Comments for Reclaiming Medusa

Comment on Pornography: Objectification or Free Speech? The Debate Rages On by Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:30:00 +0000

Lucinda,

Everything you wrote and said is sadly so true and accurate and it’s really scary how normalized pornography has become. But the same sexist, woman-hating male dominated society that created it in the first place is the same sexist woman-hating male dominated society that has sexualized, legitimized, and normalized it! And it’s really disturbing that there are some women influenced to support the sexist,woman-hating pornography now!

But what do we expect living in a very sexist woman-hating patriarchy where women are portrayed as nothing but body parts to service men in everything, ads,TV movies, rap, rock music and especially pornography and this is what women are given the most importance for,not our human qualities and intelligence!

And because pornography sexualizes gender inequality in a very sexist male dominated society, it’s impossible that many women *wouldn’t* be influenced to believe this is what “normal” heterosexuality is and what woman are valued the most for!
Robert Jensen’s article and talks about the truth about the sexist harm of pornography are all great and powerful! How sad to see that nobody else even posted any comments in response to your great post.

Comment on The New Breast Cancer Treatment Guidelines by Lucinda Marshall

Lucinda Marshall — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:17:00 +0000

I am very touched that you responded to what I wrote. You are very wise to trust yourself and your own wisdom and ability to chose for yourself, something that seems very, very difficult to do with this disease. I hope that you will keep in touch and let me know how you are.

Comment on The New Breast Cancer Treatment Guidelines by Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:09:00 +0000

On the eve on my mastectomy, I discovered this article. Today, I appear young and physically fit. Your article reflects my thoughts and reaffirms my conviction to question my need for post-op chemotherapy. We are not forsaking our faith in science, our loved ones, or our medical professionals, by questioning the etiology of scripted statistics, current literature or underlying business agendas. As individual patients, we are entitled to be treated on a case by case basis. Ultimately, it should be the patient’s discovery, knowing and decision making that leads her to define what treatment options will best suit her.

Comment on Reclaiming Medusa by Siel

Siel — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:03:00 +0000

Have you read Cixous’ “The Laugh of the Medusa”? I think you’d enjoy it —->

Comment on Reclaiming Medusa by AltMama

AltMama — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:15:00 +0000

One summer I worked at a camp where I told the campers the stories that went along with constellations they were learning to see. Some of them had heard of Medusa before I told them the story of Casseiopia, Andromeda, Perseus, etc….but they were all shocked when I told them *my* version of Medusa’s story! Talking about her in that context still seems like one of the best feminist things I’ve done.

Comment on Breast Cancer Stamps and the Merchandising of Women’s Health by Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 22:23:00 +0000

Oh drat, the above was by NancyP.–>

Comment on Breast Cancer Stamps and the Merchandising of Women’s Health by Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 22:23:00 +0000

The DOD “Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program” (official name) connection is historical, and has to do with congressionally directed allocation of money for particular diseases, a policy that NCI at that time (and still) tries to avoid as an ongoing policy. NCI gets its allocation as a lump sum. Breast cancer was the first disease to be so earmarked and administered by the DOD, but now ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, neurofibromatosis, and one or two other diseases are also funded this way.

DOD breast cancer research is oriented toward early detection, biochemical causes, and preclinical trials of novel interventions. It does not fund clinical trials of therapies, which are very expensive research trials, and generally does not fund epidemiologic studies, which may or may not be very expensive. NCI does the clinical trials and epidemiologic funding, by and large. Pharmaceutical companies have no influence on the selection of research to be funded by NCI or DOD, or on publication of said research. Both NCI and DOD use peer review (scientists in academia) to prioritize research proposals, as well as some directives from the executive committees (eg, rough split of money between epidemiology, basic research, translational research, clinical trials). To my knowledge, no company has refused to make a drug available for NCI clinical trials testing, the one possible leverage they have.

It is true that tamoxifen can cause a small number of cancers, specifically endometrial cancers, but the benefit/risk ratio for patients with estrogen receptor positive breast cancers has been favorable. At any rate, tamoxifen is rapidly being superceded by a (more expensive) newer class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, which seem less likely to have endometrial cancers.

Of course large companies that include chemical lines play the cause/cure game, as their product range is wide, and some may be associated with cancer. So far as I am concerned, the solution is to get the word out about the bad stuff, and find functional substitutes.

Comment on The Burqa Excuse by Maisha

Maisha — Thu, 26 May 2005 03:52:00 +0000

I am an American Muslim. Not transplanted. I was born here and was Christian until my late 20s. I’m almost 60 now. I find it strange that some people such as Ms. Parker claim to be so concerned about Muslim women’s rights. They make the claim that part of the reason for the two American war fronts is to liberate Muslim women. I can’t buy that because, if that were true, Muslim women living in the U.S. would have the freedom to dress as they choose without giving up a chance of getting a decent job and without risking personal safety. That is not the case. I have so many friends that have had to give up wearing their hijab (garments covering all but face and hands) in order to gain employment. I am blessed to own my own business so I only have to be concerned about losing customers who are put off by my dress. I know two women who want to wear the face cover (niqab) and have done so for awhile but gave it up because they could not leave home without there husband. This was not because their husbands are over protective but because they preferred not to be cursed at and spit on at Walmart and beyond.
In my case, our family is in a custody battle over two of my grandchildren. We just found out today that the social worker in the case told a coworker that the reason she wanted the children removed from my daughters home was that she was afraid of the way my daughter dresses. Isn’t that a hell of a reason to lose your children? So much for religious freedom, liberation of Muslim women. I wish I could say that we are the only Muslim family here in the states that have had their children removed from their homes because of religious discrimination. But the reality is that it is happening regularly. I can’t speak for them but I would rather have suffered the indignities of Abu Grib Prison or live under Taliban rule than to loose my precious grand babies. Our whole family feels the same way.
Sure we revere the Quran but I think that Muslims have reacted in such a volatile manner about the story because the alleged flushing validates the strong suspicion that Islam is under siege.
Maisha

Comment on The Media Reform Conference by P-BS-Watcher

P-BS-Watcher — Wed, 18 May 2005 23:24:00 +0000

"Kenneth Tomlinson has his demanding donors. I’ll take the widow’s mite any day." I'll start believing him, as well as take him up on his offer, when he says he would rather have the $500 than the $400 million from Uncle Sam. See Raging Bill

Comment on Reclaiming Medusa by C.J. Minster

C.J. Minster — Wed, 04 May 2005 13:43:00 +0000

Today, May 3, 2005’s entry for A Word A Day (an email list) is “gorgonize.”

Here is the description:
(QUOTE)
gorgonize or gorgonise (GOR-guh-nyz) verb tr.

To paralyze, petrify, or hypnotize.

[After Gorgon, any of the three monstrous sisters Stheno, Euryale,
and Medusa in Greek mythology, who had snakes for hair. They turned
into stone anyone who looked into their eyes.]

“Gorgonised me from head to foot
With a stony British stare.”
Alfred, Lord Tennyson; Maud; 1855.

This week’s theme: allusions and personifications.(END QUOTE)

Here is a permanent link to the entry. I don’t know how to begin to respond to this email, since I do not know much about the Gorgons besides what I’ve read in this post. Any suggestions?