A Women's Blog-o-rama
My Friend Wess Daniels, a young man I think of as one of the up and coming Q thinkers in the Q continuum opened a five gallon bucket of worms this morning, by raising the issue of "modesty."
The particular usage of modesty is not the same as humility, which is a virtue, or decency, meaning common human kindness. The particular use of modesty is "the covering of girls/women so as not to provoke lust in boys/men."
It will surprise no regular readers of this blog that this is a topic that I find I can get real riled up about. Over first coffee this morning I decided not to respond fully on Wess' blog for fear that I would use up my year's ration of Capitol Letters and exclamation points.
By the time I got back to the computer this afternoon Wess had received many salient and thoughtful comments that covered many points that I would have made.
But not all of them.
Not By a long stretch.
So as the Wizard said to Dorothy - "you have forced me to a cataclysmic decision!" (well, not so much forced, but certainly inspired).
So for Wess, and especially for "L", and for Gregg's daughters, and the child my firstborn is carrying, I am going to launch a "Women's Blogorama." I am going to post daily until I run out of steam on the topic of Women's empowerment, oppression, invincibility, "modesty and other co-dependent scams" and every other rant and revelation that the Spirit supplies.
I start with a fresh "So There I was" and repost some of my previous columns and add some random stuff, and nail a few theses to a few doors, and anything else that occurs to me.
Because the attitude displayed by the Blogger Annie that Wess Quotes, is one of the very best examples I have seen lately of what mother Margaret correctly called a Silly Poor Gospel.
So start by reading Wess's post and comments, and then fasten your seat belt and come on back here.
And By all means, all you bloggers, join the Blog-o-rama for Women and post your own experiences with nonsense, oppression and empowerment.
Wess sent me here and I'm glad he did. I'll be looking forward to your Blog-o-rama. I may blog along with you as I've already begun a little bit on women earlier this week and have been thinking about the ways in which we (culturally) use and abuse power.
I also recommend Jenell Paris's current series of cacklings (her word) about patriarchy.
Hoo BOY! Is this a question that needs airing! This will be very interesting. I hope you will be going into the aspects of the relationships between men and women and how they are strangely distorted in our culture, as the impulse to attraction that is often a first step in relationship, and how that "attractiveness" can turn into the shallow basis for a whole relationship. I'm also thinking of a woman I knew who in no way met current standards of attractiveness, but was totally sure of her sexuality within her marriage. I also have to wonder about perceived differences in attraction between men and women.
I'm pretty ignorant, and I don't mind being emphatically corrected, so look for more comments.
In His Love,
Conversation on the way to school:
Me: Remember Peggy Parsons?
Me: She blogged last night, about something somebody else wrote about women dressing modestly. Something fired her up, so she's going to blog everyday for awhile about women's empowerment. She said one of the reasons she's doing it is for my girls.
Talli: That's cool!
Me: Yeah, I thought it was cool she specifically mentioned you, so I wrote that I would promise to talk about them with you.
Talli: That's amazing she remembers us! I was like, 6 when she stayed with us in Boise.
I am joining "A Women's Blog-o-rama" in my own blog, www.walkingthesea.blogspot.com. I look forward to interacting with your posts here!
Thank you for showing me that. I left this comment on that blog:Post a Comment
"I got as far as this quote:
"–there is a female feature we call breasts. they can also be referred to as “boobies,” or “the twins,” or “the rack,” or “jugs,” so on, so forth."
and wanted to gag and vomit.
I would recommend you use some modesty yourself - and that means not disrespecting women and their bodies by quoting totally thoughtless sources.
I work at a breast cancer organization. THESE ARE OUR BODIES! They would exist whether they are covered up or completely uncovered. Yes, perhaps to men - who, may I remind you, hopefully one day be capable of NOT diminishing a woman's worth by reducing her to her “boobies,” or “the twins,” or “the rack,” or “jugs” as you so aptly quote."
Links to this post: