Friday, September 28, 2007

PJ Harvey Interview in Exclaim!

I'm a huge PJ Harvey fan. Her new album White Chalk I just cannot wait to hear.

Article here.

Eliminate Oppression with Oppression!

Today the The Conseil du statut de la femme( "is a government consultation and study council that, since 1973, has devoted itself to promoting and defending the rights and interests of women in Québec" ) has decided to call:

on the Quebec government to ban what it calls visible religious symbols. While a crucifix or a Star of David on a necklace would be acceptable, council president Christiane Pelchat said, public employees should not be permitted to wear such overt symbols as the hijab, a head covering worn by Muslim women, or the yarmulke, a skullcap worn by Jewish men.

Yeah, uh sorry, you can't eliminate oppression by oppressing people..

Much of the article pissed me right off... I don't even know what to say!? hypocritical bullshit.

New Study Concludes Men Are Happier Than Women!

Men are happier than women, I wonder why? Well, apparently it's because all you women have too many responsibilities and, get this, CHOICES.

"Surprising, perhaps, given the increased opportunities and choices for women in the modern world."

I would have thought it was because of the wage gap, workplace harassment, having to work twice as hard in corporate settings and being stuck in staffing positions endlessly while your male co-workers are promoted.. but that's just what I've observed.. you know, by being a woman.

The author (who is commenting on the study) points to this comment listed on the ABC website.

Of course women are less happy than men-these so-called "choices" women have are not really choices at all. The problem is with the feminist movement stopping when women began regularly entering the workforce. Women have made strides in education and career, but have remained the sole caretaker of the family. America's "family values" thread is an underlying force that drives men and women to believe that women should still take the majority of household/childcare work upon themselves. American men are all to willing to let their working wives do most or all of the household chores and care for the children while they prioritize their careers and social time for themselves. This article is a clear, concise warning that the feminist movement needs to target the American family and the division of household labor between men and women.L.V., M.S. Labor Relations & Human Resources
Posted by:
workmom71 1:01 PM

Not that I believe the feminist move has stopped, it hasn't. It's just been stuck. You can't say a movement doesn't exist just because it's been unable to undo all of the centuries of patriarchy instilled into the family unit. We're working on it.

But you know Mr Author has only this all too typical misogynistic response:

What an incredible sense of entitlement. Yep, essentially we need to change the entire world to make sure women are happy. (Much of which we've already done in order to make women happier and they end up less happy.)

Oh right.... you were just "letting" us work. We're just a bunch of whiny spoiled kids. How dare we demand so much... like the rightto divorce our husbands, the right to own property, the right to vote and gooooooooooooooooooooooooddddddd no, the right to work!? I'm sorry Mr. Man, I now realise the great lengths you've gone to, just to make us spoiled little women "happy". But I love the next paragraph from the "researcher":
Finally, the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness.

No actually, the problem is that the women are still suffering under the fist of patriarchy, but sure, have it your way.. it was all the women's movements fault... right..

Then the author begins an attempt at being philosophical. Apparently if we have to ask ourselves if we're happy, then we're not. Oh and apparently hanging tobacco makes the author happy.

Caffeine and tylonal is bad for you.. no really?!


Dear god. You know when you go get a tooth out, or have minor surgery, or sprain your ankle? Well, they give you a little pill to make the ouchey go away. That pill is usually a combination of codeen, acetaminophen and caffeine. Now they're saying caffeine and tylonal causes liver damage!? well duh! tylonal causes liver damage you asshats. But anyway... I have a funny story about that combination drug. A friend of mine in med-school once told me that the only reason that caffeine is even in the no-ouchey pill,is because the doctor responsible for creating it needed to cut the acetomenophen and codeen with something. His genious wife..(who's lack of medical expertise may not make her un-genious) suggest "why not use caffeine! since coffee relives headaches" back then, it was widely thought that coffee did relieve headaches.... and apparently that is why we still have this stupid pill that has caffeine in it. *sigh*

GIRLS WHO RAWK- "Muffler Crunch"

I generally try not to music blog on here... especailly about bands I know cause of the conflict of interests but okay, I've gotta. To all of you Canadians who wanna hear a girl KICK FUCKING RAWK ASS, please take a listen to Ottawa's own )Muffler Crunch(

If your like me, then your so sick and tired of seeing loud rawk dominated by men. Angie (drummer and lead singer) brings a refreshing voice to the stoner-rock, genre with a touch of metal.

