Newest Occupy Chicago Committee Protests Anti-Choice Bigots
This post is a part of the “What Democracy Looks Like” weekly column, which covers left-wing movements and activism. Formerly known as “The Active Left.”
On Saturday, January 28, the newly formed Occupy Chicago Gender Equity Committee held its first direct action in Oak Brook, Illinois.
The committee describes itself as follows, taken from the groups Facebook page:
The Occupy Chicago Gender Equity Committee demands full and open access to social services for all people. We recognize that issues of gender equality are inseparable from the long-running history of oppression of the working class and racial minorities. The fight for a truly democratic society cannot be achieved without the struggle for gender equity. We stand with all our brothers and sisters engaged in the fight for equality and ask all of you to join us in this: the fight for dignity, equality, and democracy.
After meeting up in downtown Chicago early Saturday morning, around 20 or so demonstrators made up of occupiers and members of other organizations, headed out to Oak Brook and braved the brutal cold to protest the annual Speak Out Illinois conference. SOIL is a right-wing, anti-choice event made up of over 30 pro-life organizations, politicians and activists.
Photo credit Brit Schulte
The protesters stood in front of the hotel were the conference was hosted. Some of the signs present read “Trust Women,” “Bigots Go Home,” “Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries,” and “Don’t Soil Yourself,” to name a few. After an hour or so of chanting, the occupiers decided to hold a rally and speak-out. Speakers talked about the need for women to be able to have safe and legal abortions and how laws that ban abortion not only fail to decrease the amount of them, they also put the lives of women in danger. Ryne P. of Join the Impact Chicago–an LGBTQ group–stressed the importance of solidarity. Other groups represented were DuPage County NOW, Coalition Against Corporate Higher Education and the International Socialist Organization.
As soon as the speak-out concluded, the activists decided to march around the outside of the hotel, partly to be seen by the anti-choicers inside and partly to stay warm. While marching, the demonstrators chanted “Same Struggle, Same Fight. All Unite for Women’s Rights,” Two, Four, Six, Eight. Abortion Rights in Every State,” and a few others.
Some of highlights of the rally and the march were captured in a video made by Corrie W. of the Gender Equity Committee.
One speaker, and member of the ISO, brought to light the fact that 2012 will continue to be struggle because 2011 brought a myriad of anti-choice attacks from several politicians. Some examples are attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, an Ohio stunt to test the heart-beat of a fetus–which would have put in order some serious restrictions to abortions, a failed Mississippi law that attempted to deem a fertilized egg a legal person and a Georgia Republican’s plot to criminalize miscarriages. Last year also brought laughable remarks from anti-choice right-wingers such as when Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl said the “Not intended to be factual” statement that over 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s business came from providing abortions and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s insane statement that women were frequently getting abortions after shopping solely because of a Planned Parenthood near by a shopping mall.
The right-wing attacks prompted a re-birth to the women’s rights movement which saw mass city-wide demonstrations via the Walk For Choice campaigns around the country. Of course 2011 also brought the popular Slut Walk, which fought back against rape culture world wide.
Along with the draconian attempts to restrict abortion and the weird laws that would redefine rape, the right-wing attacks also put in danger basic female and male health services by demanding the aforementioned cuts to Planned Parenthood and other health providers.
Hopefully this year brings not only strong attempts to defend a woman’s right to choose, but also develops into an offensive feminist movement in the struggle for free abortion on demand and for the end of rape culture.
Is Intervention in Syria On Its Way?
Due to the current crisis in Syria, with the Syrian military fighting rebels and the alleged gunning down of civilians by the Al-Assad regime, many are wondering if a US-NATO intervention is likely. It seems that now, with a recent UN draft resolution being bough to light, an intervention may very well occur.
Just two days ago, the American magazine Foreign Policyreceived a copy of a UN draft resolution which calls for the Al-Assad regime to comply with its demands in 15 days or “additional measures” will be adopted “in consultation with the League of Arab States.” [1]
The resolution itself calls on the Syrian government to do such things as “allow full and unhindered access and movement” for all Arab and international media. However, this request is quite strange as just this past December, an Arab League mission was sent to Syria to investigate and found “nothing frightening.” Yet it seems that this was not satisfying to the Arab League and they are pushing for another inquiry.
