The following organizations are working to help women in these regions in a variety of ways; and there are ways for you to get involved also! I encourage you to make a simple donation to the organization of your choice. Or, if you want to play a more active role, there are opportunities for that as well.

Women for Women International is an organization that provides opportunities for charitable sponsorship of women in a variety of war torn nations including The Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sponsorship, which entails a monthly donation amount, provides one woman with job training and human rights education, which allows her to educate other women in her community. This education gives women the tools to stand up and fight for their rights in nations where those rights have been eroded. One time donations are also accepted.

Also, if you live in Washington D.C., the organization has volunteer opportunities in their offices. They also offer a host of internship opportunities.

Run for Congo Women has raised over $700,000 since 2005 for the Women for Women International sponsorship program. Visit the website to learn how to build a racing team and raise funds in conjunction with an upcoming 5K or 10K race in your city.

The International Rescue Committee is committed to ensuring that women and girls who have been victims of the sexual assault epidemic in The Congo have access to critical care. Donations help provide support in the form of health care, clean water, education and other aid for survivors of sexual violence.

Oxfam International, an organization based in Great Britain, works in Eastern Congo with communities that are hosting tens of thousands of displaced people. They focus on providing clean water and sanitation facilities that help prevent the spread of diseases. They accept donations and offer a plethora of more active volunteer opportunities to those of you located in Great Britain.

The Slate article, 51 Ways to Be a Woman gives a few examples of how some of today’s high-profile female candidates are creating their images with this fine line in mind. Usually, the result is some matching of traditional femininity, such as family pictures taken in the kitchen, with the use of tough language, think Christine O’Donnell telling Mike Castle to “get his man pants on,” and with accomplishments that prove big boy equality, such as the former CEO status of Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. The goal is to design a female image that out-toughs the guys but still knows how to bake cookies too.

While I could care less about baking cookies, stories where women co-opt male language and subversively undermine male power often pleased me when I was younger. But now, I wonder how much such stories are only examples of power performed rather than power actually gained. As such, I feel deeply conflicted by what seem to be the image requirements for women who are running for office today.

I worry that perpetual focus on keeping up with and undermining the boys’ power dilutes the real strengths that women bring as leaders – strengths that would lead to a real and not just an apparent increase in influence. Telling guys to “man up” only reinforces the idea that strong ideas and strong leadership come from men and women acting like men. This idea, not the relative masculinity of a male opponent, is what needs to be undermined.

Furthermore, I bristle at the connection between “breaking through the glass ceiling” and a preparation for political office. It suggests that only women who have managed to compete within the constructs of a male constructed economy are prepared to be successful political leaders; as such it further connects successful leadership with masculine qualities and an ability to achieve male-defined power. Certainly, the skills demonstrated in a business career that capstones with CEO status are potential assets in political leadership. But “breaking through the glass ceiling” as a highlighted qualification subversively equates the potential success of women with overcoming disadvantages of womanhood. As such it reinforces a basic assumed inequality when it comes to leadership.

Now, I recognize the universal requirement that all involved in modern politics think tactically in order to forward agendas, some of which I vigorously support. Furthermore, I understand that creating an image that appeals to voters who hold a certain set of biases is necessary. Still, ideally, I wish that female accomplishments weren’t always discussed against a backdrop of overcoming an assumed misfortune of being born female; and I wish that female competence was not always tied to a demonstrated ability to outpace the boys. Good ideas and the leadership qualities necessary for political effectiveness are not solely male; and until female candidates refuse to reinforce the idea that they are, women will continue to struggle in the quest for real political influence.

In short, there is an outcry from classic liberal-minded feminists, such as Rebecca Traister, who believe that people like Palin are fundamentally anti-feminist and anti-woman because they support policies that do not help women gain power. Emily Yoffe acknowledges the difficulty with Palin because her life, as a working-mother who has attained a high level of political influence, is a “feminist’s dream.” Christine Rosen supports Palin’s right to the term, citing first wave feminist matriarchs like Francis Willard, who “often appealed to hearth, home, and children as the basis for their right to be heard in the public sphere.” Furthermore, some see feminism as a necessarily mixed bag that must become comfortable with varied opinions in order to regain legitimacy. Feminists must be allowed to disagree about tough issues such as abortion, without being attacked as self-hating and anti-woman and without losing the right to call themselves feminists.

While my personal life reflects that of a classic feminist, I’ve always shied away from embracing the label. Calling oneself “feminist” has historically required commitment to a platform of viewpoints that, when held together, dims the importance of the individual issues that make up the platform. By standing separate of the feminist tag I have felt less marginalized when expressing my opinion, which is free of dogmatic loyalty, and more empowered as an individual.

To be sure, I don’t agree with Palin’s politics, but I see her appropriation of “feminism” as a good thing. Her utter opposition to all things thought to be feminist should expand ideas about what the term means. The conservative community, where all of Palin’s power is housed, and which has long ignored feminist thought, might suddenly be open to the thoughts of feminists. In short, she might create a window of opportunity to make feminism relevant again as long as we utilize the opportunity to talk about actual issues without attacking her for appropriating the term “feminist.”

