My scrap of dirt

Sun is finally out. Probably only for a couple of days, but considering we had hail yesterday, I'll take even temporary nice weather! It's basically been February here since, well, February, and we're all really, really tired of it.

I just wanted to post a few links quickly; it's going to be a little all over the place but bear with me.

First, a really excellent analysis of sexist discourse in the French media following the whole DSK scandal. Les informulés d’une rhétorique sexiste. It's in French and I wish there was a translation available, because it's fantastically insightful, and not just for French culture.

Some of you may have heard about the story of parents in Toronto raising a 'genderless' kid. You can read the original story (complete with douchy neighbors, friends and family members! I always love the whole 'your kid will get bullied' argument because, y'know, if a kid gets bullied, the problem is not the kids who bully and the parents who teach their kids things that could lead them to be jerks to other kids). But you can also read this reflection on the piece from the Raising My Boychick blog, which is excellent. I only want to point out that while I think it's cool to assume your baby's gender is aligned with their biological sex (assuming that's straightforward) until your kid is old enough to tell you otherwise, it's important that you tell the kid that, directly or at least indirectly. Otherwise you might be the most open-minded parent who'd be totally cool with a trans or gender nonconforming kid, your kid might never know.

While we're on the topic of gender/sexuality, the New York Times recently ran a beautiful series on gay teenagers. The stories are touching, but what really drew me in is the photography. Wonderful and quiet photos.

Now for the unrelated to gender and sexuality stuff:

Allie started a food blog with her friend Katie, The Dough Also Rises - and you should all check it out, because they make really, really delicious food. With simple recipes! Which is always nice (I don't like overly fancy things that I could never reproduce/require ingredients I couldn't find if my life depended on it). Keep an eye out for the yam burrito. SO GOOD.

I may have mentioned (or not) that we're rewatching every Harry Potter movie in expectation for Deathly Hallows Part 2, and it's been great. Harry in the first movie is just the most adorable kid on earth, but it's so great to see all of them grow up. :) And then today mieystrapurore posted this video, which is amazing. It's just beautifully made, with wonderful music, and it takes you through the whole journey that is the HP series. If you have any attachment to this story, you should watch it. Maybe several times.

And to finish on another pop culture note, I never even mentioned here that The Playboy Club has been picked up by NBC! SO EXCITED to see Sean in there; he's psyched about the storylines that writers have in mind for his character, which makes me even more excited to see it. Let's hope it doesn't get axed by like, episode 3, I'm going to be so upset if that happens. Unless they make a spinoff about Sean's storyline, I'd be down with that.

I don't even know where to start with what's been happening with public workers (especially teachers) in Wisconsin and other places (especially Ohio) in the United States lately, or with the unrelenting attacks by conservatives on Planned Parenthood and issues relating to women's health. I can't even link to that many articles because I've been almost avoiding reading too much about these issues because they make me so profoundly angry, frustrated and disappointed. But if you are interested in reading more, I can at least recommend this piece by Diane Ravitch on teachers in Wisconsin, and this piece by Rebecca Traister on cuts to Planned Parenthood. (This is also a helpful overview of the responses from pundits to the cuts over at Salon.) If you are in the U.S., I would also urge you to sign this Open Letter to Congress on behalf of Planned Parenthood, and to consider donating to them.

If I get started on all the implications of this conservative push, I will never stop, and I have other things to get to today, so I won't start. I will just say that these moments of U.S. history are the exact reason I do not admire the country and despise its tendency to think of itself as the Best Country of All Times; these moments also make me so, so glad I ended up not attending grad school in the U.S., because I hate the thought that the decision would have been read as, 'one more person really wants to move here because we're awesome!'. Canada is far from perfect, and France regularly does its share to make me ashamed they delivered me my passeport, too (and France also has a tendency to think of itselfsuper highly, which doesn't help). But this kind of bullshit reminds me of just how awful the rhetoric gets in the United States; it's so bad (and maybe more importantly, it's given so much visibility and credence) that it almost feels like a parody of what you can hear elsewhere in politics. Ugh ugh ugh. I wish I could hope that it's going to 'get better', but I feel like there's actually very little to indicate that it will. And the saddest thing, to me, as a French citizen, and as someone who may well end up a Canadian citizen? Both these governments think that emulating the U.S. blindly is a GREAT idea.

So anyway, as usual, this has ended up as more of a rant than I was hoping. >.> The worst part is I know I shouldn't even care or whatever, but I feel so angry and tired and disappointed on behalf of all of my awesome American friends who deserve better than this crap.

