X-Men advertisers make giant billboard misstep

June 5, 2016


CBC reports that Toronto wound up with several of these brainless billboards advertising the newest of the X-Men franchise.

So we have here a giant armoured up dude strangling the crap out of a dainty naked lady. My trim/enlargement of CBC’s photo is blurred a bit but the bit of writing beside Apocalypse reads “Only the strong will survive.” Now, I know Mystique’s power is chameleon-like and can change herself to look like anyone. Does the change include duplication of the powers and strength as well or is she kind of, well, fucked here?

Maybe the advertisers honestly thought, “let’s show Mystique at the brink of doom because people love Jennifer Lawrence and will worry about her character and buy tickets to the show to see how she gets out of this/how she’s rescued by all the awesome X-Men!”

Maybe the advertisers honestly never noticed what message they wind up suggesting here — men being stronger so weaker people (read:women) should be crushed by stronger men because only the strong should survive.

That’s the only message getting seen by people already concerned about the violent treatment of women already inherent in our society.

Nneka MacGregor, executive director of Women at the Centre [a non-profit charity focused on violence against women], said six billboards in different locations around Toronto were pointed out to her, prompting her to send an email to the film company.

“We were really worried about the use of that image,” she told CBC News. “It’s not the type of stuff you should be advertising.”

Fox has since apologized for the severe lapse of judgement and is replacing the ads with new promotional material.

CBC notes that some think “fake outrage” blows this thing way out of proportion, but I don’t think so. I think the backlash is just the latest example of people realizing we need to change they way we advertise things. Methods that were expected and acceptable before are less so now.



It’s called progress. There are better ways to advertise the film’s adversary and advertisers should have chosen something better than this in the first place.

Fox added that it “would never condone violence against women.”

Actual violence against women, I suppose they mean. Movie violence is kind of their bread and butter, and if it’s women characters getting hit, at least they’re in a position to hit back. We won’t see an X-Men film where the heroes and villains match wits in a zesty game of Chess instead. Oh wait, we did — Magneto and Xavier played a game when Mags was in that plastic prison. Nevermind…

There’s often debate on whether violent games and shows create violent people – a 2014 study says no – but there’s no debate on the fact that we have a society where women are often targets for violence by men and, unlike X-Men female characters, lack the mutant badassery to kick ass and defend themselves on equal physical footing and/or lay waste to their enemies.

I’ll probably wind up seeing the film because I’ve watched all the other ones. But, I’ll watch it for free when my local library buys it. Not because of this advertising flak; I’m just cheap. I don’t go to a lot of cinema shows anymore so when I do it needs to be money well spent.


Quotable Friendly Atheist

September 18, 2014

At least, Muhammad Syed, quoted on Friendly Atheist:

There will never be reform or improvement if you are unwilling to even hear out ideas that are threatening to your beliefs. The complete lack of introspection, self-criticism, and demands for improvement paved the way for my disillusionment with the Muslim community many years ago and remains a main reason why I believe the Muslim community lacks the will to adapt to the modern world.

I borrow the paragraph from Hemant Mehta’s post regarding Yale and their invitation to have author and human rights advocate Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak this week. The Muslim Students Association and the Yale Humanists were critical of her speaking engagement and wrote a letter to the Buckley Program, which had set things up. In it they requested she limit her speech to direct life experiences and avoid talking smack about Islam — something she feels she has the right and obligation to do given her direct life experiences with it.

Muhammad Syed, the co-founder and Executive Director of Ex-Muslims of North America, penned an open letter to Yale Humanists and the MSA about this, which Hemant Mehta included in its entirety. It’s worth a read.

Change is good. Change is natural. Change is hard. Criticism is often just a lot of people bitching about the shit they don’t like. Constructive criticism, on the other hand, is meant to encourage change for the better. I don’t know where on the spectrum Ali would fit; I’ve read nothing she’s written on this topic or anything else for that matter.

I suppose for those who are getting criticized, the type of criticism might not matter; it’ll still feel like the whole world is against them. No doubt this feeling of “backed into a corner” just adds to the digging of heels and overall stubbornness. And then this choice to remain unchanging is easily justified simply by pointing out how generally fucked up the criticizing cultures are. “You’re one to talk..” as it were. Or, paraphrase the bible if you prefer – don’t point to the sliver in my eye while you have a stick in yours. But which side is doing the pointing? Each side would say the other.

