Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


You've come a long way, baby....
October 2, 2003 6:11 AM   Subscribe

Classic Feminist Writings : an archive
posted by anastasiav (34 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
Nice,

My fave feminist writer is Dorothy Smith, specifically her book "Everyday World as Problematic." That book is amazing.

This will give me something to read today.
posted by Quartermass at 7:28 AM on October 2, 2003


just got out of my feminist philosophy course, and look what's waiting for me... Good find.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:03 AM on October 2, 2003


I took some feminist philosophy in college. At first I thought that feminism was the solution. Fairness and equality would be the most important variables, and we would weigh everything against that.

What I found out instead was that anger and blame were the premiums. That instead of everyone as a victim, it was women as the victims, and men as the bad guys. Which is not it at all.

Where is feminism now? It seems to me that the most significant battle that feminism can engage in is that of economic equality... and instead we have the same bogus legal opportunism that the black community is distracted by.

I don't know... I ended my study of feminism thinking that the important themes of socio-political-economic equality, resistance to it, and the myth of gender were ideas that had been discarded for the sake of revenge and separatism.

Am I wrong? Show me feminist writing of the last two or three years that I can read to open my eyes... or read Refusing to be a Man (excerpt) which, only partly ironically, is some of the best feminist writing of my experience.
posted by ewkpates at 11:19 AM on October 2, 2003


This is great. Thanks.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 11:19 AM on October 2, 2003


What I found out instead was that anger and blame were the premiums.

Thanks for the great comment.

I should probably say here that I don't think of myself as a feminist, for the exact reason quoted above, but I'm also keenly aware that without the work of people like Kate Millett and NOW my life might be significantly different than it is today. For example, after my dad died (in the early 1970's) my mom had a significantly difficult time doing simple things like buying a car, because of the inequities in the credit system which were weighted against women alone. I'm grateful that kind of craziness is rare, but I'm equally grateful to have a man open a door for me or pull out a chair. Its a paradox.

If the link above is too big for you to chew, try these smaller bites: The Politics of Housework, Covert Sex Discrimination against Women as Medical Patients , and (my favorite) The Myth of Vaginal Orgasm.
posted by anastasiav at 12:13 PM on October 2, 2003


Classic Feminist Writings : an archive

Read: The blueprints to the destruction of the family.

Can anyone name one good thing feminism has done for children? I'm talking about children, not when the female ones grow up to become women.

I can list many bad things feminism has done to children.

Can anyone name one good thing feminism has done for marriage? I mean in terms of keeping marriages together, not creating battered wives shelters.

I can list many bad things feminism has done to marriage.

Can anyone name one good thing feminism has done for men? No that's not an oxymoron, for feminism is supposed to be about equality for everyone. You can't pretend to be an egalitarian if you don't include everyone.

I can list many bad things feminism has done to men.
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:21 PM on October 2, 2003


Can anyone name one good thing feminism has done for children?

It's made it easier for women to get their children out of abusive homes and into loving families.

Can anyone name one good thing feminism has done for marriage?

By reshaping expectations about equality, it has created more realistic marriages - which are more likely to last.

Can anyone name one good thing feminism has done for men?

It's made things easier for gay men, by helping to reshape expectations about gender roles.

I can list many good things feminism has done for humanity, but I get the sense from your comments that you'd be much happier grinding your little axe. So, I'll just caution you: women are a diverse group. Feminism is a broad term used to refer to a wide range of diverse methodologies, ideologies, and political philosophies. Men are a diverse group. Families and marriages are diverse and complex. People, not ideas, are ultimately responsible for setting social phenomena into motion. Be careful about lumping diverse things into unitary categories. Doing so makes your arguments grossly simplistic.
posted by stonerose at 1:14 PM on October 2, 2003 [1 favorite]


One of my favorites that's not on here is Jane Alpert's Mother Right, an indictment of the misogyny of the New Left movement she had long been a part of. It's especially relevant today, with the left becoming increasingly antifeminist.
posted by transona5 at 2:13 PM on October 2, 2003


A superb archive, well organized and essential. Thanks, anastasiav!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:16 PM on October 2, 2003


A great feminist too often neglected in America is Dale Spender. The Introduction to Man Made Language (1980) is a brilliant essay that deserves inclusion in the archive.

ewkpates, anastasiav: Don't let yourself be distracted by the idiots and extremists; there are such in any movement. Feminism, as the only movement focusing on the achievement of equality (true, not token) and self-determination for women (which involves betterment for men as well, currently shackled by confused remnants of patriarchal bullshit struggling with confused understanding of women's needs, desires, and rights) is as necessary as it ever was. If I may, I will suggest you check out the excellent Alas, a Blog, which deals with these issues frequently and in depth.