It’s also possible that the end result is a further deflation of the power of feminists. If so, that should be taken as strong evidence that a different approach to the issues that affect women is needed – perhaps one that addresses issues specifically and not as part of a polarizing, strictly liberal, platform.

If you’re in LA, you should absolutely make a point to go to this show! It’s super funny. For more information and to get tix go here!

I did not attend but based on web reports, topics of discussion included the standard feminist sexuality fair…slut-shaming, virginity as it relates to commodification of women and girls, defining virginity when the penis isn’t involved, and lastly aligning abstinence with sex positive language.

Because I collect the women’s stories of virginity loss, I should care about all of this and I’m wondering why I’m not that interested. It’s not that I don’t care at all, I’m just not sure what the conference was aiming to accomplish aside from creating a buzz to counterpoint the message of the True Love Revolution. All of these discussions end in the same conclusion - wouldn’t it be great if girls were taught to identify and trust their own feelings and to behave in accordance with those feelings when it comes to sex? Yes…but this is not possible for people who have not had sex before. The ability to know and trust one’s own feelings about sex comes from having sex – and getting it wrong and then right and then wrong again. Sure, people learn some things fooling around before they have sex. And based on the stories that I receive, most girls feel as ready as they ever will be when they have sex that first time. It’s only afterward that they can identify the aspects of sex they weren’t yet prepared for.

Simply put, no amount of sexual health education prepares anyone for the various ways individuals experience sex…and while trusting one’s feelings should be the goal over time, I’m not sure it’s completely applicable to the “virgin” experience. Perhaps a better message might be that it’s alright to get it completely wrong the first time as mistakes are as common in sexual relationships as they are in math. Furthermore, it’s OK to make twenty mistakes figuring out what feels right emotionally AND physically…personal value is not negated by those mistakes that are inevitable along the road to self-trust.

As for issues surrounding the definition of virginity – some think the term virginity should be done away with altogether because it’s definition is cloudy in many circumstances. But this is never going to happen. Our cultural identity is simply too defined by Judeo-Christian tradition. People will not stop defining their first sexual experience as a loss of virginity. Moreover, most people, straight and lesbian, seem to be able to define their own first times. They may divide their virginity into multiple experiences or believe in multiple virginities, but they can tell a story about losing their virginity…whether it involves classic penal penetration or not. I’m fine with allowing women to define this and I hope that the stories on my site empower young women to define their own virginity story however they see fit.

As for the term slut, and it’s use to induce female shame regarding sexual behavior, the feminist argument usually centers around a presumed cultural resistance to female pleasure. But, I don’t think slut is used solely or even mostly to shame women who enjoy sex. Rather, I think it is used to shame women who use sex for reasons other than pleasure (i.e. power, manipulation, commodity, experimentation). Is this right, NO! But it is a much more complicated issue than simple shaming over pleasure, which is clearly related to the desire to maintain patriarchal control. More of my thoughts on this later. But for now, suffice it to say that nuances in the term’s use need to be addressed for the conversation to become interesting and current to me. Otherwise, it just feels hackneyed.

Perhaps I’m just not as interested in a theoretical discussion about issues of virginity and female sexuality because I believe the personal narrative more successfully challenges the status quo and changes the core views of individuals. For feminism to continue to advance it’s fundamental aims of seamless equality, those core views are what must change. Deconstructing the past and theorizing about what equality would or should look like has it’s place in feminism, and on a different day, I might be excited to engage in such intellectual wonk talk…but today, I’d rather direct my energies elsewhere.

Some DoucheBag TV producer (oxymoronic I know) from Australia is planning to shoot a reality show that follows a group of girls as they auction off their virginity. The show is obviously inspired by Natalie Dylan, who supposdedly auctioned her virginity off last year. If a girl wants to auction her virginity off, kudos to her. But a TV Producer shouldn’t be able to exploit and possibly profit off their decision. Luckily, I doubt this show will find distribution.

Feminism has most certainly affected the female experience in positive ways. It’s elevated our expectations for girls and elevated their individual ambitions. However, the adult world those girls enter is still marked by antiquated notions about gender and professional opportunity. In short we’ve become very good at setting our daughters up for disappointment in their adult lives…when the “you can do anything you want and be anything you want” rhetoric of their childhood meets the reality of a work force that resists female ambition.

