Yipes, it's been a month since I posted.
I was just referred to this video from a design blog I read: 2 year old identifies the world. I don't normally post Youtube videos, but this was remarkable.
All the commenters to that video (and I) were so impressed that a 2 year old could identify so many countries, and many commenters noted that she knew more than they did. Statements like that make me wonder what is wrong with us, if as educated adults, we can't do things children do? Think about shows like "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" (Ironically hosted by You Might Be A Redneck If's Jeff Foxworthy). What does this mean about our country? Is this just a U.S. thing? Many of the commenters were from other countries too.
Isn't this about more than just geography? Shouldn't we be ashamed that our knowledge is so poor? While rote memorization is helpful, I know it isn't the marker of all knowledge.
I'm disturbed when the community college students I work with place into Arithmetic as their "college" math. ARITHMETIC? Often these students have taken high school algebra and much higher, yet they didn't retain the information. That is a problem to me.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Non Discrimination Act passes House!
From an email from the Human Rights Campaign:
Today, I witnessed something that just a year ago seemed nearly impossible. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). We are one step closer to our ultimate goal of ensuring that all GLBT Americans no longer live in fear of losing their jobs.
The progress we've made today is historic - it is the first time either house of Congress has passed employment protections of this kind. It took over 30 years of lobbying and grassroots political work to get to this point, and while the bill that finally passed was not the fully inclusive version we sought, this represents a major advance - and the best way to move towards our long-term goal of protecting our entire community.
HRC first helped introduce ENDA 13 years ago, to prevent workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. This year, gender identity was added to the bill. Unfortunately, gender identity was not covered in the version that passed today, but this vote was a first and absolutely necessary step towards equality for GLBT people in the workplace. That's why HRC joined with a coalition of major civil rights groups who declared support for the bill before the final vote, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR includes more than 192 national civil rights organizations), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), and the National Education Association (NEA).
Supporting this version of the bill was a difficult and painful decision. But, without a doubt, the only path to achieving a bill protecting our whole community was by achieving the successful House vote today. A defeat of ENDA would have set back the possibility of an inclusive bill for many, many years. HRC remains 100% committed to doing the hard work necessary to pass legislation that protects our entire community, including transgender workers who remain especially vulnerable to workplace discrimination.
Today, we continue our determined march towards progress. And we recommit ourselves to educating our leaders and our neighbors, to speed the day when our community will be protected, as one. Your support has enabled HRC to lead the way in this struggle. We have formed strategic alliances in Congress, activated an unprecedented number of grassroots supporters, met with editorial boards, brought clergy to Washington to lobby their elected officials, and worked with the corporate community to expand GLBT workplace protections. We spent years defending ourselves from anti-GLBT attacks from the radical right. Now we are on the offense. But make no mistake: the extremists who work against us every day will be working overtime to hold back our progress.
Our fight will not be won overnight - it will be won one step at a time. This has been a grueling few weeks for our community, but we have never once given up on achieving our ultimate goal of workplace equality for GLBT Americans. Along this road, there will be challenges, but we must not allow them to divide us. We know we are working towards the same goal: equal rights for all.
We can get there, together, and we will.
Warmly,
Joe Solmonese
President
Today, I witnessed something that just a year ago seemed nearly impossible. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). We are one step closer to our ultimate goal of ensuring that all GLBT Americans no longer live in fear of losing their jobs.
The progress we've made today is historic - it is the first time either house of Congress has passed employment protections of this kind. It took over 30 years of lobbying and grassroots political work to get to this point, and while the bill that finally passed was not the fully inclusive version we sought, this represents a major advance - and the best way to move towards our long-term goal of protecting our entire community.
HRC first helped introduce ENDA 13 years ago, to prevent workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. This year, gender identity was added to the bill. Unfortunately, gender identity was not covered in the version that passed today, but this vote was a first and absolutely necessary step towards equality for GLBT people in the workplace. That's why HRC joined with a coalition of major civil rights groups who declared support for the bill before the final vote, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR includes more than 192 national civil rights organizations), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), and the National Education Association (NEA).
Supporting this version of the bill was a difficult and painful decision. But, without a doubt, the only path to achieving a bill protecting our whole community was by achieving the successful House vote today. A defeat of ENDA would have set back the possibility of an inclusive bill for many, many years. HRC remains 100% committed to doing the hard work necessary to pass legislation that protects our entire community, including transgender workers who remain especially vulnerable to workplace discrimination.
Today, we continue our determined march towards progress. And we recommit ourselves to educating our leaders and our neighbors, to speed the day when our community will be protected, as one. Your support has enabled HRC to lead the way in this struggle. We have formed strategic alliances in Congress, activated an unprecedented number of grassroots supporters, met with editorial boards, brought clergy to Washington to lobby their elected officials, and worked with the corporate community to expand GLBT workplace protections. We spent years defending ourselves from anti-GLBT attacks from the radical right. Now we are on the offense. But make no mistake: the extremists who work against us every day will be working overtime to hold back our progress.
Our fight will not be won overnight - it will be won one step at a time. This has been a grueling few weeks for our community, but we have never once given up on achieving our ultimate goal of workplace equality for GLBT Americans. Along this road, there will be challenges, but we must not allow them to divide us. We know we are working towards the same goal: equal rights for all.
We can get there, together, and we will.
Warmly,
Joe Solmonese
President
Friday, November 02, 2007
The adoption vs abortion myth
From the Los Angeles Times
Excerpts:
The last 2 paragraphs really get at what I think is a very important point for people to remember in the reproductive rights debate.
Excerpts:
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani prominently featured one such myth in his speech Oct. 20 to a group of social conservatives. The former New York City mayor stated that "we increased adoption by 133% over the eight years before I came into office. And we found that abortions went down by 18% during that period of time. I believe we can do that in the United States."But Giuliani's implied causality between these two statistics is unsupportable for this simple reason: The increases he cites were in the rate of adoptions of children out of New York City's foster care system, not in the rate at which women were continuing unwanted pregnancies and placing their infants for adoption rather than having abortions. Nothing in the data he cites indicates that there was any significant increase in the city's newborn relinquishment rate while he was mayor.
Meanwhile, we know that very few women actually place their infants for adoption. In the United States, fewer than 14,000 newborns were voluntarily relinquished in 2003 (the latest year for which an estimate is available), according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That proportion -- just under 1% of all the children born to never-married women -- has remained constant for almost two decades.
