slut shaming is no ok even if used on bigots

was reading this on feministing and it got me thinking about how I responded to some one who posted stuff about her nude pictures on facebook and my immediate response was:

” I think people who don’t like people to pass judgment on them shouldn’t make judgments on others based on something as superficial as whether they pose for a nude magazine. While I would never endorse the porn industry I think that telling women they are objects their whole life then shaming them when they act like one in the “wrong” way is inappropriate. there are plenty of issues with this individual, we don’t need to use slut shaming tactics to make a point.”

then someone said “I support her right to express her opinions when she is NOT representing the state of CA.”

To which I replied:

“the issue is not that she is expressing her opinions as Miss California as “our Representative,” it is that if she poses nude we can completely dismiss what she said. we can shame her and our point is more valid.

this is ridiculous reasoning. whether or not she posed nude her comments were oppressive. whether or not she made oppressive comments, slut shaming shames anyone who has ever done the activity in question not just her and is inappropriate.

these statements are true whether or not she is “miss California” and beauty pageants have NEVER represented anything other than a patriarchal prescription of what a woman should be. not cool in general. and never representative of me.”

at which point people started talking posting “but I’m not misogynist, I’m just pointing out hypocrisy.”

headdesk

Published in: on May 6, 2009 at 11:07 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Just saying

I read Full Frontal Feminism a while ago.   and it was ok.  It was definitely not written for an already feminist audience.  but whatever.  It read a bit like an extended blog post, which is not a complaint, just an observation.  I mean, I read blog posts all the time (I even read jessica’s blog all the time…).

Anyhoooo, I do have a bit of a critique.  Jessica tells young women to never, ever sleep with a guy who is pro-life/ anti choice.  I don’t have the exact quote the book is not currently in front of me and I’m at an internet cafe so, I’m not digging it up.

This irked me.  I think that doing away with the women=sex=vagina thing is fundamental to feminism.  and I just feel that it’s not appropriate to use your sexuality to reward men.  or rather it’s not ok to tell other people to use their bodies to reward men with good politics.  I mean, shouldn’t sex be about what *I* want?

Maybe what I want is to convert people to my political way of thinking, but maybe, just maybe, I want an orgasm. Or to be physically close to someone because I need that every so often in life.  And I personally probably wouldn’t be attracted to or feel safe around anyone who was anti-choice, so I personally probably wouldn’t sleep with them.

The whole idea of it seems just a bit too much like PETA telling us that we should use our bodies as a form of outreach which is something most feminists condemn….

If an individual wants to use sex as outreach, good for them, but don’t think it’s cool to suggest I SHOULD do the same.

My two cents in the vajayay “controversy”

As I don’t watch much tv and I hang out with the old folks, I did not hear the term vajayay until it hit the blogsphere.

 My first encounter with the word was praise of it on feministing.  From there I heard it was popularised by “Grey’s Anatomy” not because the writers felt it was something a woman would say, but because “vagina” is offensive. Another critique is that is sounds childish because of the repitition of sounds, (jayay). Then feminsiting points me to this article.

now Jessica did a wonderful job deconstructing the article at Feministing, but I have a few of my own comments I’d like to make. (and possibly repeat)

Personally I think the word is neither here nor there. It doesn’t offend me particuarly, but i’ve always been hard to offend with a single word out of context. It depends who says it and how that I might be offfended. No, the word itself doesn’t rile me up. it kind of reminds me of Poonani (sp?) which is what my sister and I used to call it. Yes I do think it is childish and if anyone said to me, “I want to stick my dick in your vajaya” I would find it disturbing, or funny or both depending on who said it. It seems like a very nonsexual sounding word. good for discussions of it when you don’t want to sound sexual, or for kids to say, or to relate funny stories about.

 But this guy is rediculous.  He makes me want to scream “vagina” at the top of my lungs over and over again.  

here he claims there isn’t a good word for the female anatomy:

Funny how we’ve never had similar trouble with our own plumbing: pecker, johnson, shaft and rod always seem to do the trick just fine. But things have always been more complicated when it comes to women.

And not just for what we guys call it, but women’s usage, too.

