An Abuse Culture and "That Awful Thing Women Do"

This post is about two issues: how traditional socialization of women promotes a culture in which domestic abuse flourishes, and the double standard between men's and women's behavior.

First, though, I'd like to put down a reminder that abuse can happen to absolutely ANYone -- and I'm not just saying that.  Some people are more susceptible to it, but even the most confident, mentally healthy person can find themself on the receiving end of an abusive relationship.  The psychology is very similar to that behind Stockholm Syndrome.  To put it very briefly, the human mind is made to differentiate allies from enemies, and when someone you love (i.e. firmly planted in the "ally" category) starts behaving like an enemy on an unpredictable basis while still acting like an ally other times, that throws the brain for a serious loop.  Does not compute. 

As the abusive behavior gradually increases from "rare fluke" to "daily operation", a survival mechanism gets triggered, the one that says "I must keep this person happy, even at the cost of my own personality, in order to survive."  Now, that survival mechanism doesn't seem to make sense from a modern standpoint.  Wouldn't "run run run" make more sense?  But if you consider that until about 150 years ago, slavery was an innate part of the human existence and still exists today, and also that women and children have been considered property for most of human history and even today often do not have financial resources under their sole control, well, it starts to make sense.  For much of humanity over much of history, keeping someone happy even though you didn't like then and they didn't treat you well was necessary for survival, while escape would likely get you killed.

So in summary, abuse can happen to anyone no matter how healthy and confident, not just those somehow predisposed to it.

So, on to "that awful thing women do".  I think all of us, man and woman, have been deeply ingrained with the large number of "horrible things women do".  Let me take one example for this post: "women will get mad at you without telling you why".

I'm going to give an extreme example here to demonstrate why this "horrible thing women do" is not always unreasonable behavior.  Imagine you're at a party full of your friends, and your partner for God only knows what reason suddenly screams the most vulgar insult you can imagine at you and hits you so hard he lays you across the floor.
1) Should you have to explain to him that this is utterly unacceptable behavior that has upset you?
2) Would you have the guts to do so under the circumstances?

Isn't the fact that he doesn't understand that insulting and hitting you will make you angry a problem in itself, in addition to the fact that he insulted and hit you?

I find this is often the case.  There are some things that should not have to be explained as inappropriate and upsetting, and in some of those cases, giving the explanation can be dangerous.  This idea that "it's horrible for women to be angry without explaining why" basically forces the victim to either suppress her justified anger, put herself in danger to explain it, or suffer the stigma of being a "horrible woman".  All three options are very convenient to the abuser: either she doesn't get mad so what he did couldn't have been that bad, or he gets another opportunity to literally or figuratively beat her down, or he gets societal help convincing her she's horrible and worthless.

Of course, the stereotype is of a women going around pouting to punish the guy because he left the toilet seat up again, or some other triviality.  Personally, I've rarely seen that.  When I have seen it, the problem was not really the toilet seat, it was the disrespect shown by the problem repeating again and again despite her previously stating how much it annoyed her, and the "pouting" is not for punishment, but out of fear, or frustration, or quite often, social conditioning. 

After all, if she did say that she was angry every one of the 20 times the toilet seat was left up during the week, she'd be doing that other "horrible thing women do", nagging.  Pick your horrible, ladies, because you can't win.  It basically comes down to "women aren't supposed to be mad at men".  We're not supposed to say when we're mad, but we're also not supposed to not say when we're mad, so apparently we're just supposed to flip the switch that turns those emotions off entirely and not be mad at all.

Also, this "horrible thing women do" of going around obviously mad but not saying why?  I've seen men do it.  I personally have seen it more often and more blatantly from men, usually out of frustration and their own social conditioning.  You know, the guy is stomping around, slamming doors, kicking things, and if you ask "what's wrong" you get no response, or a grunt, or the dreaded "Nothing" or "It's not important to you."  You get exactly what women as a collective gender are accused of doing as a "horrible thing".  But when a guy does it "It's OK.  He's a guy.  They don't talk about their problems."

"It's OK.  He's a guy."
The behavior is "horrible" when women do it, but when a man does, "It's OK, because he's a man."  Definition of double standard, right there.

I love these women.

The intelligent ladies at the Shapely Prose blog: You'll love them, too. Primarily fat acceptance and feminism mixed in.


Also, this Fat vs. Fiction article on Jezebel is pure awesome.

It's not as hard as they think, because it's not about them.