The resolution also demands that the Syrian government “cease all violence and protect its population” and “withdraw all Syrian military and security forces from cities and towns, and return them to their original home barracks.” However, such an action could allow for the Syrian rebels to retake those towns and cities and to organize and regroup, thus forming a much more organized and cohesive resistance against the Syrian government than is seen currently. This is quite plausible as the rebels are being back by the West. According Philip Giraldi, a former CIA analyst, the Syrian rebels are being given weapons that are transported via “unmarked NATO airplanes,” that “volunteers from the Libyan National Transitional Council” are being brought in to aid the rebels and that “French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.” [2]
It must be noted that the Arab League members are all US client states and that as such this resolution plays into the hands of the US and its European allies, who want to intervene in Syria. Turkey also plays a role in this, as not only are they a base of support for the Syrian rebels, but “Ankara’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davitoglu, has openly admitted that his country is prepared to invade as soon as there is agreement among the Western allies to do so.” [3] (emphasis added) The passing of this resolution could potentially allow for an agreement among the US-NATO alliance to be reached, thus allowing for a Turkish invasion of Syria.
An intervention into Syria is quite important in America’s war plans for Iran. A top US aide recently stated that “The toppling of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime would serve a serious blow to Iran and would serve to further isolate the Islamic Republic” and that the overthrow of the Syrian government was “inevitable.” [4] The toppling of the Syrian government would mean that Iran would be surrounded by countries that are US allies or partners, thus making it much easier to carry out Washington’s invasion as they would not have to concern themselves with the possibility of outside resistance coming into Iran.
It seems that intervention into Syria is only a matter of time.
Endnotes
1: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/120127_syria-res-jan27.pdf
2: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/nato-vs-syria/
3: Ibid
4: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-aide-end-of-assad-regime-will-serve-severe-blow-to-iran-1.397144
No Chivalry, Thanks!
This post is a part of the “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.
Those of us who openly identify as feminist must be prepared to encounter misconceptions and stereotypes. The “f-word” has been unfortunately dragged through the mud in an attempt to break the strength our message has. In this spirit, I’d like to take a moment to focus on a specific realm of anti-feminism: chivalry. The two biggest criticisms I see thrown at feminists regarding chivalry fall into two camps:
- The “cake and eat it too” complaint: This anti-feminist argument says that women want to be independent and strong when it’s convenient for them, but they don’t want to lose the option for men to buy them dinner, open doors, and all around make them feel special. We want all the rights afforded to men, but that we also want to be treated better than men. Feminists want special, not equal, treatment, on in other words, they want their cake and to eat it too.
- The “feminists hate manners!” complaint: Other anti-feminists have chosen to smack-talk feminism by claiming that any stance which truly speaks out against chivlary is actually an affront to good manners. (At this point I was going to link to a “men’s rights” group–which was actually an anti-woman group–and quote them. However, they way they offhandedly referred to women bitches made me realize, I have no interest in contributing anything to their page views, even if it would substantiate my claims.)
I’d like to dismantle these complaints. I, of course, cannot speak for all of “feminism” as a monolith, because no such truly unified theory exists. However, I can speak to my perspective on these issues.
The core of my disdain for chivalry is that it’s rooted in a gendered premise. Its very notion is that women need special assistance and wooing, which I flat out disagree with. Given this, I can say fully that I do not want or expect chivalry. In that way, the “cake and eat it too” complaint is nonsense to me. I do not want any person to look at me and treat me differently based off of my gender, even if that treatment is favorable. The same goes for stereotypes of all sorts–just because something is “nice” (ie Asians are so smart!) doesn’t make it any less racist. So with chivalry, just because it’s “friendly,” doesn’t’ make it any less sexist.
The second complaint (feminists hate manners!) is equally nonsensical to me. There is a big difference between behaving in a generally polite and respectful manner to your fellow human being and chivalry, which is rooted in that gendered premise. I’d like to use the opening-a-door-for-someone example to illustrate the differences as I see them.
Scenario 1, opening a door for someone to be polite: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. The person who gets to the door first opens it for both of them. They both enter. Versus, scenario 2, opening a door for someone as chivalry: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. Despite the woman being closer to the door, the man reaches out in front of her to open it for her. She enters, he follows. And scenario 3, again opening a door for someone as chivalry: Two people, a man and a woman, approach a door. The woman is closer to the door so she opens it for both of them. The man will not enter, but instead grabs the door and says “No. After you,” waiting for the woman to enter.
