Whose in?
I know it's a totally weird position for a feminist to take but bear with me for a moment. [Or, bare with me. I haven't decided which is a more appropriate term right now]. And, anyways it wasn't my idea. Technically it was SaF's idea on the Mumsnet webchat with Naomi Wolf and SaF suggested that women start walking about with them in permanently so we are having perpetual orgasms and don't notice abusive men. I just think we should take it one step further and campaign to have them available on the NHS. That way no women would ever not be able to afford to walk around in a permanent state of bliss.
According to Wolf, lots of orgasms make women happier because of some freaky relationship between the vagina and the brain or some other totally stupid and scientifically asinine thing. I'm sure I could be clearer on this but that would require spending more time trying to work out what she was on about and I just can't be arsed. Helpfully, the New Statesman has published a review by the blogger Neuroskeptic which lists the ways in which Wolf is just wrong about female anatomy [amongst many other things]. She's also wrong about some pretty basic tenets of historical and archaeological research but, really, these major fallacies have never stopped Wolf spouting on about shit she doesn't understand [see for instance: her stance on the Assange rape case].
But, back to the to the love eggs thing. It will save a fortune on treating domestic violence. After all, women being magicked into dopamine inspired delusions of happiness will make DV disappear. Or, we'll be too stoned to care. Because this seems to be Wolf's premise, if women stop being whiny, men won't be obnoxious anymore. It's women's faults that men are shit lovers because we don't wank enough. At least, I think that's what she's saying. I'm not sure Wolf really knows what she's on about. The Mumsnet webchat was an embarrassing mixture of narcissism and self-delusion interspersed with moments of sheer brilliance on the part of Mumsnetters whose collective vaginas were a trifle confused by Wolf.
These are a sample of the questions that Wolf, for reasons best known to herself, didn't really answer. Well, some of them were answered with psychobabble, twaddle and general nincompoopery. Someone definitely didn't read Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender. And, it wasn't me because I should be getting royalties for encouraging everyone I know to buy the book. Pretty much everything that Wolf has hypothesised about the magical connection between the brain and vagina is just, well, nincompoopery. The point is we simply don't know enough about the brain to make the ridiculous claims that Wolf does and even if we did have the knowledge, defining science in such victim-blaming rhetoric is just offensive. Wolf has managed to write a book that blames women for not being happy. Thanks a fucking lot for that.
Do check the status of your pelvic floor before reading the following; just in case it's not in harmony with your vagina.
Naomi
The short passages in Vagina that refer to the prehistoric 'Venus' figurines are, archaeologically, beyond parody. Is there some strange rule in the world of Pop Fem Bestsellers whereby writers such as youself and Camille Paglia are not allowed to read actual archaeological textbooks and analyses?
The short passages in Vagina that refer to the prehistoric 'Venus' figurines are, archaeologically, beyond parody. Is there some strange rule in the world of Pop Fem Bestsellers whereby writers such as youself and Camille Paglia are not allowed to read actual archaeological textbooks and analyses?
From my reading of extracts and reviews, the book is essentialist (it argues for an essential femininity located in the nervous system) and also heteronormative (there is a lot of emphasis on sexual-romantic relationships with men and the importance of male pheromones in women's lives).
What does your book have to say to women who are lesbian, single (by choice or circumstance) or who just don't see their sexual relationships with men as a primary part of their identity?
What does your book have to say to women who are lesbian, single (by choice or circumstance) or who just don't see their sexual relationships with men as a primary part of their identity?
Hi Naomi
How do you think promoting rape myths and defending the right of men to penetrate women who are asleep and therefore cannot consent to sex, fits in with calling yourself a feminist? Also you appear like other Assange fans, to believe that if a woman consents to sex with a man, that means that she consents under any terms and doesn't have the right to set conditions, like for example that he must wear a condom. Can you explain how that is a feminist position? Because it sounds to me very much closer to a rapey position.
And Mumsnet, how does having a woman who defends the right of men to penetrate women without their consent if they have had previous sexual intercourse with them on for a webchat, fit in with your "We Believe You" anti-rape campaign?
