Monday, October 31, 2022

Popular gaming account leaves Twitter, citing Elon Musk’s ‘immaturity’ as factor

MobileSyrup - TODAY


Nibel, one of the most prominent gaming news accounts on Twitter, has announced that he’s leaving the platform.



In a statement posted to his now-private account, Nibel said he’s decided to “focus my time and energy elsewhere and move on from Twitter.” Over the years, Nibel — most recognized through profile pictures from anime like Mob Psycho 100 — grew in popularity for sharing gaming news from a variety of outlets, and with nearly 450,000 followers at the time of writing, he has had a significant reach.

In a post on Patreon, Nibel elaborated on the decision to leave Twitter. The first factor was that he was “not able to create an interesting and sustainable Patreon, which is evident in the number of Patrons stagnating during the first weekend and the first (of many) pledges being deleted in the first week.” Thanking Patrons for the support, he said he’ll look into refunds for recent payments and has already deactivated billing.

He went on to say that Twitter itself has also compelled him to step away from his work.

“I don’t think Twitter has yet experienced good leadership, and this trend will not change with Musk either,” referring to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who officially took control of Twitter last week following his $44 billion USD (about $60 billion CAD) acquisition of the social media giant. “I do not trust the platform. I do not trust Musk and his seemingly infinite immaturity. I do not think Twitter will fall apart instantly but that it could be die a slow death. Why waste more time?”

Nibel ended his post by noting that he’ll keep the Twitter account up (“at least for now”) so that people can’t cause issues with the handle. Indeed, Nibel has criticized Twitter for difficulties in getting verified, as this lead to many accounts sharing fake news while posing as him.

Nibel is the latest person to announce a Twitter departure following Musk’s takeover. Other notable figures to do so include Grey’s Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes, singer-songwriter Sara Bareilles and Bill & Ted star Alex Winter.

Musk’s first weekend in charge of Twitter has already been met with multiple controversies. Over the past few days, Musk shared a fake news story about the recent attack on Paul Pelosi, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Musk quietly deleted the tweet without taking accountability for sharing a conspiracy theory to his more than 110 million followers.

Meanwhile, Musk is reportedly planning to charge $20 USD (about $27.31 CAD) per month for Twitter verification, and has threatened to fire employees if they don’t implement the change by November 7th.

Image credit: One

Source: @Nibel Via: GamesRadar

Syllabus Showcase: Thrills, Chills, and Some Spills: The Philosophy of Horror, Kenneth Brewer

 

About ten years ago, I started idly musing about how horror movies are able to frighten and disgust viewers when they know that what they are seeing isn’t “real.” At that time, I was not a particular fan of the genre; like many people, I had watched a lot of horror as an adolescent (which for me was the era of the slasher films such as Halloween), and had lost interest as an adult. Still, this question intrigued me, and it led me to design a HUMA 1301 course, “Thrills, Chills, and Some Spills: The Philosophy of Horror.” I have frequently taught this class and will be teaching a new version of it in the fall of 2022. HUMA 1301 is an option to fulfill the university requirement for a required course in the Humanities. The aim, generally, is to introduce students from across the university to the methods of humanistic disciplines.

Instructors are given broad leeway in choosing topics; the only requirement is that the course focuses on a theme/topic. Topics have ranged from Russian poetry to medieval romances to super-hero narratives, and in my course, horror films (with a few films from the action genre included). The class typically has around 75-100 students, from many different academic disciplines. It’s been perhaps my most enjoyable course to teach because it’s really satisfying to see students who are initially skeptical about the humanities in general and horror films in particular completely change their views by the end of the semester.

The course syllabus follows the structure of Noël Carroll’s classic 1990 The Philosophy of Horror, or Paradoxes of the Heart, but the course content is more interdisciplinary than Carroll’s approach, as we also look at research from the social, psychological, and neurological sciences (which has to be updated frequently) to examine the appeal of horror narratives and their effects on viewers. I also include a unit on the business of horror—how it’s marketed, in particular—as Business is a very popular major at UT Dallas.

The course is not on the history of horror as a genre, and follows Carroll’s analytical categories in approaching horror, from definitions of the genre to specific types of plots to theories about the appeal of scary stories. While I do cover the history of the genre a bit, and include classic films on the syllabus (such as Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 Psycho), the analytical structure of the syllabus allows me to choose recent films that students tend to find more appealing.

Assignments are aimed at developing students’ critical thinking skills. In short writing assignments and exams, they are asked to apply concepts to specific films (for example, plot structures) and a significant amount of time is spent on close reading visual images. Essentially, we treat horror films as machines and try to take them apart to see how they work. Not surprisingly, this approach tends to be very appealing to students in majors such as engineering.

At the end of the semester, I use a Likert Scale to have students rate the films we have watched. This is always one of the most interesting and fun class meetings. While there are films that typically finish at the top or near the top of the rankings (The Silence of the LambsGet Out) and ones that typically finish near the bottom (The Blair Witch Project), students are always surprised at how their ratings differ from those of other students.

For me, approaching horror films philosophically has been essential to the course’s success. A more historical or cultural studies-oriented course on horror, while valuable in other contexts, would probably not work as well with students from so many different disciplines. The analytical and concept-driven nature of the class is precisely what has made it appealing to a wide variety of students representing very different academic backgrounds and goals. The last unit we cover is on “The Ethics of Horror,” and we discuss whether there is something morally dubious about watching and enjoying horror. Students who were on the fence about horror when the course began often vehemently defend its aesthetic (and even moral) value, and as an instructor, listening to their heated and eloquent debate is a highly rewarding way to end the course and has made it consistently one of my favorite classes to teach.

The Syllabus Showcase of the APA Blog is designed to share insights into the syllabi of philosophy educators. We include syllabi in their original, unedited format that showcase a wide variety of philosophy classes.  We would love for you to be a part of this project. Please contact Series Editor, Dr. Matt Deaton via MattDeaton.com or Editor of the Teaching Beat, Dr. Sabrina D. MisirHiralall via sabrinamisirhiralall@apaonline.org with potential submissions.