On a forum I frequent, a poster asked whether her husband's reactions to students clothing in a hot climate where both men and women bared a lot of skin were appropriate. In this, a remark came up that I've heard before many times:

"It makes me feel SO sad for men in today's society. They are expected to figure out what message a woman's attire is sending, and react (or not) appropriately, and if they don't, they're sexist pigs."

I bring it here because this is not unique to this conversation at all.

In reality, the expectation for men is a lot simpler than a lot of people, including this poster, realize.
1) Is the woman in question the man's significant other?
2) Is the man in a common "pick up" location, like a bar or club or whatever is common in their area?

If one of these is yes, then the man may need to decode a message.
If the answer to both of these is no, then the answer is easy. The woman isn't sending the man a message at all! She's just wearing clothes. There is no message for any strange man to figure out. Just leave her the hell alone. What she's wearing is no one's damn business but her own.

There's no real complexity, just a societal assumption that everything women do, especially with their own bodies, is for the benefit of men. And yes, that assumption is sexist.

Again triggered to get off my hinder and post by a post by ldragoon.

Last time I was at Barnes and Noble, I saw a book titled "The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them." Yes, with emphasis in the title and everything. Bad sign, that.

So, perhaps the biggest environmental catastrophe us liberals don't want you to know about? When women take hormonal birth control, some of those hormones are carried out of her body in her urine and pass into the water supply, where they are affecting the reproductive abilities of aquatic species downstream.

1) I thought everyone already knew about that. Guys, there's this problem with widespread birth control use I don't want you to know about, that's why I just told you about it. I don't know any reliable links, or I'd direct you to those. Because I don't want you to know about this.
2) You know, there's always trade-offs and you need to make apples to apples comparisons. Hormones in water supplies in amounts that effect ecosystems are a problem. Over population among humans is also a problem. Which do you suppose causes more damage overall, the amount of hormones a woman taking birth control pisses into the ecosystem over her lifetime, or the three extra humans beings she would bring into the world on average without them and the damage they would do over their lifetime, not to mention the extra humans they would then produce?
3) If you consider the existence of birth control to be "liberal", then YOU'RE A FUCKING WINGNUT! Iain Murray = wingnut. George W. Bush = wingnut. McCain = likely wingnut, because you don't pause like that when you actually don't know about an issue, you pause like that when you know what you want to say will royally piss someone off.

On top of that, I'm probably heading into a political debate with my mother. She sent me a political joke that was a bit too conservative for my taste. I wrote back "Dare I ask who you plan to vote for? Or should I just say that I'm voting for the one who isn't a mysogynistic war-monger and leave it at that? ^_~"
If she wants to get into it, I'm just going to ignore her. I can NOT deal with her ignorant hypocritical shit right now.

Open Letter to Clothing Manufacturers

OK, you clothing-making assholes,

1) Give me ALL the shirt buttons. I will decide how much of my blouse I want to leave unbuttoned.
2) You know what's tossed on my bed right now? Brand new men's pants. And you know what I'm going to do with them? I'm gonna WEAR them. I have absolutely had it with poor quality, thin fabric, and stupidly small pockets. After traipsing all over that damn mall trying to find something vaguely acceptable, I took my child-bearing hips and all the junk in my trunk over to the men's section, and you know what I found. Stuff that fits. Screw you, women's clothing makers!

I wish I'd tried the men's section years ago. I honestly didn't think it would work with my body shape. I've got a 34 inch waist, 43 inch hips, and 27 inch inseam. 36X29 or 38X29 pleated fronts, baby. Taken in a vacuum, I'll admit they don't have the nicest line possible. I'm using pleats designed to hang straight in order to get room for my hips, so there's a bit of flair. But you compare to the women's equivalent, and you know what? Most women's pants do that to me, too, except now I won't have my wallet and my keys protruding from my hips like a pair of saddlebags. Men's pockets just keep going and going! I stick my hand in one and keep going to mid-forearm. It's wonderful.

They really don't look any different on me than most of the women's pants I've bought. I don't think anyone will be able to tell they're men's.
Honestly, right now I'm thinking all that "women's bodies are so different that they need specially made pants" stuff is a bunch of advertising hooey. It would certainly be true if clothing was well shaped and tailored, but it's not in this mass-produced world. I think women's and men's pants patterns are a LOT more similar then the companies want us to believe.

So, ladies, if you haven't tried to see if men's pants would fit you, take some time and see, even if you're curvy. If you don't find anything you like, you're not out much, and if you do, you'll be very happy. Even if you don't think it'll work, give it a try. 9-inch waist-hip difference here, worked just fine.

