Out, Out, Brief Candle
"I loathe not life/ nor dread mine end."
-Sir Edward Dyer
I've been watching a skunk decompose lately. Why, you ask? Well, I've nothing better to do. It's between school terms and there's really nothing else going on with me lately--unless of course you count the furor my tits have caused, but since none of that is my business, I don't. Therefore I've been going along with my life, day by day, and in the course of doing so, have come to notice this carcass that lies along the center divider of a road I regularly traverse. Apparently he was hit by a car, and for some reason the roadkill removal people haven't happened along yet, so there he rests, slowly rotting. And this, like everything else, makes me think.
For while you may know some things about me, like the fact that I have large areolae, you might not know that I am a death scholar. Yep, death. The fancy world for this is "thanatologist." We give things fancy names in Western civilization because we fear, well, death, and so we act to deny it by Latinating and Greekinating and codifying and godifying. Another way we deny death is by pretending it happens only to women and other non-standard folks, like children and gays and people of color. Watch movies and t.v. with this in mind and you'll see what I mean. For example, I've collected a whole bunch of images that show thin, young, white, blonde women posed as dead bodies in order to sell stuff. They don't represent men as dead bodies in advertising, nor do they use old people this way. My students and I have fascinating conversations about this bizarre phenomenon, what it reveals about us ideologically. I have also presented the material in slide shows all over North America. (I'd be happy to come and speak to your group or university if you're interested. Drop me a line.)
Anyway, studying death has given me lots of time to think about my own. For instance, I am aware of the fact that I am currently walking around in my corpse. It's not going to appear after I die, in other words. This is it. I have found this useful to consider for it helps me to maintain a sense of humility. I too shall pass, as will you. The enormous significance of my life pales in comparison to this reality, and I find this liberating. The buddhists even have a meditation in which you imagine yourself decomposing. Try it some time. See if it sets you free.
But death is scary, Dr. Diana! We don't want to think about it! I know, I know. When I was about seven, I woke up my mother in the middle of the night, eyes wide with terror. "What's eternity?,” I gasped. It had struck me all of a sudden, there in the black of my bedroom, the idea of endless nothingness forever stretching on and on me not in it gone zip always. It made me want my mommy.
Those of you with children will sympathize with her at that moment. "Go to bed," she said. "We'll discuss it in the morning."
We didn't, though, and I suppose it was because mom couldn't really handle that topic either. We didn't do death real well in my family, which I've revenged by getting a PhD in it. Mom's in it now, eternity, a fact which makes me loathe every mother's day and resent all the women I know who still have one. Every commercial for crappy gifts makes me cringe. How dare they have mother's day this year when I don't have a mother? Grab your mom right now and tell her you are sorry and that you love her and thank you.
Of course I realize that my mom too lost a mother, that we all do, that the way of the world dictates the passing of every one of us. As I said, this fact keeps me humble, but I also want to note that I no longer fear death or eternity, nor does its inevitability prevent me from absolutely loving life and having a marvelous time.
How so? Well most obviously this second I am not dead. So I can be fully alive, right now, rather than living a future death in my head. That's totally cool. As to what will happen after I die, my goodness I don't know the answer to that, nor does any one of us who is still here, so there's no point at all in dwelling on it, at least from where I am concerned. In Paradise Lost, Adam asks whether the universe is Copernican or Ptolemaic in structure. Raphael says not to worry about it and to think about what more nearly concerns him. In Adam's case, his pressing issues were Eve and the threat of Satan.
Happily my pressing issues pale in comparison—not sure where we’re going to eat dinner tonight, for example--but I too, like Adam, need to be reminded to keep the focus on what's right in front of me. Living an ethical life, doing the right thing, being of service to others, feedlng, resting, and exercising my corpse--these pretty much take up all of my time, and in a vastly satisfying way.
I'd be remiss if I didn't end these musings with some feminist ranting, for that is what I have rightly become (in)famous for. Years ago I decided I wanted to take my teachings beyond the walls of the classroom and bring them to the wider world. Thanks to my boobies and a couple of angry boys, this has happened beyond my wildest dreams, and I don't intend to let the opportunity pass.