As a just-published Guttmacher Institute study shows, abortion rates are extremely high in many countries where contraceptives are not readily available and contraceptive use is not encouraged, even though abortion is highly restricted in those places by law. And the world's lowest rates of abortion by far are found in Western Europe, where very few legal restrictions are placed on abortion but contraceptive use and comprehensive sex education are widespread.
Behind virtually every abortion is an unintended pregnancy. The sooner politicians accept that the only way to meaningfully achieve fewer abortions is to do better in helping women and their partners prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, the better.
The last 2 paragraphs really get at what I think is a very important point for people to remember in the reproductive rights debate.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Slutty is not a costume
Now the epidemic is catching on with children. At least Newsweek agrees with me.
Some popular childrens' costume names:
Shipwrecked Pirate, Wayward Witch, Child's Chamber Maid Costume and Miss-Behaved
A girl isn't an Army cadet, she's a "Major Flirt," and who knew female firefighters wore fishnet stockings? Even Little Bo Peep comes with a corset, short skirt and lacy petticoat.
Joe Kelly, founder of the advocacy group Dads and Daughters comments: He sees the trend as symptomatic of a deeper issue. "The hypersexualization of younger and younger girls only serves to reinforce gender roles. When an 8-year-old girl can't find a doctor costume because all they have are nurse outfits, that's a problem."
The article points out that most websites selling costumes have more options for boys than girls.
Not that there's anything patently wrong with young girls wanting to look pretty. Child psychologists agree that embracing and understanding their attractiveness is a key part of early-adolescent development for girls. But when sexiness and body image become the sole criteria by which they judge themselves and each other, "That's when we start to see problems," says Dr. Eileen Zurbriggen, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who last year chaired the American Psychological Association's (APA) Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Their report, issued in February, declared that, "Throughout U.S. culture, and particularly in mainstream media, women and girls are depicted in a sexualized manner."
This is a disturbing trend. The article asks Are we prudes or is this practically kiddie porn? I don't care if I am considered a prude, this is not appropriate. I can't even imagine what I'd say if I had a daughter who wanted to be one of these costumes, especially when peer pressure is a strong influence. How do you get a 9 or 10 year old to understand that slutty is not appropriate? I know some people don't like the use of the word appropriate but that's really the most appropriate (ha) word. I think it is up to the parents to decide what they allow to be appropriate (after all, I suppose anyone could say that wearing a mohawk isn't appropriate, or being gay, and I see the possible implications here). I'm of the school of thought (and I say this without having had any children) that you should let your kids wear what they want as far as personal expression goes (i.e., they don't have to match every day, they can dye their hair pink if they want) as long as it doesn't harm them or others.
Where I do have an issue is what the article said, that it's not the best message to be sending to a young girl that her idea of herself is that of "Major Flirt" instead of Army Cadet.
Some popular childrens' costume names:
Shipwrecked Pirate, Wayward Witch, Child's Chamber Maid Costume and Miss-Behaved
A girl isn't an Army cadet, she's a "Major Flirt," and who knew female firefighters wore fishnet stockings? Even Little Bo Peep comes with a corset, short skirt and lacy petticoat.
Joe Kelly, founder of the advocacy group Dads and Daughters comments: He sees the trend as symptomatic of a deeper issue. "The hypersexualization of younger and younger girls only serves to reinforce gender roles. When an 8-year-old girl can't find a doctor costume because all they have are nurse outfits, that's a problem."
The article points out that most websites selling costumes have more options for boys than girls.
Not that there's anything patently wrong with young girls wanting to look pretty. Child psychologists agree that embracing and understanding their attractiveness is a key part of early-adolescent development for girls. But when sexiness and body image become the sole criteria by which they judge themselves and each other, "That's when we start to see problems," says Dr. Eileen Zurbriggen, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who last year chaired the American Psychological Association's (APA) Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Their report, issued in February, declared that, "Throughout U.S. culture, and particularly in mainstream media, women and girls are depicted in a sexualized manner."
This is a disturbing trend. The article asks Are we prudes or is this practically kiddie porn? I don't care if I am considered a prude, this is not appropriate. I can't even imagine what I'd say if I had a daughter who wanted to be one of these costumes, especially when peer pressure is a strong influence. How do you get a 9 or 10 year old to understand that slutty is not appropriate? I know some people don't like the use of the word appropriate but that's really the most appropriate (ha) word. I think it is up to the parents to decide what they allow to be appropriate (after all, I suppose anyone could say that wearing a mohawk isn't appropriate, or being gay, and I see the possible implications here). I'm of the school of thought (and I say this without having had any children) that you should let your kids wear what they want as far as personal expression goes (i.e., they don't have to match every day, they can dye their hair pink if they want) as long as it doesn't harm them or others.
Where I do have an issue is what the article said, that it's not the best message to be sending to a young girl that her idea of herself is that of "Major Flirt" instead of Army Cadet.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
More Domestic Violence Events
Who: Anti-Violence Project of the Equality Virginia Education Fund and The Gay Community Center of Richmond
What: My Girlfriend Did It, a documentary about lesbian battering. The film includes several women sharing their stories as well as organizers and anti-violence advocates discussing resources and barriers from a community perspective. Following the film will be an open forum discussion where the community can come together to explore the anti-violence movement and the unique needs of the LGBTQ/HIV-affected communities.
When: Wednesday, October 24th, 7-9p.m.
Where: The Gay Community Center of Richmond at 1407 Sherwood Ave Richmond, VA 23220. It is accessible to persons using wheelchairs. Childcare available upon request. Light refreshments will be available.
For more information please call 804.643.4816 and ask for Quillin or email avp@equalityvirginia.org
What: My Girlfriend Did It, a documentary about lesbian battering. The film includes several women sharing their stories as well as organizers and anti-violence advocates discussing resources and barriers from a community perspective. Following the film will be an open forum discussion where the community can come together to explore the anti-violence movement and the unique needs of the LGBTQ/HIV-affected communities.
When: Wednesday, October 24th, 7-9p.m.
Where: The Gay Community Center of Richmond at 1407 Sherwood Ave Richmond, VA 23220. It is accessible to persons using wheelchairs. Childcare available upon request. Light refreshments will be available.
For more information please call 804.643.4816 and ask for Quillin or email avp@equalityvirginia.org
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Oh Style Weekly, how I love your spot-on snark
From The Score: A weekly rating of the city zeitgeist.
