Quantcast

By Harris, Emmeline on The Limitations of Eve Ensler's Dance-Based Activism

You are a smart smart lady. I find what you say subtle, incisive and sceptical without being ungenerous. I too want to like EE and just feel uneasy. Specifically: as a feminist I of course want control of my vagina, and understand that tragically, appallingly, vaginas are sometimes where violence and inustice against women gets meted out. But I really don't like the positive version of this essentialism that says 'love your vagina: feel that it's your essence, it's *you*.' I love my vagina, it's great, but it's not me, it's just a part of me, and to suggest otherwise is insulting in its own way.

Also does anyone enjoy the fact that the spam on this article is about plumbing!? SOZ

Posted on February 27, 2014 at 3:30 am 5

By idrathernot on Expansion of French Women Don't Series

Hilarious! And the Naomi Wolf line really clinched it in the end.

Posted on February 26, 2014 at 6:20 pm 1

By likethestore on Expansion of French Women Don't Series

"No Jamaican Women Don't Cry" oh my god

Posted on February 25, 2014 at 12:36 pm 1

By bureaucrab on Expansion of French Women Don't Series

"Anna Perks, the author of 'Collywobbles in Bedfordshire,' reveals why emotions are unfortunate and best left unacknowledged."

Greatest sentence of all time.

Posted on February 25, 2014 at 12:35 pm 1

By commanderbanana on Hard Out Here for a White Feminist

@Lena Otterman@facebook Uh...okay.

Posted on November 14, 2013 at 8:10 am 3

By popsicletrees on Susan Faludi on Facebook Feminism & the Danger of "Individual Women Empowering Themselves by Deserting Other Women"

I wish there were more articles like these! Lean In focuses on moments when a few women voice their opinions and are heard in the workplace. Sandberg's examples used the proper (read: non-threatening) channels in the organization -- e.g., talking to the HR department, supervisor, or president about a problem impacting them in the workplace. Good for them. The problem with her book (and empire) is its purposeful ignorance of structural challenges that women face in the workplace. Faludi says it so well when she identifies Sandberg as a free-market feminist, because underlying Sandberg's Lean In vision is the idea that a corporation can be home to a vibrant democracy so long as individuals present their ideas to management in an orderly way. According to this (free market) vision, only the good ideas will win out in the truly competitive marketplace of ideas (which in this case happens to be facilitated by the company itself), and so everyone (by pursuing their own self-interests) will be better off. Further, in this vision, the more people who participate (and compete), the more refined the good idea in its battle to be the best. As Faludi so eloquently describes in her historical overview, Sandberg is promoting a very particular (long-live-the-entrepreneur) ideology that is aligned with the interests of very large and powerful corporations at a time when user-provided personal information is becoming more and more lucrative for these companies. It's no shock that the Lean In empire has a website to house the personal stories of women who leaned in. It's free marketing (in more ways than one).

Posted on October 21, 2013 at 4:17 pm 6

By HairpinRules on Interview with Dr. Susan Robinson, One of the Last Four Doctors in America to Openly Provide Third-Trimester Abortions

@queenofbithynia I think we gotta do it ourselfs unless it gets really overboard.

This is a very unusual kind of discussion on the hairpin, because there's obvs some outsidahs doing their thingy, crusading and whatnot.

But... there's also some genuine difference of opinion, on a subject that seems almost like "THE" line drawn in the sand about issues like self-determination as a female citizen of humanity. I think where a LOT of us are -historically- coming from is that this issue traces back to **any** reproductive rights.

The "birth control" argument was an historical genesis of this issue... that too was interfering "unnaturally" with "Life capital-L" and children (little c). That if you had the sex-y without the kids it was "going against nature" god's will etc.

So it actually started out there. Women were not supposed to prevent pregnancy. Lady, if you have sex you better be ready to have a baby... not just one, mama, unh-uh we're talkin' "As Many As You Are Physically Able". Because contraception is evil/wrong/unnatural/goes against god/goes against biology... who are you to stop the process of procreation?

And that kind of mentality is SO foreign to the modern woman (and man) today. We'd just be like... "what, no pleasure sex? but that's some of the best stuff of life! for recreation and for love and for general feel-goodness and glad to be aliveness!" Yes, we're all going to die... and our loved ones will too. And our bodies will get old and likely sickly! But at least there's all that groovalicious sex (and, hopesfully, the awesomest-combo sex-and-love!)

So back to having babies once the seed is fertilized... now that the horse is out of the barn, moralistically speaking, and we're down with doing the get-down without ALWAYS the potential INEVITABLY having the consequences of a whole 'nother mega-ass human life to contend with each time we do the deed.