As I said in my post on peace, I believe that we can change the world by changing ourselves. It's time to stop pressuring men to be perfect: inviolable, immortal, infallible, invulnerable and independent. They are not. And so we must widen currently definitions of masculinity in such a way that men can feel their own humanity without feeling like failures. Recently my husband was teaching a medieval love poem from muslim Spain in which the male speaker cries. The students were taken aback that this show of emotion did not seem to undermine his masculinity. He explained, as we scholars know, that men have been permitted to exhibit different kinds of behaviors at different times in history. For example, the "gentle man" of our own western culture in the eighteenth century would have been expected to have feelings of sympathy and appreciation of beauty. Certainly raging around and dominating people would have been abhorred.
Today in the United States though we tend to celebrate the coyboy, the killer, the loner, and in doing so we give our youth very little to aspire to, very little room to grow into compassionate humans. And unsurprisingly this construction of masculinity has caused us to become loathed throughout the world as we continue to act on a foreign policy that pretends the ability to control situations and people with god-like omnipotence and clarity which we just ain't got but keep bombing as if we do.
So let's start by acknowledging that all men die. That all men, not just women and gays and people of color and the poor, are embodied, are vulnerable, fleshly, temporary, and weak. There's no shame in this, unless of course we continue to strain to pretend that privileged straight white males are somehow different from the rest of us. But just like that skunk, their corpses too will rot. And what world will they have left behind when they are gone? That choice is up to us as a people. Let's choose wisely.
As to how we will function as a society without the comforting fantasy of an invulnerable murder-daddy, let's just say that we can cooperate with each other and the rest of the world instead of relying on a few men playing strutting soldier, men who have never even been to war and yet continue to send our children off to kill the children of others. I can't tell you how many fine conservative men I have spoken with recently who are sick to death of George Bush and his cronies. Let's pull together as a people now, free from divisive political rhetoric, and begin by acknowledging with humility our own common humanity, our own inevitable mortality.
And see where we go from there.


Comments
hello, I'm yet another visitor via Dr. Bitch
thanatologist is a word? that's wonderful, it's times like this I adore academia all the more.
I'd by lying if I said I didn't have a dreadful fear of death, but something I'm fascinated by is the idea that your death is the only thing that you are is truly alone for (rather the opposite of birth, really). So I suppose this way the idea of death is both universal and entirely personal.
Posted by: Robyn | May 12, 2006 09:44 PM
here I thought I'd be the first poster and the trolls beat me to it, to bad...
Posted by: robyn | May 12, 2006 09:46 PM
A friend of mine lost her mother a couple of years ago and she feels the same way you do about Mother's day. My Mom has had a rough year and I'm really going out of my way for her this year. I have no children myself, but I enjoy making it a nice day for my Mom and sister-in-law.
BTW- your boobs caused a furor and they are REAL. How about THAT!
Posted by: Liz | May 12, 2006 11:41 PM
Who thinks men don't die? I'm a man, and I think I'm going to die one day. I don't think only women and gays are going to die. I don't know any other men theat think they are immortal. Do you know any men that believe they are immortal? Please provide an example.
Posted by: Sean | May 13, 2006 01:50 AM
I assume you've watched 6 Feet Under? There were a lot of dead men shown there. (But that was HBO.)
I've never been afraid of death. When I was a little girl, I had a series of recurring dreams about death, all of which were comforting, none of which had much of an afterlife, and have since never bought the whole afterlife thing nor feared death.
In fact, on reflection, the people I know that fear death the most tend to have very firm beliefs on the afterlife. Hm.
Posted by: Janelle | May 13, 2006 05:16 AM
Janelle, you are right that we see men represented as dead on our many--many--current television programs depicting corpses that have died violently. You will find, though, if you watch as an analyst, these narratives tend to depict those who have died as somehow different than "normal." The white men, for example, will be shown as "sex perverts" or poor. As to the billions of female corpses on t.v. every day, well we are not considered "normal" in this culture. Hence the impetus to connect us, rather than men, with mortality.
Posted by: Diana | May 13, 2006 08:10 AM
"...thin, young, white, blonde women posed as dead bodies in order to sell stuff. They don't represent men as dead bodies in advertising,..."
It is the movement of pornorgraphic imagery (which is really all about death) to pedophilila. Younger and younger, thinner and thinner. The vulnerable, controllable, child-like image.
Women are too hard for men to handle. If they can't force us to take it up the ass and degrade ourselves in the various pornographic ways that are supposed to be so "freeing" they'll turn to children.
Posted by: Pony | May 13, 2006 08:39 AM
I'm a hospice nurse/PhD student (with a focus on family caregivers at end of life), who also made my way over here from Bitch PhD.