Chesterfield Edition: Written Entirely in English
+8 Official Language: English. Kelly Miller, chairman of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, has reminded all of us how many problems could be solved by simply making English the official language of the county. ¡Gracias, Kelly! Language to be enforced by Media Watchdog Greg Pearson of the Chesterfield Observer, a fine, fine newspaper written in English.
+3 Official Hot Drink: Tea with lemon. To shake off any unfair backwoods stereotypes and help show off our class. Plus, it will underscore our heritage with Philip Stanhope, the late British secretary of state and Fourth Earl of Chesterfield, for whom the county is named. The lemon reminds us all how good we are at puckering.
+4 Official Road: Route 288. It allows us to bypass everybody.
+7 Official Currency: Smart Tag. Everyone has one, and what better way to painlessly extract the money we need from residents to cover the increasing costs of illegal aliens? Plus, we can use the Smart Tag to track the whereabouts of illegal aliens. And Ed Barber.
+6 Official Church:The Richmond Christian Center. Present it a plaque during Black History Month, which we already support. Doing so will divert attention from the way we successfully blocked the church from buying Cloverleaf when no one else was interested. Then let the media try to call us bullies. Extra points for racial tolerance to offset the county’s official Confederate History Month.
+7 Official NASCAR Driver: Denny Hamlin. OK, this sends mixed signals, we know. But it is his hometown.
Chesterfield Edition: Written Entirely in English
+8 Official Language: English. Kelly Miller, chairman of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, has reminded all of us how many problems could be solved by simply making English the official language of the county. ¡Gracias, Kelly! Language to be enforced by Media Watchdog Greg Pearson of the Chesterfield Observer, a fine, fine newspaper written in English.
+3 Official Hot Drink: Tea with lemon. To shake off any unfair backwoods stereotypes and help show off our class. Plus, it will underscore our heritage with Philip Stanhope, the late British secretary of state and Fourth Earl of Chesterfield, for whom the county is named. The lemon reminds us all how good we are at puckering.
+4 Official Road: Route 288. It allows us to bypass everybody.
+7 Official Currency: Smart Tag. Everyone has one, and what better way to painlessly extract the money we need from residents to cover the increasing costs of illegal aliens? Plus, we can use the Smart Tag to track the whereabouts of illegal aliens. And Ed Barber.
+6 Official Church:The Richmond Christian Center. Present it a plaque during Black History Month, which we already support. Doing so will divert attention from the way we successfully blocked the church from buying Cloverleaf when no one else was interested. Then let the media try to call us bullies. Extra points for racial tolerance to offset the county’s official Confederate History Month.
+7 Official NASCAR Driver: Denny Hamlin. OK, this sends mixed signals, we know. But it is his hometown.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Well done, Dear Abby
Dear Abby is a vocal straight ally. From MSN.
Jeanne Phillips, who formally took over the column when her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease five years ago, has continued plugging the group, as well as its affiliate for parents with children who identify as transgender, and a suicide hot line aimed at gay teenagers.
“I’m trying to tell kids if they are gay, it’s OK to be gay. I’ve tried to tell families if they have a gay family member to accept them and love them as they always have,” she said Friday.
PFLAG director Jody Huckaby said Abby is the perfect choice for the first “Straight for Equality” award, part of the group’s new campaign to engage more heterosexuals as allies.
Jeanne Phillips, who formally took over the column when her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease five years ago, has continued plugging the group, as well as its affiliate for parents with children who identify as transgender, and a suicide hot line aimed at gay teenagers.
“I’m trying to tell kids if they are gay, it’s OK to be gay. I’ve tried to tell families if they have a gay family member to accept them and love them as they always have,” she said Friday.
PFLAG director Jody Huckaby said Abby is the perfect choice for the first “Straight for Equality” award, part of the group’s new campaign to engage more heterosexuals as allies.
Monday, October 08, 2007
October is Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Awareness Month
Domestic violence is an issue very personal to me. Here are a few facts about it and some local events.
Facts:
·Domestic violence is virtually impossible to measure with absolute precision due to numerous complications, including the social stigma that inhibits victims from disclosing their abuse and the varying definitions of abuse used from study to study. Estimates range from 691,710 incidents of violence against a current or former partner per year to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year.
·In 2001, about 85 percent of victimizations by intimate partners were against women (588,490) and 15 percent of victimizations were against men (103,220).
·Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.
·Every nine seconds in the United States, a woman is beaten by her husband, boyfriend or live-in partner
·Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.
·70% of men who abuse their female partners also abuse their children
·Domestic violence is often passed on to the next generation: Boys who witness domestic violence are three times more likely to hit their wives than those who have not. Data also suggests that girls who witness maternal abuse may tolerate abuse as adults more than girls who do not.
·Up to 50% of all homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence. (Schneider, Legal Reform Efforts for Battered Women, 1990)
Things that might be keeping you from saying something:
The violence can’t really be that serious. Dating violence includes threats, pushing, punching, slapping, choking, sexual assault, and assault with weapons. It is rarely a one-time occurrence and usually escalates in frequency and severity. Even if the violence is “only” verbal, it can seriously affect the victim’s health and well-being, so any act of dating violence is something to take seriously.
My friend must be doing something to provoke the violence. A victim of dating violence is never to blame for another person’s choice to use violence against her/him. Problems exist in any relationship, but the use of violence is never acceptable.
If it’s so bad, why doesn’t s/he just leave? Your friend’s emotional ties to her/his partner may be strong, supporting the hope that the violence will end. Perhaps your friend doesn’t know about available resources, or maybe social and justice systems may have been unhelpful in the past. Perhaps when your friend has tried to end the relationship in the past, her/his partner may have used violence to stop her/him.
I shouldn’t get involved in a private matter. Dating violence is not a “personal problem”. It is a crime with serious repercussions for your friend, your friend’s partner, your campus, and your entire community.
I know the abusive person– I really don’t think he/she could hurt anyone. Many abusers are not violent in other relationships and can be charming in social situations, yet be extremely violent in private.
The abusive person must be sick. Using violence and abuse is a learned behavior, not a mental illness. People who use violence and abuse to control their partners choose such behavior; viewing them as “sick” wrongly excuses them from taking responsibility for it.
