August 15, 2009
Dave Tate on Motivation and Self Esteem, CrossFit Journal Preview - video [wmv] [mov]
The Front Squat in Spanish by CrossFit Again Faster, CrossFit Journal Preview - video [wmv] [mov]
"Eve Ensler on Security" - TED
Post thoughts to comments.
Posted by lauren at August 15, 2009 7:55 AM
lucky for me i have a double up today. front squats and pullups/min but should be very doable. Linda really took the wind out of my sails. hope everyone enjoys the rest day
Go get it Rookie! If you can survive Linda you can kill those 2 no problem :)
And that picture makes me very jealous. I love levers and need to practice them more often. I'm so close to having them down!
Get em Rookie, the pull ups and front squats were a blast but like Eric said if you make through Linda you're golden
bbq at cousin's and crossfitendurance.com 2mile run. should be a good day if I figure out how to pace myself.
YEAH MBS!!! Have fun at the Stongman Comp tomorrow... wish I could be there.
Pure Strength!...Don't think for a second the thin air makes that any easier....
There is a pic on the affiliate blog page from Friday's post that's shows a great beach scene.
Enjoy the rest day everyone!
Herm, hope that shoulder is healing well- forgive me if I have missed update posts.
#1~ Rookie, looking forward to reading how your double WOD went...sending all the energy I have left your way for a killa' WODx2!
wow, i don't post much really, but just wanted to share that i love the supportive atmosphere in the online community!
FitMom- I finally got to watch your video- sheesh. You are an amazing woman. Wow. Now I really wanna be like you :)
And how is FitMom'sMom? Haven't seen hide nor hair in quite some time. Hopefully givin' you hell!
have a great rest day everyone!
Yeah! That would be Rich and Jason in the picture! Two strong and great guys. Good job fellas. You make us all proud at MBS!!
Eve, please go back to the monologue. At least that was mildly entertaining, albeit mostly be/c I was on a date with (the very cool) Mrs. Dave T....
Rookie's workout plan is always a dilemma for me. If I miss a day do I:
A) Call it lost and stay on the daily routine
B) Call it my "rest day" then burn through the scheduled rest with 6 workouts in a row
C) Double up to make up
D) Or stay one day behind schedule until I miss a couple more workouts and then get back on schedule at some point
What's the recommendation? I always bounce between all 4 options - I'm guessing B is the worst.
Swam 1000m this mourning to get the gears turning.
Later on did:
8 hang clean (135#)
20 strict push ups
Run 1/4 mile
Ready for a rest day!
I hate rest days that aren't on Sunday.
Is there a harder version of Crossfit?
Ensler reminds me of someone who does *some* good, but for all the wrong reasons. There are echoes of morals, but she is on an alternate course. Her destination is goddess worship - only in its modern form. She uses extreme and tragic things that have been done to women as momentum to swing the pendulum as hard and as fast in the other direction. Along the way, some good gets done, but the pendulum continues along its course.
Replace the word "security" with "godliness" and I think you see her real motives.
true security = godliness, a true and vital relationship with God
I missed wed so I'll be doing linda.
Wow..Dave Tate, way to state the obvious in the video! lol. Hope they aren't paying you for that stuff.
Good thing for the rest day, i'm in St. Louis for a cards game, good luck all and go cards!!!
Excellent rest day video. I saw it earlier this week. She has some great points countering the voluminous paranoia we are fed by most of the media.
lifted chest light and took a 45 minute cycle spin class.
Does anyone know/have an iPhone app that can help me track my workouts???
Raquel and Ischuros,
Ischuros is not retarded and he is not alone in his sentiments. Please give him and us something more to chew on. Too often (to my mind) on this forum the first mention of God leads to a protracted battle over metaphsysics - we've heard all the arguments before.
This video is a little different for this site on a rest day (though its spirit, to my mind, is undeniably in keeping with the general atmosphere of the site created by the many videos profiling strong, multi-layered, determined, happy female crossfitters of all ages).
I don't want to offend Barry by attacking the religous guy/girl, but I do find it rather amazing that Ischuros sees Ensler's talks as creating a danger that the pendulum will swing too far in one direction, and that this is somehow (if I read Ischuros correctly) against "godliness".
Toward what is she swinging the pendulum Ischuros? Why do you fear it? I think she is helping to keep the pendulum moving toward equality for women. Simple equality. She is second wave (the 20thC enlightenment?), or fourth wave, or something else, but she speaks plainly of simple things like freedom and equality for girls and women, and the courage it takes to fight for it.
