Carnival of Feminists No 59

Welcome to the Carnival of Feminists, which begins with an apology, for the hiatus since the last, which was due to my disappearing under a deluge of work, from which I’m slowly extracting myself.

So there’s more than a month of nominations here, and I decided the best thing to do was to collect them, to allow a new host a managable run.

And the next host will be Unmana’s words, on July 9. She kindly came asking if I needed hosts. You can use the nomination form to send links to her, or email her at unmana AT gmail DOT com.

(But I still need more hosts – if you’re interested, whether a “veteran” feminist blogger, or a “newbie”, or somewhere in between, please drop me a line, natalieben AT gmail DOT com.)

So, to a veritable cornucopia of feminists posts – and how to organise them? Well I’ve decided to do something different this time – to test the effects of serendipity. What’s below is, more or less, the order in which the nominations arrived; which might produce some interesting juxtapositions…

(Although I have by and large eliminated multiples from the same blog, in the interest of not allowing “swamping”. I’ve chosen the first one from each blog – following on the theme of allowing Lady Luck to do her stuff.)

To begin let’s be cheerful with Tali, who concludes, in an exploration of decades of women and motorcycles, that Ladies Prefer Vespa .

Moving into more serious territory, on Feminist Philosophers, Jender looks at a yet another rule for breastfeeding mothers. You have to wonder how the human race survived before the job of expert in childhood was invented.

Madeleine Begun Kane presents her own inimitable style view of Hillary and Obama, after the race was won.

Ann Bartow recovers some feminist history with a clip from an interview of Margaret Sanger on 9/21/57.

And a reminder that for some American women, not much has changed: Holly Ord presents Anti-Choice Oklahoma .

Getting even more subversive, you can meet The Female Sex Agent posted at Agent of Desire, which is “all about claiming back female sexuality for women sick of objectification.”

Nine Deuce concludes that The First Amendment is only sort of cool.

Cruella find that there’s Trouble in Comedy-Land.

Womanist Musings presents East Vs. West – The Feminist Divide.

Cara gets angry about claims of Faulty Feminist Introspection .

As is Lindabeth, about the fact that Sexualized Ads Become “Obscene” When Guys are the Objects.

Pete sees how Western misogyny translated to China in the Gold Diggers of 1936 .

Louisefeminista brings us back to the present with a The “Matriarch of Interracial Marriage” and Other Groundbreaking Female Plaintiffs; that’s about Mildred Loving, who made history in 1967 with a lawsuit that led the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.

The intersection of racism and sexism is also explored by Deborah in Where did I learn my racism? and there’s a response by Anjum.

Getting more, dare I say it, postmodern, you can play Spot the Harry Enfield fan, while Fannie is also concerned about looks and what WNBA players are told about them.

Concerned with looking rather than looks, PodBlack looks at Ashes To Ashes – Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Tart.

Marcella Chester considers Why Rape Survivors Go Online.

Womanist Musings presents Stuck In The Middle, again considering the race/gender intersection.

Fiona Young-Brown concludes that yes, pregnant women have sex, and even enjoy it. So?

And in a possible related issue, Sarah McClellan-Brandt considersthe name change issue

At Miss Andrea’s, there’s a deconsruction of transgenderism. (Link de-activated, see comment below.)

And that concludes this rather unusual carnival. I promise that we’ll now get back on regular track. And remember – if you want to host, the email’s natalieben AT gmail DOT com.

126 Comments

  • June 29, 2008 - 6:47 pm | Permalink

    You really need to learn that you don’t prove anything by asserting it’s true. You keep using words like logic and prove, yet you are doing neither. (and SnowDropExplodes linked his post that proves your lack of logic)

    I have proven that all trans*ism isn’t a fetish. A fetish is sexual (and therefore, tied to feelings) and I’ve proven that me being a guy is not based in my sexual feelings.

    “So don’t dare dismiss my gender as a construct, drag or a performance, because my gender is a work of non-fiction.”–The ever-wonderful Julia Serano, read the whole piece, she says it better than I could.

  • June 29, 2008 - 8:02 pm | Permalink

    In order to prove or disprove a negative, one simply inverts it to it’s positive form.

    Sometimes it takes a little parsing out to find that positive form. In the case of “prove it’s not a fetish” we could say “prove it is a fetish” but that isn’t what we’re after. We want to either prove or disprove the validity of transgenderism.

    And so we simply look to see what the basic tenets of transgenderism might be. They claim that the reason transgenderism is a valid medical condition is because not only are male and female brains structurally different, but that in addition specific genetalia are required to express that different brain structure.

