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

Fay, Fay, Fay.

I love Fay Weldon’s books. So I was disappointed and horrified to come across this bit of business.

Telling women not to expect orgasms but to fake them, and to praise their partner lavishly afterwards, is not advice normally associated with a woman who has been in the vanguard of feminism for four decades.

Nevertheless, Fay Weldon gives short shrift to the views for which feminists have fought so bitterly over the years. In her latest book, she not only warns high-flying women that they should expect to end up single, she also suggests that sexual pleasure may be incompatible with high-powered careers and that women should simply accept they are less capable of being happy than men.

I was not aware that my clitoris ceased to function when I got that law degree. And while I am in fact still single, I’m not exactly crying in my coffee over that. Especially when you consider that single women rate higher in happiness than married women, and marriage does a whole lot more for men’s happiness than for women’s. Hell, if I had someone at home who was responsible for my maintenance and upkeep and well-being, I’d be happy, too. I just don’t want to be the one stuck in that role myself, and that’s the lot that wives get in this culture.

And, apparently, maintenance and upkeep of one’s man’s well-being includes faking orgasms rather than actually, you know, speaking up and telling one’s man that whatever he’s doing just isn’t doing it for one, and could he maybe move a bit to the left and not so rough, please?

‘Eighty per cent of women only sometimes – or never – experience orgasm. Facts are facts and there we are. Deal with it,’ she writes in What Makes Women Happy?, to be published this month by Fourth Estate.

According to Weldon, sensible members of the sisterhood should, therefore, follow the example so graphically set by the actor Meg Ryan in the 1989 movie When Harry Met Sally, and fake orgasms whenever necessary.

And when is it necessary to fake it? When speaking up might be bad for the man’s ego, and we know how dainty those are.

‘If you are happy and generous-minded, you will fake it and then leap out of bed and pour him champagne, telling him, “You are so clever” or however you express enthusiasm,’ she says. ‘Faking is kind to male partners … Otherwise they too may become anxious and so less able to perform. Do yourself and him a favour, sister: fake it.’

And look who agrees with her on this!

Weldon has, however, received some praise for her trenchant views. The American feminist Camille Paglia lauded the book and its author for its courage. ‘It’s an important point that the career woman may often end up alone,’ she said. ‘That scenario needs to be put to younger women as they begin making their choices about life.

‘Faking orgasms is not a good idea. But what she’s actually talking about is trying to be supportive of men, whose psyches are delicate and need to be protected. Men have a tremendous drive and are victim to all sorts of self-doubt and it may well be that it’s a wise woman who realises that.’

Yeah, thanks, Camille. We can always count on you for the anti-feminist viewpoint that also has the virtue of being anti-man as well! Because, Christ, how in the hell did men get to be in charge of everything and have a reputation for being tough guys if they fall to pieces when they don’t get enough ego stroking?

At least she agrees that it’s a bad idea to fake orgasms. Hell, that does nobody any good. Not the woman faking the orgasms (aside from the obvious, she doesn’t get a chance to learn what turns her on), not the man (because he not only doesn’t learn what turns her on, but he gets a false idea of what leads to orgasm), and not the next woman he sleeps with, who gets to decide whether it’s worth it to undo the misconceptions he’s got. And all this focus on “performance” is really a euphemism for “he won’t maintain an erection if you don’t throw him a bone and pretend you got off.” Though, last I checked, men’s tongues and hands weren’t susceptible to shrinkage.

As noted in the article, Weldon’s (and Paglia’s) views on career women winding up (presumably unhappily) single are not all that different from the views of Michael Noer. And, again, they boil down to keeping women down by exploiting both women’s fear of being alone and, hence, devalued and men’s fears of being forced to confront the fact that their position in society depends on the absence of a truly level playing field.

And in that respect, faking orgasm is just all of a piece, isn’t it? It lets the man think he never fails and it lets the woman keep the man. Being honest about what works for you in bed — as well as having ambition and not buying into the myth that no man wants a career woman — upsets the apple cart.

Muahahahahah.

(Nod to Pam Spaulding over at Pandagon.)

Brilliant.

The Challenge: (Please answer the following questions)

Part 1: Please explain to me what the world would look like if your mission was accomplished when it comes to gays. Paint me a picture of how the world would look if that which you are trying to achieve comes to “BE”. Show me what the end goal would look like when it is finally met.

Part 2: Considering lots of people don’t believe the same way you do, tell me if the actions, process and appraoch you are taking is really helping people. How is your ministry, blog, website or organization helping to reach that goal.

I would be particularly interested in DL Foster’s, Peter La Barbera’s, Matt Barber’s, Stephen Bennett’s, even someone from Exodus’ well thought out and REALISTIC answers.

A Note from Your Other Absentee Blogger

My posts have been pretty scarce lately, as well as somewhat disorganized. There are a lot of things that I’d really like to blog about, but I haven’t had time to really consider them lately. Part of that is recovering from surgery–not much longer for that–but there’s something else as well.

Read More…Read More…

Life is Sweet.

