separate spheres

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.

People talk about ballet!lock and rugby!John, as if the two were completely separate spheres. I’m sitting here thinking about John being sent to Sherlock’s ballet studio to work on his footwork during the offseason. Putting it in to practice at some point the next season, and Sherlock spotting the move and just burying his face in his hands as he blushes red as a turn-up.

John helping Sherlock as he weight-builds for tone so he can handle a certain difficult move, his rugby-captain’s hand on his hamstrings as he stretches it just so when he braces against the weight machine. Completely legitimate spotting, of course.

*coughs*

Last weeks notes and to-dos!
This set up is working pretty well for me right now, and keeping it separate from my bullet journal helps me keep work and other stuff in separate spheres in my head.
-A

sonneillonv  asked:

Hi! Congrats on getting your own blog! I have a space-navy situation where the navy is made up of several species working cooperatively to fight off a common enemy. One species has a much better manufacturing infrastructure so they build the short-range fighters, while the other species has much less regard for their own personal safety, so they pilot them. My question is, what kind of relationship do pilots and the techs and engineers who build/service their aircraft generally have? 1/2

tDo they tend to work closely together where the function and repair of the aircraft are concerned, or do they operate in separate spheres? When they’re off-duty, do they usually mix or keep to their own groups? Do they tend to stereotype one another any particular way? Where does their chain of command usually intersect, if it does at all? Thanks in advance! 2/2

In the Navy, there’s a pretty hard line between the maintainers and the pilots.  Usually, the “MO” or Maintenance Officer, is a pilot, and he serves as the liaison between the maintainers and those who fly their aircraft.  Some pilots might talk to their crew chief from time to time, but they won’t spend a lot of time together.

Aside from test pilots, no one out on the “pointy end” generally deals with the engineers who build the aircraft at all.  Most aircraft design and testing is actually done by civilian companies (defense contractors), so the service doesn’t get involved in their maintenance or testing until the civilian cooperation says they’re ready to go.  Then the Navy does its own testing, which is where you’d see some overlap between pilots (who are figuring out how to fly the thing), maintainers (who are figuring out how to fix the thing), and the engineers who built the thing.

Going back to the maintainer/pilot relationship.  Generally speaking, the only place their chains of command will intersect is the squadron level (or detachment, if it’s a few aircraft out on their own).  The MO will report to the squadron/det commander, which the pilots also do.

Thanks very much for the kind words, and good luck writing!

“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

If you think about it, the ace and aro spectrums are more of a venn diagram than two separate spheres. Yes, not all asexual people are aromantic, but some of us are.

Please don’t forget that.

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.

The idea of ‘separate spheres’ that developed in the early nineteenth century was part of a conservative backlash against the republican notions shaking Europe and America as the revolutionary eighteenth century closed. Separate spheres ideology used the biological differences between women and men to explain other emotional, spiritual, intellectual, and moral differences. Their separate but complementary roles were supposedly designated by God and nature. In fact, this was a value system carefully constructed to reflect the aspirations of an emerging middle class, to reinforce and stabilize its own identity as distinct from the 'decadent’ upper classes, and also from the 'great unwashed’ below. Home and family represented a strong moral base in the amoral, profit driven marketplace, an emotional ballast against the strains of the chaotic business world.
— 

Comacchio, Infinite Bonds of Family, 20.

What a lovely cynical view of the cult of domesticity and separate spheres.

  • Reasons Superheroes have Secret Identities: Protect their loved ons from enemies and fans; ensure a little peace and quiet in portions of their lives; keep the two spheres separate
  • Reason I have a Secret Identity: So no one can figure out that I'm [insert some tumblr stereotypes here] and, more importantly, unprofessional as all hell.