committed a felony.  It's normal and reasonable for people to be unhappy with you over it.

It's not as simple as you having a fight with your girlfriend.  It's more serious than that, and we're treating it as such.

Is Rihanna mad?  I have no idea how she feels about it, and it's really none of my business anyway.  Are the people of the state of California and the larger United States of America mad?  Well, they certainly have every right and reason to be.

Let's move on to the specific incident to which the tweets above relate.  Here's the conversation as I see it:

Chris Brown: I look old as fuck! I'm only 23... 

Jenny Johnson: I know! Being a worthless piece of shit can really age a person. 

Chris Brown: take them teeth out when u Sucking my dick HOE.

Jenny Johnson: It's "HO" not "HOE" you ignorant fuck.

Chris Brown: I should fart while ur giving me top. "Seize the day" #CarpeDiem

Jenny Johnson: Your mom must be so proud of you.

Chris Brown: see.. I don't even have to tell u what u already know. Thanks HO! #bushpig

Jenny Johnson: [link to this article] #SuckIt

Chris Brown: mom says hello... She told me not to shart in ur mouth, wanted me to shit right on the retina, ....#pinkeye

Jenny Johnson: YOU FLIRT!!!

Chris Brown: Let me leave this bitch alone... It's good to know my worth by listening to a bitch that is worthless! #iwin #bushpigswag

Jenny Johnson: Okay. I'm done. All I got from that exchange with Chris Brown is that he wants to shit and fart on me.

Chris Brown: Further proved my point of how immature society is. #CarpeDiem

Chris Brown: To teambreezy... Know that I'm not upset. Just felt like entertaining the ignorance. These bitches crazy..

Chris Brown: Back to life...

Jenny Johnson: I have zero respect for a person who seems unapologetic for the terrible crime he committed and shows no signs of changing.

Chris Brown: Just ask Rihanna if she mad??????

I hardly know where to begin.

Apparently Jenny Johnson is a professional comedian.  She's tweeted you before, but this is the first time that you've responded.

I expect that by now, you've realized that although you'd like to put your felonious behavior behind you, some people insist on bringing it up and acting as though it's relevant.  (It is.)  I imagine that sometimes you get frustrated at their comments, reminders, and digs.  How you respond when you become angry, and particularly how you respond to women when you become angry, is very relevant to the actual felony you committed.  Abuse and domestic violence are part of larger patterns of behavior.  While you'd like us to think that your violence with Rihanna was an isolated incident, that's simply not how human psychology works.

So, instead of following these handy steps or perhaps reporting harassment to Twitter, when someone called you a "worthless piece of shit," you replied with nasty sexual aggression and misogyny.

Here are the insults she threw at you:

worthless piece of shit
ignorant fuck
Your mom must be so proud of you.

You replied by talking about her sucking your dick, talking about her being toothless/removing her teeth in order to service you sexually, talking about her sucking your dick again, talking about shitting in her mouth, talking about shitting on her eye, calling her worthless, calling her immature, calling her ignorant, calling her a whore twice, and calling her a bitch three times.

Do you see the theme of woman-hating sexual violence here?

When a woman angers you, you use specifically misogynistic slurs.  You try to put her in her place by describing her servicing you sexually.  You try to shame and humiliate her by talking about voiding your bowels in her face.  Your replies hammer home the message: Your gender is all that matters.  You're a woman, therefore I'll use you for my sexual fulfillment.  I'll humiliate and degrade you while you pleasure me.  You're a whore and a bitch.  It's an outpouring of sexualized misogyny.

You said all of this knowing that you were in a public place.  Knowing that your words were easily recorded and spread.  Knowing that your fans were avidly listening.

You claim that you weren't upset.  No?  If this is you merely being entertaining, how do you respond to people when you're really angry?

The public has a vested interest in monitoring your behavior.  Society needs to know that your abusive violence is in the past.  The way you replied to Jenny Johnson tells me that you need help.

Please.  Get some help.

With love,
Frank Lee

P.S. To the media outlets asking which side we're on, this is not an issue of, "Ooohhh, mint or strawberry, which one do you prefer?"  This is an issue of someone insulting a celebrated felon and pointing out his criminal past, and being replied to with sexualized misogyny (from Chris Brown) and death threats (from his fans).  Am I on the side of "truth and insults" or "misogyny and death threats?"  That's the question you're asking?  Please take a long, hard look at yourself and shape up.

P.P.S. Team Breezy, I am trying my best not to get into it with you, but death threats go way too far.  Threats of any kind go way too far.  Please learn to express your anger more maturely, instead of jumping into threats of death and sexual violence.  Maybe your idol will learn something from you.

Dear Justin Timberlake

This post contains discussion of classism, transphobia, mockery of homeless people, mockery of people who appear to be mentally ill and/or intoxicated and/or addicted, and gross amounts of thoughtless privilege on display.  It also contains references to rape culture.

Dear Justin Timberlake,

Congratulations on your marriage.  I hope for your happiness.

I'm about a month late on this topic, because I've been debating with myself over whether or not to speak up.  Back in October, Liss pointed readers to an article about this:

The blind was all about the “wedding gift” some friends made for a recently married couple. The “gift” was a “funny” video in which homeless people talked on camera about how they were super-sad to miss the celebrity couple’s big, fancy wedding. Because the “joke” is that homeless people are SO funny, what with their homelessness and not knowing where their next meal will come from, and the joke is that of course the celebrity couple would invite some homeless people to their wedding.

Terrible.  That is cruel and mean-spirited and absolutely disgusting.

As word of the video spread, you responded in an open letter on your website.

Let's take a read.

As it pertains to this silly, unsavory video that was made as a joke and not in any way in mockery:

Not a mockery?  I don't understand what it was, then.  How does the video work as a joke if it isn't mocking the people onscreen?  What's the joke?

My friends are good people.

Good people make fun of those in need?

