A Kitchen Witches Corner

Warning, some picture links NSFW.

Digital Femme addressed a point made by some comics fans that don't want to see the sexism removed.  Go here!

Why do so many fanboys (and girls, too, but mostly lads, methinks) think that we want to get rid of all of the sexy?  They seem to be under the impression that, if feminists are allowed to have their way, all female comic characters would morph into "overweight, ugly, frumpy, man-hating harpies with thighs the size of tree trunks".

We like the sexy. 

The sexy is good.  Fuck, the sexy can be great when it's done right.

It can also be absolutely brain-searingly awful when it is done wrong.  (Yes, I know, ribbing Liefeld these days is like killing slimes in an MMorpg- far too easy, and perhaps a little cruel considering how constantly they get it; I'm weak and petty, I apologise).

The point is that the sexy does not have to be entwined so strongly with the weak, the needy, the insane or the porny.

Being sexy is about being confident.  It's about knowing your own body and being happy with it.  Being sexy means being strong, alluring, desirable and challenging.  Xena is sexy.  Ripley is sexy.  (DAMN sexy!)  Sexy can bethrilling and dangerous, it can be intimidating and a little bit scary, but it still drives you absolutely wild!  Sexy can even be cheesecakey and fun.

Sexy does not have to mean breasts the size of beach balls, with the same shape and behaviour.  (It can do, of course, I have disturbingly large breasts myself and wouldn't trade them for the world, but having or not having them isn't the end of the world).  Sexy does not have to mean pulling pouty porn-faces at every available opportunity and having an orgasm every time some one breathes near you.  Sexy does not need mean being weak, broken, submissive, like the superheroes on that Heroes for Hentai cover.  Sexy is not having criplling back pains and a terrible case of trapped wind from posing with your spine bent at 90 degrees.  Sexy is not always "I'm gonna fuck you 'till you're dry" (possibly the worst come-on an ex ever tried with me!). 

Rape is not sexy.

Being scared, hurt, damaged and violated is not sexy.

I do not speak for all women, or even all feminists, but this is what I want, and I think you'll probably find a fair amount of agreement here, although I'm sure there will be plenty of people who think I've go this all wrong.

• I want to see sexy, strong woman characters who remain strong and strong-willed when in peril.
• I want to see a greater variety of body types of both men and women, withouth the "fat one" being either a joke or something pitiable.  (Sexy comes in more than one flavour, or else why are these so many many porn sites out there dedicated to so many different types of people?)
• I want to see more comic characters, of both genders, that don't look white, or like a white character with a different colour painted over the top.
• I want to see more black, asian, hispanic and mediterannean characters that aren't hideous steroetypes.  I want their race, colour and religion to be a part of them, but not the whole of them.  (In other words, more characters of different ethnicicity, but fewer "token" ethnic characters).
• I want to see woman characters that can be sexy without being naked (I'm not saying cover them all up, but it would be nice to see a few characters walking around in something other than spandex underwear).
• I want to see more sexy male characters (and no, I d not mean I want to fill your comics with scary male versions of the shit that is being produced about women, I mean the good sort of sexy).
• I want to see more emphasis on sexy being a part of, but not the focus of, woman characters.
• I want to see woman characters who don't look sexy, but who kick arse anyway.
• I want to see a few comics, good ones, which don't use sexiness at all, and a few that are all about being fun and sexy, and everything in between.
• I want to see sex in comics where the woman actually looks like she is enjoying it, and getting to have a bit of pleasure, instead of just being a series of orifices and oh-faces.
• I want to see a woman superhero with big breasts, just like mine, and not be wincing at the thought of her poor aching chest/back fromthe way she is running.
• I want to see a woman superhero doing high-kicks, without giggling at the though of that nasty, high-waisted thong riding up and cutting into her wide-spread jiggly woman-bits and making her go "Take THAT youooOOARGH!  Ow ow ow ow ow spandex burn on pussy lips!  Spandex BURN!" and then spending the evening gingerly applying sudocreme to her tender bits.

I want to read about a woman superhero and be utterly unable to decide whether I want to be her or fuck her.

I want to see a superhero woman, or a non-superhero woman character experience peril, and utterly beat the living crap out of those threatening her, without needing rescuing by a man.  And I want her to be unphazed by it, because she is strong, or because she thinks so little of her captors.  I want her to learn from the peril, but not be marked by it.

I want to be able to pick up something that is pure cheesecake, and enjoy all the panty-shots, utterly contrived ripped-clothes, girlish women, innuendo and suggestive posing therein.  And then I want to pick up  a comic book about kicking-arse, and see people kicking arse.

