Are weird pseudo-fash history-fetishists more or less common in academia? I used to be into euro history, but the number of creepy nationalists kinda scared me off
nah, in my experience neoliberal empire apologists like Niall Ferguson or forelock tugging Monarchy fetishists like David Starkey are about as far right as you get in History departments generally, I think because the pseudo-fash position relies on pseudo history that doesn’t stand up to any kind of peer review. One thing about History as a discipline is that even reactionary historians tend to conform to pretty high methodological standards, and come down harshly on colleagues who don’t do the same. Once they’ve marked out their own little piece of academic turf they tend to care more about protecting it and taking down anyone with an opposing interpretation than any kind of wider political motivation.
It’s good in the sense that straight up manipulation of the archival data is extremely rare, but it has had negative consequences, for example the first wave of Feminist history was dismissed wholesale by many establishment historians who were able to find a few unsupported or weak claims about say, the witch hunts, and then use that to dismiss the whole project. The upshot is that today’s feminist historians have to be extra rigorous in their research because they know they’re going to be meticulously fact checked by a bunch of pompous old gits who’d love nothing more than to declare them incompetent.
In general terms though, I think it’s fair to say that the right wing has quite quite conclusively lost the majority of its favourite arguments within History as a discipline. Unfortunately however, that doesn’t seem to stop them getting plum jobs expounding a load of rubbish on BBC television
Seeing that you reblogged her book, what are your thoughts on the latest controversy regarding Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie?
I feel like what Roxane Gay said on this matter is on point. What Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie said was bad, and it’s crucial that feminism include all women. However, her statements don’t negate her entire body of work. We Should All Be Feminists is an excellent piece of writing, and it’s quasi impossible to find feminist works written by writers who are not at least slightly problematic. If we negated everything ever written by feminists who’ve said problematic things, then we’d end up with VERY little. Feminists the main stream loves? Virginia Woolf? Nope. Gloria Steinem? Nooooope. Eve Ensler? Ugh. Lena Dunham? Excuse me while I lay down on the floor and laugh. The entire first and second waves of feminist literature would need to be burned and many third wave feminists would need to be ignored. What we need to do instead is learn from mistakes and evolve. Pick the good out of everyone’s different feminisms, critique the bad, and collectively grow.
Hey I have a question about wicca, I read something you wrote that was along the lines of "if someone says wicca is an old religion they have no idea what they are talking about"- I've always thought wicca was an old religion, mainly based on what I have read, however what you said has made me question it more and I want to know what you mean?? If it isn't old, is it a fairly modern religion? -confusion-
No problem :) I’m not going to explain everything about Gardner because it would take too long, but i’ll explain as much as I can. I should say that different people learn about this history from different sources, so what I have learned may differ slightly from what someone else has. There is so much to talk about on this subject that I really have to skim over the history, so sorry for not going too in depth.
Wicca is about 60 years old. It was created by a man called Gerald Gardner in the 1950s.
Around 1911 Gardner moved to Malaya and worked as a civil servant. While there he learned much of the native peoples and ended up writing a book on their magic. In 1936 he retired and wrote a book called A Goddess Arrives, and moved to England. He spent the next few years between London, Palestine and Cyprus but that isn’t really important. He joined several occults groups and societies with open beliefs. He joined the Rosicrucian Order Crotona Fellowship, an occult group (Which were full of frauds, Gardner eventually found this out), and through them met the New Forest Coven and was initiated in 1939. There he learned about a hidden world, the secret life of witchcraft which had gone hidden and forgotten. The coven claimed it was a reformed version of a pre Christian witch coven but this is likely untrue, as they too subscribed heavily to the Margaret Murray** theory.
Gardner combined what he learned at this coven, what he learned from the natives and what he learned from being an avid fan of Margaret Murray** as well as other cultures and religions he may have pulled from.
Gardner moved to London in 1945. It was here he fully finished creating Wicca, with help from writings of Crowley. (I should note that Crowley is not the most reliable name in the occult world. He’s actually pretty crazy and there is plenty of proof why. But interesting to study) Following the repeal of the Witchcraft act he wrote three books on Wicca. This is when Wicca really started to take off. He wrote several books on Wicca in this time. He formed the Bricket Wood Coven in 1946.
In 1954, Gardner released the book Witchcraft Today. Things really started to take off around here. He got huge press attention, which would eventually start to cost him friends. They thought that him being so public would lead the path astray. At some point Gardner introduced the Wiccan Laws to his coven. One of which allowing the High Priest to ask the High Priestess to retire when she became too old. Many of the coven members and High Priestess Doreen Valiente, who was fundamental in helping Garder write much of Wicca, were disgusted and left.
A man called Raymond Buckland introduced Wicca to the US in 1964. He became Gardners official American spokesperson on Wicca.
Gardner’s friends often grew on to become huge names in the Witchcraft and Pagan community. Also, there were people after his time that helped Wicca grow even further. And there are those not connected to him, but who became popular in the same era. I heavily suggest reading more on;
(Not saying I agree with their views, but it’s good research.)