To finish on a more positive note, President Obama and his administration are apparently continuing to grow a spine! : the Justice Department will no longer defend DOMA against lawsuits challenging it as unconstitutional. This is great news, although with limited effects for now, obviously; but considering court cases challenging the constitutionality of DOMA are making their way through the court system right now, it's a huge step forward. It also sends a strong message in favor of marriage equality, which is also very important.

EDIT: I also recommend this Tiger Beatdown article by "Grizzili Fetus". Funny in that way that doesn't make you laugh really, because it's too right on target.

I should be working (story of my life, ha) but I'm happy with how much I got done this morning so I'm going to take 10 minutes to write that post I've been meaning to write forever. First, some links! Wonderful!

- Black-Grrl Power: Willow Smith and Sesame Street: an article on black hair, started by the recent Sesame Street video featuring a black girl puppet singing about how awesome her hair is. It's a good article, and a nice reminder that racism takes forms that white people sometimes can't even fathom.

- Why Decriminalizing Sex Work is Good for All Women. It's kind of old news by now, but at the end of September, the Ontario Supreme Court struck down Canada's prostitution law (read news article here). Because it is likely to set a precedent, it's a huge step taken towards decriminalization (not to be mistaken with legalization!) of sex work in Canada. And in these Tea Party ridden times, that's almost unbelievably progressive and fantastic. So I'm just going to gleefully quote: "Whore stigma is one clue that anti-prostitution ideology is about more than just violence against women—it’s specifically about femininity. In this sense, arguments against transactional sex are a defense of both the gender binary and of heterosexuality. This is why men and transgender sex workers are invisible in prostitution debates. This is why changing laws is just the beginning, not the end, of a longtime struggle for basic human rights for sex workers."

- A post by Dan Savage on a manifesto written Episcopal Bishop John Shelby's decision to no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. More than this decision (which has positive and maybe negative sides), the reason I'm posting this is Bishop Shelby's words on "fair-mindness", which is a discourse currently used by media outlets to justify airing the views of profoundly homophobic parties: "In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by "fair-minded" channels that seek to give "both sides" of this issue "equal time." I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people." This is an incredibly powerful statement, and a serious challenge to the way we tend to think about 'freedom of expression'.

- Two links (1, 2) to galleries of photos from Saturday's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in D.C. There are many signs amongst these that I feel ambivalent about, but there are true jewels in there, too, including this one, this one, this one, this one or this one. My all-time favorite, though, is this one which I found on Lemonde.fr (#5): "I masturbate and I vote (but not usually at the same time)." And then of course I have a special fondness for geeky signs. :) I have my ambivalence regarding the Rally (most of which has to do with the way that it idealizes moderation, as if this particular political stance - because it is one, whether people like it or not - didn't have its own problems, and consequently the way that rhetoric around the rally has tended to lump together right-wight extremism and left-wing radicalism, which I find infinitely problematic) but in the midst of all the Tea Party insanity absurdity, it does feel good to see people come out and point out the ridiculousness of people who embrace their willful ignorance and refuse to debate reasonably.

- And to finish, a link shared by shadesofbrixton: a sexual attraction chart. Very neat, not without its problems obviously, but I love the sheer complexity of it. :)

As usual, this has taken me WAY longer than I expected, so I'd better make myself some lunch and go back to the 200 pages I'm supposed to read before 4pm. Haha...ha.

EDIT: I forgot! I went to see The Social Network the other night - I went in being slightly unconvinced but I was truly blown away by the quality of that script. Great, complex characters and super tight dialogue, I did not see those 2 hours go by at all. What did everyone else think?

"Ultimately, of what possible social significance is it if a person likes to masturbate over a shoe? It may even be non-consensual, but since we do not ask permission of our shoes to wear them, it hardly seems necessary to obtain dispensation to come on them."

- Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality


I love when academics slip funny things into their otherwise very serious analysis. XD

We're checking out Science World today! I'm really excited.

I'm sure I've made this exact point before, but Dan Savage's latest column made me think of it:

"Once again: If a man and a woman are doing it —whatever it is— it's a heterosexual sex act. It doesn't matter who's on top, who's wearing the lingerie, who's being penetrated, or whether the dildo is penis-shaped or Glenn Beck–shaped. If a girl is doing it with/to a boy, it's heterosexual sex."

Identity is a whole other thing, and I would argue slightly more complicated than Dan puts it even, but it'd be nice if everyone could at least get that basic level. (Of course, this also gets a little more complicated if you take into consideration the fact that the male/female binary isn't that clear-cut, but like I said. It's a basic place to start.)

