In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

Jill

Promote yourself.

Netiquette reminders:

  • Want to recommend someone else’s writing instead? Try the latest signal-boosting thread.
  • we expect Content Notes as a courtesy to our readers for problematic content in linked posts and/or their comment threads (a habit of posting only triggering/disparaging links may annoy the Giraffe (you really don’t want to annoy the Giraffe)). Content Notes are not needed if your post title is already descriptive of problematic content.
  • extended discussion of self-promotion links on this thread is counter-productive for the intended signal-boosting –  the idea is for the promoted sites to get more traffic.  If it’s a side-discussion that would be off-topic/unwelcome/distressing on the other site, take it to #spillover after leaving a note on this thread redirecting others there.

36 thoughts on Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

  1. Hi!

    As I’m sure you know, yesterday was the International Day of the Girl. A good friend of mine was involved in it, and she asked me to do some blogging about it.

    I made some fun infographics (some featuring not-so-fun information) about the topics discussed on Day 3 and Day 7 of the Day of the Girl Summit’s 11 Days of Action this week.

    For Day 8 I wrote about my experiences with Girl Scouting.

    And this week’s Friday listicle round-up included some really useful info on everyday racism and ableist language.

    Enjoy!

  6. Last week at Bitch Flicks…

    The Fantasy of Mammy, the Truth of Patsey

    ‘Wetlands’: Vile Beauty, with Schnitzel

    ‘Gone Girl’: Scathing Gender Commentary While Reinforcing Rape and Domestic Violence Myths

    The Complicated Women of ‘Please Like Me’

    Meg Griffin vs. Tina Belcher: A Feminist’s Take on Beanies and Butts

    Women with Disabilities: The Undiscussed Horror Staple of Female Characters

    Violence Against Indigenous Women: Fun, Sexy, and No Big Deal on the Big Screen

    What Country’s Film Industry Has the Best Gender Equity?

    20 Facts Everyone Should Know About Gender Bias in Movies

    ‘Gone Girl’: How to Create the Perfect Female Villain

    ‘Two Days, One Night’: Marion Cotillard’s Insight From the New York Film Festival

    ‘Life After Beth’ and the Trouble With Absent Presence

  8. As was mentioned by another commenter here, yesterday was the International Day of the Girl Child, and this year’s theme centered around breaking the cycle of violence that is perpetrated against girls worldwide. Is empowering girls enough? Or do we need to go to the root of the problem, which lies with the perpetrators and their enablers? Trigger warnings for discussion of sexual assault, victim blaming, and violence against children.

    Also, more links, for those of you who are looking for yet more reading material, in our reproductive-justice headline roundup.

  9. When reading some mythology from the British Isles the author explained that to these people “virgin” referred to women who had autonomy over themselves — virginity had nothing to do with whether they’d had sex (and the story didn’t make sense otherwise). Quite a contrast to our notions today.

    Once Was, Virgins Had A Lot of Sex (if they wanted to)

    1. I find this hard to believe, since “virgin” is a Latin word and thus would have been foreign to the people of the British Isles and Northern Europe until relatively late in their histories.

      I was going to say that it probably means that the word that we chose to translate into “virgin” in English actually had a different meaning, which seems to be more of a commentary on the assumptions of the translators than some pre-christian conception of virginity. But I’d be interested if you have a reference?

      1. Agreed, this is bizarre (and the citation provided in the blogpost is simply another person’s assertion). If we’re talking about Latin, virgo (from which comes virgin) definitely means a woman who hasn’t had sex yet, as opposed to puella (girl) which does not comment on sexual history.

        In Old English there are a number of words for women, some of which imply sexual virginity more strongly (eg mægdenmann) and of which don’t have much of a comment one way or the other but do comment on youth/age, and an unrelated word indicating a woman in a position of power over others (hlæfdige).

        I agree with your comment about the translators. Part of the problem is that many languages have a word meaning “young woman/girl” which implies but absolutely does not in every context mean sexual inexperience, whether in that society it means no intercourse, no marriage, or no physical sexual maturity. A famous example of this problem: in Hebrew there’s the word בתולה which really means “young girl” but by association might mean any of the above (no sexual experience, not yet menstruating, etc — all potential indicators of what might make someone not yet adult in their culture).

        A translator might try to capture this ambiguity by rendering a word like that “maiden,” which in English implies but does not necessitate virginity, or they might add emphasis to the sexual dimension by actually using “virgin,” which to me seems a mistake.

        But while youth and sexual inexperience often get conflated in the vocabulary of many languages, I have yet to hear of a word that conflates sexual inexperience and personal power. And the association of the two does not strike me as being particularly feminist, either; in fact, it seems to buy into the patriarchal association of virginity with specialness and respectability.

    2. Whoah, just read the comments section of the post, and this REALLY creeps me out:

      This meaning of “virgin” comes at the beginnings of patriarchy in northern Europe — Britain. Possibly also German and Nordic. The Northern Europeans came to patriarchy/a strong form of patriarchy later than the Semites (the group you are describing, who were deeply into patriarchy during the time you are referencing). And the Semitic influence — as Judaism spawned Christianity which invaded the north — may have influenced this English word.

      This is in reference to a commentator describing how Judaism is matrilineal. Going from that to a description of how “Semitic” influence made “Northern Europe” sexist is super bizarre and troubling, not to mention the whole “Judaism spawned Christianity” thing.

      Where’s Donna L, help!

      1. On one point you are wrong. On another point you are both right and wrong.

        Here’s where you are right and wrong:

        Whatever exact word was used in the British Isles (which we now translate to “virgin”), it later became the word we use for “virgin.” Every single source I’ve looked at says that “the word we now use for virgin” (they just say “virgin”) indicated a woman who had ownership of herself.

        So it would be more accurate to say that the British Isles myths use a word, which in today’s English would be “virgin.” (So the original commentor above is right.)

        So whatever the letter of the law, the spirit of the law remains.

        And it’s incredibly empowering to women, and important in that way.

        Since it was in the comments section, and hardly anyone reads it, I wrote in a way that would be easy to understand — instead of the confusing verbiage above. If this point has been made in the post I would’ve been more exact about the wording. I didn’t expect anyone would assume I was saying that “virgin” was an old English word.

        Otherwise, Judaism did spawn Christianity. Jesus was a Jew. So was Paul. Early Christians did not see themselves as a separate tradition from Judaism.

        And this is a point often made to quell anti-semitism.

        When this Christian sect of Judaism (as they saw themselves early on) decided to convert peoples, there were big arguments about whether to sustain Kosher laws and whether adult men needed to be circumcised. Also, during that time Christ lived women were stoned for having sex outside of marriage, which Jesus seems not to have liked, saying, “You who have not sinned cast the first stone.” Whatever was going on in Northern Europe at the time this was happening, women were not stoned for having sex outside of marriage.

        I brought this up because said commentor started talking about something that had occurred in Israel, and I was talking about something going on up in the British Isles. I was trying to point out that they were two different places and two different cultures.

        This history makes neither group better than the other. Each has positive and negative points, and which is which will be seen differently by different people.

        The most important thing is that it is very empowering for girls and women to understand that at one time, and in one place, virgins could have sex.

        1. “Virgin” is an English word by the way. Originally “Virgo” in Latin. Then “virgine” in Old French. And then “virgin” in Middle English (and today’s English).

        2. “Virgin” is an English word, but it’s not a word that predates the introduction of Christianity to Britain.

        3. I haven’t done enough research to know whether there was once an even older word that was overtaken by the word virgin. But according to all of the sources I’ve seen, at some point in British history, the word “virgin” was once used to mean “a woman with control over herself.”

        4. BroadBlogs, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re just repeating ahistorical, anti-Semitic nonsense. Judaism didn’t “spawn” Christianity; Christianity appropriated and distorted Judaism and its sacred texts.

          And I assure you that Jews aren’t responsible for bringing patriarchy to Northern Europe.

          I also defy you to find a historical example of Jews stoning women for having sex outside marriage at any time in the last 2000+ years, or actually doling out any of the other punishments prescribed in Leviticus hundreds of years earlier.

          Finally: disagreeing with you does not make someone anti-feminist.

    3. I’m afraid you have the Christian history a bit wrong.

      The early Christians saw themselves as Jews, which is why they had a debate as to whether they needed to continue being kosher and circumcising adult men — the latter of which was dangerous, and so there was concern about doing it.

      It was finally agreed that since Jesus had come, they no longer needed to continue those laws. And that may be the point when they come see themselves as a new tradition.

      Plus, the Christian Bible contains the Hebrew Bible, and makes many references to it.

      So Judaism definitely spawned Christianity.

      It’s called the Judeo/Christian tradition, after all!

      That fact is not anti-Semitic. If anything, it’s the opposite.

      But someone who wrote a comment very similar to yours — maybe it was you — wrote something hateful on my blog.

      I edited that post because I will not post hateful things on my blog.

      But hateful perspectives do 2 things:

      1) Discredit the argument

      2) Strengthens my earlier suspicion that commenters who insist that something that empowers young women, and which has been researched by respected feminist scholars like Marilyn Frye, who offer evidence that virginity once meant “a woman who owned herself” could well be antifeminists — hoping to take the air out of an idea that is empowering to girls and women.

      1. Nonsense. Utter, complete nonsense. First of all, you are way, way out of line accusing me or Yonah of (a) sock puppeting, and (b) being anti-feminist. If you actually ever read this blog, instead of only using it as platform for self-promotion, you would know better. I have never posted on your blog and never will.

        So I think we need a giraffe here [Moderator note: Thank you for sending a giraffe alert.]. You don’t get to libel people just because you disagree with them.

        And your arrogance is incredible: the very act of disputing your questionable factual assertions is anti-feminist? It doesn’t matter if something is true, as long as it supposedly empowers young women? That’s not the kind of feminism I support.

        I wasn’t planning to address your etymological theories, but please. The word “virgin” first appears in English in 1200. It was used to mean either a virgin in the modern sense or a chaste woman, or to refer to the Virgin Mary. (By the way: it was also used as a term to refer to men.) Instead of citing vague secondary sources, please give one single actual example, in English primary sources, supporting your interpretation. (And if you’re shifting your claim now to be about some other hypothetical word in some other language that supposedly had the meaning you claim — well, that’s a whole different argument, isn’t it?)

        1. For the record, I’m the one who left the “hateful” comment BroadBlogs is referring to, though I dispute that my comment was in any way hateful.

          I can’t prove this, since she edited my comment (without my permission).

          My comment, like yours Donna, disputed her facts on Christianity arising from Judaism, objected to the use of the word “spawned,” and corrected her on the etymology of Virgin.

          I also disputed her claim about how peaceful European Christians were toward women — that may have been the part that she found hateful, I don’t know — but given the fact that Christians burned witches and raped Jewish women for centuries, I don’t think I was out of line there, either.

          Anyway, I wanted to clear up BroadBlogs claim about Donna being a sockpuppet.

        2. Thank you, Delagar. As I said in my comment below, apart from everything else, every time I see “spawned,” I think I’m about to read a discussion of salmon!

        3. Wait, European Christians, peaceful? Peaceful? To anybody? European Christians? Are you kidding me with this?

      2. And your arrogance is incredible: the very act of disputing your questionable factual assertions is anti-feminist? It doesn’t matter if something is true, as long as it supposedly empowers young women? That’s not the kind of feminism I support.

        I wasn’t planning to address your etymological theories, but please. The word “virgin” first appears in English in 1200. It was used to mean either a virgin in the modern sense or a chaste woman, or to refer to the Virgin Mary. (By the way: it was also used as a term to refer to men.) Instead of citing vague secondary sources, please give one single actual example, in English primary sources, supporting your interpretation. (And if you’re shifting your claim now to be about some other hypothetical word in some other language that supposedly had the meaning you claim — well, that’s a whole different argument, isn’t it?)

      3. As far as what I was specifically addressing is concerned, all you’re doing now is parroting what you already said in response to people disagreeing with you on your blog.

        The fact that early Christians (up to Paul) may have thought of themselves as Jews doesn’t make them Jews, or make Judaism responsible for the spread of patriarchy in Northern Europe.

        The fact that Christians call it the “Judeo-Christian” tradition — a term I and many other Jews despise, because it lumps us together with the religion that’s done everything it can to oppress and virtually exterminate us for about 1700 years (always preserving a remnant, of course, to bear witness to our rejection of Christ!) — hardly proves your point.

        And stop saying that Judaism “spawned” Christianity, like we’re talking about salmon! I’ll say it again: Christianity appropriated and completely rewrote and twisted the meaning of the Hebrew Bible in order to claim that it foretold Christianity, and support the doctrine of supersessionism. Do you even know what the “Old” in “Old Testament” means?

      5. OK, this is the first part of my comment. If this goes through, everything in moderation can stay there:

        First of all, you are way, way out of line accusing me or Yonah of (a) not being who we say we are, and (b) being anti-feminist. If you actually ever read this blog, instead of only using it as platform for self-promotion, you would know better. I have never posted on your blog and never will.

      6. You’re so full of shit I can smell it from here. Donna and Yonah are anti feminists huh…well, stop peddling your blog here since they’re regular commentors and pretty well respected here. Or, ya know, make a fucking post once in a while that actually contributes to this site instead of just linking to your own stuff every Sunday.

        Honestly, this just illustrates why I think people who promote themselves here should be required to contribute on occasion instead of just using this place as a link dump and leaving.

      7. Broadblogs, this is a moderator note to you. Accusing long-time commentors here of being anti-feminist just because they have challenged your assertions (since you offer no citations) is not a good look. If you want to keep posting here, you need to apologise for that cheap shot.

      8. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

        First of all, if you ever commented here, or even bothered to read any threads but the ones you self-promote on, you’d know that Donna and Yonah are two different, thoughtful, highly intelligent commenters who are well-versed in Jewish history, a subject regarding which you clearly know jackshit.

        Second of all, Christians use the term “Judeo-Christian” to obfuscate the fact that they have spent practically every year of Christianity’s existence attacking Jews. Fuck that. We are two very separate traditions, thanks.

        Third of all, are you completely ignorant of the Norse religion prior to Christianity? Are you actually trying to claim that Odin and Thor and that crew are happy matriarchs?

        Fourth of all, virgo, virginis, is a Latin word meaning “unmarried woman.” Not one of my many feminist medievalist friends has ever found any use of the word “virgin” in English to mean “woman who owned herself.” That is just nonsense. You may find nonsense empowering; I do not.

        Fifth, what a neat fucking trick. First gentiles spend thousands of years blaming us for killing their Christ; now one of them blames us for their Christianity. Fuck that, and fuck you.

Comments are currently closed.