In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Category: Gender

Why Not Gender-Neutral Marriage?

I think it was Amp who I first heard the term “gender-neutral marriage” from, and it makes a lot of sense — particularly when put in the framework that Amanda presents in this fantastic post. After reading Dan Savage’s latest book about marriage equality, Amanda gets straight to the heart of the marriage issue, and presents what I think is the best feminist argument yet for gender-neutral marriage:

Basically, the reason that marriage is traditionally a male-female institution was that it was a property transaction and the property was the woman. Traditional marriage is institutionalized female slavery with a bit of slapdash romanticism to make it more palatable. Traditional marriage is legally dead; it died a long, long time ago. When marriage shifted from an ownership situation to a partnership, the “damage” was done and thank god for it. Without it being a legal method of enforcing male dominance over women, there’s no reason for the actual people inside the marriage to be a man and a woman.

The rest of the post is very good, so read the whole thing. I’ve written before that I’ve never heard a particularly compelling argument against gender-neutral marriage, and all the anti’s seem to come up with is “But traditional marriage…” So now that we’ve shown, as Amanda said, that “traditional marriage is dead” and this is a good thing for all involved (I think most conservatives would agree that the wife-as-chattel model isn’t the greatest), why agitate against gender-neutral marriage? What’s the argument for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples? Why do a man and a woman inherently do marriage better than a woman and a woman or a man and a man? I’m asking seriously here. I know a handful of social conservatives read this blog, and I’m really curious as to where you all weigh in. Go.

*And since I’m soliciting these opinions, I’d like to request that the left-leaning people on this blog (me, for example) take care not to attack the more conservative commentors. Debate away, please, but I’m the one asking for their views, so I’d like to make this a fairly open space for diverse opinions to be shared. You all are excellent at keeping discussions civil, but I know this topic can get heated — let’s keep it as calm as we can on both sides. Thanks!

Bike Seats May Have Sexual Side Effects

I’m tempted to make a “banana seat” pun right now, but I’ll refrain.

A raft of new studies suggest that cyclists, particularly men, should be careful which bicycle seats they choose.

The studies add to earlier evidence that traditional bicycle saddles, the kind with a narrow rear and pointy nose, play a role in sexual impotence.

Well. We’ll get to the “especially men” part in a second.

The area in question is the perineum, between the external genitals and the anus. “When you sit on a chair you never put weight on the perineum,” Dr. Schrader said. “But when you sit on a bike, you increase pressure on the perineum” sevenfold.

In men, a sheath in the perineum, called Alcock’s canal, contains an artery and a nerve that supply the penis with blood and sensation. The canal runs along the side of a bone, Dr. Goldstein said, and when a cyclist sits hard on a narrow saddle, the artery and the nerve are compressed. Over time, a reduction of blood flow can mean that there is not enough pressure to achieve full erection.

In women, Dr. Goldstein said, the same arteries and nerves engorge the clitoris during sexual intercourse. Women cyclists have not been studied as much, he added, but they probably suffer the same injuries.

(emphasis mine)

So… why should “particularly men” be careful? That’s right, because women haven’t been studied as much, even though we might suffer the exact same injuries.

Why am I not surprised? The fact that it may cause sexual dysfunction in men garners a dozen studies and a two page article in the New York Times; the fact that it may cause sexual dysfunction in women gets one sentence. The rest of the article discusses the health effects for “cyclists,” all of whom, apparently, are proud owners of progressively limper penises. And before anyone starts accusing me of being anti-man, I’m not saying in any way that the article shouldn’t have been written or that the studies shouldn’t have been done. I’m glad they were; now I know not to date bicyclists*. It’s a big deal that a common recreational activity could lead to impotence and sexual performance problems, so I’m happy to see it’s being covered. I just wish they would have included the ladies, too. We like our wee-wees to work as much as you like yours to.

And as a final, general bitching point, I’m sick of women getting the short end of the stick on all the sexual dysfunction studies and solutions (and medical studies in general, but that’s another post). Guy has trouble keeping it up, drug companies pour millions into creating Viagra and other similar drugs. A substantial percentage of women have never orgasmed in their lives, and they get… I dunno, KY, to at least make the process less painful? It’s a crock.

