Jenny’s Pennies

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.)

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

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 Northern Ireland, four main political parties have managed to come together and actually agree on something. Unfortunately, it’s not on a good thing: they want to keep abortions extremely restricted. Today, women in Northern Ireland have no right to an abortion even if they are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Abortion is only allowed in case of severe fetal abnormalities or a clear threat to the woman’s life. Some abortions are still done in Northern Ireland at the discretion of the doctor, but otherwise women are forced to go elsewhere in the UK or Europe to get the procedure and pay for it in private, which thousands also do. But this of course means that women without the financial resources (to obtain an abortion in the UK costs about £1,000) are left in an extremely difficult situation. It is reported that 11% of GPs in Northern Ireland have seen attempts by women to perform amateur abortions on themselves.

Now, there are attempts to extend the 1967 Abortion Act, so that it will finally apply to Northern Ireland as well. But the political parties the DUP, Sinn Féin, the UUP and the SDLP don’t want that, and for the first time they have overcome their political differences and agreed on a major issue: women in Northern Ireland should not have the same rights as women elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Read Laura Canning’s column on this issue over at the Guardian’s “Comment is free”.

I don’t think I have any readers in the UK, but if you happen to be a British citizen and support equal reproductive rights for women in N.I., go to Pro-Choice Northern Ireland and learn what you can do.

(I guess this post means I’ve sunk even deeper into the “Culture of Death”. I am, however, in good company: read this great column by George Monbiot!).

Via incoming links in my Wordpress blog stats I find that I have been linked to on a recent post at Birth Pangs. The writer April Reign shows us a letter written by a man named Michael who has compiled a list of bloggers who has written about the “Pill Kills”-campaign. And I, through my little post here, have made that list!

We who think that the campaign is ridiculous BS are called “Culture of Death bloggers”. And this is apparently just the “short list”. Gee guys, it’s such an honor to be nominated!

I reprint Michael’s letter below - yeah, I normally don’t want to give shit as this any attention, but I’ll do it this time - with the links to all my fellow “culture of death” bloggers.* Keep up the good work people!

Dear pro-life friends,

As many of you already know, American Life League is launching a campaign to inform the public about the abortifacient nature of oral contraceptives. (If you don’t already know about it, please take a moment to check out www.ThePillKills.com . Also, be sure to join our facebook page and invite your friends! www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=34501835075 ) Some of you have blogged about it, and we’re gearing up for a full-court press on this initiative.
But we need your help!
In just 2 days, “pro-choice” bloggers have filled the blogosphere with their vitriol and Culture of Death rhetoric. In fact, one blogger went so far as to state his hatred for babies, while a comment on another blog indicated a desire to show up to a designated protest area to “mess with” us.
Just to give you a sampling of who is saying what, I am sending you a “short” list of Culture of Death bloggers talking about The Pill Kills website. I don’t recommend wasting too much time reading their nonsense, but it is worth noting their overt hostility to anything that “just might” change their worldview of “promiscuity-made-safe.”
We present information. They present virtiol. Why is that? Makes one wonder what they’re so angry about!
Your voice is louder than theirs because you have the Truth! So let’s fill the blogosphere with the Truth! Send e-mails. Tell your friends. Post The Pill Kills button on your blogs! Do whatever it takes … just don’t let them silence our voice for those who don’t have one.
As always, thanks for everything you do for the pro-life cause. Our efforts would be a lot harder without yours!
–Michael

The Graduate
Birth Pangs
Medical-news-now.com
Citizen Girl
Melanie’s blog of good stuff
Signs of the times
Paging Lucina
Ms Magazine
Feministing
I’m A Feminist
Robotic squidling
Hangofwednesday
Church gal
Debate politics
Majikthise
Ravings of a semi-sane madwoman
Jenny’s Pennies LOOK, HERE I AM!
Matthew Yglesias
Tar hearted
Dark side of the mom
Power up
Overclocked drama
ifeminists
Eccentric bitch
Broken rubbers
Childfree hardcore
CelticBear’s musings
Feminist.org
Ginandkerosene’s blog
Items of interest
Feminocracy
The W.O.M.B.
Slog - the Stranger
Dead racists society
Lab Kat
Democratic underground

PS. sorry about the scattered posting lately, still feeling a bit off. Must be all that promotion of death and mayhem.