Also, the Spanish language video was great.
go to the app store and search crossfit, an app comes up called tracker with a kettlebell on it, it has all the WOD's by day and a list of all named WOD's to save your PR's
Thank you #26
I don't see it like ischuros does, but Raquel is out of line.
On the discussion about swinging the pendulum: I believe people find speeches as Ensler's dangerous as a protective system against unthinkable - for most of us it is beyond reasonable thinking that some people mutilate little girls or pour acid on women that rejected them.
But it is happening, in hundreds and thousands of cases. It is not easy to accept it, therefore I am grateful there are people like Ensler that think about it daily, instead of me. As you can see, it takes a toll on her as well.
Not long ago, women and children 'belonged' the the man of the family body and soul. Not long ago, white men 'conquered' continents and brought 'culture and faith' to other races and nations. But no matter how different nations are, there is ethics that bounds us: do not kill or hurt others, treat people with respect, let them be as free as you wish it for yourself.
Humans do change and improve, so let us continue in that direction. Some of us are Enslers, some of us contribute in other ways, but let's move forward.
Rob Miller - great double-under pic on the Affiliate Blog.
Come back and visit the RedShed soon!
I need assistance with my front squat.
My wrists are really straining to hold the bar in the rack position. I stretch and do handstand pushups for my wrists but I just can't get it.
Any Level 2 Coaches in S. FL to help?
#9~Pony! How are you girl?! I still talk about you running with me at the Games! Thanks for the kudos- just had another check up last week-check up and bloodwork are all good.
Keep trainin' hard my friend!
For anyone that HAS NOT seen the movie "The Hangover"...make it a priority! It gets funnier as you relive it in your head and talk about it to others that have seen it. Keep track of your "Sachel"!
#9~ Pony, thanks girl! Keep training hard!
My question is what is Ensler's goal? Is it to save women from being mutilated? And what does that even have to do with security? What is the theme of this talk? Her talking/rambling in circles could be taken for an intellectual foray into the meaning purposes of security by those that fancy themselves so. But for me, her life's work overshadows any dabbling of her mind into the importance/over-reliance on feeling secure.
What is her life's work? What is her motivation. Is it to improve the welfare of women? Or is it to undermine men? Who are the one's that typically provide security in a society?
She distracts us with horror stories of some sick fux mutilating their daughters and somehow puts blame on all of men. Then she somehow equates that ultra-religious act with the treatment of a poor teenage girl who got reprimanded for wearing an "I love my vagina" button. Really?
What is she really after? She does some good for the cover of another ultimate goal, which I propose to you is goddess worship in its oldest form - the worship of the female that dominates over the male.
And I don't necessarily think her speech is dangerous. I'm just saying you better know where the train is going before you jump on board.
Interesting how trusting in God has been relegated to a place beside believing in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. It must have been a long train ride.
I listened to this discourse openly, "what does she have to say", and kept saying, "but that's not true."
Eve Ensler says she is worried about security ... a "prevailing force of security". She says we Americans strive for security above all else. I taught my son to look both ways before he crosses streets ... security ... but not security above all else. I seek to instil honor, integrity, manners, faith, security, and the scientific method. I don't think we are obsessed with security ... I think there are real enemies, both foreign and domestic, that wish to harm and or destroy us that we should be vigilant to deal with... but I'm not obsessed with the vigilance.
Eve says security is illusive, impossible. But security is not all or nothing, but a continuum of awareness and effort. She says “nothing is secure” and speaks of events not within someone’s control … death, tunamis … but, like with this response, we can choose how we respond to events. I can choose to disagree with broad, flippant opinions stated as facts. Then she speaks of “security being the whole focus of your life” and the ramifications of that ‘whole focus’. She says you cannot travel far, cannot be open to new people, new ideas, new challenges that would ‘throw you off course’. She speaks of clinging to ‘hard matter identity’… identifying with a religion, a race, a nation. “You become part of an ‘us’. And to be security you defend against a ‘them’.” Well, yes, I am proud of my heritage, my fathers and mothers … and this Grand Experiment called American Democracy. I grieve over the small minded, hateful, greedy, insensitive acts of horror that have been and are taken against people in our society … but I also rejoice over the giving, loving, encouraging, thoughtful acts of good that have been and are being taken to people in our society.
