This is a diary about pole vaulting, a stoning, and women.
The Washington Post had a story on teenage pole vaulter Allison Stokke.
I want to highlight something lower down in the article first:
A former gymnast, Stokke had tried pole vaulting as a lark as a freshman in high school. Two months later, she set a school record. She won the 2004 state championship three months after that. Stokke had augmented her natural, pole-vaulting disposition — speed, upper-body strength and courage — by lifting weights three times each week. College programs including Harvard, Stanford and UCLA also recruited her.
During her meet at Cerritos College, Stokke cleared 11 feet, then 12 feet, then 13 feet and qualified for the state meet. By the time she stared ahead at a bar set 13 feet 6 inches, all other nine pole vaulters had maxed out. Stokke warmed up by herself, the only athlete left.
I pole vaulted in high school. I was never as good as Stokke. The best height I ever cleared was 13 feet. I won the league championship and sectional championship, but finished third in the division and had a disastrous regional meet. Too many injuries had caught up to me.
I mention that because I want to emphasis something about Stokke: courage. My track coach always claimed he picked his pole vaulters by finding the craziest people on the team and making them pole vault.
She loved pole vaulting because it was a sport built on intricacies. Each motion required calculation and precision. A well-executed vault blended a dancer’s timing, a sprinter’s speed and a gymnast’s grace. “There’s so much that happens in a vault below the surface,” Stokke said.
As the sun set Friday night, Stokke positioned her pole as if she were jousting and sprinted about 100 feet toward the bar. She ran on her tip-toes, like she’d learned from ballet. As she approached her mark, Stokke bent her pole into the ground and coiled her legs to her chest. She lifted upward, twisting her torso 180 degrees as she passed over the bar. It was a beautiful clearance, and the crowd stood to applaud.
It’s an incredibly hard sport and Stokke has already mastered it, winning the state championship twice.
But what she’s known for on the Internet is something she never sought. She’s been subjected to lewd Internet postings.
Admittedly, she’s a beautiful young woman. But to many, she’s simply an object to lust after.
I know as a man I’ve lusted plenty in my time. But there’s a difference between a glance and open leers.
And that’s what Stokke has been subjected to.
Today, an unofficial web site www.allisonstokke.com went down after The Post featured a story on her.
Farewell
Sorry for having contributed to the unwanted attention, Allison. We think you’re a phenomenal athlete and wish you the best of luck in your academic and athletic endeavors.
Good for the web site. But they weren’t the egregious offenders:
She gave them the Internet tour that she believed now defined her: to the unofficial Allison Stokke fan page, complete with a rolling slideshow of 12 pictures; to the fan group on MySpace, with about 1,000 members; to the message boards and chat forums where hundreds of anonymous users looked at Stokke’s picture and posted sexual fantasies.
I’m writing about this because it’s just plain wrong. There’s nothing wrong with women who want to show off their sexy side (I’m a huge fan of Shakira), but it is wrong for men to just treat women like Stokke as objects for their gratification.
I would say that didn’t need to be stated, but look at where we are with the treatment of women today.
We’ve got Supreme Court decisions following the 19th century views of women:
Quite simply, these justifications are premised on 19th-century conceptions of women as not being rational agents. And such justifications evidently underpin a great deal of anti-choice discourse and policy (most obviously seen in the fact that the official Republican position is that abortion is murder but women who obtain them should be entirely exempt from legal sanctions.) At least Kennedy was decent enough to give away the show, admitting that these assertions are backed by “no reliable data,” leaving us with meaningless claims that some women may regret their decision to obtain abortions in retrospect. (If some women regret getting married, can we ban that too? How about anecdotal evidence about women who become depressed after becoming mothers, does this justify state-mandated abortions?) These arguments aren’t about women’s health; they’re about assumptions that women are incapable of making moral judgments, period.