CD's can be purchased off the Myspace site or at

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Fucking Michael Moore is On Oprah Today

Fucking lame -ass Michael Moore is to appear tonight on lame-ass Oprah's show. I almost wanna watch it to see it implode. I have a feeling that Michael Moore will "take a stand" and Oprah will decide whether or not to agree based on the audience reaction. *sigh*

We use to play this game when I worked at the bookstore, called "guess what that person is gonna buy" ! I could always pick out the Michael Moore fans...ack. It was either "Zen & the art of Motorcycle Maintenance" or fucking Michael Moore. They were always new-age hippies. You never saw anyone but mid twenties college students buy his books and I'd like to think that most college students abstain from that kind of sensationalism. Distortion of facts with editing yadda yadda, he's a god damn journalist. Why are we suppose to trust him so much? Why? Because of Roger & Me? Because he uses humour to gain our friendship? to con us into believing whatever?? SO that he can over-simplify National problems? But my really problem with people like Michael Moore is that they offer no solutions. He pulls out a camera, catches people off-guard, makes them look like idiots. He throws his hands in the air playing the blame game and screaming about a fucking fire and offers no water to put it out and I think that why I really, hate, Michael Moore.

Oh yeah and Oprahs just fucking annoying and should stop getting rich by exploiting peoples "sad" stories and having fucking celebrities on her god damn shows. How pathetic are we people?! Do we really need to see John Travolta dance one more time? bah.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Get Pretty or Get Dead.

"No Surgery is Trivial" an article published in the Toronto Star yesterday talks about the tragic death of a Toronto women who passed away last week after having liposuction in New York by a general practitioner, a family doctor....

Estimates of risk vary, but researchers surveying board-certified plastic surgeons in the United States calculated a mortality rate of 20 deaths per 100,000 liposuction cases. That is higher than the U.S. death rate from motor vehicle crashes. Because the survey covered only certified specialists, the actual death rate could well be higher.

yeah, uh scary. We all know some people will do anything to have the right look, but man....

Liposuction is of special concern. Any procedure with the potential to kill an otherwise healthy person must be taken more seriously.

I absolutely agree. Although anyone who knows me understands that I see plastic surgery as a tool to promote fascism. I think plastic surgery was originally intended to reconstruct body parts damaged in accidents or fires, not to serve as tool to promote some otherwise unattainable standard of beauty. It's almost as if the media is really a bunch of little Hitlers out there running around telling you to get purdy or get off the face of the earth. With your life hanging in the balance of a procedure that will benefit your health in now way after, what are they really telling us? Get purdy or get dead.

Monday, September 24, 2007

In the face of much bridal confusion, I've got that dress thing covered!

So I've got that dress thing covered. Wait, I suppose I should first explain why I'm writing about my wedding and the planning of it on a feminist blog.. I think it's important to represent myself and other ladies. I'm a feminist and I'm getting married. It's important to me to explain that my marriage to my future husband is based on equality and not ownership... obviously! That I'm also no less an independent women because of a piece of paper. Our wedding is a chance to ultimately state to our friends and family that we're in love and in this for the long run and nothing more. Most certainly we'll have a ceremony devoid of "obey thy husband" bullshit. We're a modern couple and we want our wedding to represent us. That's why it's taking place a bar (not a church).

Back to the dress - I was unsure as to whether I should wear white. So I bought a cheap black dress, very elegant that I intended to wear at least to the reception. I almost decided to wear it to the ceremony, until Saturday when I tried on a white gown at Sherilyn's Bridal. I never looked so damn good in a dress. Now I'm typically a very modest dresser. Showing shoulders is almost too much for me. And the dresses in all the bridal shops we seen were just.... uh... ghastly? Well, trendy, girly and not me. But this dress was WOW! So I bought it. I really think this was a good move for a few reasons : a) I've never looked so good in an article of clothing before b) It will be easy to match flowers, BM dresses and grooms c) is an absolutely timeless dress that I can see holding onto as a family heirloom.

I'm not much for fashion but I have to say that theres something about European dresses that screams timeless. The many American dresses I tried on were trendy, super girly, ballerina-like, princess like and well, kinda gag-worthy. They had hideous trim, silly beading and half the time the beads appeared to glued on. The dress I got is elegant, with beautiful light embroidery. It's not at all princessey. In fact it has a very strong feminine look. I actually think it's quite bold. It isn't puffy at all! In fact its the opposite! If I were able to find a pic I'd post it. But I haven't been able to find the specific model. The designer is Alarz and the workmanship in this dress is so superior to the American dresses of comparable prices. I just love it. I can't wait. White satin and light embroidery. Lace-up back! Although like most dresses, i doubt I can dance in it. I do intend to wear it for a bit of the reception.

