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

Teenagers: Way more boring than we all thought.

Rampant teenage promiscuity is a myth. This may come as a blow to afternoon talk shows and conservative busy-bodies.

But there are some problematic findings when you look at the statistics: Teens aren’t having more sex than they were back in the good old days, but the teen pregnancy rate has crept up for the first time in a decade.

“There is a group of kids who engage in sexual behavior, but it’s not really significantly different than previous generations,” said Maria Kefalas, an associate professor of sociology at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia and co-author of “Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage” (University of California Press, 2005). “This creeping up of teen pregnancy is not because so many more kids are having sex, but most likely because more kids aren’t using contraception.”

Hmmm, wonder why.

As for the oral sex panic (rainbow parties! “hooking up”!), yeah, the kids are doing it — but only 16% of teenagers who haven’t had intercourse say they’ve had oral sex. And a lot of them may choose oral sex because of the lower risk factor for pregnancy and STIs.

But, pssh, boring! Moral panic over teenagers doin’ it is a whole lot more fun. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Posted in Sex

Deep thought of the night


A moment of calm.

You know that scene in ET where ET has just been brought to the kid’s room, and he’s totally confused by earth and so he flails around everywhere, making a huge mess and being incredibly loud and setting off that weird 80s chattering teeth toy?

That’s pretty much what having cats is like.

So I’m glad masturbation prevents cancer and all, but…

I’m pretty sure men aren’t the only ones who masturbate. Just sayin’.

And while I’m bitching about The Independent, I’ll add that it’s a travesty they list the “10 Best Sex Toys” but fail to include a single vibrator. I’m sure silk and diamonte boobie tassles are great, but they’re missing a certain… something. If there’s room on the list for candles and a glorified foot stool, surely you can squeeze in the Hitachi Magic Wand. Come on, Independent writers, throw us ladies a bone here.

Obama getting it wrong on birth control

Well, I suppose my Best Week Ever had to end sometime. Reportedly Barack Obama is “begging” Sen. Henry Waxman to pull contraception funding from the economic stimulus package.

Republicans are bloviating about how the provision, which makes it easier for states to expand Medicaid coverage of contraceptives, is wasteful and somehow subsidizing abortion. House Republican leader John Boehner is leading the charge, asking, “How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?”

Well, as Cory Richards points out on RH Reality Check, the $825 billion stimulus package already includes $87 billion to help states with Medicaid. And that’s not just because when the economy is bad and jobs are lost, more people rely on government benefits — it’s also because state programs are hurting, and Medicaid spending helps to create new jobs. While I doubt this is part of the calculus, I’ll also throw it out there that a healthy workforce is a more efficient and effective workforce; further, having children you can’t afford is certainly a financial burden.

Either way, though, Medicaid spending generally isn’t being attacked; it’s contraception spending. The reason that contraception is even in the package in the first place is because of Bush administration rules that made states specifically request federal government permission to fund contraception services. And contraception spending saves money in the long run — some $200 million over five years, according to a Congressional Budget Office evaluation of a nearly identical plan from 2007. This will surprise none of us, but contraception is a lot cheaper than the medical expenses related to pregnancy and childbirth.

And of course there’s the abortion issue. Boehner claims that funding contraception is a subsidy for “the abortion industry” — proving again that this isn’t about fiscal responsibility or taxpayer dollars, but about controlling women’s bodies and punishing women for having sex. From Cory:

Coming from a member who is adamantly antiabortion, Rep. Boehner’s opposition is doubly ironic, since publicly funded family planning services significantly reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions that occur. Each year, the contraceptive services provided just at publicly funded clinics help women avoid 1.4 million unintended pregnancies, which would result in 640,000 unintended births and 600,000 abortions. Without these services, the number of abortion performed each year in the United States would be 49% higher than it currently is.

I wish President Obama would just repeat that paragraph ad nauseum.

Update: Thanks a lot, liberal male allies. You mean a Democratic president made “concessions” on the backs of low-income women and it didn’t earn him any benefits from Republicans? Shocking, just shocking. And if you were looking for a reason to scratch your own eyeballs out this fine evening, read the comments.

The Monstrous Regiment of Women

via Feministing comes this gem of a video, which proves that feminists seek to rule (and then destroy) the world, all while perpetrating “the largest holocaust since the beginning of time” (their words, not mine). It’s really amazing:

There are few things I love more than professional anti-feminists beating up on other women for having careers. I’m pretty sure that strategy put most of Phyllis Schlafley’s kids through college. Gotta pay those bills somehow, right ladies?

Posted in Uncategorized

It just keeps getting better

I keep saying that between going to the inauguration, watching all the great stuff Obama has been doing, and finding out that coffee is good for the brain, this has been my Best Week Ever. Well, the week is supposedly over today, but Mr. President is still sending a special envoy to the Middle East on a listening tour. I guess he figures that people out there may have some interesting things to say, and probably better to address those views than simply bomb them all to hell.

It’s a small step and one that should have been taken a long time ago, but damn it feels good to have a president who finally takes diplomacy seriously.

Gender Discrimination in Unexpected Places

A new study shows a gender gap in kidney transplant rates. Unsurprisingly, women — or, I should say, certain women — are on the bottom end of that gap.  This is the case even though women fare just as well as or better than men of the same age.

