Comment Rescue: Portia Wounding her Thigh

Related Post Roulette

36 Responses

  1. Glyph says:

    there aren’t many women known as artists in history prior to Elisabetta

    When you first introduced the painting, I was wondering if we’d go there, since I certainly couldn’t think of any female names from roughly the same period off the top of my head. (If we go back farther, I’m not as confident that it was always so male-dominated, since many ancient works of art are probably unattributable – we often have no idea who made this sculpture or that vase or this tile mosaic.)

    I’m not sure how it works in the modern world of “high art”, but my sense in some of the low, “disreputable” arts is that women are really making a strong showing these days. I’m thinking specifically of comic book artists, where you have Pia Guerra (Y) and Fiona Staples (Saga) doing big, well-regarded AND popular sci-fi stuff; your Marjane Satrapis (Persepolis) and Alison Bechdels (Fun Home) doing more personal autobiographical stuff; people like Karen Berger steering the Vertigo imprint through its golden age; Hope Larson and Allie Brosh and lots of others I am probably forgetting right now.Report

    • zic in reply to Glyph says:

      It’s not about women not making art now, @glyph, they are, and proudly, both high and low. Doing it every bit as good as men, too, though the economic reward probably isn’t as great.

      This is about how the conversation about nearly everything still hangs upon the frames from when it was all men who spoke, who wrote, who learned, and who educated.

      Men don’t, as a general rule, perceive how that habit of communicating effects the conversation, shuts women out. So ya’ll can discuss which of those jackasses you’d vote for, as if women and their rights to their own bodies don’t exit, because that’s the norm, it’s always been the norm, and it’s so it’s okay to suggest that a debate moderator was on her period when she actually asks about the conversation.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to zic says:

        I notice that remark was far enough over the line that even RedState disinvited him from its event.Report

        • zic in reply to Burt Likko says:


          But truthfully, it’s a remark that reflects a common thought when one is challenged by a woman, too.Report

        • Morat20 in reply to Burt Likko says:

          Judging by the comment thread, it might be more apt to say “Eric” dis-invited him. His commentators don’t appear to be in such uniform agreement.

          But the people who run RedState have other, more important jobs, with other — more important — influences. I’m not surprised when they get out of step.Report

        • greginak in reply to Burt Likko says:

          Eric “goat f*ucking child molester” Erickson was offended by Trump??? Oh yeah, all his disinviation means is he doesn’t want Trump to win and Trump being Trump gave him an excuse.Report

          • Morat20 in reply to greginak says:

            Eric gets a much better paycheck from the establishment than he does from running RedState. (In fact, I’m pretty sure RedState was bought by someone). He likes his gig on Fox and his op-eds and the prestige and money and elbow rubbing that gets him.

            He’s not going to risk that just because a lot of the RedState posters like Trump. The knvies are clearly out, and Eric knows which side pays him.

            His commentators aren’t terribly thrilled with his decision, either. Not that they’ll do anything about it but complain.Report

  2. Burt Likko says:

    Stay your dagger, for you are amongst friends here, and I am pleased to call you this.

    The word “quaint” seems condescending, as a sophisticated urban Westerner might condescend to express pleasure at the customs of a culture more rural and distant from his own. I’ve no wish to condescend to the feminine side of the world. “Admiration” was my intent, though now I fear my praise of your essay was inartful.Report

    • zic in reply to Burt Likko says:

      No, and please don’t be offended, @burt-likko for you saw exactly what I meant; passing along knowledge shouldn’t be secret stuff; and it was a window into the way things were; quaint is my word, and I hope it didn’t offend, I was flattered and very happy that you read what I intended.

      But you’ve got to compare and contrast to the other way, the way of the pen and the university and learning. Women mostly lacked that. The frustration isn’t that you perceived something quaint, the frustration is that we don’t recognize that quaintness for the burden and barrier that it still remains; that we can have a debate stage full of people who want to be leader of the most powerful country in the history of the world, and prat on and on about maintaining that quaintness.Report

  3. LWA says:

    It’s enough to make me want to cut my thigh that we’re still discussing the value of women’s health care as if it’s something other people should decide for women,

    This needs to be quoted again, and again and not just as pertains to women.