So no matter what goes wrong with the rest of the wedding, I know I got that dress thing covered!

Friday, September 21, 2007

Dr. Helen and her opinion on women ruling the world..

Dr. Helen posted a response to Sally Field's Emmy acceptance speach. Sally stated that there wouldnt be any wars if the world was run by mothers...
Not exactly the best blanket statement to make, but what... Now Dr. Helen:

Sally Field and her ilk don’t really mean they want just any mom or woman to run the world, what she really meant when she talked about moms taking over is that leftist women should run the world.

What??! I didn't know that left-wingers were hoping to over throw patriarchy and instill a matriarchy!? hmmm how could I have been left out of such an enormous plan!?
Notice that the women who are always talking about how great and different things would be if women were in charge never mention real women leaders like Condi Rice or Margaret Thatcher because they are conservatives.

why yes! because they're conservatives... I'm sorry what's your point? oh sorry for interupting Helen, please do go on...

Unlike some leftist women who think that their sex puts them beyond the human traits of aggressiveness and violence, Rice and Thatcher understand that the realities of national security mean that negotiation and “making nice” with the schoolyard bully does not always work.

OH your absolutely right Helen, negotiation never solved anything and only conservative women know this...

And are these leftist women really the great humanitarians they imagine themselves to be? To answer that question, let’s turn to Allure magazine. In the latest issue, contributor Judith Newman (who is also a wonderful mom!), tries to do an interview with Britney Spears. Newman keeps getting snubbed by Spears so she writes an article about Britney not showing and contemplates what she would do if she ruled the world like Britney does. In a school girlish tone, Newman states:

What would I do if were 25, world famous, unimaginably wealthy, and no one could say no to me? Well, first, I’d sleep with Dick Cheney. (It’s my World. Welcome to it.) I don’t know what it is: the commanding voice, the crooked smile, the possibility that at any moment he might have a heart attack and I would save the lives of thousands…whatever it is , this would be my priority.My first thought as I read this passage was that Cheney is probably more man than this lady can handle and she might be the one having a heart attack, but that is another post for another day. My point in sharing this story is that if this “wonderful” mother were in charge, she sees nothing wrong with using passive-aggressive techniques such as having sex with the Vice President in the hopes of killing him. Isn’t using sex this way a bit—well, a lot—icky? And sadistic at the same time? Is this the type of person we want running the country? I hope not.

WHAT?! Why did she pick THIS quote to defend her weak and pointless arguement.. and why bother arguing this at all!?! god.I mean why bother attempting to argue that women would drive the world into oblivion when men are doing a fine job of that AS I TYPE!?
and this is where i just stop reading... it just tooo ridiculous. If you would like to read the rest of Dr. Helen's opinion piece on if women ruled the world and how she thinks women are dangerous, then you can read it here.

I would like to write a post about what the world would be like if Dr. Helen ruled it, but thats an entirely seperate post.. and I'll have to get over crying about all the obscenity and suffering first.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Wedding Worries!

So I'm getting married next summer and have just decided to take a look at the world of wedding dresses. My first thought is, I'm totally frightened! MY god, there are so many dresses yet they all look similar. How the hell do I choose one?! So anyway, I picked up a bridal mag and realised there is tons of shit I have to figure out besides the dress. I need shoes, and jewelry apparently. Also, I'm sapose to get a special gift for all the girls in the wedding, but that part I think I've figured out! Then I apparently need something that goes around my thigh... what are those called again? I already forget. I also need a vail except some people wear tiara's... (i don't think I'm gonna wear anything princess-like) Then there's that "something borrowed, something blue" I'm hoping to god my mother can help me out. I know my soon to be mother in law will. She says she's an expert with weddings.

So fashion is not my forte. I suck at it. Not only that, I'm basically colourblind.

Then there's the super bridezilla! I'm totally not like that. In fact I want this to be as painless and fun as possible! Any tips from your married folks? I'd appreciate it!