I felt this intimately during my senior year of college, when I worked as a temp in administrative support for the sales team of a major seat-belt manufacturer. The team consisted of a lead manager, 4-6 outside sales managers, who traveled extensively to meet client needs, 3-5 inside sales managers, who supported the outsides sales managers from the central office, and maybe 2-3 administrative support people. The highest paid and most interesting jobs, the lead manager and the outside sales managers, were all men. Men and women worked as inside sales managers. All of the administrative support people were women. At one point, an outside sales position opened up and one of the male and one of the female inside managers wanted the job. The male, just two years out of college, got the job over the woman, also a college graduate, but one who’d worked there longer and had triple the recent grad’s experience in sales. Many women have a similar “welcome to reality – men have the advantage when it comes to work” moment early in their career. This advantage can be attributed to a lot of different things…and almost all of them sit squarely in a fundamental gender bias that continues to inform work relationships and expectations. Clearly, the goals of feminism have not yet been met!

So, why has feminism become a label many women, including myself, resist? This topic is much discussed; and a Google search for ‘feminism and bad word’ yields pages of results – mostly articles arguing for a more nuanced positive application of the word that more accurately depicts the movement’s aims. Such arguments are fair, but I’m not sure they are the best use of energy. At the end of the day, it is just a word…a word with an unfair connotation, but one that nevertheless has become associated not with a desire for gender equality, but with a blanket hatred and distrust of men; that connotation is here to stay and it creates resistance to the important messages of the movement. Moreover, calling oneself a feminist implies support of ALL feminist issues, something that many women have a hard time accepting. Most women can agree that equal pay for equal work should be a given. But not all issues that fall under the feminist umbrella are as easily agreed upon.

I think to best serve the aims of the feminist movement, the individual issues need to be taken out from under the label’s umbrella and disseminated in a more nuanced and effective way – one that allows women AND men to offer support without tacitly agreeing to the connotations carried by the feminist tag? I recognize that those who embrace the label with aplomb are probably bristling with anger right now. Or, some might feel sorry for me and think I just don’t get it. Perhaps they’re right. But I worry that these most vocal proponents of feminism are driven more by a love of controversy and contention than by their desire to improve the state of women; and because the movement is defined as unilaterally female, the contentious energy inevitably feels directed at men, even when it’s not. Moreover, accusing the patriarchal right-wing of single handedly weakening the movement by re-writing the image of the feminist as ugly and unappealing to young women and girls is a simplification of what has happened and potentially insulting to those very girls the movement claims have been alienated. In fact, the real success of that assault, which I believe has occurred, is that many feminists now exert energy and time fighting for the right to be called “feminists” without connotation rather than finding creative ways to subvert the negativity and further advance the movement’s goals. This type of subversion is what I aim for in my work as editor of Deflowered Memoirs, and in the production of our shows Live and Rated R and Ding Dong My Hymen’s Gone. My goal from the start was to create a venue where the stories of women were presented in a way that men could enjoy as well. After all, in order to accomplish the goals of feminism men must see the value in our aims and work with us to accomplish them. As long as those goals are tied to a term that is associated with gender animosity (regardless of the fairness of that association), that cooperation will be more difficult to find than it should be. For this reason, my dance with the “feminist” label will remain uneasy.

Betty White killed on SNL this past weekend. She is everything I hope to be at 88…healthy both mentally and physically, fearless, funny, and child-free.

Oklahoma has indicted itself as aggressively hateful and distrustful of women with the passage of strict abortion laws that would require all women seeking abortions, even those who have become pregnant as the result of rape to have an intra-vaginal ultrasound BEFORE they can receive an abortion. Furthermore, the woman must listen to the doctor describe the fetus during this procedure.

I always feel it’s necessary for me to expose the specifics of my bias before ranting. I do not believe any woman should be forced to go through an invasive and medically unnecessary procedure designed to increase her guilt and shame regarding abortion regardless of her motives for seeking one. Women know what abortion is and forcing them to go through such a procedure reeks of a general disrespect, distrust, and dislike of women.

Having said that, I do understand and respect the points of those who oppose abortion in instances of straightforward, unwanted pregnancy (i.e. birth control failure or drunken oversight). I still believe strongly that women should have access to elective abortion in those circumstances; and I think the pro-life movement misrepresents women who seek elective abortions as misinformed, bullied, flippant, immoral, selfish, cold, lost, etc…when in truth, the great majority of women who seek abortions do so with a heavy heart and with understanding and profound consideration of their circumstances. In fact, according to the Guttmacher Institute’s statistics on abortion, 60% of women getting abortions, are moms struggling to take care of the children they already have. They get abortions out of concern for the lives of those existing children, not out of the selfish desire for a childless existence, as the pro-life movement would have you believe. I believe presenting images of women who have abortions without respect to statistics is irresponsible and unfair. Still, I do understand and respect the reasoning behind the counterpoint in instances of straightforward unwanted pregnancy; and I believe that people can disagree with my position on elective abortion and still be sensible, thoughtful human beings.

But I do not understand a point of view that supports legislation that treats pregnancies resulting from rape, incest or abuse, the same as straightforward unwanted pregnancies. Such blanket application of abortion law is not based on concern for the potential lives of the fetus. It is based on misogynistic desire to control the living, breathing, realized lives and bodies of women and girls. And I suspect pro-life supporters who fail to allow any nuance in their opposition to abortion for these circumstances are solely motivated by a quiet disdain for women and girls and not true concern for the unborn.

