LaGazelle Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 you had me bang to rights for the first part, gazelle, but you're right, our opinions start to diverge in the second. i absolutely agree that the genderism, sexism and misogyny (they are all different, btw, although often used interchangeably) that we internalize as girls AND boys is a huge factor in what we're talking about. absof*ckinglutely. but i challenge the idea that there is "man's work" and "women's work". i am not an essentialist, in that i do not believe that biological imperatives predestine our behavior. and i actually do agree that feminism has something to do with your idea that we are held to a "fantasy" of independence and superhuman powers. where we've gotten it wrong is the same place where patriarchy has gotten it wrong - by saying "this is what all women should do/be/think/act." . And it is fair enough for you to challenge. I think there is value in challenging even some of our most basic assumptions, but not just for the sake of it (not suggesting you do this). I too do not believe in a wholly deterministic view of what each gender is predestined to do. However, there are significant innate differences between male and female, and that difference exists for fundamental reasons which enable us to navigate our life paths as coherently as we can. I fully understand that in the current age of relativism, just about everything goes. However, there is a lot of supporting evidence that the resulting chaotic hullabaloo is the root cause of many modern social ills. As an example. the other day you mentioned sex education for girls, and how it is skewed towards girls remaining virtuous until the "appropriate" time, whereas boys are given a free reign. In my view, such as situation, though it seems unfair (life is afterall not fair, never has been and never will be - we do not live in a utopia) could be somewhat effective, even though it needs to be improved/become more balanced. Though it is preposterous double standard, it could still be effective. Quite simply, if girls do indeed choose to follow such principles, who will the boys "fool around" with? Would they all then "become gay"? The fact of the matter is, women carry the burden of child-bearing etc (nothing on earth can change that, even though feminists and Faustian scientists are working on it! It is biologically predestined). It is therefore ultimately in the best interest of girls/women to remain in control of the activities which can so severely impact their lives, rather than simply rely on men to do it for them. It is hard to understand why feminists generally struggle with such a concept, which is based on their own fundamental principle of "women doing it for themselves".
jj33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 There is a big difference between taking control and being virtuous. Girls should be encouraged to take control in terms of knowing about and being responsible for birth control -- exactly because women are the ones who get pregnant. Expecting that girls will remain virtuous in this day and age is a big stretch for most young women. It also begs the question of a woman's sexuality. Now that women have more financial independence they are free to be sexually active and to express their sexuality as they see fit. Would I want my 14 year old daughter expressing that sexuality? No but the fact is that adolescents are sexually active at a younger age. Each parent can do their best to help their child make responsible decisions, but to say that as a society we should tell girls to wait is to my mind very outdated. Thats like the churches in africa saying no to condoms and yes to abstinence. Morals have changed and society's response has to change with it. The vast number of teen pregnancies shows that preaching abstinence or waiting is not working.
jj33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 I also find it interesting that this has devolved into a discussion of feminism, which means that people are still engaging in labelling which is divisive. I understand that it is an intellectual discourse in this case but leads back to the same old OW/BS type of divisions Why label yourselves all the time? Why the need to align with a movement or group? Why not just speak your own opinion and believe it is enough?
littleflowerpot Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 Maybe they do not hate men but rather detest some of the injustices that men have inflicted on women since the beginning of time. Bingo. It is interesting how often feminists are disparaged as man-hating individuals determined to skew nature which is very far from the truth.
littleflowerpot Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 MM who get involved with OW either are not getting any at home or just can't stay faithful to one woman. What these men don't get is that the less you want a woman the more she wants you and that is where the mess begins. I'll grant you this: You are the master of generalizations.
sally4sara Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 Telling our girls to wait while giving the boys a green light is part of why date rape exists. This attitude is what has contributed to the concept that sex is something a man must draw out or trick a woman into. If we make it seem like something men will always want more than women, what is this saying? Why get true consent if they can't like the act for the pleasure? Whats the point, women don't enjoy it the way men do anyway so why should rape be a big deal? Be honest or lie, they will regret it in the morning either way. On the flip side, if we tell women to not seek sexual pleasure and warn them of the male appetite, we give credibility to men being these sexual animals who cannot control themselves. At the very least, that they will never be expected to control themselves. They will cheat, no matter what, because they cannot help themselves. Girls with low self esteem seeking validation will get a rush out of a MM being drawn to them. They desire to be chosen, not just on their own merit, but to be chosen OVER someone else. And with no reason to believe a man can control themselves, they feel no responsibility for their part in an affair. I don't believe this is a situation born out of misandry. This was around well before the feminist movement. So why would it be about misandry? Unless one is looking for why misandry happens.....
