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

Punishment

unwed mother

Word. Obama at a town hall meeting:

“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence education and teaching the children — teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

Emphasis mine.

A baby shouldn’t be a punishment — but that’s exactly what babies become when you force pregnancy on someone. The “pro-life” movement very much uses forced pregnancy as a slut-punishing tool, placing children squarely in the category of “punishment” rather than “joy.” Yet somehow they manage to argue that they’re the ones who actually care about children — even as they cut off children’s health care; even as 100 percent of the worst legislators of children are “pro-life;” even as they think babies should be physically forced on women instead of joyfully and openly wanted.

Good on Obama for calling that out, however quietly.

WAM Redux

WAM!

I spent the weekend at the Women, Action and Media conference up in Boston, and it was so fantastic I’m not even sure where to start. First, a million thanks and a big round of applause for WAM organizer (and Feministe guest-blogger) Jaclyn, who put together a really wonderful conference and whose hard work is deeply appreciated. Second, apologies for not posting during the conference or immediately afterwards. I didn’t present at the conference, and I wanted to take the full three days to just take it all in and fully process it before I put up a post. Then I got home last night and saw this, and it just put a damper on my good feelings about the weekend. But WAM was awesome, and deserves to be written about, so here we go.

Friday night started with a keynote from Helen Thomas, one of my long-time journalist heroines. When I was a bitty journalism student at NYU, I wanted nothing more than to be Helen when I grew up, and her speech didn’t disappoint. Ann from Feministing introduced her, designating her “the patron saint of not shutting up.” Thomas eviscerated the media for not properly questioning and challenging the current administration, and told a series of stories about the nine presidents she’s covered in her career. Thomas is pretty old-school when it comes to her feminist views — and considering that she’s 87 years old, that isn’t so surprising (also, fun fact: Her birthday is the day after mine). So there were a few things she said that I wasn’t quite on board with, but her insights and wit were nonetheless a wonderful way to kick off the conference.

Read More…Read More…

Skinny Bitching

Jill posts about vegans being seduced by Mannon, and mentions Skinny Bitch. (It will get no link love from me.) Its creator has been criticized for publishing a how-to book for especially health-conscious anorexics:

Contributors to the popular feminist blog Feministing have criticized the emphasis of the “Skinny Bitch” books on weight loss, noting that some women with eating disorders use vegan diets to restrict their food intake. Ms. Freedman isn’t buying that critique. “It’s not politically correct to suggest women should be thin,” she said. “But it is healthier.”

Read More…Read More…

Sexy Hot Vegans

peta
Click the picture for a larger image.

Shocker: Animal rights activism can be sexist.

TWO things that you can find a lot of in Portland, Ore., are vegans and strip clubs. Johnny Diablo decided to open a business to combine both. At his Casa Diablo Gentlemen’s Club, soy protein replaces beef in the tacos and chimichangas; the dancers wear pleather, not leather. Many are vegans or vegetarians themselves.

But Portland is also home to a lot of young feminists, and some are not happy with Mr. Diablo’s venture. Since he opened the strip club last month, their complaints have been “all over the Internet,” he said. “One of them came in here once. I could tell she had an attitude right when she came in. She was all hostile.”

Mr. Diablo isn’t concerned with the “feminazis,” as he calls them. As a vegan himself, he says he hasn’t worn or eaten animal products in 24 years and is worried about cruelty to animals. “My sole purpose in this universe is to save every possible creature from pain and suffering,” he said.

Except for women, apparently.

I am glad, however, to see feminist vegetarians, vegans and animal rights activists speaking out against sexism while still promoting animal liberation theory. I’m happy to see that they don’t buy the line that any means to promote veganism are a-ok.

Isa Chandra Moskowitz, a cookbook author, is among those who believe such images twist the vegan message. “As a feminist, I’m not keen on the idea of using women’s bodies to sell veganism, and I’m not into the idea of using veganism to sell women’s bodies,” she said.

Ms. Moskowitz is the host of an online forum, Post Punk Kitchen (www.www.theppk.com), some of whose members are debating Mr. Diablo’s vegan strip club. (Last week Mr. Diablo put the club up for sale, although not because of the criticism, he said. He may have overestimated the appeal of stripping to vegans, or of vegan cuisine to striptease fans; an earlier vegan restaurant he ran was poorly received.)

