03.31.08

Prostitution: After the Sensationalism

Posted in empowerment, mass media, objectification, prostitution, sex work, sexual exploitation, sexual politics at 7:31 pm by lindabeth

Well, it’s been a few weeks since the whole Spitzer-prostitute thing, and it would be an understatement to say the whole event created an online “buzz.” Some has been very good–as I wrote about previously, there has been much discussion about the criminality of prostitution, the differences between decriminalization and legalization, about the theoretical and “ethical” (?) distinctions between buying sex and selling it, and about how the prostitutes themselves (rather than their “pimps” or the “johns”) suffer the worst penalties and take the greatest risks. Some has been not so good, with the slut-shaming, and the objectification and dehumanizing critique of her body (“that’s worth $4,000?!), and the looking for any sexualized images of her that people might have, despite her lack of consent to the publishing context (yeah I’m taking about you, Girls Gone Wild and The New York Post).

While this story brought into relief the connection between male privilege and cheating via prostitution, indeed reminded us that paying for sexual services is often (not always) bound up in male privilege, I found myself frustrated, however, that this particular example of prostitution was the centerpiece of the discussion. For while Dupree’s “life story” (at 22 years old) is quite typical of sex workers generally–moved away from home at a young age, was homeless, drugs, no college education, possible abuse–her working conditions were not at all typical. It is easy to see why prostitution is “no big deal” and is just like any other physically exploitative labor-intensive work when you can hand-pick your clients and have to work very little to get a handsome paycheck.

This isn’t the truth of most prostitution work. And I think it’s important that we don’t forget that in all the glitz and glamor and sex-money-politics juiciness of this particular story that sound more like a made-for-TV movie. And not all of prostitution’s problems can be solved by legalizing and regulating it. Some of the violence and abuse on the job comes from how masculinity and sexual dominance and ownership is linked in out society. And sexual abuse and violence is a strong common denominator among those who get into sex work of all kinds, prostitution, stripping, porn, etc. When these things are so connected, it’s imporantant to not only talk about the legal issues but the social ones as well.

When becoming a sex worker is a way for women to cope, but not deal with, past sexual abuse, is it really beneficial to simply legalize it, call it their choice, and wash our hands of the damaging social factors that perpetuate both the “supply” and “demand”?: the social inequality of men and women, sexual violence against women, the objectification of women, the way men feel emasculates in a society where women have become more independent and in control but we have yet to produce a positive egalitarian idea of masculinity. Many of these women need emotional and physical counseling and support, they need help coming into a healthy relationship with their bodies; they don’t need to be alienating their bodies as a response to previous abuse. And we need a serious revolution in the ways we value women’s work. What does the instant fame, glamor, and big dollar sex contracts thrown at Ms. Dupree say to our young women working hard in school? When Lindsay Lohan is a train wreck and is throwing her life away, but stop the presses, because we may have found a video of her giving a blow job? When being called the Unsexiest Woman Alive can shake Sarah Jessica Parker, who on TV represented a self-reliant, successful, self-defined woman for so many woman my age? Whose post-TV work has been about women’s fashion and mothering, and not about bodily alterations or posing for men?** Just saying.

I am not saying some women who hasn’t been abused or is not in such economic dire straits that no other options are viable should not be able to choose prostitution or other sex work as an informed choice. But I think that sex work is a social and legal and cultural issue and needs to be addressed on both levels. We need to talk about how male privilege to (own) women’s bodies is part of the cultural breath we breathe. We need to talk about women’s connections to their bodies and sexualities and how social objectification, self-objectification, and sexual violence all disrupt that connection. And women’s bodies and desirability need to stop being the measure of a woman’s worth. Period. There need to be better economic options for women who are in desperate situations or who are single mothers (or both) so that prostitution and other sex work is not “choice” via coercion. Addressing these issues will help sex work being a truly informed choice. And further, we need to be aware of the realities of prostitution and other sex work when we are discussing and debating solutions, and not just what is glamorized by the media and films.

Here’s a visible look at some of the daily realities, lest we get too comfy with the pretty-young-choosy-expensive-glamorous prostitute image we have been inundated with lately. (image via Mentrual Poetry):

**(and as an actress, her target audience was for women’s entertainment and inspiration, not at all for men. And she’s the “unsexiest woman”? She also hasn’t caved in to “fix” her “Jewish” nose. Either one coincidence? Prolly not).

Recommended Reading

Posted in recommended reading at 7:00 pm by lindabeth

My weekly reading list from all over the blogs…

Lots of good (and ugly!) stuff from this past week.