We’ve got Supreme Court decisions saying that it is okay that women are valued less than men. Justice Ginsburg:
The problem of concealed pay discrimination is particularly acute where the disparity arises not because the female employee is flatly denied a raise but because male counterparts are given larger raises. Having received a pay increase, the female employee is unlikely to discern at once that she has experienced an adverse employment decision. She may have little reason even to suspect discrimination until a pattern develops incrementally and she ultimately becomes aware of the disparity. Even if an employee suspects that the reason for a comparatively low raise is not performance but sex (or another protected ground), the amount involved may seem too small, or the employer’s intent too ambiguous, to make the issue immediately actionable — or winnable.
I could go on and on. There are too many recent examples to cite, from threats to women who have the audacity to post their views on the Internet (“blogging while female” one friend described it to me) to the paternalism of Rudy Guiliani’s responses to women asking serious questions.
But I want to highlight this post by Joss Whedon. Like Christy Hardin Smith, it has haunted me.
Last month seventeen year old Dua Khalil was pulled into a crowd of young men, some of them (the instigators) family, who then kicked and stoned her to death. This is an example of the breath-taking oxymoron “honor killing”, in which a family member (almost always female) is murdered for some religious or ethical transgression. Dua Khalil, who was of the Yazidi faith, had been seen in the company of a Sunni Muslim, and possibly suspected of having married him or converted. That she was torturously murdered for this is not, in fact, a particularly uncommon story. But now you can watch the action up close on CNN. Because as the girl was on the ground trying to get up, her face nothing but red, the few in the group of more than twenty men who were not busy kicking her and hurling stones at her were filming the event with their camera-phones.
There were security officers standing outside the area doing nothing, but the footage of the murder was taken – by more than one phone – from the front row. Which means whoever shot it did so not to record the horror of the event, but to commemorate it. To share it. Because it was cool.
I could start a rant about the level to which we have become desensitized to violence, about the evils of the voyeuristic digital world in which everything is shown and everything is game, but honestly, it’s been said. And I certainly have no jingoistic cultural agenda. I like to think that in America this would be considered unbearably appalling, that Kitty Genovese is still remembered, that we are more evolved. But coincidentally, right before I stumbled on this vid I watched the trailer for “Captivity”.
snip
What is wrong with women?
I mean wrong. Physically. Spiritually. Something unnatural, something destructive, something that needs to be corrected.
How did more than half the people in the world come out incorrectly? I have spent a good part of my life trying to do that math, and I’m no closer to a viable equation. And I have yet to find a culture that doesn’t buy into it. Women’s inferiority – in fact, their malevolence — is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they’re sporting burkhas. I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards, and not just the ones for horror movies. Women are weak. Women are manipulative. Women are somehow morally unfinished. (Objectification: another tangential rant avoided.) And the logical extension of this line of thinking is that women are, at the very least, expendable.
I try to think how we got here. The theory I developed in college (shared by many I’m sure) is one I have yet to beat: Womb Envy. Biology: women are generally smaller and weaker than men. But they’re also much tougher. Put simply, men are strong enough to overpower a woman and propagate. Women are tough enough to have and nurture children, with or without the aid of a man. Oh, and they’ve also got the equipment to do that, to be part of the life cycle, to create and bond in a way no man ever really will. Somewhere a long time ago a bunch of men got together and said, “If all we do is hunt and gather, let’s make hunting and gathering the awesomest achievement, and let’s make childbirth kinda weak and shameful.” It’s a rather silly simplification, but I believe on a mass, unconscious level, it’s entirely true. How else to explain the fact that cultures who would die to eradicate each other have always agreed on one issue? That every popular religion puts restrictions on women’s behavior that are practically untenable? That the act of being a free, attractive, self-assertive woman is punishable by torture and death? In the case of this upcoming torture-porn, fictional. In the case of Dua Khalil, mundanely, unthinkably real. And both available for your viewing pleasure.
Whedon is on full-steam ahead rant mode and it’s a thing of beauty as he gets rolling.
I think he hit it on the head. Men are jealous of women and that’s why they abuse them so in in thought and in deed.