How do we feel about keeping that seed from coming into being? Now that we've agreed that we CAN (morally, decently) have sex without creating people coming into being...

See this is all really about existence, ultimately.

Ours, and our little ones (who grows up! to be other big ones!)

And, obviously my position is that there is a deeply insidious dark and ugly thing that is at the root of "pro forced procreation" which I don't think can be addressed directly because it's dishonest at it's root. It's masquerading as something that it's not: reverence for life. It's like that dude who tells you he wants you to dress modestly "because he respect you" nope: "he represses you (and himself) and honey that ain't respect."

But at the outer circles of the "pro life" movement (not it's dark ugly core of savage religious control) I think there are a lot of good hearted folks who are all... think of the children!

And, I just really wish they WOULD think of the children. Because, honey, my loves, we have so many children... and they deserve the best that we can give them. Even the grown up children. We do not need to be this savage, and we are NOT redeemed thru or by or even despite our savagery. I think of the children and I am crushed under the weight of all of the lost souls and the wretched in our (very undeveloped) society.

They's those that's lucky, but they's plenty that's not. Dude I just got a random mover who seemed like the nicest guy and it turns out he's from the underclass for whom human exploitation is a way of life that he's just barely escaped but not after getting in deep with it. There are very very very ugly sides of life... both at the very top, and at the very bottom not to mention that we are not exactly on our game about sustainability.

I think people who DO care about humanity, who DO cherish it, are thinking of the children and are very much onboard with planned parenting vs. forced procreation because very are aware of the consequences of parenthood and bringing new people into this world.

The people who are SO deeply averse to PREVENTING ANY POSSIBLE life don't really seem to notice or care about the quality of that life, they're so enamored of the potential. But unrealized potential can be really unrecognizably dark and ugly. And it seems to me that the prolife people are just willfully blind to that. Not because they're shielded in a bubble from it, but because they are hypocrites who just don't GAF.

When I break it down, the pro choice people mostly DO GAF
and the pro life people largely don't and devote so much emotional energy into bringing people here only to forsake them once they get here.

I'm happy to have this conversation once there isn't tremendous needless suffering in our society. Once the underclass (and yes, the overclass too) aren't wracked with a deeply entrenched disregard for human life, and our mental healthcare institutions aren't overburdened and woefully underfunded. There are kids who suffer desperate deprivations and while some make it thru intact there are many many more who do not who grow up to be angry mean human beings.

Given that this whole conversation started around whether or not it's okay to even have birth CONTROL, let alone abortion (which was a later extension of the argument, whether I have to carry a baby to term in my body, especially when it is a small cluster of cells easily removed, much more safely than giving birth)... welp, it's obvs that pro-lifers are on the wrong side of history (and lets hope they didn't manage to derail history) because back in the day they'd be the ones arguing against contraception.

I really want to respect those genuine peeps who are reverently prolife in some kind of deeply spiritual way, and I will once they all demonstrate that to me by taking care of this here life that we got going on right now. Then we can talk. And I'll totally come to the table, still with my point of view but much more ready to take yours seriously.

Posted on September 24, 2013 at 7:38 pm 4

By Lu2 on Interview with Dr. Susan Robinson, One of the Last Four Doctors in America to Openly Provide Third-Trimester Abortions

@Masha Bean@facebook And I'm saying that it's not your place to say what's a "wrong" decision for someone else. Do you think that abortion started in the 20th century? It's always happened, and it hasn't always been demonized. I'm not going to get derailed into the history of it with you, but when Dr. Robinson says that the need will never go away, she knows what she's talking about.

Posted on September 24, 2013 at 10:48 am 3

By squishycat on Interview with Dr. Susan Robinson, One of the Last Four Doctors in America to Openly Provide Third-Trimester Abortions

@Kathleen Fred Linton-Ford@facebook Here is a NYT article talking about the ambiguity of the science of fetal pain. And the statistics on maternal mortality, and other complications with permanent effects, are easily found. Childbirth is considerably more dangerous than a properly-performed abortion (particularly before 20-24 weeks, which is when most abortions are performed). They rank among the safest outpatient surgical procedures, and serious complications are very rare.

Posted on September 23, 2013 at 12:33 pm 9

By Lu2 on Interview with Dr. Susan Robinson, One of the Last Four Doctors in America to Openly Provide Third-Trimester Abortions

@Kathleen Fred Linton-Ford@facebook Did you not read the part where the fetus is euthanized via painless injection before any other procedure is performed on it?

Posted on September 23, 2013 at 11:30 am 8