Max has a prestigious degree from a prestigious law school, and he likes to bring this up in conversation as much as possible. What he doesn’t like to mention is that his law license has been suspended for over a year.
Max also likes to talk a lot about how much money he makes investing in stocks. What he doesn’t like to mention is that he’s half a million dollars in debt, and that “his” house actually legally belongs to his mother.
Max also likes to talk a lot about feminism. Specifically, how much he knows about feminism. More specifically, how much more he knows about feminism than womendo.
I’m deeply grateful to Max for informing me that my work in the sex industry in no way gives me knowledge of feminist issues.
“Taking one’s clothes off,” Max explained, “does not qualify one as a feminist.”
Max also explained to me that if you don’t know who Carol Gilligan is, this “basically precludes you from all knowledge of feminism.”
When Max first asked me if I had heard of Carol Gilligan, I said “no.”
What Max doesn’t know is that I lied.
Do you want to know why I lied, Max? Because I know men like you.
I know how much you like to feel smart, especially smarter than women. I know how much you like to feel educated, especially more educated than women. I know how threatening it is to men like you, Max, when you realize that a woman might know as much as you do about any topic, even *gasp* more than you do.
Let’s set aside for a moment, Max, the thousands of years of feminist thought that came before Carol Gilligan was even born. Let’s pretend for a moment that Gargi Vachaknavi, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Jane Addams never even existed. Let’s focus on Carol.
Do you want to know my current opinion about Carol Gilligan, Max?
I think she makes a crucial mistake. Gilligan thinks that men and women approach ethics differently because women are more caring and empathetic. She thinks that women focus more on responsibilities and relationships, while men focus more on moral rules.
I do like care ethics, but personally, I think that this particular position of hers is steeped in biological essentialism and reinforces false gender binaries. Sometimes women care more about rules and men care more about relationships. Why? Because people’s philosophical positions aren’t dictated by their hormones and genitals.
But you wouldn’t know that, would you, Max? Because even after you “introduced me” to (the still incredibly admirable, despite my disagreements with her) Carol Gilligan, you never asked me what I thought.
Once, when Max was within earshot, I made a joke.
Max and I went to the same college to get our Bachelor’s degrees, and my GPA was just a little bit higher than his. Since Max went on to a prestigious law school (he’s about twelve years older than me), I joked that maybe I could get into the same law school as him.
Max was deeply offended. He told me that “there was simply no need for that, in any context.”
I was confused. What’s so troublesome about the idea of a woman getting into the same law school as you when she went to the same undergraduate school and studied the same stuff there and ended up with a GPA higher than yours?
I still don’t get it. But maybe I just don’t understand feminist issues.
There are a lot of men like Max out there, and they all need to feel certain of one thing: that even when it comes to movements that were created to give women equality, men are still superior. And they need to make sure that women are certain of it too.
Thanks for educating us, Max. I don’t know what we’d do without you.
Originally published on medium.com on February 2nd, 2022.
The US has been in an uproar since a Supreme Court draft overturning Roe v. Wade leaked a few weeks ago. Many American women and other people with uteri are terrified that our rights to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom will soon be taken away.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t stop with Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court has A LOT of power. Most people don’t realize how much. Roe v. Wade was born out of the Court’s interpretation of the “right to privacy” in The Constitution, and many other precedents based on this right could fall if the Court decides to start interpreting it differently, like the ones that make gay and interracial marriages legal, for starters.
The Roe v. Wade thing has caused a lot of ordinary people to start learning more about Supreme Court case law. I took a couple of classes about this exact thing not too long ago, and there’s a particular case that comes to mind when it comes to the Supreme Court and human rights that I think merits our attention at this moment.
This is the story of Carrie Buck, who brought a case to the Supreme Court in 1927 because she did not want to be forcibly sterilized after Clarence Garland, the nephew of her foster parents had raped and impregnated her.
Carrie’s biological mother, Emma Buck, had been committed to The Virginia Colony for Epileptics and the Feebleminded after having been abandoned by her husband, Frederick, and being thought to have contracted syphilis, along with being accused of prostitution and “immorality” (whatever that means).
This resulted in Buck being placed with foster parents John and Alice Dobbs.
After Buck became pregnant, her foster parents saw this as a sign that she was promiscuous, and therefore “feebleminded.” They had committed to the same Colony where her mother had lived. Her newborn daughter, Vivian, was taken away from her. Eight years later, Vivian later died of an intestinal infection after contracting measles.
Later, Buck was selected by Albert S. Priddy, a doctor at the Colony, to test the constitutionality of Virginia’s new compulsory sterilization law. She was chosen based on the fact that both her, her mother, and her daughter were thought to be “feebleminded,” suggesting that “feeblemindedness” was genetic.
One thing that I think is interesting about this case is that Irving P. Whitehead, the attorney representing Buck, was himself a known eugenicist, and was also friends with Albert Priddy. It would seem that Buck had no real defense in this case– the prosecution and the defense were in bed together, and were intentionally using Buck to legitimize the eugenics laws that they both supported.
The Court ruled in an eight-to-one decision that Virginia’s sterilization law was constitutional, and Buck was sterilized.