I’m a man. I’ve been one my whole life. And though I’ve dated many women in my life, some seriously and some not so seriously, and though I’m very close to my wife and my ex wife, and though I am the father of young daughters, I am not really qualified to write about women. So I’m posting this in the dead of night when few will see it.
But I couldn’t sleep because the story I read about Stokke weighed on my mind. Others had written much more eloquently and passionately about Dua Khalil, and the SCOTUS decisions.
It seems a far cry from a pole vaulter to the death of a teenage girl in Iraq. It’s not. The sexual objectification of Stokke and the murder of Khalil are both symptoms of the same problem: men don’t treat women as equals.
You hear people mouth the words, but then you hear a Don Imus refer to female athletes as “hos” and you read another account of a young woman murdered by an estranged boyfriend. It’s enough to make me sick of my entire gender.
I had a police friend, a gruff older guy, who told me he hoped his daughter grew up to be a lesbian. He’d been on one too many calls involving an abusive boyfriend who thought it was his right to always have his way and if he didn’t get it he could beat the shit out of the girlfriend. (I don’t mean to put lesbians on a pedestal or to make saints of women, but when I think of the high percentage of idiots I’ve met among my gender I can see where my friend is coming from.)
I’m really sick of the mistreatment of women in this country and elsewhere. I’ve been guilty of it too. For a while when asked if Ms. Carnacki and I planned to have more children, I would answer, I’d like to have a son. I have three beautifully spirited daughters and as Ms. Carnacki reminded (she too is from a family of three girls), it can hurt girls to hear that, as if they’re not good enough. That was never my intent of course. Yet I did it. Now I frequently point out to them how much I love having daughters. And I mean it.
Sexism is stupid. I’d like to think we were evolving as a species beyond the point where such inequality still existed, but we haven’t. We still treat half of the species as if they’re inferior even though they pole vault, break up bar brawls, nurse wounds and most miraculously of all give birth to continue the species.
I want to believe it is getting better for women, but as optimistic as I tend to be it’s hard for me to see much cause for hope because men have made such a mess of the world. When I do see hope, it’s with people like Stokke and my girls and many other women leading the way.
Also from Whedon:
It’s important for men to let other men know that their behavior is unacceptable — because changing men’s attitudes toward women won’t been done by women (no matter how accomplished); it has to come from men changing their behaviors and, just as importantly, calling out their friends when they treat women like commodities.
Joss Whedon’s Equality Now speech May 2006
I can’t get this b/c it’s blocked here (and home takes too long to download.)
But Joss Whedon has created some wonderful female characters; my greatest experience is with Firefly where all the female leads are just fantastic. Clearly this is someone who does, even by himself, work to improve impressions of women, by creating characters who are strong, independent, and don’t take anything off of some man even when they are physically stronger.
Thanks for pointing out his words.
I sent it on to my three daughters and my granddaughter and my grandson. My yongest daughter was here for a month with me. I am so proud of my kids. They are so talented and so funny and so courageous and so apt to come up with all kinds of things I never ever thought of.
She brought my youngest granddaughter with her. Now I have three granddaughters and two grandsons. My Grandsons are very neat people as well. They will probably write eventually. But I hope they find great women to give them a map to live by and stars to steer by.
Thanks Carnacki for sharing. We don’t always know how our thoughts will affect some others. My flapping mouth has always caused me grief, but I’ve learned that it is not just MY lesson that is going on here. I really hoped we were at the end of this horrible misogyny. But no, racism, homophobia, misogyny are all popping up with a full head of steam. What is there about us humans that we take the most stupid course and run it for all we are worth? War is stupid, hate is stupid, and both are killing us. It is that, more than anything else that causes me to cast a skeptical eye on both the “intelligent design” characters and the “evolution” characters. Doesn’t feel that we are, in fact, evolving. In fact, with global warming, it looks as if Gaia will just wash her hands of us!
Wow. I am a huge fan of Serenity and Firefly. One of the things I really liked about this series is that the women are women, but real. One is a fighter, one is a sex worker/diva, one is a tech nerd and one is just the bomb. To his credit, his male characters are equally diverse and developed.
