Chances that's Lisa Frank herself dancing in the bear costume?
I have been! Twice. It's my favorite place on earth. It's home.
@iceberg There's lots about Burning Man that's totally awful. You're not wrong. But it all really pales in comparison with the sheer beauty and drama of the experience. Those photos don't even quite capture it.
Ah! I'm getting all teary in a lecture right now! Didn't get to go this year, but those photos really transported me. Thanks for posting.
I'm not sure how you have all the same thoughts as me. It's kind of unsettling.
You are a much better writer though. Thanks for this :)
@Quinn A@twitter Yeah, I was taught to do it to avoid splinters, and I only do it until they feel smooth and splinter-free. And I never do it if they're durable lacquered ones or plastic or something.
Sounds like Emma never got the memo. I hope you aren't swallowing splinters, dear!
@I'm Right on Top of that, Rose Yeah, that's the line I walk with Catholicism. Part of me is just done, excepting the longshot of them ordaining women within my lifetime. And then part of me is like, "No! This is my church too! I can't let them keep it to their bigoted selves, that means they win!"
Although in the last few years, I've been finding a lot of spiritual growth in a few different pagan practices, and the more research I do on that, the more roads lead me back to the church. There are SO many traditions that have been kept alive by attributing it to some saint, or by grandmothers sneakily passing on old wisdom to their own daughters and granddaughters. Subverting the sanctioned hierarchy has actually been a part of church life for as long as it's existed. I'm toying with the idea that if I construe "Catholic church" pretty broadly, subverting it is an age-old practice of it. It's actually brought me back closer to the church than I've been in years.
@TheBourneApproximation Agreed. My mind is boggled. I mostly don't read his writing anymore. The shit he said in the interview this links to is staggeringly stupid.
@queenofbithynia Interesting. I assumed from their tone when they said "like racism hurts white people," and "like classism hurts the wealthy," that they were sarcastically dismissing all three examples as ridiculous. But you make a good point.
I thought about that before posting, and I honestly believed at first that the damage patriarchy does to men is more directly harmful than what racism does to white people and what classism does to wealthy people. I'm still working this out as I'm writing, and I'm going to try my best with flawed vocabulary, so bear with me....
But I think that there's some very significant sense in which all humans, male and female, cis and trans, exhibit a complex mix of traits understood widely as "masculine" and "feminine." Like, men are not all "masculine" and women are not all "feminine," and we all exhibit all of these behaviors. Which is why gender norms are so hurtful - because they require us to choose between denying parts of ourselves or being shamed and/or ostracized by the culture. But I don't think that, for example, white people are denied any opportunity to express some "POCness" by racism, or wealthy people are denied the ability to express their "poorness." You know? Both of those prospects sound ridiculous to me. Race and class are cultural differences, and they come from cultural context, not from the sheer fact of being human. Whereas all humans exhibit things that the patriarchy calls both "feminine" and "masculine," and they were doing things from both sets of characteristics before there was any patriarchy to put them in boxes and make lots of rules about them. So I think that yes, racism hurts everyone, and so does classism. I guess I think that "patriarchy," broadly defined, encompasses racism and classism too. Which is the same thing they referred to when they mentioned Capitalist Hellworld.
Honestly, I'm rambling now, and I'm afraid I lost track of the initial thing I was trying to reply to. But anyway, you raise a good perspective that I didn't see at first. I still think the gender thing is fundamentally different from race and class (which are also fundamentally different from each other), but it still needs a lot of clarifying in my head. Thanks for that, though, very stimulating!
@stonefruit and @polka dots vs stripes I think you have both missed the thrust of my post: I'm not defending him or what he says. I'm really not. I think he fails in pretty much every way at being a feminist.
I'm commenting on the tone that the writers of this post used when discussing the idea that patriarchy hurts men. They dismissed it as ridiculous. Which I think belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the patriarchy. The patriarchy hurts everyone. Shaming men for being sensitive (regardless of who they are) is the major force keeping men from expressing their sensitivity openly.
I really don't give a shit about Hugo Schwyzer. He seems like a dick with a lot of personal shit to work out, and none of it is my business or my concern. @stonefruit, I agree did read the interview, and I agree with you that he needs to engage with women's anger to be a feminist successfully. Absolutely! And @polka dots vs stripes, I absolutely agree that he shuts women out of the discourses on feminism that he participates in. Which is a very obvious way in which he reinforces the structure of patriarchy every time he tries to denounce it. He's oblivious to it, and it's hurtful to the people he engages with - or refuses to engage with. Absolutely agreed.
But I really DO give a shit about the way The Hairpin talks about feminism and the patriarchy. And they dropped the ball here.