    Their logic is inherently flawed, as no brain of either sex (if significant differences in brain structure even exist) would ever require a specific genitalia to “express” itself.

    I’m sorry, you can of course do whatever you want with your own body, as long as you’re not hurting yourself or others; but to insist that the transgendered are entitled to public validation or legal protection (beyond what is already given to all humans) BASED ON FLAWED LOGIC is unreasonable.

    We might as well say that that paraplegics are unable to express their internal character because they too are trapped in the “wrong” body. One does not need a specific body in order to expess one’s character.

    I know someone who is schizophrenic. While he is entitled to respect and dignity, I refuse to believe his delusions are real. That does neither of us any good.

  • June 29, 2008 - 8:29 pm | Permalink

    We don’t have to change our bodies to express our internal character.
    In the case of many transsexuals, myself included, our brain expects a certain set of genitals and when those are not there it causes a great deal of pain and discomfort.

    It has nothing to do with hammers or vacuums or sexual intercourse/feelings.
    To assume otherwise is based on flawed logic.

  • June 29, 2008 - 8:30 pm | Permalink

    And fetishes are about sexual feelings. To tell me that my feelings surrounding being trans* are not permissible as evidence against trans*ism being a fetish is really flawed logic.

  • June 29, 2008 - 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Go back under your bridge, mAndrea.

    And no, no response I have to you from here on out is going to be anything other than the flames you so richly deserve. Further contributing to the dignity and well being of no one. Host?

  • June 29, 2008 - 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Oh, and mAndrea? You really have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about, with the psychobabble. (Or anything else, really, but still, it’s beginning to grate). I’m happy to provide you with an armchair diagnosis of your very own, though. Sadly, the DSM still has no entry for “bone-crushingly stupid and horrible troll,” but with any luck, this will be rectified one day.

  • June 29, 2008 - 11:05 pm | Permalink

    We want to either prove or disprove the validity of transgenderism

    Repeatedly stating asinine assumptions that have no basis in reality is not the same thing as building an argument that proves or disproves something.

    Logic: ur doin it rong

  • Pingback: Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Comments on various posts

  • Zenobia
    June 30, 2008 - 9:11 am | Permalink

    And so we simply look to see what the basic tenets of transgenderism might be.

    But transgenderism doesn’t have tenets. It’s a personal situation, not an ideology.

    And can you even talk without waving that gigantic strap-on penis?

  • June 30, 2008 - 12:21 pm | Permalink

    And we have zero evidence that fetishists are entitled to widespread public support, especially given that it so closely resembles a form of mental illness.

    And in order to prove that it is not a mental illness, someone needs to prove that transgenderism is not a fetish. The ultimate positive form of that would be to say that someone needs to prove that gender is real. You say that it can’t be done, and you would be correct. It is possible, however, to prove using logic that gender is a made-up social construct — which invalidates the entire transgenderism argument.

    I know someone who is schizophrenic. While he is entitled to respect and dignity, I refuse to believe his delusions are real. That does neither of us any good.

    MAndrea: I know the label of “troll” gets thrown around rather lightly these days, but are you engaged in some sort of competition to see how many marginalised groups of people you can insult, belittle and/or piss off? If your transphobic, anti-feminist, ableist bullshit to this point wasn’t enough, your comments about mental illness are right off.

    I have schizophrenia. If I found out that someone I knew was using me as “the schizophrenic friend” as you’ve done to this person (people? When you used this person in this fashion on your own blog they were fedmale) I’d be hurt and the friendship would be over. I don’t care how highly you prize the “logic” you seem to think you’re using, persons with mental illness are not props for you to back up your bigotry, and our lives are not there for you make catty insults.

    Furthermore, if either of these schizophrenic people exist, I really hope they’re never in a position where they have to rely on you for support or help. Hatefulness aside, you’ve got absolutely no idea how the illness works… and that doesn’t seem to stop you acting like an expert on any given topic.

  • June 30, 2008 - 1:18 pm | Permalink

    “I know the label of “troll” gets thrown around rather lightly these days, but are you engaged in some sort of competition to see how many marginalised groups of people you can insult, belittle and/or piss off?”

    srsly.

  • piny
    June 30, 2008 - 2:31 pm | Permalink

    And so we simply look to see what the basic tenets of transgenderism might be. They claim that the reason transgenderism is a valid medical condition is because not only are male and female brains structurally different, but that in addition specific genetalia are required to express that different brain structure.

