From the Department of Squick
This (via Feministing) has been making the rounds. I haven’t written about it because, frankly, where would I begin? There’s more squick than you can shake a stick at. One detail keeps leaping out at me, though, so I’m going to mention it here. From the pledge itself (emphasis mine):
I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.
Folks, “covering” is a livestock breeding term. It means just what you’d think–during breeding, the male literally “covers” the female. I don’t care how many ways these creeps justify a father’s obsession with his daughter’s hymen (well, I do, but again, where to start?), however, the breeding lingo has got to go. My eyes! It blinds us!
For an enlightening discourse on the word “purity,” within the context of Purity Pledges, hie thee back to Bark/Bite. Of special note, I think, is the bit at the end on the opposite of “pure.” O ick.
i can’t even start with this topic. cuz i won’t stop, i tellya. having recently been disabused of my fallacious nation that i could participate in a patriarchy-based tradition (marriage) without actually participating in the patriarchy, i can say only that i was mistaken. either you’re for it, or you’re against it. you can’t hope to get the benefits without actually buying in – and neither the means nor the end can be justified if you don’t want to ride that patriarchy train. and as the late great william s burroughs said: “when you’re dealing with a christian son-of-a-bitch, GET IT IN WRITING.”
I can’t believe someone would place me in this context. How insulting.
This is totally not my debate, so I don’t think it belongs here. Ideally, I think y’all should fight it out amongst yourselves, in some other venue (LiveJournal is down the stairs, the third door on the right). But, since I’ve been involved without my consent, I feel perfectly justified in sharing my 2¢ worth.
First, I tend to agree that Heather’s comment was a bit of a non-sequitur. I’m all for patriarchy blaming (it ought to be an Olympic sport), but when the specific topic is hymen fetishes, it doesn’t make much sense to start marriage-bashing. It short-circuits the logic sectors, and we all know how that makes the Baby Shelly cry.
Second, if you want to be offended, knock yourself out. Everyone should have a pair of Righteous Indignation Pants. They aren’t very comfortable, but they do look fabulous. That said, I’ve carefully re-read what Heather wrote, and it seems to me that she’s speaking solely about her own mistake of getting involved in an institution she has no use or respect for. It was a spectacularly stupid move on her part, not because you are a bad guy or even because she–or anyone else–thinks you did anything wrong. In many ways, you were just collateral damage, in that it didn’t matter who she married, it would’ve eventually ended in tears. Marriage is simply a game she is not temperamentally suited to play. She knew that, but deluded herself into thinking otherwise.