Your friends may be more complex than you realize.  Perhaps this gets to the nature of what "goodness" is and how we exhibit it.  If you only ever see Bob act like a decent guy, you think of Bob as a decent guy.  Then you find out that Bob has done some shitty, cruel things.  You can either go with the response of, "Wow, there are aspects of Bob's personality and character that I never knew!  Let me reevaluate how well I know this guy!"  Or you can go with the response of, "But the Bob I know donates money to AIDS research!  He's a wonderful person!  Donating money is a good thing, so Bob is a good person, and I allow for no complexities in my fellow human beings!"

You'll see this sort of response a lot when someone's being accused of being a rapist or murderer.  "Not Bob!  Impossible!  Bob pets dogs!"  "Bob?!  No way!  Bob's always nice to me!"  This is how a lot of sexual predators get by in life.  They do good things in public and horrible things in private, and when the horrible stuff comes to light, everyone says, "But he's always been so great to my kids!" or "But he volunteers for the church!" and he continues on his merry, awful way and his victims are called liars.  That's why the blanket statement of "he's a good person" really, really needs to be discarded as a defense.

Your friends may be funny, helpful, dog-petters around you.  That does not make them good people.  That makes them friendly around Justin Timberlake.  They're also (at least one of them) completely shitty and cruel around homeless people.  In my book, that's incompatible with the label "good people."

This was clearly a lapse in judgment which I'm sure no one who is reading this is exempt from.

Yes, we're all given to lapses in judgment from time to time.  I often regret doing or saying (or not doing, not saying) something.  We fuck up, we make mistakes, we're human.  But coming up with the video idea, getting a camera and going out to interview the people featured, conducting the interviews, editing the video and adding a soundtrack, and then sharing the video, involves a lot of time and effort.  It involves a certain amount of time in consideration of the video and its various aspects.  Deciding that I can speed up and get through a traffic light in time, only to cause an accident, is a lapse in judgment.  What's under discussion here is much more serious.

I don't believe it was made to be insensitive.

No?  How so?  What do you think that it was, then?  The point was to mock homeless people in need of help.  It's a joke, but not mockery and not insensitive?  Was it sensitive, then?  Sensitive to their needs?  Sensitive to their plight?  Sensitive to their need to be treated with dignity and respect?

More so, I think it was made as a joke on me not having that many friends attending my own wedding (which IS kind of funny if you think about it).

Up until this point, I find it difficult to understand precisely what you think is going on.  Here is where communication breaks down entirely and I wonder if you think that we don't know who you are.

Hi.  You're Justin Timberlake.

People love you wherever you go.  People collaborate with you on a song or work with you on a set and immediately cannot get over how awesome you are.  You seem to have some ridiculous amount of personal charm which turns other Hollywood professionals into starry-eyed fans.  It happens in every corner of the entertainment industry you brush up against.  It has happened throughout your career.

You have no trouble making friends.

With that said, maybe you don't consider those people to be "friends."  Maybe you appreciate the interest and intentions of all of those other people, but when you think of true friendship, you think of someone who's been there for you, someone you can open up to, someone you've really been through something with.

The other members of *NSYNC, perhaps?  No, not them; you didn't invite any of them to your wedding.

All right, maybe your definition of friendship is something more intense, something more personal.  Your true friends are the people you've really connected with, really bonded with, people who know you inside and out.  The only people you'd consider inviting to your wedding are members of an elite inner circle, people who know you as no one else ever can.

Those people know you very, very well, then, I'd imagine.

They'd know what you like.  They'd know your sense of humor.  They'd know what makes you laugh and what crosses the line.

And they made this video for your special day.

I think we can all agree that it was distasteful, even though that was not its intention.

Its intention was to make you laugh.  Its intention was to be funny.  Its intention was to entertain with some good-times humor.  The intention was to mock poor people, homeless people, people who need help.  Because homeless people, people with addictions, people with mental illnesses, and trans people are funny.  At least, it's hilarious to think of them being so deluded as to consider themselves welcome in your sphere.  Hilarious to think of them being welcome at your wedding or associated with you.  Hilarious to think of them even knowing you!  So, so funny.  As if you would ever know someone like that!  As if, wait.  As I recall, Chris Kirkpatrick lived out of his car for a while.  Wait, that can't be right!  That would make it seem as if homeless people are actual people, like anyone else.  Almost like you!  With things in common with you!  Aw, now the joke's ruined.

Once again, in the world that we live in where everyone thinks that they know everything, I want to be very clear... I am NOT defending the video. I agree with the overall consensus.

For someone who's being "very clear," you're not being entirely clear.  You agree with the overall consensus?  Would you care to explain what you believe the overall consensus to be?  So far, you've described the video as:

something that has even shed any kind of dark light on what was and will always be one of the most special weeks of my life.

this silly, unsavory video that was made as a joke and not in any way in mockery 

a lapse in judgment 

I don't believe it was made to be insensitive. More so, I think it was made as a joke on me 

I think we can all agree that it was distasteful, even though that was not its intention.

It's a silly, unsavory joke.  In poor taste, accidentally.  Unintentionally insensitive.  Not a mockery.

A well-intentioned joke that accidentally turned out to be in poor taste.  If it mocks anyone, it mocks you, really.  Poor, friendless Justin Timberlake, the real victim in all of this.  How cruel of us to misunderstand.

I want to say that, on behalf of my friends, family, and associative knuckleheads

Aw, those knuckleheads.  Always goofing around, mocking homeless trans people!

I am deeply sorry to anyone who was offended by the video.

There we go!  "I am deeply sorry."  It only took you 12 paragraphs to get there!

Sorry to anyone who was offended, you say?  What about an apology to the people in the video?  To the specific people taken advantage of for your crowds' amusement?  To the general kinds of people mocked?  Any apologies for them?  Anything to say to the trans community?  To people in poverty, people in need, people on the streets?

Again, it was something that I was not made aware of.

