ethecofem

I Heart Huckabees

December 30, 2009
Leave a Comment

by April

Photobucket

Have you seen I Heart Huckabees? It’s one of my favorite movies– and I only like approximately 5 movies total, so that’s saying a lot.

The plot is as follows: The main character wants to get to the bottom of some crazy coincidence, and hires two existential detectives (who he found via weird coincidence) to help him. In the process, he learns about the nature of existence, finds solace in contradicting existential theories, and continues to question the universe.

I know of no single mainstream or widely-viewed movie where there is a female protagonist questioning existence, in a way that doesn’t relate to boys, fashion, or a cliched superhero stereotype.

There are no leading female characters that one is meant to take seriously out there. Women are still being treated as an accessory, even on television and in movies. It’s not a myth. And when feminists argued, we got over-compensating nonsense that’s almost worse.

I found myself quite literally stricken with sadness upon coming to this realization. Being un-, or under-represented in mainstream media does, eventually, turn personal. And it’s really depressing.


Authoratative Language

December 30, 2009
4 Comments

by April

Continued from the first Language post: A related concept I’ve been thinking about a lot lately is using an authoritative voice when writing. I tend to use passive or apologetic phrases regularly in my writing: “In my opinion,” “I think that,” “I don’t speak for everyone, but…” “I’m sorry, but…”

To speak in a passive or constantly apologetic tone invites patronizing responses and indifference. Of course, to speak in an aggressive or authoritative tone invites hostile opposition and snark, among other things, but I believe that being respected enough to be argued vehemently against is more constructive and progressive than to be condescended to or brushed off, and I value progressive and constructive behavior and thought over condescension and indifference.

This is a phenomenon that is frequently discussed in feminist spheres, because of the observed correlation between females/passive and males/authoritative in terms of writers and speakers. Women as a whole are socialized to be passive and peacemaking in an effort to maintain harmony, while men are socialized to be aggressive and authoritative in order to dominate. Most people respond more critically and constructively to authoritative tones rather than they do to passive tones, so it is important for women to feel comfortable and confident in their ability to speak authoritatively in order for our voices to be heard.

To accept this, though, one has to believe that authority (a trait commonly thought of as masculine) is preferable to passivity (a trait commonly believed to be feminine in nature), which perpetuates the idea that masculinity is inherent in men and femininity inherent in women, and that masculinity is to be valued and respected more than femininity. Which means that men are more respected and taken more seriously than women, as a whole. This leaves many others who do not fit into the male-female/masculine-feminine binary out of the picture entirely, erasing their experiences and identities.

So why worry about whether or not I’m speaking authoritatively, if doing to would only perpetuate the idea that I’m inherently flawed because I’m female?

I don’t know. But I do know that I want people to take me seriously, and most people won’t take me serisouly if I do not speak authoritatively. Am I giving up? I’m not sure.

I do know that I’m tired of being so quick to concede a battle because I am eager to avoid further conflict, and give up being “right” or respected as a result. I am tired of being patronized because my writing style, that’s been subconsciously encouraged since I learned to communicate, is not the one more valued in society.

If I am a person who would, by nature, be more subdued and peacemaking, I am not opposed to that identity. The problem is that I don’t know whether or not I am, because I am a female, and I was socialized to behave and think in one way, while my male counterparts were socialized to behave in a different way. Until we stop raising and teaching our children to behave according to which genitals they have, we will not know who we really are.

As a woman, I am tired of feeling like I need to add a disclaimer to everything I write. It’s as if I’m saying to the world, “Hello, I’m very sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to let you know that although I am a woman, I thought it might be fun to maybe write something quick about my experiences and things that I feel. I hope I don’t take up too much of your time– I mean, if you hate what I’m saying, please, don’t feel bad, I won’t be offended if you leave and go somewhere else. And by all means, if you do manage to read through this whole thing, please don’t worry, if you want to criticize me in the comment section, I don’t mind at all. I probably have a thing or two to learn, anyway!”

I’m tired of reading what I write and hearing that. I’m tired of reading other women’s writing and hearing that.

New Year’s Resolution: Stop being afraid of constructive confrontation and responsible aggression.


Posted in language, writing

Hey, guys and gals.

