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

State of the Union: Hot Chicks Get Naked!!!

PETA’s State of the Union. Definitely not work-safe: Naked chicks and abused animals.

I must say, PETA makes me want to go eat a hamburger. The naked chicks schtick is getting mighty old. They lost me for good during their “holocaust on a plate” campaign, but every time I see a video or ad like this one, I want to be a carnivore simply out of spite. Because, clearly, they care more about the dignity of a trout than they do about the dignity of a human being.

And I’m someone who is incredibly sympathetic to their cause. I was a vegetarian for 11 years. In eighth grade, I mounted a letter-writing and petition campaign against animal testing. I seek out products which are cruelty-free. I do eat meat now, but rarely. I don’t rule out the idea of returning to vegetarianism.

But they are so incredibly self-serving it makes me sick. Their campaigns aren’t about animal cruelty anymore — they’re about PETA. And how outrageous PETA can be in order to get attention.

In this clip, a young woman goes from wearing a business suit and giving a State of the Union address to stripping down completely naked (Brazilian wax and all). How exactly that promotes animal rights is still beyond me.

Their point seems to volley between “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” and “When women get naked it’s like they’re meat.” The lovely Hugo sent me The Sexual Politics of Meat for my birthday in August, and the author delves quite deeply into the idea that we disassociate ourselves from what we eat — we see it as a steak rather than animal flesh. Meat is tied to masculinity, and women themselves are held up as “meat” to be consumed. It’s a fascinating read, even if I don’t quite buy everything she asserts. But her ideas about the cross-over between meat-eating and patriarchal society are interesting, and are showcased in this clip. The woman who takes her clothes off refers to naked chicks as “an American tradition” as she’s deriding the killing of chickens for food — conveniently ignoring that there are few things more traditionally American than fried chicken and Thanksgiving turkey. In other words, “tradition” doesn’t necessarily translate into “good.”

While PETA makes an attempt to re-associate viewers with what they eat — making them recognize that your hamburger is the flesh of what used to be a living, breathing animal — they see no problem with furthering the disassociation of “woman” from “human.” “Woman” remains a product to be visually consumed — an object, the way that meat-food is. Are women born, bred and killed out of this disassociation, the way that animals are? No. But you can bet that they’re raped, murdered, abused and exploited by the millions.

So PETA can, to put it as nicely as I’m capable of putting it, go fuck themselves. When they start treating female human animals as creatures worthy of respect and not erotic novelties to be used to forward their cause, then maybe I’ll buy the idea that they’re a rights-based organization. Until then, I’ll continue to believe that PETA is primarily out to promote PETA — not animal rights, not human rights, and not anything but their own brand of outrageousness.

Thanks to Chris Clarke for the link.

Friday Random Ten – the 51% Edition

1. Elvis Costello – I Want You
2. Nina Simone – Don’t Explain
3. Girl Talk – Overtime
4. The Cramps – Surfin Bird
5. Neko Case – Maybe Sparrow
6. John Coltrane – Acknowledgement
7. Caetano Veloso – Sozinho
8. Elvis Costello – Little Triggers (apparently he’s a popular guy this week)
9. Nick Drake – Black-Eyed Dog
10. The Fugees – The Score

Posted in Uncategorized

51% of women are lonely single cat-lady sluts

Why am I one of those American women who doesn’t live with a spouse? Clearly because I’m an abortion-having, Playboy-posing, drug-using, cat-loving, clinically depressed, lonely divorcee.

No, really.

Much has been made of a recent New York Times article reporting that now a majority (51%) of women live alone.

According to the Times, women are now living with their cats and lovin’ it!

But the Times has a way of putting a positive spin on such things as divorce, abortion, drug use, depression, and loneliness.

Read More…Read More…

No Peace, Even in Death

This is just sick.

BEIJING – Police in northern China have detained three men for the deaths of two women whose corpses were to be sold as “ghost brides” to accompany dead men in the afterlife, state media said.

Authorities indicated that the killings last year were not isolated cases, the Legal Daily newspaper said on its Web site, but did not give any details.