Monday, September 10, 2007

Article: "To Much To Bare"

I think what I find so incredibly discomfiting about these pictures is their suggestion that, no matter how talented a woman is, how many plaudits she has received, how intelligent her reputation, how garlanded she has been for depicting one of the most talented writers of the last century while sporting a huge prosthetic conk on her noggin, at the end of the day, if she wants to stay in the public eye, if she wants the magazine covers and the leading roles, she has to be willing to reduce herself to tits and arse.

I completely agree, it bothers me as well... :(

Read the full article here.

Article - "What Makes Some Men so Angry"

This should be good for a laugh.

But in all seriousness, I applaud the author for tackling this. I'm hoping to read the next columns. Entertaining this topic is an excercize in patience. (which has never been one of my virtues)

It really is another good insight into the minds of women-hating conservatives.

It's actually really funny cause in the article a commenter notes that meat-eating apparently is a threat to men. Anyway, check it out and read the next additions to the column. I'm interested to see where it goes..

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

More demonizing. I'm sick of reading stuff like this but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. But it's stuff like this that really piss me off:

For decades women have been struggling with the application of feminist theory to daily life. Does it mean all women should be in the workplace?

see! see what I'm talking about here?! This shit pisses me off. I love it when people think they know the ideals of feminism and they clearly don't. It's just ridiculous when they suggest that feminism is so extreme as to demand that all women be in the workplace.

The entire article makes me sad that a women wrote this, she obviously is no feminist.

I think it would be sad if "choice" simply meant women had an excuse to opt out of the workplace because it wasn’t friendly to them or because their husbands wouldn’t help with the housework. It would be equally disappointing to think that women were forced into the workplace if they wanted to be home with their children (though that’s life for most low-income families). On the other hand, men don’t get to hide behind making a choice, nor do very many of them have the opportunity to stay home with their children — so why should we?

So, it's another damned if you do and damned if you don't. So women who stay at home with their kids are critisized for "opting out of the workplace" oh yeah, lets not forget that apparently staying at home with your kids is an "excuse to not work". Mothers of the world! HOW FUCKING INSULTING IS THAT?!

And you know that men don't get to hide behind this choice... Look what she's implying? It's just awful. So the general population is demanding that women stay home with their kids and drop their careers. (you know that old, you can't have a career and kids silly woman") and Georgie here thinks that your just making an excuse to not work cause you can't handle the preassures of an unfriendly workplace.

I'm sorry but let me just say this : YOU STUPID CUNT! Way to show appreciation for the women fighting for your right to CHOOSE how you live your life. YOu can contact Georgie and tell her what a stupid fuck she is through the article. There's a link by her biography.

Friday, September 7, 2007

Harping on Mainstream Porn... new book!

I think I just may pick this book up today even though it's intended for men. Professor Robert Jensen's new book "Pornography and the end of Masculinity" by the review I just read sounds like it could be an interesting read. Jensen apparently "attacks" and dissects the billion dollar porn industry and relates it to all the inequities in society.

He calls our culture a "rape culture," represented in porn by its overtly racist and misogynist ways.

"Pornography is what the end of the world looks like," he said. "Porn is the product of the perfect storm of inequality."

To quote the author of the review I readHERE,

Jensen takes on pornography and masculinity, which, he said, produce sexual violence toward women, children and other men. And he does it all from a radical feminist perspective.

Unfortunately the author then begs you not to close the newspaper after reading the BIG BAD F-WORD... lame..

Read the review tho and ignore the authors bias littered throughout... Although the reviewer is a little "feminist stupid"

At any rate, I acknowledge that the porn industry is always looking for bigger better shockers. Back 20 years ago, porn that showed any kind of sexualized violence was considered S&M. However all kinds of degrading exercises have become standard. Remember soft core porn!? Gals in thongs... does that even exists anymore?

It's very sad what it has all come too ... but I still enjoy porn. So what does that say about me? I mean, good fun is good fun.. but it sounds like the man has a very valid point here. However asking people to stop watching porn is a little, well, unrealistic. I would be leaning towards the option of seeking out a non-mainstream porn. Lots of great porn can be found in female oriented adult shops. Sadly I doubt that men are going to be into it if they're use to watching the typical sperm facials, anal penetration and face slapping, choking blow jobs... *sigh*

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Waist to Hip - Thank you Erin!

Okay because I can't put it better, I'm just going to quote exactly what super med student Erin has told me about the Waist to Hip ratio I mentioned 2 posts down.