You seem to be aware of it now.  When were you made aware of it?  I guess that you were too busy to join in the wedding festivities, so when it was shown to everyone else, you weren't around?  I mean, according to the linked article, "Mr. Huchel made [the] video to be used and exhibited privately at Justin Timberlake’s wedding as a private joke without Mr. Timberlake’s knowledge," but I can't tell if the "without Mr. Timberlake's knowledge" pertains to the "made" or the "used and exhibited."  Either way, it seems odd that he'd go to that much work to make the video without ever showing it to you.  It's like a wedding gift for everyone at the wedding but the actual couple.  It makes me wonder what sort of dynamic is at play here, that a friend of yours would make a video for your wedding that he thought your wedding party would find hilarious but wasn't worth showing to you.  Odd.

But, I do understand the reaction and, by association, I am holding myself accountable.

How?  In what way?  What does this mean?  What's happening here?  You're going to give yourself a stern talking-to?  You're going to take time out for somber reflection on your choice of friends?  You're going to donate to homeless shelters?  You're going to educate yourself on poverty and addiction?  You're going to say to yourself, "Justin Timberlake, I hold you responsible for this silly, well-intentioned joke which accidentally turned out to be in poor taste!" and then go golfing?

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts.

It's your website.  You have the opportunity to post anything you want to post on it.

It really is a blessing to be able to speak directly to my true fans so that you can know exactly where I stand.

True fans?  You and I have a long, long talk coming about how you treat your fans, and I probably shouldn't get into that here, but calling on your "true fans" only serves as a "prove it to me" statement.  You're seeking to differentiate "true fans" from the other fans, as if your true fans will be loyal and stand by your side and accept whatever you say without question, while anyone who dares to read your "apology" and call bullshit can't possibly be a true fan.  That is a lousy thing to do to your fans.  They're allowed to love and support you and still think that this is a shitty moment and a terrible apology.

You can bet your ass that I'm having my friend do at least 100 hours of community service... Boom.

Wait, I thought that you were holding yourself accountable.  Should I expect to see you out there doing 100 hours of community service, too?

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Blizzard

This post contains discussion of rape jokes, rape threats, and sexual assault in a fictional universe.

Dear Blizzard,

Rape jokes.

You peppered Pandaland with rape jokes.

First it's Mina Mudclaw, "the farmer's daughter," who is kidnapped and raped:

Those virmen... they make me do horrible, horrible, silly things. All involving carrots. I couldn't tell you how many carrots they threw at me.
Let's not waste any more time. Get me out of here!

Later:

Dad... I never want to see another carrot again.

Then there's Zhao-Jin.

Throw these prisoners in the cages. Let the men have their way with them.

Oh, wait.  Those aren't rape jokes at all.  One is a rape threat.  The other is a description of rape.

You don't exist in a bubble.  Someone who works at Blizzard is aware, on some level, of the gaming community's hostility to women gamers.  And aware of the WOW community's hostility to women players.  And aware of the ongoing social discourse over rape jokes.  And aware of how common rape and molestation and sexual assault are in real life, including the lives of gamers.

World of Warcraft does not exist on its own.  These are not real characters in real situations.  You make them up.  They can say and do whatever you want them to say and do.  Mina Mudclaw literally could say anything, anything at all.  She can thank the hero, she can insult her kidnappers, she can insult the hero, she can talk about how awful being kidnapped is or why the sky is blue or what cheese tastes like.  Of all of the possible topics in the world, you chose rape.

WOW has always had a mixture of dark and light, humor and drama, dangerous evil and pop culture references.  Zhao-Jin, I take it, is supposed to be a bad guy.  He does bad stuff.  He says bad things.  Clearly, you're trying to communicate that he's wicked.  But there are a lot of ways to do that.  Again, Zhao-Jin is not an autonomous being with a will of his own.  You choose which words are in-game and on-screen. His dialogue could include any number of nasty messages, but you went with rape.

There are several things still in-game that I've asked you to reconsider: the "male blood elves are gay/women" jokes, the gnome-punting jokes, Garrosh calling Sylvanas a bitch, the lynching imagery, and more.  I keep contacting you because I believe that you can improve the gaming experience.  I believe that if I keep reaching out, someday you'll hear me.  I'm not alone; there are feminists in every corner of the WOW community, from the raiders to the PVPers to the casuals.  (And definitely among the RPers!  High-five!)

Blizzard reps have said repeatedly that the best kind of feedback is calm, brief, and detailed.  I understand the people who go on angry rants because they're fed up.  I understand the people who don't bother with details because they insist that Blizzard has heard it all before and knows exactly what's wrong but just won't fix it.  I shouldn't have to go into a short but detailed explanation of rape culture, and how rape and violence in our media differ, and the effect rape jokes have on the gaming community, etc.  Do you honestly not know all of this by now?  Am I supposed to believe that the feminization of Tyrande and the inclusion of rape jokes and the way your community treats female gamers and the fact that one of your early lead developers goes by the name Tigole Bitties is all a wild coincidence?

WOW is a game.  People play it for fun.  We get to hang out in a fantasy world and escape into Azeroth for a few hours.  I don't want my real-world problems to follow me in.  If I go in-game, I don't want the in-game mail to remind me to call my mother.  I don't want the in-game auction house to remind me about my overdue bills.  I don't want my in-game mount to remind me to check the oil on my real-life car.  That would be a drag, a downer, when I'm trying to relax and have a good time in this fantasy world you've built.

Surely you understand that.  Then can you also understand that I also don't want to be reminded of misogyny and rape culture?  That I don't want to be reminded of how easily and often people treat rape and sexual assault as jokes?  That I don't want to be reminded of being raped, or of my best friend being assaulted, or of that terrible, terrible story about that girl I saw on the news last night?

I like to believe that you're operating in good faith. I like to believe that you wouldn't do these things if you understood their impact.  Yet you've heard specific feedback from your players.  If that weren't enough (and why wasn't it?), the gaming community overall discusses general gaming issues and WOW-specific issues all of the time.  Your reps seem like fairly Net-savvy people, and I've noticed them claim to visit WOW fan sites and discussion forums.  You hear gamers talk about these problems.  What do you do with that feedback?  Do you discuss it and give it real consideration?  Do you laugh it off as misguided?  Do you become defensive and resentful that it's all in good fun and no one understands you?