Vanessa Hudgens on the whole naked pics thing:

"It's just really unfortunate, and to this day people hate me for it, but it's not like I chose to put that out there in the world, you know? It's so aggravating and frustrating, and whenever anybody asks me, would I do nudity in a film, if I say that it's something I'm not comfortable with, they're like, 'Bullshit, you've already done it.' If anything it makes it more embarrassing, because that was a private thing. It's screwed up that someone screwed me over like that. At least some people are learning from my mistakes." (Source)

I can't stress enough how glad I am that she isn't apologizing all over the place. I've ranted enough about it previously, but I just wanted to say that. I'd actually love to have a calm, adult conversation with her about this whole scandal - and the assholes who are suggesting that having private photos leaked means you should have no problem displaying your body to the world. She seems to have a much more mature way of dealing with it now, which I can respect.

--

I feel for Caster Semenya - I am a woman with male chromosomes. An interesting Daily Mirror Chronicle by Sarah Graham that's a good overview of why it's not as easy as drawing a line between male and female. I continue to be appalled at the way just about everybody is dealing with Semenya, from the way people seem to think it's appropriate to discuss very personal medical info to the incapacity of grappling with the fact that even sex is a social construct. I haven't read too much, but I like that her family and friends in South Africa are not caring. So much for being the civilized, liberal one, Western culture, no?

--

Sinead's Hand: A cute video about same-sex marriage< from an Irish organization.


I've hit pretty much all my trademark topics so time to go watch Corbin Bleu on my TV. ;)

First, a funny comic strip about Dollhouse being renewed.

And now more serious links:

- On the virginity fetish. Two really interesting points that caught my attention.
"She points the finger of blame back at conservatives and argues that it's the myth of virginity, not 'Girls Gone Wild', that's hurting this generation of young women. Those two competing influences have more in common than some might think: Both teach women that their most valuable commodity is their sexuality." Not only that, but it's a very specific kind of sexuality that's valued here: phallocentric sexuality, so implicit in the message is the idea that their heterosexuality is most valuable. Our obsession with virginity and what constitutes a virgin terrifies me with its implications and the fact that it's making teens have unsafe sex (whether oral or anal) in hopes of staying "pure". Not to mention the double-standard that exists, obviously, because we're much more concerned with women than men staying virgins.
"I don't believe in gray rape. [...] We can reframe sex as something that should be a collaborative, partnered event. And, if we redefine consent as not the absence of a “no” but a presence of a “yes,” then maybe we'll actually get somewhere." I don't know that I'd go as far as saying I don't believe in gray rape, but I do think we need to ask ourselves how on earth men can think they have consent when they don't. (Because yes, overwhelmingly, it's men raping women, especially "date rape" which is where the issue of consent is often understood as most blurry. But that applies beyond that specific hetero set-up anyway.) I love the idea of thinking of sex as requiring an (enthusiastic) yes rather than the absence of a no. It completely changes the dynamic. But for that we need to learn, and teach our kids (especially our girls) that sex is not something dirty, not something to be afraid of; something they don't need to have, or want (hi asexuals!), but if they do, it's great, and they should let their partner know and be informed and safe. Sex ed would look very different if we thought about sex differently, not solely as a vector of diseases.

- Michael Kimmel on Gender. The key quote is that video excerpt they have available is "privilege is invisible to those who have it" which I think is mostly true, but I think it's also more nuanced in the sense that it's often invisible to those who don't have it, too. When I see the level of heteronormative statements that can come from LGBT folks, or the kind of sexist reasoning that some women can have, I think it's useful to remember power doesn't work in a straight-forward manner. It's embedded in our belief systems and we often end up unwittingly reinforcing dominant patterns that don't benefit us. We can even be strongly invested in these patterns, to the point of experiencing internal homophobia or racism. But it remains easier for those in the majority/dominant group to think of themselves as universal, not to see their race/gender/sexuality/ability as a privilege whose benefits they reap (whether they want it or not).

- I also really want to do a more substantive post with the French comics for IDAHO, but I don't think I'll have time this morning.

Helping me procrastinate these past couple of days has been Dan Savage's column. I don't agree with everything he says but as far as sexual stuff is concerned he's a pretty amazing (and amazingly honest) sex columnist. I really enjoy some of his more political rant, too, so here are a couple. Read them through - they're hoot and he's painfully right. (Both are related to abstinence ed.)