Nobody’s perfect.

Take the NFL…

The One Minion Search Party: “Does god hate women?”

August 28, 2014

A couple hits for this question this week. Not for the first time, I look toward Religious Tolerance for an evenhanded approach to answering this one. It offers many examples out of the old testament that illustrate the low status of women at the time. This doesn’t mean particularly that god (should he exist) hates women, but he didn’t really punish any of the men for treating the women like property and restricting their freedoms or killing them outright so it’s pretty obvious why hate could be assumed here.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist. “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife….”

Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her abdomen would swell and her thighs waste away. There is no similar magical test for husbands suspecting of having an affair with another woman.

On another page they offer more specific examples, some of which show women in a better light, but they’re few and far between.

The Jesus stories turn a lot of that around, showing him as rebelling against tradition in a lot of ways but as the Church gained popularity and influence, conflicting books and ideas really confused the matter.

To my thinking, the question shouldn’t be “Does god hate women?” but more along the lines of a two-parter:

“Why do certain men hate women?”
“Just how big a role has religion played in helping certain men hate women?”

Maybe hate’s the wrong word. It’s a pretty strong word, but clearly there’s a distinct lack of compassion in some men for the plights of women, and the rights of women.

It’s not all guys, it’s certainly not all religious guys, but there’s that subset of guys (and the inexplicable subset of women that support them). Those guys that, for whatever reason, continue to have political sway and want to restrict and limit women’s rights to abortion and birth control and are even willing to criminalize women who miscarry for any reason.

Rennie Gibbs in Mississippi (2011)

Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby’s death – they charged her with the “depraved-heart murder” of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.

Others are mentioned in the article.

Women in El Salvador (2013)

El Salvador is one of five countries with a total ban on abortion, along with Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras and Dominican Republic. Since 1998, the law has allowed no exceptions – even if a woman is raped, her life is at risk or the foetus is severely deformed.

More than 200 women were reported to the police between 2000 and 2011, of whom 129 were prosecuted and 49 convicted – 26 for murder (with sentences of 12 to 35 years) and 23 for abortion, according to research by Citizens’ Group for the Decriminalization of Abortion. Seven more have been convicted since 2012.

Purvi Patel in Indiana (August 26, 2014)

Women’s rights advocates see the decision by prosecutors of St Joseph County, Indiana, to apply feticide laws against Patel as part of the creeping criminalization of pregnancy in America. At least 38 of the 50 states have introduced fetal homicide laws intended to protect the unborn child and in a growing number of states – including Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina – those laws have been turned against mothers.

It’s revolting. There’s no other word for it.

I’ll end here. Thoughts?

Atheist Scruples: you’re a VP and are getting interviewed

August 5, 2014

You are the busy vice-president of a large corporation. A student asks to interview you for a class assignment. Do you make time?

Of course I will. I’m going to pretend this is a female student who’s asking how to be a woman and successful in a business.

I have no fucking idea.

I can Google “how many women are vice presidents?” but that just gets me American government hits, specifically the history of Geraldine Ferraro:

Ferraro, the first woman and the first Italian-American to run on a major party national ticket, was Walter Mondale’s vice presidential running mate in 1984 on the Democratic Party ticket.

She earned a reputation for speaking her mind on the issues of the day, sometimes generating controversy for her outspoken opinions.

The 1984 presidential campaign against popular incumbent President Ronald Reagan showed that Ferraro could be comfortable in the men’s world of national politics — at the time there were few women in Congress.

Thanks, Google. Interesting, but not what I was wanting. I’ll rephrase the question. “How many women are vice presidents of companies?”

I find an article at the National Bureau of Economic Research – all American, and looks to be a decade out of date:

In 1980, the Fortune 100 featured no women executives, while in 2001, 11 percent were women.

Not that out of date after all. Since 2009, not much in the way of improvement:

although women make up over half of America’s labor force, as of 2009, only 12 Fortune 500 companies and 25 Fortune 1000 companies have women CEOs or presidents.