I want to be able to buy a comic without having to ask the shop owner if I can open it first, in case the inside has been drawn by someone awful and porny.

I want to be able to take my little sister into a comics shop and get her interested in comics, without having to vet every single item she shows interest in, in case it shows a woman orgasming whilst being assaulted.

Keep the sexy, keep it and enjoy it.  Just make it sexy for everyone, 'kay?

This is a phrase which people often use when referring to women who are "acting up" in some way, and is usually meant to either belittle the targetted female's right to bodily privacy, their complaints of harassment and to excuse or partially excuse unnaceptable behaviour from other people.  But really, all such phrases do is highlight another part of the virgin/whore dichotomy women are forced to live with.  That is, that women shouldn't take up space, or be noticeably different.  We shouldn't stand out.  We should be shy, polite shrinking violets, easily ignored except when we are required to perform some duty.  Like a well-trained butler.

The assumption behind statements like this is that, when women do dress or behave in a way that draws attention to them, that it's obviously because the attention itself is what they are after.  If a woman goes out wearing a short skirt or a revealing top, it must be because she wants men to notice her body, to comment on it, to touch it.  If she dresses oddly, wearing anything other than either general current fashions or conservative, smartwear then she must be after attention for the way she dresses.  If she talks loudly, acts drunkenly, or displays herself having fun in a loud manner, then she must want everyone to notice her showing off.

But of course, if a man goes out wearing nothing but a pair of shorts and trainers, it must be because it's a hot day.  If he acts drunkenly, talks loudly or has fun loudly he's just being a lad.  If he doesn't wear current fashions no one bats an eyelid.  If he dresses up in he evening, he's just being smart.  Men only get accused of "attention-seeking" when they take their dress preferences to an extreme, or when they behave in a non-masculine way.  This is wrong as well, of course, but they have far more leeway.

The fact is, most women do not like being the centre of attention in terms of their physical appearance. But we grow up knowing that this is the way that things are.  As women, our bodies are minutely scrutinised and judged every single day.  How many young women have been told to "get back in this instant and wash that crap of your face, I'm not having my daugter going out looking like a hussy!"?  Young girls being told not to sit with their legs apart, because it's "unladylike", that having scruffy hair and a dirty face from a day of playing "will make everyone think I'm a bad mother", or that they shouldn't be running around like that in a skirt because their knickers will show?  (When their parens put them in a short skirt in the first place?!).  And this continues into adulthood, until we make our own decisions with an internalised voice telling us what other people will think of us.

Go out without make-up, and you can often expect some one to comment on your frumpy appearance.  Got spots/a belly roll/saggy breasts/ skinny buttocks/lank hair?  You'll probably overhear a group of guys rating you and, pointing out that they'd hit that, aside from that one flaw. 

Very few items of clothing for women carry no implied message.  Wear revealing clothes or a skirt without tights?  You want it, and you're a slut.  Wear "too much" jewellery/make-up?  You're a whore or you are after a sugardaddy.  Wear heeled sandals and a string bikini to the beach?  You obviously think you're "all it"  Wear flats and a full-body swimsuit?  Frumpy and probably ugly underneath the suit.  Wear religious clothing?  That carries a strong political message, these days.  Dress conservatively?  You're a snob, or an ice queen.  Wear high fashion?  Egotistical and self-obsessed.  Jeans and t-shirt without make-up?  You're a lazy slob and you're gross.  Wear any clothing that signifies that you belong to a subculture?  You will be subjected to all those sexually charged stereotypes (for example, I can't even count the number of times I've heard people comment that "goth girls  will bite your cock off if you ask for head").

We are taught by society that every minor flaw is open for scrutiny.  At all times, we are expected to be slim, fit, energetic-looking, bouncy, smiling and happy, with glossy hair in a perfect cut, no "unpleasant blemishes" such as birth marks, spots, or body hair, have gleaming straight teeth, pretty eyes, trimmed brows, and be dressed attractively-but-politely, and to never ever show signs of exertion like sweat or redness.  Even if we've just left the gym, or gave birth recently, or are at a funeral.  No imperfection must be allowed to show.

This ideal goes so deep, that some women wear matching, sexy underwear underneath their clothes, if they're wearing overalls for manual labour or other frumpy items, because it "makes them feel pretty", so they feel more confident and less self-conscious to be out in public.  Even though no one can see their bra.