Yes, in some ways we die more alone than we are born (as in there is not another person participating in the same act the way a mother and child are) but really, one of the crimes (in my mind) of our modern U.S. world is the number of people who die alone. It doesn’t have to happen that way, and can be a moving and transformative experience.
There's a lot more parallels between birth and death than not -- including that they are both natural processes that have been overmedicalized, that they are events that we do not have control over (without intervention), that they represent the two greatest life transitions but tend to be hidden/misunderstood (and often depicted as a lot neater and tidier than the reality is). There's a reason a number of midwives/labor & delivery nurses move into end of life work.
People regularly ask me how I can do such "depressing" work--actually, it's not depressing at all. Emotionally charged, yes, sad at times, yes, but not depressing. It is such an honor to be part of one of life's great transitions -- to midwife the process. It can be a time of such intimacy, and always, always, always, a learning experience. That which we fear we, as a culture tend to either hide away or distort. If we embraced death as part of life, I think we’d have a much saner culture—life is, after all, terminal.
Posted by: marachne | May 13, 2006 09:09 AM
I was pointed here by someone who sent me the "don't rape her" post, and I read from there. I haven't gone and looked at the pictures, and I won't, because I'd rather think of you as a fine mind than as a boob (or two). Can we leave the titty thing now?
On this post's topic: I've always said that I'm not afraid of dying; I'm afraid of suffering. I believe that when I die, I'll be dead — and so I won't care. Perhaps there'll be a few people still alive who'll be sad about it, or, at least, I like to think so. It's not death that disturbs my mind, but the process leading to it.
I'm going to have to read your post at least a couple of times more to really digest it, and then maybe there'll be more to say....
Posted by: Barry Leiba | May 13, 2006 09:38 AM
Janelle raises an interesting point with regard to Six Feet Under. I would argue that the first character to die in that series was the father, who regularly re-appeared as an afterlife vision to his wife and children. It's kind of like when men are dead, they're not really dead. It's similar to the voice over from the dead man in American Beauty (same writer).
Often in television shows there's a visual emphasis on dead women's bodies - corpses - with much greater frequency than that of dead men's bodies. If you look at the first five minutes of any CSI or Law & Order episode (just two of the many shows Diana referred to) you can see it quite readily.
The message from popular media is that women, children, people of color, non-heterosexuals die more and more violently than straight white men... and their corpses are worth looking at.
Do men really die less than women? No, but since we don't gaze at the object of the male body in life, why start in death?
That's why I'm going to start looking at skunk corpses.
Posted by: Zel | May 13, 2006 10:46 AM
My gay friends always complain that gays end up murdered or at least dead in every film. The message has always been to them, gay = tragic death.
Posted by: Liz | May 13, 2006 11:52 AM
Let's see, for Mother's Day, you'd like to talk about dead women, and how awful things are for men?
So, do you sympathize with the slave masters instead of the slaves? And sympathize with the Nazis instead of the Jews? Oh gee, if we just would've sympathized with these poor, poor white boys and understood them and loved them just a little bit more and not expected them to be so perfect, maybe they wouldn't have been such assholes?
Oh my gosh, why haven't we thought of this new and innovating idea before now?!
Oh, puh-lease, Dr. Blaine. Where did you get your PhD? In a cracker jack box? Or are you hoping if you kiss these boys ass enough, they'll spare yours?
Give me a break, doc. The problem is the exact opposite of what you state.
Since when have men ever been expected to be perfect? There has never been any pressure on men to do much of anything, let alone be perfect. For crying out loud, they're congratulated and given kudos for picking up the toilet seat!
In short, you have everything half-assed, backwards, doc.
The problem is men are too loved, cherished, valued and worshipped, paid more than they're worth and always excused for their behavior. Why do you think they call it patriarchy?
Yeah, I know, I know. The patriarchs pay your paycheck. And the only thing that does sell is misogyny and the worshipping of the phallocracy. You know which side of the bread it's buttered on.
But let's tell the truth and shame the devil. 80% of the casualties in war are women and children. But let's support the troops? Let's feel oh so bad for the poor, poor, armed-to-the-teeth strutting soldiers that kill unarmed women and children? I don't call that brave. I call that cowardly.
But your little rant about Bush and his cronies is a pretty slick diversion to divert the boys from what the real problem is. Themselves. They don't need your help in blaming others. Boys learn to do that from the day they learn to speak. They're never held accountable for their behavior. It's always someone else's fault.
