It appears that Barbie has found religion. After rebelling with Harley Davidson Barbie and bikini Barbie. There is even an S & M Barbie in all leather and fishnet stockings. Now, however, there is Burka Barbie.
Of course, this could be a surplus GI Joe in a Burka but the covered Barbie is on display with 500 other Barbies at the Salone dei Cinquecento, in Florence, Italy. To complete the image of subjugation for feminists, Burka Barbie will be auctioned off to the highest bidder as part of the fundraiser by Sotheby’s.
For many, the doll teaches girls to accept an obnoxious practice of women covering themselves — a practice common in areas where girls as young as ten are routinely married off. Then again, many Muslims would likely argue that, if Mattel markets kinky Barbie, why shouldn’t it also make Barbies for conservative Islamic families?
Would do you think?
For the picture of Burka Barbie and full story, click here.
BIL–
I think you’re inferring things from what I’ve written in my comments that I hadn’t intended to imply or to express literally with my words. I wasn’t demonizing Jefferson. I questioned why he didn’t free his slaves–and so did you. All of us can only guess at Jefferson’s motives for the things he did.
Please don’t patronize Jill and me with comments such as this: “You two need to read and understand the meanings of those words – mitigate, militate and excuse.”
Elaine,
Of all the mistakes he made as a man, not freeing Sally does stick out. I suspect if given a second chance, that might even be a regret of his that he’d wish to correct. But this goes back to motive again. When it comes to his feelings toward Sally Hemmings, without the ability to ask the man himself we’ll never know. The same can be said about the relationship with his wife. All that we can really say about Jefferson in the end is what you did. He was “a brilliant and great man–if flawed…as all people are.”
BIL–
“You two seem to think I pardon his slave ownership when I do not.”
I don’t believe that you do. I agree with what Jill expressed in the comments she made at 12:41 pm.
I think Jefferson was a brilliant and great man–if flawed…as all people are.
The thing I question most about Jefferson was his not having Hemings freed upon his death. I’d think that would disprove that he held feelings of true love for the woman.
Ladies,
You two need to read and understand the meanings of those words – mitigate, militate and excuse.
And the assumption that slave and owner are incapable of forming other bonds than chattel is a fine example of reduction to the absurd. In all of human history, not one slave or one owner fell in love with their property/master? Quite simply bullshit. You spend all day around people and shit happens. That’s a fact.
Again, you show motive is a guessing game thus furthering my contention that Jefferson’s motives – to which you both seem to quick to demonize and brought to this party, not me – is not salient to my original point.
My point was not about slavery directly. Never was.
The observation was simply his situation vis a vis slaves was not as cut and dried as it appears due to the mitigation of having inherited from his wife’s side.
I not once excused him.
I pointed out that your arguments against him were based on unknowable attribution of motives and that my point had nothing to do with an unknowable state of mind but the mechanics of interpersonal relationships.
I’m not sure exactly why that causes so much ire toward Jefferson. And if either of you tells me that you’ve never done something you didn’t want to because of a significant other, I’m going to say “fibber”. 😀
BIL–
Excerpts of your responses to Jill:
“Do you know for a fact she didn’t find in the interaction both voluntary and pleasing to her in some way?”
“I submit that you live in a fantasy world. Human pair bonding is human pair bonding.”
************
Oh my! Hemings was a slave. Jefferson was her owner and master. Their sexual encounters were not likely examples of human pair bonding. I’d say they’re more likely examples of sexual bondage.
I doubt most women would form emotional and loving bonds with men in those types situations.
BIL,
Elaine made some points earlier about the death of Jefferson’s wife. I was wondering what you thought of her observations.
BIL,
There’s no assumption involved with, if a person is considered your property, intercourse with them is rape. I also don’t understand why it is wrong to bring up Jefferson’s bad actions. A full understanding of another human being cannot occur by denying some parts of their actions while valorizing others. I have no argument with you about the many fine things Jefferson did. These fine things are not the sum total of who he was. A full understanding means a full understanding, that is all.
Elaine,
I think my answer to Jill addresses that point.
You two seem to think I pardon his slave ownership when I do not. The totality of the observation was his ability to simply free them may have had constraints – constraints that anyone in a long term relationship should be able to understand.
Excuses and mitigation are not the same thing. Part of the confusion is that American English uses the word mitigate (\ˈmi-tə-ˌgāt, v., 1 : to cause to become less harsh or hostile : mollify 2 a : to make less severe or painful) idiomatically when the proper term is militate (\ˈmi-lə-ˌtāt\, v., : to have weight or effect). Contrast to excuse (\ik-ˈskyüz, imperatively often ˈskyüz\, v.t., 1 a : to make apology for b : to try to remove blame from 2 : to forgive entirely or disregard as of trivial import : regard as excusable (graciously excused his tardiness) 3 a : to grant exemption or release to (was excused from jury duty) b : to allow to leave (excused the class) 4 : to serve as excuse for: justify).
What I said was a mitigation or militation, but it was not an excuse.
Jill,
And there you go making assumptions again.
The assumptions, both yours and mine, about his motives are pointless is my point. We cannot know them. We can guess, but certainty is out. Unless you’re getting psychic powers for Xmas in which case I want to know where the purchaser got them.
What we can know is his situation(s) and the fundamentals of social psychology and pair bonding.
My point was simply that his situation was not as cut and dried as it was with the majority of slave owners and that the reason was a basic human dynamic related to pair bonding. Nothing more sinister, nothing apologetic. Mitigating, not excusing or exculpatory.