I've said it before and I'll request it again: if you can't figure out what you're doing wrong, please hire feminist consultants.  There are plenty of smart, feminist gamers out there who would be very happy to participate.

There are some problems in WOW that would take a major overhaul of certain aspects of the game to fix.  The joyful co-opting of native themes, for example.  But the two examples I began with are simple matters of quest text and NPC dialogue, which should be easier to adjust.

You made a change in the Pandaland beta when an NPC had sexist dialogue.  You made the right move, then.  I hope that you'll do the right thing, now.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Todd Akin

Discussion of rape and rape culture to follow.

“...I said one word and one sentence on one day, and everything changed,” Akin told Huckabee, an early supporter. “I haven’t done anything morally or ethically wrong. It does seem like a little bit of an overreaction.”
-Todd Akin

Dear Todd Akin,

You don't seem to understand what's actually going on.  I've been focusing on other angles of this issue because I assumed that everyone else was covering it aptly, but apparently you haven't been paying attention.

Let's take it back to what you actually said.

"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare," Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.

"Let's assume that maybe that didn't work, or something," Akin said. "I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

According to you, the "one word" you "misspoke" was "legitimate." I'm glad that you understand how wrong it was to say that.  It was an incredibly hateful, policing thing to say, the sort of verbiage I'd expect from a promoter of rape culture, and it's good that you realize it was wrong.

Although, if you understand that "legitimate" was wrong, and you understand why it was wrong, it seems contradictory for you to defend yourself with, "I haven’t done anything morally or ethically wrong."  Separating out rape into "legitimate rape" and "forcible rape" and "rape-rape" and so on seems morally wrong to me.  It's disgusting and morally repugnant to act as if "violent stranger rape" is real rape, and the other kinds are less-than-rape, kinda-sorta rape, not really rape.  Calling certain kinds of rape "legitimate" as if the rest are not is doing something morally wrong.

But you say that you didn't mean to say "legitimate."  Let's take you at your word.  Here's what you apparently meant to say:

"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare," Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. "If it's rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.

"Let's assume that maybe that didn't work, or something," Akin said. "I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

Well, that's terrible.

I don't know who those doctors were, but they're poorly educated and spreading dangerous misinformation.  Pregnancy from rape is not "really rare."  According to the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an estimated “32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.”  Consider that: 32,101.  Each year.  In one country.  More significant than "really rare," I'd say.

Then we get to: "If it's rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

If it's rape?  If?  If it's really rape.  Because, you know, it might not be.  It could be one of those "she cried rape" situations.  One of those cases of morning-after regrets.  She was asking for it, you know.

Women do not have unique powers of mind control.  Women do not have "ways" to circumvent their bodies natural processes.  A lot of physical functions are autonomic.  Women can't make their hearts stop pumping or make their stomachs stop digesting, so why would you think that they'd be able to stop their reproductive organs from working?

This, of course, is where the patriarchy steps in to remind us that women's reproductive systems are very mysterious and sort of magical and can't ever really be understood by men.  Women are, of course, basically incomprehensible.  The answer to my last question was "misogyny."

It is true that in certain situations, some women's bodies may respond to great stress by miscarrying.  That is true of some women in some situations.  Just as "salad and jogging" doesn't equate to "lose 5 pounds a week" like some magical formula, "rape and stress" doesn't equate to "miscarriage" or "infertility."  Everyone's body is different.  Everyone's body reacts differently.  All women are not the same.  A lot of women have hearty bodies and smoothly functioning organs which will go on merrily about their business no matter how much distress the woman has been through.  You can be in a car accident and continue to digest.  You can be shot and still continue to breathe.  You can be raped and still become pregnant.

In that one sentence, you basically said, "I'm incredibly ill-informed, I'm either lying or I have no ability to discern reputable sources from uneducated fools, I don't understand women, I know little to nothing about women's experiences, I support and promote rape culture, I think that women lie, and I need to educate myself immediately on human biology."  In other words, "I'm a mendacious, incompetent asshole and I hate women."

If that's not what you meant, you have some work to do.

But you didn't stop there!  The fun just kept flowing:

...abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.

"Let's assume that maybe that didn't work, or something," Akin said. "I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

As I said, you don't seem to understand human biology very well.  To clarify, there is no child.  "Attacking a child" brings to mind images of someone assaulting a five-year-old.  When someone aborts a pregnancy, that's something that happens (pay attention here) while she's pregnant.

abort a pregnancy =/= attack a child

With the basics of the life cycle out of the way, let's look at the rest of this nonsense.

When someone is pregnant, "there should be some punishment."  That's what you said.  The magical rape-infertility process failed, the way magical processes sometimes do, and now the rape victim is pregnant.  "There should be some punishment," is your response.

Are you advocating for jail time for rape, and extra jail time for rape plus impregnation?  Is this a new bill you're working on?  Maybe jail time plus expenses for mental health and abortion costs and, oh, no, that can't be it.  You think that abortion should be illegal.  Period.  Across the board.  For everyone, at all times.

Now it's time for you to hop on over and read what I wrote to your pal Mike Huckabee about this.  I'll wait.

Back?  Okay!

Overall, in a few sentences, you said that sometimes rape isn't really rape.  You lied about human biology in a way that turns at least 32,101 Americans a year into liars who weren't really raped.  You declared that a legal and safe medical procedure should be made illegal because, uh, why?  You turned a pregnancy into a living, independent, human child to make abortion look bad (and to make people who have abortions look bad).  You want to force rape victims to endure nine months of pregnancy plus labor to bear a rapist's child at a time when they most need to be in control of their own bodies.

You have a lot of learning to do.  Starting with what "morally or ethically wrong" means.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Steve King

Discussion of rape and rape culture to follow.

Dear Steve King,

As a Congressman, you must do a lot of talking in front of microphones and reporters.  It's understandable that you might word your thoughts awkwardly from time to time.

I don't think that's what's happening here.