This means that EVERY woman is considering, when getting dressed,  how her appearance will effect complete strangers that she has no inerest in.  That doesn't mean she's dressing for them, it's just that she's never allowed to not be aware of the thoughts and opinions of others.  So of course, on some levels, clothes are chosen for what they mean to the world beyond our own preferences.  For example, I love the gothic-lolita look, but I know that my body shape doesn't suit it, so I tailor my choices based on that; instead of just wearing all those pretty, high-necked lacy blouses I love so much, I wear lower-cut babydoll tops to acheive a similar effect.

So with all of that attention going on anyway, why would we want more?  I know many women who, when getting ready to go out, will choose an outfit based, at least partially, on the fact that they don't want too much unwanted attention.  In other words, they choose the outfit that is attractive, but not so good that they'll get unwanted advances through looking "easy".

And many other women just say "fuck it" to the whole thing.  "I get attention whatever  do, and nothing is perfect, so I'll just wear whatever I want and fuck the lot of them!"  And who can blame them?  Many of the more provocatively dressed people you see may, in fact, be rebelling against a period of repression, having gotten tired of continuously worrying about what others think.

The point is that very few women wake up in the mornings and say "gosh, I hope I get groped in the arse today!  I'd better wear the pink hotpants!" or "I really hope some balding, overweight and jowly man tells me I'm fat!  I'll wear my baggy polo-necked sweater!".

Even regardless of this, nothing excuses a man forcing himself upon a woman who does not want his attention.  Nothing.  Rape is rape.  Sexual assault is sexual assault.  "She wanted it" is not a valid argument.

We aren't getting dressed for your benefit.  We're dressing for ours.  So look all you want, since your eyes are your own.  But leave the comments, and your hands, to yourselves.

Population growth/control is something I find very hard to have a stance on, because it is such a complex issue.

One the one extreme, we have the "quiverfull" movements; families pumping out children into the double figures and refusing any form of birth control or abortion because their religion tells them to go forth and multiply, even to the point where their children pretty much live as full-time parents to their younger siblings, or house-maids, doing hours of chores every day to help keep their massive family in one piece.

And then, on the other extreme we have China's one-child policy and the enforced abortions that go with it.  Women, pregnant at 7 months, being dragged into hospitals by the police to be forcibly aborted or sterilised, then having their dead children dumped in the trash.  Newborn children being left for dead in the streets, ignored by everyone that passes.

In the middle, we have the everyday, ordinary people having however many children they want to, whether that entails large families, small families or no family at all, and not really doing it for any reason other than their own choices and desires.

Now, I reject enforced pregnancy and enforced abortion with equal vitriol.  We should not presume the right to enforce any lifestyle choice on a woman, especially not with regards to her own body and her own children.  Denying a woman access to birth control and abortions is as bad in my books as denying her the right to carry a child to term and raise it as her own, should she wish to do so.  However, I do worry about population growth and I sometimes wonder whether, just maybe, some form of control is needed.

But then I face another dilemma, even were  to consider going to such an extreme.

On the one hand, population growth is still continuing, and this planet is not of infinite size.  There will be a breaking point, and we are hurtling ever more rapidly towards it.  Our economic models rely on constant growth, but constant growth is not physically possible on a finite planet, or in a finite universe.  We are increasing our population sizes, and population concentration is increasing along with it.  Overcrowded cities are breeding pens for disease, with contagious illness easily transmitted between so many people, so close together, sharing public facilities.  How often have you heard of some one falling ill in the office you work at, only to then watch the illness spread throughout the company?  Eventually, disease or starvation will occur if uncontrolled growth continues.  In that sense, I welcome those who choose to have smaller families or none, or to have children later in life.  It seems the more responsible choice.

However, as we live longer and stay healthier, we live longer after retirement and, therefore, put an ever greater burden on the state to support us.  The state gets the money to support us from the working population, so we need ever more working, young people to support the retired, older population.  A reduction in population would force another rise in the retirement age, or would force many elderly people to continue working for the rest of their lives, just to survive.  In addition, if our population were to drop too rapidly, we may find ourselves without enough people to fulfill essential jobs, such as dust-cart loaders, cleaners and care workers.  A smaller, but better educated andmore affluent population could also result in disaster, with our entire economics system and way of life collapsing from the inside out.  Suddenly having no children doesn't seem so responsible, any more.

Deep down, I feel like we need to control our population, we need to then work on  a model to exemplify stability, rather than growth or reduction.  Keeping the population mostly stable would, once the organisation of our civilisation had been rejigged, solve both issues.  But how is it really possible?  We could educate people about raising families, having children, birth control and abortion from a young age, with an emphasis on leaving this planet the same as when you entered it.  We could encourage more people to opt-out of breeding, so that those who do want larger families can have them guilt-free, whilst making adoption a more attractive option for those who opt-out.  We could encourage people to freeze their sperm and eggs, then have their tubes and bits tied, so that they only have children when they really want them, by going to a clinic for it.

