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–
You said: “I find it very hard to believe that you cannot conceive of a woman using sex to get something she wants.”
I’m not sure where that comment is coming from. I think you’re doing some mental extrapolating from the comments I’ve made. I didn’t even know that was part of the discussion.
There are “users” of both sexes. BTW, I’ve had the good fortune to know lots of men who don’t let their genitalia do their thinking for them.
Jill:
of course the recipient of torture is worse off.
free females most likely took sexual license with their male/female slaves. Probably not in colonial times but certainly in Rome or Greece.
BIL–
I wasn’t making any assumptions/assertions earlier when I wrote the following:
“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?”
You’ll note the word “maybe” at the beginning of the second sentence in the paragraph above.
**********
You wrote in an earlier comment: “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.”
I responded: “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 didn’t suggest or say there weren’t mitigating factors. I was just bringing up a point in response to your comment.
Ms. Hemings. I apologize for my error above.
Byron,
Would you please clarify. Do you mean that women took advantage of their male and female slaves or do you mean slaves took advantage of their masters?
Here’s some history of Sally Hemings that we know. There are three extreme disparities in their situation: a. age, b. education/sophistication in the world “Abigail {Adams} described Sally as a “Girl about 15 or 16” and as “quite a child, and Captain Ramsey is of opinion will be of so little Service that he had better carry her back with him.” She added that Sally “seems fond of [Polly] and appears good-natured.”[6] … Sally, however, she said, “wants more care than the child, and is wholly incapable of looking properly after her, without some superior to direct her.”[7], c. prestige of position within society and finally here’s how Ms. Hamings was described in Jefferson’s will: “When appraisers arrived at Monticello after Jefferson’s death to evaluate his estate, they described 56-year-old Hemings as “an old woman worth $50.”[20] (wikipedia)
As a slave, she could legally have been beaten for refusing any request of her master. At this point we have reached the area where there is no possibility of meaningful withdraw of consent. Whether it was Jefferson, (most likely) or his brother who had intercourse with her, the dynamics would remain the same. This is rape, starting at a young age as well.
Byron,
While I agree with you that Burka’s effect the mind’s of both men and women in the way you describe, men and women are not equally effected. Both are harmed psychologically and spiritually but women are in addition, harmed physically. This additional physical harm increases the spiritual/psychological harm beyond that suffered by men. Just as some one who tortures is in his or her own way suffering, they are not experiencing being tortured, a step further down the way, so much further that they may die or be permanently injured.
Byron–
I’m not exactly sure what your “vice versa” is in reference to.
I never said that women didn’t take advantage of slaves. That wasn’t part of our discussion about Jefferson’s sexual relationship with Sally Hemings.
Elaine,
I have no issue with any of that except to note that “complicated” is the key word and key to what I am trying to point out about Jefferson’s disposition of inherited property. If this was an scandalous painting no one would mention motive. Unfortunately the practice of the time allowed people to be treated as property. Also, but not so unfortunately, people hook up. And familiarity breeds the hook up. The reason I used Rome as an example was in hope that with the remoteness in time it’d be easier to access that fact and realize that HOW people come to together is really secondary to them pairing off. Group dynamic happen where there is a group. Whether they met in a bar or on the auction block, that only defines their legal status toward each other as people, not how they actually treated each other as people. My ex is supposed to stay 500 yards away from me at all times. That’s our legal definition. I make sure our personal relationship is even more restrictive. Law and choice. They actually do work independently. Jefferson may have owned Sally Hemmings, but that doesn’t mean Q.E.D. their relationship would have been considered rape by either party.
I am trained to argue law and in court and I’ll be the first to tell you the law is an abstraction – an aspiration. It’s how people treat each moment to moment that defines them. That he owned Sally as a legal point. It tells us nothing of how they were together. He may have loved Sally though we’ll never know for certain without incurring some serious roaming charges. The two, love and ownership, are not mutually exclusive. I never said it was a healthy relationship, merely a relationship and ergo a complicating factor. I find it very hard to believe that you cannot conceive of a woman using sex to get something she wants. It’s not like that’s never happened either in the course of humanity. Men are stupid. 96% of them think with only their penis and you ladies have an unfair advantage in that area – you can use your brain and be women at the same time much of the time whereas the guys? Eh, it’s about 10% non-penis thinking on any given GOOD day. Even Einstein let his Lil’ Albert do the thinking some time.
Everything said here about Jefferson has been speculative other than the original observation: Jefferson’s slave ownership wasn’t a cut and dried chattel situation and there were mitigating external factors – not exculpatory, but mitigating. Technically her legal lack of choice could be considered rape and yet that still does not preclude consent. We weren’t there. It’s that pesky time moving one direction thingy again.
Elaine M:
or vice versa, men werent the only ones that took advantage of slaves.
Human relationships are complicated. Jill mentioned the Stockholm Syndrome–that’s a good example of a strange form of bonding. Children love parents who abuse and/or neglect them. That doesn’t mean the children appreciate their parents’ treatment of them. Who knows what went on in the psyche of female slaves who were required to have sex with their masters.
BIL–
“Can you say for sure Sally wasn’t even the aggressor in the relationship? How do we know she didn’t snuggle up to him first?
************
I can’t say for sure–but I think it highly unlikely that a female slave would be an aggressor in such a relationship. I doubt that she snuggled up to Jefferson first!