*Hyperlinked, cause my layout got completely messed up by those long URLs.

So I read a lot of blogs from the US of A (the progressive/feminist/queer variety) and if I were to write about every wackiness I find out about through them, I wouldn’t do much else, so I do stop myself most of the time. But sometimes I run across something so mind-boggling that I just need to blog it.

It’s the “the Pill Kills Babies”-campaign, organized by the American Life League, along with Pro-Life Wisconsin and Pharmacists for Life International (that last organization should really be renamed “pharmacists that don’t do their goddamned job and should have their ass fired”). They want to ban birth control. Because it causes abortion. You see, when I take my BC pills I potentially kill a tiny baby boy or a tiny baby girl. Yes, that’s how they put it.

The so-called science that “supports” their BS can be debunked by picking up a high school biology textbook. What do they think? That a fertilized but not yet implanted egg is a teeny weeny miniature person that, when looked at in a microscope, will smile at you and wave?

At least this campaign makes it painfully clear that the so called pro-life movement isn’t about saving the precious baaaaybeeez at all, it’s about controlling women’s sexuality, and subsequently our lives. The protest the pill-day is June 7th. The reason for this is (from the Pill Kills website. Won’t link, Google is your friend):

June 7 marks the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut. This was the first of many decisions that led to the culture of death we live in today.

On that day in 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Griswold v. Connecticut case, it set a legal precedent for claiming that the Constitution grants women the right to privacy in matters of sexual practice.

Oh the horror! The right to privacy for women in matters of sexual practice, we certainly can’t have that! I file this under reason 17,314 (or possibly 17,315, I lost count) why I’m happy to live in Sweden. I stand firmly behind my American sisters in their fight against this, and I’m sure some pretty awesome counter-activism will be done on June 7th.

Via; more here.

(If you don’t get the headline reference, you lose, but thanks for playing)

On International Women’s Day March 8th, a large number of local Amnesty groups in Sweden asked around 2600 persons about their attitudes towards rape. The results, released earlier this week, were pretty appalling. While 96 percent agree that rape is a large or fairly large problem in Swedish society, as many as one in five put at least some blame on the victim, based on for instance her looks, behavior, resistance and level of intoxication. The age groups most prone to victim blaming are young people between 15 and 25, and people over 66. When broke down by gender, the numbers reveal that men are more likely to blame the victim than women, and men are also more likely to believe that there can be extenuating circumstances to a rape.

While the study is not scientific, and thus shouldn’t be the basis of any broader conclusions, it does give a clue about peoples’ attitudes towards rape and sexual violence. Here are some of the general results:
- 62 percent has little or no trust in the Swedish justice system when it comes to the possibility of rape victims to get justice.
- about 20 percent put some blame on the victim if she dresses or acts “provocatively”.
- about 25 percent think that the woman is partly to blame if she flirted or made out with the rapist before the rape.
- about 20 percent believe that the woman bears some responsibility if she doesn’t resist or scream during the rape.
- about 20 percent put some blame on the victim if she was intoxicated by alcohol or drugs.
- less than one in ten believe that it is an extenuating circumstance if the rapist is intoxicated.
- about one in ten believe that it is an extenuating circumstance if the perpetrator and the victim are in a relationship.

That so many young people, and especially young men, are willing to blame the victim is horrifying but perhaps not surprising. What is needed is better sex ed in schools, with teachers who are honest and open and able to meet the young students at their level. Sex ed should be more than mere biology or risk awareness, it should also include discussions on such concepts as consent (which many people seem to have a problem understanding), respect, pleasure and how to know what you want and like (and how to understand what your partner wants and likes). We don’t need more “morality” or “purity” as some say, we need more openness, honesty, and better trained teachers. I absolutely agree with Amnesty that sex ed should be a mandatory course for those studying to become teachers.