Dismal, frankly.

There’s a 2011 Financial Post article listing the top 100 powerful Canadian women, though, and I’ve likely heard of none of them. Oh wait; Margaret Atwood is on the list as a “revered author” so that’s one. We read A Handmaid’s Tale for our banned book club. Not an executive, though. The list has more than just business people on it.

Do women get a short shrift in business because of the baby-making business many women are also into and the time required to devote to upbringing? Do we have different aspirations for what it means to be successful in a workplace? Are we reluctant to take the risks men might take to get ahead in their places of business? Is it a glass ceiling situation?

Last week, Forbes posted an article supporting the need for women to have mentors. In a lot of cases men are the only ones they can really turn to for good advice on how to get ahead.

The thing that I like most about this group of men (and a handful more, some who did not want to be mentioned) is that when we speak, they don’t sit there and tell me how wonderful I am. They give credit where credit is due, but more importantly, they challenge me, they make me want to be better. They give me constructive criticism, push me to think outside the box, and share their insights. In sum, these men offer me more than I could ever get from a single mentor.

Okay, so that’d be something to tell the student at least. Network the shit out of your workplace and find the people who you can trust to be honest with you and who genuinely want to help you get ahead. The ones that will encourage you forward, not discourage you into wanting to quit. (Or harass the life out of you — that’s a post all on its own, I’m sure.)

Confessional: I’d never make it as a boss or manager. My go-to tends to be cruel criticism and disgust. I’m thinking back to attempts to train helpers for my job and having totally the wrong approach for helping them get the point of the work, which was to do it quickly, efficiently, and with few errors. But, I’ve since learned that efficiency to the level I possess (a little braggy, sorry) is not something teachable. You either have it, or you don’t. A lot of people don’t and I find it a super huge headache when it comes to getting a job done well to deal with these people who don’t approach the work with the same ambition and drive that I do. It’s painful and aggravating to watch people do it in a way that’s not MY WAY. I almost want to pull the carts away and do them “properly”. (I’m aware this is a problem.)

My job is one in a field dominated by women, predominantly. Libraries are mostly women. A few guys work there as librarians or pages but it might be 3% of the total number of people employed in the system. If that. But we have a male Director for our library. His second in command is a woman, though.

I wouldn’t want her job. Calling myself a minion is pretty much the truth. I don’t want to be the one in charge. I don’t want the stress. The money isn’t worth it. I’d rather be happy and go home feeling relaxed than be stuck in meetings and conferences and have to hear about how people aren’t getting along, or force people to give up on work habits 20 years in the making. I don’t want the hassle.

I guess that’s be the next thing to tell the student. You have to be a special kind of person to want that kind of work. Be willing to be ruthless if that’s what it takes to get to the goal, whatever that goal might be. Nice gets you only so far. You’re not there to be liked. You’re there to revolutionize the place and make it more successful and productive.

That’s my thoughts on it, anyway.

I didn’t like this question.

So I read Deborah Feldman’s book “UNorthodox”

February 22, 2012

It was released by Simon and Schuster recently and was a pretty quick but interesting read. Feldman grew up in Brooklyn as part of the Williamsburg Hasidic community and has written a memoir based on that life and the steps she ultimately took within her life to surpass those mentally crippling limitations.

It was eye-opening in terms of me learning more about that stricter version of Judaism. I hadn’t known women were expected to shave all their hair off after marriage and wear wigs or some other head covering. There’s a point in the book where it’s discovered that natural hair wigs purchased for these Satmar women were made of hair that Hindus had shaved off themselves as part of their own worshiping ceremonies and the Rabbi demands all the wigs be burned. God truly forbid they wear hair that belonged to those who worship false idols. But God also forbid they be allowed to keep and style their own hair – it might give the men Ideas. It seems the men have enough Ideas as it is.

