by Shaker EastSideKate
Some readers may recall that Liss recently broke the stunning news that John Edwards is a wanker. But enough about Mr. Edwards, I'm interested in wanking. Not just generally, but also strictly for reals linguistically. It was asserted in that thread that "wanker" was a gendered insult. I'm not that interested in building a strawwang here, so I'd like to point out that Liss, Deeky, Merriam and/or Webster already put forth that wankers (and wanking) are gender-neutral. Good for them. But I digress. I can find less reputable dictionaries written by uninformed Americans that say otherwise. And in the end, isn't that what really matters?
When we say a masturbational term is gender-neutral, it may be because the term has gender-neutral roots, or because it is a term that refers to one gender (e.g. guys) that people frequently expand to include references to folks outside of that gender.
I've always had the impression that there's a lot more talk about masturbation among men than among the rest of us, regardless of whether insult is implied, which may lead to a cultural perception that masturbation is a predominantly (or exclusively) male occupation. It may also result in a larger culturally understood vocabulary for male masturbation than for female masturbation. Both of these hypotheses may also explain why many of us perceive wanker as a gendered term.
The thing is, I can't think of a single euphemism that exclusively describes female masturbation.
My minimal research hasn't been of much use. I'm not the type of person to suggest that my partner pose such questions to women she meets at a gay bar. Regardless of what certain folks in the Psychology department at Northwestern think, this isn't a valid methodology for scientific research, so I'd never post the results here :cough: weird looks :cough:. A brief survey of fiction in our household yielded similarly tangential results. Maybe we should be reading Philip Roth. In any case, I thank the internets for turning smut into work. (If there are any academics out there that write off erotica on their tax returns, do let me know.)
To wrap up, academic jibberish, cultural erasure of female sexual agency and vague references to how testosterone and Darwin totally make for teh horny (for reals, in *totes objective science reality* ) explain all.
Here are a few questions for y'all to discuss: Are the terms that you frequently encounter for masturbation typically gender-specific? If so, which gender? What's the origin of these terms? Are they descriptive? Onomatopoeic?
Most comments that refrain from mentioning Inuit people and snow are encouraged at this point.
Discussion Thread: Masturbation, Euphemisms, Hidden Female Sexual Agency, and Other Fun Stuff
Au Revoir, Air America
Air America goes silent.
I can't say I'm surprised, or particularly disappointed. Although Air America was touted as the Left's answer to rightwing talk radio, which dominates the airwaves, there were always issues with how progressive Air America ever really was. Randi Rhodes, for example, was casually transphobic, homophobic, and misogynist as it suited her shtick, and there were instances of naked racism on the channel.
The problem with Air America from the get-go was that much of the programming (with a few notable exceptions) was progressive only insomuch as people who hated George Bush were considered de facto "progressives" by fauxgressives who don't give a damn about social progress.
And then there's the question of how well-matched progressivism and the talk radio format are in the first place. In October '06, when Air America first filed for bankruptcy, I explained my indifference to the liberal radio channel:
I'm ostensibly the perfect target audience for Air America, and I can't frigging stand it. Obviously, it's not because I disagree with what they're saying most of the time, but because I just find political talk radio absolute shit no matter who it is or what they're saying.Talk radio just doesn't suit me. Or I don't suit it. And I suspect that there are an awful lot more progressives who strongly prefer to engage with information, who gravitate toward interactive news sources, which might suggest that the medium of talk radio was going to struggle to build a sustainable audience.
The thing about talk radio is that the discussions just hang in the air and I can't wrap my hands around them. If someone says something, and I think, "That can't be right, can it?" I have to note it, then go research it—and half the time they don't even cite sources, because the nature of the medium doesn't really accommodate such detail, so I'm stumbling around in the dark trying to find the origin of some esoteric statistic or whatever. Books have endnotes, or footnotes. Blogs have links. People can be asked, "Where did you get that number?" I'm not good at being a passive receiver of information.
Or maybe I'm overthinking it and Air America was just garbage.
In any case, Senator Al Franken and MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow are probably a pretty good result, in the end.
Personal Note: Stage Appearance Cancelled
After being sick all day yesterday, the headache part of my migraine has now arrived, and I will be unable to make my performance appearance this evening. My apologies to anyone who's made plans specifically because I was on.
Now back to hide in the darkness some more.