Erin Says:

Okay, so here's some information that I adapted from a textbook I have called "Evidence Based Physical Diagnosis" by Steven McGee (2007). Just ask me if you have any questions about what's in there. All this information is based on scientific and medical studies. This means that when the word "significant" is used, it doesn't just mean "notable"; it usually means that, statistically, if the study were to be repeated, there would be a 19 out of 20 chance that they would get the same results. If you need any of the specific references for what I've given you here (journal articles, etc.) let me know. I included info on waist-to-hip ratio, waist circumference, and BMI:

The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is the circumference of the waist divided by that of the hips. It is based on the premise that the most important characteristic of obesity is its distribution, not its quantity. "Abdominal" obesity (aka apple-shaped) has a much worse prognosis than "gluteal-femoral" obesity (aka pear-shaped).

Most authorities measure the waist circumference at the midpoint between the lower costal margin (your last rib, on the side of your body) and the iliac crest (your hip bone, on the side of your body) and the hip circumference at the widest part of the gluteal (buttock) region. Divide the measurement of the waist by that of the hips. Adverse health outcomes increase significantly when the WHR exceeds 1.0 in men and 0.85 in women.

WHR predicts health outcomes better than any other measure of the body. Even after accounting for the effects of BMI, the WHR correlates significantly with blood pressure, cholesterol level, incidence of diabetes mellitus, stroke, coronary events, and overall mortality.

The main contributor to abdominal obesity is fat that surrounds the intestines, stomach, and other organs behind the abdominal wall (called visceral fat), not fat that is just beneath the skin (subcutaneous fat). Visceral fat is very active metabolically, meaning that it readily releases fat that contributes to high cholesterol, plaque build up in the arteries, and problems with insulin which may lead to diabetes. Fat that is around the hips and thighs, on the other hand, is metabolically inactive, except during and shortly after pregnancy.

Waist circumference is simply the waist measurement taken for the WHR calculation. Although this measurement is simpler to do, it is not as good a measure as WHR. Recommended cutoffs for increased health risk are a waist circumference greater than 102 cm (40 inches) in men and 88 cm (35 inches) in women.

The BMI correlates well with precise measurements of total body fat, much better than other formulas of weight and height. The BMI also correlates significantly with the patient's cholesterol level, blood pressure, incidence of coronary events, and overal mortality.

The arbitrary cutoff of 25 kg/m^2 was chosen in part because it reflects the level at which there is a significant increase in mortality, although increased rates of complications such as diabetes appear at lower cutoffs

Wholey! I just learned a lot! And also learned that an alcohol soaked mind distorts conversations.. wait no I knew that already!

Music Blog.

You know it's been a while since I've done a good old fashion blog on music. So let me just blog on some music for a bit.

OOO, music dweebey fact :
After recently re-watching "High Fedelity" I decided to look up the band refered to by Dick as Licorice Comfits. The one he got at Vintage Vinyl that happened to be a japanese import only. I found out that this is a made up band. Guess they wanted to fuck with all the music snobs out there.

Okay but in all seriousness, I've been lacking a certain new variety in my music diet. I really want a new band to come grab me. Lately I've been sifting threw some oldies and some old favorites. Sonic Youth of course, Elliot Smith, PJ Harvey... well you get the picture. I'm happy to report I actually do enjoy about 4 tracks off the latest White Stripes album. I've been absorbing some metal but not really enjoying much of it. I like this band, "mouth of the architechs".

There are a few noteable upcoming shows that I got tickets for:

Eric's Trip with Elevator
High on Fire
The Locust

HPV Vaccine Controversy

It never ceases to amaze me how people are willing to throw away a good thing in the face of a little contraversey. We all know (or I should hope we all do) about the HPV vaccine and how Canada is about to (and in some provinces already has) launch mandated vaccine's for their girls grade 6 to 9. Of course someone's gotta complain about it.

So there's some questions surrounding the effectancy of the vaccine to protect against cervical cancer.. okay well lets consider HPV, an STD responsible for infecting over 70 percent of the population with at least one of it's over 100 different strains, hmmm let's look at those number. Granted the the vaccine only protects against 4 of the over 100 strains but by doing so illiminates the contraction of the 4 most common ones that a.) give you genital warts and b.) cause cervical cancer c.) have recently shown also may be a leading cause of throat cancer.