The researchers examined data from the United States Renal Data System, including a list of 563,197 patients who developed end-stage kidney disease from 2000 to 2005, and they calculated the likelihood of getting on a transplant list, adjusting for factors that would affect the patient’s survival after surgery.

They found that women 45 and younger were as likely as men to be placed on a transplant waiting list. But as women aged, their chances of getting on the list dropped, getting worse with each decade, said the lead author, Dr. Dorry Segev, a transplant surgeon at Johns Hopkins.

By the time women were 46 to 55, they were 3 percent less likely to be put on the transplant list. They were 15 percent less likely to be placed on the list at ages 56 to 65; 29 percent less likely at 66 to 75; and 59 percent less likely to be listed by the time they were 75 or older, Dr. Segev said.

What is the cause for the gap, and the way that it progressively widens as women age?  Well, the answer to that isn’t known for certain, but Dr. Segev puts in an educated guess that sounds about right to me.  He believes that women’s families are more likely to see them as frail and unlikely to survive a transplant, and therefore don’t put them on the list at all.

Of course, the stereotype of older women as frail is a very common one.  The phrase “little old lady” rolls right off our tongues, and though it’s not unheard of, the phrase “little old man” is significantly less common.  Older women are regularly portrayed by the media as having limited mobility and therefore helpless and fragile (a form of ableism as well as ageism, I think).  Even though, as all of the research shows when it comes to the results of kidney transplants, they’re not.

That’s the thing about stereotypes.  Lots of people like to argue that they’re “harmless.”  And also, these same people tell us, they’re mostly based in reality, so it’s all okay.  Except that stereotypes of all kinds cause things like this.  I hate to get all dramatic, but it’s true, and this is only one of many examples.  Stereotypes can, and regularly do, cost lives.

That’s no reason to put aside any and all other possible explanations for the gender gap.  Off the top of my head — since women are taught to be so much less assertive than men are, and since we’re also taught from birth to not be a “burden” to our loved ones or make too much of a fuss — I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that women are statistically less likely than men to stand up to their families when these kind of decisions are made.  Or that they’re more likely to make the decision themselves in an attempt to avoid being a “burden.”  Elderly women are also at a higher risk of living in poverty than elderly men (pdf), and heart wrenching though it sounds, therefore may have more economic concerns influencing their decision.  Or, after hearing the message for so long, these women could have simply come to seen themselves as more fragile than they are.

But I’d still be surprised if Dr. Segev’s speculation was based in nothing but fantasy.  And regardless of whether or not he’s right in his speculation, my alternate explanations are more accurate, or there’s a wholly separate cause at work here, we clearly ought to be concerned.

Sometimes just reading the headline is enough to know an article will make you feel stabby

“What Do Women Want?: A new generation of postfeminist sexologists is trying to discover what ignites female desire.”

In the writer’s defense, you usually don’t write your own headers or sub-heads, so I can’t really blame him for the “postfeminist” thing. I also can’t blame him for the unfortunate graphic, which seems to suggest that when women really want it, they breathe smoke from their severed heads.

I can, however, blame him for portraying the female sexologists as overly sexual, and for mentioning the fact that socialization influences biology without really seeming to understand or explore it. For example:

Thinking not of the search for chemical aphrodisiacs but of her own quest for comprehension, Chivers said that she hopes her research and thinking will eventually have some benefit for women’s sexuality. “I wanted everybody to have great sex,” she told me, recalling one of her reasons for choosing her career, and laughing as she did when she recounted the lessons she once gave on the position of the clitoris. But mostly it’s the aim of understanding in itself that compels her. For the discord, in women, between the body and the mind, she has deliberated over all sorts of explanations, the simplest being anatomy. The penis is external, its reactions more readily perceived and pressing upon consciousness. Women might more likely have grown up, for reasons of both bodily architecture and culture — and here was culture again, undercutting clarity — with a dimmer awareness of the erotic messages of their genitals. Chivers said she has considered, too, research suggesting that men are better able than women to perceive increases in heart rate at moments of heightened stress and that men may rely more on such physiological signals to define their emotional states, while women depend more on situational cues. So there are hints, she told me, that the disparity between the objective and the subjective might exist, for women, in areas other than sex. And this disconnection, according to yet another study she mentioned, is accentuated in women with acutely negative feelings about their own bodies.

How about the fact that women grow up in a society that is centered on men’s experiences and lives? That the female body is used as a representation of sex itself, whereas (hetero) men’s experiences and understandings of sex dominate our cultural narrative? To go back to an old feminist gem, men watch; women watch themselves being watched.

And women’s bodies are positioned as public property. Whether it’s ongoing political battles about what we can and can’t do with our reproductive systems or a cultural religious/virginity narrative that places female sexuality as a bartering chip between male “protectors” or not being able to walk down the damn street without a reminder that we don’t have the same right to public space as men do, to be female is to be told, “Your body is not yours.”

Plus there’s the fact that female bodies are marked as decorative, whereas male bodies are active. Men’s bodies do things — they represent strength, ability, power. Women’s bodies look like things — they represent sex, beauty, fertility.

Of course we feel disconnected from our bodies. Of course that impacts our sex lives.

Read More…Read More…