Excellent, Carnacki. As the father of daughters you have a lot of power to change things for them, one step at a time. And as the mother of sons it is an overwhelming responsibility to try to do the same thing. It is so damn discouraging to see how little things have changed…it seems like men are known by what they do and women by how they look.
Wouldn’t it be so much nicer for everyone if we were simply who we ARE instead?
Hi SecondNature!
Could you send me an email? Or stop by Eat4Today?
xxoo
How fathers with daughters cannot be moved to tears by this I do not know.
I know I was.
Whedon is one of the best writers of female characters in all of television — from Buffy to Firefly. Not only are his women assertive (and can kick your butt), but they are well-developed personalities, with complex emotions and past histories and motivations for being who they are and what they do. Hopefully those characters can not only inspire and teach the girls in the audience, but the boys as well.
Thanks, Carnacki. Your girls are lucky to have you as their Daddy!
It seems a far cry from a pole vaulter to the death of a teenage girl in Iraq. It’s not. The sexual objectification of Stokke and the murder of Khalil are both symptoms of the same problem: men don’t treat women as equals.
This is such a true observation.
Thank you for this diary.
I’d love to see mass circulation of this diary.
You’ve hit on so many issues and said many things that needed to be said and see it well.
We will never all be free until women are truly free.
I’d like to see this front paged also…anytime this kind of discussion comes up it is a good thing. Maybe one more person, man or women might read something and have an ‘ah ha’ moment and really get how serious a problem women’s inequality is and all the horrible things that happen due to this kind of modern day neanderthal thinking…leading to worse actions.
It’s interesting. On Sunday’s Indy 500, 3 women started the race – a first. I spent the weekend with two women friends from college and we watched the race (one friend and I enthsiastically, the third reluctantly at best.) But they kept rooting for Danica Patrick because of her gender; I was a bit put out about it, honestly, to support someone just because she’s a woman. Of course, I’ve always had a soft spot for the snake-bit Andrettis.
But then the SCOTUS decision was handed down yesterday, and the more I hear about it the angrier I get. On top of the earlier decision, and then add to it the other points you bring up.
I have to say that I agree to an extent with the issue of ‘womb envy.’ Women do have the ultimate biological control over who does and who does not enter the world. There is scientific evidence that the Y chromosome is shrinking and could eventually disappear. Certainly with reproductive cloning, sperm could become obsolete.
No wonder men, under the guise of religious beliefs which, b/c they are ‘religious,’ should not be questioned, have spent so much time and energy trying to regulate these aspects of life. If not regulated, they could put men at a distinct advantage.
And speaking as a person of faith, it is nevertheless often difficult to transcend the very maleness of the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim god. Gee, I wonder why that is?
I, too, have a daughter, and also a son. I want to raise my daughter to be a strong woman and to recognize what she might be up against. And I want my son not to buy into that culture of objectification of women. I’m not sure which will be the harder job.
Thank you Carnacki. Human evolution, like almost everything else seems too damn slow. With your writing, you are helping to move it along.
The theory I developed in college (shared by many I’m sure) is one I have yet to beat: Womb Envy… Women are tough enough to have and nurture children, with or without the aid of a man. Oh, and they’ve also got the equipment to do that, to be part of the life cycle, to create and bond in a way no man ever really will.
That doesn’t make much sense in evolutionary terms. Misogyny obviously operates on a visceral level. Men are not programmed to want to reproduce. They are programmed to constantly crave sex (which leads to the same result).
I think we can get a handle on what underlies misogyny by considering that misogynistic religion, Islam. What do conservative varieties of Islam do? Not only ban women revealing their bodies, but also ban their revealing their faces. The reason? Seeing a woman unveiled arouses a man’s passions. I think that that’s the key.
What underlies misogyny, I suggest, is that men resent the power women have over them due to their sexual attractiveness. Men also resent that women have the power to withhold sex from them. (This doesn’t explain homosexual misogyny, of course.)
