America’s Next Bill Clinton!


My problem with so-called “Radical” feminism.
December 26, 2007, 7:02 pm
Filed under: 2nd-wave feminism, 3rd wave feminism, Feminism, liberal feminism, social justice

I am taking this off for now, so I can properly write an entry without seeming as though I am attacking the Radicals.



Christmas, women and objectification
I am at a bar. I frequent bars. I like to drink. A but how can I continue doing something I enjoy when I can see so much sexism at such establishments? How do I turn a blind eye and just continue to drink? How do I go on without asking if I am part of the problems as the customer?

I am not talking about the interaction between men and women at the bars. That’s a whole discussion on its own.

What I am talking about is dressing up women in costumes, as to be pleasing for men.

At my bar tonight the servers, who are all women, are dressed up hot Santa costumes, and as you may have guessed, without pants of course. Rather, they’re wearing a little skimpy something or other to cover up.
Why is it that women’s bodies are always changed from what they are intended for – nurturing, loving and all those things that come to us naturally, into something of a commodity? Why does it always have to be on displayed, to be sold and bought, to be gawked at, to be turned from belonging to a woman, to a mere object of pleasure.

Just because a woman looks tasty does not mean you have to treat her like a piece of meat. Sure, she has a choice as to where to work, but the sooner she says no to wearing certain clothes, she would be terminated. And my dear readers, can you guess the sex of the manager? Do you have to guess?

I can just easily walk out but instead I stay put. I want to say something but I would come across as a freak. Even feminist activists need days off. Today is mine. But I feel guilty. How do I not say something? If I do, what will it change? More important, I love sex, but why do we need to sell sex? Why can’t sex be something we do without having it to be unequal and so demeaning to women?



The sexism of 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 … 



CNN: Bad kissers don’t get to second base …
December 3, 2007, 8:57 pm
Filed under: bad kissers, CNN, college, dating, kissing, making out, sex

I am sorry that this story has no feminist connection, but I am rolling on the floor (well, I was) laughing – I cannot believe this story made CNN’s headlines!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/12/03/bad.kissers/index.html

The gist of it is that after the first date, even if you are attracted to someone, that person does not get a second date if that person is considered a bad kisser.

A quote that stands out – and quite funny, is below.

“I knew this girl that I’ll call Big Tongue,” recalls Craig Hinkle, 38, a Westminster, California-based network administrator. “Her tongue was massive, and she insisted on trying to put the entire thing in my mouth. She was very forceful with it, and I started choking.”

To think, that guy is from the city I graduated high school in!

According to the article – men and women have different motives for kissing. For men, it’s a means to achieve the end – namely sexual access, whereas women use kissing as a way to assess compatibility through their partners’ saliva and breath.

I don’t know about all that – but I am guessing they’re talking about actual make-out kissing and not a quick peck on the lips. Still, the idea that I am kissed just to get a sample of my saliva is kind of freaky.

Here’s another potential problem with the article: sure, kisses are used to assess partners – but after they’re a couple, doesn’t a kiss just serve two purposes – one, namely to express affection, and two, to get the partner warmed up for sexual intimacy?

Believe it or not, there are “kissing classes,” in which people are taught how to properly kiss …I guess it gives a home meaning to being a teacher’s pet …although some teachers, you just might not want to kiss.

Lastly, the article also talks about certain techniques – like the vacuum techniques …which I am sure everyone knows about. But the one thing that it didn’t mention, and is a particular favorite of mine, is the literal sucking of the lips …in short, she’s got my top lip, I’ve got her bottom lip, and I gently suck …although once, I broke a girl’s lip vessel doing it. Kids, don’t try that one at home, in the car, or anywhere else without consulting me first, please.

Thoughts the article overall?