Hey, folks — I’ve set up a Captcha requirement on comments to try to cut down on spam. Please let me know if you have any problems with it.

Posted by Violet under Reclusive Leftist on April 30, 2006, 7:46 pm EST

9 Comments »

Several regular readers of this blog are also regular readers of the Countess, who’s been AWOL for a few weeks working on some freelance articles. (No word if she’s also got a futuristic novel in the works and whether it’s better than mine, Paul’s, and Alon’s.) But she’s back on the blog for a few days with some hot polyamory action, and you’re all cordially invited: Is Polyamory For You?

Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on April 29, 2006, 7:53 pm EST

37 Comments »

There are now 92 headlines in Google News about the new male contraceptive, all of them variations on the following:

“Male birth control pill reversible!”
“Male contraceptive pill will not damage male fertility!”
“Men on birth control pill are still XXX hot studs!”

Okay, I made up that last one, but that’s pretty much what all the other headlines are about. God forbid that shooting blanks for a few months should in any way impair a dude’s intrinsic studliness.

It’s good to have these kind of trials, but I can’t help but recall that the female birth control pill was rushed onto the market with somewhat less concern for the impact on women’s health. The side effects in clinical trials were so common and deleterious that the female doctor in charge of the testing thought the Pill shouldn’t be released, yet the men running the show dismissed the reported effects as female hysteria. Within just a few years of being on the market, there was evidence that the Pill caused blood clots, strokes, maybe cancer, and god knows what else. But the prevailing opinion among doctors was that the risk of side effects was the price women had to pay for enjoying birth control.

None of that nonsense for men, though! By god, the male birth control pill is going to be tested and trialed to within an inch of its life. Gotta make sure it doesn’t cause cancer or make your brain explode, definitely — but that’s not enough. We gotta make sure this thing will not cramp the dudely mojo in any way. I look forward to endless headlines trumpeting endless studies confirming the stud-friendliness of the pill:

“Male birth control pill does not inhibit erections!”
“Male pill compatible with Viagra!”
“Study confirms that male pill will not reduce penis size!”
“No evidence of hair loss from male contraceptive pill!”
“Men on pill still able to barbecue, watch TV, and surf porn!”

Posted by Violet under Gender Issues on April 29, 2006, 3:29 pm EST

24 Comments »

…when you read about global dimming and the impending destruction of life as we know it and all you can think is, “How can I work this into my novel?”

via Twisty.

Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on April 28, 2006, 10:08 pm EST

60 Comments »

A question for other feminist women: do people actually ask you that in real life? I mean real life, not blogland, where knaves run free and idiocy is untrammeled.

I realize I’ve led a privileged existence, but I’ve only personally encountered one guy who thought feminism meant hating men.

Him: (shocked) You’re a feminist?
Me: (shocked) Of course I’m a feminist! How could any normal educated woman not be?
Him: (pressing his knees together anxiously — really!) So….does that mean you hate men?
Me: (even more shocked) What?

That was it — my one face-to-face encounter with a saphead. I’m sure I’ve met others, but one doesn’t usually get into these kinds of discussions with the guy who comes to clean your septic tank. And in my circle of friends and colleagues, thinking feminism means hating men is about as common as thinking the world was created 6000 years ago by a Sky Fairy. In other words, it’s a safe bet my community is probably not representative of the general population.

Anyway, my question: outside the blogosphere, do you really hear this?

Posted by Violet under Gender Issues on April 28, 2006, 2:21 am EST

77 Comments »

Steps to war:

1. Identify the target nation as “evil”: check!
2. Accuse target nation of harboring terrorists: check!
3. Announce that target nation has capability of creating dreadful weapons: check!
4. Warn that the U.N.’s credibility is at stake unless it acts to restrict target nation: check!

Next we’ll have an insistence on time limits and inspectors, failures to cooperate, more sabre-rattling, more dire warnings that the U.N.’s credibility is at stake — then we’ll start bombing.

On one level you have to kind of admire the sheer chutzpah of this administration. It is astonishing that Condi can deliver this tripe with a straight face just three years after that other war with those other dire warnings that the U.N.’s credibility was at stake. Remember that? Yeah, well, somebody’s credibility was shot to shit three years ago, and it wasn’t the U.N.’s.

Posted by Violet under War on April 27, 2006, 3:51 pm EST

25 Comments »

Hiring Fox commentator Tony Snow as the new White House spokesman seems redundant to me. Snow, like everybody else on the payroll at Fox, is already a White House spokesman. Is there really a need to give him an office in the West Wing and pay him a government salary? He’s been doing fine right where he is. Actually the White House could save money by just eliminating the job of Press Secretary and referring all questions to Fox.