How can my friend still care for someone who abuses her/him? Chances are, the abuser is not always abusive. S/he may show remorse for the violence after it happens and promise to change. Your friend may understandably hope for such changes. Their relationship probably involves good times, bad times, and in-between times.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are living in an abusive relationship, help is available:
Virginia Family Violence & Sexual Assault Hotline - 1.800.838.8238
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am delighted to see that The Clothesline Project is reappearing at VCU this year. I'm just devastated that they're only having it during the day so only VCU kids can see it.
The Clothesline Project gives victim/survivors who have been affected by violence a chance to express their emotions through the decoration of a shirt. The shirt is then hung on display as a testimony to the problem of violence against women.
Date: Wednesday, October 10th, 2007
Time: 10:00am – 4:00 pm
Place: VCU Student Commons Plaza
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beating Hearts--Stories of Domestic Violence. Interactive.
Some of these just make your heart pang. I almost get teary at work reading these again.
Sexism, Identity, and Intimacy in a Pornographic Culture –
Lecture by Dr. Gail Dines;
What does it meant to live in a stomach stapling, breast enhancing, diet loving, hook up junk-sex culture? Why is porn to sex, what McDonald’s is to food? Why does porn ruin men’s sex lives as well as women’s? Why do women’s magazines do stories about the dangers of over-dieting and then only use size two models? Why do the media celebrate Paris, Brittany and Lindsay and denigrate feminists? Why is porn more profitable than the Hollywood film and music industries combined? These are just some of the questions answered in Gail Dines’ compelling lecture.
Sponsored by: VCUVOX - a student run organization affiliated with the nationally-run Planned Parenthood- Contact: Leah Fremouw at leahfremouw@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2007
Time: 7:00 pm
Place: VCU Student Commons - Richmond Salons 3 & 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Rose for Toni - A dramatic monologue about the dynamics of dating violence. The story is conveyed through the character of Toni, a nineteen-year-old young woman who grew up in a physically abusive home. Although, Toni recognizes physical abuse, her current relationship depicts symbolic, emotional, and verbal abuse. The audience will become emotionally engaged with the plight of Toni as the story of this abusive relationship unfolds.
Date: Tuesday, October 16th, 2007
Time: 7:00pm
Place: VCU Commons Theater
Facts:
·Domestic violence is virtually impossible to measure with absolute precision due to numerous complications, including the social stigma that inhibits victims from disclosing their abuse and the varying definitions of abuse used from study to study. Estimates range from 691,710 incidents of violence against a current or former partner per year to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year.
·In 2001, about 85 percent of victimizations by intimate partners were against women (588,490) and 15 percent of victimizations were against men (103,220).
·Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.
·Every nine seconds in the United States, a woman is beaten by her husband, boyfriend or live-in partner
·Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.
·70% of men who abuse their female partners also abuse their children
·Domestic violence is often passed on to the next generation: Boys who witness domestic violence are three times more likely to hit their wives than those who have not. Data also suggests that girls who witness maternal abuse may tolerate abuse as adults more than girls who do not.
·Up to 50% of all homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence. (Schneider, Legal Reform Efforts for Battered Women, 1990)
Things that might be keeping you from saying something:
The violence can’t really be that serious. Dating violence includes threats, pushing, punching, slapping, choking, sexual assault, and assault with weapons. It is rarely a one-time occurrence and usually escalates in frequency and severity. Even if the violence is “only” verbal, it can seriously affect the victim’s health and well-being, so any act of dating violence is something to take seriously.
My friend must be doing something to provoke the violence. A victim of dating violence is never to blame for another person’s choice to use violence against her/him. Problems exist in any relationship, but the use of violence is never acceptable.
If it’s so bad, why doesn’t s/he just leave? Your friend’s emotional ties to her/his partner may be strong, supporting the hope that the violence will end. Perhaps your friend doesn’t know about available resources, or maybe social and justice systems may have been unhelpful in the past. Perhaps when your friend has tried to end the relationship in the past, her/his partner may have used violence to stop her/him.
I shouldn’t get involved in a private matter. Dating violence is not a “personal problem”. It is a crime with serious repercussions for your friend, your friend’s partner, your campus, and your entire community.
I know the abusive person– I really don’t think he/she could hurt anyone. Many abusers are not violent in other relationships and can be charming in social situations, yet be extremely violent in private.
The abusive person must be sick. Using violence and abuse is a learned behavior, not a mental illness. People who use violence and abuse to control their partners choose such behavior; viewing them as “sick” wrongly excuses them from taking responsibility for it.
How can my friend still care for someone who abuses her/him? Chances are, the abuser is not always abusive. S/he may show remorse for the violence after it happens and promise to change. Your friend may understandably hope for such changes. Their relationship probably involves good times, bad times, and in-between times.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are living in an abusive relationship, help is available:
Virginia Family Violence & Sexual Assault Hotline - 1.800.838.8238
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am delighted to see that The Clothesline Project is reappearing at VCU this year. I'm just devastated that they're only having it during the day so only VCU kids can see it.
The Clothesline Project gives victim/survivors who have been affected by violence a chance to express their emotions through the decoration of a shirt. The shirt is then hung on display as a testimony to the problem of violence against women.
Date: Wednesday, October 10th, 2007
Time: 10:00am – 4:00 pm
Place: VCU Student Commons Plaza
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beating Hearts--Stories of Domestic Violence. Interactive.
Some of these just make your heart pang. I almost get teary at work reading these again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------Then he turned to me and his eyes scared me. He just stared at me, like a blind person does, without blinking. And he told me he was going to get the back hoe, and after he dug the hole, he was putting me and the kids in it. He said the only thing he hadn't decided was whether he'd kill us first, or just bury us alive.
Sexism, Identity, and Intimacy in a Pornographic Culture –
Lecture by Dr. Gail Dines;
What does it meant to live in a stomach stapling, breast enhancing, diet loving, hook up junk-sex culture? Why is porn to sex, what McDonald’s is to food? Why does porn ruin men’s sex lives as well as women’s? Why do women’s magazines do stories about the dangers of over-dieting and then only use size two models? Why do the media celebrate Paris, Brittany and Lindsay and denigrate feminists? Why is porn more profitable than the Hollywood film and music industries combined? These are just some of the questions answered in Gail Dines’ compelling lecture.