    It is one of the worst impulses of the dominant culture to speak about The Other, whether for good or ill, only in terms that we prefer. I notice the exchange on the other thread about coal regulations, linking to a Daily Caller article positing that they somehow hurt black people. An article conceived, written, edited and consumed entirely by white people.

    We see this a lot, as much in liberal circles as conservative, where the actual voices of the marginalized people are shut out in favor of using them and their misery only as props for our agendas.

    No one seems to find it odd that mining regulations are written by mining executives and lobbyists; after all, the reasoning goes, they are most familiar with the topic.
    But of course, if we allowed SNAP, TANF, and Section 8 regulations to be written by welfare mothers, or invited only women to commissions on reproductive issues, it would be a scandal.Report

  4. Chris says:

    Serious Catholics would of course know Saint Catherine Saint Catherine, which in a way highlights your point: there were quite a few Renaissance and medieval women producing wonderful art, but for the most part only a few people have ever heard of a few of them.

    Even when the art it’s fairly well known, most people may not know it may have been created by women.Report

    • Glyph in reply to Chris says:

      She’s the patron saint of recursivity, right?Report

    • Lyle in reply to Chris says:

      There is an 12th century abbess, composer, manuscript illuminator polymath, writer, and preacher (if Thomas Cahill is to be believed) Hildagard of Bingen, who managed also to stand up to men. She was created a doctor of the church in 2012. Her music works are still performed every so often since they were preserved.Report

  5. Tod Kelly says:

    This was an exceptional post, zic.Report

    • zic in reply to Tod Kelly says:

      Thank you, @tod-kelly

      I’ve said before, I often write a post to a specific individual; as I re-wrote this early this morning, I had you in mind, and your anyone but Hillary post that sits above the fold.Report

      • Tod Kelly in reply to zic says:

        Anyone but Hilary?Report

        • zic in reply to Tod Kelly says:

          Still, whether they know me or not I’m the kind of guy they have to convince to vote for them if they want to catch even a whiff of that new Oval Office smell. I’m centrist, and I have a history of voting for Elephantine presidential and gubernatorial candidates. I’m someone who doesn’t trust Clinton and is looking for an excuse not to have to vote her. Bonus: I’m even a white male!


          • RTod in reply to zic says:

            And you translated that into my voting for anyone who wasn’t Clinton?Report

            • zic in reply to RTod says:

              Yes I did, after three reads.

              We should probably both digest why, too, and I’d like you to tell me what I missed, please. Because I had a little bit of heart break over that.Report

              • Tod Kelly in reply to zic says:

                So, I wrote a post about how out of seventeen challengers to Clinton, I wouldn’t vote for any of them save one — who I said I could conceivably see myself voting for … and that’s ‘I’ll vote for anybody but Clinton’ to you?Report

              • zic in reply to Tod Kelly says:

                I’m someone who doesn’t trust Clinton and is looking for an excuse not to have to vote her.

                That’s how this translates to me; I wouldn’t say something like that if I didn’t mean it.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to zic says:

                Well, I don’t trust Clinton either, don’t like a bunch of things about her way of doing political business, actually (which is why I voted for Obama oh so long ago) and I’ll more than likely vote for her in the general (Sanders in the primary).

                If there were a better candidate to vote for I’d absolutely vote for that person. If not (and there won’t be, for me) I’ll vote for her.Report

              • Tod Kelly in reply to zic says:

                Then with all due respect, I think you need to read what I write from a less partisan point of view.

                My issues with Clinton are as they always have been:

                1. I don’t believe she can win against a charismatic candidate, which means I think the only thing standing between us and a scary-ass Fox News Presidency is the not yet proven assumption that the GOP will once again shoot itself in the foot.

                2. I believe that she and her husband are both corrupt. In the same way you can’t understand why I wouldn’t happily vote for her, I don’t know how you — or any other left leaning person here that I’m aware of — don’t have their eyebrows raised by her White House email situation.

                3. I am not sure that I buy into the “she’s really progressive and believes exactly what I believe, she’s just always hidden it” line that I hear everyone spout when they defend her. I see zero in her track record to make me think that she’s always been deep down inside who she is today, rather than someone who is trying to position herself for a victory. If I were a poor/ impoverished voter, I’d find the prospect of a Clinton White House scary — because I don’t actually believe you’ll see her do anything for the non-Wall Street class that isn’t lip service. In fact, I actually think she’s the single-most small-c conservative running from either party.