By the way, all these references to the ‘criticisms’ Snow has supposedly levelled at Bush are red herrings. Nobody at Fox ever really criticizes Bush. They occasionally make a show of questioning his policies, but that’s just to give the surface impression that the entire channel isn’t a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP. Every two weeks somebody says, “Could President Jesus be making a tiny mistake here, or is this really what God is telling him to do?” Then they point to these soul-searching moments as proof of how Fair and Balanced they are.

Posted by Violet under Politics on April 26, 2006, 2:23 pm EST

18 Comments »

Here’s a piece in the Guardian about the new crackdown in Iran on women who depart from the Islamic-sanctioned dress code of giant black Hefty bag and ski mask. Fines, jail time, street arrests, the whole bit. That’s sickening enough, but the real heart-stopper is here:

Young women shopping in north Tehran’s fashionable Tajrish neighbourhood yesterday, however, were uncowed. Matin, 24, a nurse, was wearing a gaudily patterned light-blue head scarf pushed back to reveal sunglasses and bleached blond hair. Her tight, short black manteau with intricate gold patterns seemed designed to provoke the ire of the authorities. But she was unrepentant. “I’m a married woman and it should be my husband who tells me what and what not to wear. He likes the way I dress,” she said.

See, she doesn’t have to obey the imams because they don’t own her; her husband does. And that’s what passes for a liberated Iranian woman.

Try as I might, I can’t imagine what it must be like to actually believe that you are the rightful property of another human being. How does that work? To me, the very idea that humans with penises are better or smarter or superior to me in any way is preposterous. It’s always been preposterous. When I was exposed to feminism at age 8, I immediately recognized it as a self-evident truth: of course women are equal to men. What is it like not to know that? What is it like to go through life believing that you are some kind of inferior being? Believing that people with dicks are automatically better than you? That because you don’t have a dick, it’s the job of somebody who does to own you, control you, tell you what to wear, what to do, how to live?

This is why although I care a great deal about women in the developing world, I would probably suck at outreach. I would spend all my time going, “What the fuck is wrong with you? Can’t you see how bogus this is? AAAAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!” Eventually I would have an apoplexy and die. So, you know, not really helpful.

Thanks to Tom for the link.

Posted by Violet under Gender Issues on April 25, 2006, 3:06 pm EST

87 Comments »

It’s Day 2 of Condoms, AIDS, and Sub-Saharan Africa here at the Reclusive Leftist.

Researchers are announcing development of a new vaginal gel that will help women protect themselves from HIV transmission. It sounds great, though the question that immediately comes to mind is: aren’t condoms already more effective than any gel? And then one remembers that in many parts of the world condoms are unavailable (thanks, godbags!) or men refuse to wear them.

Like in sub-Saharan Africa, where there’s hope that the new gel, expected to be available in 2010, will help stem the AIDS epidemic. This AP article is a study in non-information:

In sub-Saharan Africa, home to more than 25 million of the nearly 40 million people infected around the world, women account for nearly 60 percent of infections, with most acquired through heterosexual intercourse. Yet strong taboos still exist on the continent against the use of condoms.

Strong taboos. Why doesn’t the article just come right out and say that African men generally refuse to wear condoms and that African women are so oppressed they have almost no power to control how sex happens?

Another article yesterday, this one from the Chicago Tribune, is even more disingenuous. It describes the results of a new analysis revealing that “the most promising way to stem Africa’s worst AIDS epidemics appears to be encouraging male circumcision and faithfulness to a single partner at a time, not promoting condom use or abstinence.” The article notes that promoting condom use doesn’t work because “regular sex partners” rarely use them. But why don’t they use them? Because — and the article neglects to mention this — men refuse to use them, regardless of what their female partners wish.

As for the faithfulness to one partner bit, this paragraph is priceless:

While studies show southern Africans do not have more sex partners than people in other parts of the world, they appear to be at particular risk for contracting HIV because of a pattern of having several regular sexual partners at a time, rather than one partner after another, Halperin said.

You would think from this that polyamory is the norm among all southern Africans. But actually — and again, the article neglects to mention this — it’s the norm among southern African men.

Why all this obfuscation? Is there some big plot to studiously ignore the fact that sexism exists in the world? Will the universe self-destruct if a reporter actually explains in an article that women in sub-Saharan Africa are degraded and powerless?

Here’s the situation in much of southern Africa:

1. There is enormous oppression of females, so that women have very little power in negotiating or controlling their sexual lives.
2. Men consider it their right to regularly have sex with multiple partners, including prostitutes.
3. Men often insist on “dry sex,” so that women are obliged to stuff their vaginas with dry herbs and even soak themselves in bleach in order to get rid of their natural vaginal lubrication. Dry sex routinely results in vaginal tearing and abrasion, thus rendering women especially susceptible to HIV transmission.