December 29, 2009
69 Comments

by April

Probably opening up a big can of worms here and opening myself up to all kinds of never-ending debate, but I’m curious anyway:

Which parts of these lists do you disagree with?

Answer only if you’re willing to argue. Because even if I don’t do it myself, I’m sure someone will.

Guys, in this Male Privilege Checklist, what do you have a problem with?

The Male Privilege Checklist

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).
8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).
12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.
21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).
25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity.
26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).
27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).
28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).
29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
35. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.
37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
40. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
41. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.
43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.
44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.”
45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

Gals, in this Female Privilege Checklist, what do you have a problem with?

As a woman …

1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man.
2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man.
3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.
4. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry.
5. I will probably live longer than the average man.
6. Most people in society probably will not see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise.
7. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate for someone, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man.
8. I am given much greater latitude to form close, intimate friendships than a man is.
9. My chance of suffering a work-related injury or illness is significantly lower than a man’s.
10. My chance of being killed on the job is a tiny fraction of a man’s.
11. If I shy away from fights, it is unlikely that this will damage my standing in my peer group or call into question my worthiness as a sex partner.
12. I am not generally expected to be capable of violence. If I lack this capacity, this will generally not be seen as a damning personal deficiency.
13. If I was born in North America since WWII, I can be almost certain that my genitals were not mutilated soon after birth, without anesthesia.
14. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, it’s much less likely that my friend will wonder about my sexuality or pull away in unease.
15. If I seek a hug in solace from a close friend, I’ll have much less concern about how my friend will interpret the gesture or whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question.
16. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.
17. I am frequently the emotional center of my family.
18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.
19. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question.
20. If I interact with other people’s children — particularly people I don’t know very well — I do not have to worry much about the interaction being misinterpreted.
21. If I have trouble accommodating to some aspects of gender demands, I have a much greater chance than a man does of having a sympathetic audience to discuss the unreasonableness of the demand, and a much lower chance that this failure to accommodate will be seen as signifying my fundamental inadequacy as a member of my gender.
22. I am less likely to be shamed for being sexually inactive than a man.
23. From my late teens through menopause, for most levels of sexual attractiveness, it is easier for me to find a sex partner at my attractiveness level than it is for a man.
24. My role in my child’s life is generally seen as more important than the child’s father’s role.

What do you agree/disagree with? What is utterly ridiculous, which examples do you feel you can reasonably debunk? Which things are total crap? Which ones are right on? At what point do so many of these intersect that it becomes almost impossible to tell them apart?


Random Thoughts

December 27, 2009
5 Comments

by April

I’ve been throwing around ideas for posts for a few days, but have had little motivation to complete a thorough post about any of these ideas in their potential entirety with all the holiday business (busyness? Huh?), so I thought I’d throw out some discussion-starters:

I’ve been thinking about the post I wrote about prostitution, and how I was so adamantly anti all sex-for-money actions. I realized that my anti position was contradictory to my pro-legalization position when I considered many women’s opinion of abortion.

Many women say that they could never have an abortion, and therefore they are against it. But every woman’s circumstances are different and women who have had abortions haven’t done it for the same reason. It’s okay to say you’ll never have an abortion, but support other women’s right to legal and safe access to abortion.

So, I realized that, ultimately, even though I don’t see myself entering the sex industry, I support giving other women the legal option of doing so if they want or need to. And that’s really all I needed to know to realize that I was supportive of sex-worker’s rights, and that I didn’t need to preface the argument or add a disclaimer.

I have been seeing many ways in which feminism and environmentalism et al mirror religions, namely the evangelical Christian movement. I allow the “tenants” of feminism and anti-oppression ideology to frame my behavior and filter my actions in many of the ways a person might make decisions within the framework of the teachings of Christ. This creeps me out quite a bit, but I don’t really know what to think about that. Do all passions or schools of thought have the power to become evangelical? Is it inherently bad to be evangelical, or am I just feeling this way because of the associations with evangelicalism and anti-progressive legislation and rhetoric? I don’t appreciate being evangelized at, so I’d hate to be associated with the same behavior. What does this say about claims that all humans naturally seek out an idea of a higher power or purpose? If we don’t follow a mainstream belief system like Christianity or Judaism, do we replace it with something else, like astrology or feminism or yoga? Or is spiritual belief a learned trait?

