• Lynn discusses a study on gender and sexuality in great detail:
The main thesis of the paper is, of course, what the title would suggest: Both men and women act as if sex is something women supply and men demand. It’s not enough for men and women to trade sex for sex; men need to supply something else to women to make it worth their while to sleep with them. This can be money or other resources, or it can be love, commitment, etc. So you can either read the argument as “Women are a bunch of frigid gold-diggers who exploit men by supplying sex to the highest bidder” – the cynical, “marriage is nothing but a longer term form of prostitution in which a woman sells to a single buyer” sort of take on the matter, or you can take the more angelic view of women, in which we’re purer and chaster than men, and therefore can control male sexual behavior by holding out for that ring on the finger (and someone who will actually, you know, hang around when sex starts producing kids).
Excellent post. Please read in it’s entirety.
• At Mousewords, Amanda continues to challenge the assertion that smart women are less marriagable by examining the masculine-active and feminine-passive.
• I’m down with LiL’s Rules for Life:
1.) to fail publicly and often; 2.) to learn to do something one is not naturally inclined towards; and the last 3.) the no jerk rule, which means you can’t be a jerk to people and have to try and get others not to be jerks either.
Every now and again, feel free to refer me back to these rules.
• In “Is this part of my sentence?” the Health Diva of Black Feminism looks at new statistics on prisoner abuse and assault. Most interesting is her pontification on the potential for the creation of a class of sexual slaves.
• Body and Soul looks at the unveiling of photographs of British soldiers abusing prisoners of war. Look familiar? At least the British will acknowledge that orders were given. Maybe W will too now that he’s been given this official providential mandate.
• Norbizness holds an Inaugural Nausea Captioning party. BYOB.
• One of the funniest polls I’ve seen of late is this one highlighted by Jacqui: “It appears as if 49% of our country views Bush as a ‘uniter’ while 49% think of him as a ‘divider.’ ” I hate whomever reported this poll on principle alone.
• Food Politicized: At Half-Changed World, this family of four engages in a social experiment to see what happens when they try to live on the government’s suggested food plan for a family of their size. Explanation of their original goal can be found here.
• Hugo Schwyzer prepares to be interviewed (or “attacked”) by the infamous Glenn Sacks, a virulent anti-feminist radio talk show host, this Sunday. Scary.
• Netaloid looks at the institutionalization of racism for the MLK Jr. holiday:
…And so the influence of the white, rural congressional districts grows, and the representatives from black, urban districts lose influence among their peers in Congress. And, in white rural districts with no industry or job base, new private prisons become major job centers and economic engines, popular with the white residents and thus popular with their congressional representatives.
And so the disparity already present in the “justice” system becomes greater, and there is no outcry in Washington about the disparity because it feeds the private-prison growth industry. All with the unspoken approval of those faithful to a dominant political party so attuned to the concept of We the People that it has garnered a grand total of zero black members in the House of Representatives or the Senate.
And so American racism is even more insidiously institutionalized.
• Lynn explains the use of Emma Goldman’s horsewhip against fellow anarchist Johann Most. Well done.
• Bitch Ph.D., Fred Vincy (additional writings on the topic listed at the end of the post), and Maureen Craig look further into the Summers statements, backlash, backpedaling, justification, and reactionary posturing. That anyone readily defends these kinds of beliefs is absolutely amazing.