dobler33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 And it is fair enough for you to challenge. I think there is value in challenging even some of our most basic assumptions, but not just for the sake of it (not suggesting you do this). I too do not believe in a wholly deterministic view of what each gender is predestined to do. However, there are significant innate differences between male and female, and that difference exists for fundamental reasons which enable us to navigate our life paths as coherently as we can. I fully understand that in the current age of relativism, just about everything goes. However, there is a lot of supporting evidence that the resulting chaotic hullabaloo is the root cause of many modern social ills. As an example. the other day you mentioned sex education for girls, and how it is skewed towards girls remaining virtuous until the "appropriate" time, whereas boys are given a free reign. In my view, such as situation, though it seems unfair (life is afterall not fair, never has been and never will be - we do not live in a utopia) could be somewhat effective, even though it needs to be improved/become more balanced. Though it is preposterous double standard, it could still be effective. Quite simply, if girls do indeed choose to follow such principles, who will the boys "fool around" with? Would they all then "become gay"? The fact of the matter is, women carry the burden of child-bearing etc (nothing on earth can change that, even though feminists and Faustian scientists are working on it! It is biologically predestined). It is therefore ultimately in the best interest of girls/women to remain in control of the activities which can so severely impact their lives, rather than simply rely on men to do it for them. It is hard to understand why feminists generally struggle with such a concept, which is based on their own fundamental principle of "women doing it for themselves". once again, i do not know any feminists who are trying to remove men from the equation of childbirth. and i agree that girls should be given control of their lives and their sexuality, by being given accurate and comprehensive information about their bodies and their choices. if you were to survey the abstinence only sex ed that is currently being fobbed off as "information" in our schools (i'm seriously hoping that obama will do something about this, as he has begun to dismantle other remnants of fundamentalist garbage in our legal and political landscape) you would find blaring misinformation (condoms are only 35% effective and abortion is 70% likely to cause sterility, to name a couple i found in my research), unabashed sexism (girls who have sex before marriage are "ruined" and might commit suicide out of self disgust and boys "can't help it", if a girl turns them on, if they can't stop themselves and rape her - i am not making this up) and a frightening and overwhelming religious agenda that does not even bother to disguise itself (many curriculae handbooks recommend starting the class discussion w prayers to jesus for guidance through this sinful material). the definition of abstinence only set forth by the government and enforced in any school or public health/education organization receiving federal funding requires that birth control/STI prevention methods be discussed only in terms of their failure rates. let me rephrase that: a teacher can't tell her students about safe sex practices unless it's about how they don't work. cute, huh? girls and boys will "fool around" no matter what you tell them. there are frightening statistics that suggest that not only is teen pregnancy up in correlation with abstinence only sex ed, but rates of STI's have also skyrocketed because kids are engaging in more risky sexual behaviors in an attempt to "stay pure" and avoid vaginal penetration. it's amazing the solutions kids will come up with to explore their own desires - anal sex is one of the most common penetrative sex practices among teens given abstinence only sex ed. mighty pure, for sure. and in this mess girls have LOST control of their bodies and desires, because they are being taught that their bodies are sinful, disgusting and belong to boys and that they possess no originating desire whatsoever. so no, i don't think that abstinence sex ed is returning control of reproductive choices to girls. all the numbers suggest that it's been quite the opposite - that girls have less control, information and agency than they did 20 years ago, when at least they'd tell you how to avoid "social diseases". can you share with me some of the supporting evidence that "relativism" is the cause of social ills? also, i'd love a clearer idea of what the term relativism means to you, because i find that most people have pretty varying definitions of it. and no, i don't think that boys who were refused access to female genitalia would "become gay". they may engage in homoerotic behavior, but unless they were already gay they would probably not view themselves as gay. funny, that. it's kind of one of the biggest problems with throwing black & white labels on everything, as jj points out - nothing ever turns out to be one thing or another.