**Gardner was heavily inspired by a woman called Margaret Murray, a renowned Egyptologist. She was the first woman ever to publicly unwrap a mummy in an expedition in 1908. She was a extremely well educated first wave feminist, a member of the Woman’s Social and Political Union and spent a lot of time improving life for female students at the Uni she worked in. During World War 1 she was unable to return to Egypt so focused her attention on pre Christian witchcraft. She had a very popular theory that the witch trials were an attempt to squash out a pre Christian pagan religion that was shared by all of Europe, in which everyone worshiped the Horned God. She also wrote several books on fairies and folklore. The universal pagan religion theory was proven wrong fairly quickly, but it did influence Gardner very much while he was creating Wicca.
Why do feminists have to lie about the stuff they go through? If the patriarchy really did exist then there really wouldn’t be a need to lie or blatantly make up stuff or rape cases and hate crimes just to further a cause. The truth would be obvious, everywhere. If an oppressive state exists then it wouldn’t be something one would have to be convinced exists. It would be like a black guy during the height of slavery only realising he’s oppressed when he’s auctioned off. It would be like a Jew only realising he’s oppressed when he’s about to be shoved into an oven in Nazi Germany at its height. The oppression would be apparent. No one would need convincing.
If there was a patriarchy in the west (a system where women are at a constant disadvantage), we women wouldn’t be like “oh yeah, I didn’t realise”. It would be like women in largely Muslim countries only just realising they’re oppressed when they’re stoned for adultery and forced to say at home unless accompanied by a man. The fact that women can thrive in our society proves that we do not live in a society where men are put above all else. In fact, it’s more obvious that we live in a gynocracy since society is catered for the benefit of women: education system from childhood to university, work quotas, television shows (women hosts would never be kicked off if they were talking sexist shit about men), courts especially when it comes to rape charges and child custody hearings, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, the wage gap being blindly believed, the fact that male rape is not officially considered a thing by my own government (for more on that, there is a post on the blog going into more detail).
There is no patriarchy. Only gynocracy.
This post above is also quite insulting to women - are you really this stupid to believe that she left the dorm to get dinner in under 10 minutes? Bullshit.
Should we be freeing out nipples, or should we stop the sexualisation of womans bodies? Is the word ‘Feminism’ inclusive enough for males? Feminism is a complex idea, and while we’re arguing over what it should represent, we’ve been steered away from recognizing the core problems causing such inequality.
I just want to ask because I saw someone post a photo the other day that women don't need feminism because women aren't victims and I'll ask you a similar question that I asked her. What about the women who have never had a good experience with a man? I know not all men and not all women but there are some men and some women. I'm not trying to start a fight so if you don't want to answer that's perfectly fine or if you want to talk privately that's also fine. I am just curious.
I really don’t think those two things correlate honestly. Women who have had bad expierences with men all their lives only latch onto (third wave) feminism for a “men are evil” rhetoric. It may be a way to cope but its not a good one. I think feminists who align more with first/second wave feminist ideals could help those women through their hardships and give them proper support but unfortunately, the best voices tend to be the softest.
I can’t stop thinking about Rebecca’s comment that SU is really ‘about intersectional feminism’ because when you look at the core Elder Crystal Gems they’re so representative of different feminist experiences
like I’ve said before that Pearl is a suffragette. She came from complete disenfranchisement, from being desired for beauty and devalued domestic labor and nothing else. There’s a lot she isn’t really awake to; her views of experiences outside her own can be a bit dim, and her view of her own autonomy is muddled in ideals of worthiness and black-and-white thinking (many of the first-wave feminists were strict moralists; they saw the connection between violence against women and vulnerabilities such as addiction and mental illness but didn’t have the social-science frameworks to interpret that connection, which led to their advocacy of prohibition and other conservative stances). Pearl represents an era of feminism that was limited in viewpoint and had a lot of growing to do, but made STAGGERING strides–nineteenth- and early twentieth-century feminists took the world from ‘mainstream debate over whether women have souls’ to women owning property, entering the professional world, and participating in governance in just a few short decades. This is entirely separate from her -personal- journey, which mirrors a traditionally-socialized woman’s journey to confidence as well.
Garnet introduces concepts associated with late twentieth-century feminism, including the early LGBTQ+ rights movement–who she loves, how she loves, and how she chooses to present and identify run up against a series of interconnected taboos in her culture, and in her own gentle, understated, forward-looking way, she works to overturn and deconstruct those taboos (although she’ll also physically fight against them when that proves necessary). She believes in, practices, and preaches a philosophy of radical self-acceptance, and there’s a sense that that’s partially to combat the hatred and revulsion her society has for who she is. Another big part of her character is being burdened by both the past and the future, and I feel like that aligns her with the post-baby-boom “sandwich generation,” the second-wave women who deal with misunderstandings from the hashtag problematic foremothers who helped show them the way but don’t know their lives (an aspect, though not the only aspect, of Pearl and Garnet’s conflict) and worry about the next generation (will they forget the struggle they’re now two generations removed from?)