That those over 66 are so willing to blame the victim is also disturbing. In the Swedish justice system, we don’t have juries but so called lay assessors who judge together with the judge (sorry, but I’m not versed in legal English - a description in English about the Swedish legal system can be found here). These lay assessors are appointed by the political parties, and due to the nature of this work and the experience/connections needed to be appointed, most of them are older men.

So given what Amnesty’s study tells us about the attitude towards rape among people aged 66 and older, maybe it’s not so surprising to hear about how rape victims are asked in court how many sex partners she have had previously and what she have done with them, or how far above the knee her skirt was. (For Swedish readers, if you haven’t read this book on that subject yet, do so immediately!).

I could do that analogy to the wealthy guy getting robbed of this big fat wallet and shiny gold Rolex watch here, but I won’t. I’m just sad, and I don’t know how we, as a society, should begin to address this problem. I do hope that the young people will wise up in the future as they mature and actually start thinking. But maybe that’s too optimistic.

Amnesty writes about the study in Swedish here (where you can also find all the results in pdf-format), SvD writes here, and the Local writes in English here.

So this is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, but I want to blog it anyway. Not because it will mean much or do much, but just because I feel this is important and…well basically I just want to show my support for a voice that should be heard.

Renegade Evolution has been invited to speak at at a debate forum on sex work and pornography at William and Mary College. On her side will also be sex workers’ rights advocate Jill Brenneman of SWOP East. And on the other side there is male “feminist” John Foubert, and anti-sex work activist Sam Berg (”crusader” would probably be a more apt word - I hadn’t heard of the woman before, but after just a bit of reading she seems unhinged. And for someone calling herself a feminist, she certainly displays a lot of hatred of women).

However, now it seems as if the “feminist” and “defender of women” Sam Berg are trying to get Ren uninvited since she is not “comfortable” with Ren being there. Context can be found in Ren’s post. It’s quite a bit lot of context and a lot of old stuff, but that doesn’t really matter here, what is important is this (Ren’s words):

All I want at this point is a chance to speak my side, in a forum. I want the chance to FINALLY get to be a sex worker/porn whore who gets to speak for herself, rather than having anyone and everyone do it for me, or over me, or around me.

The organizers of the event is trying to talk reason into Sam and allow Ren to come.

Other people have written well about this (see below), and since I am what I am - an insignificant blogger from across the pond, not involved in any blogwars, not identified with any sides, not widely read or know, just little me - I will say this: It isn’t feminism if you aren’t prepared to hear the voices of all women. It isn’t feminism if your only concern is white, middle class, cisgendered, straight and ablebodied women who has the luxury to be involved in abstract academic debates. It isn’t feminism if you, by actions, inaction or words, display hate for certain women and treat them as either poor misguided victims in need for your rescue, or evil patriarchy enablers, young, dumb and full of cum. It isn’t feminism if you, in your quest for that Feminist Utopia, trample on the lives and souls of living breathing women.

So, I’m just showing my support here, insignificant as it may be. Other people have written also, and they have good things to say: Natalia Antonova, Burning Words, Astarte’s Circus, Uncool .
(I’m sure there are more, but no time for reading right now)

On April 7th, two women journalists were brutally killed in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. Teresa Bautista Flores, 24, and Felicitas Martínez, 20 worked for the community radio station La Voz que Rompe el Silencio (“The Voice that Breaks the Silence”), serving the Trique indigenous community.

From El Enemigo Común:

The Triqui indigenous people of San Juan Copala in southern Oaxaca, saw their first radio station, La Voz que Rompe el Silencio, as a major victory of their struggle. When the community declared itself an autonomous region on January 21, 2007, it vowed to stay independent from any party affiliation or influence, creating even a Police of the Community (Policia Comunitaria) to replace government armed forces in the region. The radio was to serve the Triquis people to promote unity, overcome conflicts, and encourage communication among communities, including those that are not formally members of the autonomous region. The radio stressed from the beginning the importance of promoting diversity within the station with the participation of women and particularly, the youth.

