14 August 2005 - 6:12pm
more "progressive" anti-choice rhetoric
Stumbled across this two-faced little piece on commondreams.org, a so-called progressive news site today, entitled "In Praise of Female Sexuality."
As I clicked on it, I was hopeful. 'Yay,' I thought, 'finally, something that's not going to denounce women for being sexual beings.'
And then I read it.
On the surface, Paul Sheehan seems to have decent enough opinions, at least, in regards to sexual freedom. He's all for women being sexual, being free to be sexual, and renouncing all stigma associated with being female and sexually active, even sexually promiscuous.
But really, it's just because Paul here sees women's role purely as the baby-maker.
At first, I thought he was joking, or being sarcastic, and maybe I missed the "jk" hidden in the article, alerting us all to his 'i'm really not sexist' sarcasm. But I didn't find it, and I don't think it exists.
He has occasional, pseudo-redeeming points in his otherwise offensive article, like:
"Our aim should be to have children born into a culture where there is plenty of support for child care in addition to the mother, thus liberating mothers to more fully exploit the possibilities that advanced society can offer them."
Ok, so that's really just about the only good one he's got.
Some priceless gems:
"A woman's body is at its fertility peak between the ages of 17 and 23. So when young women advertise or flaunt their sexuality they are being driven by a force far stronger than the Judeo-Christian ethic. They are driven by the power of peak fertility and a million years of evolutionary biology. Nature has programmed them for pregnancy, genetic diversity and keeping the species going. A big job....These women are just doing their job....
"This is society's real problem. Teenage pregnancy is trivial by comparison to suppressed pregnancy."
As far as I can tell, Paul's being completely serious throughout the whole thing.
Even if you look at this not from a feminist standpoint (which I suck at doing, but try sometimes anyway), "society's problem is suppressed pregnancy"?
Um.
Are we on the same planet here? You know, the one that's wayyyy overpopulated and, if anything, needs for people to stop having so many kids and over-repopulating the over-exerted world?
And then, from the feminist perspective...I'd like to think that women have more to do in this life than propagate the species. Yeah, we can do that too. But it's not "our job," because that implies that it's mandatory that we make babies. I'm sorry, Paul, but no kid's coming out of this vagina. Or the vagina of an infertile woman. Or lots of other women's vaginas who simply don't want to do "their job."
How about we focus on reproduction as less of a "job" and more of a choice, please? Thanks.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
So I suppose boys and young men who rape women and girls are just "keeping the species going....just doing their job"?
"evolutionary biology," brace yourself for the load of bullshit soon to follow.
Human behavior is primarily learned. Yes, we have the urge to mate, but that urge is expressed so differently in different cultures that there is very little else you can attribute to biology. I don't even agree with the idea that sex is for the purpose of reproduction. Reproduction is the result of sex, but we are capable of having sex at any time and it only occasionally results in a pregnancy. To say that the only reason for sex is procreation ignores the reality of biology - particularly that of the human female.
Always write a letter to the editor when you see some bullshit like that and let them know that you can live without the anti-choice propaganda. It only promotes the enslavement of women.
Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements
Because women need nipples to nurse their children.
The logic of evolutionary biology is a bit mysterious to ascribe intention.
To address the first issue that a woman's job is procreation, he may have just knocked himself off the planet. We can reproduce without a huge male population and could just save the sperm and save the planet from being largely overpopulated by killing off all the guys. Think about it: just over half of us are women and males produce fully *matured* sperm at 13, so we could reduce the population almost in half (3 billion over six). Then again, offing the men is also effective with war, as violence over turf is attributed to the violent nature of the males species.
Ok, I'm kidding....sort of. Just pointing out how ridiculous his argument is, tho I suspect he promotes female sexuality and promiscuity in an effort to get laid himself.
Nipples. Ok, this is for real. Male and female embryos are EXACTLY the same until the addition of the x or y chromosome. The x chromosome is dominent (XX or XY). As the fetus develops, all the organs grow to the sex that has been assigned and nearly all of our parts are anagalous, it's just the female gets extra (re: the uterus/vaginal canal. The clitoris is made up of the same tissue as the penis, the labia become testicles, the prostate in males become the urethral sponge which functions the same, it creates seminal fluid (without sperm). (I promise from personal experience which is becoming backed slowly by science that female ejaculation exists. No, I haven't been abducted by aliens, at least recently). The sperm is added from the testicles, eggs are created in the fallopian tubes. So nipples exist in males because they existed from the start just like noses and assholes. Besides creating milk, they do function as a sexual arousal organ.
And for everyone who is going to freak out and deny female ejaculation exists, I offer the following: FE has been recorded and promoted as early as 500 B.C.E in Chinese and Indian sex advice books, including the Karma Sutra, which has lost some *knowledge* in translation. (re: the guy who translated it left parts out he didn't agree with) And remember, the *idea* of a woman's ability to have an orgasm was absolutely denied until Kinsey wrote about it in 1950. And his work was considered absolute heresy.
From the article: "There is nothing wrong with pelvic display, push-up bras, Gosford miniskirts, spray-on jeans, low-cut tops, bare legs, bare arms, bare ankles, G-strings or even buttock cleavage, providing the displayer is young enough to get away with it."
Um. That's like the creepiness of Aretha Franklin's line "you make me feel like a natural woman" writ large. Even larger, I should say. In one sentence he combines:
1. Looking like a sex object is good.
2. Acting like a sex object is good.
3. Being a sex object is good.
4. Being a trendy consumer is good.
5. Youth is good (if you're female).
6. Age is bad (if you're female).
7. Thinking is bad (if you're female).
And prolly much more. Brr.