A very interesting, important, and well written post from Feministing.com about the issues surrounding the up coming revision of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-R).

dsm-grows

Raymond Blanchard has some proposals for expanding the “paraphilia” section including naming anything outside of “genital stimulation or preparatory fondling” as a disorder.  Also included is changing “Transvestic Fetishism” to “Transvestic Disorder” – specifically if you are a heterosexual, cisgender male.

Another frightening aspect of Blanchard’s proposal is that any sexual interest other than “genital stimulation or preparatory fondling” is now, by definition, a paraphilia. In his presentation, he claimed that paraphilias should include all “erotic interests that are not focused on copulatory or precopulatory behaviors, or the equivalent behaviors in same-sex adult partners.” Copulatory is defined as related to coitus or sexual intercourse (i.e., penetration sex). So, essentially, all forms of sexual arousal and expression that are not centered around penetration sex may now be considered paraphilias.

These suggetions only further gender and sexual stereotypes that hinder and shame the sexual experiences and gender identities of everyone.   Please read the post linked to above and become aware of this important current issue.

Since classes let out, I have been spending some much needed quality time sleeping, getting back in touch with loved ones, and catching up on my television consumption.  In my moments of T.V. zoning out I have been running across my nemesis, commercials.  Over the years my partner and I have got into the habit of muting commercials so as to avoid the inane chatter, however, the imagery still sneaks through and gets me angry.

skinny-cow

The most recent inanity is a product line called “The Skinny Cow“.   This is a line of ice cream diet products that boast low calories and high flavor all part of a diet product crazed media that makes (mainly) women recall that they should always be on a diet because they are never good enough.

When I saw the mascot for these products, I just about fell over.  It isn’t good enough that the product is called “Skinny Cow” – I’m sure meant to link images of dairy products (that we all know are full of Evil Fat) to weight loss – but their mascot is, in fact, a skinny cow!  Now, to me this seems to epitomize what weight loss culture is all about – skinny, under-weight, unhealthy, emaciated bodies.

“The Skinny Cow” is meant to remind the consumer that skinny is sexy, healthy, acceptable and to not think about what a real skinny cow would look like:

2417348-emaciated-cow-0

I am just so sick of the message upon message that tells women they are not good enough until they are a certain clothing size or body image.

As has been mentioned in a previous post, women are the ones who spend much of their time thinking about food for themselves and their families and so commercials are directed at them.  These media representations and messages remind women over and over again that food is some kind of enemy.  These “Skinny Cow” products are framed as if they are a help to women, but what they are really telling people is that regular ice cream is not good for you, but their product is and that is because this product won’t Turn Against You and your forever diet.

Why are women regulated to eating “fake” food, or less food?  I am currently reading Carol Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat where she discusses how in times of scarcity, women (including pregnant and breastfeeding women) are the ones who give up meat and larger food portions to men with whatever is left over going to children.  It seems that women are the ones who sacrifice themselves for any number of dietary causes including the Western Social ideal of “skinniness”.

So I ask you, when are we going to get images of “Healthy Cows”?  And when are we going to be happy with those images?  Is it possible in a media driven society that values zero fat and how might we envision that possibility?

cow

For now, I ask everyone to rethink that guilt reflex that comes from eating the “wrong” food and to feel proud in eating.  Food fuels us, brings us together, celebrates with us, and we experience food.

Now I’m hungry, I’m going to go and experience a sandwich.

After a feminist rant from a friend about the film “He’s Just Not That Into You“, I decided to put myself through the certain torment of watching this film based on a book based on a line from a hit TV show.

Thank God for Rational Men or else nothing would ever get done... am I right?

Thank God for Rational Men or else nothing would ever get done... am I right?

Over the last few years this book has been recommended to me and I have heard it’s praises sung by women who are so glad to have been told “how it is.”  This book is held up as some kind of Holy book filled with spiritual mantras to repeat to ones feminine brain when it becomes too laborious to think for ones self (as all Emotional Women have experienced from time to time).

If He’s Not Calling You… He’s Just Not that Into You.

