You should do something about that.

Imagine a collage of male body parts (of living men, that is — just now their whole selves), each with one of the following captions:

Your legs are too hairy. You should do something about that.

Your hair’s too thin. You should do something about that.

Your butt droops. You should do something about that.

You have no cheekbones. You should do something about that.

You have no hips. You should do something about that.

Your balls are lopsided. You should do something about that.


Your butt’s too small. You should do something about that.

Your hair is too curly. You should do something about that.

Your ankles are too thick. You should do something about that.

Your hips are too broad. You should do something about that.

Your shoulders are too narrow. You should do something about that.


Your butt’s too big. You should do something about that.

Your shoulders are too broad. You should do something about that.

Your balls are too hairy. You should do something about that.

Your hair is limp. You should do something about that.

Your legs have no shape. You should do something about that.


Your toes are too fat. You should do something about that.

Your thighs are too thin. You should do something about that.

Your hair isn’t a good colour. You should do something about that.


Women’s Soccer Team Paid 4X less than Men’s Team DESPITE …

ESPN reports acknowledge that although the U. S. women’s soccer team generates almost $20 million more revenue than the men’s team, the women are paid almost four times less.

Source here.

re cathartic value of porn

re cathartic value of porn:
“Does social work for the child-batterer consist of showing them pictures of parents torturing the children, with the children appearing to enjoy it — as a preventative measure?”
from Masterpieces, Sara Daniels

“So while white male US scientists can’t seem to figure out…”

“So while white male US scientists can’t seem to figure out alternative energy at all but these three girls converted pee into electricity.” Love it. Read the whole thing here:

The Default Male

“Why the Default Male is Not Just Annoying, But Also Harmful”

check it out at

Why Women are Leaving Law Firms

“Here’s my theory: women aren’t leaving law firms at an abnormal rate. They’re leaving law firms at a perfectly rational and normal rate. It’s men who are staying in law firms at an abnormal rate. Women aren’t the faulty outliers; men are.

“When you look at the situation that way, a lot of things start to make sense. Women who enter law firms quickly and accurately diagnose that these are amateurish organizations that employ archaic workflow systems, inept pricing mechanisms, skewed compensation structures, and largely ineffective management, not to mention a whole lotta personal dysfunction. The typical contemporary law firm is nobody’s idea of a good business model, a satisfying workplace, or a solid bet for long-term future success. It shouldn’t surprise us that women abandon this model in droves. The question we ought to be asking ourselves is, why are men sticking with it in greater numbers than should rationally be expected?”

Jordan Furlong

The Hawkeye Initiative – Go Take a Look NOW!

This is the best thing I’ve discovered in a LONG time. Hopefully millions will discover it and maybe, just maybe, men will begin to ‘get it’.

We are tired. So tired.

“We are tired of being forced to see the world through [the heterosexual male gaze].” Missfit

Rape on campus…

“Rape on campus occurs with such alarming frequency that most colleges now incorporate sexual awareness training into their freshman orientation practices (apparently students not only must learn how to find their way around campus and how to use a library, but they must also learn how not to rape their classmates)” (Michael Kimmel, Guyland, p57-58).

(And apparently authors must learn when to use gender-neutral words and when not…)

Permitting Abortion and Prohibiting Prenatal Harm

I think abortion should be allowed. And I think prenatal harm (especially that caused by ingesting various legal and illegal substances while pregnant) should not be allowed. Some accuse me of hypocrisy or, more accurately, maintaining a contradictory position: either women have the right to control what happens to their bodies or they don’t. No problem. Women, and men, have that right except when it causes harm to someone else: I can move my arms any way I want except straight into your face.

Ah, you may jump up and down, you said ‘someone else!’ So the fetus is a person! That’s why you’re saying prenatal harm is wrong! So that makes abortion wrong too! You can’t have it both ways!

Yes I can. The fetus can be a person and it may still be okay to abort. Killing in self-defence is permissible; killing in mercy is permissible. So if the pregnancy or birth poses a risk to me, I can kill the fetus. Or if the fetus is discovered to have some awful excruciatingly painful genetic disease, I can kill it. (I should kill it.)

