Filed under: 3rd wave feminism, dating, Feminism, feminists, gender roles, love, misogyny, patriarchy, pro-feminist males, sex | Tags: Feminism, pornography, sexuality
Often, our conversations around sex consist of what we like, the things we are into, and our experiences with it. But rarely is the question asked, “Is our children learning …” no wait, I mean, rarely do we question the purpose of sex. The first question, many of you will recognize, is a Bush question.
In a culture where sex is framed by mass media and pornography, it’s important to ask that question, mainly because popular culture still frames sex as something men earn and women give. In said culture, where the purpose of sex is framed in a sense of pleasure, we see women as the source of pleasure whereas men are the takers of such pleasure. When framed in said mentality, we no longer see women’s roles in sex as one of humans, but rather humans who serve a specific purpose.
As such, said mentality takes away the idea of human connections. We simply see sex as mechanical, and not as an expression between two people. To be absolutely sure, there can be sex without love, and we have all experienced it, but when human connections are taken out of sex, it merely becomes a biological act, and has nothing to do with humanity. Further, it makes us see others as mere vehicles to our attainment of pleasure, rather than human beings with whom we can connect.
Whether we like it or not, sex involves emotions. Yet, within the pornography industry, it’s treated as a mere act. In the end, it teaches us to detach from our human beings. I am not saying every sex act ought to come with love. I am merely saying we need to see others as human beings. Once we see others as merely sex providers, whether paid or not, any feelings or empathy we have for a person is gone. I say this to merely argue the point that until we can see others as humans, with feelings, needs and emotions, the act of prostitution will still be one that views women as providers of pleasure, and not humans. Sex may be great on its own, but we need to recognize that the person from whom we are getting it has feelings and is a human being.
Again, I ask: why do you have sex? What’s it for? Is it merely a way to achieve pleasure, is it a show of mutual adoration, is it to create babies (who am I kidding) is it to show love and reward, or is it a way to attain mutual pleasure with someone you like and respect? By re-defining to purpose for sex, we too re-define how society sees homosexuality. After all, if it’s about mutual respect and culture, then why does it matter what is natural?
Filed under: 3rd wave feminism, anti-feminism, Christian right, Christianity, college, gender roles, misogyny, objectification of women, patriarchy, religious right, sexism, Southern Baptists
You know, I am all for people pursuing their religious beliefs, and practicing their beliefs and living life as they see fit, but things like these piss the hell out of me.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1203/p20s01-ussc.html?page=2
It’s an article about a Texas university that’s offering classes on “being a good homemaker,” as part of sociology classes – although a Bible college, it’s still pretty disturbing – especially the quote below.
“Feminists are right to be concerned about how this agenda plays out among nominal Southern Baptists,” says Dr. Brad Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia. “But this model works quite well for traditional religious couples. Conservative, Protestant, churchgoing women are happier than other wives, generally, and their work around the home is more appreciated than that of women who are not married to churchgoing, Protestant men.”
In short, what this class is teaching are the “roles” in which women must have in the homes – that husbands are the bread winners, and wives are supposed their roles and “submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.” At this divinity college, women are learning to be homemakers, and the majority of the staff members are men. It’s also a theological college, but as the patriarchy would have it, none of the women are allowed to pursuit those divinity degrees. Why? Because God said so. Essentially, these people are saying at men and women have different roles, and it’s not interchangeable – that they’re equal under the eyes of God, but the women must submit to their husbands, and be “discreet, chaste homemakers.”What the fuck? Doesn’t that sound eerily like “separate, but equal?” As we all know, separate but equal isn’t.
I support religion, and I believe that in the end, people are responsible for their own search of the truth …but when said beliefs and “truths,” are used to push women back into the private sphere, while men are still the movers and shakers of the world, I have a problem with that. I have a problem with treating women like servants, as if they’re not intelligent or capable enough to do the jobs that men have been “assigned” to be the public spheres.
More importantly, it gives men an excuse to not share the division of labor that women endure in the private sphere. Let’s face it – cleaning the toilet, doing laundry and accomplishing the mundane bullshit of life aren’t exactly exciting for most people. Somehow, to claim that women naturally enjoy cleaning toilets is just an insult to them.
At the end of the day, these Southern Baptists can claim religion as an excuse for their practice, but in truth, I’ll call it what it is: sexist, discriminatory, archaic and misogynistic.Women aren’t objects. They’re people – the same people as men, and should be afforded every opportunity to do what they want, instead of what the patriarchal, religious and sexist institution wants them to do. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sexist and probably an idiot …
Filed under: 3rd wave feminism, Feminism, feminists, misogyny, objectification of women, pet names, power, sex, sexism
I bring this up because I’ve noticed that it happens a lot – and also, because I find it very annoying and just plain …rude and stupid.