For a 400$ cost to our health care system, your wanting to risk your chances here? Damn are you retarded? Furthermore let's look at how easy it is to contract HPV. A condom cannot protect you from HPV. It can be passed by oral sex, it can be passed by simple skin to skin contact. That's how easy it is to catch HPV. And yes it is true that some instances of HPV can clear up and "cure" themselves but those aren't the ones you should be worried about. You should be worried about the ones that cause re-occuring bouts of cancerous cells on your cervex,causing cervical cancer. You should be worried about constant outbreaks of genital warts. Thats what your protecting yourself and others against by getting the vaccine. And do keep in mind, you aren't just doing this for yourself, your doing this for other people.

As for the other worries about sudden HPV vaccine death :

As of May of this year, more than 2,000 adverse Gardasil-related events were filed with the US FDA, including 239 cases of syncope (fainting and temporary loss of consciousness) and seven deaths. Whether or not these incidents were caused by the vaccine remains open to study, but suffice to say that any treatment has the potential for adverse effects, ranging from the merely unpleasant to the deadly.

Please note that bold sentence. Lots of people still have adverse reactions to their boosters vaccine. But everyone still gets their boosters.

You Know How Some People Seem to be Naturally Skinny? Well, they think they proved why.

Researchers say they've found the cure forobesity in a gene that apparently controls the level of fat your body stores similar to a volume nob. I'm skeptical but who knows. Although scientists claim to see a dramatic recovery in obese flies, it looks like the human race is going to have to wait some amount of "years" before getting to thinnify themselves with some kind of miracle drug. Surprise. Looks like we'll just have to you know, eat properly and get excercise.

You know on a seperate note, I'm fucking tired of people who don't know the difference between being fit and just being skinny. It's really agrivating. So for all you numb nuts out there that think having the body of a 13 year old girl means your healthy, I would like to interject with a peice of info from a good friend of mine in med school who stated : "an accurate way to educate ones health is not by weight and BMI testing, but by hip to waist ratio."

which makes a lot of damn good sense to me. I know a lot of volumptious ladies who some would more callously label as fat who are actually in better health than most skinny people because of a healthy hip to waiste ratio. You take you hips and devide by your waist and presto ratio (hope I got that right Erin) My friend tells me that 8 is an average healthy ratio. I'll get a quote from her momentarily rather than my re-interpreted jargen.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Feminists are Apparently to Blame for the Downfalls of Western Society

Why do anti-feminists always claim that feminism caused women to "wallow in victimhood" ? I hear/read this all the time. (Dr. Helen's commenters can be accused of using this statement to further their own hatred of feminism, as can so many more obvious places)

It's one of the first complaints I hear from anti-feminist and mysoginists. It's typical really. Feminism empowers women to stand up for themselves when they are being victomized and the anti-feminist turn it around, taking that empowerment, that confidence,control and bravery away by stating- "oh your wallowing in victomhood, you weak little woman."

I was reading about author and self-proclaimed feminist Laura Kipnis and her latest book "The Female Thing". I'm always interested in looking into "non-traditional" feminist theory, which I think this can be categorized as. Yet, after reading more about the author, she comes off as less a feminist and more of another "don't blame the boys" which is construed feminism in my book. To imply that men are the cause of female problems is a blame game just as it is to imply that women are to blame for their own problems. Is it not safe to say that anti-feminists and mysoginsts as well as RELIGION be the major guilty parties for the oppression of women over the years? And today's society suffers the media and misconceived notions of what it means to be feminine and a feminist.

Kipnis is interested in the inner woman, what she calls "feminism's unanticipated opponent", who can't seem to decide whether she wants to be dominated or domineering. If there is to be a feminist revival, she argues, we have to somehow reconcile the two.

See this statement is just silly. Frist off, can we please address which women she is refering to? You get this uncomfortable feeling, like with all blanket statements. For me this is so simple. Domineering or dominated!? Another mis-conception about Feminists, that they are domineering.. (hence are out to immaciate all the men!) and then this whole domination?!

One, such as me, could address this need/want to be dominated as a bedroom thing. I'm an assertive gal in most respects and won't let someone dominate over me in conversation. But sexual desire is perhaps another matter. I want to be "dominated" in bed by my very significant other. But this isn't to be confused with wanting to be dominated in my every day life. Shoved in a position of forced motherhood or office-bound secretary. It's instinct, it's the bedroom and it's a preference I share with countless other women.

"At this point in time it is not clear to me what feminism is."

Well clearly. Maybe you could, I dunno, try speaking to some feminists?

Speaking at this year's Edinburgh Book Festival, author Fay Weldon - a prominent second-wave libber - bemoaned the fact that today's young women feel there is no reason or cause for feminism. Kipnis is not surprised. If feminism has stalled, she says, it is because it failed to acknowledge the fact that girls also want to have fun.