I am obsessed, but not with security. Security is just a tool to protect … as is good nutrition focus. I’m obsessed with ‘la vida loca’ … living this crazy life with joy and love and helping others to do the same. My becoming has not ‘freezed me from doubt and change’, as Eve Ensler said it would … my becoming has made be aware of the greatness and horror in our past and the struggles for truth and fairness going on right now in this Grand Experiment of America.
third full day of going paleo! decided to try giving up coffee as well, I feel like my energy levels are already high enough without it. Its amazing how simply not eating bread and etc, has this much of a positive effect!
Your ignorance of feminism and lack of sensitivity for the thousands of women who have been brutally hurt and killed is appalling. Eve Ensler's goal is to bring EQUALITY to women, not "undermine men". Her goal is to stop violence against women, not to "distract us with horror stories".
There are extremes and the majority of women aren't getting their faces burnt off or their vaginas mutilated, but it happens. Try understanding that.
Go read some bell hooks, or The Vagina Monologues, or even jackson katz.
Just did my first group WOD at the new affiliate in town, Crossfit United. Gotta say it was awesome; its definitely better working out in a group versus solo efforts.
5 Rounds for time:
Run 400m, 10 pullups, 20 pushups
Definitely kicked my ass. Already knew my cardio sucked and pullups aren't great. Pushups are my stronger suit but today they sucked.
Can't wait for the next class, Im pumped now! No more globo gym and solo sessions for me.
Did my first pull up - band assisted - last night. actually I did 45 of them. Considering I had a SLAP repair (shoulder) in February I am pretty stoked. And am using this rest day as a very lazy day. Trying to do the Paleo but it's tough when I travel so much for work.
As for Eve Ensler video - I could only make it thru about 2 minutes before I got fed up with her voice. And I do Krav Maga - I was in an unsafe environment for awhile and will never go back. So, yup, I believe in security.
Wow,#37, "realwoman" sounds like an angry yenta. Sitting around complaining about men all day doesn't make you a real woman. It's really embarrassing when women like you try so hard to act all tough. Are you suggesting that historically the role of the male has not been to provide security on some level? Weird.
Hey Deano. I believe the first of Eve's speech was for you. Too bad you didn't hear it.
I don't agree with everything Ensler said, but I respect Greg for always bringing a wide variety of viewpoints to the table. I look forward to the rest day readings.
Thanks for posting this video Lauren. Ensler is merely challenging the deeply ingrained (erroneous) notions of "safety" and "security" with which we are constantly drip fed in western cultures. Clearly, this makes many very uncomfortable. I don't think her talk was designed to be anti-male - as a male I certainly didn't interpret it that way. The key to security, if there is one, lies in forging connections in the world and not reinforcing our sense of separateness from others. I couldn't agree with her more.
this is the move that caused my bicep to rupture. What I see now thought is that my hands were palms down on the back lever, lol. Guess that is why the rupture occured, live and learn.
Go to the app store and search "Fight Gone Mobile"
Did Row/Burpee/Run WOD from a little bit ago.
16:37 PR (by 0:11)
Feeling rather secure in that, thank you very much...
Does anyone else ever wake up with the feeling that they kick more ass before 9am than their friends do all day?
Happened to me today.
just curious whats everyones mile time? I just started running mile for time and have gone from 6:10 to 5:35 in three attempts over the course of two weeks.
We feel that way often!
I may have missed something entirely, but the security she is talking about seems pretty straight forward.
women around the world are putting themselves in harms way, without fear, and that creates a greater security for more women in the long run.
i.e. any 'renegade' like coach who has a different idea puts themselves out there, gets ridiculed but eventually people see benefit in their ideas.
What the hell are you guys talking about??
#26 & #47 Thanks for the info; I will check out those APPS.
Ahh, a rest day...
Is there an affiliate in Jackson, WY? I will be in town from Sunday-Tuesday and would like to connect.
why does he have reversed wrists in Back lever?
The video reminded me of a saying that I love:
If you believe in nothing, you'll fall for anything.
She seems to only communicate in doublespeak that is so random- only to make herself sound more intellectual.
She did not seem to be talking about security even though that was the supposed theme of her speech. Instead, she is promoting the thought that if you have no beliefs in anything and open yourself to any line of thought that comes your way, somehow you are better for it.
Men and women of character are willing to stand for something. That doesn't make them closed to opportunity or personal/societal growth. Having a belief system does not stunt you or make you insecure or aggressive by default.