dobler33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 Telling our girls to wait while giving the boys a green light is part of why date rape exists. This attitude is what has contributed to the concept that sex is something a man must draw out or trick a woman into. If we make it seem like something men will always want more than women, what is this saying? Why get true consent if they can't like the act for the pleasure? Whats the point, women don't enjoy it the way men do anyway so why should rape be a big deal? Be honest or lie, they will regret it in the morning either way. On the flip side, if we tell women to not seek sexual pleasure and warn them of the male appetite, we give credibility to men being these sexual animals who cannot control themselves. At the very least, that they will never be expected to control themselves. They will cheat, no matter what, because they cannot help themselves. Girls with low self esteem seeking validation will get a rush out of a MM being drawn to them. They desire to be chosen, not just on their own merit, but to be chosen OVER someone else. And with no reason to believe a man can control themselves, they feel no responsibility for their part in an affair. I don't believe this is a situation born out of misandry. This was around well before the feminist movement. So why would it be about misandry? Unless one is looking for why misandry happens..... here here, sally!
You'reasian Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 Your comment about the 2 women friends on the arm thing reminded me of the theory in the book that many women like men whom other woman find attractive as genetically the sons of such men would have a higher chance of being attractive to women and thus producing more grandchildren. Personally if a man has women swarming around him, I find that off putting and go looking for more available men. But I am lazy like that. The theory holds truth. Sure, you say you like available men...uh huh
You'reasian Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 I'll grant you this: You are the master of generalizations. ......and who is the master debator?
LaGazelle Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 There is a big difference between taking control and being virtuous. Girls should be encouraged to take control in terms of knowing about and being responsible for birth control -- exactly because women are the ones who get pregnant. Expecting that girls will remain virtuous in this day and age is a big stretch for most young women. It also begs the question of a woman's sexuality. Now that women have more financial independence they are free to be sexually active and to express their sexuality as they see fit. Would I want my 14 year old daughter expressing that sexuality? No but the fact is that adolescents are sexually active at a younger age. Each parent can do their best to help their child make responsible decisions, but to say that as a society we should tell girls to wait is to my mind very outdated. Thats like the churches in africa saying no to condoms and yes to abstinence. Morals have changed and society's response has to change with it. The vast number of teen pregnancies shows that preaching abstinence or waiting is not working. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear... However, there isn't necessarily a "big difference" between the two. I agree that taking control does not intrisically mean simply being virtuous. Of course one has to be educated to make responsible choices, one of which is being "virtuous" until an "appropriate" time - "appropriate" may differ from individual to individual. Being virtuous and taking control are not mutually exclusive. I would never advocate abstinence-only education, nor do I advocate banning condom use in Africa. Clearly that is a nonsensical and risky approach. For me, abstinence (NOT abstinence only) should be an integral part of a wider package of sex-ed. I absolutely agree that in our modern over-sexed culture, it is pointless to advocate abstinence -only as a responsible approach. Re the link between financial independence and sexuality...I'm not sure that this is as simple a dichotomy as you express here. Should we advocate a society in which minors are free/encouraged to consent to sex with adults, if they are financially independent, which many are to some extent? And are you saying that if a woman is "financially dependent" on her husband she is not permitted to express and enjoy her sexuality as much as the woman who is financially independent? Should we overlook the fact that there are underage girls in major Western cities working as prostitutes, simply because they are in essence financially independent?
