Philobiblon

Welcome! to the first Carnival of Feminists. In this show there are no captive animals or “freak” displays, but plenty of passion, lots of fun, and more than the odd bit of juggling of life.

Since there’s no sexism here, I’m going to begin the carnival with a post by a man, Bora, aka Coturnix, on Science and Politics. He attended ConvergeSouth and here reports on a session on blog hierarchies, which got into that inevitable “where are the women bloggers” question. The temperature rose, fast.

And while I’m on gatherings of bloggers, I have to include a post setting out plans for next year’s BlogHerCon, on Surfette.

Gold-star polemic

But if that’s all a bit moderate and reasonable for you, I’m going to proceed quickly to the gold-star “get into ’em and tear ’em to pieces” section, where no punch is pulled. Those carrying twin copies of the “I’m easily offended” gene, you’ve been warned.

Feministe deconstructs the life plan of a “single Christian girl”, who’s realised “what a silly mistake her autonomy was”. Kameron on Brutal Women, meanwhile, gets into the real meaning of advice to women to think about babies today.

I Blame the Patriarchy is not letting some adversity get her down in “Die Barbie”, about a new wardrobe, for adults. (Really! I mean who would?!) In the “other commercial matters” category, Green Fairy reports on a new service, marketed to men, that sends flowers to your girlfriend, so you don’t have to remember her birthday.

Jessica on Feministing, meanwhile, notes how encouraging girls to study science and math(s), and to develop leadership skills, has got a company labelled “pro-abortion and pro-lesbian”.

Personal Political – in a post not suitable for rabbit-lovers – notes how one word in what is supposed to be a news story (not an opinion piece) is there to denigrate a feminist and her theory. Still on the media, Nella on Feminist Rage tackles a one-sided article about how women are leaving it ‘too late’ to have a family’.

Political politics

In the world of traditional politics,
Antonia of Antonia’s Blog had the misfortune to have to attend the (British) Conservative Party annual conference, where she tried to find a place for social policy between the DD T-shirt wearers. (That’s for David Davis, one of the contenders for the leadership, for those who missed the excitement but note the clever double entendre). It’s the first feminist wrap-up I’ve seen, and a very solid one it is too.

Also on British politics, Emma on Gender Geek explains what’s wrong with the law on women trafficked into prostitution.

I’ve deliberately restricted the number of US Supreme Court posts, for fear of them taking over, but I’ll let Bitch PhD set out the case for why its composition matters, particularly for women, and particularly for pregnant women. Then Pseudo-Adrienne on Alas, a Blog, sets out the feminist case against Harriet Miers, while Amanda on Pandagon suggests the Right can’t trust any woman it can’t ruin.

Then, proving that feminists can be critical even of their icons, What Do I Know? describes her disillusionment with Judith Miller. And Moorish Girl explains why a female advocate of a Moroccan republic shouldn’t be held up as an human rights advocate. (The sort of republic she wants is an Islamic one.)

On the positive side, Luighsearch on Feminist Forum sets out the good news from Norway. Also, Miss Mabrouk of Egypt reports on a scheme helping poor women in Cairo and Black Looks reports on a campaign for women’s rights across Africa.

Personal politics

Heading into the “personal is political” category, Ms B. on Volsunga asks: If we were truly equal to men, considered by men to be worthy partners, would it matter if we had hairy legs?

Carla on Pre-emptive Karma is tackling the difficult issue of how to prepare children for relatives with restrictive belief systems. Growup_blowaway on Feminist Rage, meanwhile, tells the tale of a boy who at age five has all “girly” things torn away from him. On the same site, Conuly asks why all the toddler girls she sees are dressed in pink?

Deepa on Teashop on the Moon wonders if the limitations applied to girls in the books of Enid Blyton should disqualify them for modern readers?

Still in the wardrobe department, Vanessa on Feministing asks if breasts can really replace CD racks? The Countess, meanwhile, wonders about men who can only deal with relationships with plastic dolls, and Emmy on Gender Geek confronts the popular stereotypes about male sexuality.

Getting more serious, Noli Irritare Leones looks at the issues around possible childhood vaccination against the virus that causes cervical cancer. I can only hope common sense here, after hearing a debate, on Radio 4!, in which a woman was arguing that this shouldn’t happen, because it would encourage girls to have sex!