Two perspectives on “Miss Bimbo” free online game. While I see the ironic potential that Jessica Wakeman at Huff-Po claims, I tend to agree with Jessica at Feministing about the creators’ actual intention and its likely social affect. Perhaps to be better as social commentary, it needs a different venue. While you’re at it, check out Adios, Barbie! and their “Feel the Model” interactive game.

Commentary on an article over at the F-Word on making alternative relationship configurations within marriage is possible, but damn, social expectations make it awfully hard.

A great guest post at Shakesville stemming from parents’ reaction to the gender dynamics in a co-ed sports league. The point she makes…it’s really great. Be sure to read it til the end.

At Salon’s broadsheet, an article about how Feminism gets blamed for the stunted progress of workplace reform.

I read two really provocative posts on sexuality: from Girlistic, great commentary on OUT TV’s special “Fallen from Grace: Lesbians in Love With Men,” taking a look at how much complicated sexuality, gender, and identity are than our culture perceives them to be, and from ‘Essen Em (over 18 only!) a great post on the incredible marginality of identifying as bisexual and also the misunderstandings arouns such and identification.

More surveys around public perception of rape and its causes continues to see rape as about sex rather than violence, and consequently persists in blaming the victim for the violence done to her. (via Menstrual Poetry and also The Curvature). On a related note, the Ohio Athens Messenger with this article stating that sexual assault is more than just rape (it’s so discouraging that this is news!) and that making light of and joking about certain forms of sexual assault (i.e. cat-calls, groping) affect women’s willingness to come forward about their own experiences of it. Here’s a great plug for the HollaBack family of websites where you can photograph your street harasser with your cel phone and post it on their website!!! WORD!

A really important post at Shakesville about a study showing that fat women aren’t getting the proper health care they need. Why? Negative attitudes and plain ole “repulsion” by doctors and nurses at fat women’s bodies. This both saddens and angers me and is a clear human rights issue.

Lastly, from Pandagon, How Republicans turn all sexist on Condi Rice when she has the audacity to say that yes, America has race issues.

03.29.08

The Best Music Video I’ve Seen, like,..EVER

Posted in body politics, cool feminist stuff, empowerment, gender roles, music, representation, sexual politics at 8:53 pm by lindabeth

Wow, looks like this song isn’t at all new, but it’s new to me, and all I can say is…WOW. Very moving and very right-on. The only thing I would change is…the name. Because I would never say the girls who buy into the message that women are only as valuable and worthwhile as they are “sexy” and are sexually available are “stupid” (or the guys, as the vid is a critique on their significant participation in it too-after all, whose expectations is this all for?)…but somehow “stupid patriarchy” or “stupid culture” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it. So WORD! to Pink. Smart is sexy, and I’d say she’s right up there. So, eat this up!

(NOTE: nothing after the jump)

03.28.08

GOOD READ: Marginalized groups don’t have the same experiences, but that doesn’t make their fights invalid

Posted in Fat Acceptance, oppression, social justice at 6:18 pm by lindabeth

Excellent post at Alas, A Blog about why comparing fat activism (or any other “lesser” discrimination) to anti-racism (or any other more “legitimate” discrimination) is misguided-that the fact that oppressions are different doesn’t make any fights against oppression invalid.

But so what? Being Black is not like being fat is not like being female is not like being queer is not like being disabled is not like being Asian is not like being trans is not like being poor is not like being…

No marginalized group’s experience is exactly like any other’s. No one’s experiences are interchangeable. But the legitimacy of fat activists’ complaints doesn’t depend on us showing our experiences are exactly like the black experience, or the lesbian experience, etc..

Read the whole post here.

(NOTE: Nothing more after the jump)

Texas: where strip clubs with under-age dancers don’t get shut down, but you can’t buy a damn vibrator

Posted in PIV, sex toys, sexual exploitation, sexual politics, sexualizing youth at 2:57 pm by lindabeth

First, some old-ish news: Texas’ law (check out this Youtube vid) against the sale or “promotion” of sex toys was ruled unconstitutional in February, but in March the State Attorney General Greg Abbott (whose views do not necessarily reflect those of the Texas population) has requested that the circuit court of appeals to rehear the case.

Under Texas law it is illegal to sell, advertise, give or lend obscene devices, defined as a device used primarily for sexual stimulation. Anyone in possession of six or more sexual devices is considered to be promoting them. (via Austin-American Statesman).

