Sinead King and Katie O’Brien are two twentysomething Brits who make up the Muffia, a performance art duo which aims to make a feminist statement by flashing their merkin (that’s a pubic wig!) clad crotches in the streets of London. Their message? That more women, and men for that matter, need to be discussing issues that are relevant to women’s lives. “Why don’t we resent the way the media portrays women?” they question. “Does no one care that women are mutilating themselves with cosmetic surgery? Why do so few young women know what feminism is?”

In addition to the “pubic performances,” they also dress up in body stockings, scrawling messages like, “Lose a few pounds” on each other’s figures. O’Brien even camped outside Topshop, vomiting into a bucket, to protest the retailer’s use of ultra-thin models. In general, their performances/antics/actions have garnered some laughs, some praise, and a few detractors. Performance art can often be, um, really bad, but I find O’Brien and King’s message important, even if their methods might be shocking to some of you. What do you think? [Guardian UK]

Over at Nerve.com, Steve Almond takes on VH1’s “Rock of Love” and asserts the latest installment in the reality TV series, “Rock of Love Bus,” is, basically, pornography. According to Almond, the show is “eerily like a porn film,” absent, he says, feeling or intimacy, while everyone stands around groping and tonguing each other, nevertheless, and totally misogynist. But is “Rock of Love” misogynist—or reality?

Amanda Hess at the Washington City Paper has a bone to pick with feminism. “If I have to endure another essay on the mysteries of the female orgasm in the name of feminism, I may never have an orgasm again,” she writes in “Why Sex Positivity Is Bad For Feminism.” She writes in reference to the Visions in Feminism conference, an annual feminist symposium held at American University, having picked PhD’d porn star Annie Sprinkle as their keynote speaker. While the conference aims to address a wealth of issues—domestic violence, queer feminism, etc.—it ends on a “sex positive” note. “A sex positive polyamorous pansexual bi-gendered individual who enjoys nothing more than talking about and/or having sex” is doing a workshop, followed by Sprinkle’s presentation. I’m gonna give this a resounding “eww.” Why does sex positivity always sound so ickily intellectual? Way to kill my girl boner.

“We’ve demonstrated that women can do what men do, but not yet that men can do what women do. That’s why most women have two jobs — one inside the home and one outside it — which is impossible. The truth is that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it.”

—Gloria Steinem, who turns 75 years old today. Happy Birthday Gloria!

Since I got engaged early last month and began planning a wedding for this summer, I’ve been thinking a lot about what it means to be hitched. As someone who already lives with her husband-to-be, I wonder just how much marriage will actually change things, whether I’ll wake up the morning after the wedding feeling any different. I’ve also been thinking a lot about what kind of wife I want to be, what it means to be a “good” wife, and how — if at all — being a “good wife” could compromise my identity or personal needs and interests.

I don’t feel a pressing desire to “prove” to myself or anyone else that I won’t change, that I won’t compromise anything, because at some point I’m sure I will. (Isn’t compromise a big part marriage, after all?) But I’m also certain that while bits of my identity are bound to shift, just as I would expect them to with any big life change and new perspective, the core of who I am will remain the same. No new name, white dress, ring on my finger or any other traditional convention is going to change that. For better or worse, I am who I am and I’m pretty solid in my identity. So when I read a column in the Guardian recently by Abigail Gliddon, a woman who claims “when a woman takes her husband’s name, she surrenders her former identity and adopts his,” I wondered how she came to have such low expectations for other women.

The New York Times just cannot quit “Sex and the City.” It seems like the Sunday Style section is always in search of the next Carrie & Co., which resulted in this weekend’s profile of “Juno” scribe Diablo Cody and her three friends who dubbed themselves “The Fempire.” Cody, who won an Oscar for writing “Juno” and is currently the mind behind Showtime’s “United States Of Tara,” plans on dominating Hollywood alongside her best gal pals, Lorene Scafaria (who wrote “Nick & Norah’s Infinate Playlist”), Dana Fox (“What Happens in Vegas”), and Liz Meriwether, also a screenwriter. Think of them as the estrogen packed version of Judd Apatow and his boys—and guess what? They’re gorgeous! Also! “We’ve all seen each other naked.”

Despite that admission, the quartet want to be taken seriously and make sure that everyone understands that their success and bank-ability has nothing to do with the fact that they’re all easy on the eyes. “I know a few beautiful women,” said Adam Siegel, a producer who is friends with the women. “But none of them write like Dana, Liz, Lorene or Diablo.”

Attributing the Fempire’s success to their talent not their looks is something we can get behind, but it kind of seems like the group uses the latter to their advantage as well.

