Community hubs

This is the global Feminist Blogs aggregator. It collects articles from many smaller community hubs within the Feminist Blogs network. For stories from particular places, groups, or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.

Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Feminist Bloggers!

Feminist Blogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of February and March.

Donations provide for the costs of running feministblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Feminist Blogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


December 2005

Ringing in 2006

Evening, ladies and gents! One more post before I head out the door and yes, actually go to a New Year's Eve party. Hard as it may be to believe, it's now six years since Armageddon didn't happen, which was a crushing disappointment for Wingnutteria from coast to coast, from the militia men who were denied the chance to hole up in the cabins with guns and supplies and laugh at people who didn't prepare to fundies who didn't get raptured to heaven where they could look down and laught at those of us who didn't make the cut. What happens to a wingnut deferred? Well, apparently they get a lunatic elected to office with hopes he'll run this country to the ground.

S.Z. is closing out the year with votes for the Ultimate Wingnut. Go check it out.

Big changes coming for Pandagon in 2006. I have to get going or I'd elaborate, but let me say for now that a) don't worry, the line-up of me, Pam and Jedmunds will stay the same and b) I think everyone will love it. Nothing to worry about, good things ahead. For this site, anyway, if not for the country.

Tagged with:

Is The Oppression of Women The Root Of All Oppressions?

Since there are now something like 300 posts in the thread Heart started, I thought I'd extract an exchange Heart and I had in that thread to start a new post.

Heart wrote:

In my opinion, a woman is a radical feminist if she agrees that the world we live in is a male supremacist world, that women in general are subjugated and oppressed by men and male institutions. The best way to evaluate the way male supremacy works is by comparing the situations of men and women who are similarly situated. A rich white woman, for example, is never going to be as well off as a rich white man, because she is or was still vulnerable to rape, objectification, sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, molestation, in ways which the rich white man is not, in ways which affect her or have affected her from the time of her birth. A homeless man on the street is still better off than a homeless woman for the same reasons. And in between these two extremes, if we look at men and women, doesn’t matter the ethnicity, class standing, age, so long as we are talking about men and women who are similarly situated, we see across the board that men fare better in this world than women do. And that’s because the world is a male supremacist world. If a woman sees this, acknowledges that this is true, then she is probably a radical feminist, in that she is understanding sexism as the first or root or foundational or core oppression, with all other oppressions — racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, modeled after this one.

In response to that, I wrote:

I certainly agree that the way to evaluate male supremacy is to compare women and men’s situations “all else held equal,” as you say. The fact that so often anti-feminists refuse to do this - instead comparing Hilary Clinton to a homeless black man, to use an example I’ve seen several different anti-feminists come up with - is either a sign of poor faith or poor thinking on their part.

However, if I understand your argument correctly (and maybe I don’t), you seem to be saying that this sort of comparison shows men to be better off “across the board,” and therefore we should understand “sexism as the first or root or foundational or core oppression, with all other oppressions — racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, modeled after this one.”

Here’s where I’m confused: Couldn’t you say the same thing about virtually any other kind of widepread oppression? For instance, I’d argue that the correct way to evaluate white supremacy is to compare whites and blacks who are similarly situated in all ways other than race. Doing this will show whites to be better off than blacks “across the board.” Does it therefore follow that racism is the root oppression, and all other oppressions are modeled on it?

And Heart responded:

Amp is tricksy hobbits, luring me back into this thread. Heh. Well, I have a few things to say, here and in the Transwomen thread, so it's all good.

First, I think if we compare black people and white people who are similarly situated, we do not find that across the board, white people are worse off than black people. I think we find, for example, that black men, in general, earn more money than white women and have consistently for a very long time. I think we find that black men were, for example, enfranchised as citizens in the United States 70 years before white women were. And I think we find, for example, that black college-educated women earn more money today, than similarly situated college-educated white women. I have written about this in some depth here.

I think we can say that male supremacy is the first, or root oppression, because men, throughout history and in every culture, first oppressed women, before any man, or any tribe or culture, ever oppressed anyone on account of race, class or whom someone loved. Racism, classism, homophobia, are recent inventions compared with the subjugation of women to men because we are women. The first oppression — oppression of women because we are women — occurred wherever women were assigned the tasks of sexual servicing men, reproduction for the benefit of the tribe or people group, and wherever women were assigned the tasks of the care of infants and children for the benefit of the tribe or people group. This goes back to the very earliest civilizations in all and every part of the world, without respect to race, ethnicity, religion, people group. Students of black history — which I am — know, for example, that in the 10th, 11th centuries, kings in African people groups exchanged women, wives, concubines, with kings in white European people groups. And the African kings were as racist in the direction of European royalty as was true, vice versa. A good book to begin with for those who are unfamiliar with this history is Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America by Lerone Bennett.