Kenneth L. Brewer is an Associate Professor of Instruction in Arts and Humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas. His primary research areas are aesthetics, taste, and the ethics of humor.

REFERENCES, LINKS , FOOTNOTES:

REST IN POWER

Remembering Bruno Latour and His Contributions to Philosophy

With the death of Bruno Latour from cancer on October 9, the world lost a prominent and paradoxical figure whose deepest contributions are not yet well understood. In one sense it would be absurd to call him “unappreciated,” given his receipt of the 2013 Holberg Prize and 2021 Kyoto Prize, his nearly 300,000 citations by other scholars, and his vast global network of admirers and co-workers. But like so many pivotal intellectuals, Latour was a peg who never quite fit the most prestigious holes. Blocked by enemies from potential appointments at Princeton and the Collège de France, he spent most of his career at the School of Mines in Paris before a late move to Sciences Po in the same city.

A practicing Catholic who moved with ease in the de rigueur atheism of contemporary thought, Latour eventually developed a system of thought that was basically secular in spirit despite the place reserved for religion near its core. Scolded by American science warriors as the “social constructionist” he never quite was, in France he was struck on the opposite flank by the disciples of Pierre Bourdieu, who viewed his fascination with non-human actors as a form of reactionary realism.

Tweeting the news of Latour’s passing, French President Emmanuel Macron rightly noted that Latour was recognized abroad before it happened at home. Indeed, despite pronounced French elements in his personality and lifestyle, Latour was in many ways more typically Anglo-Saxon, and some of his most important books appeared first in English. But perhaps the greatest paradox of his career was the contrast between his iconic status in the social sciences and his still minimal impact in philosophy, a field where his hopes of influence were generally thwarted. When we invited him in 2003 to speak to the philosophers at the American University in Cairo, he remarked that it was only the second time he had addressed a Department of Philosophy. I doubt that the number increased by much over the remaining nineteen years of his life.

Yet the reason for his relative lack of success with philosophy readers so far is also the reason for his inevitable future importance in the field: the blow he strikes against the central assumption of modern philosophy. The default Western assumption for the past four centuries is that the universe consists of two basic kinds of things: (1) human thought, and (2) everything else. In his early classic We Have Never Been Modern (1991 in French, 1993 in English), Latour tried to demonstrate that modernity as a whole revolves around the purported opposition between impossibly pure forms of these two poles. On one side we have culture, values, and freedom while on the other we have nature, facts, and necessity. Multiple strategies exist to deal with this predicament: social constructionists reduce science to power-plays; neurophilosophers counter by reducing thought to the secretions of the brain; others introduce the human body as a third term supposedly able to bridge the gap. What none of them question is the strangely implausible assumption that thought deserves to be placed in one basket of the cosmos with everything else packed together in a second. 

Latour’s innovation—foreshadowed by his intellectual ancestor Alfred North Whitehead—is to treat all entities equally as “actors,” analyzing them in terms of the effects they have on other actors. Non-human entities (speed bumps, garbage cans, trains, neuropeptides, box-cutters) play a prominent role in Latour’s philosophy, as do “hybrids” whose human and non-human ingredients are nearly impossible to distinguish. As a social scientist, the key to his method is to introduce specific local actors in place of such abstractions as “Society,” “Science,” or “Capital.” As a philosopher, he defends the equivalent position: that all interactions between actors are on exactly the same footing so that the single interplay between thought and world (modern philosophy’s obsession) becomes just one relation among trillions of others. At most, one might question whether Latour truly accounted for cases in which all humans are absent. Unlike Whitehead, he was not a philosopher of nature but of science, and for Latour human observers are always somewhere on the scene.

It has become a cliché to speak of the “early” and “late” phases of any given philosopher; Heidegger and Wittgenstein are two of the more over-analyzed cases. Latour also has an early phase and a late one, but with an unusual twist: his two periods were largely simultaneous. As early as 1987, Latour had grown weary of his trademark insight that every situation consists of a network of heterogeneous actors involving both human and non-human elements. Although this outlook is still fresh enough to be far from exhausted, Latour was increasingly interested in the way that certain zones of reality fold in on themselves and exclude other modes of discourse. After a quarter-century of labor, this led to the publication of his late masterwork An Enquiry Into Modes of Existence, in which two overarching modes (network and preposition) govern twelve others, grouped into four families of three. In an era when scientific discourse is generally assumed to be the gold standard of truth, Latour’s book argues that politics, law, and even religion form parallel realms with their own standards of veridiction. Economic reason, that powerful modern companion of the sciences, is decomposed into a prior threefold of attachment, organization, and morality, belying all attempts to cast Latour as a “neo-liberal.” Alongside these, we have the anti-Bergsonian ontological mode known as reproduction, which insists that reality must be constantly recreated at every instant. We also encounter such familiar—though welcome—guests as technology and fiction, and the dark outlier metamorphosis, which mixes aspects of shamanism and psychology. Modes has inspired puzzlement no less than enthusiasm, and it is safe to say that the history of its interpretation has hardly begun. In practice, even during the post-Modes period both Latour and his followers conducted most daily business in the earlier language of actor-network theory.

A closing word is in order about Latour as a political theorist, since here too he has innovations to offer. The most severe critiques of Latour have come from the political Left, as might be expected given his suspicion toward “capitalism” as a category of analysis. In his capacity as a French and European citizen, Latour’s political opinions were rarely colorful: in our years of conversation, he was reliably somewhere between the center-left and the center, and was always more public intellectual than activist. More intriguing were the theoretical underpinnings of his politics, which cut against the grain of modernity here as in every area he touched. It could be said that the modern conflict between Left and Right boils down to a basic disagreement over whether human nature is good (or at least improvable) or evil (or at least unimprovable).

In their recent best-seller, The Dawn of Everything, David Graeber and David Wengrow criticized this modern alternative, but simply replaced it with the notion that human nature is naturally experimental and imaginative. However refreshing their approach, it is ultimately just another theory of human nature, one that fails to account sufficiently for the non-human component of politics: ranging from the oft-discussed constraints of geography and resources to such recently studied elements as documents, microbes, nutrition, and pets. But only with the climate crisis do non-human political actors first approach their golden age, to such an extent that a new theoretical tradition will be needed to grasp their workings. 

