Did someone go slumming again? Where are they coming from?
Here, where she shows us the REAL reason men don’t want women drafted.
Or here, we see that her main problem with Christianity is that it proves only a “man” could save humanity, not a woman.
Oh, and this one is good too!
And of course, this one here. See, I don’t NEED a site! “It’s been established.”
I have yet to see you, ClawsofCatt, post in any other threads, and post about any other subject. Hmmmm…
It’ll be amusing to see if she joins the One Trick Pony Chowder and Marching Band Society or whatever Fenris calls it.
For what it’s worth, Starhawk is a pretty good representation of modern Wicca. If you ever want to know anything about the principles or practice of Wiccans in the modern day, you could do a lot worse than to read a Starhawk book. Her books are laced with a lot of heavy-handed feminist themes and is also a good example of what a friend of mine used to call “froo-froo” new age belief, but she’s a skillful writer nonetheless. Better than most who try to write about Wicca these days, anyway (which isn’t necessarily saying much).
However, a historian she ain’t. Though I don’t recall a specific claim that Joan of Arc was Wiccan in The Spiral Dance, it’s quite possible that she made an allusion to it. I probably laughed it off and purged it from memory.
Anyone who would base a historical claim on something read in a book by Starhawk (this means you, ClawsofCatt) is missing a few fish in the aquarium, if you know what I mean… :wally
I’ve held that a lot of what is really dubious in her books as history is more being presented as mythology, or even mythopoiesis (creation of mythology). Much in the same way as the Bible is a dubious historical source but an excellent mythopoietic one, I get the sense that a lot of Starhawk is written (or at least, best read) in the same vein.
A lot of Neo-Pagans get in trouble when others accuse them of distorting the original religions that their practice is based on, or of claiming historical linkage that isn’t there. (As if the historical foundation of what is admittedly a myth was crucial!) What’s important is what those myths can teach us, not their foundation in historical fact.
“But when we forget that the signs are arbitrary groupings of stars, and start believing that there are large lions, scorpions, and crabs in the sky, we are in trouble. The value of magical metaphors is that through them we identify ourselves and connect with larger forces; we partake of the elements, the cosmic process, the movement of the stars.” - The Spiral Dance
Perhaps this works better in her fiction. I loved The Fifth Sacred Thing, which is not only presented as fiction but is set in the (near) future. But I think there’s a great deal of religious value in her works, even if it’s not meant to be a history textbook.
(FWIW, discussing another matter, she describes Joan of Arc as “widely believed by Witches to have been a real Witch, a priestess of the Goddess” in the appendix to the tenth anniversary edition of TSD. She’s not exactly claiming that Joan was a Witch, nor does the belief she’s discussing hold that Joan was a Wiccan (i.e. a modern Witch… duh.) The belief she’s discussing is that Joan’s visions (of Saint Margaret and the Virgin…!) were inspired by the Goddess, which is not really a belief about history so much as about theo/thealogy.
It’s easy to get confused at this boundary between historical figures, mythopoiesis, and religion. Especially when one is cough not charitably inclined towards the writer in question nor the rest of her ideology.
Well, Guin, i know that the real reason for your Pit Thread is the one-trick pony issue, but i must say that her explanation of women (not) in the military actually seems rather plausible.
Firstly, it is indeed true that men thought, for a long time, that women should not be allowed to vote, hold property, have a paying job, etc. Also, how often do you hear someone criticized for something, and then someone else comes out of the woodwork and says “Hey, leave him alone, he’s served his country you know.”
I’m not saying that this is the conscious reason for keeping women out of combat, but in a society that allocates so much prestige and kudos to those who fight, not allowing women on the front lines does close an avenue of public service to them, and can result in certain instances in women being held in lower esteem.
One of the posts to which clawsofcat responded in that thread suggested that the reason that men kept women out of combat was “that we thought that women ought to be spared such horrors.” This sort of attitude, that men should decide for women what is best for them, is one that feminism fought against for a long time, and continues to oppose.
I’m no Christian, but i think the critique of “patriarchal religions” was way too simplistic. And i think the post in the dress-code thread was a little knee-jerkish, especially as the OP never suggested forcing women to wear anything in particular, and was asking for an opinion on equity in the workplace. And plenty of other people in that thread thought that the guy starting the lawsuit was an ass - they just didn’t use the feminist argument to make their point.