UPDATE: Well, not everyone is ignoring women’s health. But, seriously, Crisco? Thanks to Jess for the link.

*Just kidding, numb-nuts.

Women’s Contribution to Society

Is apparently close to nothing if they choose to be stay-at-home moms.

You had to know it was only a matter of time before someone used the faulty New York Times article about college women predicting an eventual return to the dometic to argue that more men should be admitted, as they will likely be more “productive” members of society.

A better idea, though counterintuitive, might be to raise tuition to all students but couple the raise with a program of rebates for graduates who work full time. For example, they might be rebated 1 percent of their tuition for each year they worked full time. Probably the graduates working full time at good jobs would not take the rebate but instead would convert it into a donation. The real significance of the plan would be the higher tuition, which would discourage applicants who were not planning to have full working careers (including applicants of advanced age and professional graduate students). This would open up places to applicants who will use their professional education more productively; they are the more deserving applicants.

Although women continue to complain about discrimination, sometimes quite justly, the gender-neutral policies that govern admission to the elite professional schools illustrate discrimination in favor of women. Were admission to such schools based on a prediction of the social value of the education offered, fewer women would be admitted.

Read More…Read More…

Any Woman Will Not Do

Ruth Bader Ginsberg does not want to be the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But, she says, “Any woman will not do.”

There are “some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women’s rights,” Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association…Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a “fine jurist,” adding that there are many women who fit that mold.

“I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me,” Ginsburg said during a brief interview Wednesday night.

Other women’s rights leaders floated names on qualified moderate jurists. I’m not holding my breath.

Hey, maybe when Jill gets through law school…

Related Reading: Et Tu, Patrick?

Listless Lads

Rebecca Traister has clearly been hanging with my ex-boyfriends:

I have observed the birth of a new breed of man: a man of few interests and no passions; a man whose libido is reduced and whose sense of responsibility nonexistent. These men are commitment-phobic not just about love, but about life. They drink and take drugs, but even their hedonism lacks focus or joy. They exhibit no energy for anyone, any activity, profession or ideology. While they may have mildly defined areas of interest — in, say, “Star Wars,” or the work of Ron Jeremy — they have trouble figuring out what kind of food they might want to eat on a given night.

Traister sits down with novelist Benjamin Kunkel to talk about what appears to be a new phenomenon, a generation of young men overcome with ennui. Though I take issue with some of the language in the article, this is something I too have observed. I thought the young men I grew up with, full of potential and vision turned listless and visionless, were isolated to this sleepy Indiana town, experiencing what I always thought of as an extended adolescence. It appears this is a more common experience than I thought.

Read More…Read More…

And One for Insomnia

Apparently being tired as all hell is not enough to get me to sleep, so we’ll just take this boring quiz and call it a day.


You Are 70% Boyish and 30% Girlish

You are pretty evenly split down the middle – a total eunuch. Okay, kidding about the eunuch part. But you do get along with both sexes.
You reject traditional gender roles. However, you don’t actively fight them.
You’re just you. You don’t try to be what people expect you to be.

Child Custody: The Male Glass Ceiling

Why is it hard for men to get custody of their children? Why, it’s because feminists have invented things like “domestic violence” in order to take away the children who rightfully belong to their fathers. Nevermind the fact that when men actually ask for full custody of their children, they’re more likely to get it — let’s move right along to the men’s rights sticking points, brought to you by Rachel Alexander:

Women, if you are successful in no other area of life, read this article closely, because you can easily succeed here, the system is so weighted in your favor. Free money, free legal help, and kind court staff. If you don’t work, or don’t work much, you’ll make out even better, so it is best not to work much. And all you need to do is get pregnant! Men, all I offer for advice to you is this: if you have children, you’d better pray that you remain a couple.

Read More…Read More…

Women: Ruining the World

Because Judeo-Christian values are apparently experiencing a major devaluation, women suddenly have power — and now they’ve gone off and ruined everything. Oh, and Christianity’s oppression of women is reason #22 why it’s really fantastic.

Who lets these nutjobs publish this shit?

