What We Should Teach In Sex Ed:

This might be my favorite American Dad clip of all time... and I'm a pretty big fan. It's just such a good example of what safe sex should be.




Now, obviously Steve should not be having sex, no matter how safe he is regarding the "wang shriveling sex diseases" his mom tells him about during bath time. Sleeping in a race car bed is a sure sign that you are not yet mature enough for sexual relations. However, when he is older (which likely won't happen - as he is a cartoon), he will certainly be prepared for safe sex practices.

Why Women Don't Like One-Night-Stands

and why that's a silly thing to research in the first place....

The online journal Human Nature has published an article by a professor at Durham University in the UK, Anne Campbell regarding her research on the emotional impact of one night stands. The article "The Morning after the Night Before" suggests that women are not enjoying one night stands as much as men are enjoying this. An article on the research quotes Campbell as saying "Evolution often acts through positive or negative emotions which draw us towards adaptive behaviours or drives us away from harmful ones." What she means by that is since women are experiencing negative emotions about this fleeting sexual encounter, it is evolution's way of telling you not to do it.

Or... society's. The research showed that 80% of the men studied ("a total of 1743 men and women who had experienced a one-night stand were asked to rate both their positive and negative feelings the following morning, in an internet survey.") rated the experience overall as positive, whereas only 54% of the women rated it overall as positive.

But here are some other things to ponder:
- Men were more likely to want their friends to hear about it
- Men were more likely to feel successful because their sexual partner was desirable
- The predominant negative feeling by women was a sense of being "used"
- Women were more likely to worry about damage to their reputation
- Women found the experience less sexually satisfying
- Women DID NOT view this encounter as a prelude to long term relationships

Campbell said "What the women seemed to object to was not the briefness of the encounter but the fact that the man did not seem to appreciate her. The women thought this lack of gratitude implied that she did this with anybody."

That doesn't sounds like evolution to me (well, maybe the less sexually satisfying part... but that could also be a reflection of the societal effects as well). REPUTATION is part of the socially constructed gender roles. Perhaps the woman would feel better about the encounter if she didn't have to worry about being called a slut or a whore when she is wearing the same clothes in the morning as she wore the night before. Maybe if she wasn't concerned about the social ramifications of such actions, she could speak up in bed to tell her fleeting partner to slow down a little bit or to touch her right there, yes right there.

Also, perhaps if we took away the bragging rights from the men... they might not have such a high rate. Sure, still pretty high, because we all love sex, but if guilt and social branding as dirty and unclean were associated with this, perhaps it would be more like 75%.

I guess what I'm saying is, sure, women are less likely than men to enjoy one-night-stands, but that doesn't mean that women don't/can't enjoy casual sex. It just means that sex is more enjoyable for the woman when the man has a vested interest in pleasuring her instead of himself. Otherwise, she's better off by herself.

Involuntary Personal Protein Spill

Like everyone else, I've been enjoying youtube posts of the late George Carlin. This one is my favorite:



Interestingly enough, "an unwilling sperm recipient" is quite topical considering the judge who censored the words "rape" "victim" and "sexual assault."

But really I love it because of the concept of softening language is central to my general confusion in life. We fail to describe things directly so that we can create a grandiose illusion (partly cloudy becomes partly sunny... because it is the sun that varies, right). The illusion might make some people feel better, but mostly it helps people hide reality. Maybe it isn't my business to force reality on everyone else, but it certainly isn't fair that I have to live in this language fog. I guess what I'm saying is all I want is a little accurate, direct conversation... just so I can figure out what you are talking about.

Also... What do Freedom Fighters fight?

What Bumper Stickers Tell You

Be on alert for cars with...
bumper stickers!

Drivers who have bumper stickers on their cars are more likely to display aggressive behavior behind the wheel. According to a Washington Post article by Shankar Vedantam:

"That's the surprising conclusion of a recent study by Colorado State University social psychologist William Szlemko. Drivers of cars with bumper stickers, window decals, personalized license plates and other "territorial markers" not only get mad when someone cuts in their lane or is slow to respond to a changed traffic light, but they are far more likely than those who do not personalize their cars to use their vehicles to express rage -- by honking, tailgating and other aggressive behavior."

