Jenny’s Pennies

This blog has been terribly neglected lately, and the tiny readership I might have ever had, has probably disappeared elsewhere, and rightfully so. The reason for not updating lately is that me and husband are temporarily relocated to the other side of the earth - we are living in Hong Kong for half a year (yes, I know, that is very cool!). So with all the preparations and then coming here and trying to figure stuff out and all, yeah, not a lot of time and energy for blogging. I have been reading though, and there have been a lot of good stuff - and craziness - as usual. I don’t plan to make this a “look what cool/weird/funny/terrible things are happening to me in HK”-blog now, but I do have some changes in mind. I want to make it more pointed. More sharp. I have some ideas, we’ll see where it leads me. Anyway, I am back.

My post on what type of sex is feminist approved has been included at the 5th edition of the feminist carnival of sexual freedom and autonomy, hosted at Being Amber Rhea. Thanks for linking to me!

There is a lot of good posts in the carnival - go read! For instance this by sunflower_p to which I can only say yes, nod nod.

Anyone who sees female sexuality only in context of how men respond to it, as if it had no existence outside that context, is - intentionally or unintentionally - reinforcing the “women as sex class” paradigm, not subverting it. Seeing any feminist action only in context of its effect on men undermines its feminism by implying that what doesn’t affect men isn’t important.

And, y’know, sex isn’t an invention of Teh Ev0l Patriarchy; it’s just the way human reproduction works. A case can be made, however (historically simplistic, but more logically consistent) , that the stigmatization of sex as dirty, impure, and uncivilized (a stigmatization reinforced by that breed of feminist’s distaste for overt sexuality) is a patriarchal construct.

That’s not a reason to negate sexuality in the name of feminism, it’s a reason to celebrate it.

A-freaking-men. (And I had so much more to say on this subject but it’s late and I’m going away early tomorrow morning so it will have to wait.)

Happy midsummer everyone!

Here’s a little reading for the weekend (sorry not a lot of links today).
Well this does not require a lot of reading, but probably some tissue. Congrats California. May more follow.
(More heartwarming pictures here.)

Amber Rhea writes about feminist choices.

And even as feminists call out countless examples of male privilege, many of them continue to place a lot of importance on what men think and how men interpret things – even if their interpretations are dead wrong. Somehow those interpretations are granted more importance than what the actor (the woman) states as her intent.

Nothing new there.

And I get it, we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world which is, unfortunately, still very much controlled by sexism. So I can understand being concerned about how things may appear to and be interpreted by men. They are the ones making the rules more often then not, and therefore their interpretations are going to be given more credence by society at large. But do we, as feminists, have to replicate this structure?

Swedish readers, head on over to the Amnesty Press website and read this story about the situation in the occupied Gaza and about how it is reported in the media. Not because I wrote it, but because it is damn important.
Let’s hope that the truce holds.
Also, have a look here.

As you see not much have happened here lately. It’s not that there is a lack of blog worthy things, but I just haven’t mustered up the will to write something even remotely clever about them.

Like last week, I really wanted to chime in on this discussion. Yeah, I’m one of those that think that whatever rocks you boat, go ahead and do it, as long as it is consensual and involves adults. And I have a huge problem with the certain kind of feminists who say that I can’t really enjoy doing X, and if I just examined more I would realize that x is damaging, degrading and that enjoying x means I am fucked up (no pun intended) and traumatized/abused/insert random “you must be a victim”-word here. (Addendum: enjoying x can also mean that you’re an evil evil patriarchy enabler and that you should hand over your holy womanhood membership card.)
But as awesome Amber said in the comment thread, what if I have examined and I realize that I still like x and not doing x didn’t make me feel good? Should I continue to do it and feel guilty about it, or should I stop doing it and feel bad because I’ve repressed something I really want?
“The Patriarchy” (yes, in quotation marks) has always told women that they shouldn’t enjoy sex because that makes you dirty and bad bad bad, but you should always be available for it —
so why are some (mind you, some) feminists adding to the chorus of slut-shaming, “no respectable/undamaged/good/self-respecting woman could like that” comments?