I was so intoxicated by the functional pockets thing that I bought myself a nice comfy pair of cargo pants. :) I swear I could throw a knitting project into one of those pockets, ball of yarn and all. (Single sock knitting would fit just fine, I have no doubt at all. Ooh, that'd be deliciously geeky.)

A few weeks ago, someone who works for a clothing manufacturer wrote into a thread on Ravelry (I think) explaining what she goes through, and suddenly all the problems with women's clothing make sense. It all comes down to money, both at the design company and then again at the manufacturing plant. Every quarter inch of fabric they save, every curve they reduce to straight lines, every button and buttonhole they don't put on, every extra patternset they can cut out at once (even though it negatively affects the fit of the bottommost pieces), basically every single cent they can squeeze out of a single item is worth it at their volumes, regardless of what it does to fit or quality. Screw the customer. And they can get away with this in women's clothing because historically, every clothing producer has done this and there's no competition. We're used to have no pockets, to having to try on every individual item because even the same items differ between units, and having our clothes wear out in three months, and there's little to nothing on the market for us that doesn't have these problems.

Men's clothing, on the other hand, has historically been long-wearing, fit to size, and had deep pockets. A 34-waist, 32-inseam guy buys his 34 X 32 pants without trying them on, gets them home, and finds they don't fit, he takes them back and he doesn't buy that brand anymore, because he knows when he grabs the competitions off the rack, they will fit. He sticks his hand into a pocket and about breaks his fingers before his wrist is into it, he's going to raise hell and buy the competition. His clothing wears out after 12 washes, he's taking it back, complaining, and buying the competition.

In men's clothes, those are defects. In women's clothes, they're industry standard. In case I'm not clear, let me stress that these problems are not the faults of end consumers, they're the fault of the manufacturers. We female consumers don't have alternatives. Show me a women's clothing manufacturer that, for decent prices, makes clothing that's robust, always fits like the tag says, and has deep pockets. (PLEASE. I'm desperate to buy from the company.)

Until then, guess I'm buying men's pants. :)

Eternally 15 years away...

I've got a little quote for you, and I want you to guess when it was written:

"You may think that undue stress is being laid upon this driving force in her, upon this business ability. But remember that this was fifteen years or more ago, before women had invaded the world of business by the thousands, to take their place, side by side, salary for salary, with men."

Go ahead, guess when that was written. I'll wait. When was 15 years ago before women had invaded the workforce?

... waiting...

1917! Nineteen hundred and effin' seventeen!

*snarls* I'm sick of being lied to and jerked around about women's history.
Why wasn't I taught about Nellie Bly as a child? Why wasn't I told that women journalists were normal in the late 19th century?
Why wasn't I told about the roll of women war workers in bringing about American women's suffrage? Why wasn't I told there WERE woman workers during WWI. Rosie the Riveter was nothing new; she was part of a very long tradition.
In fact, why wasn't I told that since the 1920s if not before, most women have worked at some point in their life. Yes, even during the 1950s.
What else is being hidden back there? I want to know, dammit! I want every 11-year-old girl in this country to know!

You find some really scary/shocking/annoying stuff when you start reading primary sources. >:P

Somewhat different rant, I am really truly sick of the "romantic stalker" storyline. Stalking is not romantic. Ever. It's creepy and stalkers should be forced to have regular talks with Mr. Police Man about why it is not appropriate behavior. And a shrink would be good too.
And the storyline itself is un-freakin'-believably insulting. "Women don't really know what's best for them or what they want. Here, this terribly creepy man knows what you want better than you do. Give up your free will and self-determination and give in to him. He won't go away until you do." And this is supposed to be romantic? Who do I need to strangle?

And off of that, I'm really sick of certain men trying to tell me what women want and what women think. What the hell makes them think that they are more qualified than me on this topic? Last I checked, I'm the one with boobs!

I need to knit me one of these for moments like this, I think. I wonder what ever happened to the stuffed rat creature I used to keep around for when I needed to smack something around and shout "stupid STUPID rat creature!"

I need to rage.

There's a number of things I want to rage about, and I'm having a hard time deciding, so I think I'll go rage about rape. It is very rage-able.

I know it's old, but did you hear about this case? There is a fairly recent (and not positive) update, though. In a rape trial, the victim was slapped with a gag order preventing her and the prosecutors from using the words “victim,” “assailant,” “rape,” “date rape drugs,” “sexual assault kit,” and “sexual assault.” The only terms she was allowed to use in her testimony to describe what happened were "sex", "sexual intercourse" and "intercourse".

