Feminist humor (no, really!)

Rainbow Girl cracks me up with her take-down of a self defense (for women!!!11eleventy) website.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging laziness.

Fly-by: Feminist Humor Kudos, plus a little narcissism

A message-board acquaintance of mine has a new blog, in which she logs the exploits of a misogynist asshat who works with her husband, who counters this dude’s (named Dan) stupidity and bigotry with (generally) calm yet firm, logical replies, taking the wind out of Dan’s sails.

The FAQ page “What is a Dan?” is comedy gold.

Go visit, and enjoy: The Dan Chronicles

Edited to add: Someone googled my username here (and on various boards) and found this blog. I’m just a little flattered someone was googling me. ^_^

Fly-by: Political Kudos

Go forth and read this: Robin Morgan, Goodbye To All That #2.

You will then know why I, too, am rooting for Hillary Rodham Clinton. I wish that I could be as articulate as Morgan, and to know why I think the way I do about the first woman to be a viable presidential candidate.

May she be the nominee, that I may vote for her properly.

More Geek Love.

Just a quick one this time: thanks to a new poster at the IBTP message boards, I’ve been introduced to something I should have seriously missed* before now: Feminst SciFi - The Blog!(TM)

So far, it’s good. Touches on just about everything: on the front page right now are posts about BSG: Razor, the passing of Verity Lambert**, aliens and sex/gender (not sex with aliens, which is more typical), and a bit about Joss Whedon’s new series, Dollhouse.

I’m looking forward to more reading. (Although I still have to see Razor. Bah for me being so wiped out the Saturday after Thanksgiving I didn’t even remember it was on that night.)

*I’d even asked for recommendations for feminist/not-horribly-misogynist scifi lit on said boards. Didn’t even occur to me there’d be a blog about it somewhere. I really am clueless sometimes. Or just so used to SciFi==Teh Menz Wurld, kthxbai.***

**Which I knew about, amazingly, even though I’m not the Dr. Who fan I used to be. Thanks Richie!

*** and if I ever forget again how to make bog-damned footnotes, this is the code to use with this version of WordPress: <span style=”font-size:0.8em;”> </span>

Blogroll Love, and Calling Out The Trolls; plus Bonus LOLcat!

The delightfully blaming Cara-he has a new blog, and she’s blogrolled me AND reprinted one of my more ranty posts. I’m flattered and abashed and proud and everything!

It was a happy happy thing to wake up to this morning.

The other comment sitting in the moderation queue wasn’t quite as fun, at least not as ego-bloating. On an old post (I was immediately suspicious), I saw that it was made by an actual blogger, and wasn’t the typical spammity spam I get on rants three months old.

So I decided to give it a whirl. I approved the comment, and replied. Have a look, if you like.

EDITED to add this:

Courage

Declaration: I am a feminist.

I. Am. A. Feminist.

I am a radical feminist. I believe with all my being that all women are human beings, inherently worthy of all the rights and dignities that other human beings (men) enjoy.

I have been hesitant to ‘out’ myself to certain people I know; mostly conservative men, all of whom have no actual authority over me, some of whom are relatives, all of whom I consider to be friends. I have been afraid of losing their friendships and love because of my beliefs.

No more.

If I can remain friends with them, despite having serious objections to some of their beliefs, then they can remain my friends, if they don’t agree with me. If they can’t they were never friends to begin with. If they can’t love me and know I believe these things, they cannot really love me.

We women are asked, every day, to be silent about disagreeing with others so that we don’t upset them, so we don’t ‘rock the boat’, so we ‘aren’t a bother’.

No more.

Listen up: I am a radical feminist.

I don’t believe in limiting a woman’s control over her own body; I don’t believe any man has any right to exercise any control over a woman’s body, mind, speech or actions; I don’t believe any woman has any right to control other women either, whether of her own choosing or in the name of a man.

I believe anyone who attempts to control women’s bodies, minds, speech or actions are misogynist: including rape apologists, rape celebrants, Men’s Rights Activists, promoters or supporters of pornography, promoters or supporters of prostitution, people who seek to limit or obstruct women’s access to health care, contraception, safe and legal abortion, STD prevention, higher education, a living wage, food for her children, her choice of partner(s), her choice of clothing, her choice of sexuality and sexual expression, her bodily autonomy.

If any of these terms or concepts are confusing to you, or if you aren’t sure what I mean by any of them, you may read for yourself at any of the sources listed below. I will be happy to have a civil conversation with any of you about any of these things, where ‘civil conversation’ means you listen to what I have to say, and I listen to what you have to say, and we respond to each others’ concerns. Basically, all the caveats of this blog apply.

If you cannot understand, that is fine. If you will not try to understand, or will not read those things which I suggest that might help you understand, I will have neither sympathy nor time for you. If you cannot treat me like a human being, I will not stay around for the abuse.