The latter years of Latour’s career, from Facing Gaia (2015) to After Lockdown: A Metamorphosis (2021), were largely filled with efforts to develop a climate politics that could be something more than ineffectual protest or a stale call for revolution. Although the life of this ingenious and gregarious thinker has ended, the loose threads of his work will increasingly guide us in his direction, just as the art of his countryman Paul Cézanne set the agenda for a rising generation of painters.

This post is part of a partnership with the Institute of Art and Ideas. This article was originally published here


Graham Harman  is Professor at the Southern California Institute of Architecture, and author of Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything, and Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics.
Hezbollah ends 'exceptional' mobilisation against Israel

The leader of Hezbollah said his militant group will end "exceptional" mobilisation against Israel after it struck a deal with Lebanon on demarcating their maritime border

Nasrallah had warned Israel against reaching for the reserves before a deal was finalised [Getty/archive]

The New Arab Staff & Agencies
27 October, 2022

Lebanese Shia armed group Hezbollah will end an "exceptional" mobilisation against Israel after threatening to attack for months, its leader Hassan Nasrallah said Thursday after Lebanon and Israel struck a maritime border deal.

"All the exceptional and special measures and mobilisation carried out by the resistance for several months are now declared over," Nasrallah said in a televised speech, calling the agreement a "great victory for Lebanon".

"Our mission is complete," Nasrallah said, adding that the deal "is not an international treaty and it is not a recognition of Israel".

On July 2, Israel said it had downed three drones launched by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah that were headed towards the border offshore field of Karish which was partly claimed by Lebanon.

Nasrallah had warned Israel against reaching for the reserves before a deal was finalised.

The agreement between the countries, which are still technically at war, was applauded by world leaders including US President Joe Biden.

It was signed separately on Thursday by Lebanon's President Michel Aoun in Beirut and by Israel's Prime Minister Yair Lapid in Jerusalem, and went into effect after the papers were delivered to mediators.

Earlier in the day Lapid had claimed that the deal meant Lebanon de facto "recognises the State of Israel, in a written agreement".

Aoun had retorted that the deal had no "political implications".

The United States-mediated deal is set to unlock potential off-shore gas resources for Lebanon, at a time when the country is reeling from three years of gruelling economic crisis.

It also streamlines gas production for Israel, as Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah had threatened the Jewish state with attacks should it begin work in the disputed area before a deal was signed.
Renowned art expert 'willing' to head to Saudi to uncover mysteries of Salvator Mundi

A British art historian said he was 'willing' to go to Saudi Arabia to inspect the world's most expensive painting, Salvator Mundi - which is shrouded in mystery and controversy.


Some believe Salvator Mundi is the sole work of Leonardo da Vinci, others believe he was only a contributor [source: Getty]

The New Arab Staff
14 October, 2022


A renowned British art historian has expressed his "willingness" to travel to Saudi Arabia to inspect the $450-million-dollar Salvator Mundi painting, which is shrouded in mystery

The world’s most expensive artwork, owned by the Gulf kingdom, is thought to be a Leonardo da Vinci original. However, heated speculation among art experts has cast doubt over its authenticity.

The piece, once believed to be destroyed, was bought in 2017 by a little-known Saudi prince, who was reported to be a proxy for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler.

Martin Kemp, an art historian at the University of Oxford who originally attributed the work to da Vinci, told journalists that Saudi Arabia made "moves" to get him to visit the Kingdom and look at the historic painting.
 
RELATED
MENA
The New Arab Staff

"It is in Saudi Arabia and the country is constructing an art gallery, which is to be finished in 2024…there have been moves to get me out to look at it," said Kemp, according to The Times.

The art expert added that he was "slightly reluctant" to go "for very obvious reasons" - in what appeared to be unsubtle reference to Saudi Arabia’s poor human rights record.

Saudi authorities have recently jailed citizens for over 30 years for mildly critical tweets.

"But if it helps to get Salvator Mundi out into the fresh air then I would be willing to do that," he said.

When asked if he believed the painting was a da Vinci, Kemp said he was "confident" it was one, but that he could not say "every brushstroke was by Leonardo".

The 500-year-old painting was reportedly hung on Crown Prince Mohammed's megayacht before it was taken to Paris for display.

However, the French government refused to showcase the artwork in the Louvre as "100 percent Leonardo da Vinci". This was despite alleged pressure from Riyadh to get Paris to authenticate da Vinci as the sole creator, rather than a contributor.

Madrid’s acclaimed Prado museum has also challenged statements which attribute the painting only to the renaissance icon.

Kemp said that perhaps da Vinci - while commissioning and envisioning the work - assigned one of his students to complete brushstrokes for Salvator Mundi.
POLITICAL POLICING
Here’s what I can tell you and here’s how you can help



Duncan Kinney <duncank@progressalberta.ca>


On Friday, Oct. 14 upon arriving at my office by bicycle at around 9 am I was arrested by Const. Freddie Challenger of the Hate Crimes and Violent Extremism Unit for mischief. He was accompanied by at least three other officers and there were at least two police vehicles there. I was handcuffed, placed in an unmarked police vehicle and taken to the downtown division. There I was interrogated by a fifth officer for about a half an hour where, on the advice of my lawyer, I refused to answer any questions.


I was arrested for mischief with regards to the vandalism of the statue of Roman Shukhevych outside of the Ukrainian Youth Unity Complex in North Edmonton in August of 2021. You can read my story about it here.

I was released on an undertaking to appear with my first court date at the Case Management Office taking place on Nov. 10. This is a purely administrative event. The case will be adjourned until my lawyer obtains and reviews full disclosure.

I will be pleading not guilty and defending this charge. As many have pointed out this appears to be an attempt by the EPS to silence and discredit a critic.