First one:
And, hey, here's another interesting study: While straight kids are busily boning each other's butts—the better to preserve their virginities!—gay teenagers are knocking each other up. According to a study out of the University of British Columbia, lesbian and gay teenagers are seven times likelier to get knocked up than their straight peers. How the hell does that happen? Well, gay teens are having straight sex in order "to prove they are heterosexual to avoid harassment and discrimination" by their parents and peers. In other words, gay kids are still having heterosexual sex under duress. This is where abstinence education and homophobia have gotten us: Gay kids are having vaginal intercourse and straight kids are having anal intercourse. Good work, sexphobes!

--

And the second one, longer but worth every word:

The 17-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin, the GOP's vice-presidential nominee, is pregnant. The news was released by the McCain camp during a busy week—a hurricane, the Republican National Convention, Dick Cheney getting us into a war with Russia—so it didn't receive the coverage it deserved. To recap:

Seventeen-year-old Bristol Palin got her ass knocked up five or so months ago by 18-year-old Levi Johnston. Among the hobbies listed on Levi's since-yanked MySpace page—"fishing, shoot some shit, and just fuckin' chillin'"—was this revealing tidbit: "I don't want kids." But Bristol, says her mom, "made the decision on her own to keep the baby," and is now engaged to Levi "Shootin' Shit" Johnston.

As the adoptive parent of a child born to a pair of unwed teenagers, I'm certainly not in favor of abortion in all circumstances. But I believe that it's a choice teenagers should be able to make for themselves—with input from their families whenever possible—and, so it seems, does the GOP's VP nominee. Sarah Palin is pleased that her daughter made the decision—on her own—to keep the baby.

But Sarah Palin doesn't believe that other girls should be able to make their own decisions. Sarah Palin believes abortion should be illegal in almost every instance—including rape and incest. So Bristol Palin is being celebrated for making a choice that Sarah Palin would like to take away from all other American women. Apparently, today's GOP believes that choice is a special right reserved for the wayward daughters of Republican elected officials.

Oh, and Sarah Palin also believes that birth control shouldn't be made available to teenagers, she opposes medically accurate sex education, and she backs abstinence-until- marriage sex "education."

Sigh.

The GOP has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into abstinence "education" programs during the Bush years. I believe this enormous investment of public funds begs the obvious question: Is our children abstaining? Sarah Palin's aren't. Despite this massive outlay on the part of the American taxpayer and the example set by her Christian parents, Bristol Palin became sexually active while still in high school. Excuse me, but if abstinence education can't keep the daughter of the evangelical governor of Alaska off the cock, what hope is there for the daughters—and some of the sons—of average Americans?

I'm a cad for writing this, of course, because shortly before Bristol and Levi were paraded before cheering throngs at the Republican National Convention, the Palins asked the media to respect their daughter's privacy.

Another special right: When it comes to respecting your family's privacy, Palin and the GOP see no need. They want to micromanage the most intimate aspects of your private life. And if their own kids fail to live up to the standards that Palin and the GOP seek to impose on your family, well, that's a private matter between the Palins, their daughter, their God, and the thousands of screaming imbeciles in elephant hats waving McCain/Palin signs on the floor of the Republican National Convention.

Yesterday I was at a lecture on asexuality, given by two representatives of AVEN (Asexuality Visibility and Education Network), David (who's the founder) and Cole, a friend of mine. This is not something I've talked about a whole lot and so I figured this would be a great time to go over some of the stuff they mentioned in the lecture.

First of all, it really struck me how familiar the content sounded even though I don't think I've ever heard or read much about asexuality in itself. A lot of ideas are very similar to the ones I've encountered doing anti-homophobia/heterosexism work, though, and with reason: heterosexism assumes "natural" (hetero) sexual desire (at least from males) and the asexual community has very much grown from the LGBT movement and they're big on the idea of inclusion. Which is awesome.

So for starters. An asexual person is "a person who does not experience sexual attraction". In the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the closest term to asexuality is "hypoactive sexual desire disorder". What I find interesting is that the DSM qualifies it a disorder if it's a source of distress (whether personal or in a relationship). So there is absolutely room for healthy, happy asexuals there, and the asexual community is not looking to change the DSM per se.

Basically, asexuals don't feel the need to make sex part of their relationships.

There was a big emphasis on the idea that "asexual" is a word and an identity that you decide to use for yourself; no one is qualified to decide whether someone else is asexual, or if someone else is not asexual enough, or any of that. "If it's a word that makes sense, you use it. Otherwise, you don't."

Asexuality is very different from celibacy. Celibacy is the choice not to have sex, whereas asexuals are simply not interested in sex. Even though David and Cole didn't go into a lot of details about the relationship that asexuality has to the religious and conservative right, they did say that the asexual community feels uneasy about abstinence-only education (and find it unhelpful). David also talked about being very sex-positive (personally sex-neutral but politically sex-positive, I liked that), and Cole about the fact that they talk about sex a lot on the forums - so asexuals don't necessarily shy away from sex and are not afraid of it. It's just not part of the way they conceptualize their relationships.