Sponsored by: VCUVOX - a student run organization affiliated with the nationally-run Planned Parenthood- Contact: Leah Fremouw at leahfremouw@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2007
Time: 7:00 pm
Place: VCU Student Commons - Richmond Salons 3 & 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Rose for Toni - A dramatic monologue about the dynamics of dating violence. The story is conveyed through the character of Toni, a nineteen-year-old young woman who grew up in a physically abusive home. Although, Toni recognizes physical abuse, her current relationship depicts symbolic, emotional, and verbal abuse. The audience will become emotionally engaged with the plight of Toni as the story of this abusive relationship unfolds.
Date: Tuesday, October 16th, 2007
Time: 7:00pm
Place: VCU Commons Theater
Friday, September 21, 2007
Comment policy
Hi all,
I recently changed the comments to disallow anonymous comments. This was not meant to discourage discussion or opinions, but I simply do not want posters who have no identity at all. I encourage people to use aliases if they'd like. I value the ability for us to be somewhat anonymous online, but do not believe in commenters being a blind face with an opinion. Logistically, it is also hard to keep track of which person said what when everyone is anon.
Thanks. Happy commenting.
I recently changed the comments to disallow anonymous comments. This was not meant to discourage discussion or opinions, but I simply do not want posters who have no identity at all. I encourage people to use aliases if they'd like. I value the ability for us to be somewhat anonymous online, but do not believe in commenters being a blind face with an opinion. Logistically, it is also hard to keep track of which person said what when everyone is anon.
Thanks. Happy commenting.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Boys Will Be Boys
A post over at my friends' blog, Below the Belt, about a Christian men's group that attempts to address "masculine" issues prompted me to post today.
The men's group was, on some level, criticizing women for repressing them. They were using a variation of the argument I can't stand, Boys Will Be Boys. I'm sure there is tons written up about this particular subject, but I'd like to know what you, readers, think as well.
I think a lot of how boys and girls/men and women behave is due to socialization, but in my gender studies, I have seen enough to concede that there are some sex differences in behavior between boys and girls. However, this "bwbb" argument oversimplifies it. It is often used to justify violent or sexist behavior, defining those behaviors or preferences as "masculine." Not only is this dangerous, it is often just untrue.
Thoughts?
The men's group was, on some level, criticizing women for repressing them. They were using a variation of the argument I can't stand, Boys Will Be Boys. I'm sure there is tons written up about this particular subject, but I'd like to know what you, readers, think as well.
I think a lot of how boys and girls/men and women behave is due to socialization, but in my gender studies, I have seen enough to concede that there are some sex differences in behavior between boys and girls. However, this "bwbb" argument oversimplifies it. It is often used to justify violent or sexist behavior, defining those behaviors or preferences as "masculine." Not only is this dangerous, it is often just untrue.
Thoughts?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Why do hate crimes at home shock us so?
This sounds like something out of a movie from the 1950's. How awful.
Others in the article, including the mother of the 20-year-old victim, kept saying things to the likes of, "I can't believe people like this exist."
Which makes me wonder, are we naive to think that our fellow citizens aren't capable of such horrific acts? Has history taught us nothing? Is it awful and defeatist for us to presume that people will continue to perpetuate hate crimes and human rights violations? It happens routinely in many, many parts of the world, so why are we surprised? Certainly this is an inexcusable, terrible occurrence, but if similar things are happening everywhere else in the world, why are we shocked when it happens here? Is that ethnocentric of us, in the same vein as "It could never happen here" or "Not in my backyard" ?
BIG CREEK, W.Va. - Inside a shed on a remote hillside of this coalfield community, authorities say a young black woman was tortured for days, sexually assaulted, beaten and forced to eat rat droppings.
Her captors, all of them white, choked her with a cable cord, poured hot water over her and stabbed her in the leg while calling her a racial slur, according to criminal complaints. It wasn't until an anonymous tip led Logan County Sheriff's deputies to the property on Saturday that her ordeal ended and she was able to limp to safety, arms outstretched as she cried "help me!
Others in the article, including the mother of the 20-year-old victim, kept saying things to the likes of, "I can't believe people like this exist."
"I don't understand a human being doing another human being the way they did my daughter," Carmen Williams said Tuesday from her daughter's hospital room. "I didn't know there were people like that out here."
Which makes me wonder, are we naive to think that our fellow citizens aren't capable of such horrific acts? Has history taught us nothing? Is it awful and defeatist for us to presume that people will continue to perpetuate hate crimes and human rights violations? It happens routinely in many, many parts of the world, so why are we surprised? Certainly this is an inexcusable, terrible occurrence, but if similar things are happening everywhere else in the world, why are we shocked when it happens here? Is that ethnocentric of us, in the same vein as "It could never happen here" or "Not in my backyard" ?
Friday, September 07, 2007
Immigration reform put simply
For lack of a secular word, AMEN to this:
Immigrants' Labors Lost
The New York Times
(emphasis mine)
Immigrants' Labors Lost
The New York Times
(emphasis mine)
IMAGINE we wanted to create a huge Latino underclass in this country. We would induce more than 500,000 illegal immigrants to enter annually. We would see Latinos account for half of America’s population growth. We would turn a hardened eye toward all 44 million Latinos, because 12 million jumped our borders to meet our labor demand.
We would know that if we paid them, they would come, but we would offer no legitimate employment. We would adopt a let’s-pretend labor policy in our fields, yards, factories and restaurants, and for child care, construction and cleaning, with a wage fakery worthy of the Soviet Union. There, the joke was “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” Here they would work, hard — and we would pay them, sort of, but pretend not to, denying ourselves the future tax revenue needed to pay for services we faulted them for needing.
Rather than fencing aspiring contributors out, comprehensive reform means Congress getting serious about entry-level job training and midcareer education programs for all workers. They deliver better economic returns than border patrols do.
The guy with the leaf-blower not only can learn English, he — like the unemployed steelworker — should have a chance to learn auto repair or programming. He’ll start with the jobs “ordinary Americans” won’t do. But we impair our economic future if we leave him there, imagining that’s all he or his children will ever do.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Postmodernism
Hi, I'm back. Sorry for the very long absence. I've had some life turmoil and have not felt like discussing the big issues when the small ones were so pressing.
I've got new ideas though and look forward to writing again.
But first, readers, tell me, what's your definition of postmodernism? Now I know you can go to the Internets and look up a definition, but I want to know what you personally consider the definition to be. I've never been able to deduce a coherent, concrete definition. I also think that's a fault of the theory. I know it best to be an architectural definition--a push back against the idea that modernism was too cold, impersonal. Adding more details, instead of having just clean lines, taking note and including the surrounding environment when designing urban buildings, and more of a reference to historical decorative forms.