While you have some good points, let’s not limit this to criticizing Islam. Many people have legitimately criticized aspects of Christianity, particularly in some of its more conservative/reactionary forms including both Protestant and Catholic, for its attitudes toward women. IIRC, the Southern Baptist Convention (to name one) still has as one of its central tenets that woman is to submit to her husband’s will, among other similar creeds.
And ultra orthodox Judaism is hardly better toward women than conservative Islam is. One of the daily prayers of orthodox men is to thank God for not being a woman. There have been reports of Hasidic women being beaten for getting on buses in Jerusalem that are supposed to be “men only,” and the justification is what you mention: that the presence of women (even dressed as severely as Hasidic women do) tempts men to think about sex and not to think about God.
To me, what all of these have in common is the monotheistic, very male Abrahamic God. And I think this touches on something Joss Whedon stated in his words Carnacki linked to in the comments (I finally got it to download late last night:) that misogyny represents a world out of balance, that we need equality to stand on this planet.
In searching for the underlying causes of misogyny, we must, indeed, look at least in part to our religious traditions. They are very, very powerful not only in terms of our current beliefs but also as the essential underpinnings of our culture. And there is simply no way that a male godhead cannot but function to support a very patriarchal culture.
I agree on all points. I didn’t mean to single out Islam; it was just an entry point to the main idea.
Yes, absolutely we need to look at our religious traditions to understand misogyny. And absolutely, misogyny represents a world out of balance, and figuring out where misogyny comes from is a big part of figuring out why the world is out of balance.
The one quibble I have with what you say is that in the more refined forms of Christianity, God has no gender, since God is infinite, and to have a gender would be a limitation.
I agree with you about Christianity; yours is the version to which I subscribe. My children were baptized by a Presbyterian minister “in the name of God the mother and father of us all.”
Of course, for some people even of the Presbyterian ilk, that’s enough to get you charged with blasphemy. No lie.
And while for me God is transcendent of gender (and even of the name God) for many people that’s just something they can’t get past in terms of Christianity. Particularly when Jesus is irrefutably male. There certainly are a lot of folks and traditions that have tried to counterbalance that with veneration of the Virgin; nevertheless for many it remains problematic. And a huge cultural force.
Not entirely correct. The Quo’ran does not specifically call for women to hide everything but their faces — it calls for women (and men, for that matter) to dress modestly and appropriately. This is interpreted very differently in different parts of the Islamic world. It is specific Arabic subcultures, such as the Bedouin desert culture that is the roots of the extremely conservative Saudi Wahibi sect, that calls for the such extremes in dress — and women in that culture were dressing like that long before the time of the Prophet.
Most misogyny is cultural — almost ALL human cultures are patriarchal in origin, and religious beliefs and practices are a reflection of and reinforcement for the dominant culture in which they are practiced. Islam and Christianity (and Judaism, though by my observations to a lesser extent) reinforce the traditional cultures they evolved under. But in places where the underlying culture has changed and evolved, the religious practices have also evolved. It’s not fair to judge all of Islam by the practices in the Arabic Middle East, any more than it is fair to judge all Christianity by the teachings of Jerry Falwell or the Southern Baptist Convention.
I’m not sure I would agree with this statement. There is tons of evidence that the original human tribes started with a goddess oriented system. I personally like the theory that when tribes became more sedentary and took up agriculture, inheritance became an issue. Since men couldn’t prove who there kids were, they looked towards subjugating their women. It was from this that our modern religions were born and they were devised just so they could maintain a moral authority to patriarchy.
This is obviously a very simplistic explanation of something very complex, but forgive me, I’m still working on my morning cup of coffee.
We could get a whole long discussion going on that topic… (though I haven’t done the historical research on that period or tribal societies to do more than speculate). I suspect it’s a whole combination of factors having to do with ensuring stability and internal cooperation of a community, the physical demands of childbirth and child-rearing, competition from other communities for resources, and the fact that just ensuring the continued survival of the community was often a full-time occupation for every adult and child old enough to help.
