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

Month: October 2007

If Ann declines, I’m sure Henry can find someone on Craig’s List who’s into his kink*

i can’t believe I’m about to defend Ann Coulter again, but:

Really, why is it so hard to take an abhorrent female pundit to task without leveling threats of sexualized violence against her, and/or insulting her appearance? Henry’s boner for turning Ann into a submissive housekeeper who will “shut the fuck up” is beyond creepy — and further evidence that conservatives definitely don’t have a monopoly on hating women. The whole sex-as-a-tool-to-put-uppity-bitches-in-their-place thing is disturbing and disgusting even when it is leveled at scum like Ann. What a whole lot of people (especially dudes) don’t seem to grasp is that the veiled threats of rape and abuse as punishment for outspoken women does a disservice to all of us. Even if we’re on the opposite side of the political spectrum as Ann, we get the message loud and clear: Know your role. And if you’re too pushy, too loud or too opinionated, well, you should expect to be knocked down a peg or two. Bitch.

Thanks to Tricia for the link.

_________________________________
*While BDSM ain’t my kink, I imagine that if it were, shit like this would really piss me off.

Happy Slut-o-Ween!

sexy_vintage_witch.jpg
My costume: Sexy feminist witch.*

I love Halloween. Love it. But I hate the conversations about it. I hate going to the store and having costume choices range from Sexy Nurse to Sexy Cop to Sexy Kitty. I hate the self-righteous condemnations of women who wear sexy costumes. I hate the term “Slut-o-Ween.” I hate that it’s turned into another opportunity to bash women — through insulting costumes (the “sexy Ethnic woman” costume, the “sexy female worker” costume), through slut-shaming, through public hand-wringing over all those scantily-clad women running around in public. I hate that it’s one giant expression of how “sexy” is more about consumerism and posing for men as opposed to anything related to the down-and-dirty business of actual sex. I hate that creativity has given way to male fantasy. I hate that it takes a holiday for women to feel like they have permission to be publicly sexual. I hate the dressed-up version of sexuality that, for a lot of us, is the only accessible option.

In short: Halloween is really, really frustrating when processed through the feminist filter. But I still love it. And I’ll be celebrating it in Germany, even though most people apparently don’t celebrate it here. I’m sure later tonight I’ll really be missing New York.

What are you all dressing up as?

*Not really.

And we’re the shallow ones?

Samhita points to this lovely Craig’s List post detailing how women are shallow bitches because we like men for who they are, what they accomplish and how they interact socially, as opposed to how they look. To which I say: …and?

Women are not actually attracted to men. There is a vague idea of what a man is physically, and some are better than others aesthetically speaking, but the purely physical appearance of a man is almost inconsequential unless he is horribly ugly or outrageously attractive.

Women are attracted to status, money, how much a man smiles and laughs, how many friends and resources a man has, how full a man’s life is–how many “cool,” “exciting” and prestigious things he is doing or connected to.

Read More…Read More…

Random Junebug blogging

The “I can’t believe she doesn’t look like she’s expecting a beating” edition.

kitchen.jpg

Yes, that is the natural position of the ears. Aren’t they adorable? But there’s more:

Read More…Read More…

When is female genital mutilation just peachy?

When it’s done by an American mother to stop her daughter from having sex:

NAPLES, Fla. (AP) — A woman who had her 13-year-old daughter’s genitalia pierced to make it uncomfortable for her to have sex was acquitted of aggravated child abuse on Thursday.

The girl, now 16, had testified that her mother asked a friend in 2004 to shave the girl’s head to make her unattractive to boys and later held her down for the piercing.

A jury deliberated for about three hours before deciding the mother’s actions didn’t involve punishment or malicious intent, or cause permanent damage or disfigurement.

Right, because shoving a sharp object through a 13-year-old girl’s genitals has nothing to do with punishing her. Just ask the jury foreman:

“Maybe it was not the best decision in the world,” foreman Colin Kelly said afterward. “But the intent was to try to stop a girl who was completely out of control… Are you going to put every parent in jail for making a bad decision?”