Men and women being kept separate in temple is something I might have known about before but the purity laws that keep the temple and thus men “safe” from menstruating women seem outright laughable, even though it’s clear they take that shit seriously. Feldman describes the ritual of self-testing for bleeding and rules about bringing one’s underwear to the Rabbi if one’s not sure the stains are blood. Once married to the man chosen by one’s parents, there are even more rituals and rules to abide by – special purification baths to take and men not allowed to touch anything a bleeding woman has touched. As an outsider looking in, it all sounds so damned ludicrous. What she describes about her sexual anxiety on top of all that wound up being the most fascinating part of the book, I have to admit. I thought I had hang-ups…

She didn’t come out of the experience a complete atheist but she grew to understand why her mother felt compelled to leave that world (she was gay) and her life-long secret love of secular books eventually helped her realize she wanted a better education for herself and her son than they’d otherwise get. Her relationship with her husband was also poor (not just because of the bedroom problems) and it seems like it was a fairly easy decision for both of them to divorce.

I’m not much for reading memoirs. The brain can be a terrible place to store memories. The bulk of them wind up flawed and changed by memories of experiences that occur later, either our own, or those we hear of from other people. No matter how “true” a story might feel to the writer, it’s up to the reader to take it with a grain of salt. (One “reader” goes a step further; RS has a whole blog dedicated to exposing Feldman as a fraud, and provides different background to some of the stories she shares in her book.)

In terms of the book itself, I’ve read a lot of books and this one feels green. Amateurish, I mean. 25 she might be, but a lot of writers got a start younger than that and their first books are a lot more polished. It might be on account of the style she chose to write it, mind you. It’s a present-tense first person kind of thing so that while she’s describing events that might have occurred when she was nine, it’s written like she is that age, writing pages in a juvenile diary. I agree with the opinion of The Forward blogger, Debra Nussbaum Cohen, too:

Whatever the truth, something about Feldman still seems very young, though she is now 25 and the mother of a nearly 6-year-old son. In photos in the Post, posing in a sequined, sleeveless mini-dress, and in pictures on the ABC News website, where she sits on a park bench, wearing high heels, tight jeans and holding a cigarette in her hand, she looks like nothing so much as a young girl posing the way she thinks grownups are supposed to.

She reminds me of 13-year-old girls I see at some bat mitzvahs, teetering around on stiletto heels and wearing minis so short they can’t safely sit down.

I’m trying to think back to what I was like when I was 25. I think I was probably something of a poser, too, without enough life experience to see what parts of my behaviour merely reflected those around me and what came directly from myself. I think that’s a struggle everyone goes through at some point, even if they don’t realize it.

Now living on the Upper East Side with her son, she said there is nothing she misses about life in the Satmar community. “Everything I miss I can have,” she said. “If I want cholent, I make cholent. I have it all now. I am just exhilarated by it. There is not even within me even one shred of regret.”

If she feels like she has to prove something, I hope she realizes she only has to prove it to herself. It does take some daring to write about yourself, I’ll admit. I’m not that bold. Then again, a lot of what I’ve done is boring and quite forgettable. Truthfully, I don’t think I could remember enough childhood events to fill a chapter, let alone nine of them. UNremarkable. That’d be the title of mine…

Banned Book Club – A Handmaid’s Tale

May 20, 2011

We met last night to discuss this book by Margaret Atwood. Whole plot is here for those who’d like it.

A half-assed summary from me: the story is told from the perspective of Offred, a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead (formerly Massachusetts/USA). Like others of her caste, she’s owned by a wealthy man whose older wife can’t have kids anymore (if she ever could). Fertility rates in Caucasians had plummeted some years earlier (due to environmental issues among other things) and it became “necessary” to round up women of child-bearing age and, if they could, force them to produce children for the right (read: rich “pious” government) couples in need of offspring.

Through the telling of her story, we learn about how Offred lost her husband and first child when the round-up happened, that her mother rebelled against the new system and paid dearly for it, and that a woman she admired as a rebel didn’t remain rebellious for long – at least, not in a “free” way like Offred assumed would happen. We also learn that there’s an underground group that’s trying to free handmaids from this sexual slavery.