What does seem to be a strong factor (and this includes religion) is that once a working cultural system is in place to deal with X circumstances, the ruling group or sect or caste or whatever at the top has very little incentive to change that system — even if X circumstances have changed. Any time when a particular group, corporation, family, religious sect, tribe, or oligarchy of any type has gotten itself to the top of the pile, it is by is very nature extremely conservative and sees the status quo as the ideal, and the way society is “supposed to” be — as does any group that benefits from that particular status quo. Add religion to that mix, and you have a further codification of what society is “supposed to be” — by claiming that because ancient tribal laws are still included in a holy book, those laws represent God’s will for ALL people in ALL circumstances at ALL points in history.
In western industrialized cultures, the X circumstances have changed radically in only one or two generations — it is not only no longer necessary for women to devote most of their lives to childbirth and childraising, they now have the means (through control of reproduction, improved legal standing, and vastly expanded economic and educational opportunities) to support themselves independently of (or as partners with) husbands or male relatives. Actually, the current economic circumstances of most families require the wife/mother to work outside the home to help support the family, and her ability to do so is also contingent on those same conditions — reproductive freedom, legal standing, and economic/educational opportunities.
This independence is far perfect, and it isn’t equally available to all women, but it exists — and as such, represents a threat (in some people’s minds, at least) to the centuries-old “status quo” of society. The culture is changing, but there’s a lot of resistance yet, and the areas of attack are on the very foundations of the change — reproductive freedom, legal standing, and economic and educational opportunities for women.
But I’m glad to see so many men supporting a cultural change over the old status quo… supporting their sisters, wives, mothers, daughters, and friends.
Some sources, if you’re interested:
The Chalice and The Blade, by Riane Eisler
When God was a Woman, by Merlin Stone
The Creation of Patriarchy, by Gerda Lerner (and her later works, too)
anything by Mary Daly, really touches on the Judaeo-Christian aspects of patriarchy.
My favorite is probably The Red Tent by Anita Diamant, I believe, even if it’s fiction.
There are a lot of factors at play in the creation of patriarchy. I tend to favor religious ones, personally, but then again it’s almost universal across many diverse religious traditions, even polytheistic ones. Perhaps that’s not the reason for creation but it certainly cited as a major reason / justification for continuation.
And I agree, change is resisted fiercely. So how do we deal with that, when the backlash seems to be becoming ever stronger from advertising to defunding Title IX to the Supreme Court?
Thanks for the list stitchmd..I’ve only read/own ‘When God Was A Woman’. Loved that book although I have to say it also pissed me off to no end at the systematic subjugation of the women gods to basically get rid of all of them.
I’ve been wanting to read The Red Tent, I got it for my mom for Christmas one year and she really loved it. So it’s on my reading list — and thanks for the other additions, too!
Your answer is more complex than mine: what causes misogyny? Men are dicks.
Carnacki’s bumper sticker moment.
This was just a diary comment, not an essay. The point I was trying to make is that what drives misogyny is not “womb envy” but sexual frustration. I wasn’t making a general characterization of Islam. Although, when you think of the Islamic heaven with its 72 houris who remain virgins even after they get screwed, it is hard not to conclude that Islam is based on male sexual desire more than Christianity is.
When you say that “most misogyny is cultural”, maybe you are implicitly disagreeing with my characterization of it as being based on sexual frustration. But the two aspects are completely compatible. That men are turned on by women’s bodies is a human universal, based on biology, but it it is only in some (almost all?) cultures that that leads to society repressing women.
Our own society isn’t particularly good at handling this aspect of human nature. Our society encourages young women embrace and flaunt their sexual attractiveness. Here’s a very good essay on the subject:
Feminism Then and Now
and it fits the topic as well as showing us once again the inner working of the “gang that can’t think straight”!
This is from:
It’s official
(arkansas blog)
I was thinking of writing about this. I’m glad you took it on because you did a great job.
Thanks.