Amazons International # 64 ************************** Contents: Quotes for the day Review: Dogs don't know Kung fu Daniel Thomas: Re: Who are the Amazons? Cat Farrar: Amazons with one breast Bill Zale: Bio/calling all muscular women Pablo Gonzales: Sports Tribute to Gabriela Sabatini Thomas: Bodyguards and Motherhood vs. Femininity: The Plight of Female Protectors (Re: Sports Tribute to Gabriela Sabatini) Date of publication: 18.05.1998 ********************************************************************* QUOTES FOR THE DAY Malise has a problem. She's come downwell to Earth after spending too many years in deadly space combat. Her muscles have wasted away, her past is a confused torture of events she'd like to forget, and her brain is wired up to data-fat -- addictive military hardware strictly illegal on Earth. She came back for a rest. But there can be no rest for the only woman who can save the world. -- Blurb from Simon Ings' _Hothead_, Grafton 1992 http://www.su.ic.ac.uk/clubsocs/scc/icsf/BOOKS/INGS/ If you try to be pretty, you hide your beauty. -- Ya'Acov Darling Khan (Body Prayer dance workshop 08.05.1998) http://ravenrecording.com/ "Justice is a woman with a sword" -- as slogans go, it is strangely evocative. ... A woman with a sword, then, is a powerful emblem. She is noone's property. A crime against her will be answered by her own hand. She is armed with the traditional weapon of honour and vengeance, implying both that she has a sense of personal dignity and worth, and that affronts against that dignity will be hazardous to the offending party. ... And one last great myth: "Violence never solves anything." In the grand philosophical sense those words may ring true. Violence is like money: it can't make you happy, save your soul, make you a better person -- but it certainly can solve things. ... A dead rapist will not commit any more rapes: he's been solved. -- D.A. Clarke: Justice is a Woman With a Sword (1991) http://www.igc.apc.org/nemesis/ACLU/Nikki/JusticeIsAWomanWithASword.html ************************************************************************** From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Review of Dogs don't know Kung fu Jamie O'Keefe: Dogs don't know Kung fu: A guide to Female Self Protection. New Breed Publishing, P.O. Box 511 Dagenham, Essex RM8 3NF, UK (1996). 200 pages. £ 12.99. ISBN 0 9517567 1 0. This is a useful, well-written, disturbing and sometimes shocking book. The primary target audience for the book are young women and parents. The author has spent 20 years learning martial arts, developing his own system of combat techniques that work on the street. He has taught self-defense for many years, often to female classes. One of his concerns has been to eliminate techniques that may look grand in a class, but which has no value if one is attacked on the street; another to rediscover and teach efficient techniques that have been forgotten or outlawed in the often highly stylized and rule-bound martial arts contests. His students, and part of his motivation, include his sister, mother, wife and two daughters. The book is not primarily a technique book. O'Keefe states that the best fight is the one that does not take place, the one that is defused or avoided, so he gives a lot of advice about how to recognize potentially dangerous situations, how to avoid them, and how to defuse them -- there is a lot of practical tips, psychology, and about paying attention to one's environment here (the author even provides addresses and phone numbers to shelters and voluntary associations) -- and ultimately, how to deal with violence when there is no other option. The book starts with some questions about you, the reader's attitudes. How far are you willing to go to save yourself, your spouse, your children? If it's a serious attack where someone wants to maim, rape or kill, would you be willing to go for the attacker's eyes? The whole book is interspersed with documented real life-examples of what some perpetrators did, some of them really grim, and examples of how victims got away. The book provides basic anatomy knowledge of body pressure points like "the neck is your lifeline -- why and how you must protect and gain release if someone grabs your neck", "how long can you hold your breath", "what can you do within 6-7 seconds", simple, efficient techniques, how to use things as weapons, etc. The book is very concrete and down-to-earth and while that's what makes it useful, it is also what makes it disturbing and at times shocking. If you're just going to read one self protection book, this one is a good candidate. The text of the entire book has used to be available at http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~newbreed/home.html -- I don't know if the web site is temporarily down, has moved, or is gone for