Male supremacy was the very first "othering," the very first objectification by one class of people, men, of another class of people, women. Men's otherng of women occurred, again, across the boundaries of race, culture, class and history. The othering was enlisted in the service of specific goals, i.e., the sexual servicing of men, the bearing of children, creation and perpetuation of family dynasties, and all of the caretaking and labor involved in these efforts. In the othering of women, men learned the usefulness and efficacy of dominance hierarchies. Power-over was eroticized and celebrated. Over time other people groups were othered, in later periods of history and in various cultures, for specific reasons, most of them having to do with the amassing of wealth or the preservatin of dominance hierarchies. But the techniques by way of which a class of people — women — were made the servants of an upper class — men, were honed in the earliest relationships between men and women. And for this reason, among others, radical feminists attend to the *way* women as a people group continue to be objectified and othered by men as a people group. Other otherings are important and the subject of the attention of all feminists, including radical feminists, but radical feminists attend first and foremost to this one, which is so central in so many ways.

Heart

So that's where we stand. I do intend to respond to Heart, but it may be hours before I can do that, because I've got things going on in the meatworld right now.

NOTE: As an experiment, this comments thread is for feminist, pro-feminist, and feminist-friendly posters only. If you suspect you wouldn't fit into Amp's conception of "feminist, pro-feminist, or feminist-friendly," then please don't contribute to the comments following this post.
Tagged with:

Proceedings

I mentioned a couple weeks ago that the Molinari Society would be meeting in New York at the APA Eastern Division meeting, and that the topic for the day was going to be the debate between thick and thin libertarianism. I was invited to comment on both of the essays, which I think went well, except for the inconvenience of having nowhere to print them out and therefore having to read them off of my laptop screen at the presentation; ah well. In any case, I’ve been asked to put my remarks online; they may not be the easiest thing in the world to follow if you haven’t read the essays I’m commenting on, for obvious reasons (if versions are posted on the Internet, I’ll link to them from here and from my remarks). But there is some material that might be of general interest, such as my discussion of the different ways in which a version of libertarianism might make demands for thick rather than thin commitments, and my discussion of the ways in which a libertarian labor movement ought to relate to the government (distinguishing depoliticized unions from anti-statist unions) and to other social justice movements (distinguishing thin unionism from thick unionism). In any case, here’s the links:

  • Remarks on Jan Narveson’s Libertarianism: the Thick and the Thin, in which I discuss Jan Narveson’s defense of libertarianism as a thinly moral doctrine and try to distinguish five different senses in which a version libertarianism might be said to be thick. (I said four in the remarks in spite of listing five; oops. I think because I did not count the first, entailment thickness, as a genuine form of thickness at all — since it merely amounts to saying that libertarians should, indeed, be libertarian.)

  • Remarks on Jack Ross’s Labor and Liberty, in which I discuss different takes on labor history and the prospects for reclaiming the tradition of pro-liberty, pro-labor radicalism.

Enjoy. Feel free to direct any comments on the remarks to me personally or to the backtalk section here.

Happy 2006, y’all.

God or Not #5: Spiritual Beings… ghosts, angels, etc.

This one is difficult for me, because I'm not sure how much I really want to reveal about my own experiences. I'll be as honest as I can, but I may have to alter a name or so to protect my privacy and that of others.

First, let's start with what we know. We know that the human brain looks for familiar patterns, so that when it is confronted with new information, it looks for a familiar label to describe this unknown element. It is NOT normal for a human to see a shadow and think it is a monster, in spite of what you've always been told. Rather the normal human reaction is to see a monster and dismiss it as a shadow. We've been raised to believe that myths and legends are fantastic stories created to describe a strange and frightening world as viewed by ancient cultures. It doesn't take much research to realize that the ancients knew as much or more than we do about the nature of existence, and I believe that all myth/legend/scripture will have some basis in fact. Humans simply are not that creative - we are imitative, to be sure, but it's rare for a human to create anything new out of whole cloth.

Having said that, I will add that I trust my own experience. I have had visions, dreams, daydreams, memories, past life memories, intuitions, precognitions, fantasies and hallucinations and I've done more acid than I care to admit but only in my late thirties after most of this stuff had already happened. My point is that each of these states of consciousness is a varied and distinct experience. A vision doesn't feel like a dream, a memory doesn't feel like an hallucination, a past life memory doesn't feel like a fantasy, etc. If you have had a given experience, you know what it is when it happens and you know how it feels. If you have not, you will be tempted to dismiss my experience. I submit that there is no more sense in that position than if I were to deny the existence of Japan because I have not been there. Just because you haven't done it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Just because we can't measure it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Saying there are no ghosts or angels because there is no physical proof (though there is, and we'll get to that in a minute) doesn't mean they aren't there.