Further...

"Szlemko and his colleagues at Fort Collins found that people who personalize their cars acknowledge that they are aggressive drivers, but usually do not realize that they are reporting much higher levels of aggression than people whose cars do not have visible markers on their vehicles."

Fascinating, isn't it?

The psychologists studying this are relating it to territorial behavior and bumper stickers to territorial markings, which may be true; I'm not a psychologist.

Personally, I always thought of it as a need for attention, which may be the same as being territorial (like I said... not a psychologist). It just seems like the desire to convert individuals to your belief in creationism or evolution while driving said a little more about you than how we just happen to be able to find a very clear line of adaptation through fossils (but, you know, whatev).

And one could argue that I am somewhat similar, as I post my thoughts into the great void of the internet... so surely I am an attention seeker myself. While I have a great desire to argue that I am using my own words rather than
or that I am seeking a greater conversation rather than the ability to make not entirely accurate declarations about myself

I feel more inclined to say

Marriage "Penalty": Tax Rates on Lifestyle Choices

While attending a fundraiser for a Republican US Senate candidate last night, the issue of the "marriage penalty" came up. I, apparently, made a facial expression that indicated my displeasure, which was noticed by my companion. Later, after the event I explained my distaste for calling this a "marriage penalty."

In 1948 Congress created the joint filing status for married couples, which taxed the joint income at a half the rate of those who file as single earners. The purpose of this was to create equity between states with different rules about income between married couples (which, to me, seems like a state issue). It basically resulted in a system where two people could work exactly the same job and hours, for exactly the same pay, but one person would be taxed twice as much because he/she did not have a spouse, even if the person had a family to support.

In 1951, a special rate was created for single head-of-households, which was about half the difference of the rate of joint filers and single filers. Finally, by 1969, Congress changed the rate of single filers to have a rate that progressed slower than twice as much as the married couples, but not as slow as the married couples filing jointly or the single heads of households.

The marriage penalty is basically the fact that, in order to encourage joint filing, a married person is not allowed to file as a single earner. They can choose between “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately.” However, the married filing separately is at a higher rate than even the single filer. In marriages where both spouses earn equitable amounts, they are paying more taxes than if they were single. On the flip side, if only one spouse works or if there is a great disparity between the incomes, this can actually produce a marriage bonus (which is when an income has less tax than a single filer).

So – the hierarchy of slowest progressive tax rates is: married couple filing jointly, non-married head of household, single person, and then married filing separately. What does this mean? Two things: 1) Our government places different values on economic choices based on the lifestyle choices we make 2) That different value extends to the choices within a marriage.

The reason for this marriage penalty is this tiered system of progressive tax rates which was intended to benefit married couples, who at the time it was created, were likely to have a one-income household. Now, as we increasingly see (and need, in many families) two income households, the benefit has turned into a penalty because we continue to hold this one type of marriage in a protected status.

I didn’t hear from this candidate how he proposes to fix the “marriage penalty” but I hope it involves creating a new system that is more equitable for all taxpayers, regardless of marital status or other life choices.

Gay Marriage Shows Straight People that Equality is Good For Relationships! (The End is Neigh)

Whoda thunk? I mean, since pre-K we were only socialized our whole lives to interact primarily with our own genders ("Boys line to the left! Girls line to the right!").

The New York Times thrilled me chilled me this morning by running this lovely little article: "Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage," made extra lovely because this is the same newspaper that ran "Gay, Straight, Or Lying: Bisexuality Revisited," in 2005 which was a shoddy study even if you agreed with it.

This was, by far, my favorite part (also happens to be the meat and potatoes of the entire article)-

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther D. Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.”

Other studies show that what couples argue about is far less important than how they argue. The egalitarian nature of same-sex relationships appears to spill over into how those couples resolve conflict.

The article concludes that these "findings" (I use scare quotes because all 'they' ever had to do was ask) carry hope for heterosexual couples as well. Previously, a lot of the roots of relationship discord have been assumed to be gender-based, you know the old, "Wo/Men-are-{insert unattractive behavior here}-because-they-evolved-that-way-on-the-savanna-and-estrogen/testosterone-and-stuff,-so-there," but if gay couples have LESS of these sorts of problems, or even the SAME problems, then obviously that cannot be the case.