The comment about 7,000,000 witches stunned the hell out of me, i must say. This site says that most of the killings of women (and some men - up to 25% in some countries) as witches occurred between 1550 and 1650, although there were many cases in earlier periods. It also says that:
and cites this page as another source. While 7,000,000 falls within the range of estimates, it seems well on the high side and also seems to be based more on hyperbolic guesses than on anything that might qualify as evidence. But i’m not a medieval scholar, and would be happy to be corrected on this - i know the internet is not necessarily the last word on these things.
Anyway, in conclusion, i don’t have any problem with someone being a “one trick pony,” as long as the trick is performed without too much smoke and too many mirrors. By all means have a cause or an interest, but don’t purposely distort evidence to fit your predilections.
A question for Guinastasia, intended to be friendly:
What’s the difference, in your view, between philosophical consistency and one-trickness? Is the problem just a particularly jarring juxtaposition of perspective and issue? (This seems to be the case in the second example you give.)
Well, I don’t know, Guin. With two days and ten posts, it seems a bit premature to pigeonhole her just yet, I think. I agree, those ten posts make her appear to have some kind of chip on her shoulder, and I share your dubiousness at her invocation of the name of Starhawk when asked for a cite for a historical assertion. But she came here, to a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, and I think it behooves us to give her the benefit of the doubt that she wants to fight some ignorance, and is open to having some of her own ignorance fought. It’s not like she’s been opening agenda-fueled debates left and right. She hasn’t even entered the Pit yet, and I, for one, am not eager to see her do so.
She may well turn out to be as one-trickety as you predict. I just don’t think there’s any hurry to notarize the designation.
Well, this poster may be focusing on just one issue that is very important to her. I can’t see the problem with someone confining themself to one particularly area (eg IT, or the Middle East, or Star Trek - whatever takes your fancy).
I don’t find her opinions particularly outrageous or unacceptable. So she is arguing everything from a feminist standpoint, which may or may not be appropriate, but do we actually have rules about One Trick Ponydom here? I know people have been pitted for it before (especially on things like sex and flirting) but I can’t say that claws has yet crossed the Pittable line for me.
If she drops into a thread on moon landings with a feminist take, or a thread on Iraqi WMD, then it might get a little tiring. From the five linked to above, feminism seemed a reasonably relevant angle.
I can buy that interpretation. The problem, as applies to ClawsofCatt, is that some people read it as straight history rather than a mythological construct. I’d say that sort of reading of Starhawk is right out.
That’s a bit of a stretch for me, and it’s abusing a historical figure pretty harshly. By all historical accounts, Joan was pretty devout in her faith. I doubt that she’d much appreciate being affiliated with pagans in this way. It may be a way for Starhawk to make a point, but it’s far from accurate and borders on disrespect of Joan’s faith. Which may have been intentional or not on Starhawk’s part, but either way I don’t agree with that particular piece.
I’m not sure I made this as clear as I could have in my earlier post, but I actually liked reading The Spiral Dance as well. I didn’t read the 10th Anniversary edition, but I found that when I read it I learned some things, and I admired Starhawk’s writing style. As a borderline pagan myself, I liked many of the things she had to say. However, as a student of history I didn’t particularly like how she stretched history to suit her point, and I didn’t like her heavy-handed agenda. It was a good book, and worth reading. Just not suitable as a historical document, which seemed to be the use ClawsofCatt was putting it to.
Hopefully I’ve cleared that up a little… sorry for the hijack, Guin.
Guinastasia, I have read this message several times, followed the links, including the one that’s obviously in error, and provided you with a “site.” Having pondered all of your musings, my reaction is this:
Did your Gameboy break?
Did you lose your paper route and now you can’t afford to play Everquest?
Are you “between jobs” and spending waaaaay too much time on the internet?
You are flaming me because in ten posts I haven’t hit a lot of topics?
I think you need to get at the bottom of whatever it is that is really troubling you, Guin.
Oh, and from having lurked here, I realize that newbies are supposed to brown nose and fawn on people with a lot of posts. But today I just can’t work up much admiration for the act of not having a life.
Well crap. Here I was hoping Catts would defend herself in a intelligent, well-spoken way complete with citations. I actually agree, in part, with some of what she was saying, with the obvious 7 million figure excepted.
But no, she goes straight with the pathetic insults, martyrdom, and bullshit. Cattts, you have done a great disservice to your views and the people who hold them. I am ashamed, and you should be too. Now go away.