However, the advice from my lawyer on this is clear. I can not talk about the substance of the case. But I can promise you that I will mount a vigorous defence, if it comes to that.

Unfortunately while I can’t publicly defend myself, the void has been filled by media outlets making cartoonishly basic mistakes about the facts of the matter and the usual far-right, pro-police voices on social media saying things that are untrue.

But that’s not to say that you can’t reach out and say hi and ask me how I’m doing. To everyone who checked in, thank you. If you were thinking about sending me a text or a DM or a phone call to say hey and let me know that you support me, please do so, that would rule.

And if you would like to support me in person there is going to be a screening of the movie No Visible Trauma on November 9 at the Metro Cinema. This is an amazing documentary from two Calgary based filmmakers that examines a deeply troubled police service and reveals the devastating consequences of unchecked police brutality.

I will be part of a panel discussion afterwards that will feature: Temitope Oriola - Professor of criminology and sociology at the U of A.

Danielle Paradis - APTN Western Correspondent .
Courtney Walcott - Calgary city councillor (Ward 8).
Det. Dan Behiels - Police whistleblower.

The doors open and the reception starts at 6pm. The screening starts at 7pm and the panel discussion and Q&A will follow.

The event is free and you can reserve a spot here.

The Edmonton Police Service is not going to scare us away from continuing to produce investigative journalism that holds the police accountable. In fact, we’re working on two stories involving EPS right now that I don’t think anyone else in Alberta media would or could write.

EPS hasn’t been able to stop our work by revoking our media credentials or by tying us up in an interminable “media accreditation process,” and they won’t stop us with these charges either.

If you’d like to offer more than just moral support we are always grateful for new recurring donors. The pandemic put the squeeze on our organization too, and not having much to pay writers has really diminished what we’re getting out there. If you’re able to pitch in to fund the work that Jim, our freelancers and I do, that’s the thing we need the most.

You can donate online here—if you have any trouble with that just email me directly.

Duncan Kinney
http://www.progressalberta.ca/

New documentary explores truth behind 'King Tutankhamun's Curse'

The New Arab Staff
27 October, 2022

National Geographic documentary 'Tut's Toxic Tomb' explores whether science could shed light on the alleged curse, asking whether toxins within the site could play a role.


Tutankhamun's tomb was sealed for more than 3,000 years [Getty]

A new documentary series is attempting uncover answers behind the mysterious deaths linked to the tomb of ancient Egyptian King Tutankhamun,

National Geographic documentary 'Tut's Toxic Tomb' explores whether science could shed light on the alleged curse, asking whether toxins within the site could have something to do with it.

First entered in 1922 by British archaeologist Howard Carter, the tomb was found to contain more than 5,000 objects, including statues, coffins and weapons sealed inside the site for more than 3,000 years.

The expedition went down in history, securing Carter's legacy and uncovering the tomb's treasures for the world.

Perspectives
Farah Abdessamad

But the boy king's burial site has also long been linked to a 'Pharaohs curse' that is thought to have struck down those who dared to enter.

The financial backer of Carter's expedition, Lord Carnarvon, entered the tomb in early 1923, but died just weeks after from an infection.

Several similar deaths of visitors to the site have fed rumours that an ancient curse may have been activated.

THEN I WAS REBORN A WITCH

 




Embrace the Witch!

Invite these women in, and let their voices pull on you: we pick our favourite witchy quotes from The Verso Book of Feminism.

Verso Books
31 October 2022




Halloween, also called Samhain the Witch’s New Year, marks the border between the light and the dark, between the bright days and the cold nights, between the dead and the living. Witches are said to traverse this space and find, in the dark, what new things can be born.

We’ve pulled six witchy selections from the Verso Book of Feminism! From the 1st century to the present, women making things and bringing new worlds to birth have been called witches; some have embraced the identity. In this way, the Book of Feminism is possibly also a grimoire. Since the veil is thin right now, invite these women in, and let their voices pull on you.

77 CE
Pliny the Elder
Naturalis Historia, XXV, 10

There was nothing more highly admired than an intimate knowledge of plants, in ancient times. It is long since the means were discovered of calculating before-hand, not only the day or the night, but the very hour even at which an eclipse of the sun or moon is to take place; and yet the greater part of the lower classes still remain firmly persuaded that these phenomena are brought about by compulsion, through the agency of herbs and enchantments, and that the knowledge of this art is confined almost exclusively to females.

The skills of Greek women—like famed second-century BCE astronomer Aglaonike from Thessaly, who was known for her expertise in predicting lunar eclipses—were considered to be magic and witchcraft rather than true scientific knowledge. Due to the circumscribed positions of women in the male-dominated Greek city-states, talented women were often known as sorceresses and priestesses rather than scholars. Aglaonike was called “the Witch of Thessaly” for her supposed talent of “making the moon disappear.” Here, Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder alludes to this history in his multivolume work Naturalis Historia.

1922
Masuda Rahman
Letter to the Newspaper Bijoli

Pack the conservative old men off to the forests with their rosaries, snatch the religious texts from the hands of the hypocrites and lawyers, drive the offenders away from the sacred podium of this temple we call society. Preach the words of our creator for the benefit of mankind… An irreligious and anti-motherhood society has decreed that women must always satisfy desires, cook delicious food, give birth to babies every year like bitches do, must abide by all its selfish dictates with bowed heads and offer their devotion, blindly, at its feet. We are goddesses, women, and vicious witches, all in one. Beware—it is not as if we have lost all sense of self-respect because we play mothers to you… My fellow workers! You are running after wealth, but where will you keep the accumulated treasure? … Our beautiful country now looks like a cremation ground—a place for evil spirits to prowl around, a ground for vultures to keep their eternal vigil. The air is putrid with the poisonous smell of decay! Is this a suitable place to erect a shrine of gold? We have to destroy, burn and erase all that is there to create anew. You cannot cleanse and purify this abhorred land, now full of waste, without our help. You work very hard to bring home the golden harvest every year, but we are the ones who do the threshing, separating the grains from the husk … Let us do the job that is ours. The flames of a hundred Vesuvius are stored in our chests, our hearts are tempestuous with the power of a thousand cyclones, and our eyes contain the unfathomable waters of ten thousand oceans.

