meet Eric Juneau, feminist warrior, rape apologist and thin sheets of women

TEN-HUT! ACHTUNG! WHIPS OUT! TODAY WE FLOG A NECKBEARD WITHOUT MERCY; BE RELENTLESS, FRIENDS

Who the fuck is Eric Juneau? Dunno. Edit: a rape apologist who thinks rape survivors are too loud and angry, among other things. Until two days ago I’d never heard of him. What’s drawn my interest is that he has thoughts on writing women (and thoughts on rape), which is kind of like having thoughts on yaoi but more offensive and tiresome. Many thoughts! Oh, so very many thoughts. He is a feminist, self-proclaimed and self-validated–never mind what any woman might say to the contrary. Did I say thoughts? No, what he wants to share with you, ignorant plebs, is his philosophy on writing women.

Most of it is kindergarten neckbeard blather about strong women and similar, drawing from Half-Life of all things, and while tedious, belaboring the obvious and useless–and chock-full of tiresome gamer-speak plus a smug conviction that he knows best–it’s not that offensive until you come to this gem:

I don’t want a character that’s defined by her presence, but by her motivations. She is a person first and a woman after that. A person with characteristics/traits that tend towards womanliness (is that a word?). I don’t characterize her by her body or her boyfriends or yogurt or being inept with technology or doing laundry things. I give her interests and traits universal to any person. Then I layer a thin sheet of woman on it — a little more emotional intensity, a little more nurturing, more connectivity with people. She’s not aggressive and violent, she’s not a linear thinker, not a constant crier, not so goal-focused (though goals are important and necessary, they are less tangible). A Barb Wire, high-heeled, cold warrior bitch is not a woman. It is a woman doing an impression of a man doing an impression of a woman. It’s a fantasy — unrealistic and implausible.

It’s amazing how much a man knows about being a woman, isn’t it? Isn’t “a thin sheet of woman” incredibly creepy and objectifying? Isn’t it presumptuous for him to be going around dictating what a woman is and what is not?

“A woman doing an impression of a man doing an impression of a woman”–in which case, would Eric Juneau be a monkey doing an impression of a man doing an impression of a Nice Guy? What’s with the “a little more emotional intensity, a little more nurturing” bullshit? Gosh, I don’t know. Rank sexist stereotypes, perhaps? A thin sheet of woman to Eric Juneau, it seems, entails being emotional and nurturing.

Even your average neckbeard pretender knows that’s not going to endear you to feminists of any stripe.

Because she’s not being a lesbian, she’s being a drunk, inept cook. She’s funny, cute, awkward, charming, winky, drunk, and lovable. It’s not like she’s those things despite being a lesbian. She is those things because that’s who Hannah Har is. They’re all part of the recipe.

Do you see. He treats women like real human beings! He thinks women are people, made of peoplely human traits! Stand up, friends, and give him applause. Encore! Encore! This note of self-congratulation continues when he informs us that he doesn’t think his wife is a domestic slave:

It’s stupid to think that woman are there just to make laundry or sandwiches.  As much as I’d like a personal slave, marriage doesn’t work that way.

Why it’s as though he has a doctorate in Professor Mansplainer. Next follows a bunch of bullet points with charming contents like:

• Men are linear thinkers – one thing at a time, in straight lines of logic. They want to deal with HOW. Women think in circles – circles that are connected and have relationships and emotions. They want to deal with WHY.

• Have women get emotional about what they really care about.

• Women make connections.

• Keep in mind their age and monthly cycle. Menopause can be very freeing, because they won’t have the emotional ups and downs. From age 10-50, the hormonal bell curve has a constant effect in life.

• Females are nurturers. Men are fixers. A woman may try to sense what someone needs and provide that. But if a female is self-absorbed, she wants nurturing herself and will go to any lengths to get it. But it is still about nurturing.

Why not have some disgusting heteronormativity to go with it too?

• Women love how men look. When they smell good, in a shirt and tie, young, thin, muscular, older, tall, smart, handsome, accomplished, kind, generous.

• A woman who is friends with guys must hit the “sister/buddy” button to belong. Not the girlfriend button. It doesn’t do much for your love life.

• Girls are stupid, women are smart. Teenage girls think about boys and sex a lot. Women are more inclined to think about careers or something that doesn’t involve men. Thinking about babies occurs, but tapers off after 40.

