What I’m Reading Today

I finally set up an account at Bloglines, so that I can read all the blogs and news articles my little heart desires in one shot (if you’re not on my blogroll and you should be, leave your URL in the comments). Which means that these massive round-ups will be more common. There’s just too much good stuff out there, and not enough time to write full posts on it all. Check these out:

1. No Room in the Big Tent: What will make pro-choice Republicans abandon their party?

2. Ana Marie Cox (aka Wonkette) on the myth of girls gone wild.

3. The myth of the opt-out mom. More women are working outside the home. And yeah, it’s hard to balance work and family. That does not a revolution make.

4. More than 80% of college women diet, no matter what their weight.

5. Amp takes on the innocent until proven guilty standard. A must-read.

6. Students in Durham speak about about race and violence:

So I don’t understand how they can say that we self-segregate when we go to this institution. You go to your predominantly white class, you live in your predominantly white dorm, and if you have any activities besides BSA [Black Student Alliance] and UP, United in Praise, the gospel choir, then it’s an integrated activity and you are the minority. So how are we self-segregating when we choose to have dinner with people who aren’t going to say racism is funny? Or if we choose to party with someone who’s not going to proposition us and offer us money because we’re black girls? That’s not self-segregation, that’s just taking care of yourself.

via Shannon.

7. Marriage is for white people.

8. Gays are the new Jews.

9. Tired of male domination, five Saudi women change their sex. Can’t say I blame ’em.

10. Where are the influential advertising women?

11. God or the Girl: Would-be priests are tempted away from Godliness by sexy Eves. Now there’s a new idea. (Really, I’m far too cranky to even get started on this one right now).

12. What’s the GOP’s favorite game? Operation Yellow Elephant Bingo!

13. The Liberal Avenger: We’re holding them because they’re terrorists. Or something. Or… not at all.

14. Midwife faces criminal charges in Indiana.

15. Being blonde (especially the right kind of blonde) confers a lot of status on New York women. So, New York women spend ridiculous amounts of money going blonde. The New York Times ignores what this means for beauty standards, WASP-fetishism, class, and race.

16. Peace should be a family value.

17. Two brief actions you can take to help sex trafficking victims.

18. Media Girl gives us her awesome repro rights week in review.

19. Obscuring the male gaze: Official Shrub on female sexuality, how we look at women, and what this all means.

20. Pam gives us a state-by-state run-down of same-sex marriage.

21. Justifying genocide. This is unbelievable, even for Glenn Reynolds.

22. IWF and Dawn Eden say, “Women don’t like casual sex!” They leave out the fact that this “study” included a whopping 46 women — not exactly statistically sound. The study, also, only asked about one-night stands — I suspect that Dawn’s definition of “casual sex” is much broader than that. And considering that the vast majority of women have sex before marriage, and many of them are what virgin fetishists would describe as “promiscuous,” I hardly think that this study is at all a meaningful evaluation of women’s sexual choices and actual beliefs. But the comments at Dawn’s are still worth reading, just for a good jolly laugh:

The myth that it’s ok for men to sleep around is perpetuated by people who want women to sleep around. Men do not naturally think it is good to sleep around, but they are tricked into thinking other men think it is ok to sleep around. Women also do not naturally think it is good to sleep around. And other women are trying to trick them into thinking it’s ok because they think it’s the only way they’ll “achieve” equality with men.

What they don’t realize is that the genius of woman is that she is already man’s complement, and she equal in dignity.

What’s most surprising to this researcher is that she’s assumed that because she was easily fooled, all other women must be as able to lie to themselves as she is. But that isn’t sexual freedom. That’s just an advanced ability to fool ourselves. Is that what equality with men means? An advanced ability to fool ourselves?

Yes, it’s all a big trick!

We don’t need more sexual “freedom”! It actually seems here that we have much more than enough, and we would prefer to have LESS.

Please, take away our freedoms. We don’t want them.