Bengali Muslim writer Masuda Rahman was well known for her nationalist anti-British views, as well as her fierce criticism of patriarchal traditions in Islamic and Bengali culture.

1973
Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English
Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History of Women Healers

Women have always been healers. They were the unlicensed doctors and anatomists of Western history. They were abortionists, nurses, and counselors. They were pharmacists, cultivating healing herbs and exchanging secrets of their uses. They were midwives, travelling from home to home and village to village. For centuries women were doctors without degrees, barred from books and lectures, learning from each other, and passing on experience from neighbor to neighbor and mother to daughter. They were called “wise women” by the people, witches or charlatans by the authorities. Medicine is part of our heritage as women, our history, our birthright.

Feminists Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English wrote this pamphlet in “a blaze of anger and indignation,” part of the broader second-wave feminist activism in the United States that critiqued the sexism in medical practice and sought to teach women about their own bodies. Ehrenreich and English argued that historically, witch hunts were part of dismissing and criminalizing women’s knowledge in order to allow state-approved male doctors to take over medical care, an argument later researched and credited by feminist historians. “Our ignorance” of our own bodies, they argued, “is enforced.”

1978
Silvia Bovenschen
“The Contemporary Witch, the Historical Witch, and the Witch Myth”

Up until recently the word witch did not have a pleasant ring to it. It evoked childhood fears—we often called old teachers whom we could not stand and whom we feared by that name. The word “witch” experienced the same transformation as the word “queer” or “proletarian”: it was adopted by the person affected and used against the enemy who had introduced it … The fact that women are dressing up as witches for their demonstrations and festivals also points to this mimetic approach to their own personal history through the medium of mythological suggestion. They are, to a certain extent, practicing witchcraft. The anti-feminist metaphysics of sex kept conjuring up the magical demonic potential of femininity until this potential finally turned against it.

The second-wave women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s reclaimed the figure of the witch as an icon of women’s power, women’s rage, and a target of male fear and misogynist violence—as Bovenschen, German literary critic and feminist, notes here.

2015
Genderchangers Academy
"What Is a Genderchanger?"

A genderchanger figures out how her computer works and she is not afraid of taking it apart. She can also change any card, plugin and unplug any devices without too much hassle. She is the witch and a knitter of modern times. She is a secretary with a ballpoint of steel. She is also kind to penguins and she lets her cat sit on the monitor.

A "gender changer" is an adapter that changes the “sex” of a computer port, here repurposed by the Genderchangers Academy, a women-only organization in Amsterdam dedicated to involving women in technology.

- all of the excerpts above are taken from The Verso Book of Feminism - an unprecedented collection of feminist voices from four millennia of global history. See all our Gothic Feminist reading here.



The Verso Book of Feminism
Edited by Jessie Kindig
Paperback
Ebook
Paperback with free ebook
$25.95 CAD$10.38 CAD60% off
416 pages / October 2020 / 9781788739269
“A perfect bedside book for feminists. A commonplace book that is anything but commonplace.”
– Alix Kates Shulman


Throughout written history and across the world, women have protested the restrictions of gender and the limitations placed on women’s bodies and women’s lives. People—of any and no gender—have protested and theorised, penned manifestos and written poetry and songs, testified and lobbied, gone on strike and fomented revolution, quietly demanded that there is an “I” and loudly proclaimed that there is a “we.” The Verso Book of Feminism chronicles this history of defiance and tracks it around the world as it develops into a multivocal and unabashed force.

Global in scope, The Verso Book of Feminism shows the breadth of feminist protest and of feminist thinking, moving through the female poets of China’s Tang Dynasty to accounts of indigenous women in the Caribbean resisting Columbus’s expedition, British suffragists militating for the vote to the revolutionary pétroleuses of the 1848 Paris Commune, the first-century Trung sisters who fought for the independence of Nam Viet to women in 1980s Botswana fighting for equal protection under the law, from the erotica of the sixth century and the ninteenth century to radical queer politics in the twentieth and twenty-first.

WITCHY/BITCHY

Witchy_bitchy-

Witchiness and bitchiness are two feminist tropes that refuse to die. What is their historical importance, and what might come next, particularly if we wholly welcome rather than refute these gendered stereotypes?

Though manifestos are derived from a genre rooted in presentness, classic feminist texts nevertheless show us  possibilities just out of our sightline, waiting to be discovered.

We bring you two feminist texts excerpted from Burn It Down! Feminist Manifestos for the Revolution edited by Breanne Fahs, from the WITCHY/BITCHY section of the book.

We start with a classic second-wave radical feminist text written by the Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (W.I.T.C.H.), a group that resurfaced in Portland, Oregon, and throughout the United States after the election of Donald Trump. We then hear from Joreen (aka Jo Freeman) in her well-known BITCH Manifesto, a key effort in reclaiming the word “bitch” and turning it against the oppressors.
 

W.I.T.C.H. Manifesto – 1968, W.I.T.C.H. (Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell)

WITCH is an all-women Everything. It’s theater, revolution, magic, terror, joy, garlic flowers, spells, It’s an awareness that witches and gypsies were the original guerrillas and resistance fighters against oppression—particularly the oppression of women—down through the ages. Witches have always been women who dared to be: groovy, courageous, aggressive, intelligent, nonconformist, explorative, curious, independent, sexually liberated, revolutionary. (This possibly explains why nine million of them have been burned.) Witches were the first Friendly Heads and Dealers, the first birth-control practitioners and abortionists, the first alchemists (turn dross into gold and you devalue the whole idea of money!). They bowed to no man, being the living remnants of the oldest culture of all—one in which men and women were equal sharers in a truly cooperative society, before the death-dealing, sexual, economic, and spiritual repression of the Imperialist Phallic Society took over and began to destroy nature and human society.