Um…six devices? Considering the wide variety of sex toys and their uses for women, men, and couples, this turns an awful lot of people who enjoy sex and sexual variety into criminals. But isn’t this really the point? When an exploration of sexuality beyond procreative purposes and methods is called “obscene” and those who practice become “criminals,” the effort is to return sex back to it’s “real” purpose-procreation. Oh yeah, and male-centered, both in who should receive pleasure and how a woman “ought to” achieves pleasure: the good ole penis-in-vagina way. It’s pretty clear that this primarily impacts women, who probably benefit the greatest from sex toys-from being able to understand their own bodies and pleasures, to being able to experience those pleasures with a partner (23% of couples use ‘em). Think I’m stretching it? Check this out, again from the Statesman:

The state also argued in a brief that Texas has legitimate “morality based” reasons for the laws, which include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation.”

Of course Texas isn’t the only state in the union to have these bans. In October, the state court of appeals refused to hear a challenge to Alabama’s 10-year-old law. One community activist supports the law by associating sex toy sales to “sexual-oriented crime”. Not sure what he means by that…unless he’s referring to the laws againsts procreative sex still on the books (which were made illegal by the Supreme Court in 2003). Mississippi and Virginia also have similar laws banning sex toy sales.

But jump to the last few days: A Dallas strip club was found to have a 12 year-old (yes, that’s not a typo) stripping there. She was a runaway, and likely had been sexually abuse, and was aided by a female club employee and an adult man. In January, the same club was found to have a 17 year-old stripping. But their license is not being revoked.

The 23-page city ordinance does allow revocation of a club’s license if, for example, the club knowingly allows prostitution, the sale or use of drugs at the club, or if there are two convictions for sex-related crimes at the club within a 12-month period.

I know I don’t have to connect the dots for you. Selling sex toys that have greatly aided individual’s pleasure, especially for women (40% of women say they use vibrators), was illegal up until recently, and is under review, but a club that is irresponsible enough to have allowed 2 underage girls to perform for male sexual pleasure and profit cannot have it’s license revoked. (And this is to say nothing about the kind of culture that produces 12-year-olds as desirable sex objects and encourages their desire to be a sex object.)

And this isn’t the only example of Texas law shielding businesses that exploit young women:

Earlier this week, we also told you about Club Metroplois, where Dallas police found 13-year-old prostitutes. That nightspot operates as a bar, so the city says it has to treat it like any other business and has to prove a pattern of crime before it can be closed — unless they find a loophole.

The great state of Texas my ass.

cross-posted at The Reaction

03.27.08

Feminism is Fun: Magnetic Word Poetry

Posted in cool feminist stuff, feminist magnetic poetry at 6:44 pm by lindabeth

I just got my recent order from Sticker Sisters, a site with some really really cool feminist stuff. It sure is something that makes me chipper considering all the awful misogynistic objectifying products that are out there.

One item I got was Feminist Magnetic Poetry. While I was separating all the word-magnets,I quickly put together a few phrases and I thought I’d share, as I will in the future. Yay for feminist fun! (pics after the jump)



Carnival of Feminists no. 56 is up

Posted in Carnival of Feminists at 4:10 am by lindabeth

Carnival of Feminists no. 56 is up today at Redemption Blues.

The articles featured focus on the U.S. Presidential Race, reproductive rights, gender roles and rights, rape, transgender and other issues. A sampling of posts from Carnival 56:

A victory for either candidate (not the nomination, but the Presidency itself) would be symbolically extremely potent, as Holly Ord of Menstrual Poetry acknowledges in Voting for Hillary Just because She’s a Woman?, roundly rejecting the idea of gender-based partisanship: “Are people counting on the population of feminists to secure Hillary’s standing in the presidential election? Are people counting on the population of women as a whole to secure Hillary’s standing? I think some are, but in a way I feel that that specific way of thinking is doing nothing but addressing women as nothing but sheep who believe that just because a woman is looking to find her way into the white house that other women will help her get there. I do not believe that by being a woman, or by being a feminist, that I am trumped to vote for Hillary no matter what just because she’s a woman.

Staunch Hillary supporter Christine of Me, My Kid and Life in Think Before You Vote asks: “As a man, would you rather have any man in office than any woman? Be honest. Would having a woman as president put your old boy’s club status (which all men belong to regardless of race) in jeopardy? For a lot of American men I believe the answer is yes.

Desiree of Baser Instincts in My Own Private Hillary likewise ponders media depictions of Hillary’s perceived personality defects: “It must suck to have people doubt your capabilities for no other reason than you were born with a slit.