If He’s Not Sleeping With You…He’s Just Not that Into You.

If He Doesn’t Want to Marry You… (everyone now!) He’s Just Not that Into You.

I have several problems with this book and now movie.  To begin with,  my personal opinion is that popular culture self help books are crap (I’m looking at you Dr. Phil).  They are written by people who are making piles of cash off of your personal suffering and are in no way held accountable for the information they provide.

Second, these types of books are written in broad terms to apply to as many people as possible.  They are like those online quizzes that claim they can tell you deep secrets about yourself based on what colours you choose and in what order you choose them.  The results are so sweeping that everyone can find something in the resulting paragraph that relates to themselves and so they believe that the internet quiz is the only thing that truly knows them, even better than they know themselves.

My main problem with this title rests outside the genre of self-help and falls heavily on the fact that “He’s Just Not That Into You” relies on one pillar of Capital “T” Truth,  Men are Rational and Women are Emotional.  This brand of essentialism has divided women and men for centuries and in that essentialism Rational Men are superior to the inferior Emotional Women.  The authors of this book claim that they wrote it to help women but it seems their idea of help has more to do with putting down women and their intelligence than talking about communication with potential partners.

I found an excerpt online where in author Greg Behrendt replies to women’s (clearly made up) letters.  One woman, Nikki, tells Greg that he is silly for telling women that they shouldn’t call men because she has called men all the time and sees nothing wrong with it.  Greg proceeds to put her down, tell her she is wrong, throw in the age old “Men are pursuers, you are emasculating them by calling” story and then gets a woman, co-author Liz Tuccillo, to back him up.

Cute.

Is this advice suppose to make me feel bad about myself?

Is this advice suppose to make me feel bad about myself?

Before I start choking on my own rage lets try to wrap a few things up.

I have to ask, why is this book hiding behind a message of empowering women when it is really insulting them and teaching them nothing about how to be communicating individuals who are confident in their needs, desires, and pleasures?

Also, why are men not being encouraged to be communicating individuals who are confident in their needs, desires, and pleasures?  In the movie the only advice given to a man about how a woman is treating him involves two gay men explaing how “gay signals” work before telling him to “man up” and take charge of that little lady.  After all, women just want to be dominated don’tcha know?

Instead this book and this film, encourage essentialist views on gender that state men “just are a certain way” and women need to learn that and adapt to it.  Why are women the ones who need to change?  Why are women the ones who have it wrong and need to learn from men how to get “it” right?

I call bull-shit on the tired notion that Rational Men need to teach Emotional Women how to better serve men.  Because that is what it really comes down to.  This is not about women’s fulfillment or relationship health, “He’s Just Not That Into You” is about molding women into passive, un-intelligent, play things.

I can understand it though… because I mean, really, if Emotional Women started thinking for themselves, who knows what they might try to do…

hillary-clinton-10

hooks

votes-women

01

feminism

I am going to try and get back on board for this blog and my first order of business was updating the banner and layout.  I’m rather proud of it if I do say so myself.  And so the second order of business would be to write a post with some substance to it.  I have been mulling over what I could possibly write about including items from my personal life, information from class, or just hitting up an idea from another blog.

I have opted for an intersection of the first and last of the ideas on the list.

Over at Jezebel there is a post asking if Women Bear the Burden of Ethical Eating.  In the last few years there has been a growing focus on organics, veg*nism, and local food with such books at the 100 Mile Diet.  Such dietary choices are presented for everyone alike and yet the question must be asked, who is at the forefront of this movement?  Are women and men alike jumping on board with ethical eating or are women disproportionately dealing with ethical food choices?

I would argue that women are, indeed, disproportionately those most concerned with ethical eating.  This, of course, does not mean that there are not men who are passionate about ethical eating, but I think we can agree that in general women are still the ones spending the most time with food for themselves and their families.

There is an overabundance of cooking television channels and shows that are directed at women as the provider of sustenance for her family.  Our media tells us that Mom has difficulty finding time to cook and so has microwave meals or KFC’s “Mom’s Night Off” to help her out.