As far as masculinity goes, it is men who created this farce. Femininity as well. They are both male creations and 2 faces of the same male god. Your focus is on the masculine Apollo model. As if the feminine Dionysus model is any better. One destroys violently and the other destroys through assimilation. The end is still the same. The means is just different.
Yes, all men die. But here's the kicker. They don't need to be born. Unless women say so. Men were created for the amusment of women. Not vice versa. Somewhere along the line, men forgot that.
I think women should step up to the plate and start taking responsibility for the life they create. Because life is currently hanging in the balance because men are irresponsible with power. Not just human life. But all life on the planet.
The only love I think is in order here is tough love. If men can't clean their messes and their act up (and no one can clean it up BUT them), then women need to just stop creating them. It's as simple as that.
No worries. 99% of men could be eliminated and life wouldn't skip a beat. They are totally insignificant and unnecessary. Which is why they created patriarchy in the first place. To convince us that they were really, really important. They're not. In fact the males in many species have already disappeared from the planet. Human males are not exempt. The Y chromosome is progressively degenerating from it's already degenerative state. Scientists already know what will be men's eventual fate. Extinction. So even if women won't take responsibility for the life they create, Mother Nature will.
I know this is harsh. But men have pushed the envelope too far. My sympathies are not with men. It is for the life they are destroying. The life that females so painstakenly create. That males so totally disrespect because they are not the ones who create it. Even Mother Nature herself, has had about enough of it.
Posted by: Lucky Nickel | May 13, 2006 02:13 PM
P.S. Happy Mother's Day
Posted by: Lucky Nickel | May 13, 2006 02:24 PM
A rhetorical masterpiece Lucky Nickel.
Brava.
Posted by: Pony | May 13, 2006 04:08 PM
lucky nickel must be a reeley important person thare not maney pepel who have the authoritey to speek for mother nature and what is strangerest of all is i wold have be thenk that almost everytheng she saed is wrong....hum come to thenk about it i still thenk almost everytheng she saed is wrong...i gess is a good theng for man that her kind will never be in charge of aneytheng.
Posted by: MuhammedShahiri | May 13, 2006 06:57 PM
Posted by Mohummedshahirikiri;
gess is a good theng for man that her kind will never be in charge of aneytheng
OK Mo, may I call you Mo?
OK, Moho sweetheart, my jihadist of love, my fatwa of erotic delight...I'll put this in pigeon arabic for you...
Yu no foole nobode. We kknoow U fak aarab moroon. Plese to cese beeing Kamels smeely eeshole. Goe eway & bee big boil on someones elses buttuk.
Posted by: Seaneen | May 13, 2006 11:21 PM
my oh my seaneen but what a teribel speller you have become...you shold lern bester than this and then who knows be may then you will finaley get tenure.
Posted by: MuhammedShahiri | May 13, 2006 11:30 PM
Re: Lucky Nickel's comment:
I have to say, this is the first time - in the years i've been lucky enough to have known Dr. Blaine - that i've heard her accused of "misogyny and the worshipping of the phallocracy." Really? Do you think she's making any apologies for male behavior? (Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't!)
But I do not think that's what's happening here. I think the point of this particular post was about how we DO view women as mortal, as abnormal, as substandard, and how we see men as immortal, the norm, the standard. And to further the point, she points out that yes, schockingly enough, men die too - and not just when they fail the societal masculinity test.
Men "are totally insignificant and unnecessary." Do you really think feminism is going to get anywhere with this? One of my favorite quotes from author belle hooks says that Feminism is the "radical notion that women are people too." It does not imply that men are not. Men are people, and feminism can be libertaing for those with Y chromosomes as well. That is not to say that they, unlike the ones depicted as dead - women, non-heterosexuals, children, people of color, the poor - won't have to lose something for it. And it's definitely not to say that they shouldn't. They have a world of privilege and power to give up on, and they will have to take responsibility for the power structure they've created. But part of the beauty of feminism is that one day we might all share equally in the proverbial pie; it's not necessarily a zero-sum game. And when we do get there, women will not be the ones apologizing. I don't, however, think we need to obliterate all the men to get to that end.
Calling men out on their mortality does not further the goal of patriarchy. It does, however, show a common physical inevitably that women and men all share. And Dr. Blaine astutely points out that feminist goals may let us admit that, and that men may want that freedom as well. But in no way was this an apology for the atrocities perpetuated in war or the structure of our sexist, racist, heterosexist society.