This talk was so incoherent that it would take me all day to respond to each point. She is all over the place!
your comment greatly offends me. the subtext i'm catching seems to imply that you are willingly choosing not to ingest the other kind of black gold?
but...coffee is paleo..right? RIGHT? =(
It is interesting to see someone who has become a powerful leader, born so much responsibility, made so many decisions, who confronts so much frustration in most avenues of her work -- and is now trying to address the most general and widest audiences -- and yet she is not aware of how steeped she is in postmodernism, and cannot overcome this basic failure. She will never get through to the most powerful and rational minds on the planet because she CANNOT frame her discussion in a rational, normal, pragmatic context.
Yet when she speaks of rising above the contexts of "victim" and "victimizer," above security and invader -- I think she's sensing a problem with the fundamental postmodern, radical leftist worldview of "the empowered" versus "the weak". These postmodernists, from which the anticapitalist left is born, are obsessed with the evil of some people having more power than others -- but they cannot distinguish between the power of wealth / money, and the power of physical force. The tragedy of their mistake is that they always side with the encouragement of physical force through big government, against allowing the very non-egalitarian development of wealth.
What if a common-sense pragmatist took up her fight? I think my argument, because of its breadth, seems as if it belittles her movement, but I do think this idea needs to be recognized:
* the primary mover of environmental awareness and concern is personal wealth. Because we're always satisfying a hierarchy of needs, individuals will struggle to survive first, and only then to satisfy our most basic needs and wants, and only then to become obsessed with the beauty of our surroundings and prioritizing their beautification and robustness.
* the source of charity towards the poor, disenfranchised, marginalized, is the surplus wealth of those who met their basic needs.
* the driver of the arts has always been surplus wealth... even in the 20th century, when relative to previous centuries so much wealth has been created that the government forcibly reallocates wealth to support art that nobody cares to buy
* and, tragically perhaps, the driver of legal egalitarianism -- extending the same basic human rights to previously subordinated groups -- is the individualism (ethical & political individualism) that arose only in the 17th century, consequent with economic power shifting from political/tribal leaders to individuals who specialized in production, whether industrial, technical, financial, agricultural or service.
You cannot get to extending civilization's prosperity to the saddest, poorest corners of the world (see the correlation there between poverty, political instability, and incidence of widespread victimization of women?), without championing the basic social forces that make your concern, and its satisfaction in championing the victimized, possible.
Thus you have to champion the security of property rights and the individual's right to make and control his own wealth, first.
A basic idea of 'human nature' will dictate that you logically extend the same protection and security to all humans, equally. This was the moral, driving force of our republic in the 17th and 18th centuries, and of our economic freedom -- which means, capitalism.
I wonder if we might see a leader like Eve Ensler standing up and championing the source of her movement and concerns, in the achievements of dead white men like Thomas Paine, John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, and the need to continue fighting for the basic security of property rights and individual economic freedom so that we can continue and accelerate our progress in protecting and guaranteeing legal and moral equality for women all over the planet.
* * *
Personally, I find it hard to imagine being a man without feeling an uncompromising, primal drive to protect women. I'm aware that many feminists feel this is a chauvinistic or sexist position.
Waiting for the next WOD...
I think I tied last place in time for the Linda WOD but did it RX'd and then some! In that aspect, its a PR because in work-outs like those that include bench press, I usually scale-down.
I have to agree with others who think that enslers lecture was rather directionless. I really enjoyed the introduction, as someone who practices mindfulness and buddhism, I think that it is important that we don't cling to imaginary securities or become attached to temporary states. She provided a wonderful description of insecurity in both the beginning and end of her presentation. Let me say first that I think her work is places where women are oppressed in commendable, I deeply respect her for that work. On to the vagina business, as gimmicky and somewhat childish as making the word vaginal more vernacular is, I am really glad to see someone actually doing it. I never would have thought it necessary until I lived with a guy who called anything he really liked at the moment"the dick" for short. For instance if he was eating a burger and wanted ketchup he'd say "Ah this burger is awesome, some ketchup would be perfect, pass the dick." The dick referring in this case to the ketchup since it is "awesome." He also used to joke constantly about large penises and cock slapping women. Its people like him that Enslers vagina acclimation will benefit the most. Lastly, I'd like to respond to realwomen's attack on shirtless training. I think that both the male and female bodies are beautiful both should be free to display their bodies. There is nothing inherently chauvinist about displaying the male torso.
My rest day feels good (posting from crossfit app on iPhone)
great leg week coach!
I agree with everything in your post but the last bit about x-fitting males working out with their shirts off being juvenile. What about it is juvenile?