Jessica Valenti,  Feministing editor and Full Frontal Feminism author, is getting married! Congratulations are in order! Wait, are they? Apparently not, if you believe feminism and marriage can never, ever go hand in hand. Certainly, marriage has its traditions that are problematic from a feminist perspective, which Valenti has addressed many times on the blog—and perhaps that’s why she seemed hesitant to announce her good news. But does the personal really always have to be political? Can’t she get married without every Gloria, Betty, and Camille judging if her wedding is “feminist” enough?

“I don’t want to feel that I must blog about getting married because it relates to the work that I do. I want to be able to have things that are just for me and not be judged poorly because of that…. I realized that I don’t feel like I had to blog about getting married—I wanted to…. I’m positive you’ll be hearing more from me on the marriage front: Like how to do it while shirking patriarchal tradition? Or why I decided to participate in an institution that still (for the most part) excludes same-sex couples.”

Yesterday, President Obama celebrated National Women’s History Month by creating a special panel to focus on women’s issues. The council will seek new opportunities in the workforce, since women still earn only 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. This makes Obama mad, since he loves the ladies…

No, like, he really, really does. Which is more than kind of hot. Here’s a collection of his most toe-curling musings on the women in his life, from 2005 to now…

The Museo Tamayo in Mexico City has created some shock-advertising that has left some viewers scratching their heads and some suggesting misogyny. In the ad, a woman stands in what one can assume is the museum, her finger on her chin as if contemplating a work of art hanging on the wall in front of her. In response to whatever it is she sees, her heart is exploding out of her chest in the shape of a gory fist. Shocking? You bet. Misogynist. I’m not so sure. Jossip seems to think the violent image is woman-hating: “Because nothing says modern art like a bloody fist violently ripping out of a woman’s chest.” Copyranter, on the other hand, just thinks it’s obnoxious. So, what do you think? To find out, check out the full graphic image after the jump.

Women’s History Month should feel different this 2009. We’re living in an epicenter of change and progression. We have powerhouses Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton sitting high in the White House. Tina Fey represents our new wave of venerated cultural icons. And before our new president married our first lady, he was reporting to her in the workplace. Yes, smart is sexy again. Or is it?

During the most recent Democratic primary, I found myself wondering how things might have turned out differently if Hillary Clinton had spent less time with the glass ceiling and more time campaigning for President. For that matter, would Sarah Palin have been chosen as John McCain’s ticket mate if she had not been female?

Want a new look? Montreal-based beauty salon Käaz suggests that if you really want a total makeover, it would be best if you let them decapitate you first. Created by ad agency Bleublancrouge, the Canadian campaign promises to “CHANGE YOUR STYLE.” I’m not quite sure how this works, though. So, you go into the salon, you hand them your head, they do what they want with it, and when you come back, they sew your new head back on for you? The super-rolled and devil-Pixie hairstyles are questionable enough, but you’d think if they were going to throw in the plastic surgery, they’d do a better job of suturing you back up. Also, neither of these post-styled chicks looks very happy. Or maybe it’s just me, and looking like the Queen of Hearts just had her way with you is the next thing in hairstyling. Misogyny or beauty? That’s your call. [Copyranter]

In “The Great Girlie Gross-Out,” Salon’s Rebecca Traister takes a look at the online phenomenon in which women, mostly young women, share intimate things about themselves that others may or may not want to know. The most notorious offenders include Moe Tkacik’s tale of a wayward tampon, Tracie Egan’s ongoing urinary tract infection problems, and Miranda Purves’ post-childbirth ... jellyfish. Without a doubt, “Oversharing is in.” The question is: Is all this spewing too much information—or the voice of a new generation of women who aren’t afraid to be candid about their bodies? Ultimately, the intention may be more about getting attention than getting empowered. “We have edged away from a time when talking openly about the female body was necessarily a brave political statement and into one in which it can be self-promotional, potty-mouthed and kind of sweet.” Or, as Tkacik confesses: “You write gross things for page views too.” In other words, postfeminist chicks mistake clicks for politics. [Salon]

When I was in college I bought my first car. The first car I actually owned was a hand-me-down from my parents (a 1988 Nissan Stanza to be exact, not exactly a pimp ride), but its life ended my senior year and I needed a replacement. At the time I was in a bit of an extended fight with my dad and we weren’t speaking at all. So when it came time to buy my car, I had to rely on my limited knowledge of automobiles in order to get the best deal on a used car that would see me through graduation. Normally this was a task that I would have heaped on my dad’s shoulders; after all, Dads are the people you turn to in times of vehicular crisis. Mine wasn’t there, so I went at alone. What did I end up with? A 1993 Volkswagon Jetta. With 250,000 miles already on it. But it was teal! And the guy who sold it to me was 18 and tan!

Needless to say, it was one of the more traditionally “girly” decisions of my life and I paid for it. The car had major clutch problems within months and just BARELY made it through the year. When it came to buying a car, I needed a man’s help. As sexist and as backwards as that may sound, I need one now too.