We hit on a lot of different topics as presented in the book. We discussed the power structure in place in Gilead that keeps women oppressed and argued about how the situation tied Offred to her Commander and his Wife and the dynamics such an arrangement would make them to deal with. Offred doesn’t have much in the way of choice in what she’d be doing at the house (she’s there to be slept with) but the Commander uses his position to give her a little sense of the freedoms she once had but now lacks. In this dystopia, women are banned from reading and writing but the Commander secretly invites her to play scrabble and read magazines. We didn’t really discuss why he’d feel compelled to offer those little banned luxuries to her. I wonder if it’s because his Wife, Serena Joy, never would have kowtowed to those particular whims, even if she did actually love the man in some way. She was too hooked into her role in this society, and more concerned about getting Offred pregnant – if not by her own husband then by someone else. She was willing to put up with having a handmaid in the house if it meant she’d have a child to raise at the end of it. One of the guys suggested that the book is less about the strict, totalitarian ideologies and loss of rights (of everyone, not just these handmaids) but about adultery. Much of the book focuses on Offred and the Wife and their weird relationship, plus her changing relationship with the Commander as she’s allowed more freedoms. Her manner of dealing with him becomes less stilted and perfunctory as she gets to know who he is and what he likes, and this makes everything even more awkward when they’re in bed with the Wife.

We talked about Atwood’s use of language in the book and decisions she made in her character development. One complaint had to do with prolonged flashbacks to Offred’s earlier life and love but since it winds up that the whole of the story is a flashback anyway, a reconstruction of events as Offred remembered them (however badly) during the recording of these memories onto cassettes (we learn at the end), we’re stuck with a narration focused on precisely how this woman deals with the past, what she dreamed and hoped for, and what grim realities she faced instead. That was a long sentence. Sorry. Point being, like or hate, Atwood put all that in for a reason. It helps to build Offred’s character if we know what she dwells on, even to the point of annoyance from a reader’s perspective.

Talk turned to France and the burqa ban for a bit, which is where the night ended. Some thought it was a terrific “it’s about time” kind of thing and others argued about choice and things. Is it about the religion or power (utilizing religion and fear of god) or what?

All the women in the book are forced to dress a certain way depending on their station. Wives get blue dresses, I think, the Econowives of the poor/middle class men have to wear stripes, the maids (Marthas) dress in another colour and the handmaids are very visible in the world in their long red dresses with white veils that work something blinders so they can only look at what’s in front of them.

There’s a scene in the book where Japanese tourists are wandering around taking pictures of the women. One of the tourists is a woman dressed “western” with a knee length skirt or something and Offred marvels at the look of it – mostly because she’s surprised at how appalled she is to see someone’s legs. It seems indecent, and yet not very long before that, she herself would have been dressing the same way. Normal is what you get used to, after all. It’s a state of mind and it doesn’t take long to create a new sense of normalcy when everyone’s forced to change their lifestyle to fit new laws (i.e. smoking bans in public places, mandatory seat belts).

We talked about the end of the book, too, since it turns out that Offred managed to record her experience for posterity and people later found the tapes and transcribed them. Some of what got discussed about the end scenes centered around how we view history and what our choices are in terms of how we can interpret it. We’re really bound by the eyes and mind and viewpoints of the historians, all of which will be coming to the history with their own biases and ideologies. Are they able to set any of that aside and be completely objective? They’re limited by the lack of objectivity in the original pieces, too. Offred saw the world a certain way and readily admits in the book that her memory is fallible, prone to re-imagining conversations since it’s impossible to recall word-for-word details months or years later. Same goes for events she describes. Her historians have to trust her to some degree, but they note that she changed some names to protect herself so who knows if they really guessed right when trying to set her story at a particular place in the world? Maybe she wasn’t even Offred but picked that name herself as additional cover. I can’t recall if that occurred to the historians. I think they all assumed she’d been owned by a guy named Frederick and spent all their time trying to uncover which one fit the tale as she told it.

Well anyway, I quite liked the book. It was thought-provoking and intelligent and mildly troubling, especially since Atwood picked bits of actual history to add into this thing, not just early Puritan history but issues that were relevant and timely when she was writing it. It’s good fiction, but it’s also good social commentary for that reason.