From Rage Against the Man-chine’s MRAs: A bunch of fucking crybabies? “(…) these men see a zero-sum game when they look at relations between men and women. When women gain, they lose. MRAs are expressing the kind of anger that comes from feeling threatened but not being able to say clearly why. They feel entitled to the privileges they have come to see as their birthright, and when women want the same kind of treatment that they feel entitled to, they feel that their territory is being encroached upon. That mental process is understandable (though not excusable), but it’s intellectually weak and dishonest to argue that men’s “rights” are in danger. What these guys are doing is fairly transparent: they’re arguing for the maintenance of male entitlement and privilege and for the limitation of women’s rights vis-à-vis men, not for the protection of men’s rights.”

R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe "Outs" His Bandmates as "Heterosexual"

Posted in Foucault, Sexuality Blogs and Resources, exnomination, heteronormative, identity at 3:34 am by lindabeth

This is brilliant, and nothing less than I would expect from Stipe and R.E.M., who recently stated he’s a “queer artist.” This seems to me to be a response to his frustration over needing to “come out”; his lack of doing so had been read as “cowardly” rather than about one’s sexual and intimate life being irrelevant and no one’s damn business.

The coming-out parody that he performs is not with the point of criticizing “coming out,” which for may queers is an important act, especially considering the history of queer invisibility. Rather, this parody reveals culture as heteronormative in that heterosexuality is assumed unless said otherwise and unless marked properly. It operates in a similar fashion that following up the question, “When did you first realize you were gay?” with “When did you first realize you were straight?” does.


In our culture we have a compulsion to know one’s sexuality identity, which we presume tells us the “truth” about an individual, the “truth” of their sex acts, and allows us to render people’s action, speech, and beliefs more meaningful due to the centrality that sexuality plays in how we conceive identity. Sexual identity becomes the way we can be explained and understood. (See Michel Foucault’s History of Sexuality vol. 1, summary here)

This was especially evident in the J.K. Rowling/Dumbledore is gay incident this past fall. The announcement upset people because his sexual identity as gay was not made explicit in the text. Rowling’s after-the-fact “revelation” of Dumbledore’s sexuality operated less like a “coming out.” Instead it underscored the cultural assumption of heterosexuality as the “default” sexuality, showing it to be normalized and exnominated. The personal lives of the book’s adult characters were almost never discussed, yet this only became an issue because Dumbledore happened to be gay and therefore his personal life became of the utmost importance in making sense of his character. In the books, there was no lover, no obsession with musical theatre, no use of the word “fabulous!” I’m exaggerating of course, but what I’m indicating is that there was no overt way that the text produced him as gay. There was also no “coming out” moment in the text and he was not introduced as “gay” in the character’s initial introduction (to the dismay of some gay activists). Of course, after the “revelation” people went through the texts and tried to re-read his character, with this “truth” in mind, and could thus “produce” him as gay.

I mean, look at the photo used to illustrate the BBC story, the caption R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe in performance”:


If that isn’t an example of imposing a system of interpretation onto bodily acts that produce and understanding of gender and sexual identity, I don’t know what does.

This complusion to know and distinguish genders and sexualities by making meaning of bodily acts really reflects back onto heteronormative culture and how fragile and vulnerable its own construction is.

This isn’t to deny the value of “coming out”-clearly visibility of queer individuals as successful and caring people, present in every aspect of society is part of what is needed to disrupt social stigmas and assumptions. But I also think what Stipe is doing here is important too, and provokes a much-needed conversation about recent centrality and importance of sexuality to/as individual identity.

Musings: Struggling to Share What/Who Feminism is For

Posted in feminism, gender, patriarchy, power hierarchy at 2:28 am by lindabeth

Salon’s Broadsheet has this recent article: “Welcome to the ‘Menaissance’”, which, I have to say, struck me kinda funny…but also sad. It also struck a chord for me in light my recent thoughts pondering how people can take feminism so…wrong, especially when it’s something I have lived and breathed for the past 10 years, and what has fundamental to my understanding my experiences, others’ experiences, and the world around me.

I have been cruising around the blogosphere lately, and seen in abundance the incredibly angst that many men feel toward feminism. Clearly, feminism has ruined their life. It took away their housekeeper, it has subjected them to sexual activity that doesn’t revolve around their needs, it has meant legislation and social policy that doesn’t take men’s experiences for human experience; women’s economic independence has meant they men can no longer expect to be able to provide for a woman in exchange for control over her body and labor, and it has also meant that economic security is not enough to gain access to women at all.