Today in Hopey Changey
Detainees Will Still Be Held, but Not Tried, Official Says: "The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantánamo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, an administration official said on Thursday."
Well, listen, if a high-level task force says that we've got to continue illegally and unethically holding people in a dehumanizing manner totally contrary to our stated notions of justice and in a place where they may be killed and their murders covered up, who can argue with that?
It's a high-level task force, people!
Perfect
Leno to headline White House correspondents' dinner:
Comedian Jay Leno will headline the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner in May, the group said Friday.Yeah, he's totes "bipartisan," so Obama should love it.
...The comedian will share the stage with President Obama at the correspondents' dinner at the Washington Hilton. By tradition, presidents fire jokes at the news corps, political opponents and even themselves at the event, where politicians, journalists and celebrities rub elbows.
Leno headlined the 2004, 2000 and 1987 dinners during the administrations of both parties.
I can't wait to watch this. The sight of Chris Matthews yukking it up to Jay Leno's awesome jokery will be the greatest thing ever broadcast on television.
"Apparently, Lindsay Lohan is a real bipartisan. She parties with men and women! With men and women! Men and women!"
"HA!"
Just take me now, Maude.
Texting! With Liss and Deeky!
Last night, after I texted Deeks asking him to post the Question of the Day, because I was eating dinner.
Deeks: I wanna be an ocelot, by the way.
Liss: I want to be a unicorn!
Deeks: No fake animals!
Liss: Fine. I want to be a pegasus. Those are totes real.
Deeks: LOL! What's with you and fake animals?
Liss: Fine! I want to be a sphinx!
Deeks: LOLs for real.
Liss: God! Fine! I'll be a griffin.
Deeks: That's just a halfbreed pegasus, ya know.
Liss: Touché, celery shaft.
[Previously.]
Question of the Day
What animal would you like to be reincarnated as?
I totally want to come back as an ocelot (see above).
Veggie Tale
I just ate an entire head (?) of celery. That's got to be good for me, right? No matter how much ranch dressing it is slathered in.
[Cross-posted.]
I Write Letters
Mr. Gaiman:
In regard to your post, I first want to tell you that I am sorry about Zoe. I know you don't know me from Eve, but I write in a house with three cats, whom most of my regular readers probably know by name, and my sympathy for your pain over Zoe is genuine and deep.
I have no interest in protracting my original point, and will respond only to your assertion that "having used that phrase undid all the good I'd ever done by writing positive women, supporting RAINN etc." That is not a claim I made, nor something I believe.
The truth is, Mr. Gaiman, if I didn't consider you someone who has done a lot of good, if I didn't respect that you've written positive female characters and supported RAINN, if I didn't regard you as someone who I thought might be receptive to the concern, I wouldn't have bothered writing the post. I'm not in the habit of wasting my time on lost causes. It was, in fact, because you had shown yourself, to me and many other women, to be someone who might take such an issue seriously that I wrote the post at all.
If you're still keen to render that plague on my house, I prefer frogs to locusts, if it's all the same to you.
Warmest regards,
Melissa McEwan
In Which I Substitute an Email Conversation with Deeky for an Actual Post
Liss: Okay, it's totes awesome that Cindy and Meghan McCain are pro-same sex marriage, but why the eff does Cindy have a piece of duct tape over her mouth in a NOH8 campaign image?
I mean, I get that it's obviously supposed to be implying that NOH8 (no hate) will come out of her mouth, but doesn't that mean that nothing in support of same-sex marriage can come out, either? (Hard to be an ally that way. Whatever happened to "silence = death"?) And isn't it a vaguely disturbing message b/c of the association with violence against women? Or am I missing something?
Deeky: No. In fact, it is reminds me of those creepy anti-choice protesters:
Liss: OMG. Well recalled. And, in other news, Cindy McCain is not allowed to look like the 55-year-old woman she is, but is instead consigned to the fate of the Impossibly Beautiful.
Is this story stylish, or fashionable?
It's great to see a story in the New York Times about the children of same-sex couples speaking out about how marriage bans affect them.
It's disappointing, however, that the story is filed in the "Fashion & Style" section.
