The Lady Garden
Tea and Strumpets
Sharing the love
Things we liked, or didn’t like, from around the internet this week.
Leading the list, the Forty-First Down Under Feminists’ Carnival, hosted by Stef at A Touch of the Crazy. Lots of fabulous feminist reading there. Many thanks for including some Lady Garden posts in the carnival, Stef.
Because we are somewhat eclectic here, and at least some of us aspire to be science nerds, check out these five iconic science images, and try to work out why they are wrong. I got four out of five (Deb), but I was stumped by the nautilus shell.
But what do you mean, Deb, girls can’t do science! Except when they can.
The fabulous Clarisse Thorn goes 101 (“just because a question is simple doesn’t mean the question is not interesting”) on BDSM vs Sex. What, actually, IS “sexual conduct”? I (Emma) am really looking forward to the second part of this, “how does it feel” because I suspect it’ll raise some bloggable issues for me. EDIT: Part 2 is now up.
Relatedly, maymay has a round-up on The End of the Mute Male Submissive.
For as long as female sexuality is perceived as performative, male sexuality—regardless of its diversity—is perceived as entitled. But, trapped in gendered frames, neither female nor male sexuality is monolithic; the submissive masculine is therefore revelatory.
Cat Marnell writes a bizarre screed against…well, it’s hard to tell. She likes sex, but doesn’t want to use any birth control, and she doesn’t want to talk about her sex life, but she’s angry at all the sluts in New York using up the Morning After Pill. Oh, and abortions are murder, but that’s like, totally OK. Eireann Dolan points out she’s entitled to her opinions, but what is a supposedly reputable site doing publishing them?
This blew my mind (Deb). A 100,000 year old art workshop has been found in South Africa.
To finish the week, I want these shoes.
Deborah, those shoes are far too sensible for proper shoe porn.
(I actually just wrote pr0n, and then remembered where I was, and thought writing porn is probably OK. I’ve seen our search stats.)
Anyway – you can have your pretty flats. If I can have these.
But… but… how did you know it was ME who put those shoes in the post?
Good point. Because when it comes to shoes, I am a savant?
Yeah, it could have been me! Okay, no, not really.
Also, Skepchick on the Cat Marnell piece, which would seem to suggest it’s an extraordinarily poorly-executed piece of satire. Or performance art. Or “opinion diversity’. Or something.
I’m with Rebecca at Skepchick – there’s diversity, and then there’s diversity that includes stupidity. If the article was “here’s a really dumb approach” then maybe, but presented baldly and leaving it to the reader to decide… dumb.
And having stupid as part of your editorial diversity? Wooo. I thought the idea was that the editors filtered the stupid so I don’t have to?
Also on that article SciAm blogger Michelle Clement took the chance to provide a “Totally Easy And Not At All Gross Explanation of what happens with your girlybits each month, and how birth control and Plan B tie into the equation.”
And I don’t think there is anything to worry about not getting the nautlius shell from among those icons, it’s hardly the fault of the shell that is fits on mathematical formula and and not another!