Here's what a reporter asked you:

You support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act that would provide federal funding for abortions to a person that has been forcefully raped. But what if someone isn’t forcibly raped and for example, a 12-year-old who gets pregnant? Should she have to bring this baby to term?

 Here's your direct reply:

Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way and I’d be open to hearing discussion about that subject matter. Generally speaking it’s this: that there millions of abortions in this country every year. Millions of them are paid for at least in part by taxpayers. I think it’s immoral for us to compel conscientious objecting taxpayers to fund abortion through the federal government, or any other government for that matter. So that’s my stand. And if there are exceptions there, then bring me those exceptions let’s talk about it. In the meantime it’s wrong for us to compel pro-life people to pay taxes to fund abortion.

On the subject of a 12-year-old being impregnated by her rapist, the first words out of your mouth are, "Well, I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance," as if it's imaginary, a flight of fancy.  You follow that up with, "that's been brought to me in any personal way," as if you'd need the 12-year-old in question to approach you about it personally.  Then you get to, "if there are exceptions here, then bring me those exceptions."  "Let's talk about it," you say.  "In the meantime..."

All of that conveys a very clear idea that you doubt the situation exists.  You know nothing of it and if it were real, someone would have told you by now.  You're open to it, after all!

Which is an odd stance to take, considering what you said only weeks earlier (emphasis mine):

What I've said is that we need to respect humans more than we do animals. Whenever we start elevating animals up to, to above that of humans, we've crossed a moral line. For example, if there's a sexual predator out there who has impregnated a young girl, say a 13 year old girl, and it happens in America more times than you and I like to think, that sexual predator can pick that girl off the playground at the middle school and haul her across the state line and force her to get an abortion to eradicate the evidence of his crime, and bring her back and drop her off at the swing set, and that's not against the law in the United States of America. I have told Wayne Pacelle and the people who believe we should focus all of our efforts on the, on anything they can bring that limits activity around animals, that we need to respect and revere human life first, animal life second.

The rape and impregnation of teenaged girls makes a great hypothetical when you need a handy comparison to dog fighting, but it's an anomaly, a flight of fancy that you've certainly never encountered before, when it's the actual topic at hand.

You're comfortable with rape as your go-to point illustrator, but you're completely unfamiliar with it in real life.

The victimization of girls "happens in America more times than you and I like to think" but if it happens you'd like to hear about it.

Try to take this in: rape is not just a convenient hypothetical.  The victimization of girls isn't just a rhetorical device.  This is a reality.  You know that it's a reality.  You don't get to pretend that it doesn't happen when it suddenly becomes politically unpleasant.

While we're here, let's talk about the rest of that blather.  "I think it’s immoral for us to compel conscientious objecting taxpayers to fund abortion through the federal government, or any other government for that matter."  Isn't it also immoral for to compel us to fund war?  Are you campaigning against that?

But that's not a fair comparison, is it?  War is a violent atrocity.  Abortion is a legal medical procedure.  In war, people are killed in great numbers.  In abortion, pregnancy is ended.  Oh, but war is necessary, you'd argue!  Abortion is necessary, too, to protect the health, livelihood, quantity and quality of life of millions of Americans.

We pay taxes for the greater good.  It's part of living in a thriving society.  In a functioning society, people need access to medical services, health care, and reproductive rights, even if you personally don't agree with their choices.  I don't like war, so I don't start wars and I haven't signed up for the military.  I urge you not to get an abortion.

With love,
Frank Lee

P.S. Your apparent stance on animal cruelty makes me want to go hug a dog.

Dear Mike Huckabee

Discussion of rape and rape culture ahead.

"Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape," Huckabee said of the late American gospel singer. One-time presidential candidate Huckabee added: "I used to work for James Robison back in the 1970s, he leads a large Christian organization. He, himself, was the result of a forcible rape. And so I know it happens, and yet even from those horrible, horrible tragedies of rape, which are inexcusable and indefensible, life has come and sometimes, you know, those people are able to do extraordinary things."
-Mike Huckabee

Dear Mike Huckabee,

Before we go any farther, stop saying "forcible rape."  Just say "rape."  The term "forcible rape" makes it seem as if there's "forcible rape," which is the bad, violent kind, and then there's other rape, you know, not rape-rape, just sort-of-rape, it wasn't really forcible or anything, she just wasn't that into it, you know how women are.

With that out of the way, let's examine the rest of that dreck.

Right, so basically you're saying that "some people make the best of a bad situation."  Or, "the sperm of rapists isn't automatically contaminated with evil."  Or something.  What's your point here?  Yes, some people grow up to "do extraordinary things."  That's terrific!  I agree!

Here's the thing about that "life has come" part.  "Life has come" is a really vague way to gloss over the fact that someone had to endure nine months of pregnancy followed by labor (and we all know what a sweet little tea party that always is).  And then someone (most often the person who just did the whole pregnancy-and-labor thing) has to rear the child.  For a long time.

What you said, that sometimes people who have been raped become pregnant and bear children, and sometimes those children grow up to become professional Christians, is a fact.  It is not an argument.  (Although you were speaking with Todd Akin at the time, so, "Yes, you fool, sometimes people do get pregnant from being raped" is, unfortunately, not taken for granted.)

It is true that people conceived through rape may contribute positively to the world.  It's not as if the seed of rapists is sown in Lucifer's garden or anything.  It's not as if "I must rape" is encoded into the chromosomes somewhere, just waiting for the next generation.  No one's suggesting that we're suffering an epidemic of rape babies growing up to be a drain on society.

But let's look at why someone who's been raped may not want to continue a pregnancy.

1.) Well, you were just raped, so you're probably going through a lot right now, so dealing with that and taking care of yourself comes first.

2.) The pregnancy may be a constant reminder of the assault you've just suffered.

3.) Being raped involves a loss of control, an inability to stop someone else from using your body.  A pregnancy can be uncomfortably similar at a time when you want to reestablish control.