That last is the reason I’m wondering how much good this gel is going to do. Does it work when you sit in a bleach bath before sex? Does it work when you stuff your vagina with herbs, grass, and even sawdust? And since a gel is generally rather slippery, won’t those dry-sex-loving men forbid women to use it?

As every sensible person who’s studied the situation has recognized, the extraordinarily debased position of women in Africa is a prime stumbling block to effective AIDS prevention. Why in the HELL a newspaper reporter can’t come out and say that is beyond me.

Posted by Violet under Gender Issues on April 24, 2006, 7:42 pm EST

59 Comments »

The retired archbishop of Milan, who is obviously some kind of raving moonbat, has said that for married people with AIDS, a condom is a “lesser evil.” Woo hoo! This is a daring position for a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church of Sperm Worship. The Vatican observes a sort of Prime Directive for sperm: there must be no interference with the natural development and destiny of each precious little spermatazoan, which is created in the very image of God (except for the little tail).

So this cardinal is right out there on the bleeding edge with endorsing condoms for any reason. Notice, though, that he’s not denying they’re evil. It is EVIL to interfere with the sperm! Just perhaps not quite as evil as giving your partner AIDS.

Condoms when you don’t have AIDS = Hitler.
Condoms when you do have AIDS = Pol Pot.

Actually there’s a rumor afloat that the Vatican may be about to drop its absolute prohibition on condoms and allow their use for AIDS prevention — but only for AIDS prevention; certainly not for contraception. The Vatican health minister says this is a “very difficult and delicate topic.” Think about that. The Church claims to be the moral arbiter for a large percentage of the world’s population. There’s a little latex thingy that can prevent the spread of a horrific disease that kills millions, destroys lives, leaves children orphaned — and this is a tough call for them.

In happier news, I won’t be buying the $150 commemorative Pope John Paul II rose, though it sure is purty.

From the Jackson and Perkins catalog:
Pope John Paul II Commemorative Rose Collection
World premiere of the Pope John Paul II rose – only 2,500 available this year!
This radiant white tribute to a beloved world figure grows in the private Vatican gardens. Now you can enjoy its perfectly formed hybrid tea flowers and citrus fragrance in your own garden, along with a numbered edition Commemorative package. The collection includes a Pope John Paul II bareroot rose and solid, cast aluminum marker to place alongside the planted rose in your garden. You’ll also receive an embossed keepsake portfolio, which holds a signed and numbered certificate of authenticity, a full-color photograph of the rose and one of the late Pontiff’s homilies. A special collector’s item, this limited edition package also makes a wonderful gift. Ten percent of this rose’s net sales benefit the poor of sub-Saharan Africa, one of the late Pontiff’s closest concerns.

Item No. 37438X … $150.00

That’s nice about the poor of sub-Saharan Africa. What would help even more would be giving them condoms.

Posted by Violet under Godbags on April 23, 2006, 2:21 pm EST

72 Comments »

It starts early.

Here’s what middle-school kids think about rape, according to a survey of 11-14 year-olds:

• 51% of boys and 41% of girls believe that a man has a right to force a woman to kiss him if he has “spent a lot of money on her.”
• 32% of boys and 32% of girls say it’s not improper for a man to rape a woman who has had past sexual experiences.
• 87% of boys and 79% of girls say rape is okay if a man and woman are married.
• 47% of all those surveyed say it’s okay for a man to rape a woman he has been dating for more than 6 months.

Doesn’t sound too good, does it? By middle school, American children have already drunk deeply from the patriarchy: they know that men have the right to sexually possess women, that women can be bought, and that women who aren’t virgins are fair game for rape.

So perhaps it’s not so surprising what happens when they get to college:

• 1 in 4 college women report being victims of rape or attempted rape.
• 1 in 12 college men admit to committing acts that meet the legal definition of rape.
• 35% of college men indicate some likelihood that they would commit rape if they could be assured of not getting caught.

And it doesn’t stop when they get married…

• 10% of women are the victims of rape or attempted rape by a husband or intimate partner in their lifetime.
• 33-46% of husbands who beat their wives also rape them.

… or have children:

• About 20% of all rapes are committed against children under the age of 18 by their own family members.
• 20-40% of women and 10-20% of men report having been sexually victimized as children (this includes sexual abuse other than rape).

And then you go to the top and start all over again.

Statistics obtained from: New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault; CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Bureau of Justice Statistics

Posted by Violet under Rape on April 22, 2006, 10:44 am EST

62 Comments »

My first love was the history of the British monarchy. As children my brother and I would regale each other joyously with the outrageous names of long-dead kings: Aethelred. Cnut. By age six I knew the names of all of Henry VIII’s wives and how they’d met their ends. For my first term paper (in fifth grade), I chose as my topic “The Reign of Elizabeth I.” The entire reign. Alas, I ran out of time and ended up turning in a paper on “The Coronation of Elizabeth I.”

