You say you want a revolution
well, you know...
...we all want to change the world
Sponsor my private revolution:
What am I selling on Ebay today?
Let the Revolution begin...
*You can be any age to join the knitting revolution. It's not just grannies any more.
*To join, just grab the nearest pointy things, and tie them to the nearest string-like substance. Wave them enthusiastically in the air, yelling passionate cries such as "och aye the noo!"
*The revolution requires that you supply your own weapons. Er, needles. *Knitting can be sexy. Sure, it can. Go to knitty and be inspired!
*Knit in public, and if anyone looks at you funny, you've always got a sharp metal thing handy with which to poke their soft bits.
*Get all knitting-zen on people. Then when you really let your hair down, you can get away with it, because you're "that nice person, who knits". *insert evil laugh here*
*Oh, yeah, almost forgot. The revolution will not be televised. Or... something like that.
I moved to Canberra last November, and am now involved in the best Canberra knitting group! ... so any locals or visitors interested, go on over to Canberra Stich N Bitch yahoo group and join us in our dark endeavours! I mean, creative meeting of minds... er, yeah. Something like that. We meet at Starbucks in Civic on the first Thursday evening of every month, and the third Sunday of the month at 2pm. Come along! If you feel shy, feel free to post online first, or email someone to ask a few questions. :):):) If you want, use the contact button and I'll give you my details so we can get in touch. Always happy to get the interesting people of Canberra out of the woodwork... I know you're there, ya just hard to find sometimes *chuckle*
Sydney Knitting Adventures continue at "my" previous knitting group in Newtown: Meet up for coffee, cake, and knitting adventures galore at Barmuda Cafe, Australia Street Newtown. It's opposite the police station, and across the intersection from Newtown Train Station.
See the SSK Website for details :D
You, and this many other people with a cramp in their forefinger:
Interesting in knitting, and what other knitters are doing? Or are you just bored, or farting off at work while the boss ain't watching? Well then, I have just the thing to keep you busy for hours on end... go exploring the wonderful world of knitting blogs. Can you believe there's so many of us?
I have my favourite blog-days, and these are some of them:
A hairy tale
God on the brain
Blogging from behind a mask
Creativity and productivity
I am SUCH a nerd
Deliver me from Swedish furniture
Modern beauty is a myth
Instant karmaís gonna getcha
Harris the Well Clad Fish
The love is in the food
Embarrassment, Humiliation and Joy
The birth of a grammar avenger
Traffic Lights, part 1
Spawn of Satan
Traffic Lights, part 2
A long time ago, in a knitting bag far, far away...
And my other blog, complete with a few little patterns: http://miscsqueak.blogdrive.com
Do women prefer to be subservient? Is this how women are, "biologically"?
Yesterday I got a comment on an older entry from "Mike" who said:
"I want to make a case for women shaving off their pubic hair. It is incredibly sexy, but it mostly about submissiveness. I suppose submissiveness is not a terribly correct thing to promote these days, but I really do think women want to be compliant (I'm sure this will draw objections.) Over the past decade women have decided to shave their pubic hair to make men happy ---- that's not a crime; women also have resumed the practice of taking their husbands name --- again, not a crime. Is female submissiveness a cultural response, or is it biological? Our culture over the past few decades has suggested it is the former, but it is beginning to look like that might not be the case. See the experiments with mice: the more testostarone they are given, the more dominant they become; the more estrogen, the more submissive. Give a bit."
This has been a subject upon which Iíve reflected often and discussed often. I think that there are women who prefer to be subservient in their roles. I doubt that it is the majority of women, but I'm not a sociologist, and I don't actually know. But I certainly do know plenty of women who canít do enough to please others, and often at their own expense. Sometimes even at their own childís expense.
However, I donít believe that this applies to all women, nor do I think it is biological. This is a cultural response to the way women have been treated over hundreds of years. Biological explanations for human behaviour are being shot down in flames year after year, and are an old fashioned, outdated and oversimplified way of attempting to explain the way people work.
A fantastic resource for anyone who's interested in this is the work of Laura Berk, an American academic who is at the cutting edge of developmental psychology and writes psych text books for universities the world over (which is, obviously, where I've come across her work). Even Freud is being superseded and discounted these days. Although his work laid the grounds for what we know today as psychoanalysis, his work is just too old fashioned, and has no scientific basis.
Finally, the testosterone thing. Injecting it into rats hasnít increased "dominance" per se. The increase is in aggressive behaviour. Call it a fine a line difference if you will, but I see it as a rather significant difference. You can find arguments saying that dominance means aggression (see hereÖ but note that this is an unpublished paper, not peer reviewed, and targeted at a money-spending audience for "the hormone shop"), but you can also find arguments saying that Jesus Christ was an alien. Just because itís printed in a book doesnít make it true. Statistics are just as misleading - I mean, after all, statistically speaking, everyone on the planet has one testicle. (think about it)
I found a couple of published articles for academic psychology journals talking about this experimental procedure and aggression:
"Effects of chronic adminstration with high doses of testosterone propionate on behavioral and physiological parameters in mice with differing basal aggressiveness" (Aggressive Behaviour, 2003, Vol 29, 173-189. Authors: MartŪnez-Sanchis, S.; Arnedo, M. T.; Salvador, A.; Moya-Albiol, L.; GonzŠlez-Bono, E.) - discusses conflicting results in research, e.g. animals which behave aggressively during low-testosterone cycles, which doesn't support the high T = high aggression theory (p186). Also, regardless of the sex of the mouse, the predisposition to aggression or submission altered the result of the hormone injections - submissive mice became more submissive, dominant mice stayed relatively the same. In fact, the more aggressive mice, after their injections, spent more time exploring their environment than the control mice. All the mice in the experiment were male, showing that submissive behaviour is not limited to females.
People desire power and dominance. Not just men. People. You suppress a womanís rights and cut off her avenues to power, and it just bubbles up in another way, for instance passive-aggressive behaviour. There is no way that women are designed to allow people to use them as a doormat. Even the doormats I know engage in idiotically manipulative behaviour to try somehow to combat their situation of being dominated.
Donít believe everything you see printed, boys and girls. And donít fucking tell me that women are biologically designed to be submissive. I donít give a shit about political correctness, and yes, I believe that men and women both have to give ground in their relationships, but itís less about dominant-submissive dynamics, and more just about mutual respect and care. I agree with Mike's "give a bit" - but this is something which men and women can take on board. Life is a two way street, and too many men grab on to idiotic, narrow-minded, biased research such as Mike's example and use it as an excuse to treat women like shit, and then say "but thatís the way nature/God intended it".
By the way Mike, where was this experiment documented? Is it a published, peer-reviewed journal article, or something out of People magazine? I wouldnít mind having a look, and the source of your information would make a big difference as to how much weight it carries. Oh, and you spell it "testosterone", not testostarone.
Thanks boys and girls. Now, try not to rip each otherís heads off, as I know this is a controversial topic, and KEEP YOUR COMMENTS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION, NOT ON THE TAG BOARD. Tag board comments applying to this post will be moved to the comments section of this post. Iím not trying to upset people, just respond to Mikeís comment.
Remember: I reserve the right to remove any childish or abusive comments from anywhere on this blog, and subsequently ban that person. Have any opinion on anything you want, but present your case as an intelligent adult, not a wailing child.
Posted at 11:13 am by monnsqueak