Home

male privilege

"Vajazzled" Vulvas: Privilege Rorschach Test?

Wed, 2010-03-10 20:33 — figleaf

Lisa of Sociological Images succinctly describes the concept behind “vajazzling.”

In any case, the video below, in which a woman documents the vajazzling of her “vagina,” reveals that the term refers to the placing of a field of tiny crystals where your public hair would be. So, first you essentially replace your pubic hair with shiny objects.

See the video, and read Lisa’s text in context, here.

Succinctly but not completely. That should read shiny, sharp cut-glass crystal objects! Which at the very, very least would tend to limit one’s partner’s interest in face-to-face intercourse. And assuming men are being honest who say they don’t want pubic hair in their mouths ought to be just even more balky about chipping their molars on Swarovski crystals.

My guess is that the hair-in-the-mouth thing is a red herring. As Holly says, if men are so all-fired indiscriminating and sex-crazed they sure are a demandingly picky bunch. And nothing says demanding like “scrape off your pubic hair with a razor, or pull it out with hot, sticky wax,” I’m guessing saying “and encrust it with jewels instead” just seems extra special.

My second guess, though, is that it’s scarcely any of my business how an intimate partner chooses to groom herself and no business at all of mine how anyone else goes about it. Part of privilege would be assuming people who get themselves vajazzled are interested in men’s opinion in the first place.

Palin, Huffington, Rice -- Speculating on the Imbalances in Public Reaction to Prominent Women

Sun, 2009-11-22 15:39 — figleaf

Summary: Speculation about the peculiar gaps in application of sexualized slander against highly-visible women. With a quick allusion in a note at the end about the soft underbelly of privilege.

Quote of the day (ok, from sometime last week) from Echidne of the Snakes:

It’s nearly impossible to separate Sarah-Palin-hating from Sarah-Palin-as-female-hating, and that offers a nice opening for any closeted misogynist to exercise his or her inner demons without getting caught doing it. Ultimately the whole topic turns into free-for-all about tits and power and shit, and the only valid conclusion is that we are far from an equal world when it comes to getting and using political power.

She said it here.

She says the no-win-edness of the situation makes it not worth blogging about.

I’ll just say it’s worth pointing out that you could pretty much replace “Sarah Palin” in the line above and replace it with, oh, many but not all highly-visible and/or controversial women politicians and pundits (Hillary Clinton anyone? Ann Coulter? Carrie Prejean? Janet Reno? Even Anita Bryant back in the 1970s.)

Funny thing, by the way, that gets me as I look at the list is it’s not so much the person’s looks (for instance Condoleezza Rice is conventionally attractive but rarely targeted) or their degree of partisanship (For instance “Dr. Laura” and Rachel Maddow tend to be more partisan than average but rarely targeted.)

Instead I think it’s most likely to happen when women step into new domains: homophobia in Prejean or Bryant’s case, law enforcement in Reno’s case. Activist First-Lady in Clinton’s case. Conservative firebrand in Coulter’s case. And, annoyingly, technology in the case of… pretty much every woman who’s ventured into technology. Indicative example: I seem to remember that Ariana Huffington caught quite a lot of sex-baiting when in the Clinton-activist-first-lady role with hapless former husband Michael’s arch-conservative Senatorial bid in California, but since returning to her “proper-role-for-a-woman” location in progressive politics I just haven’t seen that much sex-baiting. Even though she’s conventionally attractive, politically powerful, and reliably highly partisan. And even though her Huffington Post has a huge on-line presence I think she escapes the fate of women in technology by appearing as a media personality rather than appearing to grapple directly with technology.

All of which is poorly-informed speculation offered to support a third alternative to Echidne’s dilemma: it’s not that women are hated per-se, it’s that they’re particularly hated, in highly gendered ways, when they encroach on traditionally male turf.

—-

Note to self: If I have time I’ll try and post about why this rabid, sexualized reaction by (mostly) men to women’s encroachment demonstrates the freakish self-loathing and insecurity that is the flip side of (intrinsically un-earnable and thus always unearned) male privilege. And if I have time I’ll compare it to the “tough guy” conservative tendency to absolutely wet their pants at the prospect of 9/11 terrorists being tried in New York City or imprisoned on on U.S. soil even in SuperMax-security prisons. I might not have time, though, but I want to note the possibility.

The No-Sex Class: Quotes Out Of Context

Fri, 2007-12-28 14:56 — figleaf


Image via Silent-Porn-Star

Just for the record, the impression that “radical feminists” are sex negative might be mistaken, and is certainly misinterpreted, but it’s not completely insane.

While doing a little due diligence for my previous post (no, I don’t always do due diligence) I ran across this quote from 60’s/70’s feminist activist Ti-Grace Atkinson

If feminism has any logic at all, it must be working for a sexless society.

Source: Wikipedia

Perhaps not coincidentally, both the quote, and the “Take Charge” camera ad predate the work of radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin to define sexual consent for women as a valid social, let alone legal, concept.

Hard to believe since, today, he looks like a 1970s version of Austin Powers, but when that ad was current the man in it was a dead-serious male archetype! But when you hear, especially, feminists talking about male privilege, he’s embodying exactly what they meant.

Now. Are there feminists in the world today who take Atkinson’s stance on sex? Sure, just like there are still men who take the Vivitar man’s stance. Is Atkinson’s the dominant stance in feminism? Um, that would be a pretty unambiguous “no.” Is the Vivitar man’s the dominant stance among men? Err, best we can say is “we’d like to hope not.” And, if so, then is attacking feminism for positions held back when Austin Powers would have been current events the most logical possible use of anyone’s time? Me neither. But I digress…

The real big deal for me, though, is that when taken out of context, statements like Atkinsons tend to be picked up and used to reinforce the daft, dominant male notion that women as the “no-sex” class, innately disinterested in sex and from whom, therefore, sex must be… extracted. But Atkinson is not the only source of that conceit. Notice Vivitar man’s look of determination? Notice also his partner’s amused, if-you-say-so body language? So does it really matter what else Atkinson might have said?

More and more it seems to me what’s really going on, in dating, in so-called “pick-up artist” strategies, in relationship books, in expressions of feminist frustration and anti-feminist admonitions, is that women aren’t so much anti sex as anti-phony-bullshit-designed-to-get-sex. Until we, meaning us men, recognize just how hugely different those two things are, things aren’t going to get any easier. For anybody.

Syndicate content