The issue of sexism in vegan circles is “extremely polarizing,” said Bob Torres, an author of “Vegan Freak,” a guide to living a vegan lifestyle, which generally means avoiding the use of animals for food, clothing or other purposes. Mr. Torres, like many vegans, disavows the “essential idea at the heart of some animal rights activism that any means justifies the ends,” he said. Certain activists, he added, care only about “animal suffering and ignore the suffering of humans,” a category into which he would put women who are exploited.

But not all feminist animal rights activists seem to get it, and some are totally willing to sell women out in order to promote animal rights:

Elaine Vigneault, 32, a vegan and former women’s studies major who lives in New York, doesn’t have a problem with a vegan strip club or a recent PETA protest in London in which a pregnant woman got into a cage in her underwear to draw attention to the treatment of pregnant pigs. “I think it’s really important that when reviewing and analyzing images of women, we take into account their perspective of what they’re trying to say,” Ms. Vigneault said.

That’s all fine and good, and we should take into account what women are trying to do and say, but just because a woman chooses to partake in something doesn’t automatically make it not-sexist. For example:

Contributors to the popular feminist blog Feministing have criticized the emphasis of the “Skinny Bitch” books on weight loss, noting that some women with eating disorders use vegan diets to restrict their food intake. Ms. Freedman isn’t buying that critique. “It’s not politically correct to suggest women should be thin,” she said. “But it is healthier.”

It’s not politically correct to suggest that women should be thin? Uh oh, someone needs to tell fashion magazines, TV and movies that they’re totally counter-culture!

I understand the intersections between animal rights and feminism. I think it’s important to explore those intersections. But it’s also not ok to ignore feminist theory or throw women under the bus in order to promote animal welfare. And “But women themselves are doing it!” isn’t the greatest of excuses.

Where have all the strong women gone?

Parts of this article are bullshit, but this section stood out to me:

My female friends need to disguise or soften their ambition and intellect, in a way my male friends don’t have to. A while ago, after writing a column about feminism, I received an e-mail from a reader who said: “I think it’s great that you, as a man, write about these issues. But imagine a situation where you were exactly the person you are now, but female. Imagine you were comparably overweight, took comparably little care over your appearance, were comparably aggressive in your opinions, admitted to a history of depression, and were a lesbian. You would not be writing for a national newspaper at all.” I think that is undeniably true.

Absolutely.

And this bit is pretty telling as well:

The fear of strong women isn’t confined to anecdotes; there’s reams of evidence for it. A study by Oxford University psychologists in 2006 found that having a high IQ is a boon for men in finding a partner – and for women, it is an obstacle. For each 16-point rise in IQ, a man is 35 percent more likely to find a partner – while for women, the same IQ bump reduces their odds by 40 per cent. This is why so many clever women mask their intellects, in pubs and offices across the country.

This dynamic spreads to politics too. There’s a famous experiment called ‘the Goldberg paradigm’, where a group is given a speech and asked to rate how effective, intelligent and persuasive. Every time this is run, if they are told it is by a man, they invariably rate it ten to twenty points higher than if they are told it is by a woman.

Woman-Beating for Jesus

Ridiculous.

A player for the Pittsburgh Steelers assaulted his girlfriend, but was allowed back on the team because he had a good reason for hitting her: Jesus.

In Harrison’s case, Rooney [team chairperson] said the player was trying to take his son to be baptized.

“What Jimmy Harrison was doing and how the incident occurred, what he was trying to do was really well worth it,” Rooney said of Harrison’s initial intent with his son. “He was doing something that was good, wanted to take his son to get baptized where he lived and things like that. She said she didn’t want to do it.”

You can email the Steelers or call their offices at (412) 432-7800. Tell them that violence against women is not ok under any circumstances.

The Pushkin Problem

postwar
Your blogger in PR last week, with the book she’s been reading for five effing months because she spends too much time on the internet and reads too many things for law school, leaving Tony Judt 2/3rds incomplete. This makes her sad, and potential partners will probably reject her for it.

I have so been here.

Yes, I judge people by their literary choices. Do you list The Da Vinci Code as one of your favorite books on Facebook? Talk about how great Ayn Rand is? Read John Grisham novels somewhere other than on an airplane or the beach? Think that God is super smart for having written the Bible? Even worse, say that you don’t like to read? I’m running in the other direction (especially when it comes to dating you).

Yes, it’s judgmental. Yes, perhaps it is a little mean. I don’t care. Dating is a compatibility game, and I don’t imagine things would ever work out with someone who thinks Dan Brown is the height of great literature or that Ayn Rand had some awesome ideas (or was even a decent writer). Literary taste can be a pretty good weeding-out mechanism, and for me it’s right up there along with foodie- and wino-ness (can’t date a guy who only eats to live and doesn’t really care what he puts in his mouth); progressive values (no Republicans, Libertarians or apathetic people, please); and an interest in politics, feminism and media (that’s pretty much what I do all day, so I’d like to be able to talk about it). And you definitely have to like dogs. Preferably big ones.