How do you think promoting rape myths and defending the right of men to penetrate women who are asleep and therefore cannot consent to sex, fits in with calling yourself a feminist? Also you appear like other Assange fans, to believe that if a woman consents to sex with a man, that means that she consents under any terms and doesn't have the right to set conditions, like for example that he must wear a condom. Can you explain how that is a feminist position? Because it sounds to me very much closer to a rapey position.
And Mumsnet, how does having a woman who defends the right of men to penetrate women without their consent if they have had previous sexual intercourse with them on for a webchat, fit in with your "We Believe You" anti-rape campaign?
Naomi, why, when reflecting on the Assange case, did you feel it was a priority to use your power and influence to fuel the rape myths already predictably being perpetuated widely?
MNHQ, I'd also like to add my voice to those asking how this fits with the We Believe You Campaign.
MNHQ, I'd also like to add my voice to those asking how this fits with the We Believe You Campaign.
So what is your position on Assange then Naomi?
If we accept your premise, that this prosecution is politically motivated, does that mean it shouldn't go ahead even if those women in Sweden are claiming to be raped?
Should we ignore women who describe being raped in cases where we like the politics of the men accused of raping them?
I totally agree with you that in normal cases, rape victims are treated shamefully badly and rape allegations are not taken as seriously as they ought to be. But does this mean that because most rape allegations are not pursued with the vigour that they should be, it's wrong for a state to pursue rape allegations in the case of men the state might not like and the rest of us might admire or agree with on other issues?
Because you do realise that if that is your position (and it is the position of may people on the left) then it's not a feminist position, don't you? It's a position which says that although women's rights are all fine and dandy, when it comes to the really important things in life, like fighting imperialism/ poverty/ racism/ insert worthy cause here, women's human rights have to go to the back of the queue? You do understand that feminism does not accept the premise that women's human rights come last, don't you?
If we accept your premise, that this prosecution is politically motivated, does that mean it shouldn't go ahead even if those women in Sweden are claiming to be raped?
Should we ignore women who describe being raped in cases where we like the politics of the men accused of raping them?
I totally agree with you that in normal cases, rape victims are treated shamefully badly and rape allegations are not taken as seriously as they ought to be. But does this mean that because most rape allegations are not pursued with the vigour that they should be, it's wrong for a state to pursue rape allegations in the case of men the state might not like and the rest of us might admire or agree with on other issues?
Because you do realise that if that is your position (and it is the position of may people on the left) then it's not a feminist position, don't you? It's a position which says that although women's rights are all fine and dandy, when it comes to the really important things in life, like fighting imperialism/ poverty/ racism/ insert worthy cause here, women's human rights have to go to the back of the queue? You do understand that feminism does not accept the premise that women's human rights come last, don't you?
Naomi
Do you think that the rights of Assange are more important than the rights of two women who accused him of serious sexual assault and rape?
And what does that signal to any woman raped by an important political figure?
Should DSK not have been investigated because of his political standing? Maybe that was a conspiracy too.
This is why it is important that these cases come to trial. Because it is not up to journalists or bloggers to decide, but a judge and jury.
Do you think that the rights of Assange are more important than the rights of two women who accused him of serious sexual assault and rape?
And what does that signal to any woman raped by an important political figure?
Should DSK not have been investigated because of his political standing? Maybe that was a conspiracy too.
This is why it is important that these cases come to trial. Because it is not up to journalists or bloggers to decide, but a judge and jury.
What part of rape counselling training suggests sarky public pisstaking as being beneficial to survivors of rape?
'I do not write or post rape myths.'
How can you say that when that is EXACTLY what that Huff Post article was doing? If you have spent as much time supporting rape victims as you say you must be aware of the very widespread and damaging myth that women 'cry rape' when displeased with the behaviour of their male sexual partner. That was exactly what you were promulgating the idea of their having done in that piece.
Perhaps you should admit that on this case you did write a rape myth, and try harder not to do it again?