Despite all the brainwashing that goes on men and women are different. That much is obvious especially when you realize that shows like Sex and the City are written by a ‘gay’ man with the homosexual attitude toward sex. Because normal women do not act that way. Which I thank God for since I have been married to a wonderful normal woman for the past quarter century who I definitely would not of married or raised children with had she been into one night stands.

What a lucky lady to be married to this winner. And, btw, Sex & the City was written by Candace Bushnell — a woman, not a gay man.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

About Jill

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
This entry was posted in General and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to What I’m Reading Today

  1. evil_fizz says:

    Because normal women do not act that way.

    Well, there’s a justification if I’ve ever heard one.

  2. ginmar says:

    I like it how when girls go wild, evidently, the men holding the camera or spiking the drinks or having sex are somehow utterly invisible. It’s like girls go wild iwth the invisible man. And no one notices that when the crime rate for girls goes up 57%, nobody gives the raw number, or the standard for judging that wildness. If we go by the past, the stuff that girls get condemned for are things that boys either get praised for or commit upon the girls.

    Girls wouldn’t need to go wild if they didn’t operate under such a rediculous double standard at home.

  3. Thomas says:

    Girls wouldn’t need to go wild if they didn’t operate under such a rediculous double standard at home.

    I’m not much for “me too” comments, but I need to second this one. I’d third it if there were two of me. So much of the day-to-day workings of patriarchy are about control of female sexuality. There’s a huge system of rules about how and when women can be sexual which basically boil down to this: if and only if it gets men off, and even then there are consequences.

  4. Lauren says:

    Thomas and Ginmar: add to that the complete dearth of understanding on what it means to be sensual and you get stuck with your madonna/whore dichotomy all over again. Fuck that.

  5. Lauren says:

    On a completely different vein (or vain — ha!), one of the best things I’ve done to save money in the last year is give up being blonde. The cost isn’t nearly as high here as it is in NYC, but it was enough to hurt the pocketbook and couldn’t be replicated at home. Seriously, people, go brown or red or whatever — you can do it at home and NEVER mess it up. Quit fucking with the crazy highlights.

  6. Lis Riba says:

    if you’re not on my blogroll and you should be, leave your URL in the comments

    I don’t know if I’m on your blogroll nor if you want to read me, but I blog at http://www.ribarambles.org if you’re interested…

  7. ginmar says:

    Oh, I htink the people inflicting the double standard understand just fine. Or rather, they resist it because it wouldn’t benefit them.

    For every stereotype of women, there’s a corresponding, flattering stereotype of men. For the Madonna, there could be the Bad Boy who her love reforms. If he’s a different race, he can safely be blamed for rape. If he’s the same race, then she’s a fake madonna.

    For the whore, there’s any guy who complains about his evil ex. He’s the victim. Eliminate the double standard and you eliminate the comfort level for these guys, who also use women to appear more masculine against. Women are weak, frail, illogical, emotional. What are men? The opposite of those things. Men don’t compete against other men: they compete against women, and insisting on humanity for women means that men are deprived of the thing they react against. They’d have to be human, too, and that requires a great deal more than just reaction. Feminine is ‘pussy’—everything weak and vile and stupid. All men have to do is not be men. If women become human, then men have to choose to either do the same—which is complicated and difficult—or they can try and re-assert the old roles, which keep the bar for their behavior rediculously low. The standard for ‘nice guy’ these days is basically not being a total asshole. Why change that when it’s so easy to achieve?

  8. David says:

    I’m not on your blogroll, and would like to be, as you are on mine.

    http://quakeragitator.blogspot.com/

    If you’re interested. Thanks for the other ideas.

  9. Aishwarya says:

    I very much doubt I’m on your blogroll, but I blog at

  10. MissPenName says:

    You are on my blogroll and I really, really (desperate woshipping and ass kissing) want to be on yours.
    http://misspenname.blogspot.com

  11. kate.d. says:

    love the round ups, keep them coming!

  12. dorktastic says:

    I don’t think I’m on your blogroll, of if you want to read me
    http://blog.tubb.ca

  13. evil_fizz says:

    I feel remarkably presumptous typing this, but you can find my blog at http://evil-fizz.livejournal.com

Comments are closed.