Much as I hate that everyone uses Wikipedia as if it's an academic source, I was referred to their page about postmod here and think it has quite a lot of information.
I've got new ideas though and look forward to writing again.
But first, readers, tell me, what's your definition of postmodernism? Now I know you can go to the Internets and look up a definition, but I want to know what you personally consider the definition to be. I've never been able to deduce a coherent, concrete definition. I also think that's a fault of the theory. I know it best to be an architectural definition--a push back against the idea that modernism was too cold, impersonal. Adding more details, instead of having just clean lines, taking note and including the surrounding environment when designing urban buildings, and more of a reference to historical decorative forms.
Much as I hate that everyone uses Wikipedia as if it's an academic source, I was referred to their page about postmod here and think it has quite a lot of information.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Hiatus
Sorry I haven't posted in awhile. I've been having some sign in issues related to javascript on my computer and finally figured out a way around it. Don't go away, readers, I'll have some insights soon.
Next topic: "Lil' Bush" on Comedy Central.
Next topic: "Lil' Bush" on Comedy Central.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Because of the World Order
This comes from I Blame the Patriarchy again. I know I've been referencing a lot of other bloggers lately, but this was an excellent description of the position I've been trying to argue but not really getting across. People tend to get all up in arms if anyone tries to challenge their individual right to do something, but this argument isn't about you. It's bigger than that, but people don't want to hear it. I'm not even saying this is necessarily my own position, but certainly in all good debate, an issue doesn't have to be your own belief to be able to argue it. If not, then you just aren't a competent debater.
The Twistolutionary manifesto argues that anything called “porn,” whether or not it is explicitly violent or BDSM-y or designed to titillate ‘feminists’ vs. sweaty, beer-gutted pervs, exists only to enthrobulate the fetishization of culturally-generated (and, frankly, comically hokey) constructs. It is readily apparent to the visitor from the planet Obstreperon that these constructs include arbitrary standards of physical sexihotness, arch-backed-heavy-eyelidded-ooo-baby body language, penetration worship, dominance and submission, corny fashion accessories, “the art of seduction” et al — and that they have, at their root, everything to do with a paradigm of dominance and nothing to do with actual sex between individuals with equivalent personal sovereignty.
So what’s the big whoop, the empowerful young feminist asks?
Well, in addition to pornography’s negative philosophic value, which anyone possessing even a sliver of sapience can see is reason enough to give it the old stink-eye [1], our world order is predicated on binary sex roles, one of which is privileged and dominant, the other of which is oppressed and submissive. In such a society, where a woman is a member of the oppressed sex class, her performance of sex in a film which is then consumed by paying customers to satisfy their prurience, this is not even remotely a politically neutral act. Porn — gay, straight, bi, live-action, animated, or ‘feminist’ — is the graphic representation of the oppression of the sex class. Until the sex class is liberated from male oppression, porn can be nothing else, no matter how many fun feminists claim it empowerfuls them.
Or, if you prefer, in order for porn to be politically neutral, it can’t be porn. Merely announcing ... that one’s participation in porn, whether as a consumer or as a prostituted woman, is voluntary does not make it so. This is because the women doing the announcing are, and have been since birth, deprived of such privilege as is necessary for them to freely make that choice.
When you’re already oppressed, it is, in fact, impossible to volunteer for oppression. A woman is a member of the sex class whether she “chooses” it or not. This pre-existing condition forms the backdrop to any fun feminist’s conclusion that her compliance with the patriarchal sexbot mandate is voluntary. She may believe otherwise, but her belief does not alter the fact that patriarchy — a social order predicated on an oppression to which she is already subject — is real and in effect and entirely beyond any unrestricted control she may wish to exert and only too glad to welcome her as a team player and sign her up for the rewards program.
The fun feminist confuses “empowerment” with the decision to acquiesce. This is understandable; it’s the one actual choice she has in this game: surrender, or stand and fight. She doesn’t have to be Candida Royalle to recognize that if she chooses the latter all she’ll get for her trouble is ridicule, hostility, suspicion, and the threat of bodily harm.
Whereas the rewards for surrender to male porn culture are not inconsiderable: social acceptance, male approval, little psuedo-privileges that accrue according to the degree of one’s conformity, and of course the enormous relief at not having to fight it anymore. The if-you-can’t-beatem-joinem gambit has enjoyed millennia of popularity for good reason. It gives the appearance of the shortest and easiest route to life’s rich pageant. Too bad that, once they get there, chicks are only eligible for the women’s auxiliary.
1. Porn’s negative philosophic value, in addition to its general assault on T & B (Truth and Beauty) spans the whole of women’s oppression, from Maybelline to rape culture.
Friday, April 27, 2007
A Sex Positive Radical Feminist?
Cablegai, this article is for you. Better than I could have said it.
And for the anonymous female poster who commented on the right for women to choose porn, I wasn't necessarily arguing that there was one right choice and choosing porn was the wrong one. I'm at the moment, mostly not anti-porn. But the problem is everyone looks at it as if it's only about individual choice. There are larger and complicated interweaving institutions at play here. Those who have not extensively studied institutions have a tendency to jump in with the "but it's a free country" and "free will" arguments. Anonymous girl (you have to leave some sort of pen name or else I can't keep track of who's who), you esp need to read this part (emphasis mine):
And for the anonymous female poster who commented on the right for women to choose porn, I wasn't necessarily arguing that there was one right choice and choosing porn was the wrong one. I'm at the moment, mostly not anti-porn. But the problem is everyone looks at it as if it's only about individual choice. There are larger and complicated interweaving institutions at play here. Those who have not extensively studied institutions have a tendency to jump in with the "but it's a free country" and "free will" arguments. Anonymous girl (you have to leave some sort of pen name or else I can't keep track of who's who), you esp need to read this part (emphasis mine):
"It starts with the idea that people, even people who as a group are poor and powerless, do what they do voluntarily, so that women who pose for Playboy are there by their own free will. Forget the realities of women's sexual/economic situation. When women express our free will, we spread our legs for a camera.