It has been previously discussed here that serious stories—like those about, say, domestic violence, multigenerational parenting, gender bias and sexual harassment, stalking, and rape—frequently end up in the NYT "Fashion & Style" section (and the fashion/style/life/living/etc. sections of various other papers) because "style" sections are disproportionately staffed by female writers, who use whatever platform they've got to write serious stories. So I want to make it clear I'm not knocking the writer of this piece (who is, indeed, a woman).
This is an editing failure. It's a failure of relegating women disproportionately to the "style" sections in the first place, and it's a failure of letting pieces that are demonstrably not "style" content run under that header, which ultimately has the effect of marginalizing the content. Stories about women, or gay couples, are "special interest" stories only in cultures where privileged classes are not expected to treat members of those populations as their equals.
Quickly, I'll just note that I find publishing a story about the children of gay parents in the "Fashion & Style" section additionally problematic because of the unavoidable suggestion that being a gay parent is hip and trendy, or that families headed by same-sex parents are a fad. There is also the unintentional subtext of children being treated like accessories, which I patently detest. Fail all around, basically.
[H/T to Shaker EastSideKate.]
The Mind Reels
According to this story in the NY Post (super-relevant headline: "Club Paddles Stripper Suit")*, a strip club owner is claiming that two of his former employees lack "sufficient moral character" to sue him for lost wages. You know, because they're strippers. The turpitude!
The backstory: More than 200 current and former employees of Rick's Cabaret in Manhattan are suing the company's owner for $5 million, claiming that the club charged patrons $24 for each lap dance but only paid the dancers $18. Additionally, the employees charge that Rick's charged them $50 a shift for the use of its poles and stages—a common practice known as the "stage fee" or "house fee," a nightly fee for the right to work the floor.
It's hard to ignore the irony of a man who peddles women's flesh for a living chastising two of those women for lacking sufficient "moral character." In a statement to the Post, the women's attorney called the charges "evidence of the defendant's desperation in the face of overwhelming case law holding that their practices are unlawful."
It's still unclear whether the case will move forward.
* As you might guess, the comments at the link are not recommended.
Scary Rotter and the Pontificator's Drone
Shaker Crissy emails (which I am sharing with her permission):
I was browsing my Amazon recommendations, and one of them was Glenn Beck's "The Christmas Sweater." I clicked on the "fix this recommendation" button to ask it to kindly remove this crap from my recommendation list, and, funnily enough, it had recommended the book to me because I told it I owned "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" and rated another Harry Potter book.
Needless to say, the many possibilities of this find have struck me as incredible. The irony! Or, perhaps Amazon has come to the same conclusion as me: Glenn Beck is Voldemort.
Dems React to SCOTUS Decision
The Dems are not happy about the Supreme Court's decision to ease restrictions on corporate campaign donations. The Hill reports that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Senate Rules Committee, plans to "hold hearings to explore ways to limit corporate spending on elections," and the Senate hopes to pass legislation before mid-term elections this year.
Meanwhile, the White House released a statement condemning the decision and vowing to work with Congressional Dems to pass legislation to undercut the change:
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.Call me cynical, but I imagine the real principle at work here is not some heartfelt concern for average Americans but the fact that corporate donations generally go to Republicans—and if new regulations aren't put in place to halt the impending windfall into GOP coffers, the Democrats are going to struggle mightily to get (re)elected.
Nonetheless, this is still good news.
Thursday Theremin
Pekkanini plays his original composition "Fat Theremin" and delights viewers with some totally awesome visual effects.
[Cross-posted.]
lolsob
President Obama signaled on Wednesday that he might be willing to scale back his proposed health care overhaul to a version that could attract bipartisan support, as the White House and Congressional Democrats grappled with a political landscape transformed by the Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race.Someone get me Olympia Snowe's head on the spacephone, stat!!!
"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on," Mr. Obama said in an interview on ABC News, notably leaving near-universal insurance coverage off his list of core goals.
Criminy.
You know, I never thought the Democrats' pusillanimous, craven, pathetic spinelessness could reach a profundity still capable of surprising me, but throwing in the towel on their (admittedly disappointing) healthcare reform bill because they lost one goddamn special election is quite genuinely gobsmacking.
While Obama blathers on about sacrificing yet more at the glorious altar of bipartisanship, Pelosi has announced she now lacks the votes to pass the Senate bill, but hopes she might in the future.
So, the House needs the bill to be more progressive for it to pass, but the President is talking about making it more appealing to Republicans. Lordy begordy.
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strips One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