Before someone jumps on me for being snobby or judgmental, this is a values issue and, as I said before, a compatibility game. There are a lot of things that are worth compromising on, but the things that take up a good deal of my time and that I thoroughly enjoy — food, wine, politics, reading, and adorable slobbery hairy beasts — I want to be able to share with my partner. Other people might privilege other things, and that’s fine too — I’m sure there are plenty of people who seek out partners who share their religion or their vegetarianism or their love of music or their passion for sports or whatever else.

So before this gets too serious, what are your unconventional deal-breakers in relationships? And has anyone read any good books lately?

Chastity Clubs: Bringing the Hymens to Harvard Since 2001

abstinence

I have very little to say about this article, other than:

1. Talking about condoms and safer sex is not the same thing as demonizing abstinence, and if you’re under that impression, I sure hope that you were a legacy admission to Harvard, because otherwise that’s just embarrassing.

2. You look dumb when you complain that “there is just one lifestyle that doesn’t get recognition” and that’s abstinence. Abstinence gets recognition to the tune of more than $140 million in federal funding every year. Abstinence is discussed constantly. It is brought up in every single sex ed program. It is the subject of Congressional investigations and debates. It is studied by researchers. It is discussed in the classroom, in churches, in homes, in the news, and on blogs. Abstinence-until-marriage is discussed perhaps more than any other lifestyle choice made my less than five percent of the population.

3. You look even dumber when you complain about how mean and alienating the comprehensive sex ed folks are, and then you say stuff like pre-marital sex “deeply compromises human dignity” and leads to “personal unhappiness and social harm.” I can recognize that it is hard to remain abstinent, especially in the face of a very sexualized culture. I appreciate and applaud the personal strength of individuals who decide abstinence in the best choice for them. But what I can’t support is the constant attacks on sexually active people. People who have sex do not feel a constant need to tell abstinent people that their human dignity has been compromised, or that they’re dirty, or that they are secretly unhappy, or that they’re headed for total life ruin. I can understand how abstinent people may feel like society regards them as freaks because it seems like everyone else is having sex, but, statistically, most adults do have sex before marriage. It doesn’t mean you’re a freak if you don’t, but it does mean you’re making a different choice than 95 percent of the population. You can’t really expect that the choices made by the overwhelming majority won’t be normalized; you can, however, expect that your choices be recognized and respected. Unfortunately, the most vocal abstinence crusaders don’t do that. They instead choose to tell the rest of us that we’re making bad decisions and that we’re compromising our dignity as human beings. That’s far more fucked up and judgmental than anything I’ve ever heard a sexually active person say about abstinent folks.

4. You are not Gandhi or Nelson Mandela for choosing not to have sex.

5. I’m glad you’ve given this a feminist analysis, and I think there are feminist reasons for making your own sexual choices, including abstinence. But thinking that dudes are going to talk about you in the locker room and believing that oral sex is “disgusting” are not great justifications for the no-sex stance. First, if you think all men are dogs who are going to do the locker-room play-by-play, what makes you want to marry one? And why do you think that your guy will change from scum into a prince the day he puts a ring on your finger? Second, what makes you think that the constant “Don’t think about sex!” message will actually make people not think about sex? It’s the old “pink elephant” game, isn’t it? Third, if your abstinence is based in feminist theory about controlling your own body and not giving it over to men, why are you against masturbation? Fourth, could you please just stop pretending that your abstinence is based in feminism and secularism? It’s pretty clear that it’s not, and your anti-masturbation stance isn’t the only clue. If your choices are religiously motivated, that’s fine — but you really don’t need to co-opt other movements to try to trick other people out of a condom-lovin’ fuck.

6. When you’re a dude who authors an article like this and you end it with a competition between the virgin and the whore and then conclude with a quote saying “most guys out there would rather end up with a girl like Janie [the virgin],” you do all involved a disservice.

Dear Maureen Dowd,

I’ll support Hillary Clinton shutting up and dropping out of the race as soon as you decide that as another loud-mouthed and unapologetic woman who pisses people off, you should drop off the editorial pages of the Times.

And I will start to love your mouthiness again as soon as you stop referring to Barack Obama as “exotic” with “braided ancestry.”

Let’s keep our eye on the prize, no?