Blue over at Alas has written a post about subjective experiences of disability:

In discussions about quality of life or eugenics or disability pride, some nondisabled person often asserts that it’s obvious — despite all moral arguments on the value of disabled persons lives — that a body with impairments is just physically less desirable and not something any sane person would choose. Lacking something can’t possibly be better than having it, right? It’s an argument that always fascinates me.

When I read this–“physically less desirable”–I initially thought she would go on to talk about perceptions of disabled people as romantic and sexual partners. And, of course, the same arguments are presented with the same insistence that they are objective. A body with impairments is just physically less desirable and not something any sane person would choose.

But first, there are some interesting assumptions to unpack about disability. (Some of this is recapping what Blue said; I’m partly just thinking out loud.)

Read More…Read More…

Be afraid, be very afraid. No, really, BE AFRAID!

The Chimperor is out to remind us all that WE’RE AT WAR!!!!

WASHINGTON –
President Bush used terrorists’ own words Tuesday to battle complacency among Americans about the threat of future attack, defending his record as the fall campaign season kicks into high gear.

Pity you got rid of the color-coded TERRA ALERT! charts that proved so helpful in the last election cycle. Not that those were used politically, oh, no.

Bush said that despite the absence of a successor on U.S. soil to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the terrorist danger remains potent.

Like Atrios, I’m left wondering when the anthrax attacks got turned into something other than terrorism. On U.S. soil, no less. Maybe when they started realizing they didn’t know who the hell had done it and they weren’t going to devote the resources to finding out.

Much easier to pump up the threat by making sure that everyone knows that these are Evil! Men! we’re dealing with here, who are Evil! in Historic! Ways! and Ten! Feet! Tall!

“Bin laden and his terrorist’s allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them,” the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. “The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?'”

I think he’s a little more worried about whether the country and the world will pay attention any more to what a different evil man says, now that he’s cried wolf so many times.

His speech came after the White House released a strategy paper proclaiming the nation has made progress in the war on terror but that al-Qaida has adjusted to U.S. defenses and “we are not yet safe.”…

In its updated counterterrorism strategy, the White House said that “the enemy we face today in the war on terror is not the same enemy we faced on Sept. 11. Our effective counterterrorist efforts in part have forced the terrorists to evolve and modify their ways of doing business.”

No, George, I think the reason the enemy we’re facing today is not the same one we faced on Sept. 11 is that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

And you know what else? Most people in this country have now cottoned onto that fact and are wondering just what the fuck we’re doing over there. And you can stomp your little feetsies that nobody’s paying attention to the bogeyman under the bed, and you can send Condi Rice to tell Essence magazine that people who oppose the war are Just Like People Who Wanted To Keep Slavery, and you can burble about Hitler and Chamberlain and Stalin, but it’s not going to change the fact that you’re a sad, desperate, pathetic little man who’s been allowed to lead this country into hellfire and damnation for far too long by playing into people’s fears about being attacked again. And it’s not going to change the fact that nobody believes a goddamn thing you say anymore.

Posted in War

Thinking Cap

I’m still blogging light, I think, but Jill sent this to me:

[PLEASE FORWARD]
A message from the webmaster of Trans-Academics.org:

As many of you have probably noticed, Trans-Academics.org has been dormant for quite a few months now. During this time, I have been contemplating the future of this site. Since I started this site in 2003, there has been a exponential growth in the field of trans academia. Where there used to be a handful of new books and articles a year, now there are new books being released all the time. Research on trans identities has also grown, and the amount of journal articles, documentaries and other media being released is impressive. Communities are popping up all over the internet and in non-virtual settings on a regular basis.

This period of growth has been amazing to watch, and I am thrilled that Trans-Academics.org has been a part of that growth. The personal downside of this growth has been that keeping this site up-to-date and relevant now takes more time than I am able to give. As I look toward the future, I envision Trans-Academics.org becoming more than a website – I see it as a core part of a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting research on trans and gender diverse identities.

As such, I am interested in turning Trans-Academics.org into a team and community effort. I am seeking people who are willing to work on building specific areas of the website and keeping them up-to-date, as well as work with me towards creating the future of Trans-Academics.org as an educational non-profit in a pre-board of directors role. In the upcoming year, Trans-Academics.org will undergo it’s third major revision. This revision will include new software, which will allow Trans-Academics.org to managed by multiple people remotely, without requiring a high level of technical skill. Hopefully- with community support- this will also involve greatly improved and regularly updated content.

If you are interested in learning more about these changes, or potentially becoming a part of the new Trans-Academics.org team – please contact me at eli @ trans-academics.org for more information.

In solidarity,
eli green

Eli R. Green, MA

www.Genderwarrior.net
www.Trans-Academics.org
www.Transfeminism.org

I hung out on Trans-Academics.org occasionally way back when; as he says, it was dormant for some time. A lot of the old threads are still interesting reads. I have no idea whether or not I’ll be able to contribute anything at all to its new incarnation, but I’m pleased to see that it’s back. And I can think of a lot of feministe regulars and irregulars who would make great additions to the site.