I’m personally conflicted about the “tone argument.” It’s apparent that tone is important when attempting to educate people and pass legislation, but is one ever required to mind their tone when addressing or engaging with a group of people about the ways in which they suffer oppression? Is it ever appropriate to require “good manners” or the dreaded reasonable, logical approach when having a discussion with someone about (a) ways(s) in which they experience oppression, especially if you can identify with the oppressor in question (i.e. black woman discussing racism with white woman)?


Posted in Uncategorized

On Language, Speaking, & Writing

December 27, 2009
14 Comments

by April

Photobucket

Ultimately, I am a supporter of inclusive language, but I have my share of reservations every so often, due to not wanting to give up a frequently-used word or descriptor, or due to disagreements I have with the defining of some words or phrases as problematic. For example, I’m not very good at eliminating insults against one’s intelligence when I write. While I’ll rarely – if ever – refer to an individual person that I know as stupid, an idiot, unintelligent, etc., I will often refer to large groups or ideologies in that manner. I’ll often treat well-known bloggers, writers, celebrities, recording artists, etc. in the same manner, as well, without feeling bad about it as a result.

FWD/Forward has a great regular column called the Ableist Word Profile, where the contributors to the blog profile commonly used words or phrases in an effort to educate people about their negative roots and the hurtful consequences of using those words and phrases. Admittedly, I have a love/hate relationship with the whole thing, because even though I check it out regularly and learn a great deal from it, my first reaction is always to disagree or come up with a justification for using the terminology argued as problematic by the author. Obviously, this is an exercise in privilege, because I’m debating whether or not I take someone’s hurt feelings into account when I decide how to communicate as a person unaffected by the language.

Eventually, because I care about not needlessly hurting people’s feelings, I come around and begin to see the value in eliminating the word or phrase form my every day language.

One thing I have a hard time with in general is getting behind the idea that I shouldn’t value “intelligence,” because there’s no such thing, or it’s too difficult to define in an inclusive manner.

I realize, though, that my appreciation for people, conversations, or art that are “intelligent” doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing that it does to other people. What I may see as “intelligent” may be more or less so that what other people deem “intelligent.” If that’s the case, then there’s probably no reason to call something “intelligent” at all, because if the definition of “intelligent” can vary so widely, then it’s rarely understood universally enough to effectively communicate the message you’re trying to get across using only that word. Furthermore, in having differing definitions of “intelligence,” we run the risk of creating intelligence hierarchies, where one feels that their definition of “intelligence” is higher than another’s, and as a result, places oneself higher than others in terms of how they compare themselves to them, and treat them accordingly.

I like to completely simplify this (perhaps out of exhaustion) by being specific in my appreciations– “I really appreciated how well-reasoned your argument was,” or “She is really excellent at critically analyzing concepts and widely-held belief systems,” as opposed to “I appreciated how intelligent your argument was,” or “She is really smart when it comes to politics and religion.” Of course, in using other words, there is suddenly new possibility for those words - “analysis,” “reason” – to simply turn into a new version of “intelligent,” as if they’re used in a complimentary manner, then we set them up for having an “opposite” with which to compare it… which is similar to the reason why “intelligence” was profiled in the AWP in the first place. If one is appreciated for several qualities – inherent or learned – but one of them is not reason, then people who think that reason = good may treat the one without an inherent talent in reason as deficient or otherwise inept in comparison to the ideal.

…Well hell, how do you give a freakin’ compliment around here?

All that aside, please read AWP; it’s enlightening.

See Part Two of this post, which discusses the value of authoritative language.


Mulligan: What fundamental value(s) informs progressive politics and ethic?

December 22, 2009
12 Comments

Not long ago I wrote a post entitled What fundamental values informs progressive politics and ethic?, and it spawned lots of responses primarily deconstructing my questions. Most of these comments were valid and some were insightful. However, I feel like the idea that I was trying to convey was not articulated very well. So here I go again…

Why are you a feminist (or anti-racist or socialist)? Is it because you are a woman and you want equality? Well, that is a pretty self-serving reason. Is it because you believe all human beings should be treated equally? Why? I suspect that most people break down to the idea that all human beings, or perhaps life, has an inherent and equal worth. How do we make a case for that idea without accepting it as an axiom, a obvious truth?