The first thing a person has to do to have a psychic experience is to accept the possibility. You are in control, for the most part, of your consciousness. If you want to deny the existence of air, you can go through life ignoring it. You don't have to believe in gravity for it to work - though if you want to measure or calculate it or its effects, you first have to allow that such a force exists. A little empiricism shouldn't be too much to ask from a person who insists on scientific evidence, but you'd be surprised at how little some will employ.

Now, about beings themselves. I'll start with angels, since it's that time of year. Every culture has some form of angel - the word "angel" meaning "message or messenger" and the function of such critters being to provide help or warnings. I have seen angels on at least two occasions. The first was after a funeral of a person I did not know. He was a young man who apparently committed suicide, and the angel came while I was with someone else sitting in my living room. No, he didn't see it. No, I won't tell you what it asked me to do, because that's no one's business but ours. I will tell you that he was transparent, had dark shadows where his eyes should have been, he was shades of brown like a bird, and his wings extended up through my ceiling. At that point in my life, I took no medication, didn't drink, had never done a drug. I was completely awake, described what I was seeing to my companion, and remember it as clearly as I remember the boy in his coffin, bless his heart.

The second encounter with angels involved good news. I attended a meditation group for a while and there were many different types of women who attended. One woman brought her elder mother with her occasionally, a very nice woman who had gone blind in recent years. One night at the group, I saw small angels - they looked as if they had been cut out of pastel construction paper of different colors - flying in a circle around her head. I told the person I was with what I saw, but didn't tell the group, because it would have freaked them out. Anyway, in the course of the evening it came out that the woman was about to have surgery that might restore her sight. I told my friend it would be a safe and successful operation - and it was.

Many people have documented encounters with ghosts. I've had too many to relate here, but I will say I've actually been pinched and several times I've been tapped on the shoulder, in broad daylight with no one near enough to touch me, but people all around me. In one case, I was reading cards for a man I didn't know in a rock and roll bar. I felt a tap, and turned, but there was no one else on our side of the room. I described the young man who's spirit was standing there, who turned out to be the nephew of the man I was reading for. He nearly fainted as I described the boy, how he had died and what he had to say. Spirits can converse, interact with us and impart information. There are energy measurements and pictures and reams of documentation of ghostly encounters, but there will never be enough for the skeptics until each of them meets one up close and personal - and I hope you all do. Most are benign, some are guardians, and they can throw things across the room if they really want your attention. Don't make them go to those lengths before you acknowledge them - it's bad manners to ignore people, incorporate or not.

Now, lets talk about the Virgin Mary. If you notice, sightings are always of the Blessed Mother, but never of the son. They have a marked tendency to occur on Fridays (Freya's Day, the day of Venus) and frequently on the 13th of the month - 13 being a sacred prime that was considered good luck until the Inquisition swooped down on the Knights Templar on the 13th of the month. If Mother Mary speaks, she encourages people to pray the Rosary - "rosary" meaning "roses" which are sacred to the Goddess; the beads representing the petals of the rose, which represent the labia of the Goddess; the repetition of prayers which was specifically scorned by Jesus, who said "The Pagans think they gain favor in Heaven through their much speaking; and then of course there's the text :


"Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee
Blessed are though among women and blessed also is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen."



  • "Full of Grace" = Divine

  • The Lord is obviously with the Lady in every culture, whether they are called Isis and Osiris, Morgaine and Arthur, or Mary and Jesus.

  • "Blessed are thou among women" = worshipped particularly by women

  • "blessed also is the fruit of Thy womb" = blessed because he came from Your womb

  • "Holy Mary" is self-explanatory

  • "Mother of God"= Mother Goddess, or as Pagans like to say, "Our Goddess gave birth to your god."

  • Praying for the lost is always good, of course

  • "Amen" - that came straight from Jesus - don't you think it strange that a Hebrew ended his prayers by invoking Amen-Ra, almost as if he were an initiate of the Egyptian Mysteries, as in He and Mary Magdalene taking the role of Isis and Osiris?


Makes perfect sense to me that the Goddess would take such a kind and beautiful form, and gently reinforce her love for us.

And I saw Her walk through my bedroom one night while I was burning a Santeria candle and saying a Novena. (Novena being the Catholic word for a 9-day spell invoking one of the Saints. Nearly everything in the Catholic religion is Pagan in origin, which is why they resent us so much. They co-opted our rituals then tried to exterminate us.) She was small, graceful and dark skinned like Our Lady of Guadalupe, which makes sense - she took the form of an Indian to appear to an Indian.