What’s this ad really about? You tell me. Copyranter reports this ad campaign was created for the German edition of Men’s Health magazine. Both of the ads feature young women exercising to the point of sweaty, dejected exhaustion. In one ad, the woman leans over the handlebars of her bicycle, out of breath. In the other ad, the woman sits on her stationary bicycle, wiped out. The ad copy reads: “IT’S ALL ABOUT MEN.” Copyranter opines: “While it’s certainly not clear, the message of the campaign appears to be ‘that’s right babes, you keep exercising you little patooties off…for us men.’” It’s hard to argue with that position. One of the female commenters chimes in: “The only reason I exercise is so I can get laid.” I’d say she’s the truthteller. What do you think? Is this misogynist marketing or the face of reality? [Copyranter]

This converted mannequin created by Detroit-based designer Bob Turek is causing quite the blogosphere kerfuffle. In case you’re not clear as to what the heck is going on here, Turek remixed a mannequin torso into an MP3 player. Ergo, those are speakers in her boobs, plugged in care of her hoo-ha. As Turek explains: “As part of my object remix series, this stereo forces the music source into the center of attention and creates a radically new user interface.” Interface. Is that what the kids are calling it these days? Unfortunately, some people—some ladies—aren’t too happy with Turek’s transforming the female form into a stereo. Jezebel cries misogyny: “[I]t’s a headless, armless woman whose breasts and vagina are being used to provide power and sound for trivial things.” Boing Boingers are going at it in the comments: “Woman as a faceless functional object. That’s not such a new idea.” I think it’s much ado about nothing. I call for a commenter catfight!

Last September, Howard Stern finally met a virgin—well, the first one that would get near him since high school probably, and even then I’m sure they were dubious.  But Natalie Dylan, 22, isn’t a blushing, chaste, wallflower who is just too shy to let someone stick it in.  She’s an outspoken self-proclaimed feminist with a degree in Women’s Studies who is selling her hymen to the highest bidder and even explain herself to Howard Stern.  She was introduced to the sex obsessed shock jock by Denis Hof, the owner of the infamous Nevada house of hos, The Moonlite Bunny Ranch, where her sister is already a working girl. But Dylan is the apple of Hof’s eye because she’s decided to put her hoo-ha up for sale on the brothel’s website. While her starting price was a cool million dollars, the ante has been upped to 3.8 million over the past few months. Hot damn, this girl’s got a bidding war and to think I just laid down and did it for free! While Dylan’s clearly going to cash in, it seems she’s got her mind on more than money.  In a letter to the Daily Beast, Dylan answered her critics and offered up some explanation for her fascinating decision to sell her most private possession.

Just wait until the real feminists hear about this. A pornographic German novel so graphic it’s caused people to faint at public readings will be published in the UK next month, and it was written by a woman—a woman who calls herself a feminist. Charlotte Roche’s Wetlands shot to the top of Amazon’s worldwide best-seller list last year when it was first published in Germany. Featuring an 18-year-old heroine who explicitly reveals her sex life and “has a totally creative attitude towards her body,” the novel has provoked a debate over whether Roche can call herself a feminist while writing porn. “Men think they can be disgusting and sexual and stuff, and now I’ve shown them that women can do the same,” Roche has said. “I am very much for pornography.” The novel is an example of an increasingly popular genre: chicks who write racy erotic stories, including the bestselling The Sexual Life of Catherine M, an explicit memoir by the respected Parisian art critic Catherine Millet, and The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl by Belle de Jour, a book that started as an anonymous blog.

So what do you think? Can a woman write porn and still call herself a feminist? [Telegraph]

I think I might be a sexist. But since most of you are vagina-enabled, I’ll let you tell me. Many of you possess testicles, as well, and I’ll invite you to chime in, too. To those who have both: All are welcome here.

I’m not proud of the fact that I might be sexist, but it seems more honest to say so than declaring that I’m a feminist. Which I’m not. I’m having a tough enough time trying to figure out how to be a righteous dude. I suppose the best contribution I can make to the struggle for gender equality is to try and be a better man. I can’t allow myself to politicize my inner-struggles, to become, as Gandhi said, the change I want to see in the world. So, yeah, I’m not a feminist, and I might be a sexist. But better I be aware of that, than ignorant to the prejudices that make me oh-so human. And that’s the best I can do.

Last week we wrote about the controversy surrounding Ms. magazine’s cover image which featured President Obama in a shirt that reads, “This Is What A Feminist Looks Like.” Around the same time, it was revealed that Obama does identify as a feminist, a fact that, frankly, impresses me. Many women with feminist values don’t identify as feminist and that’s even more true of men. But now that President Obama, whose inauguration was the most viewed, um, ever, has identified as a feminist AND the leading feminist magazine has declared him one, will male feminists be more in vogue? I decided to ask the guys on my IM. Check their responses, after the jump…