As this pertains to the new laws in Oklahoma, I assert that forcing someone, who has endured criminal violation of their reproductive system, to first go through an invasive, medically unnecessary procedure before they can receive an abortion, when the sole underlying purpose of that procedure is to elicit shame and guilt about having that abortion, is tantamount to a state sponsored second victimization. Endorsing a second victimization suggests an under-valuation of the severity of the first victimization; and that should frighten all women and the men who value them.

The second part of the law, which prohibits women from suing doctors who lie to them about the details of their pregnancy because truthful information might lead to a choice to terminate the pregnancy, is an even grosser example of an over-handed desire to control women’s lives. That’s right ladies, in Oklahoma, a doctor can lie to you about YOUR body in order to control YOUR decisions…and you will have no right to sue him for misinforming you. This is a serious and sad low in anti-women policy. So take to your streets and your blogs and your classrooms and wherever else and speak the fuck up. Silence in the face of the enactment of such horrifying regressive misogynistic policies is not an option!

I recently started watching Weeds. I’m late to the show I know…and I might never have made it except for a new guy that’s been hanging around who happens to be a big fan. In fact, he’s such a fan that he owns the first four seasons which he happily loaned me. I’ve never met a Showtime series that I didn’t like. Still, I was skeptical at first. But, with the encouragement of new boy, I gave it a shot. Sure enough, I became hooked and obsessively plowed through the first three seasons. But then, somewhere in Season 4…it lost me.

SPOILER ALERT!!! Those of you who aren’t current and who plan to watch the series should not continue reading as the rant that follows includes plot points.

When it comes to TV, I’m a complete sucker for complex female characters and Weeds’ Nancy Botwin was like crack for me at the start of the series. Struggling to provide for her family following her husband’s untimely death, Nancy’s new career as a suburban pot dealer seems both horribly misguided and genius…you root for her even as she falls deeper into the dangerous underbelly of drug dealing. And her character seemed real…all the way up until she started screwing Esteban Reyes, the Mexican drug lord, who also happens to be the Mayor of Tijuana. At that point, the decisions Nancy starts making just didn’t seem consistent with her character. While it’s true she was always flawed, there was a logic to her decisions that made sense and she remained likable. But as her character’s decisions become unfettered and destructive, she loses that likability. And because she never actually seems to be in love with Esteban, her turn toward senselessness marked by the loss of the subtle complexities that made her so appealing in earlier seasons, reads inauthentic to me.

To add insult to injury, while Nancy’s decisions are increasingly out of line with her character’s initial motivations, Andy Botwin, her senseless man-child brother-in-law is redeemed when he becomes engaged to a doctor, and thus becomes relatively stable compared to Nancy. To be fair, I don’t find Andy Botwin’s character arc unbelievable. The fact that a doctor would ever consider marrying him, perhaps…but his slow, steady growth toward maturity is believable. It’s Nancy’s descent into frivolous and unsteady choices that seems off. Her ultimate marriage to Reyes is simply so unbelievable that it is cartoonish. Moreover, the subtle message – that a flawed woman, left without a husband, has no end other than a life of chaos and destruction for themselves and their families – is disappointing to me…especially in the face of Andy’s redemption.

I recognize that from the standpoint of creating entertaining TV, it makes sense for Nancy to get deeper and deeper into shit she can’t handle. I just wish that she had maintained some of the sensible authenticity that made her so likable to begin with along that road to Hades.

I’m looking forward to learning more about the goals of this legislation which has enjoyed a bi-partisan introduction by Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). However, I suspect this bill will garner little interest from the vagina-less members of Congress…but with a little constituent coercion we may be able to keep it afloat. To learn more about getting involved in advocacy on behalf of this bill, check out the Girl Scouts Advocacy Network.

For more information:

http://blog.girlscouts.org/2010/03/bill-supported-by-girl-scouts.html

Africa Countries Still Practicing Female Genital Mutilation Along with Legal Information for Specific States

Burkina Faso (71.6% prevalence, Type II)

A law prohibiting FGC was enacted in 1996 and went into effect in February 1997. Even before this law, however, a presidential decree had set up the National Committee against excision and imposed fines on people guilty of excising girls and women.

The new law includes stricter punishment. Several women excising girls have been handed prison sentences. Burkina Faso ratified the Maputo Protocol in 2006.

Central African Republic (43.4% prevalence, Type I and II)

In 1996, the President issued an Ordinance prohibiting FGC throughout the country. It has the force of national law. Any violation of the Ordinance is punishable by imprisonment of from one month and one day to two years and a fine of 5,100 to 100,000 francs (approximately US$8?160). No arrests are known to have been made under the law.