Somehow, holding your child down and not just shaving her head but piercing her genitals with the express purpose of making it more difficult to have sex kinda seems like more than just a “bad decision.” But I guess I know nothing, since I’m not a parent and I wouldn’t know what it was like to have an out-of-control daughter:

The 39 year old mother is being accused of aggravated child abuse. She says she was trying to prevent her daughter from continuing to have sex too soon and too often.

Prosecutors say the piercing was to punish the daughter for having to much sex, including with her mother’s 30 year old boyfriend.

To go along with the piercing, the mother also shaved the 13 year old’s head to make her unattractive.

According to the mother, these actions were a last resort because she had already put her daughter on the pill, gave her a curfew, and grounded her. All were aimed on trying to end her daughter’s sexual activity.

Okay, so let me get this straight: your boyfriend rapes your 13-year-old daughter (leading, no doubt, to her acting out sexually) and you punish *her* by shaving *her* head and forcibly piercing *her* genitals? Instead of, I dunno, doing something about the boyfriend?

Oh, and creepy argument of the day?

Defense attorneys argued that the girl agreed to the piercing to help rebuild her mother’s trust and no disfigurement resulted from it.

Even though the wound became infected, which is where child protective services came in. And even though the piercer, “Tattoo Tammy,” was sentenced to a year in jail for her role in the assault.

Now, none of the stories specify which part of the genitals were pierced, and there are plenty of genital piercings out there that wouldn’t cause permanent disfigurement. But given that the goal was to make things uncomfortable for her to have sex, and given that it was done under force and the wound became infected, I’m really starting to wonder whether she had an actual clitoral piercing done, or if she had her daughter’s labia laced up like a turkey.

However, even if it were a single piercing in, say, a labia or clitoral hood that would heal relatively easily and not interfere too much with function, I find myself really creeped out that a key issue was whether there was permanent disfigurement.*

But to get back to the title of this post: I have to agree with Trailer Park Feminist’s assesment of this:

Keep in mind, this was in the United States of America, not Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or somewhere like that. It was right here, in our modern, enlightened, Western country, where women supposedly have total equality and freedom from oppression.

More than that, I would bet good money that the very same jurors who acquitted this woman (probably a nice, Christian woman) for mutilating her daughter’s genitals would somehow make the distinction between what she did to get her daughter “under control” and FGM as practiced in Africa and the Middle East. Because, you know, she’s People Like Us, and not some kind of Foreign People.

________________
* I suppose that the charge of aggravated child abuse would include this, but I wonder why there were no lesser charges. Interestingly, the case went to trial because judges had rejected two prior plea deals as too lenient.

Theocracy Now!

Max Blumenthal has a truly hilarious/terrifying video up on HuffPo today. It features GOP presidential hopefuls speaking to leaders and followers of the Religious Right — and while it’s not surprising, it’s still disgusting. Max describes some of the scenes:

Though no candidate emerged from the Summit as a clear Christian right favorite, the badly underfunded former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee won over the audience with his insistence that banning abortion would put an end to America’s illegal immigration problem. Huckabee’s comparison of “liberalized abortion” to the Holocaust further endeared him to the “value voters.”

Read More…Read More…

I think vajayjay is a nice word, don’t you?

The New York Times on the history of the vajayjay.

It’s interesting that the term was thrown out on Grey’s Anatomy not only to be funny (although it was), but because “broadcast standards” folks didn’t like the repeated uses of the word “vagina”:

Shonda Rhimes, the creator and executive producer of “Grey’s Anatomy,” who brought the word into full public view, never intended to promote a euphemism or slang term for the female anatomy. Rather, she fought to use vagina in the script.

“I had written an episode during the second season of ‘Grey’s’ in which we used the word vagina a great many times (perhaps 11),” Ms. Rhimes wrote in an e-mail message. “Now, we’d once used the word penis 17 times in a single episode and no one blinked. But with vagina, the good folks at broadcast standards and practices blinked over and over and over. I think no one is comfortable experiencing the female anatomy out loud — which is a shame considering our anatomy is half the population.”

Which I think lends a lot of credence to the argument that we should just call human anatomy what it is (of course, what you’re staring at probably isn’t a vagina in the first place — it’s a vulva — but I suppose that’s beside the point).