...which means that there is no excuse for "gender stereotypical" behavior that adversely affects a relationship.

...which means, I think, that we can spread the "relationship-care-taking" -which frequently falls to the women- around a lot more between genders, which will be better for everybody.

...and quit with the assumptions all ready.

Intersectionality

I am always so happy to see reflections of my own thoughts in the popular media. Through an article and an online discussion with the Washington Post, Linda Hirshman discussed intersectionality in the feminist movement. Now I understand that Ms. Hirshman may be considered a polarizing figure, but I found her discussion particularly refreshing. I now have a name for something that I found to be a hindrance in my support of the feminist movement.

Intersectionality, as I've come to understand through wikipedia, is the theory that categories or labels such as gender, race, economic status, or religion are interconnected in the way in which a person is viewed in society. To this, I say: obviously. Each individual is a complex collection of various perceptions and identities that form a complete person. However, this concept is used in social movements to combine issues, which results in the feminist movement being concerned about not just womens issues, but poverty, racism, the environment, and many other issues that are not solely related to women.

I don't want to label myself a feminist and have a good portion of the general public (feminists included) assume that this means I'm a socialist. Quite frankly, socialism seems at odds with my understanding of female independence and empowerment. I absolutely would like to change government rules that are oppressive or biased against women (my initial thought is military involvement). I absolutely do NOT want to change the laws to FAVOR women. That is not equality.

What I don't understand is why we can't focus on one aspect of the human experience. As feminists, we could focus on feminine issues. Any particular feminist could then also focus on sexual orientation issues. Another one could focus on race issues. But, when we all get together for our big feminist meetings, we could focus on issues that are solely related to women.

For example, issues on the NOW homepage include Hillary Clinton, Transgender rights, a "love your body" contest, marriage, contraceptives, and home foreclosures. My question is, what do transgender rights and home foreclosures have to do with women? The vast majority of women are not transgendered and likely can not relate. As far as the home foreclosures, sure the majority of people loosing their homes are likely to be women, but are they loosing their homes BECAUSE they are women or are they loosing their homes because of other issues that might be associated with being a woman? If it is because of other issues (poor financial planning, poverty, ignorance about predatory lending) that happen to be associated, we need to find ways to prevent those situations (education). We do not need to bail them out of bad economic decisions.

Clearly, this could be an unpopular view/critique of the feminist movement, so I would like to end this post recognizing the hard work of feminists with the more standard view. In Ms. Hirshman's article, she referenced several prominent feminists, including Feministing.com's Jessica Valenti. Ms. Valenti was noted as a proponent of intersectionality and a blogger on Feministing has responded to this article and discussion. While I would disagree on any suggestion that intersectionality should be a central aspect to any social movement that is labeled as under a specific category, I do respect and truly appreciate the work of Ms. Valenti and all the bloggers at Feministing.

"I'm not a feminist but..."

Seems that I've heard that a lot this week- maybe it's because of the season. Most of it's the usual, girls skipping school on the metro: "I'm not a feminist but I wasn't going to take that from him, so I dumped him," or from young sassy professors, "I'm not a feminist but that Sor Juana..." (makes power fist). So unto them, I say, rock on- we need more people like you, people who establish conditions of worth and appreciate clever, courageous women. After that point, whether you consider yourself a feminist or not is immaterial to me. (Though I'm always tempted to ask what is so un-feminist about them...)