    …Different brain structures? Can anyone else in thread provide the real-world counterpart to this, or is it just whole cloth? I know of one old cadaver brain study. I know that some transpeople argue that transsexuality must have some as-yet-undetermined biological basis, because it’s a powerful need that doesn’t seem to have much to do with prevailing social pressure. And I’ve heard many people say that men and women think differently. That’s all I can think of.

  • June 30, 2008 - 8:44 pm | Permalink

    And can you even talk without waving that gigantic strap-on penis?

    I’m amazed she can even type with that monster-sized thing in the way.

  • July 1, 2008 - 3:13 pm | Permalink

    m Andrea,

    Why do we have to prove that transgenderism isn’t a fetish? Where’s the logical argument that establishes that the most reasonable explanation for transgenderism is fetishism?

    That doesn’t make any sense. Someone comes up to you and says (I’m paraphrasing some of Drakyn’s posts and comments; I hope he doesn’t mind) “You know, I’m a boy. I get perplexed at my body structure. I forget I have breasts. I’m a guy.” and you say “Ah, the only possible explanation for that is sexual.”

    Um, why? Where is there anything at all to suggest anything sexual about that sense of one’s own body? Where does the argument come from? Who formulated it? What are its premises, and which logical moves get you from those premises to that conclusion?

    For all that you like logic, all I’ve seen you “argue” so far is that if trans people are not lying, then gender is “real.” Since gender is not “real,” trans people are lying.

    Which, sure, fun with modus tollens, u can haz it.

    But you’re introducing the premise that gender is not “real.” And this requires further justification than you offer.

    The justification you *do* offer is that gender is a social construct. Okay, but the thing is, it does not follow from that that gender is not “real.” Lots of things that are socially constructed are real. Race. Gender. Disability (as opposed to impairment).

    So we have to ask: what does “real” mean in this argument? You seem to be using “real” to mean “not socially constructed”, but why would it mean this? Surely if social constructs are “not real” in a way that actually affects people’s daily lives, feminism isn’t necessary. Gender is, after all, not “real.”

    Wait, gender affects how women are treated? That matters? Well, then, it seems we can and sometimes should be invested in the “not real.” In which case, “that’s silly because it’s ‘not real’ is inconsistent when applied to transgendered people’s desire to change their body and their social gender.

    And all that doesn’t even touch “fetish,” because you haven’t actually argued anywhere that transgenderism or transsexualism is one.

  • July 1, 2008 - 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Um, folks? Can we quit with the strap-on comments? Saying she’s male-identified because we don’t like her ego is just the same crap she’s pulling on us of a different stripe.

    And I *really* don’t like reading about how I have sex as a way to mock someone behaving cruelly and stupidly. So cut it out.

  • Pingback: Take it to the bridge « bird of paradox

  • July 1, 2008 - 11:01 pm | Permalink

    I have been asked to explain why I have allowed this thread to run. As I said on another post where this discussion. I think that censorship on the web, such as closing a thread, is counterproductive – making the attackers feel as though they have “won”, have driven the opposition from the field. I trust readers to be able to judge people for themselves from what they’ve said.

  • July 2, 2008 - 4:24 am | Permalink

    Well, yes, that’s one thing; still, I have to say, between the original inclusion, the explanation that came after the removal and the silence after that, I’m…not surprised that some people are coming away with the impression that, well, they’re not safe or welcome here, let’s put it that way. I’d be feeling pretty betrayed myself, if this were, oh, I don’t know, a more all-inclusive liberal/prog carnival, let’s say, and someone who included a jaw-droppingly misogynist screed was included and then the response by the (male) host, even with a removal, was as, well, noncomittal, frankly?

    You know, I don’t want to do the Spanish Inquisition routine wrt the “excess of femininity” comment either, but you know, it’s…an overall message, okay, whether you’re intending to send one or not. FYI.

  • July 2, 2008 - 4:28 am | Permalink

    …And to be clear, that message being, not “I agree with mAndrea or endorse what she’s saying”–I think we’re pretty clear that you do not; but this?

    “In the End, we will remember
    not the words of our enemies,
    but the silence of our friends.”

    –Martin Luther King

    …feels relevant. Not for the first time, in the feminist blogosphere, in a number of contexts, and undoubtedly not for the last. Still, it’s disappointing, to say the least.

    just notin’.

  • Pingback: Quote of the day « bird of paradox

  • July 5, 2008 - 12:41 pm | Permalink

    mAndrea:

    They claim that the reason transgenderism is a valid medical condition is because not only are male and female brains structurally different, but that in addition specific genetalia are required to express that different brain structure.

    Their logic is inherently flawed, as no brain of either sex (if significant differences in brain structure even exist) would ever require a specific genitalia to “express” itself.