Implicit here, too, is the idea that a natural physical body exists, prior to its social construction through being viewed, which can be captured and photographed, even or especially, when "attractively posed" -- that's a quote from the Playboy Philosophy. Then we are told that to criticize this is to criticize "ideas," not what is being done either to the women in the magazine or to women in society as a whole. Any critique of what is done is then cast as a moral critique, which, as liberals know, can involve only opinions or ideas, not facts about life. This entire defensive edifice, illogical as it may seem, relies utterly coherently on the five cardinal dimensions of liberalism; individualism, naturalism, voluntarism, idealism, and moralism. I mean: members of groups who have no choice but to live life as members of groups are taken as if they are unique individuals; the social characteristics are then reduced to natural characteristics; preclusion of choices becomes free will; material reality is turned into "ideas about" reality; and concrete positions of power and powerlessness are transformed into relative value judgements, as to which reasonable people can form different but equally valid preferences."
I Never Really Thought of it This Way
It's a very good point. Written about the Virginia Tech killer, Screaming into the Void writes (emphasis mine):
The Virginia Tech shooter had a history of stalking women. Not just following them with starry eyes as the kindly (towards men) patriarchal imagination paints those poor misunderstood stalkers:Notice a pattern with these guys? Hello? Anyone? These serial killers and mass murderers who “suddenly snap” almost invariably have a problem with women. They almost always have a long history of stalking women, accusations of date rape or “domestic” violence (which are finally listed as “unfounded” and dismissed), and glorification of violence notable even for our violence-enamored society, often with a focus on violence done in sexual ways toward women.
But because women don’t matter, because women aren’t seen as people, these warning signs are not taken seriously. The campus police did not move to secure the campus early in the day when he shot the first two people because they blew it off as probably a “domestic” incident of murder/suicide - police shorthand for “He only killed a woman he’d had sex with before, so she’d probably asked for it anyway and of course he isn’t going to hurt any REAL people, just the bitch who pushed him over the edge.” Because they don’t take violence against women seriously, even murder of women, 30 more people were killed. They did track down her boyfriend to question him, but they didn’t lock down the campus in case they were wrong - they assumed a man who shoots his girlfriend isn’t a danger to any real people.
There’s a double mistake in this thinking. First of all, violence against one woman - even if the offender has a past or current relationship with her - should mean the offender is immediately taken to jail. Who cares if she wants to press charges? If someone starts beating up strangers on the street and the police are alerted, the offender goes straight to jail and the charges are sorted out later. Why? Because - and here’s a radical idea - even if she fucked him before, SHE’S STILL A HUMAN BEING WHO DOESN’T DESERVE TO GET BEATEN, RAPED, OR KILLED FOR IT. Secondly, while some men are happy to have just their own personal punching bag/gun target in the form of a woman on whom they perpetrate “intimate violence”, often a man uses women (or other low status humans, like the homeless or prostitutes) as practice before moving on to killing “real people” (like men, or unrelated university students with a career in front of them, or people with jobs, or chaste women who are married to/property of some other man). Even if you don’t take violence against an individual woman seriously, from a law enforcement perspective and a public safety perspective it is FUCKING STUPID to blow off someone who shoots, rapes, or beats his girlfriend as not being a danger to society. Yet law enforcement does this all the time.
I had been surprised to hear about all the stalking he had done and the judge-ordered mental health treatment, and then that the media and students all kept saying "well that didn't mean he was going to do anything dangerous". WHY NOT? When does it? I thought it seemed unusual that all that was so downplayed. Screaming into the Void makes good points about mass murderers usually having a problem with women. And then her second point how if it had been a stranger he went out and beat up/killed, he would still go to jail without having to "check with the partner" to see if she wants to press charges.
The Virginia Tech shooter had a history of stalking women. Not just following them with starry eyes as the kindly (towards men) patriarchal imagination paints those poor misunderstood stalkers:Notice a pattern with these guys? Hello? Anyone? These serial killers and mass murderers who “suddenly snap” almost invariably have a problem with women. They almost always have a long history of stalking women, accusations of date rape or “domestic” violence (which are finally listed as “unfounded” and dismissed), and glorification of violence notable even for our violence-enamored society, often with a focus on violence done in sexual ways toward women.
But because women don’t matter, because women aren’t seen as people, these warning signs are not taken seriously. The campus police did not move to secure the campus early in the day when he shot the first two people because they blew it off as probably a “domestic” incident of murder/suicide - police shorthand for “He only killed a woman he’d had sex with before, so she’d probably asked for it anyway and of course he isn’t going to hurt any REAL people, just the bitch who pushed him over the edge.” Because they don’t take violence against women seriously, even murder of women, 30 more people were killed. They did track down her boyfriend to question him, but they didn’t lock down the campus in case they were wrong - they assumed a man who shoots his girlfriend isn’t a danger to any real people.
There’s a double mistake in this thinking. First of all, violence against one woman - even if the offender has a past or current relationship with her - should mean the offender is immediately taken to jail. Who cares if she wants to press charges? If someone starts beating up strangers on the street and the police are alerted, the offender goes straight to jail and the charges are sorted out later. Why? Because - and here’s a radical idea - even if she fucked him before, SHE’S STILL A HUMAN BEING WHO DOESN’T DESERVE TO GET BEATEN, RAPED, OR KILLED FOR IT. Secondly, while some men are happy to have just their own personal punching bag/gun target in the form of a woman on whom they perpetrate “intimate violence”, often a man uses women (or other low status humans, like the homeless or prostitutes) as practice before moving on to killing “real people” (like men, or unrelated university students with a career in front of them, or people with jobs, or chaste women who are married to/property of some other man). Even if you don’t take violence against an individual woman seriously, from a law enforcement perspective and a public safety perspective it is FUCKING STUPID to blow off someone who shoots, rapes, or beats his girlfriend as not being a danger to society. Yet law enforcement does this all the time.
I had been surprised to hear about all the stalking he had done and the judge-ordered mental health treatment, and then that the media and students all kept saying "well that didn't mean he was going to do anything dangerous". WHY NOT? When does it? I thought it seemed unusual that all that was so downplayed. Screaming into the Void makes good points about mass murderers usually having a problem with women. And then her second point how if it had been a stranger he went out and beat up/killed, he would still go to jail without having to "check with the partner" to see if she wants to press charges.
Art as Social Commentary
I've been feeling very pensive lately, thinking lots of existential thoughts, for lack of a better word. In fact, I don't really have a word for how I've been feeling lately because I can't quite put a finger on it. It's quite frustrating.
