PunkAssBlog.com

Abstinence.

This is not something I have ever practiced on purpose except during limited periods and for a specific reason (example: my husband would be sent on a training tour of duty for several weeks) since I made the decision to become sexually active at the age of 17. Obviously I was not sexually active before then, but I wouldn’t have considered myself to have been practicing abstinence either; for about a year beforehand, I had been purposefully searching for someone with whom I really wanted to have sex. Why was I doing this? Well, I was sure I wanted to have sex because my body was telling me so, quite emphatically. However, I’d seen way too many other girls’ deep regret about how their “first time” had come about, and if I could possibly help it, that wasn’t going to happen to me–I already knew that I had a lot of potential to be really, totally crazy about the act of sex! and darn me if that was gonna get ruined right out of the gates.

Continue reading ‘All These Posts about the Abstinence Clearinghouse Have Inspired Me’

For the last week or so, I’ve been telling people, “you know what I want? I want Jet Set Radio Future and The Itty Bitty Titty Committee to get together and have beautiful, free-running radical lesbian babies.”

Then I saw Mirror’s Edge.

Continue reading ‘Also, I’d like a pony?’

Hi everybody! I’m sorry I haven’t been posting lately, not that y’all have noticed with our fantastic new bloggers filling the void I’d left behind. I took my last final ever today (squee!) and am gearing up to leave the country in a few weeks, so things have been a bit busy. And I was wondering, I should blog, but with my head stuffed full of MEMS manufacturing processes and phase diagrams, I haven’t had a moment to come up with an interesting thought about anything. What could I blog about?

Then Amanda gave me a present: the Abstinence Clearinghouse Blog. A treasure trove of easy target! Huzzah! Let’s check it out!

The Abstinence Clearinghouse is “a privately funded 501(c)3 non-profit, non-partisan international educational organization.” I hope they know alot about abstinence, because their bloggers don’t know jack squat about making an argument. Let’s start with Annie, author of the two of the first three posts on ACB. I don’t know much about Annie, because none of the bloggers write an introductory post, nor is there a bios page. The subject of Annie’s groundbreaking first post? The epidemic of teens taking nude photos of themselves with camera phones:

So teens are now using cell phones to take nude photos of themselves for general circulation. They have to know that once it’s out there, it’s really out there. That’s not just embarrassing–which it will be, sooner or later–it’s a little creepy when you think about who might be looking…and why.

I’m not sure what I like best about this post; the conversational opening, the lack of a link to anything explaining this phenomena to those of us who have never gotten a clear, much less titillating, picture out of a camera phone, or the scare ellipses. What nefarious reasons could a stranger have for looking at an anonymous picture of your nude body? Annie was just warming up, though. In her second post, “Planned Parenthood seeking 1 Million Opponents to Abstinence” she really shines.

On April 29th, Planned Parenthood sent out an email calling out to its supporters to join them in challenging Presidential candidates to talk about sex…They are asking for 1 Million “strong, caring, fed-up people who aren’t afraid to talk about sex,” to sign onto their letter by November 4th this year.

You see, this is what is wrong with the teens today.

Of course I see. How could I not see that the Planned Parenthood One Million Strong campaign to “elect pro-choice candidates at every level, including a pro-choice president and Senate and House members; pass laws and policies that support women’s health; defeat anti-choice ballot measures; and turn out one million pro-choice voters in November 2008!” is exactly what is wrong with kids these days. ( I assume Annie is talking about the 1 Million Strong campaign, as it is the only thing on PP’s website with that number associated with it. Annie, being a crackerjack debater, didn’t provide any supporting quotes from the email or links or anything crazy like that.) When I think of today’s youth with their hip-hop music, their Hannah Montana and their grassroots political actions for women’s health and reproductive choice, I wish we could return to a simpler time.
Continue reading ‘If this is what counts as an “educational organization” in abstinence land, then hell yeah we need to stop giving them money. They’re just not that bright.’

