Unlike yesterday, I am now several tads under the weather. I’m going to mainline some coffee here and bumble around online for a few hours (some people call this “working”). Then, since I’ve been reminded that I still owe Part 3 of Religions Evolve, I’ll probably spend the rest of the day in bed with Baruch Halpern to get in the mood.
The Duke lacrosse team gang rape story is all over the feminist blogosphere, but I especially recommend the coverage from Txfeminist at Red State Feminist. Tx has several interesting takes on this, including her undercover foray to a lacrosse discussion board where the guys’ main concern is with how this is going to affect the sport. Their attitude towards the victims is basically, “why are people so quick to believe a couple of no-good bitches whores exotic dancers who are probably lying?” Real inspirational reading there.
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry, Rape on March 31, 2006, 1:31 pm EST
35 Comments »
I’m a tad under the weather today and not up for much of a post, but I do want to share with you this gem (via Pharyngula): an Intelligent Design article suggesting angelic activity as the mechanism behind certain phenomena in nature. The name of the article is Rumors of Angels: Using ID to Detect Malevolent Spiritual Agents, which pretty much tells you what you need to know. Here’s the nut:
The works of good angels might easily be mistaken for those of God, except that the quality might not be up to the divine standard. And design that appears to us to be malevolent might be the work of sinful beings above our level–bad angels, demons, or Satan.
AIDS, Ebola, and wasps are floated as examples of demonic creation. Good angels — well-meaning but clumsy — may be behind duct-tape-and-baling-wire oddities like the panda’s thumb.
Okay, you know how wingnut Christians are always going on about how Islam is centuries behind the times, all medieval and backward and shit? And how Christians are just so much smarter and more enlightened and advanced and everything? Right.
Posted by Violet under Godbags on March 30, 2006, 12:25 pm EST
28 Comments »
Chris Clarke has a post up with the heart-stopping title, Why I’m Not A Feminist. Heart-stopping because surely if any man is a feminist, it’s Chris Clarke.
Chris’s point is that because he is a man, he is not entitled to call himself a feminist: “I am a sympathizer. I am a fellow traveler. At my best, I am an ally. But I am a member of the class against which feminism is aimed.”
In the comment thread that follows, the wonderful Dr. Virago takes issue with this:
Feminism is a political position that can be held by anyone. “Woman” is (perhaps) an identity that only some can claim. You are not a woman, but you are a feminist, given your political claims above.
My sentiments exactly. I grew up believing that feminism was the only possible stance for an enlightened human being. I expected any enlightened man to identify as a feminist, just as I expected that from any enlightened woman.
I was shocked the first time a man close to me eschewed the feminist label. “I’m a man, so I can’t really be a feminist, can I?” he said. I understood the argument intellectually, but emotionally I felt betrayed. It felt to me as if he were saying, “I wish you luck and everything — I’ll be waving from the sidelines — but it’s really not my problem, is it?”
Since then I’ve learned that it’s women themselves (some of them) who insist that men can never be feminists, only “pro-feminists.” Men like Chris Clarke are honoring this position when they refuse to claim a mantle that some women say can only be ours. I’ve adapted to this sensibility in discourse, and acquiesce by using the locution “pro-feminist” to refer to men. But I hate it. It rankles. It feels completely, utterly wrong.
If feminism means dismantling sexism, if it means transforming the world so that males and females participate equally in humanity — which is what I think it means — then by definition it is not the purview of women alone. It is men’s struggle as well. The two halves of the human race must work together to remake our relationship to each other. We’re not talking about just a jail break from Patriarchy Prison. Feminism means the inmates go free, the wardens hang up their keys, the jailhouse gets demolished, and everybody joins together to say, “let’s not build any more of these shitpiles, okay?” It’s not gonna work unless everybody gets in on the act.
Furthermore, when men stand outside of feminism instead of identifying with it, their absence plays into the right-wing propaganda that feminists are just a bunch of man-hating feminazis. Christ almighty, the movement is already marginalized; the last thing we need is to make it even more exclusive. What do we gain by restricting the label “feminist” to women? Or for that matter, to only those women who are activists, or who happen to share our particular brand of feminist politics? Feminism needs to be seen as part of every enlightened person’s mental furniture, not as the radical rantings of a few fringe-dwellers.