One of the things I like about the videos posted on this site is that often within the same video (or on alternating days) you will see a man (or some men) working out with their shirts off while other men have their shirts on, while some women are in sport's bras while other women are in t-shirts or whatever. The depictions of men and women on this site seems to be pretty equal (much more so than in the mainstream media) and the physicality of these depictions is a bona fide result of the activities being filmed. Rarely do I sense objectification though it does happen (see Steep Hill video on Aug 8 - disappointing).
I would bet it took Realwoman a few minutes to write her post, and she may have been standing as she wrote it. Do you know whether or not she is "tough"?
Nothing is more fundamentally primal to human nature than sex, and men pursue procreation through 1) increasing one's social status (to appeal to female's objectification of genetic fitness, which is focused on social status since it's the best indicator of a man's ability to protect and provide for offspring long-term) and 2) taking the most efficient measure of a woman's genetic fitness by looking at her.
Oh, that means "objectification" of the woman!
Which part of observing a woman implies that your treatment of her is strictly limited to assessing her attractiveness? Or is it ANY assessment of a woman's fitness that is disappointing?
How is a man supposed to interact with women, without first looking at them?
If you were designing an organism which must find the best genetic material to couple and raise offspring with, would you have that organism *enjoy* and thus more frequently and interestedly engage in the process of assessing a potential mate's fitness, including visual evaluations? Or would you have it disdain this practice?
Perhaps you would have the organism trying to signal its superiority by displaying a moral character that... uh, does NOT assess a mate's fitness?
Hey, along with objectification of women, and moral posturing, hypocrisy is also one of our inherited behaviors. It's usually coupled with the moral posturing that rails against human nature.
thank god for rest day. and i hope i dont see Linda for a very very long time
THERE IS A CROSSFIT APP FOR iPHONE.... HELL YEAH (thanks FrankTyler)
just keep reading back in the posts for today, thanks to #26 and #47 congruently.
I feel sorry for you, realwoman. You seem to be very angry at men in general. I am sorry if you have been hurt, but please try to understand that simply because some men hurt people, this doesn't make all men everywhere rapists. Keep in mind that most police officers (whose job it is to catch rapists) and fire fighters are men. Additionally, the vast majority of the fathers in the world would gladly sacrifice themselves to protect their wife and children.
Yes, some men do bad things - but some women do bad things too. This discussion should be about good acts vs. bad acts; healthy, sane individuals vs. rapists, murderers, thieves, etc. Not about men vs. women. By turning it into an a man vs. woman issue you are alienating huge numbers of people who you should be making your ally.
Also, insulting someone based on the size of their genitals really says more about you than it does about them.
And finally - some people just like to work out with their shirts off because it's hot in their gym. That you are willing to judge every single person who ever removes their shirt during a workout as being juvenile does not say good things about you.
@ Cash Reynolds.
I believe both love and fear are more fundamentally primal than sex. I think all motivation can be traced back to love and fear.
And I think we can readily tell if someone is acting out of love or if someone is acting out of fear. I believe Ensler acts out of fear, because fear is destructive in the end. And her goal is the destruction of the natural relationship between men and women. She would prefer the women become more man-like and the men to become more woman-like. I think you can see that in the homosexual movement around the world.
I didnt do the WOD from 2 days ago because I was in Vegas, So I decided to make up for it today with a workout I seen on CFcentral.
3 rnds for time:
500m row, 10 Man Makers 45# dumbells
I liked the name of that execercise "Man Makers"
I never did them before so I was thinking this will be cool. Wrong. They sucked really bad.
What is this "human nature" you are talking about? Where can I find it? Are you defining my "nature" (as I am a human) though you have never met me, are you defining Ensler's "human nature"? Does "human nature" change over time? Is mine the same as Aquinas'? Is mine the same as the anonymous writer of Gilgamesh? and was his/her the same as Ramses III or Louis XIV, or Confusius?
What kind of organism should I design? One that lives for two weeks eats twice mates once and dies? Or one that lives for 80 years? One that chooses to once, or a dozen times, or not at all? One that mates several times a day with several different mates, or one that can choose to never mate? One that is incapable of reproducing for over a decade after it is born? One that is unable to feed itself for many years? One that is capable of using language and of reasoning? One that, if it directs its attention with sufficient sensitivity and understanding to the environment around it and its fellow species members, it is capable of cooperating with its fellow species members to cure diseases, and travel to space etc etc... Whatever we humans are, we are not rats, or bonobos, or salamanders.
