For those who don't conceive...

Life has been a tad unpredictable lately, forcing me to adapt to everything, resigning my desire to feel in control. Such unpredictability refers to my recent loss of a lady-bit due to possibly lady-cancer. Yes, I underwent a preventative oophorectomy. This procedure removed my left ovary, a hideously large mass attached to it and the accompanying fallopian tube. Further, since they were gyno-cancer-surgeons-specialists, they procured some other slabs of tissue (appendix and a hunk of belly chub) for possible cancer staging. 

My sister had ovarian cancer in her early twenties-- totally random, but she survived. And so, with her past and my 9cm mass, they figured they would not risk it. Luckily, and as I predicted, I am so far void of any cancer. However, my inkling leans more towards endometriosis, explaining the painful-nausea-inducing menstrual cycles I have endured for 10+ years. But I have yet to receive this confirmation. 

So, what the fudge does this all have to do with feminism and the personal/political divide? 

Well, the reactions to my situation have been shocking, to say the least. 

The first concern that many had when they learned of my health issues regarded my (in)ability to make babies - Not a worry for my health, no does she have cancer? Is she okay?

 No, No..
Instead more the responses were more akin to

"Oh my god, will you be able to have kids?" 

and even, "Well, no kids for you!" 

After my initial shock over the realization that many people have already affirmed my position as incubator, I informed the so-called concerned folks that in fact, I have no plans of creating, housing, and raising babies (can you believe it?!) and, further reminded them that a woman with only one ovary can get pregnant. 


What I find so troubling, however, is how concerned people are - particularly other women - with my (in)ability to conceive offspring, as if my body was merely a holding capsule for a fetus and nothing more. Also, if a woman shares her refusal to house a fetus and take on the role of mother to another person, she will likely be shamed for her decision. Why? Because all women are taught that our bodies, particularly our reproductive organs, dictate our "womanliness" - our place in the world is defined by our ability to bear children. If we are not smiling while tossing shit-drenched diapers into the trash, we are bad women. If we refuse to conceive at all, or cannot physically do so - we are useless women. How would any decent woman find any joy in life without becoming a mother?


Women's universal role of man-loving baby-producer is so embedded that many fail to understand how anything but producing children would be of concern in the case of a gynecological health issue. It was bordering on comical for me, as fertility was the last thing on my mind, in fact - until my male surgeon quickly informed me that he could put me through some crazy fertility-industry treatments if I wanted. He, of course, was assuming I would be wanting it. I mean, what 22 year old wouldn't be into shitting away a bunch of money to further fuel the baby-making-business that preys on women's bodies and their perceived 'failures'? It was as if the only worry that I should have had was whether or not I could reproduce, not whether or not my body was healthy and not engulfed in cancer.


Fortunately, my recovery is going well and I am trying to stay positive (and cancer-free) - however, a point of advice for the  many well-intentioned baby-enthusiasts, not that intent really matters in the end, but - consider your words before you speak to a woman who is suffering with gynecological issues. Female sex organs serve a multitude of purposes beyond producing and housing babies.  As someone who values my body's holism, I am saddened the loss of my ovary - not because it involves fertility, but because it is a part of me. 

Rage at Rage Against the Manchine, now Rage at Boner Killer?

photo found here

Well, shit. Here we are.
 I'm taking the step that will likely cause me to lose some readers. Twisty did it and now, Nine Deuce has also spoken up. Both radical feminist bloggers have "played" the "trans card" and raised concerned eyebrows at the recent discussions taking place in some of the radical feminist blog-o-sphere.


So, you guessed it! I will be yet another radical feminist blogger who will "play" the trans card, I will do so with what was originally an unpublished comment on Nine Deuces' blog. This post came about from my  discomfort with some of the language being used in parts of the online radical feminist community. The recent post at RATM has forced me to come to terms my unease and publicly respond. So, here is that comment expanded.

I think there is a difference between providing a critical analysis and being mean - one can be critical of a movement or individuals without being mean. But when critiques do become mean and resort to name-calling, they no longer appear as thoughtful feminist critiques. This is because it is simply not thoughtful to refer to an entire group of people as "she-males" and "trannies." This sort of name calling is disgusting. Just like it is disgusting when women are called names or those who are older, larger, less abled, less white, less straight, less "beautiful" are called names.

We know, as radical feminists, exactly how it feels to be called an array of horrible names. We know that name-calling is not an ideal path towards mature discussions. That said, there are trans activists who are abusive to radical feminists; I have witnessed name-calling on both sides. However, not ALL radical feminists take part in this just as not ALL trans people take part in abusing radical feminists or agree with what some of the abusive trans activists are doing or saying. 

Why should radical feminists sink to the same level of name-calling, if we know how this treatment feels, why should we use it against a group of people that, as Nine Deuce said, are part of an oppressed group. It is unfair to make sweeping and cruel statements against any oppressed group. It is never necessary to waste time feeling hatred towards others - it will not create any real change or discussion. Hurtful language, like "she-males," has no place in any analysis or in any situation. 

Update: There is NO censoring going on here, the only instances where I do not publish comments is when they are attacking of a particular group or written anonymously or by men.


All of my feelings on this subject are sketched out beautifully over at Rage Against The Manchine with her second post on the topic.  

"The Breast Milk Baby" A New Doll Toy Marketed to Girl-Children

Photo found here

A toy doll marketed to girl-children has been creeping up during my internet browsing. The doll is intended to allow little girls to "pretend" to breast feed their baby doll, despite you know, not having breasts of their own. 

This toy is disturbing for many reasons, not because it deals with breast-feeding, but because it intentionally and quite obviously socializes girls to take the role of Mother to the next level. The toy doll is intended to "teach" little girls how to breast-feed, since of course, a girl's purpose in life is to get with a dude and have as many babies as possible. How often do you see toys such as this marketed to boys? This toy is not only gendered - it is biologically deterministic - it assumes girl-children should conform to their future "womanly-roles" set up by the dominant culture. These toys, like all toy dolls, further perpetuate gender roles and norms that are forced onto girl-children at an early age. However, this particular "milking" doll really establishes problematic assumptions about girlhood and womanhood. These assumptions could lead to more and more girl-children feeling pressured into being passive and socially compliant based on the idea that girls and women are "biologically" inclined towards child-rearing and "nurturing" behaviors. Toy dolls have always done this, but this toy takes biological essentialism to a whole new level.

photo found here

I want to add that I believe breast-feeding should be a socially-accepted act and it should not be looked down upon like it currently is in the West. Breast-feeding is seen as "gross" or "impolite" because women's bodies are constantly viewed as sex-objects rather than healthy bodies with real functions by the majority of society. Women's breasts are viewed as sexual objects and thus are hidden away to keep the men from finding them "repulsive" because they are feeding another human being. This bothers people in the West, men and women alike, because women's breasts are considered a strictly sexual body-part - not one that has a vital function. The Western view of breasts are similar to the views of women's genitalia. Women's genitalia is viewed predominately as a hole that receives a man's junk and delivers a man's child. That sounds harsh, but look at a lad's mag and tell me different. How many men even know the term "vulva?" 

Women's genitalia are not viewed as organs with functions but rather as holes. This is why we never hear "vulva" but only "vagina" when discussing women's genitals. But, I digress. Despite my feelings on breast-feeding, I have to admit that there is something very, very disturbing about attempting to force girl-children into this activity before they even develop their own breasts or sense of bodily autonomy. 

I would like to hear from readers about this toy, what do you think this toy says about society, marketing and gender roles? 

Oh, and here's the advertisement for the doll