I’m feeling terribly lazy today (which is a huge step up from exhausted). In lieu of the thoughts on outreach and purity movements that are bubbling around in my head (the thoughts, not the…oh, never mind), I direct you to the generally excellent Vagina Dentata and a crash course in critical thinking.
This was interesting because it challenged me and my preconceptions about women engaged in BDSM. It wasn’t what she said on the EA Games issue, all of which I agree with: this objectifies women, ‘Booth Babe’ is a demeaning term, it encourages sexual harassment not just of the ‘Booth Babes’ but all women attending ComicCon etc.
There are two things that I find challenging about this: empowered feminists being sexually submissive and BDSM models criticising the objectification of women.
Stephanie Zvan is one of the hosts for the Minnesota Atheists' radio show and podcast, Atheists Talk. She serves on the board of Secular Woman. She speaks on science and skepticism in a number of venues, including science fiction and fantasy conventions.
Stephanie has been called a science blogger and a sex blogger, but if it means she has to choose just one thing to be or blog about, she's decided she's never going to grow up. In addition to science and sex and the science of sex, you'll find quite a bit of politics here, some economics, a regular short fiction feature, and the occasional bit of concentrated weird.
Oh, and arguments. She sometimes indulges in those as well. But I'm sure everything will be just fine. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.
Hmm…I haven't made it through the whole piece (which is going to make the next three hours of class a sheer hell), but I think I am going to have to take a short pause from my series on moral relativism to write about this one. I think that Naomi addresses some very important issues in a very well reasoned and concise fashion.I have felt for a very long time, that it is actually somewhat misogynistic to presume to think that any individual women can be chastised for how her actions reflect on other women. And I think this is especially important when it comes to addressing sexuality.
Guys do get the same pressure, DuWayne, although I think it's generally not spoken quite as clearly.What is different for women, in my observations, is the degree to which the life/personality/behavior options we're expected to choose between are dichotomous. Buffet-style doesn't go over well, probably because it makes us harder to categorize.
Oh I know it Stephanie – know it and will totally be integrating it into my post.As an aside, my classes were cut short – psych didn't happen today – YAY!!
Hmm…I haven't made it through the whole piece (which is going to make the next three hours of class a sheer hell), but I think I am going to have to take a short pause from my series on moral relativism to write about this one. I think that Naomi addresses some very important issues in a very well reasoned and concise fashion.I have felt for a very long time, that it is actually somewhat misogynistic to presume to think that any individual women can be chastised for how her actions reflect on other women. And I think this is especially important when it comes to addressing sexuality.
Guys do get the same pressure, DuWayne, although I think it's generally not spoken quite as clearly.What is different for women, in my observations, is the degree to which the life/personality/behavior options we're expected to choose between are dichotomous. Buffet-style doesn't go over well, probably because it makes us harder to categorize.
Oh I know it Stephanie – know it and will totally be integrating it into my post.As an aside, my classes were cut short – psych didn't happen today – YAY!!
All right – I posted it…