I have a hard time believing you cannot distinguish between looking at or filming a person and "objectifying" a person. Looking at a person involves focusing your eyes on him or her as an aggregate of attributes that allows you to make the kind of determination that "over there is Joe", or, "over there is a person carrying groceries". "Sexual objectification" involves looking at another person as a de-personalised object of desire stripped of individual personality; thinking of that person only in terms of his or her body, or body parts so that you are making the determination that "there is desire-object". To see the difference look at the 'disappointing' Steep Hill video (a portion in the middle of that video "objectifies" at least one female athletes by the way it focuses the viewers' attention on their backsides to the exclusion of almost all other context). Compare that with the video for July 19 (more in keeping with what I think is crossfit's customary depiction of women in a way that challenges traditional notions of gender, or "female/human nature" as you might call it). The July 19 video involves a personality with a body that does stuff, rather that a body part without a personality.
As far as dead white men like Thomas Paine, John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, I didn't hear Ensler say a single thing about these men. She may very well like these men. Perhaps she has not read them but still shares certain aspects of their outlook. Or she could self-consciously dislike them. We don't know. One thing I think we do know, however, is that many many white men who were "steeped" (to use your word) in the writings of these men and the enlightenment did not see fit to work to extend the values embodied in these writings to women. Generations of white men, professors, doctors, clergyman, lawyers, politicians, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers read Paine (or similar authors) after their workdays, and then blew out the candle or the gas lamp or flicked off the light-bulb, and went into bed to share a night's sleep with the woman who cooked their meal and washed their clothes, and did not think to themselves, "You know what, I can vote, I know people down at the Club/Association, I'm going to write to my elected representatives and I'm going to chat with my pals and tell them how preposterous, how pernicious, how base and evil it is that the enlightenment reform of political society has not done a jot of good for women in their own right. And if my representatives don't respond, I'm going to get my pals and we're going to have ourselvesm a Tea Party, or a Lumber Party, or a Steel Party, or a Railroad Party, because, taxation without representation is slavery!"
Of course that didn't happen. So Ensler might think to herself, "Wow, Paine (and his tradition) nailed it....but only, as far as his male readers were concerned (and their great great grandsons) for men....and it took nearly a century and a half for women to win the vote."
I like Paine and Locke and Jefferson, but it is entirely possible for me to like those fellows and to simultaneously hold the belief that women are inferior and to deny them rights, jobs, pay them less for equal work, define their natures for them oblivious to their protestations. Try reading the reasons of the court that denied Myra Bradwell admission to the Illinois Bar in the 1870s (despite her having passed the exams) - Locke in one side of its mouth, female inferiority in the other.
So, Ensler could say "I don't have much time for Paine" and that wouldn't make her against liberty, democracy, property rights and common sense. She might be thinking: "what have Paine's readers done for me or other women lately? Paine might be of help in some other place and some other time, but given the context, I think we women better look after ourselves."
Moral posturing? Hippocracy? How could you possibly know whether I am posturing and whether I am a hippocrate?
There is one part of your last comment that I like so much, I'm going to reproduce it for us all to read again. I hope you don't mind if I change a couple of the words:
"And her goal is the destruction of the natural relationship between blacks and whites. She would prefer the blacks become more white-like and the whites to become more black-like. I think you can see that in the civil rights movement around the world."
And her goal is the destruction of the natural relationship between Lord and serf. She would prefer the serf become more Lord-like and the Lord to become more serf-like. I think you can see that in the democratic movement around the world.
Sarcasm aside, God did not set up Lords to rule over serfs, or whites to rule over blacks, or men to rule over women, and I advocate none of those. So those are invalid arguments against my position.
And I don't believe there is a moral equivalency between equal rights for women, or civil rights for blacks (or any other skin color) and the homosexual movement. Ensler and others would certainly have us believe that the homosexuals fall under both categories.
Also, do you assume I am a white male because of my beliefs, my manner of writing, or some other reason?
22 / M / 5'9" / 135lb
Catching up, so I did Tabata Something Else today.
Pull-ups: 12-8-6-7-6-4-4-4 = 4/51
Push-ups: 7-6-5-4-3-3-2-3 = 2/33
Sit-ups: 5-5-5-5-4-3-4-4 = 3/35
Squats: 18-17-17-16-15-15-15-15 = 15/128
Last time, total was 20/213.
Not a word in what I have addressed to depends in any way on an assumption that you are either male or white.