good. ********************************************************************* Date: Thu, 16 Apr 98 16:07:38 EST5EDT From: Artemis Subject: Re: Who are the Amazons? In response to Ingar Knudtsen in AI # 63, who wrote: > To my eyes, the accumulated evidence is now so strongly in favor > of the existence of one, or rather several such societies, with > varying degrees of female political, military and religious > domination, that I, without hesitation, will answer the question > whether I "believe in the Amazons" with a decided YES. > > I also believe that the basis of the Amazon society was religion. > Worship of one, or rather several goddesses, which when added up > may be referred to as The Goddess. The existence of female > warriors may therefore be rooted in the society's choice of > religion, and the defense of this religion. > > In my opinion, the definition of an Amazon must be a woman who > was a member of a certain society, in which the warrior caste > consisted of women. But it would be wrong to define only the > warriors as Amazons. We may call them Amazon warriors if we like, > but they were no more Amazons than the priestesses of the society, > or women of any other class. I support the idea of non-warrior Amazons. What kind of culture could survive with only warriors? They'd never have any food and no religion. I also agree with Ingar that there were male Amazons as well, and that the legends of the exclusively female warrior people came down because the patriarchies around them found the idea of female fighters terrifying. Another reason that I believe there were male Amazons is because the society wouldn't have been able to function without men -- not that they needed males to protect them or other such nonsense, but because any society needs members of both sexes to continue its existence. The males would have worked as breeding stock, or, preferably, took an active part in the culture. The Amazon archetype portrayed by popular culture, such as the Amazon tribes on Xena: Warrior Princess and Wonder Woman are fictional, because both sexes are needed. Amazon Society would have been a more equal one, probably with a priestess-queen leading it. The recreation of this type of society should be a goal of the contemporary world. Daniel Thomas "...But I do not enjoy the killing...I AM NOT VIOLENT!! And I will put an arrow through the brains of anyone who says I am!!!" -- Artemis (Artemis Requiem #4-DC) ********************************************************************* Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:54:09 -0700 From: Cat Farrar Subject: Amazons with one breast I keep thinking about the myth that the Amazons cut off one of their breasts. Breasts are symbolic of femaleness and motherhood -- so to lose one or both could represent a loss of or partial loss of one or both. I wonder if the Greek word was a negative slang word -- women that are only part women. Was there such a thing as slang that long ago? And, along with the myth of Amazons being self-mutilating, there are always stories of them dying or being killed off. Oh, those Amazons, just a passing thing -- a fluke. People mention Don Juan, Casanova or Marquis de Sade and images of "great lovers" come to mind (not for me, I know more about their history). Try to think about women with the same reputation, and being granted the same positive evaluation? I can't think of a single, individual woman. For me, the Amazons come the closest to being assertive/aggressive about satisfying their sexual hunger, while still being perceived as great and strong, but then...they didn't last. Words such as whore, tramp and slut suggest sexually active and aggressive women, but they are loaded with negative connotations. Cat Farrar "It is not from God the Father that we derive the idea of paternal authority; it is out of the struggle for paternal control of the family that God the Father is created." -- Adrienne Rich, Of Woman Born ********************************************************************* Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 13:54:21 -0700 From: Bill Zale Subject: Bio/calling all muscular women I'm a 28 year old male, heterosexual, 117 pounds, 5'11". Yes, scrawny as can be, and no amount of exercising seems to help any. Most women -- bodybuilders or not -- have bigger biceps than I do. Mine are those of the girls who appear on the cover of Mademoiselle magazine! I have found, ever since I was 18 and saw my first picture of competition female bodybuilders, that I am powerfully attracted to extremely muscular women. Let's put it this way, a female bodybuilder with bulging biceps gets my heart pounding (and fills up my jockey shorts) in 15 seconds; the Mademoiselle girls don't even register. To me, the ideal image of a beautiful woman would be: 190 pounds of muscle, massive biceps, broad shoulders, rippling