I agree to a certain point that the personal is political, yes, but I also wonder… How does what we do in the bedroom affect society as a whole? I mean, when the anti-gay people come with their “same-sex marriage will ruin heterosexual marriage” and “gay sex means the end of civilization” we laugh at them and point out that what other people does in the bedroom does not affect them in any way.
So in what way does a woman giving blow jobs, getting off on power exchange, enjoying rough sex, or whatever else have a larger impact on society? As commenter Iamcuriousblue said in a thread over at Ren’s, if everyone who engages in kink, power differentials etc suddenly stopped in the name of feminism, I don’t think we would see any positive effect in the real world - it would not mean equal pay, it would not mean a more equal division of household chores, it would not mean an end to abuse and sexual assault.
But if our choices in the bedroom does have affect the outside world, then what is feminist-approved sex anyway? Is enjoying power-play and slapping ok, as long as you have examined properly? Do we need to divide our time in the bedroom 50/50 - her on top/him on top, him coming first/her coming first, him calling the shots/her calling the shots? Or is all heterosexual sex out? What about lesbian BDSM then? Is getting off on being slapped and called a bitch ok as long as it is done by another woman?

Yeah you probably get where I stand on this and I didn’t intend for this to be so long, so here’s some other people who have good things to say:
RenEv of course, and again
Letters from Gehenna - yes totally agree with this:

No amount of “examination” will make any form of sexuality ideologically correct.
Sexuality does not have an ideology.
As people said in various places in this blowup, a penis in a vagina is a penis in a vagina; it’s sex, it’s normal/natural/biologically common/whatever, it doesn’t have an ideology. The meaning is something that people create, attach, ascribe.

and Belledame

From the BBC.

A German citizen has gone to court in an attempt to force his government to seek the extradition of 13 suspected CIA agents who allegedly kidnapped him. Khaled al-Masri says he was abducted in December 2003, flown to a US detention centre in Afghanistan and tortured. Mr Masri was released in May 2004 after his captors allegedly told him he had been mistaken for someone else.

I wish him the best of luck - it’s absolutely appalling that you could be kidnapped and tortured “by mistake” and then receive no compensation what so ever.
And towards the end of the article:

Mr Masri says his case is an example of the US policy of “extraordinary rendition” - a practice whereby the US government flies foreign terror suspects to third countries without judicial process for interrogation or detention. He says he was kidnapped in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, in 2003, flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, nicknamed the “salt pit” and tortured there. On his flight to Afghanistan, he says, he was stripped, beaten, shackled, made to wear nappies and drugged. Mr Masri says he was finally released in Albania five months later after the CIA realised they had got the wrong man. He told the BBC in February 2007 he had been “traumatised” by his experiences.

Why the hell do they put scare quotes around the word traumatised? Of course he was traumatised, he was freaking kidnapped, taken to a ghost prison and tortured. And then finally after five months of hell the Central Intelligence Agency - what kind of intelligence do they operate on?! - realized they had the wrong guy. Dear BBC “editor”, I think you would be traumatised by that too.

Lotta Fogde writes in today’s Dagens Nyheter about feminism with a starting point in the now failed Clinton presidential campaign. Her analysis is that Hillary failed to present feminism as freedom movement for both sexes. Now feminism has never been mainstream in the US, as it has in Sweden, where prominent male politicians a few years ago couldn’t wait to proclaim their adherence to the feminist cause. But not anymore. People are dropping the feminist label like a hot coal, with minister of finance Anders Borg the most noted exception, even though his version of feminism is more about the liberal notion of individual (economic) freedom than about gendered power structures. Also here, in what is often called the most equal country in the world, is feminism failing to present itself as a broad movement which benefits everyone. It is instead seen as an extremist standpoint; women’s issues are “special interest” and in the same box as other “minority problems”.

As Lotta Fogde writes: “normal feminism” isn’t heard in the debate, and the word is associated with extremism and weirdos. Equality is debated, but it’s always construed as an individual issue rather than a systemic one. When studies for instance show that marriage means economic loss for women and economic gain for men, it’s always analyzed in terms of individual decisions rather than in broader, deeper structural terms. Which of course plays into the current political discourse where of “freedom of choice” and “individual responsibility” has replaced societal solidarity and collective solutions.

But I have a hard time agreeing with Fogde’s conclusions and wishes. She calls for a yearly broadly encompassing feminist congress “in an era where almost every sport and every sexual orientation has its own galas”. More consensus, then. She also calls for a resurrection of non-Socialist feminism, which certainly seems rather absent (with the exception of said minister of finance, that is). But I can’t see how such a cozy, “let’s all come together and forget our differences”, vanilla-flavored feminism can be the magic formula which will make inequality fade away. When more and more feminist, certainly the young ones, see the need for broad intersectional analysis which doesn’t only take gender into account but also race, class, sexual orientation, bodily ability, and so on, then a lowest common denominator approach can’t be the answer. I may agree with the minister of finance that 1. women are subordinated in society and 2. this needs to change, but then the similarity in opinion probably ends. When we have emptied our champagne glasses and the fun feminist get together is over, we will walk our separate ways, politely agreeing to disagree over how that subordination should be ended.