And so I do think that there is a gender gap in ethical eating.  Women are spending the time thinking about veg*n lifestyles, organic fruit and vegetables, or providing food locally produced.

On a personal note, I have seen this in my own life as I have always been the one more concerned about healthy eat and implementing it.  In part this is because, being a girl child, I have had a lot of practice thinking about food starting from a young age helping my mother in the kitchen.  When I made the choice to follow a vegetarian diet it was my choice alone and meat-free meals are in the home of my partner and I mainly because I do all the cooking.  This is not to say that I do the cooking or grocery shopping alone, but I do recognize that I am the main force behind creating meal plans, choosing foods, and following dietary restrictions.

Vegetarianism and masculinity still do not mesh well socially as he and I have combated notions of meat deprivation and therefore emasculating.   This suggests that it may be all fine and good for women to follow plant based diets but men should be sure to eat a whole cow once a week.  This undermines ethical eating and places it in the realm of Other, a place that men should never want to find themselves.

So, how can this gender gap be closed?

There are a couple of things that I think is working for me and my partner. The first is dialog about ethical eating.  He is open to talking about why I have come to my conclusions and has recently made the choice to look into some of them further on his own.  This also includes talking with family and friends about ethical food choices as well.  Secondly, we grocery shop and prepare meals together as much as possible.  For us this helps foster equality in the kitchen a real traditionally inhabited by women and girls.  These are ways that are getting us on track to eliminate the disproportion of ethical eating and food preparation.

What are some other ways that the gender gap can be closed when it comes to food and ethical eating?

It’s good to know that Kelly Clarkson believes that being attracted to women means being attracted to yourself as she states that she could “never be a lesbian“.

Ms. Clarkson seems to by into the whole essentialist garbage which states women are crazy and men are the level headed factor that helps women “even out”.

I know she is just a silly pop star… but really, why does she have to make statements like these?  and why do they need to become entertainment news?

more about ““Prop 8- The Musical” – Community“, posted with vodpod

I have heard it before and I will hear it again:

  • “Why is it so important to remember December 6th?”
  • “Don’t you think you are wasting your time?”
  • “You know, men have violence done against them too and they don’t get a day.”
  • “Violence happens all the time, you’re just making women out to be victims and men to be bad guys.

Remembering December 6th is very important because we need to recall that on this day a man entered École Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec, Canada and murdered 14 women because they were women.  We need to remember that the majority of violence that is inflicted on women is perpetrated by men.  We need to recongize that this a problem on epidemic proportions. And we need to know that all of us have the ability to find ways to stop this from happening.

December 6th is not about man-bashing or victimhood, it is about bringing awareness to everyone about the culture of violence that we live in everyday.  Men perpetrate much of this violence… against women… against children… and against other men.  Violence against women is not something to be defined as a “women’s issue” because this assumes that women, those who are having violence inflicted upon them, are suppose to be the ones to stop it.  This is a men’s issue and men need to become aware of this.  That is why it is so great to have things like the White Ribbon Campaign where men stand in solidarity and actively work to end violence.

The way to end violence is not by ignoring it but by point it out and declaring it to be unacceptable in a society that we deem free and equal.  How can we all be free and equal while overwhelmingly one group is violating the safety and well-being of another?  I’m sure we could forget about the Montreal Massacre Memorials that are held annually, we could turn our backs to women who have experienced violence and tell them that it’s better just to forget that violence occurred and move on… but does this end violence?  I am fairly certain that by now, most of us have learned that when we have a problem, ignoring it does not make it go away, usually things become worse.  If this is the case, then we all need to pay close attention to the issues surrounding violence against women and make ourselves and others aware.

I encourage everyone (in Canada) to find out if there is a Montreal Massacre Memorial in your area this December 6th and to attend it.  For those in London, Ontario there is one happening in Victoria Park at 5pm on Saturday.  Also, get informed about how men can and need to help end violence.

Until the Violence Stops.