In these cases, I’m saying that scenario 1 is fine. Scenario one is polite and displays manners and supports a kind, respectful society. Scenario one has no gender charge. However, scenarios 2 and 3 are sexist (and sometimes annoying.) I have scenario 3 happen to me regularly and it is just weird. I mean, I try to do something polite for another person and we end up having to go through some production of him eventually taking control of the door. I think that’s one thing that really gets me about chivalry; it’s manifested in a way which reinforces male control of the situation. He’s driving the actions and the woman is passive–receiving his gestures and being coddled or protected.
I know that talking about door holding at length seems nitpicky and meaningless, but these small examples are tied to bigger issues. As Jill said at Feministe several years ago in a very detailed account of chivalry,
There’s a difference between being chivalrous and being nice or polite. Opening a door for someone because you got to the door first is both nice and polite; making a huge production of opening a door for a woman in the hopes that she’ll see what a chivalrous dude you are and fuck you (and then getting all pissy when she doesn’t respond how you want her to) is not polite or nice. And that’s the thing with chivalry: It always demands something in return. If you’re being nice to me because you like me and you’re the kind of person who is nice to people you like, then that’s great. If you’re being nice to me because you’re hoping to get something out of it, or if you think you’re entitled to sex or a relationship with me because you were nice and “chivalrous,” you can go fuck yourself. See how that works?
She’s brought up a great point. Often chivalry is founded on a quid pro quo/entitlement mentality, which carries expectations that were not welcomed by the woman involved. That’s a huge problem which further illustrates both the gendered nature and differentiates it from pure politeness (which doesn’t demand something in return.)
One last thing I would like to make clear is that asking for the end of chivalry is not the same thing as ending romance. In my view, healthy romantic relationships are reciprocal and equal in nature. Both parties should make loving gestures for the other, and that’s great! Most of us want to be treated romantically by a significant other, but why should the favorable treatment only flow in in one direction? There is great happiness that can be achieved by giving. A traditionally chivalrous situation would result in a female partner who would be robbed of the joy of making gestures for her male partner. (It would also rest on the premise that the woman is lesser and deserving of protection, which puts things at an unequal balance from the start.) I advocate for relationships which don’t rest on predetermined roles and allow each person to express their feelings naturally and individualistically. Besides–there are clearly many relationships which do not contain one man and one woman, and they are equally valid and romantic.
All in all, I simply feel that chivalry and feminism are inherently incompatible. I would never expect to be treated both equally and special. That’s an oxymoron. In fact, I’m not entirely sure that there are women who actually are advocating for both. Yes, some women want chivalry, but I would suspect they do not typically identify as feminists. To me, it seems a to be a straw man situation, as is the claim that feminists are really attacking manners. Nevertheless, it is important for us to understand the arguments used against our viewpoints, no matter how trivial.
But seriously friends, if I impart nothing else, let it be this: just hold a door for someone when you can. And when it makes sense to have the door held for you, walk through it.
Rahm Makes Protesting Illegal in Chicago
This post is a part of the “What Democracy Looks Like” weekly column, which covers left-wing movements and activism. Formerly known as “The Active Left.”
Protesting is now illegal in Chicago, Ill. Well maybe not illegal, but pretty damn close it.
In a 45-4 decision–with one abstention–the Chicago City Counsel voted on Wednesday, Jan. 18 for a Parade Ordinance crafted by Mayor Rahm Emanuel to stiffen protest laws for the NATO/G8 summit to be held in Chicago in May. The law has occasionally been referred to as the “Sit Down, Shut Up Law.”
Photo by Brit Schulte
Occupy Chicago among other groups, showed up to City Hall Wednesday morning to protest the vote. The activists chanted “We vote no” to let the Mayor and all the Aldermen present in the vote know that the people were against this ordinance.
After being told that there was not enough room in the office for the demonstrators, the protesters very loudly chanted, “Let us in.” So loud in fact, that the chants could reportedly be clearly heard from other floors in the building. Soon after that, security had no choice but to allow a handful of people to go in.