LaGazelle Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 once again, i do not know any feminists who are trying to remove men from the equation of childbirth. and i agree that girls should be given control of their lives and their sexuality, by being given accurate and comprehensive information about their bodies and their choices. if you were to survey the abstinence only sex ed that is currently being fobbed off as "information" in our schools (i'm seriously hoping that obama will do something about this, as he has begun to dismantle other remnants of fundamentalist garbage in our legal and political landscape) you would find blaring misinformation (condoms are only 35% effective and abortion is 70% likely to cause sterility, to name a couple i found in my research), unabashed sexism (girls who have sex before marriage are "ruined" and might commit suicide out of self disgust and boys "can't help it", if a girl turns them on, if they can't stop themselves and rape her - i am not making this up) and a frightening and overwhelming religious agenda that does not even bother to disguise itself (many curriculae handbooks recommend starting the class discussion w prayers to jesus for guidance through this sinful material). the definition of abstinence only set forth by the government and enforced in any school or public health/education organization receiving federal funding requires that birth control/STI prevention methods be discussed only in terms of their failure rates. let me rephrase that: a teacher can't tell her students about safe sex practices unless it's about how they don't work. cute, huh? girls and boys will "fool around" no matter what you tell them. there are frightening statistics that suggest that not only is teen pregnancy up in correlation with abstinence only sex ed, but rates of STI's have also skyrocketed because kids are engaging in more risky sexual behaviors in an attempt to "stay pure" and avoid vaginal penetration. it's amazing the solutions kids will come up with to explore their own desires - anal sex is one of the most common penetrative sex practices among teens given abstinence only sex ed. mighty pure, for sure. and in this mess girls have LOST control of their bodies and desires, because they are being taught that their bodies are sinful, disgusting and belong to boys and that they possess no originating desire whatsoever. so no, i don't think that abstinence sex ed is returning control of reproductive choices to girls. all the numbers suggest that it's been quite the opposite - that girls have less control, information and agency than they did 20 years ago, when at least they'd tell you how to avoid "social diseases". can you share with me some of the supporting evidence that "relativism" is the cause of social ills? also, i'd love a clearer idea of what the term relativism means to you, because i find that most people have pretty varying definitions of it. and no, i don't think that boys who were refused access to female genitalia would "become gay". they may engage in homoerotic behavior, but unless they were already gay they would probably not view themselves as gay. funny, that. it's kind of one of the biggest problems with throwing black & white labels on everything, as jj points out - nothing ever turns out to be one thing or another. Dobler, some of what you mention here is truly disturbing - I find it unbelievable. I have to admit I am not familiar with the ins and outs of abstinence-only ed, and please see my previous post in response to JJ where I try to clarify that I am not an advocate of it. I could not advocate it on 2 counts : 1 ) I am not sure exactly what messages it propagates, and common sense tells me it cannot be effective in our current cultural backdrop where everything is over-sexed and 10 year old girls want nothing more than to become Jordan/Katie Price. I re-read my original post and I can see it is a bit ambiguous. Perhaps even with this clarification/distinction between abstinence and abstinence-only, you do not agree. However, I fully believe that well-rounded sex ed should not just include the "here's how to have sex and not get STDs/STIs/pregnant". It should also encourage girls to not feel pressured to become active before they are emotionally/psychologically prepared for it. Girls should not just be given tools and told to "do it like the boys", they should be encouraged to choose to be "virtuous" without being made to feel like a failure.
dobler33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 Dobler, some of what you mention here is truly disturbing - I find it unbelievable. I have to admit I am not familiar with the ins and outs of abstinence-only ed, and please see my previous post in response to JJ where I try to clarify that I am not an advocate of it. I could not advocate it on 2 counts : 1 ) I am not sure exactly what messages it propagates, and common sense tells me it cannot be effective in our current cultural backdrop where everything is over-sexed and 10 year old girls want nothing more than to become Jordan/Katie Price. I re-read my original post and I can see it is a bit ambiguous. Perhaps even with this clarification/distinction between abstinence and abstinence-only, you do not agree. However, I fully believe that well-rounded sex ed should not just include the "here's how to have sex and not get STDs/STIs/pregnant". It should also encourage girls to not feel pressured to become active before they are emotionally/psychologically prepared for it. Girls should not just be given tools and told to "do it like the boys", they should be encouraged to choose to be "virtuous" without being made to feel like a failure. i largely agree with you here. i think girls should be encouraged to make their own decisions about sex, whether to engage or not. the NOT part should take equal time. i still cringe a bit at the word "virtuous" as it is applied to whether or not girls have sex. it implies that to have sex would be unvirtuous, wrong, would make her into something she does not want to be. and here we have a great example of how our inculcation of misogyny still pops up in our linguistic landscape. we don't really use this term to describe boys who don't have sex.
dobler33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 also, gazelle, that is just a small fraction of the truly terrifying sh*t you'll find in abstinence-only sex ed. my master's research work was entirely on this subject. one of my favorites, in fact, was personally endorsed by george w. bush, who, by the way, increased the funding streams to abstinence only sex ed something like 200%. ai dios. as my gramma used to say: the things you see when you ain't got your gun.