Oaxaca suffers from political tensions and attacks from paramilitary forces on the indigenous communities are common. The state of press freedom is very poor. According to the Mexican branch of the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) there have been acts of violence against other small radio stations belonging to indigenous groups in Oaxaca, such as Radio Nandia in 2006 and Radio Calenda in 2007.
Reporters Without Borders has more. Mexico was ranked as number 136 in their annual press freedom index (2007), and declared the most dangerous country on the continent for the press.

AMARC has released an action alert asking for prompt clarification of the murders, punishment of those responsible, and protection for the witnesses and their children. The whole urgent action appeal with contact information to relevant persons and authorities can be found here.

Via A Womyn’s Ecdysis who says:

So, while some of us contemplate the silence that makes us uncomfortable and squirmy in our easy chairs, chew on this: These womyn died on their way to give and because of their voice.

Are you, am I, are any of us western feminists anywhere close to filling even a thimble’s worth of significance and relevance with respect to what is happening to womyn around the world?

The immensely tragic and terrible murder of a 10 year old girl is all over the news here. Understandably people are scared, angry and sad. But besides the empathy and solidarity with the girl’s family and friends, there is also a darker side to it, fueled by sometimes speculative and vulturelike media reporting. People talk about torture, death penalty and mob justice. Karin Thunberg, reporter at Svenska Dagbladet had to close the comments section of her blog because it totally got out of hand. She has written a very good column that you can read here, where she says:

We can’t begin to look at every stranger, especially if it happens to be a man, as a potential criminal.
What happened to Engla lies beyond what we, at least as outsiders, can feel or understand. For real.

But we win nothing if we start to see the exceptions as the normal. In the society where everybody is scared of each other and expects hell to lie behind the next turn, there it becomes even more dangerous to live.

For all of us.

Now media researcher and professor Stig Hedenius, has proposed that media should be less cautious about publishing names of criminals and of suspects in crime investigations (see also SvD here).
He argues that by publishing names of suspects, we can avoid tragedies such as this one. That if people had known the name of the 42 year old who has admitted to murdering Engla (and also to another murder years ago), then Engla could have been alive today.
That is of course a purely theoretical argument which relies on a lot of “ifs”.

The media and the public should not be a substitute for courts and the rule of law. I agree there are a lot of problems with our criminal justice system, but the solution must never be to dismantle the legal rights of the individual (yes, even if that individual is a murderer and pedophile of the most heinous and awful kind) and to let the profit driven media and revenge hungry public act as the prosecutor and the judge. There are other ways to make our criminal justice system better.

We already know that the media is driven by selling papers (or getting viewers) and making money, and that their track record of respect for truth and decency is less than perfect. A few weeks ago, we had another tragic murder case, where two little girls were killed and their mother seriously injured. Before long, media had pointed out the father/husband as the perpetrator. But oups, turns out he was innocent, and the suspect is now a German woman. And when foreign minister Anna Lindh was murdered in 2003, a man called “the 35 year old” was pointed out as the killer. No name was published in that case, but enough details to identify him anyway if you cared to. He was innocent too. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time should not get you plastered all over placards and front pages. That isn’t something we as citizens should have to live in fear of.

I’m not saying that names and pictures of suspects should never be published. If the police investigation is seriously stuck and a name/picture publishing would move it forward, then yes, it can be okay. But only in close cooperation with the police, and not without serious consideration of the consequences. Unfortunately, I don’t trust the media to make that call. Today one one tabloid screams “How he became a murderer”. As if they have the answers to that.

And they see their circulation go up when tragedies happen. Grieving mothers, monstrous killers, those thing sell. What is really public interest here? Do we need close ups of crying neighbours, do we need nosy interviews with people who went to school with the suspect 30 years ago? In whose interest are those things published? Not in the victims’ and not in the public’s anyway.