What they brought up is that we basically have very few models for intimate non-sexual relationships, so it is up to asexuals to determine what that looks like, which is great because it gives you much freedom to fit something that works for you. This refashioning around understanding relationships can also be very helpful to sexual people who can then broaden their understanding of what makes a relationship. What is intimacy without sex? What does an asexual relationship look like? Nobody knows, and that's the beauty of it.

David and Cole also went to great lengths to explain that the asexual community is diverse even in identities. Some asexual people seek out romantic relationships (bi-, hetero-, homo-, pan-romantic are all options, of course), others don't. David defines himself as having "community-based relationships", and I'm just going to copy/paste the little blurb from their FAQ:

"Some asexuals, instead of establishing one-on-one romantic relationships, prefer to connect with the people around them in a community-based intimacy framework, establishing emotional intimacy with other people (including sexuals) without forming expectations of sexual or emotional exclusivity. For asexuals who are comfortable with this setup, it can alleviate the biggest source of tension in a standard mixed relationship (because the sexual person can have their sexual needs met elsewhere)."

Note that this is different from open and polyamorous relationships which both assume you have primary partner(s).

Oh! And I liked that Cole and David both had problems with the word "virgin" because it's so multi-faceted, and also David made the point that it had connotation of being pure, and innocent and not having had sex yet, all of which are problematic and he certainly doesn't feel 'innocent' applies to him. ;)

Also, I like the difference that they made being sexual arousal and sexual desire: just because your body is aroused doesn't mean you want sex or you should have sex, which has very important consequences on understanding consent and desire for intimacy. There's also the whole "why don't you just try it" thing, which is so fascinating: why would you want to force something to do something if they don't feel like doing it? It's like the gay/bi/straight thing, do you really need to have sex with a man to know you're attracted to them? Of course not.

For the record, about 1% of the population is asexual (I'm pretty sure that number applies to people who don't feel sexual desire, not to people who actually use the identity asexual, since that's VERY new).

So there you go. A little space given to asexual visibility here, too. :) The AVEN website is a great resource if you want to learn more.


( And now just a quick personal write-up )

Reading about heterosex and feeling a little down at how male hegemony is just so closely intertwined with the way we see sex - it's like even when we think we're in an egalitarian relationship where the woman is treated the same as the man, our accounts of sex reveal systemic inequalities. :/ I find myself wondering if it's possible to have non-hegemonic heterosex and the thought that maybe it's not is incredibly depressing.

"The way these activities were described, as in these two extracts, often represented her orgasm as something that she had as a result of what he did or gave her. In contrast, his orgasm, achieved through intercourse, was not typically framed as her giving – instead, it was something ‘we’ did together, or about where his orgasm took place. In these accounts, the man is represented as more active in the production of orgasm – both hers and his own – than is the woman. In this way, it is a subtle account of the relative passivity traditionally expected of women in heterosex (e.g. see Gavey and McPhillips, 1999; Gilfoyle et al., 1992)."

[...] "Numerous studies have pointed to the links between male sexuality and performance/competence (e.g. Gilfoyle et al., 1992; Kilmartin, 1999). It also points to how ‘saturated’ heterosexual reciprocity is with unequal status. If a woman’s orgasm is ‘given’ by a man, as it is in the discourse of reciprocity, men stand to gain positive identity positions (sensitive and unselfish) through this discourse. Furthermore, the caring, sensitive man partaking in reciprocal heterosex is also imbued with ‘sexpertise’ (Potts, 1998, 2002) – the competence to know how to meet the complex challenge of producing orgasm in the female body, as well as the more straightforward task of his own orgasm. Women’s ‘gift’, on the other hand, is recognized less as an active gift than as a taken-for-granted expectation. As such, the positive identities to be gained by women through the discourse are less clear (although the negative implications of not participating are clear)."

[...] "It is ironic . . . that the ‘enlightened’ male discourse, in which men take some responsibility for their partner’s pleasure, is yet another example of men abrogating power to themselves, as they take away women’s ability to be an independent sexual agent. (Gilfoyle et al., 1992: 224)"

(Extracted from Virginia Braun, Nicola Gavey and Katrhyn McPhilips, “The ‘Fair Deal’? Unpacking Accounts of Reciprocity in Heterosex,’ Sexualities 6:2 (2003): 237-261.)