« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

April 30, 2007

Intercourse & Andrea Dworkin

Andrea Dworkin, I am convinced, is quite crazy and brilliant at the same time. I love the fact that she problematizes and complicates the relations of men and women during intercourse, but I don't really like the way that she does it. I appreciate that she articulates the inequality of the process, however she doesn't include any other sex act or other gender/sex relations. Homosexual intercourse or sexual activity is not mentioned or addressed.

However, I do really like this statement she made on page 139 of her book Intercourse,

We refuse to recognize our possibilities because we refuse to honor the potential humans have, including human women, to make choices. Men too make choices. When will they choose not to despise us?
What I find interesting (and very cool) that she addresses the fact that patriarchal society, which she calls 'men', have been silencing women through intercourse and everyday activity for quite some time. But it is more that just silence according to Dworkin, it is the actual unrecognition of women's potential to make decisions, choices. I agree with her here. This statement is still very true today. I offer the example of the Supreme Court upholding the partial-birth abortion ban. Even the Supreme Court seems to believe that women cannot make this decision for themselves and that we are driven solely by convenience.

Dworkin asserts that:

Objectification may well be the most singly destructive aspect of gender heirarchy, especially as it exists in relation to intercourse.
She states that there is no form of intercourse that doesn't objectify women. The act of man entering/inserting/fucking a woman is the objectification. He has complete power over her and she has no say. It is the act which makes obvious the woman's inferiority. Because the man takes power over the woman and enters her, she no longer has the power or force. He can force himself into her, she cannot do the same to him, unless she has a strap-on dildo, but I digress. She discusses Woodull's argument that women can be free in intercourse if they have complete control over their sexual organs, however, there is no way for a woman to have complete control. Dworkin retorts that:
His dominance over her expressed in the physical reality of intercourse had no real analogue in desire she might express for him in intercourse: she simply could not do to him what he could do to her.
Because the man still enters the woman, she does not have full control.

Dworkin also addresses the idea of freedom in intercourse.

For women, [Woodhull] thought and proclaimed (at great cost to herself), freedom must bel iteral, physical, concrete self-determination beginning with absolute control of the sexual organs; this was a natural right that had been perverted by male dominance-and because of its perversion, sex was for women morbid and degrading.
Much like the argument that I have already addressed, women cannot be free when they do not have complete control over their sexual organs. Dworkin, as I have stated above, believes that there can be no true control over the sexual organs when man enters woman. But she moves past this argument by asserting that there can be no effective reform of the male-dominant gender heirarchy. She suggests that reform seems impossible because intercourse is impossible to reform - women will always be objectified and on the bottom. Intercourse always demonstrates women's inferiority.

For those of you who have read Freud and understand that through intercourse, women are alienated from each other, will understand the question, "Who can love someone who is less that human unless love itself is domination per se?" Men love women and in fact subordinate women, but women cannot love one another because each is un-human. Although I do not agree with this statement, it makes a point about why it is that women are painted as catty bitches rather than persons like men. She suggests that the collaboration by women to call intercourse freedom has kept women within their objectified position and they will remain there until a certain realization is achieved: that intercourse is not freedom. Even then, women must understand that intercourse is not needed. She believes that technology has allowed for intercourse to become optional.

All exerpts from Intercourse by Andrea Dworkin. 1987.

Thoughts?

Feminist Vodka

sweet.

April 24, 2007

Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

I'm furious. I have felt like throwing my beautiful macpro against a wall all day, and this thing is my baby. My first stop of the day is always checking up with the girls over at Feministing to see whats been going on. Since the 18th, I have been bombarded by information on the most recent Supreme Court abortion decision. To tell you the truth, I was really reluctant and nervous to read about it for fear of becoming an angry woman on a mission to be annoyingly persistent.

I have allowed myself to read the information. I must admit that although the news was shocking and infuriating, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote a kick ass dissent. You can find the entire case here as well as argument for the case here.