The "not a feminist but" theme continued when Fembot sent me this post: "A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly", by 'Allecto' which is a passionate shake down of the short-lived series 'Firefly' by the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Now, my own (overwhelmingly positive) personal feelings about the show/Whedon aside, I had issues with this critique, because I felt it missed some major points both about the show and about it's context within "television" (that whole, one, season). I'll admit I have a hard time with this TV critique in general because it assumes that television is 'supposed' to spread progressive/healthful/life-women-soul-etc. affirming messages, and I can't for the life of me wrap my head around the basis for that assumption. ...but I also don't watch television (I just discovered Boston Legal on Netflix) so there you go. As for her criticisms of the show itself... well, in a nutshell, she writes:

"...Kaylee is chatting to them, happily. Jayne asks Mal to get Kaylee to stop being so cheerful. Mal replies, “Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month.” Yes, that is an exact quote, “Sometimes you just wanna DUCT TAPE HER MOUTH and DUMP HER IN THE HOLD FOR A MONTH.” Kaylee responds by grinning and giving Mal a kiss on the cheek and saying, “I love my Captain.”

Allecto presents Kaylee as a woman cheerfully accepting her abuse. In the context of the Firefly universe, I think its one of the many, many times the men get mouthy and women see it for the vacant noise it is and respond accordingly. Allecto dose point out that the men of Firefly speak much more then the women. She reports: "Men: 458 Women: 175. So throughout the first episode men talk more than two and a half times as much as women do. And women talk mainly in questions whereas men talk in statements. Basically, this means that men direct the action and are active participants whereas women are merely observers and facilitators." ...which I think could be a much more valid criticism of Joss Whedon's feminism.

Of course, the main character of Firefly is a man- I'm not going to count sentences in the seven seasons of Buffy, but I'd be willing to bet five whole dollars that women got more declarative talk time then men in that long running series.

Anyway, I read some of her other blog posts (sharing her doubts about Gardasil)... and... what do you know- Allecto's "not a feminist but" too!

"My name is feminist no longer. .... But I am woman. I am whole AS I AM. I am equal TO MYSELF. I am hand in hand with Darkness. Manifesting goddess. Hecate of the Underworld, Kali of Chaos, Spider-Woman, who weaves the Earth, Afrekete, the Unruly, Eingana, the Serpent mother, life and death. Who are you Athena? Why do you seek equality with those who hate you? Why do you seek equality with him that harms? When you are Goddess, when Our Dark Mother calls, why do you seek comfort from Dionysus? How do you answer Zeus Almighty, when he calls?"

So I'm right with her on the first bit-- woman: you are whole as you are. From a biological standpoint, the 'X' chromosome is the ground zero of humanity, most of everything that is important and healthful is stored there alone, and psychologically, a person can only fix/heal/accept themselves... But then it falls apart at the "why do you seek equality with those who hate you" bit, which is her criticism of what she calls "candyfloss" (Athena's) feminism.

Because I don't think feminism... or at least my feminism... is about 'seek[ing] equality with him that harms'. Equal entitlement under the law, absolutely, but not 'equality'.

Because that would be backsliding.

Think about it- in contemporary America, females outperform males in virtually every academic arena where it matters (except geometry), and our world in increasingly becoming more information-oriented. My man will always be able to carry a bigger gazelle then I can, but there is nothing about my inferior muscle development that will inhibit me from pitching a lucrative marketing campaign. Little girls, from at least my generation onwards have been raised with the assumption that they can do anything- they can be president- while little boys are still told that they aren't allowed to cry.

So for me- I'd I bet a lot of the "I'm not a feminist but" women out there- my feminism isn't about "achieving" equality to men. It's about encouraging men to achieve equality to women. Because it's lonely at the top. Because we're all in this together (whether we like it or not- and I'm not even saying we all have to like it). Because these are my brothers and friends and lovers and cousins. Because Sor Juana (my new celebrity crush) wrote: "Either love those you create,
Or create those you can love," and creating those I can love -male and female and etc.- sounds like a pretty solid option.

I'm going to end this with another quote from Allecto, which mirrors the sentiment I started with. "Honestly, I couldn’t care less what other women call themselves. It is what they do that counts."

(Kali in union.)

"It's a great feeling to be admired by your lady!"

Yuck. That's how I feel about this new abstinence publication from the Human Life Alliance. The magazine, geared toward middle school and high school students, is all about abstinence.

"This extremely marketable, cutting edge magazine will cause your friends to want to get their own copy. The colorful graphics will catch their attention, and the thought provoking stories and facts on the inside will challenge them to change the way they think about sex outside of marriage."