                But all of that said, I see very little chance that I don’t vote for her next November, because I don’t see hardly anyone else I would feel comfortable letting within 10 feet of the Oval Office.

                Except that that’s not really true, because there are actually plenty of people I would happily consider — Sanders, Warren, Pelosi, Wyden, Gilibrand, Feinstein, many others — it’s just that they are all Democrats, and for the most part I think the Clintons rigged this election cycle with the Party apparatus to make sure she was basically handed the nomination without having to compete for it. (See, again: corruption)Report

              • KatherineMW in reply to Tod Kelly says:

                When you have that big of a name, combined with the strength of her resumé, and a current VP who has been regarded for the past 8 years as something of a joke, and the fact that she was already the favourite in 2008 and the party as a whole regards it as being “her turn”, you don’t need to “rig” anything to be the putative favourite.

                I appreciate the clarification, because I too read “I’m looking for any excuse not to vote for Clinton” as “I’m looking to vote for anyone but Clinton”.

                Personally, having looked at Sanders’ website I think he’s my favourite candidate by a wide margin, but I’d prefer Hillary over any of the Republicans.Report

              • Tod Kelly in reply to KatherineMW says:

                @katherinemw I think liberals largely fail to see the significance of 2008, which is that primary-wise, she was the person with the money, resume, connections and party nod before it all began, and she still lost — lost in her own party race — to a likable guy who had staggeringly little on his elected office resume and most people knew nothing about before the primary started.

                Why everyone on the left takes this history as is a sign of her electoral strength is utterly, utterly baffling to me.Report

              • KatherineMW in reply to Tod Kelly says:

                2008 clearly shows that Hillary can be beaten by a charismatic, optimistic candidate who charms and inspires young voters. If there was anyone in the Republican field who seemed to fit that description, I’d be worried. But none of them come across as exuding either optimism rather than fear, or charisma rather than anger.

                I don’t have enough knowledge of the Clintons to comment on other “corruption” one way or the other, but her most likely opponent is someone who was actively involved in stealing an election, so….priorities.Report

              • Tod Kelly in reply to KatherineMW says:

                Yeah, but for me the problem with “there’s also corruption over there” as a response to finding corruption in your own house is that it rarely leads to a cessation of corruption.

                In Tod’s Perfect World, the Ds would use what they view as an election the Rs are going to hand them on a platter as an excuse to have a robust primary where those voices they claim matter so much (until they get elected) — the economic progressives, BlackLivesMatter, LGBTs, etc. — have a real opportunity to not only be heard, not only craft and rank urgency of policy positions, but also, you know, actually be allowed to maybe get the nod themselves.

                “But we get so much $ from this family” is, for me, the worst possible rationale to just hand the nod to anyone in any circumstance, but especially in a year you think you’re going to win regardless.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to KatherineMW says:

                If there was anyone in the Republican field who seemed to fit that description, I’d be worried.

                See, this is where I totes agree with Tod. Given that Hillary is not a charismatic leader, and given that the last two GOP candidates appeared on the national stage so unprepared their clown makeup was smeared, all the GOP needs is a competent, slightly interesting, less incoherent, candidate to win POTUS.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                Something that has crossed my mind: A net migration of 1 in 40 voters from D to R could swing the election, depending on where they are. 1 in 30 would likely do so.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                I’m with ya Will. Not a big swing at all. You’ll recall conversations between us in the past, surely, where we talked about some related issues. Back when people were making “the GOP is dead” into conventional wisdom you and I were talking about how terrible GOP campaigns still registered presidential election percentiles in the high forties. Never seemed dead to me. Actually, seemed like a non-zombie candidate away from taking the WH.Report

              • A swing of 1 in 40 is a swing of 5 percentage points (say, 51.5%-48.5% to 51%-49% the other way.) That would indeed be huge.Report

              • LWA in reply to Stillwater says:

                all the GOP needs is a competent, slightly interesting, less incoherent, candidate

                They have those.
                They are called “cuckservatives”.Report

  6. zic says:

    And in the meantime. . .Report

  7. veronica d says:

    @zic — +100 on this.Report