The opinion of the court, offered by Chief Justice Roberts is quite extensive, and should only be attempted by devoted and serious readers. Cuncurring, we have Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia saying that

the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade...has no basis in the Constitution.
They are right in one respect, that there is no mention of women let alone women's health issues in the constitution. I'm sure that their point was not to reaffirm the need for an ERA, but I see the need for one, so that maybe, we WILL be included in the constitution. I think it is far past due to become legally and constitutionally equal.

I will not discuss this topic further because it only makes me more angry. Although, from the arguments, we have Clement beginning the procedure with:

Congress held six hearings over four different Congreses and heard from dozens of witnesses in determining that partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary, pose health risks, and should be banned.
I am surprised and fairly upset at the usage of 'never'. I do not believe that such a statement is accurate, or furthermore, necessary. Although, I did say I was done talking about this.

What kills me, is that this is a COMPLETE turnaround from all decisions since Roe v. Wade. I can guarantee you, however, that we need a democratic president so that we can get more humanitarians in there!

April 17, 2007

Filipino Female Masculinity in Global Shipping

On Monday, 4/16, I attended the Feminist Colloquium which was presented by Kale Batingue Fajardo.

Kale B. Fajardo is a core faculty member in the Department of American Studies and an affiliated faculty member in the Asian American Studies Program. Fajardo completed a Ph.D. in Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Cruz in spring 2004 and joined the Department of American Studies in the fall of 2005. Fajardo's research interests include Filipino/Filipino American and Asian/Asian American seafaring; port cities (including for example, Manila, Oakland, Acapulco, and New Orleans); masculinities; globalizations; and queer of color cultural productions.
He read his article that will soon be publishsed in the GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies. His essay was titled “Transportation: Translating Filipino Female Masculinity In and Through Global Shipping. I must admit, as an undergrad at this talk, I did not understand some of the terminology or background that was assumed by the speaker. Past that, the essay was very interesting. The essay began with a personal experience while traveling on a ship with five other seamen. He utilizes the term seamen throughout the essay rather than the politically correct term ‘seafarer’ because that is the term used by the seafarers and within the shipping community. We begin by ‘seeing’ the group of seamen sitting around drinking vodka and watching CDVs from cock fights to soft-core porn. The level of community between the Filipino seamen was much higher than other nationalities on the ship. On the Prince, the German seamen would rather sit in their rooms than join the Filipino seamen for some drinking, talking, and CDVs. The main focus was on that of the tomboy within the shipping community. This concept of tomboy within the Philippines is very different than the American idea of tomboy. In discussion after the talk, one of the graduate students asked about the origin of the term tomboy since it was pronounced differently. Even though tomboy is spelled the same as in English, their meanings vary greatly. In the US, being a tomboy is something you grow out of as a teenager or you are just given the identity of ‘butch’ or ‘lesbian.’ Within the shipping community of the Filipinos, the term tomboy is utilized to describe a female masculinity. This is where the term becomes confusing. Many tomboys are either butch lesbians or are women who want to be men. Whether they are transgender or transsexual are included within the idea of tomboy. An interesting part of his voyage, was Fajardo’s identification as a tomboy and the seamen’s reaction. Because Fajardo could enter and maintain the masculine space of the ship, he was included into their community. As a result of this inclusion, the seamen were open to discussing the tomboys that they know or have in their family. The idea of tomboy is accepted within the shipping community and tomboys are viewed as masculine despite their ‘biological sex.’ Although the shipping community allows for the inclusion of tomboys, the Filipino government and normative society does not. Most tomboys are working class or poor and have to work abroad. Some jobs enforce a strict dress code based on biological sex, which would not allow for a tomboy existence. There is little room for their identity. An interesting aspect of those who study the tomboy is their forced identification of lesbian. Most tomboys are uncomfortable with the term lesbian (possibly since they do not identify as woman), yet many studies declare them as such. Tomboys, although they are accepted within the masculine space of the shipping community, they do not identify as man or woman. The same goes for the seamen; they do not use the term lesbian. In the Filipino language, the pronouns are not gender-specific so when a tomboy is being spoken to, there is no difference in speech. What I found most interesting about the essay presented, was how such a male-dominated area can be more open to gender queers than a government or society. I also appreciated the difference between the American vs. Filipino ideas of tomboy and what constitutes masculine.