In the light of the Condoleezza Rice interview discussed in this post, this becomes even more … no I’m at loss for words.
From the Independent:

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

This is their desired end state!? Permanent occupation, more political sectarian violence, more money being spent on the occupation, more soldiers sent to Iraq (how many people do you need to man 50 bases?), more people killed on all sides? That is a victory?
How is permanent occupation a victory? How is forcing a puppet government into signing a contract which means their subjugation to the foreign occupier a victory? How is a a less stable Iraq - which a deal like this will inevitably lead to - a victory? How is something which will make the United States less safe a victory (remember that one of the reasons stated for the 9/11 attacks was the presence of US bases in Saudi Arabia). How would this end the war?

(Really, I’m not as surprised as it may seem. I knew, like all sane people, that the war wasn’t about peace and liberty and justice for all.)

Ok this is a bit late, but.

As you might know, a big conference on Iraq was held in Stockholm last Thursday. Condoleezza Rice was there, and Dagens Nyheter scored an interview, which was overly polite and fawning - it ends with a question about her piano playing career.

And in there, there’s this:

/…/ Or how long does the United States plan to stay militarily in Iraq?
- Well, we are there by invitation of the Iraqis. We are there to help them defend themselves against enemies like al-Qaida, to train their forces so that they can handle their own security, which they to an increasing degree does. The United States does not want permanent bases in Iraq. But we will help the Iraqis to finish the work they have begun - to build a stable and decent society.

Yeah there are a load of stuff to bite into in that answer (about permanent bases for instance), but… The US are in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi people to help them defend themselves against al-Qaida? Really? I thought you were there to find those WMDs? No wait, sorry, it was to remove Saddam Hussein. No wait, sorry, it was to bring peace and freedom. No wait, sorry…

And that - the statement that the US are in Iraq by invitation from the Iraqis - got no follow up question. Nothing. What kind of a journalist makes stuff like that (and more) just pass by?! (yeah, I know the answer…)

Why do this debate always seem to pop up around this time of the year? (For non-Swedish readers: the subject is whether the end-of-the-school-year celebration for our public schools should take place in a church or not. And not just any church, it’s always the Church of Sweden. Which was separated from the state eight years ago, but still holds a special position and has all kinds of influence, even though it legally should be considered as any other religious association.)

I’m too tired to even repeat the obvious arguments as to why compulsory school activities should not take place in a religious context. Study visits and such is totally ok of course, but anything resembling worship is out. Many people seem to think that it is so important that their children go to church on their last day of school, even if they themselves probably haven’t set foot in a church since their aunt’s funeral or the mandatory once-a-year Christmas visit. If church attendance is so important to them, well then they should take their kids themselves and not expect the school to provide them with hymns and prayer. And then there are those who say that it isn’t about the religious message (if there is any); that it is the atmosphere and feeling that matters. Do you know what I, a pretty convinced atheist, think about using other people’s sacred rooms to get some kind of atmosphere and feeling and tell them to please keep that being in the sky out of it? I think that’s pretty damn disrespectful! Either you use the church with the priest and blessing and the whole deal and then you have overstepped the boundaries of the non-denominational and freedom of religion-adhering public school. Or you tell the minister to please skip the God-references and just use the church as a cosy little gathering place because “it is supposed to be that way” and then you disrespect the people for whom the church isn’t just any other building. Both is wrong. (Kind of like getting married in a church when you’re not religious, just because it’s “such a beautiful place”. One of the most beautiful buildings I’ve ever been in is the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem - a Muslim mosque. I wouldn’t dream about getting married there, and ask the imam to “please keep the Allah references to a minimum”. But I’ve heard people asking that of the Church of Sweden-minister officiating their wedding. Geez, how selfish is that?! But I digress.)

So for the ones who think that going to church is really important for their kids: take them yourself! I’m sure it’s open when the non-religious, inclusive school celebration is over. And for the ones saying that a church is just like any other room, then moving the celebration elsewhere can’t be a big deal, right?

PS. I don’t know where this so-called “tradition” of having the end of the school year ceremonies in church comes from - I went to school in the 80s and early 90s and we never went to a church for ours. Neither did my parents, born in the early 40s and 50s, I think. Actually I don’t think my grandmother did either. So it can’t be that all-encompassing and ancient as some “traditionalists” are making it out to be.