Desconstruct your convictions… I’d like to hear what everyone has to say.


Posted in Uncategorized

Sunday Poll!

December 20, 2009
Leave a Comment

Further discussion of your answer in the comments section is encouraged!


Sexist morning show hosts and the stupid things that come out of their mouths

December 16, 2009
26 Comments

by April

Photobucket

Disclaimer: I know, I know. It’s waaaay too easy to pick on people, and opinions, like the ones I’m about to rip on. But… this one touched a nerve.

I’m not sure what “morning shows” are like in other areas, but here in the Twin Cities, they tend to be comprised of a group of DJs, headed by a 30- or 40-something dude, with two or three 20-something dudes to laugh and “yeah” at the 30- or 40-year-old’s diberately offensive jokes, and a token 20-something chick, to get repeatedly interrupted by the dudes, and apparently satisfy a quota of some kind. They spend 4 of the wee morning hours bantering about absolutely nothing of any relevance and spouting off opinions about any number of things that they aren’t qualified to accurately analyze.

One of the morning shows I am referring to is the Dave Ryan Show at KDWB (the local Top 40 station). There’s Dave, the main dude who’s been hosting the show for like, a century; and Lena, the latest in revolving 20-something, quota-fulfilling chicks who appears to be second in command or something, as I tend to hear her “yeah, like, I think that [totally bigoted nonsense opinion, related in some way or another to pop culture and news headlines]” almost as often as I hear Dave say, “Seriously? I know way better than these other people because I know better than they do.”

Then there’s Steve-O and Crisco, whose main purposes seem to be chiming in every so often as the (still terrible and wildly offensive) Voice of Reason when Dave or Lena says something completely over the top. Oh, and their incessant paid advertisements about how they used to be fat, but as a result of spending lots of money on a manufactured diet product, now they’re not!! So you should buy it.

Anyway.

So, I work in an office setting, where we’re able to have radios at low volume or use headphones, as long as we can still hear the dreaded phone ring, so I take advantage of this and have gotten what I listen to, and when, down to a science. My favorite thing to listen to while at work is talk radio. I start by listening to the Dave Ryan show when I get in at 8, and usually switch to NPR once the boring shows end, between 9 and 10. The thing is, I understand that when they say their usual offensive crap, it’s mostly exaggerated and mostly for ratings. I get that it’s entertainment and not a news and serious commentary show. I expect that most people are reasonable and not hateful. I can ignore it well enough and just pay attention to the parts that are entertaining to me. But man, sometimes someone just goes over the top, and sounds way too genuine for comfort.

This morning, Dave was discussing Chris Brown’s recent profanity-laced Twitter updates about how Wal-Mart was supposedly blacklisting him because they didn’t have his new album in stock.* Chris Brown apparently went nuts about it, all over the internet, complete with all kinds of swear words and a plethora of other garbage for one to roll their eyes about.

Today, it was discovered that Wal-Mart does, in fact, carry the album; they were simply sold out of them at the time that Chris Brown visited their particular location.

Right, he’s an idiot. Forgettable recording artist gets mad because he assumes that the reason that people don’t want to buy his terrible CD is because he beat up his girlfriend at the time, Rihanna. Turns out, while he should have been right, he wasn’t, and so now he looks stupid.

Dave Ryan then begins to discuss Chris Brown’s dumbassery, and then further elaborates about how he feels that women’s rights groups haven’t adequately — or ever — addressed the issue of Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna, and then surmises that this could possibly be because all we feminists think Chris Brown is just so cute. What’s wrong with these women? A high-profile guy beats up his high-profile girlfriend, it’s all over the news, and these feminists have nothing to say about it! Must be because they think he’s hot!! Also, Dave Ryan is ashamed that we aren’t outside of Wal-Mart, calling for nationwide boycotts.

No, Dave Ryan, you fucking moron. You’re wrong. And you clearly pay absolutely no attention whatsoever to women’s rights activists or any feminist community. Know how I know this?

Here, Dave Ryan, let me Google that for you.