Amethyst is a lot like my own gen-X-to-millennial generation of feminism–she grew up on earth, in a world where the dust has settled, where a degree of safety, independence, and opportunity is afforded to her and that’s just how the world is (which can sometimes cause her to be insensitive about the struggle that created that world– “I wish I could’ve been there’ and the like). She still feels–and is still hurt by–the reverberations of the violence her older teammates fought against, as much as they try to protect her. But she also is still learning the history that led to the life she knows. In addition to that, she has her own struggles, her own identity, which she is trying to distinguish from theirs; trying to step out of their shadow and look toward the future, what she’s going to do with the freedom they strove so long to give her. She’s also the most unguarded and exuberant of them, and although that’s partly just her born personality, I think it’s also partly because of the environment she came from. She absorbs and battles insecurities that her teammates’ traumas planted, but I also think that Pearl and Garnet can look at her and see their victory, and love her all the more for it.
Women who are against feminism just blow my mind. Like, “No, I’d rather not have any say in what kind of job I can get, who gets voted into office, nor how much money I can earn. Also, I don’t care about being abused or basic civil rights.” Have you actually look at the Women Against Feminism confessions? Most WAF are grateful for First Wave Feminists for giving them freedom, they are just against THIRD Wave Feminists (who are mostly whiners who care about their egos rather then real equality).
Would you care to elaborate on how third wave feminism caters mostly to whiny ego-feeders? Per your recommendation, I have looked at a few articles on the WAF website and it sounds like their biggest issue is either the label or with self-proclaimed feminists who just hate men and aren’t about equality. Every wave has boiled down to this: “Feminism aims for gender equality within a currently patriarchal society.”
There’s a difference between rejecting extremes and rejecting the core of a movement. “Feminism sux” means either: you don’t think the genders should be equal, or you think they’re already equal. And saying you’re against it means you also find no merit in its successes. If you enjoy the benefits of a movement you don’t get to say that it’s harmful. At best, you could say that it’s become harmful, doesn’t work anymore, or has changed for the worst.
Feel free to come off anon and send me a private message if you wanna discuss this. I’ll try to be passionate without being mean.
I hate it when feminists say that anti feminist women or women who disagree with third wave feminism owe them for the right to vote and have equal pay and things like that.
First of all, third wave feminists did not do that. Therefore, any women who disagree with your views on feminism DON’T OWE YOU ANYTHING.
If they owe anyone anything, it would be the first and second wave feminists, strong women who worked hard for equal rights and fought for what they believed in.
They don’t owe anything to a group that turned a good, even still useful movement into an over sensitive man hating cult. While it’s not as needed as it once was, there’s still things third wave feminists could be working towards and trying to improve, yet a good majority of them would rather go around limiting freedom of speech and complaining about fictional characters.
There are many awesome, reasonable feminists, yet their movement has been ruined by misandrist crybabies. I’ve seen a lot of talk by feminists saying you should support a woman’s decisions and views, and that’s true, but it includes women who aren’t feminists.
So, just remember, next time you wanna say a woman owes you for being allowed to vote and be paid the same as a man, don’t do it. Don’t say that. No one owes you anything.
I hate to sound like an asshole (who I’m I kidding this is Tumblr somebody is bound to miss the point of my posts and attack me with ad hominems) but please stop trying to pretend that feminism helps men.
Feminism is a toxic ideology that has no place in the first world. Third wave feminists care more about their feelings than they do about women’s rights. Look at the bullshit going on in Saudi Arabia, you don’t see third wave feminists talking about the crap that women go through there and why? Because it doesn’t effect them!
You’re right, FIRST WAVE feminists did. Before that women weren’t able to vote, and were often seen as property, and yes, that was awful. First Wave feminists fought for our basic rights, and second wave feminists gave us rights in the workplace. They put themselves in danger to get us these rights, and you know what? THEY GOT WOMEN EQUAL RIGHTS
And now you’re shitting all over them and the work they did by acting as if women are still oppressed. Newsflash, we’re not! Stop acting like women are weak and appreciate what we have, because we have a lot in the western world. I feel pretty confident in saying that if first wave feminists could see the way that modern feminists act, they would be pretty disgusted. And so am I.
Margaret Murray (1864-1963) was an English historian, archaeologist
and anthropologist, who worked for University College London and became the
first female lecturer in archaeology in the United Kingdom. She was a renowned
authority in Egyptology, and participated in many important expeditions and
discoveries in the field.
In addition to her
historical and academic work, she was closely involved with the first-wave
feminist movement. She joined the Women’s Social and Political Union,
participated in movements and protests, and campaigned to improve the status of
women in the academic world. She was the President of the Folklore Society from
1953 to 1955.