Posted by: Carol | May 14, 2006 08:04 AM
Men "are totally insignificant and unnecessary."
Look around you: The male of the species (with one or two iffy exceptions) is unnecessary except for propagation.
Lucky Nickel isn't the author of this. Mother Nature is.
Posted by: Pony | May 14, 2006 08:58 AM
I've re-re-read, and digested, and I've little further comment on the "death" topic. My mother is long dead, but I have the fortune to have another, who's been dear to me for most of my life. When she goes, I'll still have her sons, my brothers. As we die, life and memories carry on. Why need we fear that? Why do we fear it?
I have more to say here:
Never was this made more clear than in the 2004 election campaign. The success of the Cowboy in Chief over his unfortunately ill-prepared opponent hinged on the former's convincing a significant portion of the voting public that changing one's decision in the face of new information is a bad thing, a sign of weakness that makes one unsuited to lead. Are we so societally macho that we see no difference between cowering in a corner because you can't make up your mind... and using what you didn't know yesterday to understand that the right thing to do is to change your mind? Or is it just easier on our collectively tiny brain to reduce everything to a snappy catchword, like "flip-flop"?I'm not sure I see how accepting our mortality will help here. I'd rather see less testosterone running things. How can so many countries have elected women leaders — including some where women are not otherwise treated particularly well, by our standards — and yet we've yet to have even a viable candidate? If Ireland, the UK, Germany, Israel, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines (and, too briefly, Canada and France) can do it, why can't the United States?
Posted by: Barry Leiba | May 14, 2006 10:27 AM
"As to the billions of female corpses on t.v. every day, well we are not considered "normal" in this culture."
Quite the opposite. Woman in our rape culture--thin, vulnerable, childlike, heroin chic and yes corpses, with artificial breasts and buttocks (no-one who weighs 98 lbs has size 36DDD breasts) looking if not actually being no older than 16-18, *is* the norm, as defined by our misogynistic patriarchal culture. This is the message: you are reviled as you are.
This constructed woman, modeled in every aspect of our culture not only the media, is the *normal*.
If she were not, you'd not have gone to Burning Man with the purpose you did.
Posted by: Pony | May 14, 2006 11:50 AM
"He just fucks her pain away..."
"Ne-Yo’s narrator tells his irate receptacle that he takes her seriously, but we know this is a horndog lie, because does he say, “What’s bothering you, honey? Let me get you a glass of sherry and rub your feet while you tell me all about it.”? No. Instead, he swiftly and dismissively informs her that she’s “the cutest thing” and “so damn sexy” when she’s mad, and that her “attitude” is wholly responsible for the inevitable blue-veined swaybacked throbber with which he has no choice but to “blow [her] out” during the “angry sex.” He also admits to a preference for this scenario. What modern girl could resist the winning combination of infantilization, appeals to her vanity, and rape? He just fucks her pain away, I guess."
blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com
Posted by: Pony | May 14, 2006 12:59 PM
Take away the art works and literature created by males and what would be left?
Wake up, men fight wars on behalf of women, as well as for themselves.
Without men women would war against each other anyway, they do it already.
Your sort of daft nonsense is destructive, that's all. No use to anyone.
PhD's must be cheap in America.
Posted by: R.H. | May 15, 2006 04:59 AM
Reminds me of the great HimALayas debate
Posted by: ksczzya | May 30, 2006 08:20 AM
How exciting is this do you think? Im really not sure.
Posted by: hpyismue | May 30, 2006 09:48 AM
I will not. Suzanne replied, her face red with embarrassment.
Posted by: cxijknogiq | May 30, 2006 10:57 AM
i stood there in my bra, my limbs tied, my mouth taped, my clothes taped, and i waited with more than a passing interest to see what would happen next.
Posted by: ioeglewq | May 30, 2006 08:04 PM
I acknowledge that bagels are comparatively rare outside the U.S. and Canada, but if you can get them that will make the experience even better.
Posted by: ATENOLOL | May 30, 2006 09:01 PM
The rain begin suddenly all over the roof,
Posted by: xaheiqgiq | May 30, 2006 10:06 PM
At breakfast I showed the kids the worldsocialism card which meant I had to explain to them what capitalism is.
Posted by: pjatry | May 30, 2006 11:25 PM
he eventually made his way to safety, and clung to the wall, looking at me, glaring, demanding apology.
Posted by: vighg | May 31, 2006 12:48 AM