In the Court’s opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously stated:
“Three generations of imbeciles is enough.”
Buck’s sister Doris was also sterilized without her knowledge or consent when she was in the hospital with appendicitis. She did not discover until much later that she was unable to have children.
Buck was released from the Colony after her sterilization, and she married William D. Eagle, a 65-year-old widower. After he died, she married Charlie Detamore, an orchard worker.
Various researchers and reporters visited and spoke to Buck later in her life. They reported that she was, in fact, of normal intelligence. Buck’s daughter Vivian was also of normal intelligence, according to her primary school report cards. However, this did not stop modern media from continuing to portray buck as intellectually disabled. In the film Against Her Will: The Carrie Buck Story, Marlee Matlin plays a fictional version of Buck who is still “feebleminded.”
At this time in US history, forced sterilization was not at all uncommon. It mostly happened to women, particularly Black and brown women. It often happened to the neurodivergent, the mentally ill, petty criminals, and sex workers. It almost always happened to the low-income.
Eugenics laws that were enacted starting in 1907 made this legal. While many of these laws are no longer on the books, forced sterilization is still technically allowed by the highest court in our nation, as Buck v. Bell has never been overturned. Carrie Buck matters because her case sets the current legal precedent for forced sterilization in the US. This means that, theoretically, none of us are safe from forced sterilization, even in this day and age.
The history of forced sterilization in the United States is horrifying. It’s also overwhelmingly sexist, racist, ableist, and classist. Here are some stomach-churning facts to give you an idea of how serious this has been:
In the 1970s, about 40% of Indigenous women and 10% of Indigenous men in the US were forcibly sterilized. Many of these women fought back.
Between the 1930s and 1970s, one-third of women in Puerto Rico were forcibly sterilized. These women fought back, too.
We like to think of forced sterilization as something that no longer happens in the United States. Unfortunately, that is not true, and in a world where civil and human rights related to bodily autonomy are currently being eroded, we should be very, very concerned about this.
It’s happened as recently as 2018, to Summer Creel, who was told by a judge that she would receive a reduced sentence if she underwent the procedure.
California prisons have illegally sterilized women without informed consent as recently as 2010. Between 2006 and 2010, 148 women were given tubal ligations without approval from the health care board that exists in order to prevent coercion and abuse. Many women reported feeling bullied into the procedure or being misinformed about it.
In 2020, a whistleblower reported that Dr. Mahendra Ami, now referred to as the “Uterus Collector” had performed at least 20 hysterectomies on women in immigrant detention without their consent. Many of these women did not speak English well and did not understand what was going to be done to them, or what had been done to them.
Even wealthy and privileged Americans are still at risk– while we don’t use the term “feebleminded” anymore, once one has been placed into that category by a modern court, it is easy to lose one’s civil and human rights. Look at the case of Britney Spears’ abusive conservatorship as an example. Spears said that she was forbidden from removing her IUD while under the conservatorship. Even extremely powerful women like Spears can be placed in situations where their reproductive rights are restricted.
Reproductive freedom is an issue that should unite everyone– not just the disabled, not just the mentally ill, not just the poor, not just the BIPOC, and not just women. While forced sterilization has largely affected people with uteri, your vas deferens are not safe either! If you care about reproductive rights, now is a great time to pay attention.
Originally published on medium.com on May 28th, 2022.
I first came across Xanthippe when I was searching for words that were synonymous with “shrew” or “nag.” Xanthippe, I thought. That’s an interesting word. I decided to look into its origins. Since I study philosophy, I found it kind of strange that I hadn’t encountered the wife of Socrates sooner.
Socrates is probably The West’s best-known philosopher. The image of the ancient Greek thinker comes to mind immediately when most people think of philosophy. Socrates has been taught outright and mentioned peripherally in many of my philosophy classes. I’ve certainly heard a lot about the man, but no one ever really told me much about his wife.
“Xanthippe” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “an ill-tempered woman,” and by Urban Dictionary as “any nagging scolding person, especially a shrewish wife.” The name Xanthippe means “yellow horse,” from the ancient Greek xanthos “blond” and hippos “horse.”
Xanthippe, for me, is a symbol of how women have had their personal narratives manipulated throughout history.
In Xenophon’s Symposium, Xanthippe is described by Antisthenes as: “the hardest to get along with of all the women there are.” She is known to history for her explosive temper and inclination to argue. She is often described as cranky, nagging, and hysterical.
Socrates also gives his own comments in Symposium about Xanthippe, explaining that her argumentative nature is the reason why he likes her. Paying tribute to Xanthippe’s name, “yellow horse” and perhaps also nodding slightly to the common belief that women are not quite human, Socrates describes Xanthippe as a wild horse in need of taming:
It is the example of the rider who wishes to become an expert horseman: “None of your soft-mouthed, docile animals for me,” he says,” the horse for me to own must show some spirit” in the belief, no doubt, if he can manage such an animal, it will be easy enough to deal with every other horse besides. And that is just my case. I wish to deal with human beings, to associate with man in general; hence my choice of wife. I know full well, if I can tolerate her spirit, I can with ease attach myself to every human being else.