back! Yet still feminine -- long hair, even makeup! In school, I was always the scrawniest boy and worst athlete. (There's nothing more embarrassing as a teen-age boy than to be in the locker room and have the smallest wang -- and everything else -- there!) I know I can never play macho man to any woman. Perhaps this is why I have never had any difficulty accepting and admiring athletic, large, powerful, muscular women. Neither of us fit the usual sexual stereotypes! So I think it's great that powerful women are asserting their right to be strong. (I saw in Sports Illustrated a piece about a 150 pound, 15 year old female powerlifter who bench presses 145! She could leave me in the dust -- but I can take it!) I've never had any such romantic relationship, but I have to admit that my fantasy is having a competition lady bodybuilder overpower me, pin me down, and go at me! (I get excited just thinking of those biceps wrapped around me!) So I would appreciate feedback from lady bodybuilders and powerlifters of any age from any country. Do you despise scrawny men? Do you think it's possible to have a romantic relationship where the woman plays the more "masculine" aggressive role and the man the more "feminine"? Do you know of relationships between powerful women and scrawny men? I'm not into the porn that seems to accompany some of female bodybuilding. I genuinely admire strong women and would like to correspond by e-mail to talk about changing sex roles. And I still say, women with rippling biceps are sexy! Bill bill.zale@mailexcite.com ********************************************************************* Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 20:32:00 -0300 From: Pablo Gonzalez Subject: Sports Tribute to Gabriela Sabatini [Editor's note: The following posting made me uncomfortable, but I decided to let it go through. As always, your feedback is appreciated.] Hello everybody, this is my first entry to the club and as I am not an English native speaking, please forgive any possible mistake (you can correct me if you find any). I'm 33 and live in Buenos Aires, Argentina. I read Thomas Gramstad's comments in AI # 62 where he speaks about Gabriela Sabatini, and as an Argentinian, I would like to say that she might be an Amazon for her muscularity and shoulders and her overall look, but my opinion is that she is not attractive as a woman. I've personally seen her playing in Buenos Aires, I've heard her in lots of interviews (remember that I speak Spanish), and she is not feminine at all. She may be attractive as a bodyguard, but not as a woman. Of course I too love her as a tennis player and as a person, but my tribute doesn't include neither femininity nor sex appeal. Regards, Pablo M. Gonzalez gonzalpa@telefonica.com.ar ********************************************************************* From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Bodyguards and Motherhood vs. Femininity: The Plight of Female Protectors (Re: Sports Tribute to Gabriela Sabatini) To me it seems that Pablo Gonzales is suggesting that for a woman, muscularity and broad or strong shoulders are incompatible with "being attractive as a woman". Pablo is certainly entitled to his own views and preferences, but he seems to claim a generalization based on gender stereotypes -- just the kind of gender stereotypes that Amazons International is fighting against. I'd suggest that most AI subscribers not only disagree about the alleged incompatibility, but that muscularity and broad/strong shoulders are among the very traits they find attractive in a woman. Pablo further suggests that the above traits, and "being attractive as a bodyguard" is incompatible with femininity. My response to that is: if that is true, then of what use or value is femininity? If women with strength and power are excluded from femininity, then I say that femininity is a false and useless idea -- and worse, a harmful and destructive one. See also my essay "Femininity vs. Femaleness" in AI # 57. Pablo's posting made me uncomfortable because I feel that it reproduces the very stereotypes that lead to the widespread denigration of powerfully built women and the idea that their build make them unattractive as women -- the strange and self-contradictory idea that more woman means less womanliness. But perhaps I'm overreacting? Maybe Pablo only is that rare breed of man whose attraction to and admiration of Amazons has no sexual component? That certainly would be an interesting change from business as usual, especially when some female subscribers have felt at times that some of the male subscribers are sexually objectifying them, focusing on the body or body parts only and not on the whole person, forgetting or ignoring the mind and the character of the woman. Is there some kind of "golden mean" in the issue of sexual attraction to Amazons? So