“Does God hate women?” If he was created by misogynist men, sure

April 27, 2011

Quoting a Washington Post reporter by the name of Sally Quinn:

why, I asked myself, if women were so smart and capable and in so many cases, smarter and more capable than men, were they being discriminated against? It made absolutely zero sense to me. Of course there were women trailblazers– the first woman this, the first woman that. And yet, women who were too capable or powerful were often labeled lesbians by their male counterparts. Or ridiculed, or condescended to. I remember once, when I was covering a party in Washington, and Gloria Steinem (another Smithie, as was Betty Friedan) was approached by Congressman Brownie Reid. “I think it’s so great for you girls to have something to do before you get married,” said Reid to the astonished feminist leader.

Then I began to learn about religion.

She lists several examples of women getting the short shrift — I’m going to interrupt my own train of thought here to note the word shrift, as I suddenly wondered what the hell that meant and if I was using it correctly:

The verb form, shrive, is also now an almost forgotten antique. A shrift is a penance (a prescribed penalty) imposed by a priest in a confession in order to provide absolution, often when the confessor was near to death. In the 17th century, criminals were sent to the scaffold immediately after sentencing and only had time for a ‘short shrift’ before being hanged.

And we can thank Shakespeare for making the phrase colloquial. Thanks, Shakespeare. Anyway, yes, women have less say and less importance overall, even if they want to tout the implied worth of Mary or Ruth or whatever other women actually have a given name in the bible. The facts remain, there is clear evidence across religions of women being perceived as second class, or lower.

It’s nothing I’ve ever watched for but we can see this misogyny in advertising, too. I’m still plowing through Can’t Buy My Love by Jean Kilbourne and it continues to be fascinating. Ads have portrayed women in so many derogatory and demeaning ways. She mentions instances of women with their mouths covered or sewn up (pg 139) and language that encourages body parts to do all the communicating rather than the voice. “Score high on non-verbal skills,” touts one for T.J. MAXX. Another for some Italian fashion company reads (pg 140) “This woman is silent. This coat talks.” She also provides photos of ads for Newport cigarettes that show women in compromising and embarrassing positions, displaying them as not just daffy but completely stupid and incompetent and only good for laughing at (pgs 196-7). She also notes that when rebellion is encouraged, it only goes as far as black nail polish (p. 153). The same goes for attitude, only desirable if being a bad ass results in showing that ass off in some way. (pg 152). Actual evidence of skill or ambition or brains isn’t really important. Shoes and accessories are.

Back to Quinn,

Recently Jimmy Carter spoke on the subject at a religious conference. “The discrimination against women on a global basis,” he said,” is very often attributable to the declaration by religious leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions, that women are inferior in the eyes of God.”

This may not seem an earth-shaking comment but it was courageous of Carter to speak out against this practice, particularly since he came from a Baptist tradition where women were not even allowed to be ministers. He is also, in this statement, calling on those of faith to question his God’s attitude toward one half of the earth’s population.

God’s “attitude” isn’t the problem, it’s how men have manipulated scripture and doctrine to promote men and degrade women and are still getting encouragement (or at least tacit approval) to do so. It’s the willingness of both men and women to hold steadfast to archaic family structures and thought patterns because if they were good enough for bible days they still must be valid now. New interpretations of the bible, adding more genderized language into it… that’s not fixing the problem, that’s just muddying the water. All the bad advice about how to treat one’s slaves and one’s women can still be found in there if you know where to look. It’s mentioned in that piece that Jesus encouraged his followers to elevate the status of women but clearly there were limits to what believers were willing to do for the man, as evidenced by every book later credited to Paul and company. Belief in the resurrection, darn tootin’. Belief in women’s lib? Inconceivable!

With thousands of years of discrimination behind us and so much still existing, and with 95 percent of the world’s population adhering to some faith or other, how could those beliefs not be held accountable. And for those who believe in an all loving God, a God who loves men and women equally, how could one not ask the question: Why would He (She?) allow this to exist unless he hated women?

Because men created god in their own image. But, attitudes need adjusting across the board; this is not just the fault of men. We’re still living in a culture that can marginalize and trivialize women without much protest to the contrary from any gender. Every time women might try to protest their treatment, how are they treated? Men are allowed to be angry and assertive and will still be respected, but women often wind up being thought of as hysterical bitches no one needs to take seriously. Until that bizarre double standard is set aside, we’re not going to get very far.