Where does a woman even start with the rage here? Can you imagine a burglary case where the judge banned the use of the words "theft", "stole", and "crime scene investigation", and only allowed the words "transaction" and "property transfer" to define the crime? Can you imagine that judge keeping his job? Can you imagine the media not being all over that? But put "Tory Bowen" (the woman's name) into a news search at Google, and only 6 results come up!

I will never be allowed on a rape jury. Why? Because I know the mere fact that I'm there means there's a 95% chance the guy is guilty, and about a 5% chance he'll be convicted, and about a literal 1% chance overall that he'll do any time for it.

A little look at the statistics shows why justice for raped women is almost an impossibility. You know what statistics I want to see shoved down our throats as much as the one-in-four? I want everyone to be told just as often that at least 1 in 8 men is a rapist, and that 1 in 2 think it's OK "under certain circumstances" (which are typically everyday things -- spending a lot of money on her, she's wearing the wrong thing, they've been going out for a while, etc.).

Now, assuming you have a rape trial jury that's only half male (I suspect they're typically more than half male), that means there is a 55% chance that there will be a rapist on the jury. And a 98% chance that at least 1 of the male jurors will think rape is OK. When you consider all the men that are involved in a rape trial -- maybe police officers, maybe doctors, maybe lawyers, maybe the judge -- it's practically a guarantee that a rapist will be in at least one key position in the trial.

How can we ever expect justice in that sort of environment?

There is something seriously wrong with the way rape is presented to men as opposed to women. As I've ranted before, I was taught that rape was the absolutely worst thing that could possibly happen to me, far worse than even being murdered. That's so fucked up. And yet I think that my upbringing was pretty typical in this regard. I'm quite certain it wasn't terribly atypical.

I do not believe that half of all men are monsters. I don't believe that even 12% of them are.

Therefore I must believe that large portions -- no, humongous portions! At least half, as a matter of fact! -- of the male population is not taught to view rape NEARLY as severely as women are.

This needs to change.

Worse, somehow we need to lessen the way women as a group view rape while strengthening the way men as a group view it. I'd like to see both genders view rape as an assault. If someone gets stabbed, few people ask what they did to deserve it, or blame the victim for it happening, or expect the victim to be ruined for life. Likewise, few people think that it's OK to stab someone "under certain circumstances" (and certainly not under fairly everyday ones), and I'm almost certain that the number of men who have stabbed someone is significantly less than 1 in 8.

Men's Crafts versus Women's Crafts

OK, first off, apologies for the title. Naturally there's no such thing as a "man's" craft or a "woman's" craft. I don't know of a single craft done with the use of a penis, and you could probably use a dildo if there was. Likewise female genitalia is not used in any craft I can think of. So properly speaking, the title should be "Predominately men's crafts versus predominately women's crafts." But that's not as pithy and doesn't fit in the subject line as well. And certainly doesn't let me share the mental image of penile and vaginal craft projects.

Anyway, what I'm actually hear to talk about are attitudes towards intellectual property rights in scroll sawing and wood carving (traditionally male-dominated crafts) and knitting, crocheting, and sewing (traditionally female-oriented crafts). For some reason, women seem to be a LOT more stingy about the IPRs. You would be hard pressed to find a modern fiber craft book that does not have a "patterns may be made for personal use only" disclaimer in the front. I've seen ones that try to put limits on how many copies you can make for yourself to mark up as you work -- copies no one else ever even sees.

On the other hand, you pop open a scroll saw book or magazine, and there's good odds that there's advice on how to sell what you've made from the patterns. (For example, Scroll Saw Scandinavian has a nice little section on how best to display the items it's giving you patterns for.) Not to say I've never seen the complaint about someone making money off of a designer's work. I did once, from someone who walked into a Hallmark store and saw hundreds of lasercut ornaments made with his pattern and without a license.

Ladies, what are we doing here? They're worried about mass production; we're worried about a church raffle. Why is this?

I know it's not that the men's crafts are harder or slower. I've been knitting and crocheting since I was a kid, but give me a choice of making a coaster with an elaborate design with yarn or on the scroll-saw, and I'll be down making some sawdust. It's so much faster.

Are men more secure in their IPs? I'll be the first to admit that men's crafts are more respected; it's much rarer for a woodworker to be told "you know, you can buy one of those" compared to a yarn artist. The hypothetical coasters: I strongly suspect the scroll-sawed one will get more wow's than the yarn.