WITCH lives and laughs in every woman. She is the free part of each of us, beneath the shy smiles, the acquiescence to absurd male domination, the make-up or flesh suffocating clothing our sick society demands. There is no “joining” WITCH. If you are a woman and dare to look within yourself, you are a Witch. You make your own rules. You are free and beautiful. You can be invisible or evident in how you choose to make your witch-self known. You can form your own Coven of sister Witches (thirteen is a cozy number for a group) and do your own actions.

Whatever is repressive, solely male-oriented, greedy, puritanical, authoritarian—those are your targets. Your weapons are theater, satire, explosions, magic, herbs, music, costumes, cameras, masks, chants, stickers, stencils and paint, films, tambourines, bricks, brooms, guns, voodoo dolls, cats, candles, bells, chalk, nail clippings, hand grenades, poison rings, fuses, tape recorders, incense—your own boundless imagination. Your power comes from your own self as a woman, and it is activated by working in concert with your sisters. The power of the Coven is more than the sum of its individual members, because it is together.

You are pledged to free our brothers from oppression and stereotyped sexual roles (whether they like it or not) as well as ourselves. You are a Witch by saying aloud, “I am a Witch” three times, and thinking about that. You are a Witch by being female, untamed, angry, joyous, and immortal.

W.I.T.C.H. (Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell) is a New York City–based radical feminist group founded in October 1968 by socialist feminists or “politicos” Robin Morgan, Peggy Dobbins, Judy Duffett, Cynthia Funk, Naomi Jaffe, and Florika. The group opposed the idea that radical feminists should only campaign against patriarchy alone. Instead, they argued that feminists should fight for a range of left-wing causes to bring about wider social change. The group was known for theatrical public actions such as hexing Wall Street in 1968 and protesting a bridal fair in 1969.

BITCH Manifesto – 1968, Joreen

BITCH is an organization which does not yet exist. The name is not an acronym. It stands for exactly what it sounds like.

BITCH is composed of Bitches. There are many definitions of a bitch. The most complimentary definition is a female dog. Those definitions of bitches who are also homo sapiens are rarely as objective. They vary from person to person and depend strongly on how much of a bitch the definer considers herself. However, everyone agrees that a bitch is always a female, dog, or otherwise.

It is also generally agreed that a Bitch is aggressive, and therefore unfeminine (ahem). She may be sexy, in which case she becomes a Bitch Goddess, a special case which will not concern us here. But she is never a “true woman.”

Bitches have some or all of the following characteristics.

1) Personality. Bitches are aggressive, assertive, domineering, overbearing, strong-minded,

spiteful, hostile, direct, blunt, candid, obnoxious, thick-skinned, hard-headed, vicious, dogmatic, competent, competitive, pushy, loud-mouthed, independent, stubborn, demanding, manipulative, egoistic, driven, achieving, overwhelming, threatening, scary, ambitious, tough, brassy, masculine, boisterous, and turbulent. Among other things. A Bitch occupies a lot of psychological space. You always know she is around. A Bitch takes shit from no one. You may not like her, but you cannot ignore her.

2) Physical. Bitches are big, tall, strong, large, loud, brash, harsh, awkward, clumsy, sprawling, strident, ugly. Bitches move their bodies freely rather than restrain, refine and confine their motions in the proper feminine manner. They clomp up stairs, stride when they walk and don’t worry about where they put their legs when they sit. They have loud voices and often use them. Bitches are not pretty.

3) Orientation. Bitches seek their identity strictly thru themselves and what they do. They are subjects, not objects. They may have a relationship with a person or organization, but they never marry anyone or anything; man, mansion, or movement. Thus Bitches prefer to plan their own lives rather than live from day to day, action to action, or person to person. They are independent cusses and believe they are capable of doing anything they damn well want to. If something gets in their way; well, that’s why they become Bitches. If they are professionally inclined, they will seek careers and have no fear of competing with anyone. If not professionally inclined, they still seek self-expression

and self-actualization. Whatever they do, they want an active role and are frequently perceived as domineering. Often they do dominate other people when roles are not available to them which more creatively sublimate their energies and utilize their capabilities. More often they are accused of domineering when doing what would be considered natural by a man.

A true Bitch is self-determined, but the term “bitch” is usually applied with less discrimination. It is a popular derogation to put down uppity women that was created by man and adopted by women. Like the term “nigger,” “bitch” serves the social function of isolating and discrediting a class of people who do not conform to the socially accepted patterns of behavior.

BITCH does not use this word in the negative sense. A woman should be proud to declare she is a Bitch, because Bitch is Beautiful. It should be an act of affirmation by self and not negation by others. Not everyone can qualify as a Bitch. One does not have to have all of the above three qualities, but should be well possessed of at least two of them to be considered a Bitch. If a woman qualifies in all three, at least partially, she is a Bitch’s Bitch. Only Superbitches qualify totally in all three categories and there are very few of those. Most don’t last long in this society.

The most prominent characteristic of all Bitches is that they rudely violate conceptions of proper sex role behavior. They violate them in different ways, but they all violate them. Their attitudes towards themselves and other people, their goal orientations, their personal style, their appearance and way of handling their bodies, all jar people and make them feel uneasy. Sometimes it’s conscious and sometimes it’s not, but people generally feel uncomfortable around Bitches. They consider them aberrations. They find their style disturbing. So they create a dumping ground for all who they deplore as bitchy and call them frustrated women. Frustrated they may be, but the cause is social not sexual.

What is disturbing about a Bitch is that she is androgynous. She incorporates within herself qualities traditionally defined as “masculine” as well as “feminine.” A Bitch is blunt, direct, arrogant, at times egoistic. She has no liking for the indirect, subtle, mysterious ways of the “eternal feminine.” She disdains the vicarious life deemed natural to women because she wants to live a life of her own.

Our society has defined humanity as male, and female as something other than male. In this way, females could be human only by living vicariously thru a male. To be able to live, a woman has to agree to serve, honor, and obey a man and what she gets in exchange is at best a shadow life. Bitches refuse to serve, honor or obey anyone. They demand to be fully functioning human beings, not just shadows. They want to be both female and human. This makes them social contradictions. The mere existence of Bitches negates the idea that a woman’s reality must come thru her relationship to a man and defies the belief that women are perpetual children who must always be under the guidance of another.

