Is being hosted at abyss2hope.
http://abyss2hope.blogspot.com/2008/08/carnival-against-sexual-violence-52.html
Please go and read it.
40 minutes ago
Friday, 1 August 2008
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Happy Lammas!
Lammas is tomorrow. It is traditionally the time when the first wheat was brought in from the fields.
Traditionally, a certain type of bread called a loaf mass was made on Lammas, to be eaten by the family, and part of which was to be given to the lord and the lady. In the Christian festival, they mirrored this by bringing bread to church around the time of the first of August.
Tomorrow I'll begin to make bread....not special loaf mass, but ordinary everyday bread and rolls, that people enjoy. I like to make people happy, and to get a (hopefully!) tasty loaf of bread, does, in fact, make lots of people happy.
Yeah, my brand of paganism is pretty simple :)
What are you doing for Lammas this year?
Traditionally, a certain type of bread called a loaf mass was made on Lammas, to be eaten by the family, and part of which was to be given to the lord and the lady. In the Christian festival, they mirrored this by bringing bread to church around the time of the first of August.
Tomorrow I'll begin to make bread....not special loaf mass, but ordinary everyday bread and rolls, that people enjoy. I like to make people happy, and to get a (hopefully!) tasty loaf of bread, does, in fact, make lots of people happy.
Yeah, my brand of paganism is pretty simple :)
What are you doing for Lammas this year?
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Carnival against sexual violence
In this link:
http://abyss2hope.blogspot.com/2008/07/carnival-against-sexual-violence-51.html
please read, and comment.
http://abyss2hope.blogspot.com/2008/07/carnival-against-sexual-violence-51.html
please read, and comment.
Sunday, 6 July 2008
damned if you do, damned if you don't
This is the dilemna that every woman faces today when she attempts to get dressed.
No matter what we do, we can't seem to win. We live in a culture that has raised clothes to a political and emotional level. It is no longer simply a choice of what we wear, of what we like. Now all clothes have an additional meaning attached to them, in the form of the length of skirts, the neckline on t-shirts, the tightness or looseness of jeans....the list goes on. If ever anybody wondered why feminist continually have debates on clothes, rather than on 'more important things' (note the sarcasm) this is the reason: it isn't as simple as just throwing something on to cover yourself any more. Clothing has been given a voice, and unfortunately, people tend to listen.
Everyone seems to have an opinion on what clothing means. My favourite post, and the one that inspired me to write this, incidentally, is http://bitsandbobbins.com/2008/04/22/why-do-we-wear-what-we-wear/ this one. I like it because it is the only honest and non-judgemental post I have seen on the subject. Tricia lays forth all the reasons people may wish to dress a certain way, for example dressing to appear attractive, dressing to feel attractive (not the same thing!), dressing to look professional, dressing to be comfortable or practical.
Go read it, and take a look at the comments. It's an interesting discussion, with everybody from high-end executives to college students contributing.
Wearing clothes for reasons of practicality is the reason that seems uppermost in people's minds...jeans (which seem to be the favoured attire for my age group) are praised as being hard wearing, fashionable, and ostensibly easy to put on in the morning. Most of the girls and women I see wear jeans. You would think that would be the end of it, that nobody could deny the practicality of women wearing jeans, or indeed any form of trousers out there. Not so. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8444 According to the post there, a woman wearing jeans is either a feminist, or a lesbian. Wow, who knew there were so many lesbians in the world?
The reason clothing is seen as a feminist issue is because, for women, clothing does not exist in a vacuum. A woman sitting in a coffee shop in a long skirt, t-shirt and cardigan may know exactly what she is trying to project via her clothing, but the problem is that other people may think differently.
No matter what we do, we can't seem to win. We live in a culture that has raised clothes to a political and emotional level. It is no longer simply a choice of what we wear, of what we like. Now all clothes have an additional meaning attached to them, in the form of the length of skirts, the neckline on t-shirts, the tightness or looseness of jeans....the list goes on. If ever anybody wondered why feminist continually have debates on clothes, rather than on 'more important things' (note the sarcasm) this is the reason: it isn't as simple as just throwing something on to cover yourself any more. Clothing has been given a voice, and unfortunately, people tend to listen.
Everyone seems to have an opinion on what clothing means. My favourite post, and the one that inspired me to write this, incidentally, is http://bitsandbobbins.com/2008/04/22/why-do-we-wear-what-we-wear/ this one. I like it because it is the only honest and non-judgemental post I have seen on the subject. Tricia lays forth all the reasons people may wish to dress a certain way, for example dressing to appear attractive, dressing to feel attractive (not the same thing!), dressing to look professional, dressing to be comfortable or practical.
Go read it, and take a look at the comments. It's an interesting discussion, with everybody from high-end executives to college students contributing.
