Printage

Hey all, 

I've moved this blog to WordPress, because everything works better! I couldn't even get the search to function correctly here, and I need that. It's easier to browse categories too.

There is another reason, besides economy of effort, why we so often hold to our stereotypes when we might pursue a more disinterested vision. The systems of stereotypes may be the core of our personal tradition, the defenses of our position in society. [...]

No wonder, then, that any disturbance of the stereotypes seems like an attack upon the foundations of the universe. It is an attack upon the foundations of our universe, and, where big things are at stake, we do not readily admit that there is any distinction between our universe and the universe. A world which turns out to be one in which those we honor are unworthy, and those we despise are noble, is nerve-wracking. There is anarchy if our order of precedence is not the only possible one. [...]

A pattern of stereotypes is not neutral. It is not merely a way of substituting order for the great blooming, buzzing confusion of reality. It is not merely a short cute. It is all these things and something more. It is the guarantee of our self-respect; it is the projection upon the world of our own sense of our own value, our own position and our own rights. The stereotypes are, therefore, highly charged with the feelings that are attached to them. They are the fortress of our tradition, and behind its defenses we can continue to feel ourselves safe in the position we occupy.

...Engels's Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884) maintained that the disparities of power between men and women were not based on their inherent natures but were the result of social and historical circumstances, rooted in antiquity.

Engels contended that the earliest organized human communities lived according to the principles of a benevolent matriarchy. Classless and communal, he explained, these groupings owned neither land nor herds of animals. They derived their sustenance from the relatively uncultivated nature that surrounded them.

According to Engels, a sexual division of nature existed, but it was cooperative and egalitarian. As hunters, men were responsible for bringing meat to the table, while women took care of the social spaces in which the extended families lived, planting, preserving, and preparing food, maintaining the collective living space. Within such societies, he wrote, women were honored and lived freely. Since it was women who gave birth to children, family identity was naturally passed on through the mother line. When new conjugal bonds were established between social groups, males would move from their family of origin into the family circles of their mate. Under such circumstances, the physical domination of one sex by another served no practical purpose.

The coming of private property, initially in the form of livestock, changed all of this. As animals were domesticated, and organized breeding expanded the herd, the province of men was transformed into something unprecedented: property. With this development, the custom of defining lineage through women proved a serious problem. As long as "descent was reckoned according to mother right," and the mother line determined a person's family grouping or "gens," males had no mechanism for passing on their property to their sons.

In response to this impasse, Engels speculated, men invented patriarchy, a system of inheritance that would travel through the father line, insuring that they and their male progeny would maintain ownership of the herd. As women bear children, and fatherhood is inherently uncertain, this called for severe measures. In an attempt to guarantee that their offspring would indeed be their own, men forcibly inhibited the social and sexual lives of their wives. In order for patrilineage to work, a woman whose function was that of bearing heirs could not live freely. She was cut off from all unauthorized social contact. While male sexuality was unregulated, the law of monogamy was imposed on women, save those whose task was to fulfill the extramarital desires of men. A wife was to e ruled by her husband, "reduced to servitude." She became "the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children." This development, Engels declared, constituted "the world historical defeat of the female sex."

Such ideas were founded on [Jean Jacques] Rousseau's conviction that women were innately passive and incapable of systematic thought. [...] "Woman observes," Rousseau wrote, "man reasons."

The search for abstract and speculative truths, for principles and axioms in science, for all that tends to wide generalization, is beyond a woman's grasp; their studies should be thoroughly practical.... For the works of genius are beyond her reach, and she has neither the accuracy nor the attention for success in the exact sciences. As for the physical sciences, to decide the relations between living creatures and the laws of nature is the task of that sex which is more active and enterprising, which sees more things, that sex which is possessed of greater strength and is more accustomed to the exercise of that strength.

With these words Rousseau--the champion of freedom--constructed an iron cage. In a world where "great men" would increasingly use elaborate systems of scientific categorization to underwrite the verifiable "truth" of human inequality, woman was defined as inherently unfit to render such judgements. With "works of genius... beyond her reach," she must be excluded from the erudition that would be repeatedly employed to deny her any civil or intellectual standing in the world beyond the home. She could be the named, but she could never be the namer.

While the Scopes Trial is often presented as a simple battle between the enlightenment of evolutionary theory vs. antediluvian creationism--an interpretation propagated by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee's 1955 play Inherit the Wind, further popularized by Stanley Kramer's 1960 star-studded film--the science and politics of the day complicated the issues somewhat. While Scopes taught evolution, he also taught eugenics, linking Darwin's theory to notions of inherent racial inequality. Simultaneously, the theory of evolution disturbed William Jennings Bryan, "The Great Commoner" who was the Democratic candidate for President in 1896. While Bryan is depicted in "Inherit the Wind" as a Bible-thumping know-nothing, his opposition to evolution was propelled by its link to an active eugenics movement. [...]

To bolster his case against the teaching of evolution, Bryan quoted at length from Darwin's Descent of Man to demonstrate the extent to which evolutionary theory gave support to the idea of eliminating "the weak" from the human stock.

Depo-Provera and Norplant were introduced on the market in the 1990s. It has come to light in recent years that the side effects of hormonal implants are far-reaching and extremely detrimental. Unfortuanely, at least a decade will pass before the pernicious effects of hese "new developments" are firmly established.

Because the pill is the oldest of the three, more is known about its insidious effects on a woman's body. The pill diminishes sexual desire, causes undue weight gain through laboratory generated manipulation of the hormones, obstructs the natural cycle and menstrual flow, represses ovulation, causes heart problems, irritability and migraines, has been linked, unlinked, re-linked to cancer, and synthetically dictates one's entire physical agenda. The pill creates a constant state of false pregnancy. Women on the pill do not have a natural menstrual cycle. Bleeding occurs when placebo pills instigate a false period.

The reproductive cycles of women on the pill are choreographed and maintained by Ortho-Novum factories.

Depo-Provera and Norplant are simply newer products of an industry that profits from control over women's lives. Any "developments" in the birth control industry will always reflect a cavalier attitude towards our bodies.

consumer

wife

teacher

helper

bitch

concubine

accountant

houskeeper

orphan

punching bag

counselor

nag

nurse

threeholestopenetrate

cook

mother

daughter

prey

Whore.

There are ways for cuntlovin' women to deal with this issue without the pill, barriers against the cervix, hormone implants or whatever other "choices" male-centered medicine's birth control industry has palmed off on us.

What, exactly, is the lifestyle of a woman's body doing under the jurisdiction of a medical science established, defined and implemented by people who do not have cunts?

Like all cosmetics, mineral-based products raise more questions about their safety than answers. Many mineral-based make-ups contain (or potentially contain) nano-size ingredients, which are 10 to 1,000 times smaller than their normally-sized counterparts and are more likely to be absorbed into the body through the skin because they're so small. (See EWG's research on nano-materials.)

One recent study by the National Center for Toxicological Research found that nano-sized particles could be detected throughout the lymphatic system within minutes after being deposited in the skin of mice. And once nano-particles are absorbed by the body, studies to date suggest that they are quite damaging--for instance, they can cause emphysema-like symptoms when absorbed into the lungs and are toxic to a variety of cells. In short, it is a good idea to avoid inhaling mineral-based cosmetics--be careful to not create dust, as particles can quickly absorb deep into the lungs--and avoid using them on damaged skin where the likelihood of absorption is dramatically increased.

As for the second part of the question, we have a limited understanding of the ingredients titanium dioxide, silica, and iron, as used in cosmetics. (Click on each ingredient to learn more about what we do know in our cosmetics database, Skin Deep.) Why don't we know more? Because the FDA doesn't require companies to test their own products for safety. If you think that's ridiculous, sign our petition to the FDA urging them to set safety standards when it comes to the products we all use every day.

Sometimes we seek or expect from people of color some public or private recognition and appreciation for our anti‐racism. Other times we look for a “certificate of innocence” to tell us we are one of the good white people.

Reality Check and Consequence

If our ally commitment depends on positive reinforcement from people of color, we set ourselves up for sure failure. The first time a person of color is displeased with our actions, we could respond, “Well, if the people I’m doing all this for don’t want my help, then why bother? I quit.” Clearly, we’re challenging racism for “them” not for us. We have not identified our self interest, as white people, for fighting racism. Until we do, we cannot stay on this lifelong journey.

The historian Edwin Black recounts, "It was not unusual for Virginia to use its Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-minded as a dumping ground for those deemed morally unsuitable. Classifying promiscuous women as morons was commonplace." Dr. Albert Priddy, superintendent of the Virginia Colony during the years in question, acknowledged this openly: "This admission of female morons to this institution has consisted for the most part of those who would formerly have found their way into the red light district and become dangerous to society."