April 16, 2007

The Prospect of All-Female Conception

COOL!!

According to The Independent, there is a very amazing potential breakthrough in science! No dicks necessary! According to recent research, male bone marrow can be used to create artificial sperm. Some scientists believe that the creation of sperm through female bone marrow is just as possible. Although an OK is needed from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Ethics Board, how amazing is this?! It is believed that this kind of technology can be used to allow lesbian couples to have children that are biologically their own. However, the sperm produced by women will not allow for the reproduction of males; only female children could potentially be born, which I don't see as a bad thing, but I do believe that the men of this world will panic thinking that lesbians will take over the world and the male half of the species will disappear! hehe :) Check it out:

But the results also raise the prospect of being able to take bone-marrow tissue from women and coaxing the stem cells within the female tissue to develop into sperm cells, said Professor Karim Nayernia of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.

"Theoretically is it possible," Professor Nayernia said. "The problem is whether the sperm cells are functional or not. I don't think there is an ethical barrier, so long as it's safe. We are in the process of applying for ethical approval. We are preparing now to apply to use the existing bone marrow stem cell bank here in Newcastle. We need permission from the patient who supplied the bone marrow, the ethics committee and the hospital itself."

Via Feministing.

April 12, 2007

Sex at First Sight

The Minnesota Daily has gone and done it now. Actually, the article is not too bad: only slightly infuriating. Their article, Sex at First Sight, the author, Heather L. Mueller, argues that more and more college students are having "meaningless" sex. However, if this statistic is acurate, she does not account for those students who choose to have casual sex without alcohol or some form of drug. Supporting more stereotypes, the article states:

Women comply or engage in casual sex to please their partner or to increase the likelihood of a relationship, according to survey results of "No Strings Attached: The Nature of Casual Sex in College Students," published in 2006 in the Journal of Sex Research. Males comply with casual sex relationships to increase their sexual experience level, peer status or popularity.
Why is it then that just moments earlier, "guys want relationships just as much as girls"? Although, he does debunk some double standards. Persons are quoted agreeing that the old-fashioned view of women and sex are outdated and completely innacurate.

Moving past things that have been 'ok' with the article, back to the issues at hand. My major problem with the article was its lack of information on people who choose to have casual sex and do so completely sober. Also, within the question/answer section with Dr. Drew Pinsky, addictionologist and relationship expert, this particular section bothered me:

Q: Is hooking up emotionally or physically damaging?

A: You could put yourself in harm's way physically if you're not wearing a condom when you (have sex). Emotionally, if it becomes a compulsion … yeah. You miss the opportunity that college should also be used for spending time with your peers and really having true intimate contact - face to face, share-a-meal-together intimate dialect. That's a really important emotional developmental process.

Perhaps I am the only one, but I believe that if one makes "hooking up" a part of their sexual life or history, that is their life and can be just as healthy as any other sexual relationship. I believe that if a person "hooks up" and has safe sex, there really isn't an issue as long as their partners are alright with that lifestyle. I move to state that just because a person perpetually "hooks up," does not mean that they do not have regular conversation with their peers! Sex is not their entire life! Conversation and "normal" interactions with peers still occur. We are talking about college students, they also attend classes.

If you want slightly more outrage, continue reading the article with the Q&A section. Here are a few of my favorites:

Q: Is it true that when women have sexual intercourse they biologically make a connection with their partner?

A: Oh, yeah. And that's what they're trying to medicate away when they drink. … Men do not, because testosterone flushes that all out.

Q: Is dating dead?

A: It's dead and it's coming back. It's resurrecting. It's been coming back particularly in the Southeast (United States). Where you see dating, you see less hookups. You see people happier about their social lives. … Ladies, figure out what you want and ask for that. Men want to please.

I am not about to comment on these sections...too infuriating. Thoughts?

April 10, 2007

Eritria & FGC

In Eritrea, the government has passed a law making Female Genital Cutting illegal. For those of you playing the home game, Female Genital Cutting, according to Wikipedia is:

refers to the excision or tissue removal of any part of the female genitalia for cultural, religious or other non-medical reasons. It is also frequently referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM) or female circumcision (FC).
All persons who perform, provide tools for, requests the procedure, or anyone who does not report an incident of FGM will be jailed. Because FGM is such a deep-rooted culture, it will be difficult to completely stop the practice, but hopefully it will slow down. This from Ms. Magazine.