But would any of that really work?  And would we want to take that route, anyway?

I have not received any education in this area.  I am rambling along on my own, simply stating what seems obvious and continuing it from there.

What is the answer here?

Should we continue our uncontrolld growth and hope that space exploration becomes more feasilbe soon, so that we can spread out more?
Should we try to reduce the population, sacrificing older people to ensure that future generations grow up in a smaller world?
Should we try to reach some stability between the two?

Either way, is it necesarry for us to enforce people to relinquish control of their own reproduction for the sake of the planet and the human race?  Or, at the least, should we be encouraging a particular model and making it more attractive, offering incentives?  Is it possible to promote one way of life without, in some way, villifying all other choices?

What should we do?  Please offer any suggestions you can.  I've opted outof the whole breeding affair for now, but I really am open to advice, here.

I would post a single link to the thread, but over at Feministe an interesting discussion has now grown and spread to encompass several separate threads, so I'll just send you to the main page to check it out:

GO HERE!!!

To sum it up, a quation was asked.

The question goes like this:

Many pro-lifers argue that "abortion is murder" and hence "abortion should be illegal".  So, if the pro-lifer's get their way, how much jail time should the mother serve?

There have been endless posts from pro-lifer's arguing that the question doesn't make sense, or that you can't think of it in those terms, or that it is a red herring, or that the issue wouldn't come up, but only a very few people have dared to answer honestly.  And their honest answers have been really, really quite scary.

There was the pro-eugenics lady who favoured enforced castration/sterilisation for all women who have abortions and their husbands/boyfriends/lovers.  Apparently, because having children worked for her everyone can do it and there's no excuse.  There was the person who did actually list jail terms and definitions of first or second degree murder, depending on the circumstances under which the abortion/pregnancy occurred.  This person did genuinely feel that a woman who chooses to have an abortion- not exactly an easy decision to make to start with- should be thrown in jail for x number of years and charged with either murder or manslaughter.

Overall, however, the responses have been exactly what was expected.

There were the kind-hearted but badly-thought-out suggestions that the procedure should be illegal, but anyone who gets an abortion should either receive no punishment or just some counselling, or that it should only be "murder" if the abortion occurs close to the due date, or if the pregancy occurred as a result of rape.  Then there were those who felt the need to turn up and give their views on why abortion is wrong, without actually addressing any of the direct questions passed to them.

Then there are the utterly inconsistent ones, like the suggestion that abortion is wrong, but inducing early pregnancy (so the woman gives birth to an unviable foetus which is then left to die naturally) is allowable as it isn't direct murder, just like removing the fallopian tube of a woman experiencing an ectopic pregancy is allowed because the death of the foetus/embryo is a "side effect".  These people have become so wrapped up in the simple statement that "abortion is wrong" that they have forgotten the very reason why some believe it is wrong, and forgotten the point of having that opinion.  ie: you think that foetuses/emryos are people and should not be killed.  Murder through willful neglect (ie, leaving a 6 week old foetus in a petri dish to die after being given birth to) is still murder, if that is how you choose to define abortion.

Abortion is not the simple issue that pro-lifer's think it is.

Point the First
Pregnancy is not 100% unavoidable
Not every one is able to use condoms.  My partner and I can't, for example.  Physically can't.  Not everyone can use the pill, or the injections.  Most people who can use contraception, however, will use more than one.  They might be on the pill and use condoms, or the woman might have the implant.  However, none of these things are failproof.  A condom can tear, come off or simply be faulty and have a hole in it.  The pill can fail, sometimes, and the morning after pill isn;t effective in 100% of cases.  You also cannot order adults not to be sexually active.  If 2 loving people want to spend their lives together, but never ever ever want children, who are you to say they should never share their bodies?  Even if some one does decide to take a vow of chastity, rape still occurs.  It occurs with disturbing regularity.  Right now, unless you are stinking rich and able to go for private healthcare, most people cannot just go and get their tubes tied or have some form of temporary, easily reversible sterilisation procedure done.  If they could, everyone would do it and this would hardly be an issue any more.  (I say hardly, because there are always going to be instances we can't predict).

Point the Second
Not everyone actually wants children
Some people, amazingly enough, have taken the decision to never have children.   Ever.  In most cases this is not an easy decision to make.  Such people should be allowed the chance to keep to this decision.  Keeping in mind the first point, this will mean that in some cases people will need abortions.

