Thursday, May 18, 2006
from the truly groovy and very venerable feminist reprise (http://www.feminist-reprise.blogspot.com/):
"I was reading a blog the other day that waxed long and lyrical about how the truly radical solution to pornstitution, and to male supremacy, I imagine, is for women, with great kindness and understanding, to help men to understand that they don’t need to degrade women. Now, I’m all for the deconstruction and rejection of masculinity, and any man who believes himself a feminist ought to be working all out on that project. But is women treating men with kindness and understanding, to help them understand how they oppress us, the truly radical solution? Erm, that kind of sounds like the last 5000 years to me, where they rape us, beat us, kill us, lock us up, force us to have sex, force us not to have sex, force us to have children, force us to abort, take away our children, take away our ability to have children, force us to work, force us not to work, take away our money, and we say, “Stop, you’re hurting me!” and they do it all some more. Opining that male supremacy is based on a misunderstanding is hardly a radical departure from the status quo; it is a way of proving how groovy you are while not pissing anybody off."
I guess that's one for the "dumbest idea in the history of ideas" camp. You're absolutely entitled and make a good case. (you may be interested to know that my husband agrees with you wholeheartedly. he said the posting was weak-kneed and spent waaaaaaaay too many words to say "can't we all just get along?")
I assure you if I was trying to prove how groovy I am without pissing people off, I failed spectacularly. I'm not groovy by any means (I'm sure you'll agree) and I did manage to piss off several.
In the last 5,000 years women have been frequently told to experience men as superior and occasionally told to experience men as inferior (for example, consider the idea popular in the mid 19th century that women were more "morally pure" than men), but I maintain that only rarely have we been encouraged to see men as co-human, neither better nor worse nor more worthy of exhaltation nor more worthy of contempt.
yes, I think that AT THE ROOT of misogyny is a big misunderstanding. I can't get more radical than that. I thought about it and thought about it and questioned what I thought I knew and examined what I was being told by men and women alike on all points in the sociopolitical circle. And that's what I came up with.
"I was reading a blog the other day that waxed long and lyrical about how the truly radical solution to pornstitution, and to male supremacy, I imagine, is for women, with great kindness and understanding, to help men to understand that they don’t need to degrade women. Now, I’m all for the deconstruction and rejection of masculinity, and any man who believes himself a feminist ought to be working all out on that project. But is women treating men with kindness and understanding, to help them understand how they oppress us, the truly radical solution? Erm, that kind of sounds like the last 5000 years to me, where they rape us, beat us, kill us, lock us up, force us to have sex, force us not to have sex, force us to have children, force us to abort, take away our children, take away our ability to have children, force us to work, force us not to work, take away our money, and we say, “Stop, you’re hurting me!” and they do it all some more. Opining that male supremacy is based on a misunderstanding is hardly a radical departure from the status quo; it is a way of proving how groovy you are while not pissing anybody off."
I guess that's one for the "dumbest idea in the history of ideas" camp. You're absolutely entitled and make a good case. (you may be interested to know that my husband agrees with you wholeheartedly. he said the posting was weak-kneed and spent waaaaaaaay too many words to say "can't we all just get along?")
I assure you if I was trying to prove how groovy I am without pissing people off, I failed spectacularly. I'm not groovy by any means (I'm sure you'll agree) and I did manage to piss off several.
In the last 5,000 years women have been frequently told to experience men as superior and occasionally told to experience men as inferior (for example, consider the idea popular in the mid 19th century that women were more "morally pure" than men), but I maintain that only rarely have we been encouraged to see men as co-human, neither better nor worse nor more worthy of exhaltation nor more worthy of contempt.
yes, I think that AT THE ROOT of misogyny is a big misunderstanding. I can't get more radical than that. I thought about it and thought about it and questioned what I thought I knew and examined what I was being told by men and women alike on all points in the sociopolitical circle. And that's what I came up with.
# posted by antiprincess @ 9:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
well, I agree that what the world needs now is love, sweet love, and understanding.
at the same time i uh am a big proponent of uh "tough love."
and/or, I'm totally deluding myself and I'm attached to my own "love to hate ya" just like everybody else.
at the same time i uh am a big proponent of uh "tough love."
and/or, I'm totally deluding myself and I'm attached to my own "love to hate ya" just like everybody else.
...of course, what it comes down to is the confusion between addressing the individual (certain particular more individuals in certain circumstances more so than others, perhaps) and addressing the System, such as one can/does.
fighting the "love to hate ya" urge is really hard, I have to admit.
systems are made up of people. if enough people change, systems will change as they no longer effectively serve the people they were set up to benefit.
that said, I'm not a non-radical because I disagree with other radicals. I'm a non-radical because I'm a lazy chickenshit and I'm not out firebombing Walmarts.
Post a Comment
systems are made up of people. if enough people change, systems will change as they no longer effectively serve the people they were set up to benefit.
that said, I'm not a non-radical because I disagree with other radicals. I'm a non-radical because I'm a lazy chickenshit and I'm not out firebombing Walmarts.
<< Home