Xanthippe was bold enough to publicly scold her husband (who was about 40 years older than her) for shirking his familial responsibilities. She also had the audacity to do what women throughout history have been mocked, shamed, and punished for doing: to speak up when men are talking. It seems that her disagreeableness may have been viewed by her husband as nothing more than an amusing challenge. Xanthippe was just a spirited horse to be ridden.
Xanthippe also had the audacity to do what women throughout history have been mocked, shamed, and punished for doing: to speak up when men are talking.
Aristotle said that “a proper wife should be as obedient as a slave.” Statements like this can give you a general idea of how unexpected behavior like Xanthippe’s was in ancient Greece. Plato generally described Xanthippe as a devoted wife and mother. His views on women were what might be considered progressive for the time he lived in.
There is a well-known, if unconfirmed, anecdote in which Xanthippe becomes so irritated with Socrates that she dumps the contents of a chamber pot over his head. Perhaps this story is an exaggeration or a fiction, designed to reinforce the caricature of Xanthippe a shrill, disobedient harpy.
Or, perhaps it’s true.
Is it ever morally justified to dump a chamber pot over someone’s head? Probably not. While I’d like to think that I, myself am not capable of the same action– I can certainly relate to how the Xanthippe of this story might have been feeling in the moments before this act. Possibly, so can you.
Amy Levy was a 19th-century British writer known for her poetry and essays. She was the first Jewish woman to attend Cambridge University, and she was a feminist. In 1881, while a student at Newnham College, she published a poem called Xantippe.
Xantippe(spelled without the “h”) tells the story of the wife of Socrates from a very different perspective. The poem is essentially a feminist parody of the widely accepted Xanthippe narrative, painting a picture of a woman dissatisfied in a time and place where her options were limited by her gender.
This Xanthippe falls in love with Socrates after listening to him speak, admiring him for his mind and ideas. She is devastated by the fact that he does not care to consider hers.
A scene unfolds where Xanthippe speaks her mind in a group of men and is ridiculed:
But Sokrates, all slow and solemnly, Raised, calm, his face to mine, and sudden spake: ‘ I thank thee for the wisdom which thy lips Have thus let fall among us : prythee tell From what high source, from what philosophies Didst cull the sapient notion of thy words?’ Then stood I straight and silent for a breath, Dumb, crushed with all that weight of cold contempt;
The Xanthippe of Levy’s poem is punished cruelly for her hubris. She does not have the education to articulate her ideas to the men around her. Regardless of the nature of her ideas, she is doomed to be mocked for the perceived foolishness of her expression.
Amy Levy had episodes of major depression from an early age. This depression grew worse in her later years, exacerbated by troubles in her romantic relationships and the fact of her increasing deafness. She took her own life two months before her 28th birthday.
Perhaps Amy Levy, who had the audacity to try and succeed in male-dominated spheres of art and discourse, felt a bit like Xanthippe. Perhaps, so do many women today.
There aren’t very many women in philosophy. I’m proud to be one of them.
Philosophy departments across the US are notorious for their low numbers of women, as well as people of color. The number of women awarded philosophy PhDs is about 27%, and just 21% of employed philosophers are women. These numbers drop significantly for women of color.
Why are there so few women in philosophy?
Maybe it’s because women, as Hegel put it, “are not adapted to the higher sciences, philosophy, or certain of the arts.” Perhaps it is, as Confucius said: “the law of nature that women should be held under the dominance of man.”
Maybe it’s like Aristotle explained, and “the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject.” Maybe it’s because, as Spinoza suggested, “women are apt to seduce men into making irrational political decisions.” Nietzsche thought that “when a woman turns to scholarship” there is “usually something wrong with her sexual apparatus.”
Regardless of the truth of any of these statements uttered by male philosophers, it’s hard to miss how reading so many statements like this could be discouraging for women entering the field of philosophy. It can be hard to speak up when you know that anything you say might be labeled with the disclaimer: these thoughts came from a woman.
Feminist author Sady Doyle writes in her book Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers, about how women are often perceived as monstrous. Referencing intimidating mother goddess archetypes like Tiamat with relationship to media representations like Godzilla or the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, Doyle helps the reader understand how we may be beyond disdainful, even frightened, as a culture, of women who don’t fit the generally accepted mold.
There’s a lot of pain, blame, and shame in Doyle’s book. The women in the stories she tells are not always innocent but often are not as guilty as they are made to seem by their peers or by history. Doyle details how the real, human stories of women are often distorted– mostly, to make them look like monsters. There is also, however, a strong note of optimism in Doyle’s writing:
“We can find powerful and awe-inspiring visions of ourselves, hidden inside and underneath the stories patriarchy tells to shame us,” writes Doyle.
I wonder how Xanthippe saw herself.
When Xanthippe looked in the mirror, did she see wrathful, disobedient “yellow horse,” desperately in need of taming? Did she see a nagging shrew, angry and shrill, yap-yap-yapping at her poor husband? Would she give the same version of events if asked about the chamber pot?
Maybe not– but I suppose we’ll never know for sure.
Originally published on medium.com on May 16th, 2020.
Esoteric Epistemology 