• Women find sincerity, humor, self-confidence, and broad shoulders attractive. Jaw lines, powerful hands, and how a man presents himself are also attractive.

Eric Juneau would like you to believe, to be sure, that all this he lifted from David Farland’s sexist bullshit fuckwaddery and that the bullet points are all summaries of what women said. You may have noticed, however, that Juneau’s own advisory about writing women lines up with a good many bullet points perfectly–”a little more emotional intensity, a little more nurturing” being the central idea of his “thin sheet of woman” factor, yes? This, Eric dear, is what we call revealing.

He moreover presents these bullet points without commentaries, as the conclusion of his worthless prattle. Quoting doesn’t necessarily imply endorsement, but if you see me quoting something from Orson Scott Card’s homophobic tirade without offering any commentary whatsoever, what’d be the first thing you think? Surely not “she’s silently condemning Card” because we none of us are psychic. Even the most inept student of Feminism 101 would have noticed that the bullet points are ignorant generalizations rooted in undiluted misogyny. So why does Juneau not say he disagrees with any of them? Why, indeed, does he quote them as part of his “This Is How You Write Wimmen” high-horse gallop?

Either he thinks these points are perfectly fine or he fails to recognize that they are deeply problematic, deeply sexist. Whatever the case, this disqualifies Eric Juneau from ever calling himself a feminist, or even a feminist supporter. He’s a tiresome little poseur who’s panting, tail wagging, in the hope of getting a feminist treat–a medal to commemorate his bravery as a male feminist ally, perhaps. When he finds that women have arrived at his blog to pin that medal into his eye socket he reacts predictably.

Now let’s find out who Eric Juneau is.

Who are your writing influences?

Stephen King, Joss Whedon, Neil Gaiman, Peter David, John Scalzi

Look at that! An absolute lack of women writers. And yet, never forget, friends: Eric Juneau right here is a feminist crusader. Especially damning are the mentions of Stephen King and Joss Whedon, the former of which isn’t especially known for his nuanced feminism and the latter of which is… well, Whedon. Ugh.

Why do you write?

I tell stories because I have no stories of my own.

It’s true. I really live a dull life. I don’t travel very often. I’ve only been out of the country twice. Once was to Cancun with my family. The other was on a Carribbean cruise. I haven’t even been to Canada, and I live in Minnesota.

No comment.

His list of favorite books lists two books by women, both incredibly safe and popular choices–The Hunger Games and Harry Potter. The rest, you will be unsurprised to hear, are a sausage fest. Mostly white sausage fest, too.

UPDATE: Need further convincing that Eric Juneau is a waste of oxygen? He wrote this post about rape. TRIGGER WARNINGS. TRIGGER WARNINGS RIGHT NOW.

And I’m in that majority, but I’m trying to understand the minority. But I can’t because they’re thrusting all of their anger, their resentment, their fear, their shame, on me. So I can’t get a rational discussion going, to get information so that solutions can be found. Maybe to raise awareness or to dash misconceptions. No you get a bunch of rapees pointing fingers and saying “You’re wrong. You don’t know the struggle. It’s this way, there is no fuzzy area, no middle ground, no different degrees of rape. If she never said yes, you raped her. And you’re ignorant for not knowing”. It’s the same reason white people can’t use the n-word in any context–the fraction of people who blow up over the issue.

[...]

I have to say all this here because the comments are closed, thanks in no small part to me. That says because I’m not understanding, I should cease to make any attempts to try and understand. I can’t ask a basic question without twelve people jumping down my throat telling me how wrong I am with so much anti-rape rhetoric they no longer remember how to have a rational discussions about it.

That’s fine. I’ll be your bad guy. Nothing I’m not used to.

Next time, I’ll just stay out of any rape discussions. Clearly, I don’t understand it, and people don’t want to teach me. Fine. Keep your stewing in your rape juices. I’m going to play Left 4 Dead.

He went from clueless neckbeard to RAGING RAPEYNESS THIS WAY COMES shithead. Almost impressive. There’s some kind of rape apologia going on in there, too. Rape juices. Wow. This right here? This is subhuman. Eric Juneau needs to shut the fuck up, forever.

Posted by acrackedmoon on March 16, 2012

http://requireshate.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/meet-eric-juneau-feminist-warrior-rape-rapist-apologia/