NoIDidn't Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 i still cringe a bit at the word "virtuous" as it is applied to whether or not girls have sex. it implies that to have sex would be unvirtuous, wrong, would make her into something she does not want to be. and here we have a great example of how our inculcation of misogyny still pops up in our linguistic landscape. we don't really use this term to describe boys who don't have sex. I don't think that's what is meant by the use of the word virtuous at all. Maybe your filter as a psychologist is causing your view to be more subjective than objective here. We don't use the word virtuous to describe anything male in general, so I don't see a problem with its usage here.
jj33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 Re the link between financial independence and sexuality...I'm not sure that this is as simple a dichotomy as you express here. Should we advocate a society in which minors are free/encouraged to consent to sex with adults, if they are financially independent, which many are to some extent? And are you saying that if a woman is "financially dependent" on her husband she is not permitted to express and enjoy her sexuality as much as the woman who is financially independent? Should we overlook the fact that there are underage girls in major Western cities working as prostitutes, simply because they are in essence financially independent?[/QUOTE] Of course that is not what I meant. r However what we teach women as young adults informs their values throughout their lives. Sally4sara expressed it well. I was objecting to the idea that young girls should be told to fear mens appetities and their motives - while that may have its place in speaking to girls on an emotional level (because women of all ages try to trade sex for intimacy) I dont think it has any place in a sex ed program regarding birth control abstinence etc.
LaGazelle Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 Quote: Originally Posted by dobler33 i still cringe a bit at the word "virtuous" as it is applied to whether or not girls have sex. it implies that to have sex would be unvirtuous, wrong, would make her into something she does not want to be. and here we have a great example of how our inculcation of misogyny still pops up in our linguistic landscape. we don't really use this term to describe boys who don't have sex I don't think that's what is meant by the use of the word virtuous at all. Maybe your filter as a psychologist is causing your view to be more subjective than objective here. We don't use the word virtuous to describe anything male in general, so I don't see a problem with its usage here. I tried to put the word in quotes to avoid this sort of thing, apologies if I wasn't consistent and clear. I digress slightly but, indeed, we use words to make sense of our world. Some words that are highly offensive, divise and abusive, should absolutely have no place in our communication. However, we cannot simply undo etymology willy nilly, and to me it feels pointless because words cannot anyway truly fully express 100% meaning that is 100% satisfactory to 100% of the people who hear it. This is true when translating across languages and even within the same language. Whilst I appreciate the point you (Dobler) wishes to make, we simply use words (somewhat similar to the way we use money) - as a medium of exchange to aid understanding. When there is need for further clarification, we probe and negotiate shared meanings. In any case, the meanings of words, rightly or wrongly, have always evolved to take on culturally, historically and sociallly appropriate ideas. Take for example the words "guest" and "host" ...the root of host is hostile, and even though today we think a host should be anything but hostile. The word emerged, because to cut a long story short, there was an understanding that if the guest overstays their welcome and taes advatage of the hospitality....you guessed it.....it led to hostility! Today, the word host works perfectly fine to convey what we normally mean, should we do away with it because of the historic connotations? Anyway, I've digressed...forgive me! but hope you can appreciate my point. Cheers
sally4sara Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 Re the link between financial independence and sexuality...I'm not sure that this is as simple a dichotomy as you express here. Should we advocate a society in which minors are free/encouraged to consent to sex with adults, if they are financially independent, which many are to some extent? And are you saying that if a woman is "financially dependent" on her husband she is not permitted to express and enjoy her sexuality as much as the woman who is financially independent? Should we overlook the fact that there are underage girls in major Western cities working as prostitutes, simply because they are in essence financially independent?[/QUOTE] Of course that is not what I meant. r However what we teach women as young adults informs their values throughout their lives. Sally4sara expressed it well. I was objecting to the idea that young girls should be told to fear mens appetities and their motives - while that may have its place in speaking to girls on an emotional level (because women of all ages try to trade sex for intimacy) I dont think it has any place in a sex ed program regarding birth control abstinence etc. Thanks. You probably won't agree with me on a potential better way of handling sexual education. I feel that because men spread more STDs than women (by way producing a larger output of bodily fluids INTO another than person), they should be the ones we target towards being more selective if we target any gender at all. We have birth control methods and young girls should be informed of them and take responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancy. Young men who protest the possibility of being trapped into fatherhood, child support, are more likely to be accused of rape AND can more likely transmit STDs should be urged to take responsibility for THAT by becoming more choosy about who they sleep with. None of this "hardwired to spread their seed far and wide" BS. That thought was diminished by studies released in 2003 with the research and autopsies of the remains from the First Family and Lily. People still like to think of that being the true nature of men because it leads to a more permissive attitude about male sexuality. People like sex and things that excuse them from being sexually responsible are enticing. I also believe that by subtle and not so subtle encouragement, we push buys to become men through sex before they are ready for things that actually are about becoming a man. This internalized frustration is part of what manifests the hateful attitude expressed by young men towards a girl after they have sex with her. She wears the shame society won't let the boy admit he feels from knowing what he did did not really make him a man but did put him at risk in many ways he wasn't ready for.