Again, another mis-conception, that feminism is not needed, or "girls" aren't interested in feminism. But where does this "they just want to have fun" come in? This sounds like a dangerous statement to me... because it is. What is Kipnis implying here? Let's find out!

"I can see why young people would not want to be associated with a movement that focuses on campaigning against porn, and takes itself so seriously," says Kipnis.

Not porn oh no! we love porn cause gals these days are vapid sluts trying eagerly to please their men! (please insert the sarcasim as neccessary) and seriousness?! why, girls just wanna have fun don't you know? We're irresponsible, fun loving, weekly abortion having sex kittens!

"I understand why women might not want to call themselves feminists - unless it's a turn-on for their man, of course."

OH NO SHE DIDN'T! (talking the teenage speach now! I mean apparently all gals these days can do no more than that)

Kipnis takes an unashamedly lusty approach to sex, and explores its contradictions from her particular female perspective. "Heterosexual women cannot be indifferent to men," she says. "We want them in profound ways, and despite lip-service to independence and autonomy it remains the case that women's desire to attract and keep a man dictates an awful lot of how we relate to ourselves."

Oh dear god, read "the naked ape". 'nough said. It's like she's using sex to state what side of the fence your on. (as is common) She's like so many others are turning sex into a state of being rather than an act.
One's instinct to attract a mate shouldn't be confused with one's place in society.

She describes her book as "a report from someone with a conflicted female psyche", and is unashamed about exploring it. "There is ambivalence, there are splits, it is part of the human condition," she says. "There are splits between the desire for freedom and stability, for instance, and in terms of sexual desire, just scratch the surface and you come up with plenty. Take fantasy: one of the reasons why feminism has been rejected is that women want to be able to fantasise and have fun. They don't want it taken literally. Fantasy is not the same as wanting something to happen."

OKay wait, back-up. Who said feminism doesn't allow women to fantasize? WTF mate!?! It's the same thing with the porn. The major issue surrounding porn with me, isn't that it's desrespectful to women by showing them being plowed, poked and penitrated, it's that there's a shitload of porn that is sexualizing violence (which is a whole other rant soon to come) and exploiting the women involved in the industry, especially with the spike in independant porn in the light of the internet. Under-paid sex workers, violence to workers, an un-monitered and un-regulated sex industry, is a bad industry. That's how people get hurt. That's my biggest beef with strip clubs - by all means keep the strip clubs, but god damn, make sure they're strictly regulated for the safety of those employed there. But let's continue, here we go:

The argument is that we have to accept women have an erotic identification with violation. "The rape fantasy is quite key, quite central, but incredibly controversial," says Kipnis. "It is a sub-textual acknowledgement of women's propensity to masochism."

no... actually your just wrong and stupid... I know this because I have the rape fantasy, I'm gonna come out and say it because I can actually explain it. It is incredibly common to sexualize fears. All kinds of fears. Just because I fantasize this doesn't mean that I actually want it to happen. Think about it physically for a second, fear creates adrennaline, and adrennaline is exciting and that helps get you off pretty damn quick. It's also common for sexually abused children to fantasize about rape as adults, does that mean they want to be raped? NO! I also believe that the media is much to blame for this. Growing up and being subjected to images of dominated women. Women who kinda "fall" into sex rather than actually go for it. Women who are being saved and then the hero wins a kiss?! These are all images of dominated women where things happen to them, they don't actually do anything. One can also blame religion for the rape fantasy. Growing up as a Christian I learned that women aren't sapose to enjoy sex or even want it. It's a neccessary function that happens to a gal when she's married and one should be ashamed of their sexual desires. Therefore, if sex just happens to you, then you didn't really do anything wrong, did you? It's a very twisted thought process but quite true to someone who's been taught to suppress their natural urges. Let's continue:

She blames feminism, for banging on about defensive-sounding "empowerment" and insisting on portraying women as eternally at-risk. And, she says, new forms of sexual vulnerability are emerging, exemplified by the new legal classification of "unwanted sexual advance".

women are eternally at risk from where I sit. I dunno about you. I can't see rape going away any time soon, although in a perfect world it would. (incase you didn't notice sunshine, the world isn't perfect) "unwanted sexual advances" . wow, we're really undermining the reason for restraining orders and sexual harrassment cases aren't we. If being called repeatedly after declining romantic invitations were "unwanted sexual advances" then can one safely devise that a titty grab in a bar is what? I think any gal can safely admit that an ass grab deserves a slap in the face not a lawsuit, but a repeated assgrab by that same face slapped asshole, deserves some legal action, especially in cases of employment.