Protesters outside of the office were informed about the result of the vote and chanted the Wisconsin-inspired, “Shame!” After attempting a mic-check, the representatives of Occupy Chicago were escorted out of the office.
Once the vote took place, Occupy Chicago held an impromptu General Assembly inside of City Hall in order to assess the vote, debrief people recently showing up and to talk about next steps going forward.
Events were also held the prior day including a press conference by Occupy Chicago, Coalition Against Nato/G8 (CANG8) and others at City Hall–which I recommend for everyone to watch–as well as a mock funeral for the Bill of Rights held at Occupy Chicago Head Quarters. The latter was also held in order to protest the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act.
Soon after the Parade Ordinance was passed on Wednesday afternoon, so-called “progressive” Aldermen Joe Moore and Joe Moreno respectively released explanations for voting for the ordinances.
Moore’s statement praised Emanuel for his proposal and he even went on to say, “Unfortunately, the debate over the Mayor’s proposals too often has been marked by overheated rhetoric and over-the-top hyperbole.” Moore had previously butted heads with Occupy Chicago when voted for Emanuel’s ridiculously anti-99 percent budget in late 2011, which lead to him being mic-checked the same day as Emanuel. I wrote a post about it back in November.
Moreno posted a column in the Huffington Post defending his vote. In it, Moreno basically stated that the over 2,000 people that contacted him asking to vote no on Wednesday did not know what they were talking about. Moreno also managed to defend the summit itself and stated how good it was for Chicago to be hosting in it. Soon after the column went up, Pink Scare later released this great post about Moreno.
For anyone that is not familiar with the ordinance, Andy Thayer posted on Huffington Post some of the key parts of it:
* Virtually every street protest in the downtown would be designated a “large parade” requiring $1 million liability insurance and for organizers to “agree to reimburse the city for any damage to the public way or to city property arising out of or caused by the parade”;
* Large parade or not, organizers would be required to provide the city with “a description of any recording equipment, sound amplification equipment, banners, signs, or other attention-getting devices to be used in connection with the parade” at least a week in advance of the march;
* Every contingent in the march and the order in which they would appear would have to be registered at least a week in advance with the City; and,
* Demonstration organizers would be required to have one marshal for every 100 participants.
* Under a wholly new section of the municipal code (10-8-334), even gatherings on sidewalks, with no presence in the streets, would now be subject to demands that they get permits, giving the City extraordinary latitude to dictate what union and other pickets occur or get shut down by police action.
What makes the law even worse is the fact that even Emanuel himself confessed that the new protest law would be a permanent one that would come in effect 10 days after being voted on.
Now a lot of people expected Chicago to turn into a police state for the week of the NATO/G8 summit once it was announced, however what they didn’t see coming was the fact that Emanuel would go into “Emperor Rahmilus mode” and turn Chicago into a city were a picket line would never be legal again.
It’s somewhat obvious that Emanuel had to expect for the NATO/G8 summit to attract massive protests, however after months of struggle with various labor groups and unions, as well as the emergence of Occupy Chicago, he must have felt the need to implement such an outright violation of civil liberties to feel truly prepared for the conference.
No one really knows for sure how far Emanuel will go in enforcing these laws, however what is known is that Occupy Chicago–among others–will still be on the streets come May and beyond.
To truly understand what the outrage is with this conference being held in the United States, one has to have a good idea of what NATO and the G8 are. In short, NATO is the personification of imperialism while the G8 represent the One Percent’s economy. For more information on these two entities visit the website of the afore-mentioned CANG8.
UPDATE 1-20-12: Here’s video footage of Wednesday’s event at City Hall released by Occupy Chicago.
Paula Deen, Shame, and Concern Trolling
This post is a part of the “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.
Hey y’all! Guess what! Paula Deen has diabetes.
Paula Deen, from The Huffington Post
In general, it makes me upset when this type of story makes the news. I’m not super concerned about people’s personal health issues–I feel they are just that: personal. I think that an argument can be made that the timing of Deen’s announcement is suspicious if her apparent partnership with a drug company proves to be true. And perhaps she is unethically marketing and branding her diabetes for profit. However, I’m not here to make those cases. In fact, I don’t even want to delve into the particulars of Ms. Deen’s disease. But I would like to use this as an opportunity to examine how we discuss when people in general, and fat women in specific, encounter a health issue.