4.) As you probably weren't planning to be raped and become pregnant, you probably weren't preparing your life for child-rearing.  You may not be ready for pregnancy or parenthood, financially or physically or otherwise.

5.) You may be married or have a significant other who is unwilling to help you to rear your rapist's child.

6.) People are going to ask who the father is.

7.) The child is going to ask who the father is.

8.) What if the father wants visitation rights?  What if he pops up five years down the road and tries to involve himself in your child's life?  Statistically speaking, you were probably raped by someone you know.  You can only guess how he'll react if he realizes that the child is his.  Even if he doesn't get involved initially, he has the rest of the child's life to change his mind.

9.) Along with the "raped by someone you know" part comes the fact that you may know the rapist's significant other, the rapist's children, etc.  You may be a member of the rapist's family.

10.) If you're one of the few who ends up seeing a rapist on trial, I can only imagine how the defense will twist "but she's carrying his baby!" into an argument that it wasn't really rape.

There's a lot more, but you get the gist of it.  While you may think of pregnancy as the potential for another wonderful Christian in the world, the actual rape victim has a much more complex understanding of the situation.  You can pat yourself on the back for acknowledging how indefensible "forcible" rape is, but maybe if you had more feminists who fight the rape culture and work for reproductive rights on your show, and fewer people like Todd Akin, you'd be more respectful of what real survivors go through.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear YouTubers

Discussion of rape culture ahead.

Dear YouTubers,

I spend a lot of time on YouTube, and I've noticed that people have this habit of making comments about "raping" the replay button.

It's not funny, it's gross, but I bicker with myself over how to respond.  Is an explanation of why not to use rape as a metaphor too long for a YouTube comment?  Should I just step in with a mild, "hey, not cool?"

While I was on YouTube yesterday, I found someone named AfizaFarhana setting a great example.

‘Rape’ the replay button is not so healthy anyway...it's crime...just try ‘refreshing’ your relationship with this MV...XD

The last time I checked, she had 58 "likes."

It's a simple thing, but I found it encouraging.  It's nice to know that other people are stepping up, and it's nice to see that she got so much support (and no push back, at least that I saw).

When we point out that someone's speech is hateful or harmful, it's not our job to make it palatable.  We don't have to be sweet or witty or graceful about it.  The problem isn't our approach, it's whatever the other person said in the first place.  But I'm not socially adept at all times (understatement of the year) and I'm not always in the mood for a fight.  Sometimes I just want to make my point and get out.  It's nice to pick up examples of how to word my comments for maximum effectiveness and minimum engagement.

What's your go-to wording when you speak up?

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Book Readers

Discussion of sexual assault and rape culture to follow.

Dear Book Readers,

Long story short, I've found myself with stacks of books to read that I wouldn't necessarily have picked up on my own.

Some of them are romance novels.  Within those romance novels, I'm noticing a trend.

The scenario runs like this: the man touches the woman without her permission and against her will.  Sometimes she squirms and pushes at him and protests, and he backs off.  Sometimes they have a long and physical struggle over it with the writer communicating the woman's sincere distress clearly.

The man is the hero of the novel.  By the end of the book, she's proclaiming her love for him and they're strolling off into their happy future together.

The scene describes sexual assault very frankly but never names it as such.  It's like a step-by-step description of how to make a sandwich without ever saying the word sandwich, only with way more danger and misogyny.

Elsewhere in the book, later, someone will bring up rape.  In one book, for example, some other guy tries to rape the heroine.  In another, the heroine protests against the hero's sexual aggression, and he points out that kissing her against her will and groping her breasts despite her protests isn't rape, so what is she so upset about?*

It seems as if the author's trying to set up the threat of rape as a counterpoint to the hero's aggressive sexuality.  He's controlling and forceful, he takes without asking, he victimizes her for his own amusement, sure, but he's not a rapist!

Okay, no.  He doesn't rape her.  He does sexually assault her.

Consent matters.  It's not as if going so far but not too far is okay.  It's not as if overriding someone's consent and continuing despite someone's distress is okay as long as there's no PIV penetration.

Setting it up as "good guys" versus "rapists" is a false dichotomy.  There are all sorts of people somewhere in the middle who may not rape anyone but are still hostile to consent.  It's not as if in the absence of rape, someone's automatically a good guy.  He might be an entitled douche.  He might be a molesting asshole.  He might do all sorts of things to people against their will or without their consent.  "At least I didn't rape you!" is not a defense of negative behavior and does not deserve cookies.

Rapist versus good guy is another way the rape culture pressures us to accept the crossing of boundaries.  It encourages us to brush away sexual assault and unwanted touching and violations of space as "not that bad."  They are bad.  They're unacceptable.  They can range from annoying to criminal.  It's not romantic to violate boundaries, and if someone doesn't know where the boundaries are, he should ask.

Once upon a time, I might have read those scenes and not thought very much about them.  They're awfully common, in popular culture and in real life.  If you enjoy reading a book with these themes, I hope that you consider the message it sends.  If you share similar books with someone else, I hope that you'll have a conversation about it.  The more closely we examine rape culture, the better we can dismantle it.

With love,
Frank Lee

*This point is usually followed by the hero saying something like, "Don't tell me that you didn't enjoy it!"  As if that's relevant.  First, how good is this guy at picking up on signals and reading body language to begin with, that I should trust his interpretation of events as opposed to the panicked, frightened response I read?  Second, sometimes the body responds one way while the mind responds in a different way, so "your nipples were hard and your skin was flushed" does not mean "you wanted it."  That idea needs to be annihilated.  Third, I don't care if she wanted it or not.  Her desires have nothing to do with anything.  She can want it all day long, but she didn't consent to it.  End of argument.

Dear Fatherly Car Owner

I like lipstick around my dipstick.
-Car decal

Dear Fatherly Car Owner,

Because a child's car seat and toys were seen in your backseat, I'm going to assume that you're a father.  Maybe your situation differs from my assumption, which is the risk we take when we make assumptions, but until new information comes in I'll just go ahead and consider you a father.

A car is a very visible accoutrement.  A car is often considered a status symbol.  Our bumper stickers and other car accessories are one-glance messages we project to the world.  People often use bumper stickers to promote ideas and messages; it's a way both of signal boosting and of advertising something about oneself.  What's your political affiliation?  What's your favorite dog breed?  Which organizations do you belong to?  What has your child achieved lately?  It's all right there on your rear bumper.

What do you want the world to know about you?

"I like lipstick around my dipstick."

So, you have a penis.  You like to get head.  You like to get head specifically (as heteronormativity rears its ugly head and I continue to make assumptions) from women who conform to the patriarchy's exacting beauty standards.

That's the one thing you want the world to know about you.  You like patriarchy-conforming women to suck your dick.

Not that you're a father, not that you're a member of some club, not that you passed some milestone in life, not that you want to promote a cause.  No, what you're most proud of is the pleasure you get in having women (certain kinds of women, mind you) give you head.

Here's the thing, Daddy Driver.  If we all lived in a happy void where nothing we do affects each other, I would look at that decal and think that if that's the most important thing complete strangers should know about you, you lead a very small, sad life.  That would be the end of it.

However, what we do actually does affect each other.  The things we say can sometimes fall in line with other messages and reinforce existing ideas.

There are ideas, for example, that women are only good for sex, only good for pleasing men, naturally subservient to men, and so on.

If you love and respect women, your car might boast messages like: "I love women!"  "I love smart women!"  "I love confident women!"  If your sexual needs have to be a factor, you could advertise: "Assertive women turn me on!"  "Funny women = hot women!"

But you aren't talking about women, really, at all.  You're talking about an anonymous pair of lips coated in patriarchy-conforming lipstick.  You've reduced women to one specific body part.  A body part you're co-opting for your sexual pleasures.  You don't care what a woman says with her mouth; you aren't interested in her thoughts, her opinions, her personality, her jokes, her wit.  You just want a sexual orifice, and she'd better make sure that it meets your patriarchal standards.

Your reinforcement of misogynistic notions communicates to the world that women are for sex, that women are a mere collection of useable body parts, that women had better meet patriarchal standards or they'll find themselves not even worthwhile for the one purpose you allow them.

When did you get this decal?  When did you decide to plaster this particular message on your car?  Before your daughter was born?  After?  Before her mother was pregnant?  After?  I picture you seeing the decal in a store somewhere and giving a good chuckle and deciding to make that purchase; I picture you slapping it on your car window.  Should I picture a happy daughter playing in the backseat?  A pregnant woman waiting for you in the passenger seat?

The daughter's there now.  The sticker's there now.  She's going to see it.  What will she think of it?  The people who see your car at work, in public parking lots, in your driveway; your friends and neighbors, strangers, what do they think of it?  What do they learn from it?  I wonder if you've pictured your daughter bringing boy friends home.  The boys notice your decal, and look at your daughter, and snicker, and those ideas you're reinforcing churn...

I hope that your opinions mature soon.  I hope that your daughter finds a thoughtful, caring father in you.  I hope that you scrape off that decal and learn to view your daughter and all women with a more respectful eye.

Maybe your daughter will join a club or join a team or get on the honor roll, and you can brag about that to the world, instead.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Gun Enthusiasts

Discussion of guns and sexual assault ahead.

Dear Gun Enthusiasts,

Many of you seem fond of the notion that arming potential victims is the way to go.  Whenever there's a mass shooting, you pipe up eagerly to say something like, "If those people had been armed, they could've shot the shooter and ended the whole thing!"  Whenever there's a discussion of rape, you're quick to suggest that we all arm ourselves to ward off future rapists.

It is true that some people feel safer with guns.  It is also true that some people don't.

It is true that in some situations, if you brandish a weapon, a rapist might back off of you.  It is also true that in some situations, a rapist might escalate.

With that said, let's look at five reasons rape victims and survivors might not want or have guns:

1.) Many people who are preyed upon are minors.  At age five, or eight, or thirteen, a kid might not have a gun in her backpack ready for brandishing when her teacher starts crossing boundaries.

2.) Many people are assaulted in times and places a weapon isn't handy.  You keep a gun locked up for safety, and you're raped in your own bed.  You keep a gun under your pillow, and you're raped in the kitchen.  You keep a gun at your house, and you're raped at a party at your friend's house.  Do you take your gun to work?  Do you leave it in your purse?  Do you keep it on your hip at all times, even during a pool party?

3.) Many people are assaulted by close friends and family.  Many people are assaulted by people they aren't prepared to shoot.  How many people do you know who are genuinely, willing to shoot their own grandfather?  Their own mother?  Their own boyfriend?

4.) If sexual predators become aware that more people carry guns and more potential victims are armed, won't the sexual predators themselves be armed in preparation?  An arms race between predators and potential victims might lead to a lot of dead rapists.  It also might lead to a lot of dead victims.

5.) The prosecution rate for rape is dismal.  Right now we're seeing survivors prosecuted for all sorts of offenses.  If I can't prove that someone raped me, but he can prove that I shot him, who's going to jail?

"If only you'd had a gun, this wouldn't have happened" sounds too much like "if only you'd dressed differently," "if only you'd stayed home," "if only you made better friends," "if only you weren't so flirtatious," "if only you were a better judge of character," "if only you'd fought back harder," "if only you'd taken that self-defense class," "if only you'd been more careful."  Yeah, if only.  If only that asshole hadn't been a fucking rapist.

The hyper-vigilance demanded of people (usually women) to guard themselves against rape is brutal.  Now you want to add

1.) get a gun
2.) become an expert shooter
3.) know how to shoot to injure/maim
4.) be willing to shoot to kill
5.) have the gun with you at all times and in all places no matter what

to the list.

No.

If some people choose to live that way or feel that they have to live that way, that's their decision.  But you cannot expect it and it's victim-blaming bullshit to ask it.

Melissa McEwan has said all of this before and very well, so I'll go dig up a few links and add them at the bottom.