Something has been bothering me lately, within the feminist blogsphere. Feminism is about equality between the genders, and by extension equality between all peoples. We routinely bemoan the treatment women get in the rest of the world, and (rightfully) call out allies and enemies for using sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and fatphobic frames and insults (calling Ann Coulter a trannie for instance). No, this is not going to be another post about white feminists and women of color feminists (that topic has been discussed by far smarter voices than I). This instead will be a “What about the Menz” post that generally I hate.
I’ve noticed in that in certain threads, (such as this one at Shakesville) there seems to be a pattern. Regulars start to talk about the various points in the case, and we use our general knowledge to put forth a greater understanding of the case, with a lot of people chiming in the make a funny comment or a general statement of agreement. So far, so good; but then a troll will come in to make some sort of ridiculous statement (women lie about rape for instance). People will jump all over him/her, and trolly will come back with increasingly ridiculous statements. All of this is fine (except now we are all off the original topic of conversation, instead playing a fun-but-unproductive game of taunt-the-troll), but what tends to come next is the part that I object to most strongly to. Someone, and probably more than one someone, will start to question the trolls penis-size, sexual prowess, or general odds of getting laid.
Feminist object to the language of the virgin-whore dichotomy, which treats sexual women as disposable, and puts ridiculous, contradictory standards on those who happen to fall on the virgin side. We object to the sexual double standard that declares sexual women sluts and sexual men as studs. But, if we want to demonstrate true commitment to these obscenely harmful sexual standards, we need to stop using them in our framing of insults. Sexual prowess is not a sign of intelligence, maturity, or worth. Penis size does not have anything to do with character, or insecurity: a man could be insecure and truly have a “monster cock”*, or be a confident individual with a less-than-average sized one. And while true that one might assume that demonstration of idiotic tendencies would reduce one’s odds of getting and sustaining a long-term relationship, we all know that it is not necessarily so.
I know, generally, that feminists all know this to be true. I know that comments about alleged penis size are designed to insult them on their own framework, for more a stinging factor. But these trolls would probably not like to be called “gay” either, and feminists refrain from using that framework out of an effort to not feed homophobia. We should follow the same logic when using sexual-based slurs: and not fall into their trap. We lose credibility when we do; and MRAs will pounce on it. We actually do have to show a commitment to gender equality, and it starts with what we say about men.**

*As a funny aside, I still giggle that someone used that unironically on feminist thread.
** I am not perfect at this either. When someone continues to profess their supposed sexual prowess, I’m tempted to think they are seriously trying to compensate. But while the low blow is the easy strike, we need to avoid it like the plague.

And I’m not even an old woman! And I have a college degree! And once in a while, I’m even HIP. (Really! at least once a year or something.)

What I am very tired of reading is the endless stream of calls for her to pull out of the primaries.

Continue reading ‘I am a Clinton supporter’

One of the many slanders that feminists get thrown in our faces is that we’re “too angry”. Heck, it is even possible to get that argument from supposedly liberal sources. The theory, I suppose, is that if we smiled and said “pretty please” and expended tons of energy and work on perfectly reasoned argument while all the while dealing with the sexist idgits metaphorically and literally beating on us, we will eventually get those rights that those in power are willing to give us, (and expect a cookie when they give it).
Many feminists have covered the “angry” issue online before. They have mentioned that feminists are not particularly angry in the first place. They have also mentioned that anger is a legitimate response to having people victimize you. It has also been pointed out that if you have any sort of conscious, the treatment of women around the world should make you furious and sad. It has also pointed out that a civil rights movement goes pretty much no where without passion and anger feeds passion quite nicely.
But I would like to take a slightly different tack, and call it the “Vulcan Theory”. For those few of you who are not Star Trek nerds (or, at least are not willing to admit to it in a public forum), the Vulcans are a race of humanoids from the planet Vulcan. Vulcans used to be extremely violent, warlike, and emotional; to the point that they were tearing up their own civilization. Surak, during the Time of Awakening, came up with an alternate theory: one based on logic, reason, and peace. Now, Vulcans will tell you (imperiously, I might add) that they no longer have any emotions. A more honest Vulcan might tell you that they suppress all of their emotions, which is subtly different. But the honest truth, as any Betazoid will tell you, is that Vulcans are just as emotional, if not more so, than any other race in the galaxy.
Some Vulcans like to ignore humans, and malign them because they are so “emotional”. In Deep Space Nine, Solok is a complete jerk to Sisko, and most non-Vulcan species (Take Me Out to the Holosuite). Tuvok, in Voyager, routinely tells Captain Janeway that her behavior is “illogical” and never lends any credence to emotional concerns that she presents.
What does this have to do with feminism and anger? Well, generally the people telling us feminists that we are just “too angry” are the ones who are quick with a temper themselves. They put feminists up to standards that they themselves cannot meet (i.e. goal-post moving hypocrites). Just like Vulcans say that humans are too emotional, when they themselves are filled with emotion, people who say that feminists are too angry tend to be angry people themselves.
Also, Vulcans swung to full logic because they could not control their own emotions any other way. Vulcans (as a group) were completely incapable of finding a middle road: one where you enjoy your emotions and self, without going into a barbaric rage to rival a Klingon. In the same way, I don’t think that many people realize that feminists can be angry without being violent. Feminism, to my knowledge, is the only 100% nonviolent movement. (This is probably because it’s pretty difficult to find an “enemy” to bomb). It has been pretty aptly demonstrated that we can have anger, without it meaning that we lose all reason and control (although acting otherwise feeds nicely into the “hysterical woman” framework).
In sum, I am basically saying that people who call feminists “angry” are people who are dealing with their own projection and fear issues, and I just wanted a legitimate reason to call Vulcans hypocrites on a public blog.