---

Places to Learn:
Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog
Official Shrub dot com Blog (right hand menu)
Andrea Dworkin, I Want Twenty-Four-Hour Truce In Which There Is No Rape

Feminist Reader: Pseudoscience and Heteronormativity

It’s not usual that a quote from a (conservative/religious-biased) clinical psychologist [San Diego-based licensed clinical psychologist Trayce Hansen] makes me belly-laugh. Pam originally posted Hansen’s press release on The Blend which included the gut-busting line:

[S]ame-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by implying all choices are equally acceptable and desirable.

After reading the three previous more depressing points, I needed the laugh, and I got one. What this person considers to be a danger, I perceive to be one of the larger goals of, if not feminism as a whole, at least this feminist.

Let’s work backwards, shall we?

implying all choices are equally acceptable and desirable.

Because telling people “you’re okay only if you’re heterosexual” is a good thing?

Oh, wait, I forgot: we have to support the natural order of things; women are nurturers, and men are leaders. The first point Hansen raises, on the ‘inherent’ ‘differences’ between “mother-love and father-love”, supports this separate-but-equal attitude. There has to be balance, Hansen notes, between the ‘unconditional-leaning’ love of a woman, and the ‘conditional-leaning’ love of a man.*

According to Hansen, it appears that there must be heterosexuality heterosexuality must be the enforced standard because there must be a woman and a man in each set of parents. Since there is something of a biological precendent for this, I can understand the confusion. Obviously, Hansen equates biological sex with the social construct, gender. Women are always ‘mothers’, men always ‘fathers’. “There must be balance between mother-love and father-love” hints at a typical sexist stereotype: women aren’t complete without men.

same-sex marriage will increase… sexual experimentation

This is possibly true; however, I don’t consider it to be the End Of The World ™ for people to experiment with their sexuality. That is in essence what happens anyway: people find out whether they enjoy PIV intercourse or other forms; what positions work for them and which ones don’t; whether they enjoy dominant or submissive or both or neither; whether they enjoy sex better with themselves, with a partner, with multiple partners, or not at all.

Of course, if someone were coming from an attitude of PIV-missionary-for-procreation-only*, all of these options could be terrifying. Choices tend to worry strict rule-followers.

same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion

This is the kicker for me. As if being allowed to be who they are without shaming/denial from their parents will somehow add to a person’s confusion regarding their sexuality and sexual preferences. Being told “you have to like boys because you are a girl/have girl parts” or “you have to like girls because you are a boy/have boy parts” is a lot more likely to bewilder the unfortunate soul whose tastes lean contrary to those diametrical opposites, or, worse yet, if they’re concept of themself doesn’t match the artificial gender construct forced on them for no other reason than what their dangly bits look like.

Parents displaying an attitude of acceptance of any and all options regarding an individual’s sexuality, and, (OMGWTFBBQ!) considering them equal to each other would more likely foster a healthy attitude about sex and sexuality, and relatively little shame** in the child.

If I’d had such a supportive environment (including the one at large) I think I’d still be interested in boys***. That being said, I’m all for removing stigma from the lives and sexuality of all persons, no matter who they prefer or disprefer.

[Pam on Pandagon presents this gem of pseudoscience not alone, but with a rebuttal from another clinical psychologist -- this time, not 'science-free'.]

---

* Hansen uses the terms “mother” and “father” here, but it is clear this is a biological distinction, one that determines social role.

* I make no assumptions about the author at all. His/her position is, however, remarkably similar to more conservative religious types with whom I have been personally acquainted, whose idea of sex was generally “man-on-top-of-woman, man-having-all-the-fun, woman-gets-pregnant-and-is-happy-homemaker”.

** Getting to know a changing body is inherently embarrassing, at least in my experience, without someone else telling you you’re doing it wrong.

I knew it came from somewhere.

In relation to my next-to-most-recent post that happened to mention the madonna-whore dichotomy, a poster, puckrockhockeymom, made mention of it while she waxed eloquent on a Feministe post that was itself inspired by a PostSecret postcard which read “My greatest fear is that I’m good enough to f*ck but not good enough to love”.

What good is it, anyway?

« Even the cat tries to keep me away from those evil fem-blogs. I needed something to break up the monotony of text, so I’m copying Twisty by posting photos.

---

I’ve asked myself that question lately, especially in regards to reading feminist blogs. It’s something I feel I have to justify, somehow, although that comes with the awareness that the gut-twisting worry associated with Even though I’m angry more often (and that, coming from a woman, is definitely seen as negative by our society-at-large) I’m definitely learning, chiefly about myself and my privilege as a white middle-class educated Westerner.

Feminists in public

I’ve been back to reading the occasional feminist blog, as well as Salon.com’s Broadsheet. Usually I just read the articles, without even realizing, I guess, that there was a comments section too.

Perhaps, though, my subconscious was protecting me from what I was certain would be there.

What is intriguing (well, discouraging, really) to me is that the first (or early) response to each post there is some sort of personal attack, or statement meant to belittle, demean, or trivialize the topic — and usually by an anonymous poster.