A new and very worthy cause: the Institute for Naming Children Humanely

Read the rest of Take Action Against Inhumane Names for Children! …

Carson Brown wrote a fabulous article on virgins (or the celibate) as The New Sexual Deviant [Bitch Magazine], doing an excellent job of calling attention to the male-centric nature of the so-called sexual revolution which has merely flip-flopped the old formula that Only Sluts Say Yes to Only Neurotic Prudes Say No. Of course, ultimately, this is nothing new: it’s just the playing out of the male Left vs. male Right culture wars that have been going on over the past century that were initiated by the battle between Freud and the traditionalists. The article does a good job of elaborating the sexist suppositions of both the anti-virginity and pro-virginity crowds.

My only complaint: Brown argues

It certainly makes sense: How are capitalists supposed to market their stuff if people aren’t actively pursuing sex? How are they supposed to sell cars, clothes, beers, breakfast cereal, perfume, make-up, or travel on the premise that their products will get you laid if people are content to not get laid? So the market pulls out all the stops to ensure that we will remain sex-obsessed, so that we’ll buy things.

Well, yeah, ok, but who is constructing sex as rebellion in the first place? Who is controlling the big capitalist corporations and media outlets that use faux-rebellion to make money? The answer in both cases is: men. The one thing that Pat Robertson and Hugh Hefner can agree on is that sex = rebellion, orgasms = liberation. The question they bicker over is whether this rebellion is good or bad. Ultimately, corporate capitalism would find other rebellions to construct and market. I think we have to recognize that the enemy here isn’t capitalism. Or rather, that capitalism is subordinate to the real enemy: male supremacy.

In the in a shocking development file: The Guardian Council of Iran has rejected the candidacy of all 45 women [Independent Media Center] who applied to run for the Presidency of Iran. The Iranian constitution states that all Presidential candidates must be political men, which the Guardian Council interprets to mean: No Girls Allowed. Of course, here in the US we don’t need a Guardian Council. The power structures of the Demopublican parties, and their stranglehold over electoral politics, have done a fine enough job of blocking women from running for President over the past century despite all of the progress of women’s liberation. But you can buck the system: Vote Woodhull in 2004!

The New York Times has published an interesting article on gender differences in e-mail communications. Not surprisingly, males and females tend to show pretty much the same communication patterns in e-mails as they do normally: men tend to be more taciturn, instrumental, and transactional. Women tend to be more voluble, open, and relational. This dovetails interestingly with other findings that corporate CEOs, the quintessential alpha males, are are very terse in their e-mails whereas lower-ranking workers tend to be more formal. I suspect that this has more to do with tersity being a male behavior, and therefore valued, than tersity being valued, and therefore becoming a male behavior. In either case, though, there may be some hope yet: some researchers have also found that the disinhibiting effects of e-mail actually help some men communicate intimacies and feelings that they’d never communicate face-to-face.

Hey, have you ever thought of slashing people up with knives as a perfect metaphor for sex? Do you get off on a motionless woman’s life being imperiled? Then you too can indulge in artsy-fartsy French films and babble about how a man hurling steel blades at a woman is "something sexier than sex, at once a perfect metaphor and a convincing substitute for it." You too can be an armchair sadofascist and talk about how it meets "the challenge of how to bring genuine erotic heat to the screen." Meanwhile, I will be puking.