    Let us try a thought experiment.

    Suppose a child is born with only one arm, but the brain has all the wiring in it designed to operate a two-armed body. Can you imagine what that would feel like? Or suppose the child had four arms, instead of two arms and two legs, but the brain is set up to operate the usual complement of limbs? Do you see how that would result in disorientating and conflicting signals in the body? Do you see how that might cause emotional and cognitive issues?

    Now, I don’t know if such medical occurences have ever happened, but the mental and personal experience of transsexuality that has been explained to me by those who have gender dysphoria, is clearly analogous.

    So, let us suppose for the moment that a medical operation exists that can reconstruct the limbs that are “missing” and enable the person to function much more easily in their body. Would you then claim that it is pandering to a “delusion” to seek to make that corrective surgery?

    You write, “We might as well say that that paraplegics are unable to express their internal character because they too are trapped in the “wrong” body.”

    Well, I have two things with this: firstly, you may have noticed that in my analogy I never once spoke about “internal character”. In fact, I don’t think I ever used that phrase once in my refutation of your arguments or in my own explanation of what transsexualism is. Crossdressers and/or transvestites might be considered to be “expressing their inner character“, but such people in general do not feel any need to make any modification to their genitalia to do so. Transsexual folks, on the other hand, who do desire surgery, do so because they wish to allign their body with their own perception of identity.

    Secondly, if we have a medical procedure that can cure a paraplegic, would we not wish to offer to all those who feel they need it? Some differently-abled folks prefer to identify themselves by their difference (thus, some members of the Deaf community, when offered an operation to restore their hearing, prefer to reject that offer), so maybe not every paraplegic would want to be “cured” in that way – but surely we have the duty to offer it if we can? Well, with gender dysphoria, we can operate to render the genitalia into a form that causes less “discomfort”, so again, do we not have a moral duty to do so?

    And furthermore, once a paraplegic can walk again, we have a moral obligation to accept them as they present to the world, and not treat them as “disabled”. You say, “…to insist that the transgendered are entitled to public validation or legal protection (beyond what is already given to all humans) … is unreasonable.” Well, the UN Declaration of Human Rights declares “All [human beings] are born free and equal, in dignity and rights.” It also states, “All [human beings] have the right to life, liberty and freedom from fear or violence.” [the original text uses the male nouns, I have corrected for this!] Well, that rather seems to require that a transsexual person be accepted, validated by society, and protected in law, in hir acquired gender. To do otherwise is to deny hir human dignity, and is to deny hir right to freedom from fear or violence, and that is (to my mind) a valid definition of transphobia.

    Now, it is irrelevant to any of this whether transsexuality is caused by physical brain differences, or if it’s something to do with the brain-software – or even if it’s something that is produced by “nurture” (although how that would work, I don’t know, since the transsexual folks I know realised their internal sex identity by the age of 5).

    mAndrea, you claim to use logic, but the thing with logic is that it is extremely susceptible to the old information processing statement of “GIGO”, or “Garbage in, garbage out”. You have a complete lack of understanding of what transgenderism and transsexuality are, so all the logic in the world will not lead you to valid conclusions.

  • Zenobia
    July 7, 2008 - 3:33 pm | Permalink

    Um, folks? Can we quit with the strap-on comments? Saying she’s male-identified because we don’t like her ego is just the same crap she’s pulling on us of a different stripe.

    And I *really* don’t like reading about how I have sex as a way to mock someone behaving cruelly and stupidly. So cut it out.

    Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I was trying to tell her that she’s having a go at trans folk for being overly gendered when she’s just as gendered as anyone here. She calls herself ‘Miss Andrea’ and is incredibly phallic in her use of language – she’s about as binary as you can get in terms of gender, it’s like she’s strapped a big wang and a gaping rubber vag to her forehead all at once and producing sparks by rubbing the two together. Nothing wrong with that, except if you’re arguing that you’ve been liberated from all that gender nonsense.

  • Zenobia
    July 7, 2008 - 3:39 pm | Permalink

    And could we not confuse harmless immature sniping with constructive mockery? Because I thought I was perpetrating a perfectly fine example of the former, and don’t care to have it confused with the latter.

  • Pingback: Oh, not the Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy « Questioning Transphobia

  • September 8, 2016 - 3:39 pm | Permalink

    Bridge noticed very best for the constructing sector
    appropriate for straight and 45° angle cuts of bricks, stones, granite, marble and slabs.

  • September 8, 2016 - 10:15 pm | Permalink

    In summary, if you are a BBB Accredited Business, be sure to make the most of
    the search engine marketing benefits that your membership can convey.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *