I’ve posted about this before, but when I looked up St. Cecilia (my confirmation saint) as an adult, I was like, “WTF?! I would pick the one saint who got married and still didn’t get laid.” So for a while St. Cecilia and I went through a rough patch, but over time I began to appreciate the virgin martyrs. It’s not like girls in that age chose to get married… so Cecilia was like, “Whatever, you can make me get married, but you can’t make me have sex with him.” Respect.
On All Saints day I posted a picture of a few virgin martyrs, and someone reblogged it saying something about how we should “pray to them for purity/chastity.” I was like really? Really?!? These girls were tortured for their commitment to their vocation and the best we can come up with is ~purity and not say… courage, fortitude, strength, etc.?
But about your last part… I don’t really think it’s a question of “turning away from sex” vs. “turning away from dehumanizing social role.” I think it was simply turning towards Christ, and in that sense I don’t think what they did was much different than the male celibates except that it was even more subversive and required more courage to do. I don’t think you’re saying this, but I don’t like when people sort of reduce the virgin martyrs’ motivations to wanting a “get out of marriage free card” (first of all, it certainly wasn’t free with the torture, rape etc).
I keep meaning to do a little illustration of the virgin martyrs with the words “No gods*. No masters. No boyfriends.”
The bolded is my main take-away from this, because I’m shallow, and I love this. I would put it on a t-shirt.
But I think you’re right. Turning towards Christ and towards what Christ wanted for them was the goal, and I don’t think we should or have to water down their faith to honor that a young celibate woman from a good family was doing something a lot more dangerous than a young man would be doing because sex-marriage-babies was her duty to the state and to her father. And so, unlike a young man, she’s saying something extra about choosing Jesus over “the world” .
Queued for east coast readers….
Seriously though, considering how “feminists” talk about Taylor Swift (see above; also see Sady “CAPSLOCK” Doyle et al) why would she want to claim the label or feel comfortable doing so? Plus you know if she DID call herself feminist she’d get lectured about how dare she ciswhiteheterogirl coopt the bla bla something bla tumblr derp blah.
Oh Jezebel. TSwift is such the poster child for Jezebel et al’s , “everything you do is feminist unless I decide you aren’t cool enough to be feminist” crap. Well, if you’re Rihanna you can maybe be feminist as a counterpart to Taylor Swift…today…and then Jezebel will go right back to flinging feces at Rihanna next week.
But why I am wasting words arguing with the people who employee Hugo Schwyzer to tell us all what feminism is? Tay’s going to go lounge in her Hampton’s beach house, counting her money with her floppy eared cat and her teenage Kennedy boyfriend, and all Jezebel will ever be is mean, a liar, and pathetic.
Hating porn is not a hill I personally choose to die on.
Defending women who hate porn is a hill I will die on.
No matter how you personally feel about pornography and prostitution, an attack on anti-porn women is an attack on all women. For serious. No (or very little) hyperbole
When leftist dudes or radical queer dudes get their knickers in a twist over the evils of anti-porn women, it means they’ve drawn a line in the sand. They’ll support feminism as long as it doesn’t threaten their personal sexual satisfaction Cross that line and you’re an oppressor. Leftist dudes love the idea of fucking a “liberated” women; they hate the idea that a liberated woman might not want to fuck them.
why don’t we have education positive feminism, access to health care positive feminism, the resources to feed and house yourself and your children positive feminism. and don’t tell me feminism is all these things because middle claas cupcake sex positive feminism is classist as fuck
sexual satisfaction is way down on the list of peoples needs and feminists never shut up about it
What I think is a goddamn bummer about how “sex positive feminism” or “feminist sex positivity” has degenerated over the past 20 years is that the writers/thinkers who I think of as very foundational to the sex positive feminist frame were very much focused on class: I’m thinking of Dorothy Allison, Les Feinberg, Nomy Lamm, who all focused on class way more than they focused on sexuality and framed their writings on sexuality through the lens of being working class. Les Feinberg is a hardcore, vanguard Communist and whether or not you’re down with that, you can’t ignore that as a huge part of hir philosopies . Even Audre Lorde, who is sort of pre-sex positive but whose writings on the erotic clearly influenced sex positive feminist, wrote more about race, class and her identity as a lesbian than she did about sex.
I guess this says less about feminism then about capitalism and what’s marketable and how feminism has a class problem in general. If you write a book about how feminism is all about fun and heterosexuality it’s more likely to get published and you’re more likely to get positive attention. And then it just gets more and more watered down
commentator on a catholic news site, arguing that men are to always be leaders of everything
It’s not that porn lovers don’t know that rape is an inevitable consequence of continuing the porn industry. They just accept it as an operating cost.
The prevalence of rape has actually decreased since porn has become easier for adults and adolescents to access. There is also no known correlation between porn and sexual assault, despite what the feminists-as-fascists believe.
You’re just reiterating the same nonsense spewed by the media back in the 90’s and early 2000’s. Porn causes rape in the same way that violent video games cause school shootings.
Since you’re only presenting one variable here and don’t seem to understand that correlation doesn’t imply causation, I’m going to propose an alternate theory:
The release and wide-spread availability of Star Wars and its sequels has led to a marked decrease in instances of rape in the United States.
I’m just so, so creeped out by the implication that access to porn, like, allows rapists a safe “outlet” or helps them with their urges or any argument that in any way implies that men choose porn over rape. Which, let’s get real, even though dude says “there’s no correlation”, he’s implying that porn is a good thing because it helps men with their sexual urges, etc etc. And it’s a common argument that dude’s make about porn and prostitution.
I could never put my exact finger on why until I read Snowdropexplodes story about how he tried to rape and murder a woman but stopped at the last minute….and then, in that story, insisted that access to fake snuff porn kept him from murder. It jus tmade me shudder.
Let me repeat that, working. class. women.
Not all women’s rights. Not feminism.
Working. Class. Women.
While the message falls under feminism, it caters to a specific group of women.
Please remember that that next you decied to dress up like her.
Or make art work incorporating her image.
hmmm…I don’t think that’s an accurate thing to say. The image wasn’t created to be inspiring to working class women (or women at all), it was created to be patriotic and inspiring wrt to the war effort. It’s also kind of ahistorical to think of women who worked in defense industries as across the board, “working class”, since women of all class backgrounds took defense industry jobs and, of course, all those women lost those jobs after the war.
I can see the argument that Rosie the Riveter currently represents a working class woman, sort of but I think that arguments a little shaky considering the jobs typically held by working class women these days.
But it’s just not true that she “represented working class women”. Using her as a feminist symbol of any kind is already a re-interpretation of the image.