Not only at bars, but I’ve noticed this in just day-to-day life, too. One can blame it on being from the South, and thus there is a certain vernacular that one follows. I am sorry, for your so-called “culture” is not an excuse for putting women down.
What I am talking about is when men refer to women – and often times the more good-looking ones, as “sugar,” “baby,” “honey,” “hottie,” or whatever. Every one of those terms, with the exception of maybe “honey,” is not acceptable, not even in a relationship.
People have names and ought to be recognized as such. When we give name to something, we give it power. Men who refer to these women in said terms are engaging and recognize them not based on their individuality, but rather, the characteristics that they value women for. Yet, without those characteristics, women are devalued, and reduced to less than a human being.
I find it offensive because it takes away the individuality of women. Rather than seeing women as human beings, those people strip to women down to just their bodies, and nothing else.
Just as it’s politically incorrect to refer to one as “the black dude,” or “the fat chick,” it’s also inappropriate for one to refer to a woman or man (but this often times happens to women) based on their sexualities and their “goodies.” This, essentially makes women look like objects, and vehicles for men’s pleasures, rather than as people. It’s as if to say, “the only reason I am addressing you because you are hot.”
If anyone can appreciate a woman’s body, it’s me. But to be truthful, one can appreciate that without being the owner of it. One can do that without reducing women down to a piece of meat. One can do so without taking away the identities of women.
If it’s true that it’s a matter of convenience for some of these people, why is it that a woman is never referred to as “beautiful mind,” or “smart girl,” or whatever else? Why is it that when women are addressed, it always comes down to their bodies?
It bothers me, and I feel like addressing the issue every time I hear it, especially when it’s a stranger talking to a woman. Although “hottie” and such bother me, “baby” bothers me even more. She is not a baby. She is a grown woman with her own thoughts, dreams and mind.
I remember one time, when I was younger and much more tempermental, I was at Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport and a steak stand, and some old guy called the woman serving her “baby.”
I was in uniform then, but turned around and gave him a stern warning – anymore of that shit and I’d shove my fist down his throat. He looked at me, said something about the younger generation being rude, and walked away.
There is more to a woman than her body, and she should be referenced as such – preferably by her name. I remember once, when I was briefly seeing a someone who had really big breasts, a friend referred to her as the “big-titted girl.” I almost punched him. Not out of jealousy, but because there was more to her than her breasts.
Filed under: beauty, bitch, chivalry, college women, double standards, Feminism, feminists, image of women, male privilege, men, misogyny, objectification of women, porn industry
I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter if I had fuller breasts and long, golden hair that ran out my head, I wouldn’t make a very nice woman.
It doesn’t matter if you give me a uterus, or different sets of chromosomes, or even if you made me smell nicer, or stay cleaner, I wouldn’t make a nice woman.
Hell, give me my own vagina, with its own well-built system of reproduction and centers of pleasure, and I’d still wouldn’t make a very nice woman.
I know this because I know that by the time I am 12 or 13, I will hate men.
I wouldn’t hate them for their biology; I’d hate them for their ways to looking at me.
I’d hate them for their leery eyes and roaming hands – and the way they refer to me, not by my name, but as “hottie,” “sexy,” “babe,” or a myriad of other nicknames used to objectify me.
I would hate them for blaming my anger and attitude on my being “on the rag,” when in fact it is their ways of treating me that makes me angry.
I would hate that they holler at me as I walk down the street. What, should I come over there, drop my pants and jump their bone?
I would hate that if I bring up anything that makes me upset about them, I am being a whiny bitch.
I would hate them for treating me like a princess, but instantly call me a bitch if I were to turn down their sexual advances.
I would hate them for looking at me at a vehicle for their pleasure, and not as my own complete person.
Even in their compliments, I’d hate them for pre-supposing that just because I am a smart girl, that I am unique.
I’d most definitely have trouble trusting them – for I would never knew if one was genuine, or came from a long line of those trying to get in my pants
I would hate them for not knowing what the word “no” means. It doesn’t mean continuing to pursuit me. It doesn’t mean I am playing coy. It means you’re probably a dumbass and I am not interested in you.
I would hate them for roaming at bars, even when I am talking to my friends, trying to break in to our conversations. Leave me alone! I am here with friends!
I would hate the drinks they offer as a way to “break the ice,” as if somehow I am a prostitute and they are buying my time with drinks
I hate them because they control the media and images of me are distorted to be the way THEY see it
I would hate them because images of my body are spread everywhere – some of which are mutilated, as a way to promote their products
I would hate the porn industry. I would hate the pressure they put on me to act “accordingly.”