Vagina has always been out there, but it’s never been quite right. It’s uninviting, and seems to have an edge to it. There are plenty of other choices, including the dreaded c-word, which is nasty.

Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker counts at least 1,200 terms for the vagina in the history of the English language.

But we’ve never settled on any other.

Ummm right you’ve settled on exactly what for the male anatomy? He mentions 4 different words for penis then complains there isn’t a particular universal slang word for vagina.
He then makes euphamistic references to it throughout the article. He maked oh-so-punny references to “the female zone”, “but I refuse to beat around the bush”, “has got us thinking outside of the box”. So he finds nothing wrong with using these other words for vagina, but because there isn’t a universal word it’s just not good enough? Personally I find the idea of a universal euphamism for vagina to be more than disconcerting.

There is nothing wrong with a silly word like vajaya, but if that is the only word we are allowed to use that would mean there would never be a serious discussion of female anatomy again. How would men feel if they wrere coerced into feeling like they had to use the term “ding-a-ling” or (my personal favorite) “rumpleforeskin” to refer to their genitals? Especially if (in this fantasy land) we were allowed to say vagina as many times as we wanted in a tv show about medicince but had to resort to “ding-a-ling” after a couple times of saying the word penis.

Perhaps oppressed? We should not have to settle on a single euphamism for our genetalia, and we should be able to use the clinical term.

The feminists, it seems, have a proprietary interest in female genitalia.

Oh the horror I have a proprietary interest in my own genitals. It is my body, right? I guess he thinks it should be his body, as evidenced by this:

Unlike the starkly clinical vagina, I see a vajayjay as a happy and inviting place, with a warm and fuzzy connotation. Vajayjay says “hello . . . welcome” and “open for business.” “Vagina” screams textbook. “Vajayjay” says Facebook.

Personally I don’t want my vagina to say “open for business”. it is mine to with as I choose. (and I choose very carefully). I only want to welcome those I want. not the whole world, and especially not this writer.

There is one sentence I agree with (and i have to take it out of context to do so):

It has such a sense of taboo that nobody feels totally comfortable talking about it…

Yes it is taboo in this culture to say vagina. but that is why some people are upset with this new word. The word Vigina shouldn’t be taboo. If we use the term more, we can be free from taboo. And maybe the word vagina would be more “comfortable”.
Of course I cut the above sentence in half. in context it is:

Vagina is a tough word that refuses to roll easily off the tongue. It has such a sense of taboo that nobody feels totally comfortable talking about it – not even women, but especially men. So use of the word remains almost exclusively to the feminists

Because feminists aren’t men or women, we are not human. We are outside of humanity. This implication really irks me.

in the end i think that talking about vagina’s is a step in the right direction even if we call them something else. But we should not only call them something else and still need to work toward calling them by their proper medical name.

Vons/Safeway/Dominicks is anti-choice

Well i found out through Feministing:

Safeway hosting anti-choicers in Aurora
Having lost their appeal to the Aurora city council to shut down the new Planned Parenthood clinic, the antis have set up shop on private property — specifically the parking lot of a Dominick’s/Safeway grocery store — adjacent to the clinic. Of course, photographing women and license plates outside of abortion providers is not exactly a novel anti-choice tactic. But this time they’re not standing on public sidewalks.

As a private business, Dominick’s/Safeway could throw them off the premises and make them stop this intimidation. So call Safeway corporate and ask that the Aurora location do just that:

1-877-SAFEWAY(1-877-723-3929)
Monday to Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m, Local Time
Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Local Time

The Dominick’s/Safeway store in question is at 3025 E. New York St, Aurora, Ill. 60504.

UPDATE: Folks in comments are saying they’re having better luck with this number for Safeway corporate offices in Pleasanton: 925-467-3000 .

Please call the corporate offices. The lady I talked to was shocked that this was happening and said she is calling their district manager. I’m not shopping at safeway or any safeway owned businesses until this is resolved. Please join me standing up for choice. Vote with your dollar and let them know that they have lost a customer if this continues.

again the number for Safeway corporate offices in Pleasanton is 925-467-3000