Côte d’Ivoire ( 44.5% prevalence, Type II)

A December 18, 1998 law provides that harm to the integrity of the genital organ of a woman by complete or partial removal, excision, desensitization or by any other procedure will, if harmful to a women’s health, be punishable by imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of 360,000 to two million CFA Francs (approximately US$576?3,200). The penalty is five to twenty years incarceration if a death occurs during the procedure and up to five years’ prohibition of medical practice, if this procedure is carried out by a doctor.

Djibouti (90-98% prevalence, Type II)

FGC was outlawed in the country’s revised Penal Code that went into effect in April 1995. Article 333 of the Penal Code provides that persons found guilty of this practice will face a five year prison term and a fine of one million Djibouti francs (approximately US$5,600). Djibouti ratified the Maputo Protocol in 2005.

Egypt (78-97% prevalence, Type I, II and III)

Egypt’s Ministry of Health and Population has banned all forms of female genital cutting since 2007. The ministry’s order declared it is ‘prohibited for any doctors, nurses, or any other person to carry out any cut of, flattening or modification of any natural part of the female reproductive system’. Islamic authorities in the nation also stressed that Islam opposes female circumcision. The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa, said that it is “Prohibited, prohibited, prohibited.” The June 2007 Ministry ban eliminated a loophole that allowed girls to undergo the procedure for health reasons. There had previously been provisions under the Penal Code involving “wounding” and “intentional infliction of harm leading to death,” as well as a ministerial decree prohibiting FGC. In December 1997, the Court of Cassation (Egypt’s highest appeals court) upheld a government banning of the practice providing that those who did not comply would be subjected to criminal and administrative punishments. This law had proved ineffective and in a survey in 2000, a study found that 97% of the country’s population still practiced FGC. In light of the widespread practice of FGC, even after the ban in 1997, some Egyptian villages decided to voluntarily give up the practice, as was the case with Abou Shawareb, which vowed in July 2005 to end the practice. However, it remains a culturally accepted practice, and a 2005 study found that over 95% of Egyptian women have undergone some form of FGC.

Eritrea (90-95% prevalence, Type I, II and III)

Eritrea has outlawed all forms of female genital cutting since 2007. There have been no arrests made yet under the new law.

Ghana (9-15% prevalence, Type I,II and III)

In 1989, the head of the government of Ghana, President Rawlings, issued a formal declaration against FGC. Article 39 of Ghana’s Constitution also provides in part that traditional practices that are injurious to a person’s health and well being are abolished. Ghana ratified the Maputo Protocol in 2007.

Guinea (98.6% prevalence, Type I, II and III)

FGC is illegal in Guinea under Article 265 of the Penal Code. The punishment is hard labor for life and if death results within 40 days after the crime, the perpetrator will be sentenced to death. No cases regarding the practice under the law have ever been brought to trial. Article 6 of the Guinean Constitution, which outlaws cruel and inhumane treatment, could be interpreted to include these practices, should a case be brought to the Supreme Court. A member of the Guinean Supreme Court is working with a local NGO on inserting a clause into the Guinean Constitution specifically prohibiting these practices. Guinea signed the Maputo Protocol in 2003 but has not ratified it.

Nigeria (25.1% prevalence, Type I, II and III

There is no federal law banning the practice of FGC in Nigeria. Opponents of these practices rely on Section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that states “no person shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment” as the basis for banning the practice nationwide. A member of the House of Representatives has drafted a bill, not yet in committee, to outlaw this practice. Nigeria ratified the Maputo Protocol in 2005.

Senegal (5-20% prevalence, Type II and III)

A law that was passed in January 1999 makes FGC illegal in Senegal. President Diouf had appealed for an end to this practice and for legislation outlawing it. The law modifies the Penal Code to make this practice a criminal act, punishable by a sentence of one to five years in prison. A spokesperson for the human rights group RADDHO (The African Assembly for the Defense of Human Rights) noted in the local press that “Adopting the law is not the end, as it will still need to be effectively enforced for women to benefit from it. Senegal ratified the Maputo Protocol in 2005.

Sudan (91% prevalence, Type I,II and III)

Currently there is no law forbidding FGC, although Sudan was the first country to outlaw it in 1946, under the British. Type III was prohibited under the 1925 Penal Code, with less severe forms allowed. Outreach groups have been trying to eradicate the practice for 50 years, working with NGO’s, religious groups, the government, the media and medical practitioners. Arrests have been made but no further action seems to have taken place. Sudan signed the Maputo Protocol in June, 2008 but no ratification has yet been deposited with the African Union.

Tanzania (17.6% prevalence, Type II and III)

Section 169A of the Sexual Offences Special Provisions Act of 1998 prohibits FGC. Punishment is imprisonment of from five to fifteen years or a fine not exceeding 300,000 shillings (approximately US$380) or both. There have been some arrests under this legislation, but no reports of prosecutions yet. Tanzania ratified the Maputo Protocol in 2007.