Not only does being a person not mean I can’t kill it; not being a person doesn’t mean I can harm it. It’s wrong to hurt a chipmunk, barring extenuating circumstances, because it can feel pain.

And in any case, I would argue that personhood is not all-or-nothing. Sentience, brain activity, the ability to communicate, the capacity for rational thought, consciousness, interests – all of these attributes, typically proposed to determine personhood, exist in degrees. So creatures can be persons in varying degrees.
And since personhood is typically established in order to establish rights, it makes sense then to assign fewer rights to ‘lesser’ persons. While there is cause for concern about the impact of such an argument on ‘disabled’ people, I believe this slippery slope should and can be avoided. For example, if a mentally disabled adult lacks the cognitive competence to vote, that right is justifiably denied. But it doesn’t follow that other rights, such as the right to a livelihood, also be denied.

In fact, we already assign rights according to various capacities and competencies: children, because of their lesser capacity for rational thought, and perhaps also because of their lesser interests, do not have voting rights; only a few adults, because of their superior knowledge and fine motor skills, are awarded operating room rights. The acceptability of aborting a being with minimal personhood would not then contradict the unacceptablility of harming a being with considerably more personhood.

In fact, going back to the matter of the right to control one’s body, it might be reasonable to consider, in the case of pregnancy, the boundaries of one’s body to be somewhat elastic. While the woman generally has the right to control her body, what is considered ‘her body’ changes through the pregnancy parallel to the changes in the personhood of the zygote/embryo/fetus: the less it is a person, the more it is her body; the more it is a person, the less it is just her body. Thus aborting when ‘her body’ is very much just her body may be acceptable, whereas harming when it is not may not be.

In addition to rights and personhood (though personhood ‘reduces’ to rights), there is another, perhaps better, consideration: consequences. Barring the capacity to feel pain, as long as there isn’t going to be a human being who will at some future time suffer from any prenatal harm – that is, if the woman decides to abort the pregnancy – such harm, whether caused by the woman or some third party, isn’t a wrong. In fact, assuming no such capacity, and given that it is has no interests or desires (which might justify pain, making it morally acceptable, as in the case of vaccination), it’s weird to even call it harm. (Do I harm a virus when I take cold medication? Or cancer cells when I receive chemotherapy?)
However, if there is going to be such a human being – that is, if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy and give birth – there will be an infant, a child, an adult who will suffer the consequences, which can range from vomiting, inability to sleep, reluctance to feed, diarrhea leading to shock and death, severe anemia, and excruciating pain, in the newborn, to the more permanent growth retardation, mental retardation, central nervous system abnormalities, and malformations of the kidneys, intestines, head, and spinal cord (Madam Justice Proudfoot, “Judgement Respecting Female Infant ‘D.J.’,” Madam Justice Proudfoot). Add to this the consequences to others, and the wrongdoing increases: the healthcare system (the rest of us) may have to pay (dearly) for newborn intensive care (Mathieu, in Preventing Prenatal Harm: Should the State Intervene?, estimates the average cost of prenatal intensive care to be about $2,000/day); the education system may have to deal with one more ‘special ed’ student; chances are the welfare system will be involved (Oberman, in “Sex, Drugs, Pregnancy, and the Law: Rethinking the Problems of Pregnant Women Who Use Drugs,” estimates the cost of lifelong care for fetal alcohol syndrome to range from $600,000 to $2.6 million ); and so on. Thus there is no contradiction in holding that abortion is morally acceptable and prenatal harm is not: generally speaking, abortion does not lead to morally unacceptable consequences, whereas prenatal harm does.

Of course, consequences to the woman must also be considered. For example eating a well-balanced diet is little to ask to ensure a healthy newborn, and giving up alcohol for nine months is well ‘worth’ a newborn free of mental retardation. But staying in bed for nine months may be too much to ask just to ensure the birth is not a week premature, and giving up life-saving treatment may not be worth the mere possibility of a healthy fetus.

[Hell Yeah, I’m a Feminist is a feminist blog, often radical feminist (radfem), always anti-gender and anti-sexism.]

Load more