I would hate that I cannot be myself, but have to compare myself to unrealistic standards.
I would hate the make-up, the shoes and everything else that I need for a job interview just to be successful.
I would hate that I must always be perfect, but perfection is not good enough. I am encouraged to diet more, look better, lose more weight.
I would hate that I am robbed of all that is me – that I am made out to be what the patriarchy wants me to be. I would hate not being my own person.
But, thankfully, I am not a woman. I am a man, full of privileges and free to live my life as I see fit. I am still raging mad.
I am mad that my friends, sisters, loved ones, potential lovers and future daughters are subjected to shit they’d never think of doing to a man.
I am piss-hot the people I love are viewed as objects and not people.
I am upset that most people don’t empathize with the people I love.
But thankfully, I am a man. If a were a woman, I wouldn’t make a very nice one. By 14, I think I’d be in jail for murder.
Filed under: 3rd wave feminism, 3rd wave feminists, 3rd-wave feminist, Feminism, feminist, feminist allies, feminist relationships, gender roles, male privilege, masculinity, misogyny, power, pro-feminist males
My apogogies for the lack of posting. I’ve been extremely busy, and extremely sick. I am still kind of walking around in a haze, not having eaten since Tuesday because of this really bad flu …
Can I be a feminist and still, at the same time, hold on to my masculinity? I mean, if a female feminist can still cling on to her “womanhood” and be a feminist, why can’t I be the same? If a woman can still wear make-up and high heels and be a feminist, why can’t I be masculine and still be a feminist?
I bring this up because lately, I’ve been charged with not being a feminist because I still enjoy male privilege.
The most serious charge is that I still want power – that in having political ambitions, rather than giving up power, I am clinging on and going after power.
But if I am using such power for something good – feminism, why is it so wrong?
So what if I enjoy a good fight? So what if, upon hearing a Navy guy make an anti-women, anti-feminist comment at the bar, and acting like a misogynist objectifying jackass, I challenge him to a fight? Sure, it’s violence; but it’s violence for feminism?
So what if I enjoy the sense of women (sexually or otherwise) or the taste of beer, or that on Sundays, I am watching football? So what if I love the feeling of being able to shoot my M-16 so accurately that i can hit a target 500 meters away? I am still a feminist.
I can still be tender, loving, caring, and I can still stick by my values and convictions.
To be sure, those who accused me of such are 2nd Wavers, those who live in their own worlds, reject what is reality, and just are “radical.”
I like sex, I like beers, I like violence, I like football, and I still speak out on behalf of human and women’s rights.
I still fall in love I still enjoy wooing women, I still enjoy wearing my heart on my sleeve.
I love being the center of attention. I love power. I love being in control.
But I would never harm, objectifying, hurt, or deny women of their humanly rights.
Why am I not a feminist?
A girl I just spoke to told me one can still be masculine and “manly” and be a good person and a feminist and that I am an example of such.
I shouldn’t give a fuck what the 2nd Wave thinks. But I still need to give up male privilege, as it is how we pro-feminist males are supposed to act.
What am I to do? What’s a guy supposed to do? If I give up masculinity, all that’s in me will be gone. I’d be left with no passion, no drive, no ambition. This is not because it’s what defined me as a man, but it’s because it’s who I am.
I want to be a man, but I still want to be a feminist.
Thoughts?
Filed under: 3rd-wave feminist, dating, Feminism, feminists, gender roles, love, male privilege, masculinity, misogyny, power, pro-feminist males, sexual politics, unrequited love
For the last few weeks, I’ve become more interested in exploring the theories of masculinity in feminism. This came after charges were brought up that I was still hanging on to male privilege – and that my tendency to compete, be violent and even my ambition to grab power and go into politics are signs of male privilege. Because of that, I will be exploring male privilege and masculinity a lot in my notes.
One thing I’ve noticed a lot – sometimes in my own life, but in other men’s lives, is their reaction to a rejection of love – and how, no matter how genuine they were in wanting to get to know someone, a rejection drives them into showing their masculinity.
It is, as if, a rejection of love is a challenge to their “manhood” and masculinity – speaking volumes of their maleness when they are rejected. More over, it also says something – coming from a male perspective, that they’re not manly enough and that they don’t have what it takes.
The rejected man, his ego and self emasculated, takes it upon himself then, to re-energize his manhood. How does he do this? He does this by being a womanizer. This does not always have to be about sex – but sometimes does include it. He has to prove to himself (not to others because the rest of the world probably doesn’t know or doesn’t give a damn) that, much like Stacy’s Mom, he still has it going on.