Anyway, I love the British monarchy. It fascinates me, like an ancient remnant of some primitive half-remembered voodoo thing deep in our past. I love the continuity of it; I love the fact that the Queen can actually trace her ancestry to an anointed king who lived more than a thousand years ago. Real monarchy makes absolutely no fucking sense — as current events in Nepal remind us — but defanged of its power, it’s rather a charming relic.

Alas, it’s a relic that may not long outlast the current Queen. This Guardian piece by Jonathan Freedland, a staunch republican, is lovely for its graciousness: he acknowledges that as figureheads go, Elizabeth has done a remarkably fine job. But when she finally heads off to that big Balmoral in the sky, he says, with her will go the most compelling remaining argument for the monarchy. Imagine a future with King Charles III on the throne, and you begin to see his point.

But we’re not going to worry about that today. Today, we’re going to wish the Queen a happy 80th birthday. Happy Birthday, Queen! Long may you live. Enjoy your corgis, your cornflakes, and your fantabulous hats. Enjoy, for that matter, your inherited wealth, your palaces, and your scores of personal attendants (I say with the big-heartedness of one who isn’t a British taxpayer). You may be the last of your kind.

Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on April 21, 2006, 4:11 am EST

20 Comments »

Over in the Duke thread RedDragon posted the following comment:

…I have been told by close friends and family members of their being raped. None of them reported, none of them told their parents. Did all my separate friends who were raped lie to me? Why did they lie? What did they gain by lying to me? I am not a lawyer or a policewoman. Am I am an anomaly for knowing so many women who have been raped? I don’t know that many people, let me tell you. And I’m not even counting the women I don’t know so well. It’s real. It happens alot.

Yes, it is real. Yes, it happens a lot.

Around the time RedDragon was posting that comment, I was over at Feminist Law Professors reading about the Sexual Assault Yearly Speak Out in New York City, which is scheduled to begin tomorrow at noon. The website for the group that sponsors the event has an interesting fact sheet on rape, which I’ve excerpted below. Considering the amount of misinformation afloat, I think this might be very useful reading:

Myth: Rape doesn’t happen very often.
Fact: 12.1 million American women have been victims of forcible rape. In other words, 13% or one out of eight adult American women has been the victim of forcible rape in her lifetime. (1992)

Myth: Rape is not a big deal. It is just sex.
Fact: Rape is not sex. It is about overpowering the body of another human being. And it is a big deal because “Nearly one-third of all rape victims develop Rape-related Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (RR-PTSD) sometime in their lifetimes, and more than 11% suffer from RR-PTSD at the present time (National Center for Victims of Crime & Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992).”

Myth: Only strangers commit real rapes.
Fact: Friends or acquaintances of the victims committed over half of these rapes or sexual assaults. Strangers were responsible for about 1 in 5. (Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey)

Myth: If it is really rape then the victim will report it immediately.
Fact: Only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police. (1992) Due to public perception, because of the fear of being blamed, self-blame or post-rape trauma, many rapes are not reported for many months, or even years.

Myth: Rape only happens to women on the streets late at night.
Fact: Nearly 6 out of 10 rapes occur at the victim’s home or the home of a friend, relative, or neighbor. (Greenfeld, 1997)

Myth: I don’t know anyone who’s ever been raped.
Fact: Chances are you do know someone that has been raped. Victims of rape can be family members, friends, people in your community such as doctors, nurses, engineers, social workers, clergy, teachers, children, adults and teenagers.

Myth: Many women “cry rape” to get back at the men they are accusing.
Fact: According to the FBI, less than 2% of rapes are falsely reported.

Myth: Women who claim they were raped are really just looking for attention.
Fact: The attention gained by being raped is not something a person would want. Rape is a very difficult, traumatic experience to overcome with emotional scars that last for years.

There are more factsheets in the group’s online resource center.

Posted by Violet under Rape on April 20, 2006, 10:05 pm EST

91 Comments »

Gender equality leads to better sex. Well, of course. A culture that regards women as less than human is obviously not a culture that’s going to place much value on female satisfaction. And male satisfaction is obviously connected to the degree of female enjoyment (inflatable doll enthusiasts notwithstanding).

Alas, the study also reveals that even in the those cultures with the highest levels of overall sexual health and gender equality, male satisfaction consistently runs about 10 points higher than female satisfaction. Screw that! Get to work, guys.

Posted by Violet under Gender Issues on April 20, 2006, 2:53 pm EST

25 Comments »