Blaming everything on the rapaciousness of men, she says, conveniently leaves female desire out of the story: "If anything has made recent feminism irrelevant and ridiculous, it's this reductiveness about desire and the embrace of victimology."

OH DEAR GOD! She's now turned into a poster gal for Dr. Helen. Acknowledging violence towards women does not make one a victim wallower! (is victimology even a word?) And am I crazy of is she implying that the desires of women (what? because some have rape fantasies?) are to blame for rape? Or in some way is she stating that we're trying to diminish the belief in rape fantasy's so that you know, rape still seen for the heinus crime it is? I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense and I'm trying to pull it together because female sexual desires have nothing to do with rape or violence, so why is she trying to marry the two?

"Early on there was a sense that changing the position of women in society would change society as whole, but that has not happened. Individuals may have gained advantages, but social inequality has increased: the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. What kind of achievement is that?"

Okay finally I can agree with her somewhat... but lady, is feminism to blame for not being able to transform all of western society?! That's pretty unfair to feminism and all the good it has done.

From there, she gets to talking about motherhood and equity, I don't disagree much but she also isn't offering any solutions to the problem women face with motherhood. She's just stating the obvious. Obviously we all know that there needs to be more support to make child-rearing possible. Oh but she says it more crasly and says "to make child rearing more rewarding"... god. But wait! Then she get's all weird:

She believes that the overbearing style of today's former careerists turned full-time mothers is breeding selfish narcissists who will surely perpetuate our problems. "You have to wonder what industrial-strength varieties of neurosis will soon be appearing in this generation of over-parented children as they near adulthood," she writes.

So one moment women can't afford enough time for their children and the next they can afford too much. Either way they end up ruining their children acording to Kipnis. It sounds like Kipnis is a very confused 51 year old lady. (and sexually repressed)

"But in the largest sense I am interested in more freedom for all, regardless of gender. I believe there should be much more economic justice, and I would like to see feminism keep that in mind. Now, it's not just about women, but greater equity right across the board."

Obviously feminism is about equality. Kipnis doesn't seem to think that men are treated fairly even tho (at least in this article) she doesn't state how men are treated unfairly, only that feminism places blame on men for their woes (which could be more correctly defined as oppression and inequality but you know it's apparently a gray area...right)

Okay her other book I would probably read :
I her previous book, Against Love, Kipnis examined coupledom and concluded that adultery is nature's way of keeping marriage alive. In this one, she identifies household chores as the sex war's front line, commenting that "men's refusal to really share the housework isn't just the big hurdle for gender equality: the whole future of heterosexual marriage probably hangs in the balance".

But when I find my very significant other lagging in that department I just tell him and he makes the extra effort to clean.

Reflecting that some women say cleaning helps them to deal with their feelings about their bodies, Kipnis says: "Perhaps the shape of the problem begins to come into focus: the household and the body stand in for each other at some sort of not entirely conscious level. But here's the complication: wouldn't scrubbing away at unwelcome feelings also serve the dual purpose of confirming them? Can you scrub away an existential condition?"

No but you can lose some weight while your cleaning and not live in squaller. Man, everyone's gotta clean. Cleaning is neccessary and I suppose that some women could feel better having acomplished something physical that day. I think someone's reaching here...

At the end of this article I really wanted to dismiss Kipnis as an older lady who's *shocker* just not impressed by the younger generation. Oh and she says this:one book she would recommend for a 15-year-old girl is Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. "It is really radical, far more thinking than most," she says. "She tries to be scathingly honest and there's a refreshing lack of sentimentality, which is the great feminine downfall."

oh that last statement makes me wanna slap her. And finally :

And if there was one warning? "Make sure you are secure with your own income source. It is absurd and naive to assume that you are going to be supported by a man for the rest of your life."

I don't know any younger gal who thinks a man is gonna take care of her.. Someone's a little out of touch with the younger generations. YA THINK? Oh and Cindy Lauper is so 1980's even if she did make that little come-back with Cher! Don't recude my generation to a 25 year old Cindy Lauper pop-hit.

If you wanna read the article: it's here!

Dolly Mix!

Check out this entry on DollyMix. It's pretty damn funny. I know I'm a little late posting it. Sorries!