Yang Dongyan, 35, a farmer from Shaanxi province, said he had bought a young woman for $1,600 and planned to sell her as a bride, according to the paper.

But then he met Liu Shenghai, who told him that the woman could command a higher price as a “ghost bride,” it said. The tradition, called “minghun” or afterlife marriage, is common in the Loess Plateau region of northern China, where a recently deceased woman is buried with a bachelor to keep him company after his death.

Yang killed the woman in a ditch, bagged her body, and sold her for $2,077 to Li Longsheng, an undertaker, who said he could find a buyer, the paper said.

So not only was this woman treated as a piece of property to be sold while she was alive, but because she had more value as a corpse, she was killed and her body sold. And from the looks of it, there’s some kind of secondary market in both live and dead women, since the woman was bought by the farmer to be re-sold. I would guess her family sold her in the first place.

A second woman was also killed and her body sold to accompany some dead man in the afterlife, though she only brought in $1,000 because she was “less pretty.” Though the profit margin was likely higher, since she was a prostitute killed during a session.

So not only do these women have a hard life, but they have to spend the afterlife waiting on some strange man whose family bought them to be his eternal servant.

Oh, and had they not been caught, this Dynamic Duo would have killed again.

Prosecuted for attempted abortion

This is an incredibly sad story.

An 18-year-old Dominican immigrant was charged yesterday with illegally taking prescription anti-ulcer pills to induce an abortion, a risky technique common in her native land that resulted in the death of her premature baby.

Despite taking the pills, Amber Abreu gave birth on Jan. 6 to a 1 1/4-pound girl named Ashley, who clung to life for four days at Tufts-New England Medical Center before dying.

Prosecutors said that Abreu may be charged with homicide.

The drug she used was cytotec. This drug has been used for more than a decade to induce abortion, and is a popular choice in countries where the procedure is illegal. Cytotec is used in the United States as part of the combination of drugs used to medically induce abortion (“the abortion pill”). The drug is cheap and pretty safe if used early in pregnancy — but women who are using the drug illegally don’t have medical oversight, and often have no other option if their pregnancies are more advanced.

Making abortion unavailable — through outlawing it or severely limiting it — does not mean that abortion doesn’t happen. That should be obvious enough, given the illegal abortion rate around the world. Here in the United States, abortion is legal, but inaccessible for many women. The Hyde Amendment makes it nearly impossible for many low-income women to terminate their pregnancies. And many public servants who receive Title X funding are legally barred from referring women to abortion services, or otherwise “promoting’ the procedure.

Amber is an immigrant to the United States from the Dominican Republic, and there’s a possibility that she didn’t know abortion is legal here. Even if she was aware that she could legally have the procedure, cytotec is available in many Latin American countries for as little as $1 — and when taken early in pregnancy, it’s remarkably safe. For a low-income woman, that sure beats the hundreds of dollars spent on a legal abortion, none of which is covered by Medicaid (at least in most states).

This case is tragic, but not surprising. This is what happens when abortion is out of reach for many women, and women social service workers aren’t allowed to fully discuss it. Things like this happen all the time in places like Latin America, where the procedure is almost always illegal.

Want to prevent this from happening again? Cover abortion costs for low-income women. Spread the word that abortion is legal, and make it accessible. Somehow, I don’t see the “we love babies (and we promise, women too! really!)” crowd doing that any time soon.

Put away dem titties, PurityGirl!

Why, oh why, did I have to stumble upon this website? I could be doing, say, work. Or something productive. Instead I’m stuck reading their forums and getting sucked into their strange — but interesting — world.

Let me put it out there that first and foremost I feel really bad for these kids. Some of them seem like they have it together, and are making the decisions that they think are best, given their moral code. Some of them argue with the premise that girls must “protect” boys by being modest, and assert that men have to take responsibility for themselves. It’s pretty awesome. Most of them are pretty smart, and even if they have fundamentalist religious beliefs, they’re able to discuss and dissect those beliefs to a degree that would be impressive in most adults.

But not all of them seem so self-assured.