He has to prove to his close circle of friends that he still has it. That he can still get women – even if it just means them falling for him, and him rejecting them. This reinforces his masculinity and ability to attract women. I am not a fan of evolutionary psychology, but I think that there’s some truths hidden in that idea when mixed with masculinity.
This brings up a paradox: if women are seen as less than men, and if what is “feminine” – or belonging to women – is considered negativity, then why does a man, in his manhood, need a woman to elevate his status and to make him feel good about himself?
The reason I bring this up is that I am beginning to realize that masculinity can hurt us all. It hurts us in that our relationships and interactions aren’t defined by who we truly love or care for, but rather, how does our interaction with that person make us feel? Further, it also opens doors to less-than-desirable relationships, in which the purpose isn’t to nurture and to share and to love, but to boost one’s ego.Also – in such cases, the victims are also the women who fall for men who feel like they need to be with these women to feel boost their masculinity. When come to find out that they’re not in it for the love, but rather, their status, women are hurt.
Moreover – it does make one wonder: did this man want to get into the relationship with the original and supposedly true object of his affection because he truly felt something for her, or was it just to boost his masculinity?
Love, after all, isn’t defined by how you react if your romantic advances are welcomed. It’s how you react if your romantic gestures have been turned down.
Filed under: 3rd wave feminism, anti-pornography, Feminism, Girls Gone Wild, male privilege, misogyny, objectification of women, patriarchy, pornography, pro-feminist males, rape, sex, violence
I’d wanted to write about my recent examination of my own musculinity, violence, the struggle for power and the patriarchy, as a response to claims that I lacked (indeed I do) of self-examination, but I ran across something yesterday, after corresponding about musculinity and violence with Dr. Robert Jensen, a women’s studies professor, that I wanted to write about. More, tomorrow, on my recent discoveries of why my urges to fight for power through violent means are a direct result of male privilege and masculinity. For now, you get this.
As many of you know, I’ve become fascinated with research of pornography and how it effects our daily lives. I was in the middle of research when I found a slideshow that already had the things I was looking for. The link is below – and it’s upsetting.
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=44490EB8214A0657
More than just objectifying women, porn also affects us in ways we’ve never really thought of before – in tells us what is sexy, what is desirable, and more importantly, how women should be viewed.
With porn, women are no longer seen as whole, complete people with feelings and minds, but rather, a vehicle for men’s pleasure. If we can separate fantasy from reality, is it wrong? The problem is when it starts becoming that prevelant in our culture, it’s hard to tell.
We start to buy into these ideas, and as a result, two things happen: women are harmed, in that they are seen as sex objects, and will become subjects of harrassments, bad relationships, and worst, rape.
Secondly, it doesn’t allow us to truly love one another – because we see our partners through the pornographic lense – they are all resemblences of what the porn industry portrays.
I have to admit – even as a pro-feminist male, I’ve gotten into the mindset of (in the past) women with whom I’d like to have sex, and women for whom I feel an affinity, and would like to know as a person. It’s the slut vs. good girls syndrome, and it pits women against one another.
The thing that most saddens me about porngraphy is that no one is spared. As you can see in this slide show, whether you are college student, school teacher, mother, wife, black, white, Asian, Latina – so long as you’re a woman, you are objectified.
Sex, no matter how kinky, is beautiful when it comes with respect and love. But these sex acts, especially when it comes with describing women as bitches, whores, dumb sluts and other adjectives, I have a problem with that. It’s hurtful, and it does not treat women as equals.
Feminism isn’t about just freedom to do whatever the hell we want. It’s the ability to free us all – from oppression, from a violent, male-dominated culture, from the social norms that have hurt us rather than free us
Filed under: 3rd wave feminism, dating, feminist allies, feministing, feminists, Human Sexuality, Jessica Valenti, loser men, misogyny, objectification of women, real dolls, relationships, sex, sex toys, sexuality
Over at Jessica Valenti’s feministing.com, a discussion regarding Charlie Sheen and Real Life dolls are taking place – and I couldn’t help but do it as well.
I found this both amusing and a little creepy – so I thought I’d share it, since it is Friday and things ought to be lighthearted.
Now, I am all for sex aide or sex toys or whatever you want to use to enhance your sex lives, but this is pretty weird (www.realdoll.com). It’s a life-size doll made of silicon and latex and crap that feels real, and is used as sex partners for (mostly men) who otherwise wouldn’t be getting any action.
It comes with a built-in skeleton as to allow the owner to put it into any position desired. There’s also an MP3 player that’ll make the doll moan and such …I guess in this case, the only “button” to push to turn her on is …well, the “on” button. It also comes with a heating system that’ll bring the doll’s temperature up to 98.6 degrees.