SpaceCadet: Do you have any idea how you sound? Get over your terror of the feminist bogiewoman and join the civilized world, in which men and women discuss these things without fear or favor.
posted by languagehat at 7:17 PM on October 2, 2003


Great post anastasiav, this is a good resource. Between this and your excellent Harvey House post yesterday, you are supplying me with my weekend reading. In a way, they tie together since the Harvey Girls were paving the way for other career women.

stonerose, your comments and response to SpaceCadet were great. And languagehat you are right about the diversity and breadth of feminism. I generally avoid the term feminist because it often elicits such knee-jerk negative response.

What is today commonplace was recently considered radical and extreme. Birth control - particularly for single women - has only been legal for about three decades. It was not uncommon 25 or 30 years ago for pregnant women to lose their jobs - this was particularly true of teachers. Job ads used to be broken up into "male" and "female" jobs - my older sisters remember this. The female jobs would be a single column or two of teacher, nurse and secretary posts, while the male jobs might run several pages. Yet the women who filed a class action suit to get this practice of segregating jobs by gender eliminated were considered fringe-left harpies by many.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:15 PM on October 2, 2003


stonerose:-

It's made it easier for women to get their children out of abusive homes and into loving families.

the majority of child abuse is carried out by the child's mother. Where's the father's right to remove the mother (the abuser)? I'd be interested to hear your feminist view on that. Feminism is protecting the most likely abuser.

By reshaping expectations about equality, it has created more realistic marriages - which are more likely to last.

In the event of a divorce, feminism has seen to it that the family courts will strip a father of his children and most of his possessions. It's a fact that the person who has LEAST to lose in a divorce, will initiate the divorce. 80+% of divorces are initiated by women.

No, feminism hasn't built stronger marriages - it's given women more incentives to divorce, and they are doing that. I think the divorce statistics are on my side here.

It's made things easier for gay men, by helping to reshape expectations about gender roles.


I was asking the question if feminism had helped men, not a particular group of men.

languagehat, feminism tries to be equal when it suits them, but it wants special treatment (read: be unequal) when it suits them. They want it both ways.

A recent survey done by the Guardian newspaper suggests that feminism is a very blunt tool and largely irrelevant today.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:09 AM on October 3, 2003


I think the essence of feminism is self determination rather than social definition.

In this sense, feminism has helped us all to be more human, in that it has socially and culturally eroded the ideas that define gender.

Feminism, in this sense, as an ideology, hasn't done bad things to anyone. Certainly bad things happen: People do things in the name of feminism; Chaos results from stripping away the illusion that social roles maintained; Anger at repression, powerlessness, and slave status in society can make you crazy when you glimpse a notion of freedom - but this isn't harm done by feminism.

A great feminist movie, for example, is Pleasentville. That is the essence of what feminism is about, at least originally. Do people suffer in the movie? Sure. ALL FREEDOM INVOLVES SUFFERING.

We are fighting against the Taliban here. That's the other side of the spectrum.

Women beating their children is no different than women beating their husbands or anyone beating anyone. How is that feminism? Divorce - that is a feminist cause - but feminists also warn that having the power to do something doesn't necessarily mean that its a good idea to do it. Feminism has been essential to men in this culture by sending the message that self determination is for everyone.

Eminem is a feminist... but if you want something for beginners, get Free To Be You and Me, an absolute classic of feminist thought.
posted by ewkpates at 4:55 AM on October 3, 2003


Eminem is a feminist...
right, because there's nothing funnier or more creative than a man beating his wife. posted by pxe2000 at 6:16 AM on October 3, 2003


Feminism has been essential to men in this culture by sending the message that self determination is for everyone

That is why there is a growing men's movement, to undo all the evils feminism has created. Nobody is more self-determined than the ones who've had injustices heaped upon them.

Women beating their children is no different than women beating their husbands or anyone beating anyone.

You're are absolutely right. Unfortunately the way the law is executed flies in the face of your statement. If a woman beats her husband, and the husband calls the police, he will almost certainly find himself thrown into a police cell. Yes, the victim gets jailed. Sadly domestic violence laws are heavily biased in favour of women. Another victory for feminism, another loss for society.

ewkpates, feminism is not only an ideal, but an excuse that many men-haters hide behind when they force unfair family court laws to be passed in the name of "equality".