that if there is no or little attraction, then it's denigrating because it leads to an assumption that a powerfully built woman cannot be attractive as a woman -- and if there is too much of a sexual component, it becomes denigrating because it leads to objectification of bodies or body parts? Pablo's posting suggests an opposition between "being attractive as a bodyguard" and "being attractive as a woman". This can only mean that protectiveness is not considered a value when found in a woman -- that protectiveness is not wanted and perhaps even seen as unnatural in a woman. Not only do I reject the idea of gendered personality traits and character virtues (there are only HUMAN traits and virtues), I also believe that this idea contradicts the personal experience of most people. I believe most people have experienced protectiveness from their mother primarily (while the father often is more secondary, more distant, perhaps absent -- or, if he's present, because of his own manhood socialization there is always the danger that his protectiveness may degenerate into domination). So then we have a tension between official femininity and attractiveness on the one hand, and the reality of motherhood on the other hand. Since motherhood essentially IS protectiveness (I can hardly imagine a more paradigmatic image of protectiveness), and given that stereotypical feminine attractiveness is incompatible with being an efficient and powerful protector, is this why mothers are never depicted in media as attractive? Mothers may be depicted in media in news reports, in baby food ads etc., but when women are presented in order to be attractive as women, they are not presented as mothers. It's also interesting to consider gender role sterotypes at work related to pregnancy and raising children. There may certainly be biological components at work and I don't know their scope or intensity (noone does), but it is worth noting that socialization processes concerning pregnant women and child raising are very strong and focused too. While I'd never advocate that pregnant women should put themselves at risk of a spontaneously induced abortion, it does seem that Western culture exaggerates the "helplessness" and "immobility" of pregnant women, when compared to other cultures. And after birth there is no strict reason why the father cannot be equally active or even the most active care-giver of the child, as I know examples of, even though I also know that this is rare. I've been thinking about the mother-child relationship and the cultural channeling of women's natural HUMAN impulse toward protectiveness -- I have a hypothesis about that. Consider first the manhood socialization of men. Men learn that they must be tough and always in control, never needing protection from anyone, at least from no woman (a temporary protection from a soldier buddy during a war is OK). So as a part of her gender role socialization, a woman learns that she cannot express her protective impulses toward a man. She also cannot express them toward another woman, because that would look like or might lead to lesbianism, another cultural no-no. But that means that the only culturally legitimate outlet for a woman's protective impulses is children. So here's my hypothesis: The exclusive channeling of women's protective impulses toward children in Western culture is a socialization strategy aimed at women in order to motivate women to have children. This channeling function or strategy, if that's what it is, doesn't have to be a "true" strategy (i.e., it doesn't have to be strictly necessary, which we know it isn't, because there exist cultures without such gender roles which are nevertheless able to reproduce themselves) in order to work -- it is sufficient that it has this particular meaning in the context of Western culture and gender ideology, and that it may have some effect on many Western women's reproductive decisions. So how does this hypothesis sound, and does anyone know about similar theories? And perhaps all this is one more reason that Amazons are perceived to be threatening by some people -- not only do they reject the femininity cliches, they mess up popular (but false) beliefs about motherhood and how the family is supposed to work too. Thomas Gramstad thomas@math.uio.no ***************************************************************** * Amazons International * * Thomas Gramstad, editor: thomas@math.uio.no * * Administravia/Listserver: amazons-request@ifi.uio.no * * Submissions: amazons@math.uio.no * * http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/lists/amazons.html * * * * The Amazon Connection -- Links to Amazon web sites: * * http://www.math.uio.no/~thomas/lists/amazon-links.html * ***************************************************************** "A Hard Woman is Good to Find" -- The Valkyries