To frame this discussion, I’d like to open with a tweet from Melissa McEwan. She said:
It might be worth considering that Paula Deen didn’t disclose having diabetes b/c fat ppl who disclose “fat diseases” are viciously mock[ed].
Think about that for a moment. I have a feeling that any fat person can probably relate to this sentiment. If you are larger than what is considered a “normal” body weight, anything connected to your food consumption carries stigma in the public sphere. You begin to worry that you’ll be judged for eating cake at a friend’s birthday party or taking the elevator instead of the stairs, even when your thinner cohorts engage in those very things without a thought. Similarly, if you actually do encounter any health issues, you are blamed for them (under the idea that all fat people are unhealthy.) This blame can take the form of our right mocking and fat shaming, as McEwan said. I did a quick Twitter search of “Paula Deen” to see what is being said. Here’s a sampling of some Tweets I found:
- “Everybody has something to say about Paula Deen. So she has diabetus, big deal. Breaking news: Fat people get fat people diseases.”
- “Paula Deen ate herself sick with all that fatty food.”
- “Paula Deen is a 64 year-old woman that eats loads of sugar and fat; it’s sort of impressive she only got diabetes recently.”
- “paula deen is so gross.”
- “The first thing I see on tv today is Paula Deen’s gross face. Ugh. Wish someone would throw a ham at her again.”
- “Paula Deen is a disgusting pig, so no wonder she turns her years of harming others into a business venture.”
These Tweets fit into two camps, the first being that Deen got diabetes because she is fat, the second being that she is so gross. As for the first point, I’ve written numerous times about how someone’s size is not a sole predictor of their health status. (If you care to read more on that subject, you can here or here.) Furthermore, Deen’s personal eating habits are not public knowledge. While she does obviously profit off of comfort foods and caloric indulgences, there’s no actual evidence that she eats those dishes on a regular basis. Do we assume that Rachael Ray eats only 30 minute meals?
But the other type of Tweet here (the “she is so gross” variety) makes it clearly evident that McEwan is right. A consequence of Deen’s sharing is mockery. Buzzfeed is even showcasing 25 reasons why they’re “not surprised” she has diabetes. All of it just comes across as, “HAHA NASTY, FAT LADY. You got what your gluttonous ass deserves!”
This type of fat shaming is explicit. However, there are actually much more covert ways that people, like Deen, are shamed in these instances, and it comes in the form of concern trolling. As according to the Geek Feminism Wiki, a concern troll is “a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has some concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause. In reality they are a critic.”
Concern trolls love fat people! They always show up to throw in the assertion that they’re just “worried” about someone’s health in order to justify stereotypical beliefs about fat people or to make fat shaming comments. (For a great read with more information on the topic, check out Sleepydumpling’s recent post on the difference between genuine concern and concern trolling.) Concern trolling is the type of mentality that is behind the controversial ads in Georgia which proclaim to be for healthy kids, but really just bully fat children.
However, it’s obvious that it’s important to create a culture which promotes health. To that end, I agree with Renee Martin over at Womanist Musings when she said:
I further believe that lecturing people about what they consume, either through choice or necessity, does not actually solve a damn thing. The appropriate method is to ensure that healthy options are available and to educate people about the food they consume. There is also the fact that even people who are aware and would choose healthier options don’t have the time to cook. This issue is so much more complex than Paula Deen and all of this shame and finger pointing does nothing to create a positive change.
(Emphasis mine.)
Listen, there are important discussions to be had about childhood health, proper nutrition, public health policy, and ethical eating. However, we are not going to get anywhere by continuing the discourse on health in a manner which shames fat people. We’ve been trying that for years, and where has it taken us?
Crazy Cat Ladies and Man’s Best Friend
This post is a part of the “Out of the Kitchen” weekly column in which various news and pop culture items will be examined through a feminist lens.
My cats, being generally standoffish to me.
So I have been long considering this topic, and I just decided to bite the bullet and pull together something about it. I think it’s one of those gender discussions that everyone can see on a surface level, but I might lose some of you with just how much I’ve considered this point.
My central thesis is this: There are a plethora of sexist assumptions we make about pet ownership, specifically related to cats and dogs. And it’s ridiculous.