You wanted to argue motive and attribute bad intent and I just showed that because motive is always a guessing game that given the situations he was in, the characterization just as easily goes both ways on the good versus bad intent issue.
You choose to let a blemish define the man and that is your prerogative. I choose to look at the larger scope and what I see in Jefferson is a man as flawed as any human but still the smartest and probably one of the most honest President’s in this nation’s history. Despite his ownership of slaves, not because of it. This is in addition to being the primary drafter of what I consider one of the most important legal documents in history, The Declaration of Independence.
But if you want to stare at his warts, go ahead.
BIL–
Free labor is hard to come by…unless one owns slaves.
Why didn’t Jefferson allow Sally Hemings to be freed upon his death?
Jill,
The naughty bits thing was a joke. I submit that the medium lends itself to misunderstanding at times. Type has no vocal or facial cues.
This assumes he didn’t have the choice to free his slaves and set them up with an income or some land of their own. It’s not just keep them and sell them.
Elaine,
Economics were also a factor, but that raises the question of why not sell some of his most valuable assets, his slaves?
Given his Jefferson’s unkind take on most slave owners, it’s just as likely he did the math and decided the benefits of sale did not outweigh the potential people in his charge would be subject to worse treatment than he himself would and could provide. Cost benefit analysis existed back then even if they didn’t call it that.
Again, we cannot know his mind, only his situation. That situation cuts both ways. What we can know about Jefferson the man and his mind is the impression we can derive from his writing. That is the motive guessing game unless one treats it like a profile. In a situation where he had set before choices of “lesser evils”, I don’t think it’s unfair or out of character that he was likely to chose the least evil option he could have.
And in this situation, if least evil what his intent, his actions can be characterized in that manner just as easily as attributing a bad mens rea to him. In fact, it’s a fairer attribution than assuming guilt based on what we can know (as incomplete at that is) of his mind from his writings IMO.
BIL,
You wrote: “I suggest wearing protection for your naughty bits.”
That doesn’t suggest respect was the motivator, it suggests fear of bodily harm. If someone is your property, it is rape. We can love people who do us harm and who use us but they are still doing us harm.
Dar,
Fun cultural fact:
In music from the European Renaissance, the verb die is often used in place of orgasm. In fact, the whole culture of chivalry was in large part a coded way for nobles to fool around outside of marriage.
It turns out that as a race we humans tend to enjoy having sex. What some of us don’t enjoy is the fact that other people enjoy having sex too. Personally, I see this as an outgrowth of our evolution. The alpha male that guards all the females of his “harem” against intruders has a distinct procreational advantage over those that don’t.
As Jill, Mike and others have pointed out time and again, most movements to impose a standard of morality on people place the majority of the burden on women (although Jill will probably have a slightly different theory as to why). For instance, you call the women who dress in a certain way whorish, but don’t call the men who look at them as perverted, even though both fail to meet your code for moral behavior.
Jill,
Fear has nothing to do with it. Marital dynamics are complicated is the point. You assume fear as a motive, but perhaps it was respect for his wive and/or her feelings that were his motivation. We cannot know his state of mind. What we can know is that in marriage one often has to do something one would rather not to the benefit of the other partner. That’s just our nature and the nature of lasting marriages. Like I said, not an excuse, a mitigation. There is a distinction. And a mitigation based on observable human dynamics, not a supposition about his state of mind. You have also made the assumption of rape, while perhaps valid as a technical point considering ownership, also presumes not only his intent and action, but Hemmings intent and action as well. Do you know for a fact she didn’t find in the interaction both voluntary and pleasing to her in some way? Theirs may have been true love. It could have been a brutal serial raping. We simply don’t know. But what we do know is that the whole dynamic would be impacted by the marital source of the slaves regardless of outcome. Your choice in language is imprecise and emotionally loaded, a reaction that while understandable nonetheless does not negate that Jefferson’s ownership of slaves was complicated by events outside his control. That’s not an excuse. That’s a fact. And if anyone’s response wants to be that “men always told their wives what to do back then – why didn’t he just do what he wanted” I submit that you live in a fantasy world. Human pair bonding is human pair bonding. Jefferson would have given more credence to a woman’s view than many of his contemporaries (the exception leaping to mind being Adams) because he is a poster child for the Age of Reason. When he looked at a person the first thing he thought of was probably not their genitals. You wish to ascribe bad intent to Jefferson when historically there is no evidence of bad intent but merely a situation that was what it was and it was probably not to anyone’s satisfaction if the truth was really known. A situation with a complication caused by marriage.
And that’s about as rare as oxygen.
BIL–
Jefferson was a widower for many years. Jefferson’s wife died in 1782. Jefferson died in 1826. He didn’t need any protection from his wife for more than four decades.
I believe Jefferson had lots of debts and was in financial trouble for years. Maybe that’s another reason why he chose not to free any of his slaves until after he died. Weren’t many of his possessions sold after his death to pay off creditors?
BIL,
If Jefferson was afraid of his wife so much, why did he rape his slave and have children by her?
Byron,
The bulk of Jefferson’s slaves were inherited via his wife’s family. It’s not an excuse, but it’s a mitigating circumstance. Unless you want to try to get rid of something your wife inherited from her family. In which case, I suggest wearing protection for your naughty bits.
Byron,
BS–in the same countries where women are forced to wear those, womem and girls are raped and beaten in large numbers with impunity. I know you’re trying to make a joke but the cruelty of men towards women isn’t funny.
The garment itself is an act of cruelty. No one should have their access to the environment cut down to a covered slit near their eyes. There’s a reason, that tactic is used in torture. It disorients and makes people obedient to their captors.