And let me tell you, some men are really pissed. And say it’s feminism’s fault. And when women behave badly? Also feminism’s fault. They fail to see that an analysis of gender as a hierarchical institutional system of oppression is not just about women’s rights, but about analyzing society to reveal how the structure is harmful to all involved, but that equality often also means giving up some privileges. Women’s rights, however, often get rewritten as “special rights and advantages,” because from a man’s perspective, it might look that way because they are accustomed to seeing male-centered society as just “society.” The work structure that follows from men’s needs is seen as just “the workplace.” Men then end up resisting feminism, viewing it as advocating female dominance rather than see it as liberating masculinity as well as femininity.

I suppose I’m rambling on a bit and being vague, but I’m doing that a bit on purpose because I’m not trying to accuse or blame any particular individuals or websites. But I have had an interesting few days observing the way that many men perceive feminism-they perceive it as threatening (which is it-to structural male privilege), but in articulating their frustrations (and often rightly so) about their masculine gender role/expectation, feminism, and not patriarchy, is blamed. And it really is too bad. I’ve tried interacting with some of them, and let me tell you it’s really tough to break all these assumptions about what feminism is and what it isn’t, and articulating bad behavior that some women exhibit toward some men vs patriarchy as a cultural system of privilege. Not to mention that feminism does not advocate women’s bad behavior-women, for example, lying about being raped! Yet feminism gets blamed for this (because feminism created rape, I suppose, since it suggests women can say no if they don’t want sex. Or because feminism I guess teaches women to use whatever they can to their advantage).

We’re all concerned with young women not wanting to embrace the term ‘feminist’ because of much cultural misunderstanding. I think that problem is easier to address (by tangibly addressing real-life issues like Jessica Valenti does in her book) than how do we show men that feminism is their friend? That much of what they attribute to feminism is really a result of patriarchy? How do we convince them that it is worth it to give up some privilege in order to live safer and more meaningful lives?

Back to the Broadsheet article:

  • More than half of the men believe society is turning them into “waxed and coiffed metrosexuals.”
  • Fifty-two percent say they are forced to live by women’s rules.
  • Four out of 10 men are scared of spiders, while a third are scared of “bossy women.”
  • Many men feel they have to play too many roles.
  • For a sample of men allegedly enamored with stereotypical masculinity, they’re awfully whiny. Women are fairly familiar with the pressure to be “waxed and coiffed,” living by men’s rules and struggling to balance family with work. These men do, indeed, seem burdened and resentful, but to them, I say: Welcome to the party!

    While I don’t necessarily say welcome (although in some cases I do), it’s funny how these struggles are seen to be a result of feminism’s challenge to gender roles, therefore a reversion to traditional masculinity is seen as the solution, rather than the problem. I think men’s anxieties are very real and are surfacing now because the way we typically think about gender and sexuality has changed as a result of feminism and queer movements, and these changes and challenges bring into relief how traditional masculinity was predicated on a particular form of femininity and organization of sexuality.

    So I don’t want to welcome men into women’s struggles with patriarchy, except to hope their struggles might become the ground on which to be able to say, “I advocate feminism.”

    (the inclusion of this video is not to imply that The Feminist Majority speaks for all feminisms or all women)

    03.26.08

    Taco Bell Promo: Problematic? Yes. Misogynistic. Not Really.

    Posted in advertising, body politics, gender, heteronormative, sports at 11:10 pm by lindabeth

    Feministing recently posted about a new Taco Bell Promo, calling it “misogynistic.” Since then I’ve seen a bit in the anti-feminism segment of the blogosphere, up in arms because “the feminists are at it again!” bitching over nothing because our abundant gender equality makes it so we have nothing else to complain about.

    To be honest, I didn’t think the ad was misogynist (as in perpetuating woman-hate), and I just moved on to reading the next feministing story. But me not classifying it as misogynistic doesn’t mean it isn’t deeply problematic.

    The whole promo is this: you can “pretend” you are a fashion photographer by taking still images from digital video footage of a model on location (who happens to be in the current SI swimsuit issue, to be discussed further down). Yes, you read it right. It’s really that stupid.

    But, it’s also problematic.

    This report from MarketingVox hits the nail on the head:

    SI and Taco Bell promoted the site with online ads on MTV.com and ESPN.com, as well as other sites with a large male audience.