I may not be a lawyer. I don’t know a lot of law terms. I haven’t been trained to argue cases in court. But I do know this: If I saw an animal that looked like a duck, walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck–I would consider that pretty good proof that the animal I was looking at WAS a duck. Maybe what Jefferson did to Hemings wasn’t considered rape back in the old days. If it wasn’t, do you suppose Jefferson perceived his behavior as moral and ethical? I just wonder if he had a clear conscience about their relationship.
I may be a woman of the 20th/21st century–but I saw sexism at work during my professional career. I worked for one male boss who liked to rub women and put his arms around them. A teaching colleague, who also worked in my school system, dealt with the same kind of principal. She asked him not to touch her–but he didn’t stop. Her married principal used to call another single teacher on the telephone and talk about things which were totally inappropriate. We women found this kind of behavior extremely offensive. Yet, some women feared for their jobs. It was especially difficult for single women who had no other means of support. I believe a number of women felt that they had to “go along to get along.” Someone who didn’t understand the dynamics of the situation might have thought such women “enjoyed” the rubbing and touching.
If some modern women are fearful of speaking out about this type of male behavior in the workplace–I can only imagine how female slaves must have felt when their masters came to have sex with them. Their punishments could have been much harsher than losing a job.
did not Jefferson have a brother? All of this is pure speculation. He may never have had a relationship with Sally Hemming, it could have been his brother. Randolf Jefferson died in 1815.
and the plot thickens, supposedly Sally Hemmings was the half sister of Jefferson’s wife and that she was 3/4’s white.
I think Buddha may be correct that Jefferson and Sally Hemming were more than just slave and master considering this nugget of information.
Jill:
the moral/philosophical climate that created a Burka is no less a straight jacket on the mind of a man caught up in such a society. We see the results played out daily in the news and on this blog.
Simplistic analysis, Jill. And for reasons I already explained.
Yes, I am certain. Sally Hemings’ legal status was: property. It is not legally possible for her to either consent or withdraw consent. That is not a modern interpretation of the past, it is spoken within the context of the time. If you cannot withdraw consent, intercourse cannot be called a free choice.
I am using the analogy with minors because it holds exactly. In those societies this behavior is considered legal and normal, yet most of us would call it rape. Jefferson’s behavior was also legal and normal, yet most of us today would call it rape.
Jill,
Let’s keep it simple by not bringing minors into it.
Like I said before, your characterization of rape may be technically correct BY TODAY’S WESTERN STANDARDS but it’s also incomplete as defined by past social (and socially acceptable) contexts. Your bias isn’t that you are wrong, it’s that your analysis is out of time contextually by applying modern values that were not always applied. Your insistence on the term rape still applies a motive to Jefferson by the way the crime is currently (and I feel correctly) defined, one which you cannot know. Having a blind spot in analysis does not make one a priori incorrect in their analysis. It makes them incomplete in their analysis. It cannot be fairly characterized as rape without those caveats. To do so is the opposite of mitigation, aggravation. You seek to aggravate to rape what may or may not have been consensual on Sally’s part and you do so without direct testimony to Jefferson’s detriment from either party. Can you say for sure Sally wasn’t even the aggressor in the relationship? How do we know she didn’t snuggle up to him first? We can’t. You are letting your modern values affect the analysis of non-modern situation. And you are doing so by attributing motive – an unknowable.
BIL,
I said above that we may love someone who is using or hurting us. What that doesn’t mean is, we aren’t being hurt or abused. JT used an the phrase Stockholm Syndrome today. These relationships are very real. However, they may be questioned and examined by referring back to the power nexus within which they occur. There are writings of sex slaves from Roman times which include documented attempts at suicide. They are very clear that they did not like being used sexually, that their lives were full of misery and pain. There is also Chinese poetry to consult on the subject of sexual slavery. So there are multiple ways of experiencing slavery.
You have condemned the marriages of young girls to old men in Muslim countries. Once again, it is possible that some of these girls come to love the old men who first raped them at age nine. This doesn’t erase the rape of the girls. Likewise what Jefferson engaged in was rape.
“Note that”
Jill,
And you ascribe that because of the chattel relationship that no other relationship was possible. If nothing that shows you have the bias of being from the present: a modern Western woman’s reaction to the situation of slavery is probably indeed as you characterize and no other relationship would be possible. Not I said “Western”. This dismisses that for most of human history, slavery was the norm. The point I made to Elaine still applies too: when you spend all day around people someone is going to get the hots for someone and do something about it. Even a casual reading of Roman history will show that more than one citizen loved a slave but the kept the wife/husband for whatever reasons. The idea that bonding aside from owner-chattel never happened is simply unrealistic when applied to the scope of human history.
BIL,
I second Elaine on patronizing. I’m not concerned about motives, only actions. To have intercourse with a person who is your property is rape. This isn’t love, it is abuse of power. Motives are unnecessary to this point. Only the actions are relevant.
We’ll all agree with Elaine’s analysis about Jefferson being great but flawed.
Doh, Elaine.
Pardon. I am multitasking in a very non-safe manner at the moment. It involves scissors, tape, paper and a girlfriend very patient with my lack of “the wrapping gene”.
BIL,
That wasn’t meant to be partonizing but clarifying. If you took it as patronizing, most humble apologies.