Or, we could be a little easier on you. Maybe the words “feminist” and “response” are too much for you to handle. Hell, we don’t even have to type a complete phrase in order to find scores of relevant hits about feminist and women’s rights activists responses to Chris Brown beating Rhiann.

If you go to the hugely popular feminist blog Feministing, and type “Chris Brown” into their search bar, the first page alone has 24 relevant hits.

Also, Dave Ryan, have you ever heard of that little organization called NOW? You know, the National Organization for Women, that one organization that likes to talk about silly lady stuff like gender equality and misogyny? How about the president of NOW, Terry O’Neill, whose been vocal and up-front about her history as a survivor of domestic violence? Have you heard of her? I assume you may have heard of NOW, considering the fact that you care so much about women who are victims of domestic abuse. And how much of a supporter you are of women’s rights. Interesting, how, if you Google “NOW president,” the fourth hit is “NOW president Terri O’Neill on Chris Brown.”

Wasn’t that exactly what it was you were claiming didn’t exist? Because I’m pretty sure that the president of the nation’s leading women’s right’s organization made a public statement about Chris Brown.

Also, Dave Ryan? NOW has a lot more to be concerned about than celebrities with entitlement issues. Like equal access to abortion, and other serious women’s rights issues all over the news right now. Picketing local Sam Goodys? Not at the top of the priority list. But if you’re so concerned, we’d be happy to cheer you on as you start a movement about something that you’re so clearly passionate about.

So, Dave Ryan, and Lena Svenson, and your deliberately oblivious cohorts, could you please at least attempt to know what the fuck you’re talking about before you spout off a bunch of inaccurate nonsense all over the airwaves? Women who don’t give a fuck about what Chris Brown looks like will be grateful.

Thanks.

*I tried to find an audio clip of the segment of the morning show that I was referencing, but was unable to. Once/If I find one, I’ll update the post with the link.


How many heterosexual relationships are affected by misogyny?

December 15, 2009
11 Comments

By April

Please feel free to elaborate about your answer in the comments section. The results of the poll will find their way into a later blog post, or potential series of blog posts.

*The rest of Option #2 (too long for the poll, I guess) is “to the extend that it affects his understanding of my point of view.

While this poll is intended to be taken by women, I am also interested in heterosexual or bisexual male input in the comments, as well. Also, while a discussion about misandry in relationships is worth asking and will likely be discussed here at another time, I’d like to keep this particular conversation directed specifically toward misogyny – intentional or not – in heterosexual relationships. Also, if you are not currently in a relationship, answer for your last relationship, or your past experiences as a whole.


Brooklyn hipsters at war with Hasidic Jews?

December 15, 2009
3 Comments

by April

The Hasidic community in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn requested that the city get rid of the bike lanes in the area, because they attracted too many scantily-clad hipsters riding through their city, causing the Hasids to stare at them, which is against their religious laws (no staring at members of the opposite sex).

The bike riding hipsters in question? They fought back.

Two cycling advocates were apprehended by the Shomrim Patrol, a Hasidic neighborhood watch group, as they repainted a section of bike lane at 3:30 a.m. yesterday, but when cops arrived, no one was arrested and no summonses were issued, police said.

In what will probably be the first nice thing I have to say about hipsters, I say: Right on. The freedom we have in the US to freely practice our religions if we so desire should not be allowed to impede with other, non-practicing citizens’ right to ride their fucking bike down the street in the neighborhood in which they live. If religious people don’t want to stare at bare flesh? Then they should stop staring at bare flesh.

I can understand the frustration at having a bunch of self-important, culturally appropriating hipster *@&%)@s take over your neighborhood, and I sympathize wholly. But ultimately, it’s 100% legal to ride a bicycle on the street. In fact, in most US cities, is it against the law to ride your bike anywhere but the street. Removing the bike lanes does not change that law; it creates safety concerns for cyclists. Cyclists who are doing a very good thing for all of us collectively when they opt not to use a motor vehicle to get around.

Let the hipsters ride their stupid, ironic, fixed-gear bicycles. If you have a problem with people being responsible citizens and choosing bicycling as their main mode of transportation, and daring to dress accordingly in warmer weather, then by all means, stay inside.


Next Page »