    • Whether or not men are the largest consumer “category” of Taco Bell (thereby justifying addressing its advertising to men) is inconsequential. Promos like these that directly and unapologetically target and reward heterosexual men treat all other customers as irrelevant. That there are more customers from one demographic group than another does not justify acting like the others don’t exist.
    • It also assumes that women’s bodies are generically understood as THE body that should be objectified-that women’s bodies do and should operate as desirable objects for heterosexual men and women alike. The creators might indeed respond by claiming that many women (lesbians too?) will enjoy the interactive site. But this begs the question, if it really is a both-gender activity, then why the heavy promotion on sites with large male audiences? If it is really seen as a gender-neutral activity, then why tailor the advertising of the promo to men as well?
    • And it’s insulting to and generalizes men as well. It’s clear to me that this was thought to be a reward for heterosexual men-something that they would want to spend time doing in the evening, and also taking in the advertising for the new Taco Bell products. This a pretty shallow assumption of how men ideally spend their time and what they find compelling and valuable. And did I say yet that it’s pretty dumb?
    • Even more blatant, yet also often forgotten, there is an enormous amount of heteronormativity going on here. For even if the justification for the promo is that the Taco Bell audience is mostly male, there is the underlying assumption of the heterosexuality of those men. How else do you explain a promo targeted at men that rewards them with being able to “direct” (yes, the promo is called “Directing Danielle,” which is kinda icky) the photographing of a swimsuit model?

    Why don’t they allow the winner to have a choice of model?, you ask. That would make sense to me. But that would presume that the promo is actually about the interactive activity on the website. But it’s about corporate sponsorship. The problem is that the promo is sponsored by none other than Sports Illustrated, who invests more money and energy in promoting (non-athletic) women’s bodies for visual consumption than in proper news coverage for female athletes. The mere existence of the swimsuit issue from a sports magazine (!) reminds us that the appropriate culturally-sanctioned use of women’s bodies is not athletics, not strength, not aggression, not speed, not size, not bulk, but is being a sexually desirable object, that’s small, that doesn’t take up too much space, that is passively sprawled out for display, and one that is always, always available


    But the Taco Bell promo is not about being able to photograph a model. It’s about sponsorship revenue from a “Sports” news magazine that can’t seem to realize that strongly advocating women as sex objects for the heterosexual male viewer, the consumer of choice, has no place in a magazine that is
    supposed to be about sports-women’s and men’s sports, with readers who are female and male, heterosexual and queer, white and people of color.

    No one needs to apologize for finding women attractive, and this criticism does not suggest that finding a person attractive is wrong. But the problem here is the assumption that (straight men) are the center of the world and that women’s bodies alone are the ubiquitous symbol of sexuality and beauty. And that’s what needs apologizing for.

    03.24.08

    Recommended Reading

    Posted in recommended reading at 12:26 pm by lindabeth


    Some interesting articles from the past week…

    First, an assortment of thoughts and discussions about prostitution. I deplore the way the media has invaded the privacy of Spitzer’s prostitute, but it has been really great that the whole situation has resulted in lots of internet chatter about prostitution: why it’s illegal, whether it should be, and about the difference between criticizing the patriarchal culture that makes prostitution possible and (sometimes) lucrative, about what consent and “free choice” really mean, about the working conditions that prostitutes work through, the differences between decriminalization and legalization, and about the cultural representations of prostitution.

    Here’s a sample:


    Legalize Prostitution
    Decriminalization, ending demand, and choice: Feministe interviews the Sex Workers ProjectFeministing provides a great recap of several articles and opinions on the topic.

    A few other topics of interest…

    Michael Stickings of The Reaction wrote an excellent analysis of Obama’s Tuesday speech on race, politics, and the election.

    Hugo Schwytzer wrote a provocative posting about how ED functioned as new connection to some of the damaging ways masculinity is produced through patriarchal notions of sexuality.

    This is creepy: Maxim’s guide to stalking. Misogyny provides the tools…for more misogyny. via feministing

    The too-familiar collision of sports and misogyny, from Alas, a Blog: Anti-Feminist Attacks Favre For Crying “Like A Girl”

    One stripper tells The Guardian about her experience being a sex worker…some interesting comments about how objectifying giving lap dances is and her thoughts on the politics involved (link is to f-word because they have some other related links)

    Have a look at a 1954 quiz on How Masculine Are You?

    Check out Jezebel’s take on Vogue’s World’s Best Bodies (hint: the “Best Body” for women is the small-bodied fashion model who act as accessories for the male bodies; for men it is the strength and flexibility of an athlete. hmm….)

    03.23.08

    "Can There Be Feminist Porn?" A Great Open-Thread Over at Feminism 101

    Posted in feminism, pornography, sexual politics at 12:58 pm by lindabeth

    There’s a great open thread at Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog, “Can there Be Feminist Porn?” inspired by Good for Her’s Feminist Porn Awards. Some good discussion going on-check it out and add your voice to the discussion there!

    The blog itself is also really great, so check it out too.