Why is there no "moral equivalancy" (?) between equal rights for women, blacks, and gays?
I challenged your notion that there is a "natural relationship" between men and women. I used your own words against you to show that "natural relationships" between persons defined as members of a group based on immutable characteristics (race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability) can be and have be and are being used as the basis for repression and discrimination.
What is the "natural relationship" between women and men, men and men, women and women? There is no "natural relationship." There are the relationships people choose, thank God!
Did you know that 80% of the female characters in the net sim world "Second Life" are actually created and controlled by men?
Finally got a chance to watch this. Few comments.
First, I largely agree with her broadstroke ideas on safety and how to live. There is no security, ultimately. I agree that meaning inheres in motion, and that to be static is to be dying. I invented the term Telearchy to describe this pattern, which is order in chaos.
At the same time, her leftist bias is unmistakable. One cannot not hear the latent condemnation of George Bush, our military establishment, and of pretty much every war we've ever fought.
A subtle but I think important point in this regard is best summarized by a quote I heard attributed to a French literary critic named Rene Girard: "The rejection of the rejection of the Other has begun."
What he meant was that whereas the West, generally understood, was fully as ethnocentric as everyone else (the Middle Kingdom, Land of the Rising Sun), the current now is to reject not Others, but anyone who still retains an unambiguous notion of self: of religious identity, national identity, moral identity, sexual identity, etc. Ensler said as much.
Yet, this misses the point of Liberalism, which is the reconciliation of difference within the framework of law. It is not necessary for me to reject her, or her me, for us both to retain our sense of self.
Substantially her entire lecture was devoted to HER understanding of how ALL of us ought to live. Her own, shall we say, GYNOcentrism is hidden by the fact that she calls openly for generalized moral ambiguity, outside of the context of greater rights for women, which of course I support.
I found her cartoonish characterization of those commited to the physical defense of this nation to fully as bigoted and prejudicial, in its own way, as the statements of other sorts of bigots she took pains to condemn: for example, her comments that those concerned with security consider security their whole lives; they can't allow conflicting views; they are not open to new ideas; they can't not know who they are.
This, to me, bespeaks a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of the genuine Liberal spirit.
More: note her frequent use of the word "moved". For her, truth is an emotion. It is connection. It is spontaneous compassion. As laudable and necessary for community and worthwhile living these sentiments are, they are not the WHOLE of life. There are REASONS why hard men need to stand ready to defend us. Some of the same men who commit atrocities against women are working hard to commit atrocities, again, against us.
A very useful book on the relation of the sexes is Doris Lessing's "The marriages between Zones 3, 4, and 5". A Nobel Laureate, she considered her "Shikasta" work her most important, if memory serves.
Here is a good series of quotes from Thomas Paine, addressing pseudo-pacifism on the part of some Quakers, who played the part then now played by our pseudopacifistic Sybaritic Left:
"Our plan is peace forever. . .We act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burdens of the present day. . . We view our enemies in the character of Highwaymen and Housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter [there are two meanings, here: the one I like is that the sword and halter are both tools to specific ends]--Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the continent [and world], with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made its way into some of your bosoms. . .
IF YE REALLY PREACH FROM CONSCIENCE [emphasis mine], and mean not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion [politics], convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine TO OUR ENEMIES [emphasis mine], for THEY LIKEWISE BEAR ARMS. [emphasis his].
Had ye the honest soul of Barclay [who called the King to task to his face], . . .ye would not spend your partial [prejudiced] invectives against
the injured and the insulted only, but, like faithful ministers, would cry aloud and SPARE NONE. [emphasis his]."
In her travels, Ensler may yet find the value of decent, disciplined, and well armed men and women, who share her desire for peace, but not her optimism that it will spontaneously break out without care, wisdom, and the judicial use of force. She is certainly on the wrong side of any serious study of history.
We may share goals, and differ with respect to means. This is the necessary center place where dialogue can and should happen, without prejudice on EITHER side.
This morning my lover pulled up this site, as he does most mornings... but this morning he announced that a TED video was posted.
That got my attention.
Then to hear that it was Eve Ensler, I had to sit down. "On Crossfit.com... No Way!"
At first I thought that it was probably to bash her, as Crossfit has long impressed me with yet another place where there are the same, tired out old methods of selling stuff (even ideas) with pretty breasts as the hook...(although great value is offered to women in the form of great workouts and strength development).
My personal experience with CrossFit is not altogether positive... The most glaring difficulty being that integrity here appears to be more about counting reps than being honest and true in life overall.