The intent of this, for many men, of course is to get the perfect partner without having to do the leg work. It’s all the “sex” you want without ever hearing no, or having to hear her talk or negotiate mutually pleasurable activities.
Nevermind the fact that every person has some sort of a short-coming and no one is perfect. In this fantasy world for these men, women will behave whoever they want, look as good as they want, without any of the reality of what a woman really is.
As one man says of the dolls: “For the most part, it’s just like sex with an organic woman…who doesn’t say anything and is brimful of Quaaludes.” I don’t know what the rest of the quote meant, but one can stop after the word “anything” and know what kinds of people these men are.
But it gets worst! Some of these dolls are made into the shapes of teenagers or sometimes even younger. What’s going to be included in the MP3 player, a soundbite of the doll singing the Barney song?
From a feminist perspective, it’s probably a good thing, because so long as they have their robotic lovers, these men won’t be going out and trying to mate with women. Results? No babies! Honestly, because people like these shouldn’t be raising kids.
Another point, too, is that this quite effectively ends the debate of whether women are golddiggers and will only have sex with rich men. If these guys are shelling out $10,000 for a doll, they’re pretty rich, okay? So, why are they having to buy a doll instead of just courting one of those “golddiggers?” Oh, yeah, because golddigers don’t exist – only men using that idea as an excuse for not getting laid.
Thoughts?
Filed under: 3rd wave feminism, dating, Feminism, feminists, loser men, misogyny, relationships, women as objects
One of the signs the guy you’re dating is a loser? He’s possessive!
Last night, I had a girl I had a thing with this summer come over to watch “The Death of a President” with a couple of friends, and she brought the guy she’s dating over. At first, he seemed pretty cool, and we drank wine and hung out and all until the movie was over.
He was on the couch, she was laying on the floor and I was sitting on the floor. So, bored, I started tossing a bottle cap at her face and we started playing catch with it. I then started very platonically stroking her face and the back of her hand (I do that to all my close female friends and former objects of affections).
The next thing I knew, he stormed out of the house. She called him to see what was going on, and he was screaming on the phone, telling her that I was flirting with her and was afraid I might take her away from him.
WTF! My God, she’s now a friend and I was only showing her affection and entertaining her! This dude thought, for some reason, we were going to jump on the couch and have sex like rabbits or something. This is even despite the fact that I spoke about having interest in other girl!
What’s wrong with these men who are so possesive of the women they’re dating that they’re not allowed to have other guy friends? It’s fucking crazy! Jesus freaking Christ!
And you know what else? They’re not really officially an item and this guy is already acting like this. I don’t understand it. Some men think that just because they’re dating a girl means that they’re supposed to cut off contact with all their guy friends.
I don’t know — maybe I intimidate some men, making them think I am going to steal their women! But you know what, there’s a reason she’s a thing of the past — and it’s that she didn’t make the check list! So, why would I want her again? She’s a good friend, just like all the women in my past, and that’s it!
Why, God, why do these guys get so possesive?
Filed under: 3rd wave feminism, 3rd wave feminists, college women, dating, drinking, drunk women, Feminism, feminists, getting laid, misogyny, objectification of women, pro-feminist males, women's studies
She used a pay phone to call some other friends to pick her up. Her plan was to stay there until her friends came, although she wasn’t even sure if her friends got the message.
So I offered her a place to stay in my apartment. “Look, my roommate is gay, and I am a feminist. It makes no sense for you to stay here alone until someone comes to get you. It’s not safe.”
She called her friends back with my contact info, and followed us home …only to be picked up a few minutes later.
The next day, she called to thank me, and suggested that we go out for drinks.
A friend who was with me at the time of the incident looked at me and said, “Marc, I am onto you. You’re just like the rest of them, with the feminist cover. You’re a wolf in sheep skin.”
I took that personally. As a pro-feminist male, I shouldn’t get a fucking cookie for being such, but I don’t like my integrity and convictions questioned, either — especially by my friend, who is quite the objectifyer of women.
Just because I offered a pretty girl a place to stay doesn’t mean I am trying to fuck her. I don’t need a girl to be drunk to earn her affection and attention. I don’t need to lie to a girl to get laid. I don’t need to take advantage of a situation to get a girl to jump my bone.
If I were accused of having hidden motives by women, I’d totally understand …when one group has been oppressed by other group for their entire lives, they have the right to be cynical of unlikely allies. But when another guy, who often sees women as nothing but potential fuck objects, questions my intentions, I have a problem with that.
Has anyone had similar experiences? Should I kick this guy in the head?
America's Next Bill Clinton! 