Hard News: Feminist as crazy old man
468 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 19 Newer→ Last
-
Yep.
And, I dont.
-
I wonder if you did a survey of high earning women, you'd find a different pattern in the earnings of their spouses than women earning the average female wage. Theoretically, having lots of dosh means you can choose a partner without worrying about their ability to provide - it would be interesting to see if that played out in fact.
Dating websites wouldn't be the best sample.
-
Dating websites wouldn't be the best sample.
But very popular, nonetheless. I recall an internet use audit being done at a certain magazine company -- and the two big sinks for time and bandwidth were Trade Me and nzdating.co.nz.
There's been plenty written about the former, but I can't recall anything definitive on the latter. It would be interesting.
-
It would be a large sample, certainly. But better to survey what people actually do in relationships, than what they say they want. I mean, how important are long walks on the beach really :-)
-
Quite. I suspect all would claim they want someone who's caring, sensitive and with a great sense of humour. Rather than, say, a hottie with a bulging wallet.
Does anyone research actual behaviour (other than condom companies with their understandably skewed and narrow scope)?
-
I have a three-part BBC documentary called Lefties, about the radical left in Britain in the late 70s and early 80s. (Available on request to anyone who desperately needs it.)
The first episode covers the squatting movement, but it's the other two, on radical feminism, and the failed left-wing paper, The News on Sunday, that provide most of the "what were they thinking?!" moments.
The union committee with veto power at the News rejected perhaps the most brilliant pitch for a working-class paper in the history of newspapers: "The News on Sunday -- no tits but lots of balls". (Also, they hired John Pilger as editor-in-chief, losing sight of the fact that whatever his virtues, Pilger is not a people person. He comes across poorly in the documentary, to put it mildly.)
And in the 'Angry Wimmin' episode, there's a moment that just makes me gasp: where it's related that some of the radical feminist communes extended invitations for other women to join them -- on the condition that they abandon their male children.
Really, really wrong. And yet I'm wary of demanding contrition from feminist women for it. I think that's one thing they're very capable of sorting out for themselves, as Deborah notes.
(I should note that the rad fems themselves had largely aged well. I like old dykes.)
-
There must already be a census data set, come to think of it. Women's income as a proportion of total household income, broken down into groups of very high, high, medium and low women's income. It'd be interesting to see if things changed for women outside the old breadwinner/homemaker model.
My comments today have been enabled by my partner, who is doing the bulk of the baby-work since I've buggered my back and am fit only for intellectual pursuits. I'm bloody certain women value fatherly traits in their partners, in addition to being able to bring home the bacon old school style, but it doesn't have the same stereotype value. Does "loves kids" come up in dating sites for guys as much as good income?
-
And in the 'Angry Wimmin' episode, there's a moment that just makes me gasp: where it's related that some of the radical feminist communes extended invitations for other women to join them -- on the condition that they abandon their male children.
There was a NatRad doco not so long ago - Spectrum I think, about a man who grew up with a Radical Feminist mother in Wellington. He was banned from some of the RadFem meeting places because he was male, despite the fact that he was about five years-old.
-
One of my friends - an esteemed radical publisher, lesbian (I do intend that order) and all-round intellectual - left one *very* radical lesbian group because she had sons - and they werent acceptable to the people involved.
That stance is just being anti-HUMAN.
-
That stance is just being anti-HUMAN.
Yes. There's radical, and then there's hate.
-
I'm sure they had their reasons but it tends to suggest a more emotional than structural motivation, banning boys as well as men. Even in the background, boys can behave in ways that resemble men, but they're hardly liikely to wield oppressive power or anything.
-
Those boys were sub-teens - and 1 of them a baby. The whole matter shrieked "Eww! XY! Eradicate!'
-
Of course their motivations were emotional, Sacha. There's nothing logical about any of this - gender politics is highly personal and emotional. Any politics is, really.
-
and 1 of them a baby
Come to think of it, I have seen babies wield oppressive power (though gender neutrally).
-
Political lesbianism has structural logic to it. Banning boys from gatherings, not so much.
Oh, and is it too late to say happy new year?
-
Excluding boys is self-defeating. Living completely separately from men really isn't sustainable so surely educating the next generation is a useful step toward creating a better world.
-
It's like he's Booker T. Washington and I'm W. E. B. Du Bois, or something. :)
Does that mean you're both horribly unfashionable, and I can comfortably denounce you all as creaky back numbers without bothering to read (let alone comprehend) anything you've said?
-
Does that mean you're both horribly unfashionable, and I can comfortably denounce you all as creaky back numbers without bothering to read (let alone comprehend) anything you've said?
Jeez, you try to do a historical reference that isn't some tired MLK/Malcolm X comparison and this is the thanks you get. Hmph!
-
Excluding boys is self-defeating.
And utterly nonsensical. This might sound a bit rich coming from someone prone to attacks of pitch black misanthropy, but I find misogynists and misandrists equally tiresome and distasteful. If you're going to be a bat-shit crazy ball of deranged hatred, why stop at half the human race?
Jeez, you try to do a historical reference that isn't some tired MLK/Malcolm X comparison and this is the thanks you get. Hmph!
Heh... but seriously, Du Bois and Washington are both fascinating but they sure seem to be cited a lot by people who don't want the bother of actually getting to grips with two complex, often contradictory men who are worth the effort.
-
Excluding boys is bat-shit crazy, all by itself, but on top of that piece of crazy, it's asking (some) women to deny a part of themselves. I happen to be a mother of daughters, the most wonderful, lovely, gorgeous girls in the world, of course, and they are an integral part of my identity. I don't mean that I am lost in them, or that I identify only as a mother. But they mean so much to me. I could no more walk away from them that I could fly to the moon. It would mean denying a fundamental part of myself. I know that not all mothers feel this way, but many do, including lesbian and/or radical feminist mothers of boys. I imagine that if I had sons, they would be just as precious to me, just as much part of my understanding of myself, as my daughters are.
-
I have sons and they are the best, brightest, shiniest things possible and having them is a huge part of who I am. It's really important to me that they believe that who and what they are is a wonderful thing to be. Not better than anyone else but completely glorious in and of themselves
-
To the Love thread with you both.
-
Can anyone think of a new ideology that didn't go to its ludicrous extreme within a few years of its inception, to find a more reasonable equilibrium in the following years? I think there's something of human nature to go overboard on the latest new thing before pulling back once reason kicks in. Wonder drugs, economic theories, food fads, great leaders, and so on. The obvious place feminist separatism breaks down is in the family, where most of us have people we love of the opposite sex.
-
Can anyone think of a new ideology that didn't go to its ludicrous extreme within a few years of its inception, to find a more reasonable equilibrium in the following years?
Yes, I was thinking about that.
Then I realised that in 20 years time I might be saying "You know, some of the Teabaggers were batshit crazy early on, but it turned out to be a reall important movement." And I had to stop thinking like that ...
-
Pete,
My favourite Burchill line -
"A good part -- and definitely the most fun part -- of being a feminist is about frightening men."
Post your response…
This topic is closed.