Wait, is Code Name actually yourself? Because suddenly halfway through this you transitioned from third person to first person with zero explanation.

"Because human beings are not things." This objectively and completely untrue. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/…

"Women can enjoy and love sex the same way a man does, or more often, better." True, and then what? That's a weird judgment call to make.

I don't get it, was the ventriloquism dummy evil *before* it was changed into a human by the wizard, or only afterward?

Why is Graham?

I thought this was heartfelt and passionate, I liked it. You have a way with words.

Is no one paying attention to the substance of this piece? Oh right, of course not, because men.

@gaensbluemchen: Because the writing is confusing as it currently stands. It needs a good twice-over by an editor; starting with just the first sentence, "My girlfriend Code Name recently met a male suitor". The primary and most common definition of 'girlfriend' is someone's romantic or amorous partner. So we as the reader go into this sentence having to assume that this is some sort of polyamorous situation. But then that as a concept is never re-examined or explained.

I can understand that it's frustrating when you feel like the 'point' is being missed because of tone arguments or concern trolling or that type of thing. But we need to have critiques of both content and prose, this is a necessary component of the commentary. We owe it both to ourselves and to the author to have a discussion that includes the methodology of how the argument is being constructed and the argument itself.

Overall, I strongly agree with the generalized points that Ms. Holm is making in this piece. But I do find it to be a rather limited analysis (questions of the purity of women are always rooted in economic models of property and chattel, but whatevs), but we can't really have a grand unified theory of intersectionality in a humor column.

I've been slut shamed by lesbians which is just so, WTF?

Tune in next week when Barbara exposes Misogyny, at the hands of Evil Straight White Men, while folding clothes at the local laundrymat !

Graham, I thoroughly look forward to reading all of your other critiques of the other columns in the Mercury this week based on both content and prose. Surely you aren't just interested in critiquing this piece.

@ETEETS: Nice try at dismissing my concerns as simply being agenda oriented. But you've got one major point wrong. This isn't a column in the Mercury; this is a blogpost. So you've done a wonderful job of moving the goalposts and deflecting away from the criticisms to the criticizer themselves. These are all wonderful silencing techniques and I applaud your attempts at using them so skillfully.

But anyways, to address your baseless point: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…

Comment 10 in particular, I am addressing content & prose of the author's argument. But again, I really do appreciate you feeding my narcissism by making it all about me. That's just wonderful.

Just commenting to say you are rad! I would say that I want to read your funny intellectualizing on what you hate about misogyny forever, but I can't because I have to hope that maybe, one day, in the very distant future, people won't be so goddamn ignorant, divisive, and hateful.
In the mean time, I am thankful to read these pieces as long as you're makin' them because they are terribly fantastic. It also gives me hope for us all that the Mercury will actually host these! Barbara Holm, preach it.

"intellectualizing" ? you gotta be kidding.
I think the Merc is playing a joke on us by getting a High School blogger to fill space.

I don't disagree with your points, but misogyny isn't exclusive to men. I've met more female perpetrators of "slut-shaming" than male; "Don't sleep with her you might get X," and "you'll probably get herpes from being in the same room as her" are things I've never heard a guy say regarding a girl, but I've heard girls say about each other.

anyways, anecdotal evidence, radda-radda

I'm on the outside of this circle, but I think I may know the suitor (or ones like him) that Code Name was courting and if she's smart, she'll take a look at his sexual past. Chances are if he's vague about it, he's lying and you're in for some trouble. Unless she wants to be cheated on and/or given an STD. If its someone she only recently met she should talk to some of his ex's or his friends to save herself the trouble. If its someone she knows, then chances are he already knows her past and doesn't care.