We have too many guns around already.  Too.  Goddamned.  Many.  The solution to violence is not more violence, it's stopping the violence to begin with.  Instead of focusing on what the victims can and should and might do, let's focus on fighting rape culture and teaching men not to be rapists in the first place.

Thanks for your help.

With love,
Frank Lee

P.S. Here is Melissa McEwan's must-read post on Rape Culture 101.

P.P.S. Either this is a coincidence or my subconscious is working overtime, but here is Melissa McEwan's post on self-defense.

Dear Louis C.K.

Discussion ahead of the rape culture.

Dear Louis C.K.,

Let's try this again.

You were on "The Daily Show" last night.  I don't watch that show anymore, since I get enough fauxgressive "both sides are just as bad" fat-hating content elsewhere in life, but I did catch video of your interview on-line.

It was really very gross.

You're playing the role of the reasonable sexist.  The approachable misogynist.  Your message seems to be, "Hey, let's all have a good time here, I don't mean any harm, don't take me too seriously, I'm just polishing the patriarchy to keep it nice and shiny!"  It's either a case of "everything works in my favor, so I find it hard to understand that it doesn't work that way for everyone else, too," or a case of, "hey, I had some hard times, we all have it rough, no special treatment for you!"  I'm not sure, since I don't know much about you.  And maybe I'm wrong.  Hey, there's something you might want to try!  Admitting when you're wrong!

Your explanation of your "I <3 Daniel Tosh" tweet is that it was only a coincidence.  You say that you were on vacation, you had no idea that anything else was going on, and you simply sent out a tweet to let him know how much you enjoy his show.

Then this is all a misunderstanding.  Here you are, innocently tossing a frivolous nod to a colleague, and people interpret that as: "Louis C.K. is a rape apologist!"

Do you know what I didn't hear in your interview?

"I'm not a rape apologist."  "I never would have said that if I'd known the context."  "I'd never knowingly defend that kind of behavior."  "What he said was completely out of line."  "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have said that."

Do you know what else I didn't hear?

"I can see why they took it that way."  "Ugh, my timing sure was lousy, I understand why they made that assumption."

No, you called comedians and bloggers uneducated.  You talked about how they trade in "hyperbole" and "garbage."  Basically, we took your tweet entirely out of context, and how dare we, untrustworthy scoundrels that we are.  Although, since you enjoy rape jokes, it's sort of easy to see how we could have assumed that you were defending Daniel Tosh.  Especially since you didn't bother to say anything about him in your interview besides talking about how funny he is and how much you enjoy his show.

This interview came across as you taking advantage of a national platform to clear up any misconceptions.  But if the misconception was "Louis C.K. is a rape apologist," and your message was "I enjoy rape jokes" and "feminists are humorless," that's not really clearing up a misconception so much as clarifying an already existing message.

You think that comedians are "unfettered" and say whatever pops into their heads without thinking.  Is that a good thing?  Maybe that's something to work on.  Maybe putting more thought into it would make for some better comedy.  Sure, there's a lot of humor in raw response, but "I'm a comedian so I don't think before I speak" isn't a great defense when you're tossing out hateful *ist bullshit.

You also said that feminists and comedians are natural enemies, "stereotypically speaking."  Is that a good way to speak?  Is that a smart, insightful way to think?  It sounds like a built-in defense mechanism.  When someone accuses you of being sexist, you can simply reply, "I said stereotypically!  I didn't mean all feminists!"  Is that supposed to be clever?

"Any joke about anything bad is great."  No.  No, it's not.  Any joke?  About anything bad?  All racist jokes are great.  All Holocaust jokes are great.  All dead sex workers jokes are great.  All transphobic jokes are great.  That is a ridiculous thing to say.  It's a ridiculous thing for a comedian to say, because a comedian should understand the art of comedy and how much effort it takes to hone true wit.

There was so much hateful, sexist blather in this interview that I stopped taking notes.  Melissa McEwan covers most of it well.

I'm only an uneducated blogger of garbage and hyperbole, so I assume that you won't take me very seriously.

Unfortunately, I have to take you seriously, because you have a national platform and a certain amount of influence.  And you used that platform to tell everyone, literally, "I can still enjoy a good rape joke."

You've said that you've learned more about the rape culture since this bullshit came to light.  I hope that you continue to learn.  Please keep listening to feminists and bloggers.  Despite our humorlessness and our hyperbole, we're fighting for a better world.  One where we can all laugh at your jokes, instead of some of us laughing and some of us flinching away in terror.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Penn State

Brief discussion of sexual predation ahead.

Dear Penn State,

You're dealing with a lot right now.  I don't want to take up too much of your time when people far more eloquent than I am are trying to get your attention.  I'll confine myself to remarking on what Melissa McEwan describes:

There is much more at the link, including the report that, after Sandusky sexually abused a 10-year-old boy in the shower at the football facility, the university's president, Graham Spanier, and athletic director, Tim Curley, decided that "the 'humane' thing to do would be to speak to Sandusky and warn him not to bring children on campus any longer."

The message here wasn't "stop assaulting children."  It was "stop assaulting children on-campus.  Stop assaulting children on our turf."

This sounds oddly similar to a boss saying, "Don't use your work e-mail account for personal messages.  Don't use your work computer to make LOLcats."  As if the problem is misuse of company property.  Do it on your own time!

Do you see the problem there?

As necessary dialogue continues over how universities and other groups should handle reports of sexual assault, I hope that everyone comes to understand that misuse of company property isn't the problem, and that the "humane" thing to do is to protect children from sexual predators.

Maybe this will come in handy next time:

Things it's understandable that you'd care about protecting: your reputation, an institution which is meaningful to you, colleagues

Things you should prioritize over items in the first list: the health, well-being, and safety of children who are being abused, violated, and preyed upon

I hope that in the future, victims of sexual assault receive help from people at Penn State.  Admonishing sexual predators to keep their predation more secret and less public isn't actually helpful to the victims, and they're who we should all put first.  I hope that you come to agree with me on that.

With love,
Frank Lee