It seemed to me that CrossFit offers significant lip service to "equality", while at the same time can minimize the incredible athletic ability many women possess within this community, if she isn't "hot".
All that said... Bravo!!!... to whoever posted this talk. It simply brings a perspective to this huge community that is virtually hidden, or simply ignored.
Violence towards women IS an epidemic (and has been for ever...), it's worldwide and completely shocking.
That is true.
Why is it that when that fact is pointed out, those who could be the very people to step up and defend those in need feel attacked? (Maybe that's because the focus has been on enemies from other countries and not the guy standing next to you.)
Ensler had to make her message glaring to bring this to more people's awareness. Using the word "vagina" is shocking and clearly utilized specifically to have that effect. It communicates, "Wake up! Pay attention! This is important!" I doubt she'd have had such a run of it if she said, "Angry Women Unite"... would she?
The actual cruelty that so many women experience doesn't seem to get much air time by the media (and said assaults often occur in her own home... The "enemy" is not across the ocean, but sleeping in her bed).
Easily, 1 out of 3 women reading this have been assaulted or raped. That means that very likely 1 out of 3 of the men reading are living with or love a woman who has been violated in some way. She may not discuss it, or has internalized it, but you are likely sleeping with a woman who has suffered violence and/or violation at some time in her life.
Isn't that personal to you? Isn't that something to be aware of? Your beautiful mate, friend, daughter, lover was hurt by someone just because she is female...
But, it isn't easy to face these facts. The man who would rape a woman is a man in pain. The woman who makes ALL men responsible for her pain is also in pain.
Eve Ensler isn't making this a gender war, she's merely pointing out that EQUALITY and PEACE is a good thing for everyone.
Thank you for posting this. Thank you for the comments with intelligence and honesty peppered in. And thank you for those of you who discount this out of hand, I can see who to send my heartfelt prayers for peace to this morning.
Well put Barry. Hope you're enjoying your summer.
The critique of "too much" security (however you want to define it) does not come only from people who favour, or feel comfortable in a society of more or less generalized "moral ambiguity".
It can also come from those who have a very clearly defined moral vision for the society they live in, i.e., Ron Paul and the liberatarians.
I think the neo-cons had neither a clear nor an ambiguous moral view and they were very much in favour of "security". The neo-cons had little morality to speak of, they simply had "patriotism", which they corrupted into an empty vessel into which they could pour their ambitions.
I can't agree with that. First off, I don't think I'm a neocon, and I agreed with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hussein himself, when arrested, said he had every intention of developing nukes. This is from his own mouth. We prevented him. Sundry other benefits flowed from this, but we've done that discussion many times.
Was George Bush my ideal? Of course not. My ideal would be someone pretty much exactly like Barry Goldwater. He was not a "neocon". He was a straight up Conservative, although in my view, the proper term would be Conservative Liberal: conservative with respect to the Constitution, liberal in his congruity with respect to the intentions and design of this nation. We are SUPPOSED to be a place to find freedom to worship and do as you please. That's why we fought the Revolution. That's why Lincoln felt preserving the Union was worth 600,000 lives.
With respect to Ensler, I've had quite a few ideas. Some will have to remain in my notes since I'm tired, but I will pass one or two along.
First, if it isn't obvious, I derive tremendous, exceedingly nerdy pleasure from neologisms. My basic thought is if you can't find a word that works, you invent one. Here is one for today: Moral Henotheism. I can likely do better, but that will stand for now.
What I intend by that, is that many polytheistic cultures would worship one deity, primarily, but not doubt others, and occasionally hedge their bets by worshipping others, depending on their current need.
Likewise, there might be a need, at times, for what I termed above "gynocentrism". It might serve a needed purpose, like MLK's marches did in the 1960's. Yet, the time for such focus, for such falling away from a more generalized focus, is finite. In my view, the Civil Rights movement outlasted its usefulness, and decayed into simple whininess, and dependency on a paternalistic State that career politicians were more than happy to create.
Clearly, that point has not been reached with respect to women's rights; certainly not globally. And yes, I know women that have had bad things happen to them. Women survive, that much is clear, but I think that sort of pain alters you. I see that.
I was going to add another political element, but I think I'll leave it there. I'm fundamentally on her side, but as always I am very careful to observe where the balance lies, and which way it is going.
Finally got to watch the video and read the related comments. I enjoyed both; thanks.
Used the day to work on my mile time. Treadmill 1 mile: 5:52 (pr)