I don't think the men's crafts have a larger customer base, and I'm quite certain that's not the cause in any event. In the 1980s, when knitting was a terribly niche market, many American patterns had a limited license (allowance to make 100 items/year for sale, or for 'pin money', or some other non-mass-production commercial use OK).

Is it related to the way women are taught to hate each other and view each other as competition? This is the one I always suspect, although I wouldn't try to say whether it's an effect or part of a cause. Is it really that horrible for your work to help another woman ease her financial burden? It's insanely rare for a crafter to be in direct competition with the designer selling the finished article, and the sort of person who would buy the pattern is not the sort to buy the finished article. (Otherwise we wouldn't be in this knitting thing; it's faster and cheaper to buy sweaters from the store.) So why not let other women sell what they've made?

I'd really like to see women's crafts open sharing back up. I mean, isn't it cool to think that the thing you designed has helped pay for another woman's car, or a meal, or a doctor's visit? Or even just a couple of balls of yarn? Designers don't have to close it off to individuals in order to prevent mass manufacturing. Heck, you will almost never see me suggest this, but grab a Creative Commons license. Instead of worrying about small losses, let's think about the big helps we can provide.

In Honor of Women's History Month

Here's a picture from the women's suffrage movement (with a little commentary):




You know, it kind of reminds me of this post about the confusion of sexual desire and sexual agency, and especially Nenena's remark on how every blog she's seen defending the Playboy Wonder Woman cover as "empowering" has been a man's, and Lost_angelwings' agreeing snark "Women have no idea what empowers us and what we want. If we want empowerment we need guys to give it to us, that's true female empowerment!"

That's not priviledge.

Someone linked me to this blog entry, which in turn links to a list of "women's privileges". What we have here is either a serious problem with reality perception, or Satire Fail.  Either way, we have Fail. As great a job as Rachel does ripping it, I'd like to give my own spin on it, given my own life experiences.

1. I am physically able to give birth to another human being, and then do my best to mold her or him into the kind of person I choose.
Other than my derisive laugh at the second half, I think Rachel covers that nicely.

2. I am not automatically expected to be the family breadwinner.
We are expected to work outside the home full time, AND be solely responsible for all child care duties, AND be solely responsible for all daily internal household maintenance. Since it is assumed we are not the family breadwinners, even if in fact we are, we will be paid 80%-90% as much as our male coworkers in equivalent positions. The laws will not protect us from this in any but the sloppiest of cases, as false documentation to support claims of inferior performance is insanely easy.

3. I feel free to wear a wide variety of clothes, from jeans to skimpy shorts to dresses as appropriate, without fear of ridicule.
We are expected to both possess and be able to perfectly match a near-infinite combination of clothing, and will be punished if we fall short of perfection. Punish may range from derision, to pay cuts, to rape and murder.

4. I can choose to remain seated to meet most people.
*sputter* Can I just say "Um, no"? That is so 1950s. That issue simply does not exist anymore. No one rises for someone merely because they are a woman. If I am meeting a supplier, customer, or other guest at my company, I MUST rise to shake hands just like everyone else. No one gets out of their seat when I enter a room, unless one of us is a guest and we're shaking hands.

5. I am not ashamed to ask for others’ perspectives on an issue.
We may, however, be declared technically incompetent if we do so and suffer a penalty to we pay. Men asking similar questions will be praised for "seeking out mentoring" and rewarded monetarily.

6. I feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.
Not true. Perhaps in a casual setting, where men are also allowed to more freely exhibit emotion, but in a professional setting, women are allowed LESS expression of freedom. A man breaks into tears: "Oh my God, Joe, what's wrong?" It must be legitimate. A woman breaks into tears? Oh, it's probably nothing, she's just hysterical. If a man starts yelling, it is usually assumed he is legitimately angry and actions are taken to change this. A woman is just getting hysterical. A man laughing is relaxed; a woman isn't taking things seriously enough.

7. My stereotypical excesses in shopping, clothes, jewelry, personal care and consumption of chocolate usually are expected, even the source of jokes.
This is privilege? Even under their definition, if you indulge in one of these hobbies, you will be made fun of? That's not even getting into the fact that it's assumed a woman will indulge in them.
Actually, I'll go one better. "I am expected to take excess in these areas. If I do, I will be mocked for it. If I do not, I will be declared abnormal and be punished for it."