Or as Tomato Nation said in far fewer words:
If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
So to Chris Clarke I say: You are too a feminist. Yes, you are.
Posted by Violet under Feminist Theory, Gender Issues on March 29, 2006, 10:13 am EST
43 Comments »
And here’s an early nominee, which started life as a little diatribe on a Butterick sewing pattern. We’re now on the question of whether “penetrative sex is a violating experience.”
Posted by Violet under Reclusive Leftist, Various and Sundry on March 28, 2006, 2:33 pm EST
8 Comments »
I’m watching the news from Israel today, checking the reports of voter turnout and eagerly awaiting the first exit polls. This election has been billed as a referendum on withdrawal, a yay or nay on whether the nation will unilaterally pull back to its 1967 borders (excepting a few squiggles into West Bank territory to incorporate the biggest settlements). But Bradley Burston argues in Haaretz that the election is no such thing:
There’s only one segment of society that seems to sense intuitively that this election is in no way the referendum it’s cracked up to be: the voters.
This is one thing they seem to know: There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are campaign pledges regarding the fate of the territories and, indeed, of the state of Israel.
Burston says this election is really just a referendum on the political futures of the current crop of party leaders. And that even if Olmert is serious about following through with withdrawal (a huge assumption), the logistics are against making it happen anytime soon.
Posted by Violet under Politics on March 28, 2006, 10:57 am EST
3 Comments »
You’ve probably seen this, as it was making the rounds of the blogosphere last week: it’s the sculpture of Britney Spears giving birth by “shock artist” Daniel Edwards. Edwards specializes in prankish celebrity art, and no doubt he dubbed this sculpture a “Monument to Pro-Life” as a ploy for maximum publicity. I haven’t been able to find an explanation for why Edwards put Charlize Theron’s face on what’s supposed to be a sculpture of Britney Spears, but maybe the guy is a better publicity hound than artist.
So you’ve seen that — but have you seen this? It’s what popped into my mind as soon as I saw the Britney piece:
It’s probably the most famous parturient-woman sculpture in the world, at least if you’re interested in Neolithic archaeology. It’s a mother goddess from Catal Hoyuk in Turkey, and it dates from the 7th millennium B.C.
The elements of the two sculptures are similar, despite the vast differences in tone. Both depict pregnant women in the act of giving birth. The Catal Hoyuk piece shows the newborn’s head (a rather shapeless lump) emerging from between its mother’s thighs. The Britney sculpture allegedly shows her baby’s head crowning, though there don’t seem to be any rear-view photographs to verify that. The animal motif is also there: Britney is posing on a bearskin rug, while the Catal Hoyuk goddess is flanked by two lionesses.
But it’s the differences that are telling. The reason Britney’s emerging infant is visible is because she has her ass up in the air in a submissive sexual position, whereas the Catal Hoyuk goddess is seated majestically on a throne. Britney’s bearskin rug supposedly symbolizes her pinup past, while the Catal Hoyuk lionesses are a common ancient motif indicating royalty and power over nature. Britney is depicted as being sexily slender, showing not even an ounce of pregnancy plumpness. The Catal Hoyuk goddess is corpulent, representing her boundless fertility to nurture life.
It’s interesting how things have changed, isn’t it?
P.S. Thanks to TxFeminist for the Britney link.
Posted by Violet under Random Pedantry, Gender Issues on March 28, 2006, 6:20 am EST
8 Comments »
The rubes in Selmer, Tennessee, just can’t figure it out. Mary Winkler, wife of preacher Matthew Winkler, up and murdered her husband. Shot him in the back, then drove off with the kids.
“She was the perfect wife and mother,” say the rubes. She was a stay-at-home mom, utterly domestic, completely devoted to her marriage, her children, and her husband’s ministry. She would even make lunch for her husband and bring it to him at the church. She and Matthew were just the picture of happiness.
What could possibly have been wrong?
Matthew Winkler was the preacher at the local Church of Christ. Church of Christ is one of those fundie evangelical outfits that take a hard line on women’s proper place in the scheme of things. Women are excluded from preaching, of course, and also from involvement in church business. Wives must obey their husbands. Fathers are central in the family because — as one website explains — the father is the child’s first impression of God. Some of the more avant-garde Church of Christ congregations are toying with the radical notion that outside of marriage, it might be okay for some women to have authority over some men, but those are the bleeding-edge extremists.
There’s no evidence that the Winklers were anywhere near that bleeding edge. Matthew Winkler was an enthusiastic preacher of “straight-by-the-Bible” sermons. In fact, he seems to have been relentlessly enthusiastic about everything. Even his parishioners admit that Matthew was just so goddamn cheerful and effusive all the time, it was exhausting. None of them actually use the phrase “shit-eating grin,” but I would bet cash money they’ve thought it.
Mary, in contrast, was quiet and distinctly non-effusive. She went about her business looking happy — I’m imagining a frozen smile fixed in place — and giving no hint that she was contemplating buying Matthew a ticket on the early train to glory. Only the tiniest ripples broke her placid surface: there was that miscarriage and subsequent depression a couple of years ago, and one acquaintance thinks she might have been a bit lonely in Selmer. Matthew, of course, was as enthusiastically happy about everything as ever.
Or was he? One neighbor reports a different side of Matthew: controlling, peremptory. This was a man who’d been raised to believe he was God’s own viceroy on earth. He came from a long line of prominent preachers in the Church of Christ. The folks in Selmer thought the sun rose and set on him (aside from that whole shit-eating grin thing). His parents reacted to his death by thanking God for giving them the privilege of serving as his parents. Twenty bucks says he was one insufferable self-satisfied jackass of a husband.
Perhaps Mary tried to cope with her hidden resentment — for surely something led to that giant blast of gunpowder — by frequenting the online discussion boards for traditional Christian women. If you have a strong stomach and a high threshold for rage, I recommend surfing those forums some time. (I haven’t in a couple of years, so I don’t have any links handy.) Those women are absolutely climbing the walls. As I recall, the common topics are all variations on the theme of mandatory wifely submission:
- How can I do a better job of submitting?
- Why is submitting so hard?
- Do I have to submit gracefully when I know my husband is wrong?
- Can we learn to love submitting instead of struggling with it?
- God’s plan for wives: submitting!
The ensuing discussions never seem to broach the possibility that this whole submission business is totally fucked-up and unfair. There’s not a breath of feminism. Instead of complaining about having to submit to men, the women vent their frustration by complaining about other women who don’t toe the line. Particular targets for resentment are those wives who claim to be submissive but are suspected of bossing their husbands in private or – even worse – making plays for self-aggrandizement in public. There is no better illustration of the way patriarchy pits women against each other.
I recall one discussion in which a woman reported that her husband had complained about her drab, unsexy clothes. This struck the woman as rather unfair, since she worked about 18 hours a day cleaning up after her asswipe spouse and home-schooling their three brats, and he sure as hell didn’t seem to be going out of his way to look attractive as he sat on the couch swilling beer and watching American Idol. Nevertheless, the discussion that followed revolved around how it was this woman’s Christian duty to stifle any “prideful” resentment and take her husband’s lordly guidance to heart.
It’s enough to drive a woman to murder.
You see, unlike the rubes in Selmer, I’m not bewildered at all by Mary Winkler’s eruption into homicidal fury. What bewilders me, in fact, is that the newspapers aren’t chock full of Bible Belt women blasting their lords and masters to kingdom come. Put a woman in a box, teach her that her only value is as a submissive wife and mother, and ram into her skull that no matter what, her husband’s word is law. Make it psychologically and socially impossible for her to rebel. Cut off any avenue of escape. Then saddle her with a shit-eating-grin of a man who’s Mr. Sunshine in public, Mr. Perfect, Mr. Everybody’s Golden Boy – and who’s Mr. Do-What-I-Say-Goddammit in private. Now watch that woman boil. Watch her simmer and seethe and finally blow. Watch her pick up the shotgun, take aim, and wipe that shit-eating grin off her husband’s face once and for all.
