Okay, *that's* what I wanted to say!

Yesterday I ranted a bit about Laura Sessions Stepp's WaPo article, "Love's Labor's Lost," which was basically a summary of the arguments in her new book, Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love, and Lose at Both. It was a little difficult for me to fully process what pissed me off about this article, but luckily, a review of Stepp's book by Kathy Dobie already said a lot of what I wanted to say.
I think this about sums it up:

The author resurrects the ugly, old notion of sex as something a female gives in return for a male's good behavior, and she imagines the female body as a thing that can be tarnished by too much use. She advises the girls, "He will seek to win you over only if he thinks you're a prize."And goes on to tell them, "In a smorgasbord of booty, all the hot dishes start looking like they've been on the warming table too long."

It's exactly this old-school model of heterosexual relationships, upon which Stepp and other critics of "hook-up culture" base their arguments, that annoys me so much. She completely ignores young women's sexual desires, instead assuming that female sexuality is something to be dangled over men's heads in order to get them to "adore" you.

Anyway, read Dobie's review, I really enjoyed it.

Hooking up will make you unfit for love. Well, if you're a girl, at least.

I just came across this article in the WaPo ("Love's Labor's Lost" by Laura Sessions Stepp) about why "hook-up culture" is detrimental to college students... though apparently according to this author it's mostly a problem for young women, who are fundamentally damaged and hurt by it (naturally). I thought it was interesting in light of certain discussions that have been going on at Hamilton as of late *ahem*, and that I would share my thoughts on it.

So far as I can tell, this lady's general argument is that not having serious, committed, "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationships (let's just point out up front that this article is ridiculously heteronormative) in college makes young women ill-prepared for getting married and making babies (No, seriously, she says: "These things [the ability to compromise, care for another person, be emotionally intimate, etc., which she implies can only be gained through dating?] are essential to being happily married and raising children, both of which young women say they want someday.")

First, she claims that hooking-up happens because "being emotionally dependent on a lover is what scares these young women the most" due to modern upbringing that encourages women to be independent. Women are then unsatisfied, however, because they don't get "adored" by men like they need to be. Now granted, I agree that it's bad if anyone (young women included) fears emotional intimacy to the point where they can't get close to someone when they want to. What I find offensive and just plain untrue about her argument is that it implies that young women all secretly want to be "adored" and doted on by some guy (any guy!), but that they're just afraid of love because some naughty feminists taught them to be independent.

Why isn't it just possible that college-aged women happen to be as interested in having fun as college-aged men have always been ("boys will be boys," right?!), and that now the culture allows them to do so without being called sluts (well, at least not as much)? I don't think that most women who are hooking up have completely written off the possibility of a relationship from their mind if they found the right person(though some have, and that's fine), they're just not obsessed with defining themselves through a relationship with a man.

Not that there aren't many issues to be found with the way "hook-up culture" operates at colleges... but I don't think that it's a tragedy just because not all girls are obsessed with being in relationships when they don't really want to be... Okay, I've ranted. Thoughts?

The Vagina Lady

I love this lady!!! She dresses up in awesome vagina costumes for various events (and for a cross-country tour), and she makes vulva-riffic art and jewelry. She does this because, in her words, "Somehow the air of mystery about the vagina has become mingled with shame and discomfort. But the vagina, in its glowing non-pornographic beauty, deserves to be admiredin a non-pornographic way. The Vagina Lady wishes only to share this beauty with the world." Right on, sister!

Personally, I'm a big fan of these pictures of her at Mt. Rushmore, but there's lots of other funny ones too. Her art is pretty neat, too, though too expensive for me to afford. She also has some cool websites listed on the "links" page.

With the Monologues in five days, I'm in a very vagina-centric mood right now... can you tell? :)

Fashion Week and Super-Skinny Models

I thought this article on Fashion Week from the Washington Post's fashion critic was pretty interesting, despite having a silly, pun-filled headline: "Designers Face a Weighty Problem: Excuses for Hiring Super-Skinny Models Are Wearing Thin." In it, he follows the casting process for a Fashion Week runway show.

Among other things, the article talks about how, even though fashion models have always been skinnier than the average woman, in the past decade the discrepancy has become larger. Sample sizes have gone from 4/6 (which he describes as "supermodel amazons," like Tyra or Heidi I assume) to 0/2 ("stickpins" and "waifs").

He also points out a practical consideration involved in changing the industry standard that I have never thought of before:

This is the designer's dilemma: Because the size-2 models are the most popular, they have the most experience. The size-6 model is inexperienced. Hire her for aesthetic reasons and she'll stand out not only because of her size but also because she isn't as qualified.

NARAL "Who Decides" Report

NARAL Pro-Choice America has released their 16th annual report about the status of women's reproductive rights throughout America. You can look up the major abortion and contraceptive related laws in each state and see NARAL's ranking for them. (The great state of Maryland has an "A," and the also-pretty-cool state of New York has an "A-".) They also have maps comparing the states on various reproductive rights issues.

HPV vaccine update

This week, Texas (of all states) became the first state to make the HPV vaccine mandatory for 11-12 year old girls (and also made it mandatory to provide it for free to girls who can't afford it), via an executive order from Governor Rick Perry. South Carolina is also considering a bill, though the abstinence-only-education group The Silver Ring Thing is making a stink over it because they say the vaccine will encourage pre-marital sex, etc etc.

Something interesting (which has been pointed out on some blogs that I have read) is that a lot of the mainstream commentary about this decision is remarking on the fact that Perry is a cultural conservative/"pro-lifer" guy - implying that this decision is clearly inconsistent with those positions. While it is sort of pleasantly surprising that he would do this, I think it's not inconsistent with a truly "pro-life" position... protecting young people from cancer is a very pro-life thing to do if you ask me. The fact that people consider it inconsistent with his anti-abortion stance (and that Christian conservative pro-lifers and the like are bashing him for it) points out that being "pro-life" in this country isn't really about valuing human life and health, but really about wanting to control people's sexual and reproductive lives.

In other news, I talked to my mom and she's down with me getting the vaccine. So yay!

HPV/Cervical Cancer Vaccine

So at the Womyn's Center meeting on Tuesday, we spent a while talking about the HPV vaccine, and how you can apparently get it for pretty cheap at the Health Center. (Which I personally had no idea about! Did you know you can also get a cheap gyno exam including pap smear?) Hopefully, WC will be doing something later this semester to get the word out about HPV, the HPV vaccine, and the Health Center's women's health services in general.

In the meantime, check out this website for info on HPV and the vaccine. You can also read this article from The American Prospect about why schools should consider making the HPV vaccine required to ensure that low-income girls will get it.

I'm interested to see if any states will end up making the HPV vaccine mandatory... it is certainly a good idea from a public health standpoint, as low-income women are less likely to have regular gynecological exams and therefore less likely to catch HPV or cervical cancer in its early stages. At least half of sexually active people get HPV in their lifetime (yikes!!!!), and cervical cancer is the second leading cancer killer in women.

However, you can just imagine there will be a huge uproar from conservatives about immunizing 6th grade girls against a sexually transmitted disease, using the same logic that keeps condoms and birth control education out of schools - kids weren't gonna have sex before, but now that you've talked about it and given them the opportunity to do it safely, well, now they will! *roll eyes* Maybe there would be a better reception if it is talked about as a "cervical cancer vaccine" than as a HPV vaccine? Thoughts?