Let me start with dogs. As I referenced in my title, one of the most popular phrases we associate with dogs is “man’s best friend.” Dogs are often associated with traits we ascribe to stereotypical masculinity: loyalty, bravery, rough-and-tumble play in the dirt, and an easy-going nature.
Cats on the other hand are frequently grouped with women, and sadly to a negative end. “Crazy cat lady” has become a trope. Cats are associated with stereotypical femininity: deceitfulness, cleanliness, moodiness, snobbery, and yes, even to an extent, sexiness. I think that perhaps no other figure better illustrates this point that Catwoman.
These ideas are so deep in our culture that much more frequently than not, cats are portrayed as girls and dogs are portrayed as boys. Think about Homeward Bound or The Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat. This message is so strong that many of us actually used to believe as children that all cats are girls and all dogs are boys.
It’s kind of amazing that the human desire to categories things is so strong that we’ve actually projected our culturally created notions of gender onto whole other species. But just as stereotypes hurt real humans, stereotypes projected onto animals has had negative implications for them as well. I’ll get back to that in a moment.
A stock Halloween picture of a witch. Oh and look who's there with her!
First, some groundwork. When I visited Salem, Massachusetts a few years ago, I toured The Salem Witch Museum and found it absolutely fascinating, from a feminist perspective. I had no idea that the history of witches actually evolved from the “descendants of the Celtic midwife, looking to the earth mother for healing and for spirituality.” Performing the important, although exclusively female task of child delivery, these midwives became so powerful in early civilizations that the patriarchal power structures began to fear them. The male leaders then decided to associate these midwives with evil, thereby laying the foundation for the fear of witches which culminated in 1692 and the stereotype of the witch we see represented in Halloween images.
There, I also learned that the cultural mix between felines, femininity, and fear had disastrous consequences for both women and cats. Cats have long been seen as mystical. They were labeled as “familiars” for witches (which are said to be helpers from the Devil.) According to “The Magic Paw:”
Out of all the possible familiars (cats, dogs, toads, bats, and even horses) cats got the worst publicity. Pope Gregory IX denounced black cats as Satanic in his 1233 Papal Bull ‘Vox in Rama’ and this launched the extermination of many cats, and subsequently thousands of cats were burned alive in the cause of searching out the devil. Tales of these witches’ cats turning into mice, dogs, bats and all sorts of creatures flourished during the Middle Ages.
This same destruction occurred in the early foundations of the United States during the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Not only were nineteen women put to death, but many cats were also killed due to the fear of them.*
In contemporary times, there is still a connection between femininity and cats with negative connotations. As I already mentioned above, we have the “crazy cat lady” trope. But as further example, discussions about whether or not “real” men own cats still comes up. It is also very popular to disparage cats in general, at least in my anecdotal experience as a cat owner. All too often, I hear people readily say, “I don’t like cats” and frequently this claim comes with an explanation about them being “evil.” I’m just not hearing the same kind of emotion surrounding dogs, even though many more people suffer severe injuries due to dogs than cats. Basically, even though our Puritanical roots are in many ways long behind us, these thoughts still linger.
At the end of the day, I think that the projection of our gender roles onto dogs and cats is entirely foolish. Sure, people have pet preferences, but why must those be connected to gender? Even though I am a cat owner, I also like dogs and I see no real reason that women should be more closely associated with cats and men with dogs. It’s more just about what you personally like in a pet. And maybe consider dropping the cat trash talk. If they’re not for you, that’s fine. Oh! And even though it defies the “dogs are for boys” stereotype, I’ll never understand women carrying tiny pooches in their handbags. I mean, come on.
————————————————————————————————-
*It should be noted, five men were also put to death but the root of the trials was deeply related to women. As Yevette Lessard says of Puritan society in early America,
The place of the woman was traditional, but unique. Not only were they expected to work in the home, care for children, and be submissive, they were also seen as entirely inferior. Most importantly, they were seen as inherently sinful and morally inferior, easily suspected of wrongdoing and promiscuity. While women in the time period typically had little power or rights and were expected to be submissive, Puritan ideology dictated that women could not so much as be active in the church, as they were too sinful.
…
In addition, European gender roles shaped notions of witchcraft, which in turn shaped the setting for the witch hunts. The witch’s tools were domestic: brooms, herbs, poppets (dolls), cauldrons and other things for cooking and cleaning.
Recent Comments