Technorati Tags: Winkler
Posted by Violet under Gender Issues, Godbags, Recommended on March 27, 2006, 1:38 am EST
35 Comments »
Over in the current prostitution thread, the conversation has turned to the nature of male and female sexuality (see comments 94, 96, and 100). Rather than derail the prostitution debate, I think Cicely’s hypothesis is worth treating on its own:
“Heterosexual relationships as structured and accepted in our society may be oppressive to many men, who have natural sexual appetites that can’t be satisfied within them.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Violet under Gender Issues on March 26, 2006, 5:48 pm EST
32 Comments »
It seems I alarmed some readers yesterday with a display of girliness and latent pinkness that was totally unexpected from these quarters. As I hastened to explain to my shell-shocked commenters (well, Will), that’s really not my style. Yes, I am capable of baking and decorating cakes in the shape of bunnies, and yes, I do own doilies, but my personal aesthetic veers strongly away from anything involving bows, ruffles, or the color pink.*
In fact, I said (and I quote myself verbatim): “I despise ruffles and bows and never wear pink.”
In a remarkable bit of coincidence, my inbox this morning provided a perfectly-timed visual aid to demonstrate exactly the kind of ruffly pinkness I eschew: a spring pattern from Butterick, suitable for a “garden party.” Note how the pink ruffles on the jacket are charmingly set off by the astronaut-wife hair, the Stepford smile, and the cruel shoes. Butterick says that if I wear this “pretty pastel pick” to a spring event, I will be the center of attention. I bet.
(And if any of you are wondering why I’m getting e-mail from Butterick in the first place and whether this possibly indicates that I sew: don’t worry your pretty little heads about it.)
*Except for throw pillows. Throw pillows occupy a rift in the space-time continuum and are thus exempt from normal rules of taste.
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on March 25, 2006, 5:11 pm EST
52 Comments »
This is all wrong! P.Z. Myers is declaring War on Easter, following Echidne’s suggestion that we non-Christians follow up our smashingly successful War on Christmas with a spring encore. To which I say: no, no, a thousand times, no. Easter is the most gloriously pagan of holidays. It’s a spring fertility festival, for Chrissake! It’s flowers and bunnies and eggs! Look, just unhorse the Christian crap and you’ve got yourself one hell of a fine holiday.
My immediate family is not remotely Christian, but we love Easter. This was our Easter table a couple of years ago, when we went all out for a combined Easter/family birthday party:
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Violet under Holidays on March 24, 2006, 4:36 am EST
44 Comments »
Burrow worked her butt off on the Carnival of Feminists, and now she’s a thirsty clown. Her soul is parched — parched, I tell you! Screw the three-martini lunch; we’re gonna drink all damn day. It’s time for a radfem post-carnival absinthe party. We got absinthe, we got sugar cubes, we got razor blades and lighter fluid.
Yee haw!
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on March 23, 2006, 1:31 pm EST
156 Comments »
If you’re a visitor from the Carnival of Feminists, welcome! The particular post you’re looking for is here: Prostitutes = Pizza.
To my regular readers who have no idea what I’m talking about: The new Carnival of Feminists is up, and it’s being hosted by none other than my favorite clown (and Vinnie’s) — Burrow of Angry for a Reason. Pulling one of these things together is a hell of a lot of work, and Burrow has done a fantastic job. The range of topics is dazzling: female cowboys, patriarchal male feminists, menstruating Hindus, “foxy felons.” Go check it out.
Posted by Violet under Reclusive Leftist on March 22, 2006, 4:56 pm EST
4 Comments »
Spring snow, icy sunshine. My woods this morning:
It looks idyllic, but do not be deceived. Somewhere in there lurks The Snake.
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on March 22, 2006, 1:23 pm EST
17 Comments »
This is fascinating. Gordo at Appletree blog has pulled together archival photos of Hitler showing how the Fuhrer seemed to remake himself in the image of whomever he was talking to. It’s a striking pattern. In photo after photo, Hitler takes on the manner and mode of his companion. Here’s just a taste, but go look at the whole post:
Posted by Violet under Various and Sundry on March 22, 2006, 5:03 am EST
23 Comments »