April 09, 2007

For the last time...

Plan B is NOT ABORTION!! Not only is it NOT abortion, it is also not abortion-inducing! However, according to Tim Padgett at TIME magazine,

As a result, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, a socialist, late last year sanctioned the free distribution of abortion-inducing "morning-after" contraception pills at government-run hospitals.
Speaking of Michelle Bachelet, I read an article about her in Glamour Magazine while waiting to get my hair done. It was a fabulously short article about her struggles and rise to the presidency of Chile. There were longer sections on the proper trimming and care of the bush.

Via Feministing.

April 07, 2007

Speaking of Rape...

According to BBC News, "A 20-year-old man who raped a girl aged 10 has been spared jail in what a judge said was a "wholly exceptional" case." This begs the question, what exactly was this wholly exceptional case? According to Mr. Justice Roderick Evans, the girl "was looking for a man and got what she wanted." The man believed that this 10 year old was 16 and when told her actual age, was "visibly traumatised." Therefore, if you commit rape and look sad or ashamed, you can get off. Fucking sick.

Abstinence Feels Good?

According to the hideous site Abstinence Feels Good,

It feels good to have a healthy marriage.
It feels good to have 100% protection.
It feels good to have a clear conscience.
It feels good to accomplish my goals.
It feels good to be a part of the majority.
It feels good not to need a babysitter on Friday night.
It feels good that my boyfriend loves me for more than just my body.
It feels good to know the answer to my STD test before I take it.
It feels good to have a good reputation.
It feels good to be honest with my parents.

Of the many things that bother me about this site, what irks me the most is that it is targeted at teen girls, not boys. As if female sexuality isn't frowned upon enough, why single girls out as the only part of the population that need to worry about having sex?? Not only are boys not included in this site, but neither are the GLBT community. Apparently, if you are gay, you don't need to worry about sex either. Moving past the exclusiveness of the site, what about the pregnancy issue? There is nothing about a girl's choice for birth control or, god forbid, abortion. Having a healthy sexuality and protecting your body is nowhere to be found. So, hey girls, if you have sex, you will get pregnant.

From that site, one can venture to two other sites that support its main theme. The first is More 2 Life, much like that Stacie Orrico song. "The mission of More2Life! [M2L!] is to increase community awareness of the value of sexual abstinence until marriage which provides sexual health and protects the future of our youth." Of course, the only solution for sexual health is abstinence. The best part is the Game Plan that they offer to teens with the Winning Prize as marriage. Teens should be thinking about marriage and being perfect for their future spouses, not on their own lives. Much like this first site, Impact advocates for abstienence until marriage for the sole purpose of pleasing an imaginary spouse. If you're up for some outrage, check out the sites and their "resources."

April 05, 2007

Music and Philosophy

Although I am still sitting here in front of my computer browsing every site that I am involved in, a small part of my sanity is still holding strong. Moving past my mental clarity, I had a very interesting conversation yesterday at a coffeeshop. Which are the types of conversations I typically have in the type of place that I constantly am. [does that even make sense??] Remembering words...why is it more credible or *gasp* necessary to view the world through a particular lens or viewpoint? My philosophical comrade moves to suggest that a person's views or ideas would be just as credible or interesting regardless of their 'lens' or critical p.o.v. Interesting.... I critique news and events from a feminist point of view because that is the means through which I choose to observe. However, were I to take a personal view on an idea or critique, it would still be 'feminist.' So is it really my critique that is feminist or am I critiquing from a feminist view? Either way, I am not about to spend time on that little mind trip.

In an attempt to change the subject, I am reading Nietzsche's On The Genealogy of Morals at the moment. Or at least I'm attempting to. I find that the internet is far more entertaining and interesting than philosophy at the moment. I think I'm not able to focus simply because there is too much music floating around in this tiny room I inhabit.

And here I go again, here are all the music videos that I am loving to watch and listen to right now!!

Enjoy y'all!

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.