Togo (12% prevalence, Type II)

On October 30, 1998, the National Assembly unanimously voted to outlaw the practice of FGC. Penalties under the law can include a prison term of two months to ten years and a fine of 100,000 francs to one million francs (approximately US$160 to 1,600). A person who had knowledge that the procedure was going to take place and failed to inform public authorities can be punished with one month to one year imprisonment or a fine of from 20,000 to 500,000 francs (approximately US$32 to 800).^[75] Togo ratified the Maputo Protocol in 2005.

Uganda (<5% prevalence, Type I and II)

Recently, a law was passed to outlaw genital mutilation. Under this law, anyone convicted of this practice is subject to 10 years in prison. If the life of the patient is lost during the operation a life sentence is recommended. In 1996, however, a court intervened to prevent the performance of this procedure under Section 8 of the Children Statute, enacted that year, that makes it unlawful to subject a child to social or customary practices that are harmful to the child’s health. Uganda signed the Maputo Protocol in 2003 but has not ratified it, despite calls from women’s rights advocates. In early July 2009, President Yoweri Museveni stated that a law would soon be passed prohibiting the practice, with alternative livelihoods found for its practitioners.

Asia

Indonesia (No national prevalence figures avail., Type I and IV)

Officials are preparing to release a decree banning doctors and paramedics from performing FGC. Azrul Azwar, the director general of community health, stated that, “All government health facilities will also be instructed to spread information about the decision as well as the redundancy of female circumcision.”

Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan (72.7% prevalence, Type I and II)

There is no law against FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan, but in 2007 a draft was submitted to the Regional Parliament.