Just for Girls/Just for Guys is all about why its super great to wait until marriage for sex. I got through the girls side, and while I disliked it, it seemed pretty run of the mill offensive. However, the guy's side made me stop right in my reading track and write this post. It says:

"Not as long as there are guys out there that want to fight the 'dragon' of sexual temptation while their ladies watch in wonder and admiration. It is a great feeling to be admired by your lady."

To the side of this pep talk for the battle against sexual temptation (which apparently I should admire) is a section called "Say What?! Translation Please!"

"She says, 'Do you respect me?'
He hears, 'blah blah blah...'
She means, 'Do you really care about me or do you just want sex?'"

Seriously? She asks about respect, he hears blah blah blah, and all she really means is sex? Well then, she might as well have said blah blah blah because respect is a a WHOLE LOT more than just whether he wants you for sex or not.

It just gets worst from there, but that - that kind of sexist garbage, that's why men and women have screwed up relationships. Instead of "Translation Please!" lets focus on real communication and honest respect.

Finally, STOP all this marriage talk! Children shouldn't be saying "I'm waiting for my husband." They should be saying "I'm not ready to have sex yet." It isn't about waiting until marriage, it is waiting until you are mature enough to make a responsible decision. These abstinence people need to let our kids grow up before we force them into life long commitments... with partners they probably haven't even met yet.

Eatin' Me Some Hungry Man...

This could be a "Masculinity Studies" class in less then one minute, with a little bit of commentary why women live longer. I especially love how Swanson, easily at forefront of the frozen dinners industries' secret agenda to subvert gender assumptions portrays the "manly man" as cattily judgemental and a snot to boot. I bet he called all his other hungry-manfriends as soon as the three "ladies" went to the bathroom together to tell them all about it.

Thanks Feministing for this clip!

Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz: a Colonial Feminist Poet-Nun

Sor (Sister) Juana may have the distinction of being the first feminist of the Americas. All of them. Born in 1648 to a Spanish family in Mexico Juana was a hyper intellectual who became a nun in order to maintain her studies as much as possible. Her reputation as a feminist is derived from her many letters, essays and poems in which she defends women's entitlement/ability to education and worth as human beings.

In her famous redondilla "Hombres Necios" ("Stubborn Men") she criticizes men for imposing a double standard of morality upon women, allowing men to have their cake and eat it too as the women's expense. To put this in historical context, in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and by the 1650's women were sick of their behavior. To speak against the establishment at this time was an often mortal act, and to be an outspoken woman, in any way shape or form took incredible courage.

The following is "Hombres Necios," translated here as "Arraignment of the Men," ...as you can see, it hasn't gone off in the past 360 years.

Arraignment of the Men

Males perverse, schooled to condemn

Women by your witless laws,

Though forsooth you are prime cause

Of that which you blame in them:

If with unexampled care

You solicit their disdain,

Will your fair words ease their pain,

When you ruthless set the snare?

Their resistance you impugn,

Then maintain with gravity

That it was mere levity

Made you dare to importune.

. . . . . . . .

What more elevating sight

Than of man with logic crass,

Who with hot breath fogs the glass,

Then laments it is not bright!

Scorn and favor, favor, scorn,

What you will, result the same,

Treat you ill, and earn your blame,

Love you well, be left forlorn.

Scant regard will she possess

Who with caution wends her way,—

Is held thankless for her “nay,”

And as wanton for her “yes.”

. . . . . . . .

What must be the rare caprice

Of the quarry you engage:

If she flees, she wakes your rage,

If she yields, her charms surcease.

. . . . . . . .

Who shall bear the heavier blame,

When remorse the twain enthralls,

She, who for the asking, falls,

He who, asking, brings to shame?

Whose the guilt, where to begin,

Though both yield to passion's sway,

She who weakly sins for pay,

He who, strong, yet pays for Sin?

Then why stare ye, if we prove

That the guilt lies at your gate?

Either love those you create,

Or create those you can love.

To solicitation truce,—

Then, sire, with some show of right

You may mock the hapless plight

Or the creatures of your use!

—Peter H. Goldsmith (translator)

More information may be found at the Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz Project.