Dr. Carol A. Livoti, a Manhattan obstetrician and gynecologist and an author of “Vaginas: An Owner’s Manual” (Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2004), said vajayjay and other euphemisms and slang offend her and can render women incapable of explaining their symptoms to health professionals. “I think it’s terrible,” Dr. Livoti said. “It’s time to start calling anatomical organs by their anatomical name. We should be proud of our bodies.”

“It seems like a step backward,” she added.

I agree with her on the first point — that we should call organs by their anatomical names — but I don’t think it’s a step backward. As the article points out, I do think there was a need for a popular word for vulva “that is not clinical, crude, coy, misogynistic or descriptive of a vagina from a man’s point of view.” Vajajay isn’t insulting; it isn’t trying to be mysterious; and at least it sounds a bit like “vagina,” unlike most of the other vag-related euphemisms. While it would be ideal if everyone would just get over the fear of using medically accurate terminology, as it stands, a lot of women are uncomfortable referring to their “vaginas,” but further uncomfortable using other popular terms for “vulva” (despite my love of Eve Ensler, I just can’t get on the “cunt” train). So I can see how most genital-related terminology feels alienating for a lot of women. Even I don’t like the term “vulva.” (Not because I have any problem with vulvas, but because “vulva” reminds me of “uvula,” a word — and a body part — I think is pretty gross and weird, but that’s neither here nor there). So I can’t take issue with the popularization of a term many women feel comfortable with. And hey, it’s got Oprah talking about her vajayay on air — can’t complain about that.

As Joel McHale, the host of “The Soup,” put it: “It’s not derogatory. It’s not ‘You’re being such a vajayjay right now.’ It’s kind of a sweet thing.”

“Vajayjay,” he said, “is like your good buddy.”

And it is a good, good buddy.

Personally, I find sexual euphemisms hilarious. My favorite vag-related one is “giney-town” (“giney” has a j-sound at the beginning). And, obviously, I love “Jill-ing off” as a reference to female masturbation.

What are your favorite euphemisms for genitalia and sexual activity? And am I the only one who still refers to sex as “boning”?

A Party of Bed-Wetters

Republicans are running entire campaigns based on their fears of monsters in the closet.

Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”

Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”

And yes, these claims are actually being taken seriously.

Read More…Read More…

Reluctant Compliance

Since when are Catholic Bishops working in the ER?

To the great dismay of Catholic bishops, Connecticut’s lawmakers have mandated that all of the state’s hospital emergency rooms, including Catholic-run hospitals, must make emergency contraception for pregnancy prevention available to every rape victim who comes through their doors.

The Connecticut Catholic bishops are not happy. They have agreed, according to the current issue of the National Catholic Register, to “reluctant compliance.”

Which basically means that they’ll actually require hospital staff to abide by the law and provide medical care. Shocking.

Interestingly, though, they’re fudging their position on emergency contraception in order to save face and pretend that the decision fits into their anti-contraception stance:

Despite their past claims that EC is immoral, evil, and all of the denunciations they like to hurl at things female (birth control, sterilization, in vitro fertilization, abortion), and despite a Vatican declaration that EC, whether interfering with implantation or fertilization, “is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion,” they’re singing a different tune.

Their new position holds that since you can’t know when EC is interfering with implantation, and since that’s probably not often the case, and since we’re not talking about a high number of women who get pregnant from rape (several thousand women in the U.S., who cares?), then dispensing EC without the ovulation test is not “intrinsically evil.”

“In permitting Catholic hospitals to comply with this law, neither our teaching nor our principles have changed,” lied Bridgeport, CT Bishop William Lori, chair of the U.S. Bishops Committee of Doctrine (and, less illustriously, as I point out in Good Catholic Girls, a bishop who has kept an accused priest sex molester in ministry after including his victim in a $21 million settlement). “We have altered the prudential judgment we previously made.”

The twisting of their theological “truths” to serve their own ends reveals the capricious nature of the decision-making process of this all-powerful, all-male hierarchy. Unfortunately, there is no indication that they are willing to allow the woman who has been raped or any other pregnant woman to make her own “prudential judgment.”

Interesting… if that’s the justification for EC, then how do they logically continue to oppose regular birth control?

(Answer: Logic never factored into it).