(drumroll, please!)

William Saletan of Slate, on race and IQ.

Five months ago, I wrote a series on race, genes, and intelligence.

You sure did. I remember it well. It inspired one of my very first blog posts ever.

Everything about it hurt: the research, the writing, the reactions, the regrets.

I agree that your research and writing hurt. Pulling the crown jewel out of that morass of misunderstood moronity:

But the thing that has upset me most concerns a co-author of one of the articles I cited. In researching this subject, I focused on published data and relied on peer review and rebuttals to expose any relevant issue. As a result, I missed something I could have picked up from a simple glance at Wikipedia. For the past five years, J. Philippe Rushton has been president of the Pioneer Fund, an organization dedicated to “the scientific study of heredity and human differences.” During this time, the fund has awarded at least $70,000 to the New Century Foundation. To get a flavor of what New Century stands for, check out its publications on crime (”Everyone knows that blacks are dangerous”) and heresy (”Unless whites shake off the teachings of racial orthodoxy they will cease to be a distinct people”). New Century publishes a magazine called American Renaissance, which preaches segregation. Rushton routinely speaks at its conferences.

I was negligent in failing to research and report this. I’m sorry. I owe you better than that.

Uh, ya think? You based the MAJORITY OF YOUR FOUR-DAY-LONG ARTICLE on that guy’s “research!”

But anyway. Back to Lord Saletan’s NEW article on the subject–

Continue reading ‘Creep.’

Shakesville had an excellent post up about how difficult it is to have a guy change his name, and how much pressure women have to have their names changed. As a newly-married person, this post resonated with me because I actually had to deal with this.
Continue reading ‘Last Names’

If the universe folds in on itself on May 16th, I will shake my angry fist at Phyllis Schlafly and the Washington University administration as my atoms are squished into oblivion. Few will understand what’s happening and why, but I will — and so will you, dear doomed readers. For May 16th hath been decreed the day that Schlafly will receive an honorary doctorate from Wash U as a “national leader of the conservative movement.”

Some people will probably blame Chris Matthews giving the school’s commencement speech for our downfall. Understandable. The eardrums of most attendees will have exploded by the time he finishes whatever screeching-yet-somehow-also-dithering rant he made his interns whip up, and I wouldn’t blame any prospective Jedi for striking him down on stage after confusing Matthews for a young Emperor Palpatine.

Is this Matthews?

Or this?

No, the universe will collapse as they hand the piece of paper to Schlafly honoring her for spending her life trying to prevent women from being honored. She will be the woman most celebrated for her accomplishments that night when the bulk of her work attacks the very idea of women accomplishing anything ever.

Continue reading ‘Schlafly hypocrisy threatens universe at particle level’

BBC’s Magazine today has a fantastically breathless article documenting what I can only imagine to be the “increasing trend” of girls being (gasp) perpetrators of violence. “These reports still jolt society in a post-feminist age,” according to the article, “Partly because they are so rare and partly because women are not expected to be aggressive.“ Which is actually true, if you replace “society” with “the set of people who are shocked by this,” and “post-feminist age,” with, I dunno, some statement that isn’t shown to be wrong by the very sentence it lives in.

Also? Don’t tell us it’s rare and in the next paragraph show us statistics that say women are convicted of 30% as many assaults as men, which doesn’t exactly make instances of girls! fighting! rare and beautiful snowflakes.

Here’s a fun game: read the article while at least pretending to believe that boys and girls perform acts of violence for more or less the same reasons—as a demonstration of power / because they’re angry / because they think it’ll get them what they want / because it does get them what they want / because it can be fun / because they’re trying to impress someone they want to pounce on. And now marvel:

Her report suggests female displays of aggression have a function within a group.

“Such violence was considered deeply meaningful; it served to maintain group solidarity, reinforce friendships, affirm allegiances, and enhance personal status within the group.”

But Victim Support says the main underlying reason for this aggression is people growing up in violent homes or suffering abuse at the hands of a partner.

Because, of course, when boys fight with fists, “bottles, knives and even pieces of wood,” it’s just boys being boys. When girls do it, it’s because they’re damaged, beautiful flowers—just one more sign of a collapsing society.