Example A: A girl starts a thread with the question “Does turning heads equal causing guys to sin?” The answer, as expected, is “not if you’re dressed modestly.” Which, by implication, means that if you aren’t dressed modestly — and note that there isn’t a universally agreed-upon idea of what “modesty” is — then it is your fault if the boys sin. Some of the girls on the forum took issue with the premise that girls are supposed to protect boys from dirty thoughts, but they were shot down. What struck me, though, is the initial poster’s reason for asking:

Read More…Read More…

Integrity

Amanda and Jill have already tackled the high level of casual sexism in Integrity vs. Purity Balls. I noticed something else, related to another recent criticism of abstinence fetishes, namely the tendency to elide active consent and therefore to obscure the problem of date and acquaintance rape.

Read More…Read More…

The Real Stumbling Block: Movement

Amanda and Kyso both link to this blog, which offers its male readers a “modesty survey” in order to evaluate just how much the idea of a real live girl scares the bejeesus out of them*. While many of the questions revolved around traditional conservative aesthetics (halter tops are a no-no, but floor-length denim skirts are tre chic), and others are simply ridiculous (baggy sweatshirts with anything on the front, for example, draw too much attention to the chest — just check out these hoes as an example), quite a few of the modesty issues are less about what’s acceptable for women to wear (pretty much nothing, as far as I can tell) and more about how best to keep women from moving or doing anything. For example:

#1 A girl’s physical posture and/or position can be a stumbling block.
#2 It is a stumbling block for a girl wearing pants to sit cross-legged (i.e. Indian style).
#3 It is a stumbling block for a girl to sit with her legs spread apart.
#4 It is a stumbling block to see a girl lying down, even if she’s just hanging out on the floor or on a couch with her friends.
#5 The way a girl walks can be a stumbling block.
#6 A girl bending over and exposing her lower back is a stumbling block.
#7 It is a stumbling block for a girl to bend over with her backside towards you.
#8 Seeing a girl stretching (e.g. arching the back, reaching the arms back, and sticking out the chest) is a stumbling block.
#9 Lifting a long skirt any higher than the knee in order to step over something is a stumbling block.
#10 Seeing a girl’s chest bounce when she is walking or running is a stumbling block.

By “physical posture,” they could ostensibly mean good posture (which means you might be able to tell that there are some boobies there) or really bad posture (which is still guaranteed to have something wrong with it, but at least it’s physically harmful). You can’t lie down, sit cross-legged on the floor, or sit with your knees apart (that’s only for the dudes, apparently — check out how wide guys spread their legs when they sit, and ask yourself if it regularly causes you uncontrollable lust). Now, sitting with your legs crossed isn’t necessarily much better, but they don’t mention it on the list, so perhaps it’s ok. If you walk, you’re distracting the boys. If you bend over to pick something up, you’re distracting them. If you sit down, you’re distracting them. Stretching entices them. Walking, running, or jogging entices them. Sitting still entices them. Laying down entices them.

But clearly, it’s women’s behavior that should change, so that we quit tempting the boys.

Read Amanda and Kyso. They say exactly what needs to be said.

*And leaves them crying in the fetal position, sheets sticky, unsure of what just happened.

Where are the pro-choice pregnancy homes?

This Feministing thread has evolved into a really interesting discussion about how to best assist pregnant teenagers, and how the pro-choice movement is dealing with the issue.

The conversation started because of this article, which is about three pregnant teenagers who broke out of the home for pregnant girls that they were being kept in. My first reaction was a hearty “hell yeah.” Girls shouldn’t be sent away because they’re pregnant, and they certainly shouldn’t be isolated from their families and their friends while they go through pregnancy and childbirth. These homes often coerce girls into putting their children up for adoption, and inundate them with conservative Christian ideology. In a lot of ways, they’re bad news.

But as one commenter points out — the woman who cast a 30 Days episode about homes like these — there are lots of girls who could use this kind of support system. Ideally, every pregnant teenager would have a healthy home life, and parents or relatives who were willing to support her. But that isn’t the case. The commenter writes:

Read More…Read More…

Well, Hey

I just realized that as of yesterday, I’ve been writing for Feministe for a year.

Whee!

It has been quite a ride.