In a recent post, Queen Anne’s Lace, I wrote about a common and beautiful wildflower, the seed of which can be used as a sort-of morning-after contraceptive. I framed the talk with my experiences learning the wildflowers from my Grandmother. I was overjoyed that Burt Liko saw into the heart of my real tale:
See, now, this is why I think we need more women writing here. This post was fascinating from start to finish, filled with information I did not know and would never have sought out on my own (it’s a carrot? Really?), possessed of epistolary grace, and leaves me wanting more.
Well, I suppose a man could in theory write like this also, but a woman wrote this, and the story of the love between grandmother and granddaughter carries a hint of the older woman initiating the younger one to the secrets of the world that women teach each other. Which is a delight to be given a chance to witness.
Men, in fact, did write like that. They wrote down they stuff they knew. Men have a long, and well documented history in the study of aphrodisiacs. The Greeks thought garlic, onion, leeks, lentils, saffron, staples of the diet throughout the Mediterranean basin, increased a man’s desire. They also sought out substances to add to wine to increases the ladies’ libidos.
The carrot, that most phallic of vegetables, travelled with humanity for it’s food value and beauty, as I wrote about in Queen Anne’s Lace, and also carried whiff of the slatternly hinting at its medicinal value as a herbal morning-after contraceptive. But because women didn’t write things down and or read what was written down, things passed on by word of mouth; mother to daughter, grandmother to granddaughter, wise woman to young woman. It wasn’t secrets, Burt, it was education as it always was before writing, and it was often wrong.
This remains an incredible disadvantage, to this day. Sometimes, this makes me feel like Elisabetta Sirani might have felt when she painted Portia, Wounding her Thigh, in 1664. Notice the gray smear above her fresh wounds, hinting at previous scars. Elisabetta was a cutter. She died under mysterious circumstances at 27; though historians guess she died of peritonitis, romantic legend says she died of a broken heart because she never married, and a maid was accused of poisoning her, though the charges were dropped. Scandal and romance aside, Elisabetta was trained in the workshops of her father, painter Giovanni Andrea Sirani, and after he became ill with gout, she ran the family workshop, her own successful studio, and trained a number of men and women artists, including her younger sisters Barbara and Anna Maria and a least 12 other young women, according to her wikipedia biography. When given opportunity (and unburdened by repeated child births) she was phenomenally productive; painting over 200 works in her brief life in addition to her teaching and managing responsibilities. And it should be noted that one of the causes of peritonitis is botched surgical abortion; what we think of today as coat-hanger abortions.
Just because the Bologna of 1664 was progressive, does not mean that it made it easy for a woman to fully participate in the stuff of life. I quite imagine Elisabetta’s frustrations with life as a competent women were every bit as frustrating as, say, Hillary Rodham, a progressive women from our own time. There’s this great weight of who wrote history and who holds knowledge, the ruts of thinking are cast, and women create lightly-stepped side trails from those paths that quickly fade; so I project my own frustrations with the lack of women’s voices in history — the word-of-mouth secret of Queen Anne’s Lace, for instance — upon an artist who lived 350 years ago and who painted an amazing self portrait of a mental-health problem that suggest managing great inner pain. But one of the great values of art is our ability to imbue it with our own meaning, and there aren’t many women known as artists in history prior to Elisabetta, just like there weren’t many women leading nations. Ancient art and women, from our current view, is all about the male eye. Don’t believe me? Sometimes, the exceptions prove the rule: The Hindu Pantheon.
In the days before recorded, things may have been a bit more even handed, or so the archeologists tell us. Lacking a reliable means of communicating except for direct teaching as my grandmother taught me, maybe there was as much value to women’s knowledge as we now give to men’s. But I really don’t want to stumble back to some nostalgic good ol’ days that I might imagine and ignore the horrors of actual lived lives; that’s way too much like wishing for the days before Roe and Griswold.
Rather, I want to recognize that men and women’s souls are the equal of men’s, and that access to health-care services, particularly reproductive services is essential to that Godly end. (If all the links in this story that last is the one you should most attend to.) Because we know many of the world’s troubles — economic stagnation, climate change, resource conflicts, are most naturally resolved by giving women control of the fertility and access to education.
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, without recognizing that the whole conversation is predicated on historical social norms that leave actual women mostly out of the debate except through the quaint teachings of hedge witchery.
So thank you Burt, for finding my post quaint, and prompting this comment rescue. For one day, at least, my inner Portia left her knife in its sheath. Now if only we could go from admiring quaint and faulty pre-history traditions to some respect for modern technology that enables women full participation (and just might save the world).
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
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
I notice that remark was far enough over the line that even RedState disinvited him from its event.Report
Yes.
But truthfully, it’s a remark that reflects a common thought when one is challenged by a woman, too.Report
Geez, Zic, you must be righteously indignant, and with good reason, because that’s what it looks like to me.Report
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
She’s the patron saint of recursivity, right?Report
Heh, sorry, creating links on my phone without using the link function is never a good idea.Report
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
This was an exceptional post, zic.Report
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
Anyone but Hilary?Report
Report
And you translated that into my voting for anyone who wasn’t Clinton?Report
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
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
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
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
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
They have those.
They are called “cuckservatives”.Report
And in the meantime. . .Report
@zic — +100 on this.Report