Therefore, if taken seriously, a Bitch is a threat to the social structures which enslave women and the social values which justify keeping them in their place. She is living testimony that woman’s oppression does not have to be, and as such raises doubts about the validity of the whole social system. Because she is a threat she is not taken seriously. Instead, she is dismissed as a deviant. Men create a special category for her in which she is accounted at least partially human, but not really a woman. To the extent to which they relate to her as a human being, they refuse to relate to her as a sexual being. Women are even more threatened because they cannot forget she is a woman. They are

afraid they will identify with her too closely. She has a freedom and an independence which they envy and challenges them to forsake the security of their chains. Neither men nor women can face the reality of a Bitch because to do so would force them to face the corrupt reality of themselves. She is dangerous. So they dismiss her as a freak.

This is the root of her own oppression as a woman. Bitches are not only oppressed as women, they are oppressed for not being like women. Because she has insisted on being human before being feminine, on being true to herself before kowtowing to social pressures, a Bitch grows up an outsider. Even as girls, Bitches violated the limits of accepted sex role behavior. They did not identify with other women and few were lucky enough to have an adult Bitch serve as a role model. They had to make their own way and the pitfalls this uncharted course posed contributed to both their uncertainty and their independence.

Bitches are good examples of how women can be strong enough to survive even the rigid, punitive socialization of our society. As young girls it never quite penetrated their consciousness that women were supposed to be inferior to men in any but the mother/helpmate role. They asserted themselves as children and never really internalized the slave style of wheedling and cajolery which is called feminine. Some Bitches were oblivious to the usual social pressures and some stubbornly resisted them. Some developed a superficial feminine style and some remained tomboys long past the time when such behavior is tolerated. All Bitches refused, in mind and spirit, to conform to the idea that there were limits on what they could be and do. They placed no bounds on their aspirations or their conduct.

For this resistance they were roundly condemned. They were put down, snubbed, sneered at, talked about, laughed at and ostracized. Our society made women into slaves and then condemned them for acting like slaves. It was all done very subtly. Few people were so direct as to say that they did not like Bitches because they did not play the sex role game.

In fact, few were sure why they did not like Bitches. They did not realize that their violation of the reality structure endangered the structure. Somehow, from early childhood on, some girls didn’t fit in and were good objects to make fun of. But few people consciously recognized the root of their dislike. The issue was never confronted. If it was talked about at all, it was done with snide remarks behind the young girl’s back. Bitches were made to feel that there was something wrong with them; something personally wrong.

Teenage girls are particularly vicious in the scapegoat game. This is the time of life when women are told they must compete the hardest for the spoils (i.e. men) which society allows. They must assert their femininity or see it denied. They are very unsure of themselves and adopt the rigidity that goes with uncertainty. They are hard on their competitors and even harder on those who decline to compete. Those of their peers who do not share their concerns and practice the arts of charming men are excluded from most social groupings. If she didn’t know it before, a Bitch learns during these years that she is different.

As she gets older she learns more about why she is different. As Bitches begin to take jobs, or participate in organizations, they are rarely content to sit quietly and do what they are told. A Bitch has a mind of her own and wants to use it. She wants to rise high, be creative, assume responsibility. She knows she is capable and wants to use her capabilities. This is not pleasing to the men she works for, which is not her primary goal.

When she meets the hard brick wall of sex prejudice she is not compliant. She will knock herself out batting her head against the wall because she will not accept her defined role as an auxiliary. Occasionally she crashes her way thru. Or she uses her ingenuity to find a loophole, or creates one. Or she is ten times better than anyone else competing with her. She also accepts less than her due. Like other women her ambitions have often been dulled for she has not totally escaped the badge of inferiority placed upon the “weaker sex.” She will often espouse contentment with being the power behind the throne—provided that she does have real power—while rationalizing that she really does not want the recognition that comes with also having the throne. Because she has been put down most of her life, both for being a woman and for not being a true woman, a Bitch will not always recognize that what she has achieved is not attainable by the typical woman. A highly competent Bitch often deprecates herself by refusing to recognize her own superiority. She is wont to say that she is average or less so; if she can do it, anyone can.

As adults, Bitches may have learned the feminine role, at least the outward style but they are rarely comfortable in it. This is particularly true of those women who are physical Bitches. They want to free their bodies as well as their minds and deplore the effort they must waste confining their physical motions or dressing the role in order not to turn people off. Too, because they violate sex role expectations physically, they are not as free to violate them psychologically or intellectually. A few deviations from the norm can be tolerated but too many are too threatening. It’s bad enough not to think like a woman, sound like a woman or do the kinds of things women are supposed to do. To also not look like a woman, move like a woman or act like a woman is to go way beyond the pale. Ours is a rigid society with narrow limits placed on the extent of human diversity. Women in particular are defined by their physical characteristics. Bitches who do not violate these limits are freer to violate others. Bitches who do violate them in style or size can be somewhat envious of those who do not have to so severely restrain the expansiveness of their personalities and behavior. Often these Bitches are tortured more because their deviancy is always evident. But they do have a compensation in that large Bitches have a good deal less difficulty being taken seriously than small women. One of the sources of their suffering as women is also a source of their strength.

The trial by fire which most Bitches go thru while growing up either makes them or breaks them. They are strung tautly between the two poles of being true to their own nature or being accepted as a social being. This makes them very sensitive people, but it is a sensitivity the rest of the world is unaware of. For on the outside they have frequently grown a thick defensive callous which can make them seem hard and bitter at times. This is particularly true of those Bitches who have been forced to become isolates in order to avoid being remade and destroyed by their peers. Those who are fortunate enough to have grown up with some similar companions, understanding parents, a good role model or two and a very strong will, can avoid some of the worse aspects of being a Bitch. Having endured less psychological punishment for being what they were they can accept their differentness with the ease that comes from self-confidence.