I can't say whether I believe in demonic possession, because I've never observed a case first hand. I have done minor exorcisms though, to address both psychological and spiritual needs, and I have an open mind. I've seen too many "impossible" things to dismiss the possibility.

At any rate, I'm firmly on the Theist team in this regard. If you've had the experience, there's just no denying it, and no one will talk you out of it. There is a Knowing that surpasses knowledge, and the spirit of it overwhelms attempts to reason it away.

Ay Chihuahua!

Well, they do say we are liberal out here in the 9 Bay Area Counties.... Anyone can be anything and we all exist inside our own drag show. In our vaunted liberality, we extend that license to the canines.

FREMONT Officer on duty is bitten by Chihuahuas
- Suzanne Herel
Saturday, December 31, 2005

A police officer escorting a teenager home from a traffic stop Thursday morning was attacked by Chihuahuas at the boy's home.

The officer was treated for bite wounds to his ankles and returned to work within two hours, police Detective Bill Veteran said.

The attack occurred at 3 a.m. as the officer and his partner returned a 17-year-old boy ... after detaining him at Butano Park and Tenor Court for driving without a license, Veteran said.

I say the attack pack went for what they could reach. A stealth flanking move, one suspects they came outta nowhere...

Disclaimer: the chihuahua with a star motif should remind you of no one. Further I am a great fan of the toy and teacup divisions - in dogs.


Technorati tags:
Tagged with: , , ,

The Goddess Worshipper’s view of Scientific Theory

A visitor asks:

Hi!

Over at Athana's blog you made a comment that covered many subjects.
I have some questions, though:

Can you elaborate about evolution and the complexity of genitals?

How are Quantum Theory/Evolution/ Chaos Theory all included in Goddess worship?

Why is this information about the corpus callosum and the female brain not as widely known as the theory/idea that men are better at math because of testosterone?

If you don't want to talk about all of these things, can you please link me to other blogs/posts that discuss them? Thank you.


Hi - I don't mind at all! That's what I'm here for.

There's a general principle of evolutionary theory that says that the longer an organism evolves, the more highly specialized its organs become. The most primitive form of life is a single cell. As time progressed, cells divided, joined forces and eventually formed more and more complex creatures. If you use this principle to compare the human female's genitalia to the human male's, one can extrapolate that the female, being the most exclusively specialized genitalia in all of nature, has existed far longer than the male, which has one organ performing two functions. The idea that the human race may be derived from a parthenogenic, female line was first advanced by Elizabeth Gould Davis in The First Sex. The immediate reaction of most people, even most feminists, is to dismiss this hypothesis as ridiculous. I happen to think Davis was correct, and I'm working on gathering the literature to back it up.

In addition to the difference in genital specialization, there are significant genetic differences in te two genders. The default gender is female. If a human zygote contains an X and a Y chromosome, there still have to be additional processes which take place in order for that individual to become male. If the right hormones are not produced at the right time, the result will be a female child in spite of the presence of the male chromosome. The process needed to complete the gender change has been described by researchers as being similar to the way a birth defect occurs. Davis hypothesized that the Y is a crippled X. Indeed, the Y is in rapid decay when compared to the X, and there is a theory yet to be proven that the missing part of the Y, which can be described as an incomplete X, may contain a part of the immune system. This would explain the fact that though more males are conceived, fewer reach maturity. Nature keeps the balance at a 53% female, 47% male ratio when left to Her own devices. (The fact that female infanticide has reduced the female to male ratio in the Middle and Far East may yet have disasterous consequences, as I've discussed elsewhere. )


How are Quantum Theory/Evolution/ Chaos Theory all included in Goddess worship?


Quantum Theory
The first principle of Goddess worship is that She is alive and we are a part of Her. Therefore, there can be no conflict in the observation of natural phenomena and Thealogy. Science is a methodical study of Her. What we have called Magick since before the dawn of history is really a memory of the principles of Quantum Mechanics. Magick teaches that all space is here, all time is now - that is quantum theory. Quantum mechanics proves that particles separated by inches or by galaxies can be intimitely entangled and instantly affected by the condition of another. It has recently been proven that this entanglement can work forward and backwards in time, and that a particle may be put into the paradoxical "cat state" of being simultaneously on/off, alive/dead, etc. Similar theories were taught at the Library of Alexandria - we have records of it - then were supressed by the rise of Christianity and forgotten until very recently.