We need to be responsible for our own survival. As women, we cannot, in good faith, hinge all of our hope for the future upon another person’s care of us. And this needs to be addressed on all levels in our lives, financially, emotionally, physically, we must be learn to care for ourselves with the same dedication we were taught, as women, to care for others.
The woman in the picture didn’t have choice. In the old system, women were property (and still remain so in other parts of the world today!) and distributed to their masters accordingly. Now, we do have choice, and choice is an amazing thing, it provides for the freedom we’ve been craving.
As an art lover, I did enjoy the description of this piece, which was analyzed from an art and feminist perspective by Revolution is Not a Dinner Party (great name).
I wish the author had sourced it. She has to have studied art on some level to do that kind of analysis. It might be a bit long for everyone to want to read.
The bottom part of her analysis is what I liked--how it fits with her feminist blog. Her writing:
So, why write this tremendously verbose explanation for this picture? Dear Readers, it personifies the horrendous conditions under which women were bartered in a marriage system designed to benefit a patriarchal society. Collectively, these attitudes still remain entrenched in our society.
So, why write this tremendously verbose explanation for this picture? Dear Readers, it personifies the horrendous conditions under which women were bartered in a marriage system designed to benefit a patriarchal society. Collectively, these attitudes still remain entrenched in our society.
We need to be responsible for our own survival. As women, we cannot, in good faith, hinge all of our hope for the future upon another person’s care of us. And this needs to be addressed on all levels in our lives, financially, emotionally, physically, we must be learn to care for ourselves with the same dedication we were taught, as women, to care for others.
The woman in the picture didn’t have choice. In the old system, women were property (and still remain so in other parts of the world today!) and distributed to their masters accordingly. Now, we do have choice, and choice is an amazing thing, it provides for the freedom we’ve been craving.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Patriarchy predates Hip-Hop
From Hip-Hop, Misogyny, and the Beats (we hate to love)
Author talks about loving hip-hop but hating the misogyny in it. This is relevant to news lately about Imus, and Russell Simmons' latest comment about suggesting banning certain words from music lyrics.
The comment thread on this is quite good. There are lots of perspectives from all sides. Go read it. Really, do it.
I myself am often torn while dancing heartily to songs with obviously offensive and disgusting messages. I recently saw the video for Beyonce's "Crazy In Love" all the way through, and was appalled at how objectified she seemed. And it was HER VIDEO. I mean, the girl looks good, and coined some new dance moves, but for most of it, she's crawling on the ground, making Maxim-cover-arched-back poses and writhing up on Jay-Z (and the fact that he's her boyfriend makes it seem even trashier). This isn't some rap video no name girl--this is Beyonce. She's a star. And still in her own video, she is reduced to the slut class.
Author talks about loving hip-hop but hating the misogyny in it. This is relevant to news lately about Imus, and Russell Simmons' latest comment about suggesting banning certain words from music lyrics.
The comment thread on this is quite good. There are lots of perspectives from all sides. Go read it. Really, do it.
I myself am often torn while dancing heartily to songs with obviously offensive and disgusting messages. I recently saw the video for Beyonce's "Crazy In Love" all the way through, and was appalled at how objectified she seemed. And it was HER VIDEO. I mean, the girl looks good, and coined some new dance moves, but for most of it, she's crawling on the ground, making Maxim-cover-arched-back poses and writhing up on Jay-Z (and the fact that he's her boyfriend makes it seem even trashier). This isn't some rap video no name girl--this is Beyonce. She's a star. And still in her own video, she is reduced to the slut class.
It's about porn again
I am still fascinated by the debate on Porn in the feminist community. This post is more about the subject of rape, which is an area I have strong feelings in as well. I found this great description of why rape may never go away from Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy. I like her because she isn't afraid to say what she really thinks, instead of being the "cheerful feminist" which I find I (and others) sometimes fall into being or thinking I have to be for people to listen to me.
She writes (emphasis mine):
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If women were not systemically oppressed, pornography could not exist. In a post-patriarchal society, free of the degrading paradigm of dominance and submission, pictures of people fucking would have all the prurient allure of a podiatrist appointment. It is the rape-based degradation to which consumers of pornography respond, dum-dum!
But I digress.
The remaining part of my theory is that the populus is so desperately invested in patriarchy that they are unwilling, even in the interest of justice, to part with one of its primary cornerstones: the slut class. Patriarchy depends on the slut class to serve as the receptacle for its pornsick incontinence. A slut class naturally implies a good-girl class, from whose virginal ranks the privileged male selects his unpaid housekeeper/fetus incubator/childcare worker. It naturally follows that if you go around convicting rapists, you diminish the she-was-asking-for-it slut class, which in turn, as distinctions between the two become more and more nebulous, diminishes the good-girl class. See, convicting rapists has the undesirable side effect of making women a bit more human.
You know, if I were a little more on the ball this morning, I might dip a querulous toe into the argument that society will never stand for the eradication of rape. Such success as capitalism enjoys is largely based on the wide availability of unpaid domestic labor created out of the sex class. Which sex class could not exist if women were not rapeable. Can you dig it? The global economy would collapse without rape.
She writes (emphasis mine):
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If women were not systemically oppressed, pornography could not exist. In a post-patriarchal society, free of the degrading paradigm of dominance and submission, pictures of people fucking would have all the prurient allure of a podiatrist appointment. It is the rape-based degradation to which consumers of pornography respond, dum-dum!
But I digress.
The remaining part of my theory is that the populus is so desperately invested in patriarchy that they are unwilling, even in the interest of justice, to part with one of its primary cornerstones: the slut class. Patriarchy depends on the slut class to serve as the receptacle for its pornsick incontinence. A slut class naturally implies a good-girl class, from whose virginal ranks the privileged male selects his unpaid housekeeper/fetus incubator/childcare worker. It naturally follows that if you go around convicting rapists, you diminish the she-was-asking-for-it slut class, which in turn, as distinctions between the two become more and more nebulous, diminishes the good-girl class. See, convicting rapists has the undesirable side effect of making women a bit more human.
You know, if I were a little more on the ball this morning, I might dip a querulous toe into the argument that society will never stand for the eradication of rape. Such success as capitalism enjoys is largely based on the wide availability of unpaid domestic labor created out of the sex class. Which sex class could not exist if women were not rapeable. Can you dig it? The global economy would collapse without rape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