Earmarks in Early Modern Culture looks at an advertisement by a Dutch insurance company designed, so it said, to promote men’s involvement in childcare. The Dad got to go abseiling, the mother to wear an apron. How does that work again? she asks.

Office politics

On 11D, a plea to allow tears in the workplace. (I sympathise – I cry when I’m angry, not when I’m sad. I’ve often been angry at work.)

Scribblingwoman reports on the case of a female editor sacked from an “alternative” magazine for putting a breast on the cover. It seems the fact that a baby was attached, and the associated article was trying to reduce hang-ups about breast-feeding, was no explanation.

Then in the computer world, Jill/txt wonders why the component, and the game centre, are called “mother”?

Political philosophy

On Mind the Gap, Winter Woods asks the vital question how do we counter anti-feminist rhetoric? Still on a philosophical bent, on Wee Hours, TW sets out why feminism matters, but individualism does too.

Biting Beaver, in her Den, has a close encounter with the spirit of Andrea Dworkin. Didn’t Hillary do something similar, and doesn’t this mean Biting Beaver is now in line for the US presidency?

Hugo Schwyzer – yep, another bloke – offers “a Caffeinated Musing on Christianity and Feminism”. Morgaine, on The Goddess, meanwhile, sets out in historical terms the damage Christianity has inflicted on women.

On A View From A Broad, an explanation of why arming women wouldn’t deal with the problem of rape. In a related post, Sour Duck claims the right for feminists to be angry, even on their blogs.

Remembering politics

Regular readers of my blog will know that one of my favourite questions is: why do women seem to keep disappearing from history? But many bloggers are doing their part to recover forgotten women and ensure those in the public eye stay there.

On Clews: The True Crime Blog, Laura writes about an essay by Celia Laighton Thaxter (1835-1894), “in her lifetime one of the most famous women poets”. Yet a famous factual essay she wrote has come to be labelled “fiction”, and is mined by other writers.

Pinko Feminist Hellcat, meanwhile, looks back to the Iceland women’s strike of 1974. And it could be about to happen again!

Then, using the host’s right of one link, I’ll point to my post on Hille Feyken, a 15-year-old who came up with her own plan to save the embattled Anabaptist stronghold of Munster in 1534 and carried it out with considerable elan. She was betrayed, however, and met her death with the same fervent courage.

And since Sharon on Early Modern Notes was my first blogging mentor, I’m going to bend the rules for her to go back to the delightful tale of the upper-class female highwaywoman.

Finally, and a fine note to finish on, Uma on Indian Writing records awards honouring social activists, including a seven-year-old girl campaigning against child marriage.

So that’s it, the carnival is over, until next time – which will be on Personal Political in two weeks’ time – that’s November 2 – email susoz.au (at) gmail (dot) com. (And any time you want to know what is happening with the carnival, check the home page. I’m particularly looking for an American blogger to host the edition of November 16 – any volunteers? After that maybe India or Africa or the Middle East?)

Thanks very much to all who sent nominations and to those who spread the word.

I’ve done my best to get writers’ names, blog names and posts’ intentions correct. If I’ve failed, please email and I’ll fix it as soon as possible.

And if you don’t think you should be here at all, perhaps you’re one of those people who say: “I’m not a feminist but …” The news is, YOU ARE!

(The Carnival is listed on the Truth Laid Bear ubercarnival. You can find other carnivals at The Blog Carnival.)

I need your nomination (of your own or others’ posts) for the inaugural Carnival of Feminists, which will go up here in the early hours of Wednesday morning (British time). That means the deadline is tonight!

There’s more about the carnival here.

I’m defining “feminist” broadly – posts need not be explicitly political, but there should be some sense in a post addressing women’s place in the world. Posts should also be more than a collection of links, and include substantial original content.

Drop a note in the comments here, or email me at natalieben (at) gmail (dot) com.

Thanks!

I’ve studied both with “standard age” undergraduate and post-graduate students and with “mature-age” ones, and know which group as a whole I prefer to work with. One of the wonderful things about our current age is the push towards life-long learning.

Perhaps the most dedicated student I’ve ever known was a woman of 60-odd. She’d left school at 11 (!) because her mother needed help with the younger kids, but she read all of her own kids’ university textbooks with more enthusiasm than they did and, when they’d all finished, she was finally persuaded to try herself. She was lacking in confidence, but absolutely dedicated and very quick to grasp new concepts.