]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:00:00 GMT BB4177E8A36772462B8B02685E94EF83 http://defloweredmemoirs.com/theblog.cfm?feature=1425162&postid=279143 <a href="http://deflowerednation.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mary_and_joseph.jpg">As mentioned before, I&#8217;ve been reading a lot about feminism recently. More on this in future posts. But, for now, my reading coupled with my general annoyance with fundamentalist Christians, has informed today&#8217;s Fucked Up and Proud Post. Now before I begin, I want to clarify that, although I have been an atheist since I was 10, I don&#8217;t think religion is necessarily a bad thing&#8230;ok, I kind of do. But, having said that, I understand the great comfort that spirituality and a relationship with God can bring to individuals; and I wouldn&#8217;t want to deny anyone that experience. However, I also think a proper reading of religious texts allows for the presence of metaphor and symbolism above literal interpretation. I&#8217;m sorry but to believe the earth was created in 7 days is fucking stupid. It just is. And I understand that if you believe that you REALLY believe it&#8230;and you think I&#8217;m going to hell with all the other heathens. But belief is not synonymous with fact. As such, I understand and fully respect those who believe in a God who created the earth through the process of evolution&#8230;those who see the seven days story as a sort of composite character in a memoir. If there is a God and he did create this world, he surely appreciates a good metaphor and eschews literalism as boring and unimaginative. After fucking all, God&#8217;s a creative type&#8230;he&#8217;d probably drink Guinness and smoke a pipe&#8230;and be best friends with Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Either way, that fundamentalist shit is just fundamentally stupid! Ok&#8230;now that my biases are revealed&#8230;on to today&#8217;s Fucked Up and Proud Post. I recently read an article by a female republican blogger, Suzanne Venker, that argued for looser expectations regarding virginity. Venker wrote a book titled 7 Myths of Working Mothers: Why Children and (Most) Careers Don&#8217;t Mix (breaking to go vomit), which is a big hit with the conservative set. Generally, she is the type of person I unilaterally disagree with when it comes to women&#8217;s issues. While I&#8217;m still not in agreement with her, I applaud her recent article <a href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/08/premarital-sex-does-it-have-to-be-all-or-nothing/" target="_blank">&#8220;Premarital Sex: Does it Have to Be All or Nothing?&#8221; which appeared this week on conservative writer and policy advocate <a href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/" target="_blank">David Horowitz Newsreel blog. In short, Venker feels that expecting people to wait to have sex until marriage, in this day and age, when people often don&#8217;t marry until much later than in years past, is simply unreasonable (DUH!!). In the face of hook-up culture, where young people fuck their friends and people they just met more often than they fuck people they care about, she suggests that perhaps it would be better to simply to encourage young people to wait for love rather than marriage&#8230;and in the process resist the casualness of much of the youth sex today. Even though I&#8217;ve had several satisfying sexual outings with friends and people I hardly knew &#8211; and, as such, I have a more liberal appreciation for the potential for the occasional casual hook-up, I consider Venker&#8217;s article a valiant and daring position for a conservative writer to take. If this were the position of most conservatives, actual dialogue about sex and reproductive rights might be possible. Of course Venker was quickly attacked by fundamentalist conservative blogger Jeannette Pryor in <a href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/09/cannibalism-does-it-have-to-be-all-or-nothing/" target="_blank">Cannibalism: Does it Have to Be All or Nothing. Pryor argues that morality can ONLY exist within religious constructs&#8230;that without religion, there is no morality and every action and choice necessarily becomes individualized. Without the fixed morality as dictated by religious doctrine, we would all lack any sense of right and wrong (because after all we&#8217;re all innately insensitive, selfish, and stupid beings) and all things could be justified by individuals, including cannibalism. So&#8230;when applying this to sexual behavior, Pryor argues that there must be the fixed notion of what is right (waiting for marriage and only marriage to have sex) and wrong (tainting your purity with any kind of sexual activity before marriage). This brings me to my Friday Fucked Up and Proud Post, which has clearly taken me several minutes to compose. When it comes to sex, Christians have a real fucking problem on their hands with that whole Jesus as the son of a virgin thing. First of all, we all know that&#8217;s bullshit &#8211; Christians included! In fact, in the original Hebrew bible, Mary is referred to as an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah" target="_blank">almah, which was translated to virgin, but which more closely means a young woman of marriageable age. This most certainly would have been under 20 at the time of Jesus&#8217; birth; and that means Mary and Joseph were horny-assed teenagers who probably fucked every chance they got&#8230;at Mary&#8217;s parent&#8217;s house, in the barn behind the horse stables, underneath the fig tree near the cow pasture, and in the caves around Jerusalem. They were totally hot for each other&#8230;and they wound up pregnant&#8230;just like Bristol Palin and her moose hunting man Levi Johnston. And what became of Joseph and Mary&#8217;s teen love??? The father of an entire religion was born. You better goddamn well believe that Joseph and Mary were fucked up but proud of their son! Now why does this whole virgin thing matter so much to Christians??? What happens if they admit that the human manifestation of their God is the result of a tainted horny teenaged tryst? Well would in not force them to reconsider the entire basis for their beliefs on sexual morality&#8230;not to mention their ideas about purity and goodness. After all, if an impure woman birthed the body and blood of Christ that they swallow every Sunday in hopes of transcending evil into a single unified body of moral good, might that call in to question their position on premarital sex as a loss of purity??? I mean, if they acknowledged that Jesus came screaming out of the same vagina that had been properly plowed by that lowlife sheep herder Joseph, than wouldn&#8217;t they be forced to admit that sex has no actual bearing on someone&#8217;s ability to give and create good in the world; and might this lead to questioning the notion that virginity is the <a href="http://www.hollywoodpurityball.com/pledge.php" target="_blank">&#8220;greatest&#8221; gift a girl has to give? And if a girl has more to offer the world than her untainted vagina, might it further suggest that perhaps, now stay with me here, perhaps she just might, on occasion, offer things of equal&#8230;or, perhaps in some instances, greater value than the things that men offer? And if this was the case, might it be worth considering that maybe&#8230;just maybe&#8230;women are more capable of making decisions about what&#8217;s best for them than men are??? The fundamentalists couldn&#8217;t possibly handle such an unfixed possibility! Either way, I think the image of Mary as whore-ish slut who got knocked up only to birth and raise a man of great good (if that&#8217;s what you believe) would be a far more interesting text on the redemptive possibilities of man. Of course I also think being a whore-ish slut isn&#8217;t necessarily anything that calls for redemption. Regardless of what I think, Christians will hold hard to that virgin myth. And I will continue to believe that Xenu threw hated aliens into volcanoes in Hawaii, causing them to explode and kill off the dinosaurs. But the aliens lived and attached themselves to me and until I reach Thetan level 9, my life will be perverted with alien darkness. Here&#8217;s to Mary and Joseph, the fucked up and proud horny assed teenaged parents of Jesus! I salute you! <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/deflowerednation.wordpress.com/187/"> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/deflowerednation.wordpress.com/187/"> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/deflowerednation.wordpress.com/187/"> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/deflowerednation.wordpress.com/187/"> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/deflowerednation.wordpress.com/187/"> As mentioned before, I’ve been reading a lot about feminism recently. More on this in future posts. But, for now, my reading coupled with my general annoyance with fundamentalist Christians, has informed today’s Fucked Up and Proud Post.

Now before I begin, I want to clarify that, although I have been an atheist since I was 10, I don’t think religion is necessarily a bad thing…ok, I kind of do. But, having said that, I understand the great comfort that spirituality and a relationship with God can bring to individuals; and I wouldn’t want to deny anyone that experience. However, I also think a proper reading of religious texts allows for the presence of metaphor and symbolism above literal interpretation. I’m sorry but to believe the earth was created in 7 days is fucking stupid. It just is. And I understand that if you believe that you REALLY believe it…and you think I’m going to hell with all the other heathens. But belief is not synonymous with fact. As such, I understand and fully respect those who believe in a God who created the earth through the process of evolution…those who see the seven days story as a sort of composite character in a memoir. If there is a God and he did create this world, he surely appreciates a good metaphor and eschews literalism as boring and unimaginative. After fucking all, God’s a creative type…he’d probably drink Guinness and smoke a pipe…and be best friends with Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Either way, that fundamentalist shit is just fundamentally stupid! Ok…now that my biases are revealed…on to today’s Fucked Up and Proud Post.