    (NOTE: Nothing more after the jump)

    03.19.08

    Why We Still Need Women’s History Month, and other things that remind us that patriarchy isn’t over

    Posted in feminism, patriarchy at 10:21 am by lindabeth

    I mean, [sarcasticly] “Isn’t Feminism Irrelevant?”

    AfterEllen has a great posting using recent events about why feminism is still needed. And what a great line from one commenter:

    We have Come a Long Way Baby, but it’s a short journey back.

    Spot-on!

    Check out the full post here.

    Also goes along with this great comic via feministing:

    (NOTE: nothing after the jump)

    03.18.08

    Please help take action against racist advertising campaign

    Posted in activism, race and racism, sexism at 2:43 pm by lindabeth

    The National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) is asking folks to take action against the above campaign publicizing a new Asian fusion restaurant owned by Chow Fun Food Group, Inc.

    Thankfully, because of the outcry over the ad – it’s been pulled by Chow Fun Food Group owner John Elkhay. But NAPAWF says that’s just the first step.

    read the full story and sign the petition at feministing

    (NOTE: nothing more after the jump)

    "Torture Porn" or Female Empowerment? Neither? Both?

    Posted in empowerment, film, ideology, representation, sexualized violence at 11:04 am by lindabeth

    Women’s e-news has an interesting article about “torture porn” directors positing their work as “feminist.” This descriptive category, coined by David Edelstein of the New York Times (and frequent Fresh Air film reviewer), refers to recent films such as Hostel and Captivity.

    One part of the piece in particular struck me:

    “Men are making films and calling them feminist when they don’t understand the feminine experience,” Soloway [a consulting producer of ABC's TV show "Dirty Sexy Money" ] said. “It’s their salute to how they see female power.”


    I find this quite interesting and also don’t doubt this is likely the directors’ intentions. Isn’t it interesting though to see what “power” means to these (male) directors and how it looks when taken up by a woman? But in their unproblematic and uncritical depiction of sex-violence, they don’t see how both are gendered realities, and in women’s daily lives are combined as a means of controlling and possessing women. This lack of contextualization makes their rendering of them more in collusion with gender-based oppression than fighting it.

    Further, it leaves the idea of (masculinized) power and its role in maintaining racist, heterosexist patriarchy uncriticized. Women are depicted as powerful so long as they control the violence done to them (brutally done and graphically depicted) by violence of their own.

    Lindsey Horvath, who works in film advertising and is president of the National Organization for Women’s Hollywood chapter says, [...]

    “Essentially I watched an hour and 45 minutes of a woman being stalked, drugged, nearly raped and terrorized,” she said. In the end, the character escapes and kills her attacker. “It’s like as long as the woman kills the guy at the end, then of course it’s a female empowerment movie.”

    For the reasons listed above, I find the rationale that the eventual “triumph” of the female character overrides and makes unproblematic the rest of the depictions in a film unconvincing. The ends apparently justify the means. In a way, the sexualized violence throughout the film may also function to make palatable the fact that “the woman wins,” that the woman takes control of herself back from (symbolic) masculine domination.

    Further, I really have to doubt that people see movies like these because the woman wins in the end.

    I must admit I am fascinated by the way gender and sexuality is produced in horror films. Some recommended reading from my reading “wish list”:

    The Naked And The Undead by Cynthia A. Freeland
    Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film by Carol J. Clover

    Also check out Ax Wound ‘zine.

    Thoughts?

    UPDATE 3/20: Women’s E-News writer Rachel Corbett has a more detailed discussion up at Alternet.

    03.17.08

    WTF of the Day

    Posted in WTF, patriarchy, privacy, sexual politics at 8:31 pm by lindabeth

    The Feminist Daily News (Feminist Majority) reported this story (via the f-word):

    “Oklahoma Man Not Charged for Violating Privacy of 16 Year Old Girl”.



    Oklahoma’s Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that taking pictures up someone’s skirt in a public place is not a crime. The court voted 4-1 in favor of 34-year-old Riccardo Ferrante who was arrested for putting his camera up an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl’s skirt in a department store, reports the Associated Press…Ferrante was charged under Oklahoma’s “Peeping Tom” statute, which makes such offenses felonies punishable of up to 5 years in prison. Tulsa World reports that the court ruled that the statute only applies in situations where the victims are in a reasonably private place such as their own homes, a restroom, or a locker room.