8. Public policies generally offer me an opportunity to bond with my offspring.
What does that even mean? There's 12 weeks unpaid family leave in the US, but that's for both genders. There's no public child care. Best I can figure, this is "there is a good chance I will be forced to leave my profession and take full responsibility for all child care whether I like it or not due to a lack of support or affordable day care."

9. I am among the first to get off a sinking ship.
Um, wha? Well, I see someone watched "Titanic". That is so not the case anymore. If it ever was.

10. I can usually find someone with superior strength to help me overcome physically challenging obstacles, such as changing a tire or cutting a huge Christmas tree.
Going with Rachel here again. We'll be assumed to be incapable despite actual ability or personal desire.

11. Changing my mind is seen as a birthright or prerogative.
And so our decisions are never taken serious, and the reasons behind changes in stance are wholly ignored in favor of "well, you know how women are."

12. I feel free to explore alternate career paths instead of being bound to a single career ladder.
Can I get another "Um, wha?" Oh, no, I see what they're talking about. Every time we hit the goddamn glass ceiling and have to change jobs to get around it, we're supposed to be thrilled. It's an "alternate career path", not getting screwed like a rabbit on Viagra.

13. I am used to asking for help, around the kitchen table or the proverbial water cooler or the conference room.
Again, not true. Women I know rarely ask for help. We're supposed to help others, not need it themselves. When we do ask for help, we're often denied it. In professional settings, just like #5, we will again be assumed to be incompetent and punished monetarily. Men behaving in the same manner are "seeking mentoring opportunities" and rewarded.

14. People I’ve never met are inclined to hold doors open and give up their seats for me.
Rachel covers the reasons this was, and I'll throw on another "completely outdated" to sweeten the deal.

15. I can be proud of the skill I have worked to develop at stretching limited financial resources.
So, all women will be forced to stretch limited financial resources. Well, I'll grant that it's a lot more likely for women than men, statistically speaking. Men who are in that situation are also allowed to be proud of it, last I knew.  

16. I am not ashamed of using alternatives to positional power to reach my goals.
Conventional methods will be blocked to us and we will be forced to manipulate the system. We will then be punished for being for being manipulative

17. I know how to put a new roll of toilet paper in use and am not above doing it for the next person.
Men do not know how to install toilet paper? Men are selfish assholes? I don't believe that. (Guys, you need to have a fit when people like this try to talk for you!) 

18. I am not ashamed to admit that the decisions I make reflect my personal values.
All decisions will be assumed to have been made on some "gut instinct" or "intuition", and no amount of data will cause us to be taken seriously in some cases.

19. I am not afraid to create and maintain honest relationships with others.
Well, let's see. We're taught other women, and perhaps we ourselves, are "catty" and unworthy of friendship. We're taught that men will use us and harm us. Sorry, I've got to say that society actually tries to isolate women. Actually, it tries to isolate everyone, but that's getting deeper than I have time for.

20. I do not fear being accused of having an ethic of care in my professional life.
I fear it! It means "that was your last promotion. You're too weak to keep moving upwards. Why don't you go have some babies or something?"

21. When I enter an office, I am likely to encounter those who can help me “in low places.”
Because those who can help us in high places won't give us the time of day, thus forcing us to manipulate the system from below. We'll then, again, be punished for being manipulative.

22. I am more likely to get hugs than handshakes, depending on the situation.
So help me God, the first time a supplier or customer hugs me, my knee is going straight in his groin soooo hard and sooooo fast, I don't care who the hell he is. It is not a privilege to be treated like a child or a plaything instead of a professional peer

A little aside here. It really annoys the hell out of me when a man I'm being introduced to shakes my hand like he's afraid he's going to break it. Dude, just return the level of pressure I'm giving you. I personally have never received the two-fingered "pixie" handshake, but I did have one guy try to turn my hand horizontal.

23. I am less likely to be seen as a threat, which allows me more subtle alternatives.
Do I need to do the "I will be forced to be manipulative and then punished for it" again. How about pointing out that "not seen as a threat" can be spin for "not taken seriously."

24. I can use men’s “sheer fear of tears” to my advantage.
*points and laughs* Suuuure. Need a bridge in New York? Got one I'll sell ya cheap.

25. I can complain that these female privileges are relatively minor compared with the vast assortment of dominant male privileges, but I wouldn’t change places for the world.
I'd change places in a heartbeat, myself.
Damn, I wish I remembered all the words to "If I had a penis". *sings* "If I had a penis, I'd still be a girl. But I'd make lots more money and take over the world."