How can you say that when that is EXACTLY what that Huff Post article was doing? If you have spent as much time supporting rape victims as you say you must be aware of the very widespread and damaging myth that women 'cry rape' when displeased with the behaviour of their male sexual partner. That was exactly what you were promulgating the idea of their having done in that piece.
Perhaps you should admit that on this case you did write a rape myth, and try harder not to do it again?
You like the f word? So you think that it is transphobic for females assigned at birth to meet together without the presence of males assigned at birth?
Does your book apply to transwomen with constructed vaginas?
Isn't it transphobic to write a book which ignores transwomen's experience of their 'vaginas' (or lack of them)?
Does your book apply to transwomen with constructed vaginas?
Isn't it transphobic to write a book which ignores transwomen's experience of their 'vaginas' (or lack of them)?
When investigating the neuroscience of the vagina, did your studies include an investigation into which part of the brain lights up during "bad sexual etiquette"?
Are the neural connections between vagina and brain, and the mood-consequences of the chemicals released during orgasm really any different in degree or importance from other sorts of body--mood connections, such as those between exercise and mood, or diet and mood? Do these connections really deserve claims "the vagina is an essential part of what makes women great leaders?" Is the vagina-brain connection more important than the penis-brain connection?
I must say that I feel as sceptical and resistant to being told that the vagina is the seat (or a seat) of my self as I am to being told that my wandering womb has that role.
We live in an age of very great discovery about the roles of neurochemicals, neurotransmitters et al, but these have to be conceptualised very carefully indeed to avoid dodgy determinist theses and oversimplification.
I must say that I feel as sceptical and resistant to being told that the vagina is the seat (or a seat) of my self as I am to being told that my wandering womb has that role.
We live in an age of very great discovery about the roles of neurochemicals, neurotransmitters et al, but these have to be conceptualised very carefully indeed to avoid dodgy determinist theses and oversimplification.
Men who do more housework get more sex, you know . Who'd have thought it was all down to vaginal nerves?!
Would all of these positive feedback/hormones from the vagina also be present if orgasming through oral sex or masterbation, or is PIV necessary?
Naomi - just as women have made huge inroads into the professional world, but men have not on the whole stepped up to seek equality on the domestic / childcare front, women have made huge leaps in demanding sexual fulfullment. The "lie back and think of England" thinking may still exist, but most women know about orgasms, vibrators, sexual fulfillment, even if it is only a theoretical knowledge.
So, just as to achieve equality in coupledom, men need to step up and assume their responsibilities for cleaning the loo and making the kids' dental appointments, the sexual fulfillment of women requires men stepping up and responding to women appropriately?
And writing about the neuroscience behind the vagina is yet another way to put the onus on women?
So, just as to achieve equality in coupledom, men need to step up and assume their responsibilities for cleaning the loo and making the kids' dental appointments, the sexual fulfillment of women requires men stepping up and responding to women appropriately?
And writing about the neuroscience behind the vagina is yet another way to put the onus on women?
Why does victim anonymity result in a low rape conviction rate?
My vagina is positively tying itself in knots trying to work it out.
My vagina is positively tying itself in knots trying to work it out.
I think the brain-vagina link is actually fascinating.
I think the arse-mouth link is also an area worthy of further research. Just how do some people come to talk out of their bottoms?
So rape victims aren't getting convictions because they're not fighting back hard enough?
And if we take away their anonymity they will be stop being ashamed, like the gay people, and their shame is the reason why they're not getting convictions and when gay people stopped being ashamed it got better for them?
I think the arse-mouth link is also an area worthy of further research. Just how do some people come to talk out of their bottoms?
So rape victims aren't getting convictions because they're not fighting back hard enough?
And if we take away their anonymity they will be stop being ashamed, like the gay people, and their shame is the reason why they're not getting convictions and when gay people stopped being ashamed it got better for them?My favourite bit was this and not just because it's me:
Or possibly this one:
or this:
0 comments:
Post a Comment