Point the Third
Not every pregnancy can go ahead
Sometimes, defects can occur which would mean that the foetus would not survive.  Sometimes an ectopic pregnancy can occur, in which not only is the foetus guaranteed to die but the mother is at a high risk of dying.  Sometimes, people can have a tendency to miscarry or a medical problem which means their body will reject foetuses (the human body treats foetuses as tumours, as alien tissue- it is only the massive influx of special chemicals and hormones that actually prevents our own immune systems from attacking the foetuses and embryos).  Sometimes a pregnant woman may develop cancer and need chemotherapy, which would surely kill the foetus anyway.  Sometimes the baby dies whilst still in the womb.  Sometimes, through no fault of anyone, a foetus or embryo can be almost certain to die and also pose a significant health risk to the mother.  In these cases, abortion is likely to be the best option available.

Point the Fourth
Adoption is not the magic solution
If adoption was the perfect solution, then why are so many children still waiting for a new family?  The sad truth is that most people do not want to adopt.  And of those kind few who do want to, very few people are willing to adopt a child who is disabled, or who is unwell, or even terminally ill, or who might come from a different racial background, or who is over 5 years old.  People want a perfectly formed, healthy, beautiful bouncing baby that will grow up thinking of them as it's real parents.  So there are not currently enough needy homes to take on the parentless children we already have, let alone the number we would have if adoption was made the standard alternative to abortion.  And that is without even going into the social stigma that women still face when they choose to give up a child for adoption.

Point the Fifth
Pregancy is not easy
Pregnancy isn't just a case of getting a bit rounder, stopping your periods and craving gerkin icecream for 9 months.  Pregnancy involves massive, often painful or at least uncomfortable and very dramatic changes to a woman's body.  It may leaveher unable to work for an extended period.  It may leave her, as it did my mother, with permanent medical problems, whether major or minor.  Deciding not to abort when you don't want the child is not a simple matter of a few months minor inconvenience.

Point the Sixth
Abortion isn't a cakewalk
I swear, some pro-lifer's must really believe this.  They imagine some 15 year old girl, jumping onto the crotch of every attractive young male she can find "woo!  I'm such a slut, and I love it!  Nah, why use condoms?" and then, when the inevitable happens and she gets pregnant; "Oh well, off to the clinic again!  What is that, 5, 6 babies I've killed this year?  Damn, well off I go for my abortion, laa laa laa...".
Seriously, do you think even a significant proportion of all women are so callous and desperate to kill children that existing legislation is the only thing stopping them from all killing every potential child at every available opportunity?  Do you really think so little of us?
In most cases, people become pregnant despite using protection.  They have very valid, good reasons for wanting not to keep the child.  Health reasons, financial reasons, current lifestyle, relationship status, and so on.  The decision to have an abortion will likely be difficult, they may have spent countless hours considering it, discussing it with their partner or their friends, weighing their options, before making this decision.

What this all boils down to, is that each individual abortion is a unique act.  Performed for unique reasons under unique circumstances, by people who came to this decision based on their unique lifestyle and choices.  You cannot outright say abortion is bad, and you cannot say "except here, here and here" or even "unless it's done sneakily".  Abortion is a tangled issue and I think the safest way to proceed is to give women bodily autonomy over themselves.  Let them have the right to do as they will.  Give their doctor all the facilities and training needed to recommend alternative courses of action where they are appropriate or practical, but the decision lies with the woman. 

If you want there to be fewer abortions, then stop making the alternative so crappy and difficult.

Prior to pregnancy, give her every resource she needs to prevent pregnancy; honest and easy to obtain contraception advice, cheap and effective contraception, easy access to emergency contraception.  Give her access to all during-pregnancy resources.  Supplements, physiotherapy, excellent pre-natal care, a fully informed doctor, access to full and accurate information on her choices regarding keeping or not keeping the baby.  Make giving a child up for adoption a practical alternative, easy, anonymous, with added efforts to remove the social stigma attached to the act.  Make adopting a child, especially a hard-to-place child, even more attractive and accessible to same sex couples, single parents and so on.  Increase benefits and assistance for parents; better post natal care, greater access to medication and counselling to assist with the cases where things go wrong, better provisions for working mothers/parents and for stay-at-home parents, better pensions and employability options for people out of work long term due to parenthood... the list goes on.

When you do that, I predict that over time the abortion rate will drop dramatically, as fewer and fewer people will experience accidental pregancy.  But when they do, abortion should still be freely available.  Because inthose cases, most people who want an abortion, will have very good reasons indeed for making this decision.

But until the day that we have all of the above, don't dare try to tell me that abortions should be banned or illegal.