I recently read an article by a female republican blogger, Suzanne Venker, that argued for looser expectations regarding virginity. Venker wrote a book titled 7 Myths of Working Mothers: Why Children and (Most) Careers Don’t Mix (breaking to go vomit), which is a big hit with the conservative set. Generally, she is the type of person I unilaterally disagree with when it comes to women’s issues. While I’m still not in agreement with her, I applaud her recent article “Premarital Sex: Does it Have to Be All or Nothing?” which appeared this week on conservative writer and policy advocate David Horowitz Newsreel blog.

In short, Venker feels that expecting people to wait to have sex until marriage, in this day and age, when people often don’t marry until much later than in years past, is simply unreasonable (DUH!!). In the face of hook-up culture, where young people fuck their friends and people they just met more often than they fuck people they care about, she suggests that perhaps it would be better to simply to encourage young people to wait for love rather than marriage…and in the process resist the casualness of much of the youth sex today.

Even though I’ve had several satisfying sexual outings with friends and people I hardly knew – and, as such, I have a more liberal appreciation for the potential for the occasional casual hook-up, I consider Venker’s article a valiant and daring position for a conservative writer to take. If this were the position of most conservatives, actual dialogue about sex and reproductive rights might be possible. Of course Venker was quickly attacked by fundamentalist conservative blogger Jeannette Pryor in Cannibalism: Does it Have to Be All or Nothing.

Pryor argues that morality can ONLY exist within religious constructs…that without religion, there is no morality and every action and choice necessarily becomes individualized. Without the fixed morality as dictated by religious doctrine, we would all lack any sense of right and wrong (because after all we’re all innately insensitive, selfish, and stupid beings) and all things could be justified by individuals, including cannibalism. So…when applying this to sexual behavior, Pryor argues that there must be the fixed notion of what is right (waiting for marriage and only marriage to have sex) and wrong (tainting your purity with any kind of sexual activity before marriage).

This brings me to my Friday Fucked Up and Proud Post, which has clearly taken me several minutes to compose. When it comes to sex, Christians have a real fucking problem on their hands with that whole Jesus as the son of a virgin thing. First of all, we all know that’s bullshit – Christians included! In fact, in the original Hebrew bible, Mary is referred to as an almah, which was translated to virgin, but which more closely means a young woman of marriageable age. This most certainly would have been under 20 at the time of Jesus’ birth; and that means Mary and Joseph were horny-assed teenagers who probably fucked every chance they got…at Mary’s parent’s house, in the barn behind the horse stables, underneath the fig tree near the cow pasture, and in the caves around Jerusalem. They were totally hot for each other…and they wound up pregnant…just like Bristol Palin and her moose hunting man Levi Johnston. And what became of Joseph and Mary’s teen love??? The father of an entire religion was born. You better goddamn well believe that Joseph and Mary were fucked up but proud of their son!

Now why does this whole virgin thing matter so much to Christians??? What happens if they admit that the human manifestation of their God is the result of a tainted horny teenaged tryst? Well would in not force them to reconsider the entire basis for their beliefs on sexual morality…not to mention their ideas about purity and goodness. After all, if an impure woman birthed the body and blood of Christ that they swallow every Sunday in hopes of transcending evil into a single unified body of moral good, might that call in to question their position on premarital sex as a loss of purity??? I mean, if they acknowledged that Jesus came screaming out of the same vagina that had been properly plowed by that lowlife sheep herder Joseph, than wouldn’t they be forced to admit that sex has no actual bearing on someone’s ability to give and create good in the world; and might this lead to questioning the notion that virginity is the “greatest” gift a girl has to give? And if a girl has more to offer the world than her untainted vagina, might it further suggest that perhaps, now stay with me here, perhaps she just might, on occasion, offer things of equal…or, perhaps in some instances, greater value than the things that men offer? And if this was the case, might it be worth considering that maybe…just maybe…women are more capable of making decisions about what’s best for them than men are??? The fundamentalists couldn’t possibly handle such an unfixed possibility!

Either way, I think the image of Mary as whore-ish slut who got knocked up only to birth and raise a man of great good (if that’s what you believe) would be a far more interesting text on the redemptive possibilities of man. Of course I also think being a whore-ish slut isn’t necessarily anything that calls for redemption.

Regardless of what I think, Christians will hold hard to that virgin myth. And I will continue to believe that Xenu threw hated aliens into volcanoes in Hawaii, causing them to explode and kill off the dinosaurs. But the aliens lived and attached themselves to me and until I reach Thetan level 9, my life will be perverted with alien darkness.

Here’s to Mary and Joseph, the fucked up and proud horny assed teenaged parents of Jesus! I salute you!

]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:00:00 GMT 9B9AEC8B74F918444AA11E2F8C9D932A