So I enjoyed the story in today’s Guardian about the 96-year-old master’s student. (It’s his second masters – he thinks a PhD is a bit much to take on.)

Also in today’s Guardian, a piece by George Monbiot on why you shouldn’t eat Brazilian beef – it is eating the Amazon.

And in the Independent, the man who made himself famous, in the Andy Warhol sense, with an advert on eBay.

Completing the round-up, in The Times Libby Purves writes about the wonderful founder of the Kids Company.

Since I’m in Wales, might as well go back to a couple more centuries, to 1655, and the case of a “Gower ghost”, which I learnt about at an IHR seminar.

Except ghost is not quite the right word, since the haunting was by the spirit of a living man, Henry Bowen, husband of the target of the apparition, Catherine, so it should be called, I learnt, a spectre.

He had been a colonel in Cromwell’s New Model Army, but was becoming increasingly extreme in his religion, heading towards antinomianism, and, it seems, having effectively left Catherine and moved to County Cork in Ireland, while she lived in a very isolated house at Llanrhidian, in what seems to have been a largely female household. (The place is pronounced nothing like it looks – my phonetic attempt was “Flanellen” – but I’m probably very bad at hearing Welsh.)

An account of the haunting was not printed until 1691, in the last of the 135 (!) books of Richard Baxter, a text designed to prove the “certainty of the world of spirits”.

The paper was mostly concerned with the complicated religious politics and politics politics around the case, but I of course found the gender aspects fascinating. Sadly no account by Catherine survives – only two independent clerical male accounts.

They indicate that over several nights the spectre of Henry did all of the usual “ghostly” things, but going even further “manhandled” the women present – leaving bruises (but did not get into full stream when male ministers were present) and tried to get Catherine into bed with it. (A Freudian might make something of this.)

I’m rather tempted, however, to see it as a neat way to finally rid yourself of an unwanted husband. (I asked and was told they never lived together again.)

I could find nothing of the story on the net; an account was apparently written by the novelist Elizabeth Bowen in 1942 (Bowen’s Court), but this, based on family tradition, was dismissed as of little value.

In the British Library this afternoon, reading A History of Fox-hunting in the Wynnstay County: From this Beginning of this Century to the End of the Season of 1884-5, “printed for private circulation only“:

The Sporting magazine of 1800 lists all of the packs of foxhounds in England. “Beside these there were other packs that hunted the fox, though unknown beyond their own district, probably trencher-fed, good hunting hounds, though possibly not very fast, nevertheless showing a great deal of sport to Squires and Yeomen in their drab breeches and very brown top boots, which were duly taken down from their accustomed hook on the ‘house place’ ceiling when they were wanted to be worn in the chase.” (p15, original itals)

Explaining “trencher-fed proved easy: “hounds which are kept privately, then brought together on hunt days to form a pack”.

I assume the “very” brown boots refers to farmyard muck? And the breeches didn’t have the attentions of a gentleman’s “man” and a squad of laundrymaids to get them white?

As a contrast there is at the front of the book an elegant picture of Louisa Alexandria, Lady Williams Wynn, in a very tight riding outfit (although of course a skirt for riding sidesaddle), whip in hand, with her arm thrown casually around a favourite dog, which is sitting on what looks like a hall table. She is, I think, if I’ve got all of the geneology right, the wife of Miss Frances Williams Wynn’s brother’s son.

I get the feeling Miss Frances was not, however, the huntin’ and fishin’ sort – perhaps that’s why she didn’t get married. More research will hopefully shed more light on this.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the Chinese space programme, which has just delivered two astronauts safely back to earth:

The newspaper Beijing News said Nie and Fei would undergo 40 minutes of medical check-ups after landing. “After several days of flying in space, the astronauts may look wan and sallow, so medical staff will put make-up on them to make them look ruddy,” the newspaper said.

On a serious note, statistics in a piece on an American soup kitchen from the Guardian:

According to the US census bureau, poverty has been on the rise for the past four years, despite a robust economy. The number of people living in poverty increased last year to 12.7% of the population, some 37m people, the highest percentage in the developed world. Since Mr Bush took office an additional 5.4m have slipped below the poverty line. In 1970, the rate was 11.1%. Almost 8% of white people are classified as below the poverty line and almost 25% of African Americans.

The Guardian has also found that British American Tobacco has a secret factory in North Korea. Not that it really makes the involvement of Ken Clarke, former health secretary and Tory leadership candidate, any worse than it was already.