men's sphere

Since the election, I’ve read a number of posts and articles implicating white feminists in Trump’s victory: claiming that ultimately, white women voted for their race above their gender. Huge numbers of white women did, indeed, support Trump. Feminism absolutely must be intersectional. But what all of these posts ignore, neglect, or perhaps are simply unaware of is another fact: that a huge percentage of those white women who voted for Trump are Evangelicals, and they voted for Trump not because they are “white feminists,” but because they do not identify as feminists at all.

A number of mainstream Evangelical denominations actively oppose feminism. They oppose it because it confronts the rigid structure of women inhabiting separate spheres from men, being literally created for different physical and spiritual purposes from men. Evangelical women are taught that inhabiting these roles eliminates the need for feminism–that feminism is actually a counterfeit of true femininity as designed by God and depicted in the Bible. Feminism is counter to God and therefore sinful. Feminism is the F-word.

The white female demographic absolutely was key in getting Trump elected. But simply calling out white feminism misses a huge part of the issue. Evangelical women don’t value their race above all else. They value their religion–a religion that teaches that the value of women is–if not less than male worth–somehow categorically different. When it comes to feminism vs. faith, faith wins every time. It has to, because the consequences are eternal.

As a former Evangelical, I cannot even begin to describe what it’s like to deprogram from a lifetime within that belief system, to make the shift from anti-feminism to feminism. It is a long, hard process, and this election has opened my eyes as never before how deeply internalized the misogyny of Evangelicalism is. And how much compassion we need to have as we confront these differences.

As dark as the winter, as black as her grim mask of death.
As cold as her sorrow, her ivory tears.
No corridors of life and beauty,
No bloodred sky, no colors left in this world.

It was the light’s end.

2

So I’ve gotten back into OFF again, but rather than just play it, I wanted to dig into the lore of it. In other words, I want to know what kind of world OFF really is. And there’s so much the wikis actually have on this.

Since I was doing some photo editing anyway, I desired to edit these two(actually 9) images to see what the hell the faded text said.

There’s sill a lot more to this game, and most of it’s found in the game’s dialog, such as the puzzle in Shachihata which has super vague descriptions of Bearded men on Spheres, Five fingered smoke breathers, and a giant insect.

And I know the tag’s still alive, so to anyone out there, I’d like some help understanding some of following the content:

[this image is somewhat unreadable to me, but I’m sure someone can make sense of it]

[I’m 70% sure this is written in french. I’m not familiar with it.]

I feel like these two images might add more to the lore of the game… or they might just be gibberish. If there’s more info to be found, I’d love to know more. 

In Soviet society women enjoy full equality with men in every sphere of government, economic, cultural and other public activity.

There were, in all, 600 women engineers in Russia before the October Revolution, but by 1951 the U.S.S.R. had more than 380,000 women engineers and technicians.

Last year there were also more than a million women teachers working in the public education system. There were more than a million women employed in hospitals, clinics and other health institutions. Of these, 207,000 were doctors.

Professional women with a higher education now number more than 830,000. In 1951 over a million women were studying at higher or specialised secondary educational establishments. Many scientific research institutes, higher educational establishments, large factories, State and collective farms, schools and hospitals are headed by women. Some 60,000 women are employed on scientific research work in universities , institutes and research institutions.

The list of the finest representatives of the Soviet countryside, the foremost farming experts who have been awarded the title of Hero of Socialist Labour for obtaining high crop yields and high livestock productivity, had by the beginning of this year included the names of 2,170 women. 

Over 600 women have won Stalin Prizes for distinguished scientific work, inventions or for outstanding contributions to literature or art. 

Soviet women take an active part in governing the country. In the elections of March 1950,280 women were elected deputies to the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet; and in the February 1951 elections, 2,209 women were elected deputies to the Supreme Soviets of the Union and Autonomous Republics.

More than half a million women are deputies to local Soviets

—  How many women engineers and technicians, scientists and statesmen are there in the U.S.S.R.?, The USSR: 100 Questions Answered (1952)
“Manly,” which in the eighteenth century was primarily used to mean the opposite of the boyish or childish, was in the Victorian age increasingly employed as the antonym of the feminine or effeminate. The nineteenth-century bourgeoisie were so concerned that the “naturally” different genders of men and women not be confused that they demarcated as sharply as possible the lines splitting the female from the male world; the home from the workplace, the private from the public. Seen in this context, the bourgeoisie’s stress on the virile nature of work and labor can more easily be understood. Middle-class propagandists such as Cobden and Bright declared that to take the idle aristocrat, fop, or roué as a male role model was a thing of the past. Manliness was now demonstrated by one’s industry and competence not by chance. Following the argument of the natural separation of the spheres, men worked and women did not - or at least not outside of the home. Trade unionists in turn defended the notion of the male “bread-winner” wage on the grounds that only it would allow working-class men the income required to keep their women folk at home.
—  Angus McLaren, The Trials of Masculinity
When you say children aren’t welcome, you make me and many other women feel unwelcome too.

Sexual politics in the nineteenth century was dominated by the notion of “separate spheres”. Men occupied the public sphere where they dominated business, politics, and economics. Women, bound by their roles as wives and mothers, were consigned to the private sphere of the home. The only power they were permitted to wield was through raising good sons who would go on to become responsible citizens.

One of the main reasons for women’s invisibility from the public sphere had to do with society’s collective anxiety about children. The presence of children, who are by nature disruptive and boisterous, clashed with the Victorian ideal of respectability.

Indeed when early feminists were strategising on ways to increase women’s visibility, the installation of women-only public restrooms big enough to cater to babies and children’s needs was key to making women feel like they could leave the confines of the home.

There was a recognition that cementing women’s place in the public sphere had to go hand-in-hand with a more accepting attitude towards the presence of children.

So it is unfortunate to see a version of this old respectability politics rearing its head again, especially when it is coming from a fellow radical feminist.

When you use language that suggests children are unwelcome in certain public spaces, you by extension make their primary carers – usually women – feel that the public sphere is a hostile place for them to be in.

All mothers know how piercing the glares and audible sighs from strangers are when we’re doing our best to calm an overtired baby on a train. Or worse, the unwelcome bits of “advice” dished out to us in a disapproving tone when we’re flustered and feeling vulnerable. 

Most of us mums have decided at one point or another that it’s just easier to stay home than deal with the myriad ways the outside world overlooks our needs, from pram-inaccessible trams to a lack of parents’ rooms. The fact that there seems to be a growing chorus for us to publicly apologise for our children just being themselves just feels like another way to make the many women who are mothers feel we aren’t really permitted to access the same spaces as everyone else.

If we want to increase women’s power and visibility in society, we must acknowledge their interconnected relationship with children, and make both feel just as entitled to a public presence.

unless you’re a roman empress in late antiquity who is ruling in place of your brother and have sworn a vow of virginity in order to prevent any men from entering his sphere of influence and elevate yourself to and extraordinary level in the church

then anyone else’s opinion of your sexual activity really shouldn’t matter to you.

you do you.