Wearing clothes for reasons of practicality is the reason that seems uppermost in people's minds...jeans (which seem to be the favoured attire for my age group) are praised as being hard wearing, fashionable, and ostensibly easy to put on in the morning. Most of the girls and women I see wear jeans. You would think that would be the end of it, that nobody could deny the practicality of women wearing jeans, or indeed any form of trousers out there. Not so. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8444 According to the post there, a woman wearing jeans is either a feminist, or a lesbian. Wow, who knew there were so many lesbians in the world?
The reason clothing is seen as a feminist issue is because, for women, clothing does not exist in a vacuum. A woman sitting in a coffee shop in a long skirt, t-shirt and cardigan may know exactly what she is trying to project via her clothing, but the problem is that other people may think differently.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
I just loved....
...this, from the Christian community in Scotland: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/6650
So....let me get this straight...Christians are allowed to organise screaming rallies against (amongst other things) abortion clinics, and laws legalising marriage for homosexual couples, while pagans aren't allowed to gather together for three days, not harming anybody, to enjoy themselves, and meet people?
That is a bit intolerant, in my view *exercising extreme restraint*
But guess what I loved the best about this article? There was a reverend quoted as saying that the bible teaches us not to engage in witchcraft. Way to go missing the point, reverend sir! We aren't Christian....the bible does not apply to us!!!!
Oh, and humanists think we're all stupid as well. Whatever happened to religious tolerance?
So....let me get this straight...Christians are allowed to organise screaming rallies against (amongst other things) abortion clinics, and laws legalising marriage for homosexual couples, while pagans aren't allowed to gather together for three days, not harming anybody, to enjoy themselves, and meet people?
That is a bit intolerant, in my view *exercising extreme restraint*
But guess what I loved the best about this article? There was a reverend quoted as saying that the bible teaches us not to engage in witchcraft. Way to go missing the point, reverend sir! We aren't Christian....the bible does not apply to us!!!!
Oh, and humanists think we're all stupid as well. Whatever happened to religious tolerance?
Sunday, 29 June 2008
Harassment on the street....
...is a very real reality. But why does it happen?
Go anywhere on the web, to almost any blog run by a woman, and somewhere on her blog there will be a tale of how she was harassed while she was walking along the street. But usually, when she tells her story to other people, the only advice she gets is something along the lines of 'You shouldn't let it bother you so much!' (http://dwellonit.blogspot.com/2007/05/harassment.html)
Let's look at that for a second. Why, exactly, should it not bother a woman that some random men/men thought they had the right to make comments, or shout at her, or otherwise frighten/intimidate her? Where do they get the idea that it is their right to do these things? In 'A Return to Modesty', Wendy Shalit recounts a tale of when her friend was harassed. One of the questions she asks is 'why wasn't [the man] more respectful of her?' I think this is the key point. One way or another, men have almost completely lost their respect for women.
Even wikipedia describes harassment as 'unwanted' and 'disturbing'*!!
I've heard it said that when a group of men/boys gets together, the lowest common denominator rules. I used to accept this, but then I realised that it is simply a way for men to excuse their behaviour. Saying that when men get together, they become stupid neanderthals, is not only a bit silly, but it also seems to suggest that men have diminished responsibility in this kind of situation. If men can't be held responsible for their actions, then the blame must ultimately be shifted back onto the other person involved -namely, the woman.
Go anywhere on the web, to almost any blog run by a woman, and somewhere on her blog there will be a tale of how she was harassed while she was walking along the street. But usually, when she tells her story to other people, the only advice she gets is something along the lines of 'You shouldn't let it bother you so much!' (http://dwellonit.blogspot.com/2007/05/harassment.html)
Let's look at that for a second. Why, exactly, should it not bother a woman that some random men/men thought they had the right to make comments, or shout at her, or otherwise frighten/intimidate her? Where do they get the idea that it is their right to do these things? In 'A Return to Modesty', Wendy Shalit recounts a tale of when her friend was harassed. One of the questions she asks is 'why wasn't [the man] more respectful of her?' I think this is the key point. One way or another, men have almost completely lost their respect for women.
Even wikipedia describes harassment as 'unwanted' and 'disturbing'*!!
I've heard it said that when a group of men/boys gets together, the lowest common denominator rules. I used to accept this, but then I realised that it is simply a way for men to excuse their behaviour. Saying that when men get together, they become stupid neanderthals, is not only a bit silly, but it also seems to suggest that men have diminished responsibility in this kind of situation. If men can't be held responsible for their actions, then the blame must ultimately be shifted back onto the other person involved -namely, the woman.
Utterly deceptive twaddle speak, says I. Just another attempt to cover up blatant misogyny at work. I propose that men are, at all times, responsible for their own actions. They should not be allowed to shift the blame for their own immature 'fun'.
I honestly don't know how to stop it. Part of the problem is that, when it happens, the blame will always be shifted onto the woman for doing something that was, somehow, wrong, and deserving of that treatment, and another part of it is that every single woman reacts differently to being whistled/shouted/beeped at.
One thing I know: it is wrong. If there was nothing wrong with it, then why would we have laws against it? I will not accept that 'boys will be boys'...I don't ever recall giving up the right to walk the streets freely, and I've never heard of another woman doing so either. This reign of fear and intimidation has to stop!
Saturday, 28 June 2008
A waste of good wood pulp
is what I would call the average 'lad's mag' that is available on the shelves of most stationery shops.
It might be said by some people that, of course I would think that! After all, I'm a woman. Magazines like that aren't supposed to appeal to me. That doesn't matter. I can still form an opinion about them.
Before we get to the waste of good wood pulp part, let me just qualify my stance here. 'Lad's mags' (I won't dignify them with a more genteel name) are, in my opinion, demeaning to women. They disgust me.
Okay, to the waste of wood pulp bit. According to Wikipedia, (yes, I know, but it is a popular research site) one hundred and four magazines across the world are dedicated to pornography for heterosexual men.
The material that (in my opinion) is wasted on the fantasies of a few disgusting (and disgustingly rich) men, could be used for so much more. My ideal use for all the paper and ink and time used in creating 'lad's mags' would be to print textbooks for schools in braille and large print, (see previous post for my reasoning) so as to make education more widely available. Creating something to make education and learning more widely available seems to me to be more important than perpetuating a fantasy involving fake women, in fake scenarios, that is making it increasingly hard for these same men to become romantically/sexually (call it what you will) involved with real women.
In my view, though the most important issue is that it is degrading to women, I think that ultimately pornography lets men down as well. Think about it. Leaving aside all the accusation that pornography increases the instances of crimes of a sexual nature, think about the emotional effects it seems to be having.
I saw it written somewhere (I can't remember where, when I do, I'll come back and add the link, or the book title) that because of pornography, and the women involved, men were finding it increasingly difficult to be turned on to the bodies of their own, real, wives and girlfriends.
Perhaps that quote/paraphrase is rather crude; but it does illustrate the point I am about to make, namely that if a man allows himself to be sucked into a definition of sexuality "that equates sexuality with youth and beauty"* and, moreover, a standard of sexuality that is dictated to him, he is perhaps going to have difficulty reconciling the expectations he has gained from pornography with the real, living woman he is confronted with in the bedroom.
Ultimately, though it angers me greatly to see pornography sold openly in stores across the world, when I see men actually looking at those magazines? I just feel so sorry for them. I find it so very sad and pathetic that this is the only way they can relate to a woman.
*quote taken from 'A Return to Modesty' by Wendy Shalit.
It might be said by some people that, of course I would think that! After all, I'm a woman. Magazines like that aren't supposed to appeal to me. That doesn't matter. I can still form an opinion about them.
Before we get to the waste of good wood pulp part, let me just qualify my stance here. 'Lad's mags' (I won't dignify them with a more genteel name) are, in my opinion, demeaning to women. They disgust me.
Okay, to the waste of wood pulp bit. According to Wikipedia, (yes, I know, but it is a popular research site) one hundred and four magazines across the world are dedicated to pornography for heterosexual men.
The material that (in my opinion) is wasted on the fantasies of a few disgusting (and disgustingly rich) men, could be used for so much more. My ideal use for all the paper and ink and time used in creating 'lad's mags' would be to print textbooks for schools in braille and large print, (see previous post for my reasoning) so as to make education more widely available. Creating something to make education and learning more widely available seems to me to be more important than perpetuating a fantasy involving fake women, in fake scenarios, that is making it increasingly hard for these same men to become romantically/sexually (call it what you will) involved with real women.
In my view, though the most important issue is that it is degrading to women, I think that ultimately pornography lets men down as well. Think about it. Leaving aside all the accusation that pornography increases the instances of crimes of a sexual nature, think about the emotional effects it seems to be having.
I saw it written somewhere (I can't remember where, when I do, I'll come back and add the link, or the book title) that because of pornography, and the women involved, men were finding it increasingly difficult to be turned on to the bodies of their own, real, wives and girlfriends.
Perhaps that quote/paraphrase is rather crude; but it does illustrate the point I am about to make, namely that if a man allows himself to be sucked into a definition of sexuality "that equates sexuality with youth and beauty"* and, moreover, a standard of sexuality that is dictated to him, he is perhaps going to have difficulty reconciling the expectations he has gained from pornography with the real, living woman he is confronted with in the bedroom.
Ultimately, though it angers me greatly to see pornography sold openly in stores across the world, when I see men actually looking at those magazines? I just feel so sorry for them. I find it so very sad and pathetic that this is the only way they can relate to a woman.
*quote taken from 'A Return to Modesty' by Wendy Shalit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)