Author Woggle Posted June 14, 2009 Author Posted June 14, 2009 Bingo. It is interesting how often feminists are disparaged as man-hating individuals determined to skew nature which is very far from the truth. That is because many feminists are man-hating individuals. They can deny all they want but I grew up with it and I know how hateful most of them are.
dobler33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 I don't think that's what is meant by the use of the word virtuous at all. Maybe your filter as a psychologist is causing your view to be more subjective than objective here. We don't use the word virtuous to describe anything male in general, so I don't see a problem with its usage here. i think that was my point. "virtue" - meaning chastity and sexual purity in most cases - has long been imposed as the sole providence of women, the keepers of the hearth, the protectors of Mighty Paternity. language is the secret cache of most of our supposedly overcome isms; i find it fascinating to look at these little morsels within our everyday usage. that has less to do with me being a therapist and more to do with me being a nerd.
dobler33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 That is because many feminists are man-hating individuals. They can deny all they want but I grew up with it and I know how hateful most of them are. grew up with feminists? can you share a little bit about that with us? i am curious about these ravening foamy-mouthed man-hating harpies who seem to have scarred you so badly. cause i don't know any personally.
Author Woggle Posted June 14, 2009 Author Posted June 14, 2009 grew up with feminists? can you share a little bit about that with us? i am curious about these ravening foamy-mouthed man-hating harpies who seem to have scarred you so badly. cause i don't know any personally. My mother was a feminist who used to throw things at my father and spit in his face and then call him less than a man because he wouldn't hit her. She also used to tell me that I was so cute so she will enjoy it now before I grew up to be a rapist like all other men. She hung out with a group that were all like this as well.
dobler33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 I also believe that by subtle and not so subtle encouragement, we push buys to become men through sex before they are ready for things that actually are about becoming a man. This internalized frustration is part of what manifests the hateful attitude expressed by young men towards a girl after they have sex with her. She wears the shame society won't let the boy admit he feels from knowing what he did did not really make him a man but did put him at risk in many ways he wasn't ready for. this is a really interesting point you make. it is my feeling that boys suffer as well from this idea that their desire is paramount and uncontrollable. the fear of the feminine that seems to pervade our society means that boys who DO experience emotions of love and attachment in connection with sex are considered weak and girly. and how is a boy supposed to feel comfortable exploring his own desire if he is terrified that he's about to explode and rape the girl in front of her? what we teach boys is just as screwed as what we teach girls. this has always been my assertion.
dobler33 Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 My mother was a feminist who used to throw things at my father and spit in his face and then call him less than a man because he wouldn't hit her. She also used to tell me that I was so cute so she will enjoy it now before I grew up to be a rapist like all other men. She hung out with a group that were all like this as well. sounds like your mother was mentally ill. sounds like she would have been so if she'd been an androgynist. sounds like her feminism wasn't about equality but about her delusions and psychosis. the fact that you are judging the rest of feminism - a movement that encompasses many hundreds of years and the entire world - based on this very traumatic and painful experience of abuse by your mother suggests that you need some therapy, woggle. if you judged all people of color based on the fact that violence was committed against you by a person of color i would say the same thing. your anti-feminism looks a lot like PTSD to me.
Author Woggle Posted June 14, 2009 Author Posted June 14, 2009 this is a really interesting point you make. it is my feeling that boys suffer as well from this idea that their desire is paramount and uncontrollable. the fear of the feminine that seems to pervade our society means that boys who DO experience emotions of love and attachment in connection with sex are considered weak and girly. and how is a boy supposed to feel comfortable exploring his own desire if he is terrified that he's about to explode and rape the girl in front of her? what we teach boys is just as screwed as what we teach girls. this has always been my assertion. I don't feel that love and attachment to a woman are weak and girly but too often they do more harm than good for a man. The source of many problems for men is falling in love with the wrong woman so teaching boys to at least be somewhat of a player will serve them well later on in life.
Recommended Posts