Judeo-Christian values do not conflate equality with sameness. But the Left rejects any suggestion of innate sexual differences. That is why the president of Harvard University nearly lost his job for merely suggesting that one reason there are fewer women in engineering and science faculties is that the female and male brains differ in their capacities in these areas. A secular liberal who advocates affirmative action based on sex, Harvard’s president nevertheless also has — or had, until his humiliation at the hands of his faculty — a belief in seeking truth.

And the truth is that men and women are profoundly different.

One of these differences is that women generally have a more difficult time transcending their emotions than men. There are, of course, millions of individual women — such as Margaret Thatcher — who are far more rational than many men; but that only makes these women’s achievements all the more admirable. It hardly invalidates the proposition.

Women (except for Margaret Thatcher) are crying emotional wrecks who should not be allowed to handle anything that requires “rationality.”

To say that the human race needs masculine and feminine characteristics is to state the obvious. But each sex comes with prices. Men can too easily lack compassion, reduce sex to animal behavior and become violent. And women’s emotionality, when unchecked, can wreak havoc on those closest to these women and on society as a whole — when emotions and compassion dominate in making public policy.

Why do women’s emotionalities go unchecked? My best guess is because men aren’t doing their part (animal behavior, violence, etc). And as a sidenote, who would you rather have in charge: A crazed animalistic brute, or a compassionate but overly-sensitive person? Hmmm.

The latter is what is happening in America. The Left has been successful in supplanting masculine virtues with feminine ones. That is why “compassion” is probably the most frequently cited value. That is why the further left you go, the greater the antipathy to those who make war. Indeed, universities, the embodiment of feminist emotionality and anti-Judeo-Christian values, ban military recruiters and oppose war-themed names for their sports teams.

Here’s where I’m confused: Since when is “feminist” the same as “feminine”? I thought we feminists were all combat-boot-wearing baby-hating bull-dykes? We don’t have “compassion”! We just want to wage war on men!

In the micro realm, the feminine virtues are invaluable — for example, women hear infants’ cries far more readily than men do. But as a basis for governance of society, the feminization of public policy is suicidal.

Ah yes. That mystical feminine gift of being able to hear. I’m so glad that God made the sexes inherently equal by giving men all the power, and granting me the ability to know if a baby is screaming. This sure makes me proud to be a Christian.

Pandagon has more.

Back to (Slut) School

Her title, not mine.

As if we didn’t have enough reasons to dislike the Independent Women’s Forum, head anti-feminist wingnut Charlotte Allen quotes and links to a long rant about how girls are being turned into little prostitutes by the kids clothing departments.

Lingerie, size 6x, with a ‘back to school’ sign on it.

When did ‘toy’ lipstick become bright red and start lasting all day? Why would a six-year-old child need to carry a purse to school? Why is there makeup in it? Why does she know how to use it?

There are clothes in the little girls’ department that nobody would buy except Brooke Shields’ mother in “Pretty Baby.” Except. . . somebody’s mother IS buying them, and probably thinking “doesn’t she look pretty” in them.

Picture poor sleazed-up exploited JonBenet. That little girl breaks my heart.

Tiny little girls, wearing makeup and boobless versions of adult slinkwear. What kind of mother dresses her child like a bimbo?

Because that’s what these little girls look like, you know, when their mothers layer them oh-so-carefully in slinky satin underwear, croptops, hiphuggers (before they even have hips!) skirts that barely cover the subject, fishnet stockings, and HEELS. On a little child who has RECESS to deal with!

(I see London, I see France. . . .remember when the playground was the only place you could hear that?)

What is going through these mothers’ minds when they buy this sexy stuff for a seven-year-old child? Why don’t more schools forbid it? I don’t believe in censorship but clothing a little girl in Victoria’s Secret and sleaze is NOT right.

Come on, people. Please don’t send your tiny little girl to school in clothes that advertise something she doesn’t even know about yet. Dress her like a child, not a whorehouse intern.

Hooker with a Dora lunchbox. What’s wrong with this picture?

Now. Ask me what I think about beauty pageants for little children. Because they tell us more about the poor little kid’s mother than about anything else, don’t they.

That’s right. Call little girls sluts, and then blame mom.

Now, I agree that highly sexualized clothing is innapropriate for children. But is this the way we go about dealing with it? How about asking, “What is going on in our culture when we start sexualizing little girls?” Calling girls sluts because they dress a particular way isn’t going to accomplish much.