Wikipedia, Patriarchy, Proof and Pudding

Meta Feminist Dyke of the Old School welcomes all.
No comment will be censored.
Bring it on.

My Photo
Location: WE Are EVERYWHERE, U.S. Virgin Islands

Music is my Medicine. Thinking is my Sport. Nature is my Faith.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006


If you have read the patriarchy page in question ( scroll down to In The Beginning and skim over it if you haven't) you will see what a disgrace it is. More about that later. Today Y want to look at men and their scholarship.

Y attended Wayne State in the 70's. Y took a class called "The Sociology Of Sex". The teacher - using that term loosely - was a real piece of work. He was actually getting money (they call them grants) to go to all the massage parlors in Detroit to "study" how many and what kind of "services" he was able to obtain. Disgraceful

One day he drew on the chalkboard simple representations of the vulva and the penis/testicles combo. He explained that the clitoris is essentially a tiny penis. When he reluctantly called on me (of course my hand FLEW up) Y pointed out that his comparason was faulty. Every embryo is female, until and unless it gets a hormone bath to turn it into a boy. Therefore, if a comparason is to be made, the penis must be a grossly exaggerated clitoris. But it is not, since the clitoris is the only known organ in the whole phyla of life forms which has as its sole purpose to pleasure its body. If you have the opportunity and the interest, you can see the vestiges of any man's original labia between his testes and anus. Anyway, teacher's response was, "I will not debate theories with you."

Another gem from this reliable, published source on the sociology of sex: "The reason some women don't achieve orgasm during sexual intercourse (the 'with a man' goes without saying- my comment) is because their clitoris is too far away from their vaginal opening."
Y was delighted to point out that the reason women don't have orgasms when having sex with men is likely to be the ineptitude of the man. Of course, this was another theory of mine.

The disgrace of common scholarship depends on using the word 'theory' to disallow facts, common sense, or inconvenient truths in any academic melieu.


Anonymous Mr. Happy said...

I am sorry, but this page is really, really sad. You have taken the worst examples of opinions and writing and imposed them on the categories of 'scholarship' and 'men'. You don't seem to have any credible evidence for your extreme world-views, so you present examples of morons as your alternative. It is fine to criticise how sources are used - there are certainly misuses -, but then disregarding them altogether is stupid if you are trying to prove something by argument. Your polemic is truly pathetic.

If you bothered to start enjoying life instead of fighting some terrible phantom, you might find your views would turn out a little different.

Saturday, November 25, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home