What she said: Women are not broken edition

Two weeks ago, Camille Paglia made a bunch of stuff up about why I'm apparently not having enough sex, and for some reason, The New York Times printed it. Yawn. I figured the whole mess was none of your damn business. Besides, Echidne wrote a brilliant rebuttal:

There is no evidence whatsoever that there is some new sexual malaise that 'appears to have sunk over the country,' and Paglia gives us exactly zero evidence on such a giant change happening over time or in the recent past. Neither is there any evidence that the 'overachieving white upper middle class' is somehow behind the demands for female viagra.

Anyhow, I bring this up not so much because I care what Camille Paglia thinks, or because I think you should read Echidne (although, yes, I think you should). I bring it up because I just read a bunch of letters to the Times' editors, and now have a headache.

AFAICT, six of the seven authors seem to take it for granted that yes, female sexuality ain't what it used to be. After all, Paglia says so! In the Times! I shudder to think what these same letter writers think of David Brooks, who also says things. In the Times!

I had the pleasure of marching in the [video, audio may be NSFW] I Can't Believe It's Not A Dyke March! in Toronto this past weekend. I didn't have the chance pose the question "whatever happened to female sexuality" to the woman with the clown nose, duct tape covered nipples, and amazing (and huge!) "PERV" flag.* The same goes for the lady with the bikini made out of police tape. Or really, any of the fabulous women in attendance. It's just as well; I'm guessing since we're dykes, we don't really count.

Back to the matter at hand: humorless feminists. Hormones! OMFG hormones!!! Misplaced priorities. Death fat! Neglecting the role of fertility and reproduction in love making! (Again: Dyke March). Poooooooooorn!

In short, women, (and to a certain extent, *you* people) are DOIN IT RONG, just not necessarily for the reasons Paglia throws out there. Great. Just great.

Forget feminism 101, let's try some feminism 099. It's not credit-bearing, but the texts are cheap.

Women are people. People are individuals. Individuals vary. For example: not all women experience sexuality the same way. Not all the middle class white ones, not even all Latina and Black women. (Really, Camille Paglia, you thought you'd slip that in without 1 out of 7 letter writers calling you on it? Okay, that one letter is probably precisely why you slipped it in.)

Feminism? It's not the problem. Nor is having the wrong approach to sex. Indeed, last I checked, many feminists and womanists (the ones I agree with) posited that there's not a single correct approach to sex and sexuality. And our bodies? They're fucking fabulous. Fat or re/un/mis-hormoned, or whatever the fuck you're talking about. It could, indeed be, that some women are stressed and tired, and therefore experiencing some sort of sexual malaise, but gah! Please. Stop. Projecting.

Let me give a special shout out to the Times for making this all possible, because really, I only see three worthwhile responses to a column so willfully absurd. You could ignore the situation, you could quote Molly Ivins and refer to the column as compost, or you could write the Times to remind them that print is dead and column space is precious. None of these tactics is likely to get a letter printed in the gray lady. Thus, we're left with what appears to be serious debate on why women are broken. Again, thanks.

Remind me to save this post for the next time some pundit says something bizarre about what's wrong with women, and the public uses it as an excuse to discuss all of the other things that are really wrong with women. It should be happening in three, two, one...


--
*I am so going to get a little plastic version of this to put on the SUV that I'm going to buy just so I can drive around with my little flag on top.