All of existence is vibrating matter in a conscious field of energy which has been proven to be influenced by thought. Time and space only exist in the limits of the frontal lobes. They are convenient constructs for functioning while incorporate, but they are only constructs. As Einstein mused, the universe is far weirder than we even imagine. Buddhism says "There is no spoon" - Wicce says "you are the spoon... and the table...and the sun... and your neighbor... and ..." -you get the idea. It's all connected. There is no separation except in our minds.

Evolution
The literalists like to say that the principle of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" has been disproven, but in fact the development of life on earth is repeated in the development of the fetus in the womb. What we call evolution is simply the birth process on a planetary scale. Scientists call it the Big Bang - I call it the primordial orgasm. The Goddess got off, and her awareness set it all in motion. The entire process, from the birth of stars to the birth of a baby is a straightforward cycle of birth and death happening on macrocosmic and microcosmic scales.

Chaos Theory
Chaos Theory basically says that randomness is an illusion. What we perceive as random events are actually occuring in a calculable pattern that is too large and complex for our minds to recognize. These events, repeated over many thousands of times, will always follow a pattern called the Butterfly Curve. These natural, organic patterns can be calculated using Mandelbrot Fractal Geometry, and natural forms generated by computers running the calculations. The important point is that these are not inorganic systems. Scientists like to describe the Universe as a computer, but it is more accurately described as a living body, with its own organic systems and patterns.

Why is this information about the corpus callosum and the female brain not as widely known as the theory/idea that men are better at math because of testosterone?


Women have been the victims of 5,000 years of oppression and misinformation. Men are perceived as being better at math because they tend to be heavily focused in the left frontal lobe of the brain. This makes them love sequence and order, but inhibits their creative and intuitive gifts. Women are rarely given fair and equitable time and attention in Math and the Sciences. This is cultural, not genetic. Testosterone tends to make men aggressive, and the lack of oxytocin in the male brain has recently been identified as a possible source of violence. The male reaction to stress is "fight or flight" while women's oxytocin leads them to "tend and befriend" - we are biochemically predisposed to diplomacy and cooperation. Greed and competition are not, as we've been taught, natural human functions, but are aberrant human behaviors admired in and reinforced by patriarchy. These aberrations can be unlearned, and we'd best do it before the men in power destroy all of us.

The many advantages of the female anatomy are largely ignored or actively hidden. It's up to us to change that. Women are better at both left and right brain functions, and have greater integration of the two sides than men. Read Arnold Schwarzenegger's book on body building for women to learn how strong women really are - men are good at short bursts of intense strength, concentrated in their upper bodies. Women have more endurance, and have tremendous strength in their lower bodies. We make better swimmers, better astronauts and only 60 years or so after education became widely available to women, we are outnumbering men in our universities and outstripping their achievements in every field where we are given a fair shot. Some University heads have expressed dismay at the declining ratio of male students. (Frankly, I'm not worried, unless it leads to a backlash that prevents women from being admitted.)

Women are better at multi-tasking, managing resources, nurturing, negotiation, diplomacy, spirituality, and cooperation. Our only true weakness is our indoctrination to patriarchy, and patriarchy's ongoing campaign to keep us down.

Please feel free to ask whatever you want. The internet is a woman's best friend right now. Publishers may let our books go out of print, and we may not have access to wealth and resources, but we are good with words. The internet is the key to our extending women's herstory to more women without access to women's studies courses, and to organize for action though we may be unable to gather physically. We have to take back our power - no one will hand it to us - and the most powerful tool we have is information.

Peace -

Republican Horror Movie on Tonight

If you missed the Republican horror movie about the Bush regime, it's on again tonight. Dante's Homecoming, is an aptly chilling portrayal of the Nightmare Bush regime, complete with Ann Coulter's mouth and legs. It's on Showtime at 2:00 am here in Nashville. Jeering the horrific Republican regime sounds like a good way to start the New Year to me. Directed by Joe Dante, "Homecoming" is a

Best gift ever


I have to give some props to my boyfriend for getting me my favorite holiday gift this year: The Subtle Safety Defensive Ring.

This ring is so bad ass. It looks like a normal ring, but it actually folds out into a self defense device--kind of like mini brass knuckles. Awesome.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to kick some New Year's Eve ass.

Tagged with:

Happy New Year!

Six years ago, I was checking in on baby Ethan to see if he was Y2K compatible.

May this year be better than the last, fer sure.

Let’s start the New Year off right, shall we…?

backroom blues
Damn . . . you're quite the hot one. Heads turn
where ever you go at both your sex appeal and
your self-confidence.


Which Brian and Justin Kiss Are You? (Queer as Folk)
brought to you by Quizilla


Happy New Year, Y'all!