    Quick thoughts:

    • Clearly, sexual privacy doesn’t seem to apply to when women are in public.
    • What can of worms does this open up? Spycams in changing rooms? Can someone pull down your shirt as you’re waiting for the bus? The implications of this ruling are absurd!
    • She’s 16-years old…WTF?!
    • And this is all because she dared to wear a skirt in public that was short enough that a camera could be placed under that. Hear that ladies? If you’re gonna leave the house, you’d better be wearing full-body armor! Enter the public sphere, and your sexual privacy belongs to everyone. But stay at home (ya know, where women belong), and you’re fully protected.

    I have been thinking a lot about women’s right to privacy in public spaces, due to some recent stories and discoveries I’ve made, and I plan to write about it more extensively soon (keep an eye out!)…but in the meantime, puke on this.

    (Cross-posted at The Reaction)

    03.16.08

    Carnival of Feminists No. 55 is up

    Posted in Carnival of Feminists at 3:08 pm by lindabeth

    A little late on this one, but check out the latest Carnival of Feminists up at Penny Red featuring stories from International Women’s Day and more!

    (NOTE: nothing more after the jump)

    03.15.08

    I kinda like this "peep" show :-P

    Posted in humor, sexual politics at 8:38 pm by lindabeth


    Saw this image on the Good Vibrations blog, labeled as “The ULTIMATE peep show”. Now strip club politics aside, I’m liking this image.

    Reason: pomosexuality.

    With the exception of the rabbit with pasties alluding to breasts, the characters aren’t clearly sex specific, so you can imagine the roles being played by either (or neither!) sex. ambiguity-check.

    While a certain mag has made it such that bunnies are equivalent to women (or “girls”), not necessarily so. after all, the observers are chicks. female spectators-check.

    If you want the bunnies and chicks to be female, then we have ourselves a cool, woman-only sexual space. check.

    Perhaps the chicks just got finished performing, after all, they’re already undressed. Plus, where’d they get all that cash? Sexual performance done by all genders in the same venue-check, check.

    What would make this even better? Both chicks and bunnies performing sexuality, and on stage together, de-centering and confounding our assumptions about the process of consolidating sexuality by (women) performing it and (men) consuming it, and offering up sexual pleasure that refuses a heteronormative gaze.

    Happy Easter, tweet tweet.

    A comment on "the best" sex EVER!

    Posted in Sexuality Blogs and Resources, heteronormative, mass media, sexual politics at 8:26 pm by lindabeth

    In “The ‘best’ is an enemy of the ‘good’” Dr. Charlie Glickman at the Good Vibrations blog writes what I’ve thought. We should strive for pleasure, not achievement.

    It’s also important to remember that having good sex is not the same as a) looking “good” having sex, or b) looking like you’re having good sex. Said otherwise, what looks good isn’t always what is good.

    I think a significant aspect of sexual displeasure is in the conjunction of 2 assumptions: that people in porn are having the best sex and that “I don’t have sex like that”. This is evident in the way we say “fu-k like a porn star” or the periodical Maxim article “How to date a porn star/stripper”. The assumption is the actors who are paid to “look like” (whatever that means) they are are having the best sex ever actually are. I’m sure they are sometimes and sometimes they’re probably planning the week’s dinner menu’s while they’re continuously and monotonously moaning. The other assumption comes from the first: if they look like they’re having the best sex and I don’t have sex like that then maybe I’m not having the “best” sex.

    And lo and behold, we have magazines that tell us how, in stories recycled on a quarterly basis, to have this “best” sex. And the cycle of culture continues.

    What the article doesn’t go into are the gender-variations on this theme in magazines. I have been meaning to do research on this by purchasing a year subscription to Maxim and Cosmopolitan (anyone want to fund me?!) and comparing the cover stories and analyzing the ads. Unfortunately, I really need to write my Master’s Thesis first. I don’t have the statistical proof, so we’ll leave it at my observation: women’s magazines articles around sex tend to focus on sex that “your man” wants, “your man’s” secret desires, how to please “your man”; men’s magazines tend to focus on how to get “your girl” (not woman!) to do —“, how to get a hottie to sleep with you, how to convince your girlfriend to let you go to strip clubs. Notice a trend? I’m not saying articles that focus on women’s own sexual pleasure don’t appear in Cosmo or that Maxim doesn’t ever have a story about pleasing your girlfriend, but these are significantly disproportionate to the ones that focus on pleasing men.

    Of course, these articles are unproductive besides-they assume everyone’s sexual responses are the same and are articulated with heteronormative assumptions about sexual pleasure among heterosexual couples.

    03.14.08

    Feminist Ms. Pac-Man!

    Posted in cool feminist stuff at 10:58 pm by lindabeth

    This is awesome!

    Next page