I am currently enrolled in an online psychology class about human sexuality.  Since it is an online course there are message board discussions for class participation grades.  The questions given are opinion based and meant to be controversial.  I have been increasingly agitated by the responses by the class to some of these questions.  The most recent question is as follows:

Does oral sex qualify as “sex?” Bill Clinton didn’t seem to think so, and a number of teens today see oral sex as a “loophole” of sorts—a safe alternative to intercourse. What is your opinion? Does the definition of sex differ in different contexts or situations to include or exclude oral sex?

I had to chuckle when I first read the question because, for me, if it has sex as part of it’s name, then yes, oral sex is sex.  It’s like asking “is the hot tea, tea?”

I soon discovered that a majority of board posters personally defined sex as penetrative, favouring penis in vagina penetration with a specific bent on virginity.  I pointed out that such a definition of sex is heterocentric and phallocentric and that it excludes individuals, such as lesbians. I also thought that it was a dangerous definition that in the past has been used to define what actions are and are not rape, therefore disregarding and devaluing experiences of sexual assault.

It turns out the class wasn’t having any of my explanation.  Even when one individual who agreed with me went to Webster’s Dictionary to find an “official” definitions which read as follows:

SEX – 3 a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b: sexual intercourse

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE – 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

Individuals still held to claims of sex only meaning that which includes a penis penetrating something.  People have flat out written that they do not think lesbians are having or can have sex.  I am most disturbed with the fact that these individuals do not see what is wrong with their argument.

The bottom line is that it is heterocentric and phallocentric to define sex around the “all mighty” penis.  These arguments logically lead to understandings of sexual behaviour that centre around men and their pleasure.  If the penis is the tool that defines when sex is occuring, that this means that men alone are “having sex” while women “have sex done” to them.   This definition ignores any number of sexual experiences and behaviours that include sexual orientation, preference, and physical ability and it is harmful to devalue these experiences of others.

I don’t know why I am so surprised that a majority of people posting define and want adherence to a definition that is heterosexual and sexist… All I have to do is glance at the front cover of a Cosmo magazine and remember how our society defines sex and who is favoured within that definition.

This poor abandoned blog… *sigh*  I’m a horrible blogger.

There is always the typical excuses… Not enough time… My computer is crushed with viruses… My cat ate my homework…  But really, doesn’t it just come down to priorities?  Sadly, this blog has not been at the top in recent months.

In the midst of graduating from one degree and starting a new one as well as pushing myself to start thinking about certain futures for myself, I want to come back to this blog and start to hash out thoughts and issues once more.

So, if there are any faithful readers out there, please know that this blog is not dead and there should be something of substance in the near future.

I don’t usually go in for these sex advice articles from Yahoo! News but today I came across this piece that I actually agree with.

It talks about vibrators and encourages women to explore their sexuality with a nice vibrating friend.  I have met several women who were shocked that I owned and used vibrators and seemed nervous about the idea for themselves.  I think a lot of women (whether they watched Sex and City or not) have an image of Charlotte becoming “addicted” to her vibrator and that this is a bad thing, as it replaces men and takes over your life.  This article points out that addiction to orgasms isn’t a bad thing and even so, droves of women are not going to start locking themselves in their bedroom to spend time with their new pal.

Outside of the apprehension of women, I have also met men who are scared to know women who use vibrators.  I once walked into a sex toy shop with a man who looked at me horrified and said “Isn’t your partner enough for you?!” As if I’m some crazed nymphomaniac.  Some men can become threatened by sex toys thinking that they are somehow being replaced.  Instead, these men should embrace the use of toys as enhancing the sexual experience between themselves and their partner.

What I liked best about this article was that it lets women know that if they happen to be someone who does not like toys or doesn’t own several, than that is okay.  It doesn’t make you less adventurous or mean you have worse sexual experiences than those women who do use toys.

All in all, I was impressed by this article and encourage people to read it.  I also think I will steal the final questions at the end and pose them here:

How do you feel about vibrators? Do you own one? Do you use them as a couple?

Next Page »