Those who had to make their way entirely on their own have an uncertain path. Some finally realize that their pain comes not just because they do not conform but because they do not want to conform. With this comes the recognition that there is nothing particularly wrong with them they just don’t fit into this kind of society. Many eventually learn to insulate themselves from the harsh social environment. However, this too has its price. Unless they are cautious and conscious, the confidence gained in this painful manner—with no support from their sisters—is more often a kind of arrogance. Bitches can become so hard and calloused that the last vestiges of humanity become buried deep within and almost destroyed.

Not all Bitches make it. Instead of callouses, they develop open sores. Instead of confidence they develop an unhealthy sensitivity to rejection. Seemingly tough on the outside, on the inside they are a bloody pulp, raw from the lifelong verbal whipping they have had to endure. These are Bitches who have gone Bad. They often go around with a chip on their shoulders and use their strength for unproductive retaliation when someone accepts their dare to knock it off. These Bitches can be very obnoxious because they never really trust people. They have not learned to use their strength constructively.

Bitches who have been mutilated as human beings often turn their fury on other people—particularly other women. This is one example of how women are trained to keep themselves and other women in their place. Bitches are no less guilty than non-Bitches of self-hatred and group-hatred and those who have gone Bad suffer the worse of both these afflictions. All Bitches are scapegoats and those who have not survived the psychological gauntlet are the butt of everyone’s disdain. As a group, Bitches are treated by other women much as women in general are treated by society—all right in their place, good to exploit and gossip about, but otherwise to be ignored or put down. They are threats to the traditional woman’s position and they are also an outgroup to which she can feel superior. Most women feel both better than and jealous of Bitches. While comforting themselves that they are not like these aggressive, masculine freaks, they have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps men, the most important thing in their lives, do find the freer, more assertive, independent, Bitch preferable as a woman.

Bitches, likewise, don’t care too much for other women. They grow up disliking other women. They can’t relate to them, they don’t identify with them, they have nothing in common with them. Other women have been the norm into which they have not fit. They reject those who have rejected them. This is one of the reasons Bitches who are successful in hurdling the obstacles society places before women scorn these women who are not. They tend to feel those who can take it will make it. Most women have been the direct agents of much of the shit Bitches have had to endure and few of either group have had the political consciousness to realize why this is. Bitches have been oppressed by other women as much if not more than by men and their hatred for them is usually greater.

Bitches are also uncomfortable around other women because frequently women are less their psychological peers than are men. Bitches don’t particularly like passive people. They are always slightly afraid they will crush the fragile things. Women are trained to be passive and have learned to act that way even when they are not. A Bitch is not very passive and is not comfortable acting that role. But she usually does not like to be domineering either—whether this is from natural distaste at dominating others or fear of seeming too masculine. Thus a Bitch can relax and be her natural non-passive self without worrying about masticating someone only in the company of those who are as strong as she. This is more frequently in the company of men than of women but those Bitches who have not succumbed totally to self-hatred are most comfortable of all only in the company of fellow

Bitches. These are her true peers and the only ones with whom she does not have to play some sort of role. Only with other Bitches can a Bitch be truly free.

These moments come rarely. Most of the time Bitches must remain psychologically isolated. Women and men are so threatened by them and react so adversely that Bitches guard their true selves carefully. They are suspicious of those few whom they think they might be able to trust because so often it turns out to be a sham. But in this loneliness there is a strength and from their isolation and their bitterness come contributions that other women do not make. Bitches are among the most unsung of the unsung heroes of this society. They are the pioneers, the vanguard, the spearhead. Whether they want to be or not this is the role they serve just by their very being. Many would not choose to be the groundbreakers for the mass of women for whom they have no sisterly feelings but they cannot avoid it. Those who violate the limits, extend them; or cause the system to break.

Bitches were the first women to go to college, the first to break thru the Invisible Bar of the professions, the first social revolutionaries, the first labor leaders, the first to organize other women. Because they were not passive beings and acted on their resentment at being kept down, they dared to do what other women would not. They took the flak and the shit that society dishes out to those who would change it and opened up portions of the world to women that they would otherwise not have known. They have lived on the fringes. And alone or with the support of their sisters they have changed the world we live in.

By definition Bitches are marginal beings in this society. They have no proper place and wouldn’t stay in it if they did. They are women but not true women. They are human but they are not male. Some don’t even know they are women because they cannot relate to other women. They may play the feminine game at times, but they know it is a game they are playing. Their major psychological oppression is not a belief that they are inferior but a belief that they are not. Thus, all their lives they have been told they were freaks. More polite terms were used of course, but the message got thru. Like most women they were taught to hate themselves as well as all women. In different ways and for different reasons perhaps, but the effect was similar. Internalization of a derogatory self-concept

always results in a good deal of bitterness and resentment. This anger is usually either turned in on the self—making one an unpleasant person—or on other women reinforcing the social clichés about them. Only with political consciousness is it directed at the source—the social system.

The bulk of this Manifesto has been about Bitches. The remainder will be about BITCH. The organization does not yet exist and perhaps it never can. Bitches are so damned independent and they have learned so well not to trust other women that it will be difficult for them to learn to even trust each other. This is what BITCH must teach them to do. Bitches have to learn to accept themselves as Bitches and to give their sisters the support they need to be creative Bitches. Bitches must learn to be proud of their strength and proud of themselves. They must move away from the isolation which has been their protection and help their younger sisters avoid its perils. They must recognize that women are often less tolerant of other women than are men because they have been taught to view all women as their enemies. And Bitches must form together in a movement to deal with their problems in a political manner. They must organize for their own liberation as all women must organize for theirs. We must be strong, we must be militant, we must be dangerous. We must realize that Bitch is Beautiful and that we have nothing to lose. Nothing whatsoever.

Joreen (aka Jo Freeman) (1945–) is an American feminist, political scientist, writer, and attorney. She first became active in organizations working for civil liberties as a student at the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1960s. An early organizer of the women’s liberation movement, she founded the Westside group in 1967 and went on to earn a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago in 1973. She taught at the State University of New York for four years and worked as a Brookings Institute Fellow. She continues to write about politics and the public sphere today.