Eminem is a feminist...

The question that goes begging : so what?

I have to paraphrase Chuck D here....

"Eminem was a hero to most, but he never meant shit to me"

Has Eminem taken on a Ghandi status in the States now? Wow, we do indeed live in mediocre times.

ewkpates, you do not live in the reality of marriage. divorce, custody/visitation rights. If you studied this area, you'd be amazed at how feminism has undermined the family.

I save the best for last:-

In this sense, feminism has helped us all to be more human, in that it has socially and culturally eroded the ideas that define gender.

Laugh out loud. Feminism has made us politically correct. We're all victims these days. It's created a blame culture and eroded personal responsiblity.

What is wrong with gender identity? Must we all be androgynous? Can a woman not seek protection of her family from a man? Can a child not seek specific female nurturing from his/her mother? Can a child not appreciate the differences between fatherly love and motherly love?

Women and men are different. Our differences create a sum greater than the parts. The differences compliment each other.
posted by SpaceCadet at 6:58 AM on October 3, 2003


Can anyone name one good thing feminism has done for children? I'm talking about children, not when the female ones grow up to become women.

is it not important what happens to the female ones when they grow up to become women?

Feminism has done more good things for children as people, rather than specifically as children; we now grow up understanding that both are parents are capable, interesting human beings, that siblings of either sex may contribute to any field, that we ourselves, whichever gender we are, have the power to create our own futures.

Can anyone name one good thing feminism has done for marriage? I mean in terms of keeping marriages together, not creating battered wives shelters.

are you advocating for keeping marriages together that under the influence of women's rights have allowed wives to escape brutal daily violence? If that is what marriage means to you, maybe you should be rethinking the prototype, rather than trying to hold it together at any cost.

Can anyone name one good thing feminism has done for men? No that's not an oxymoron, for feminism is supposed to be about equality for everyone. You can't pretend to be an egalitarian if you don't include everyone.

Men can now expect the possibility of finding a partner with her own professional life, community, contacts etc; men can now expect to learn from women; men can now consider the possibility of being a stay at home dad, if so inclined; men are freed from gender stereotypes along with women, and if they're open about what they want in a relationship, can achieve a more balanced and simultaneously more exciting kind of marriage than would have traditionally been available.

Sadly domestic violence laws are heavily biased in favour of women. Another victory for feminism, another loss for society.

That may be, but the laws of nature are heavily biased in favor of men. Very few men live in fear for their lives under the hand of an abusive wife, although I certainly agree that domestic violence on the part of women needs to be addressed. And I think it is being addressed; it's taken a little longer to get to the front of the pack but domestic violence in queer couples and by the weaker sex is an issue now being taken seriously.

What is wrong with gender identity? Must we all be androgynous?

No one is forcing any particular person to give up his or her own self-defining characteristics, but in response I would ask, can we be androgynous, or anyway, can we be atypical, and still be respected and appreciated as people?

What you may consider specific to 'woman' may seem peripheral or even imposed to me, and as a woman, I like being able to define myself simply through traits that reveal me individually, rather than traits general to a group to which I happen to belong (such as "female", "american", "white", etc).

Some of these traits are obviously shared across a spectrum of people, and may be more generally true for one of those groups to which I belong than the population at large, but this is not so by necessity.

Can a woman not seek protection of her family from a man?

I think you may have used the wrong preposition here... seeking protection from a man is what those battered women's shelters are for :)

Again, the question is, must she? If someone wants to be a traditional wife and mother, and she finds a mate who wants to be a traditional protector-husband, she's free to do that. Most women who make those sorts of choices today still owe more than they admit to feminism, though. Her marriage is almost certainly through her own volition now, whereas it was could have been an agreement between her father and a man she didn't feel anything for in the past.

Can a child not seek specific female nurturing from his/her mother? Can a child not appreciate the differences between fatherly love and motherly love?

why not let the child appreciate the difference between the love of every different person in their life, as opposed to splitting it specifically by gender?
posted by mdn at 7:35 AM on October 3, 2003 [1 favorite]


Sadly, space cadet, you are smoking some serious crackfish.

Gender Identity is made up, and then programmed into people. Which sucks. Social Programming is just not a good time for anyone, whether you buy in or not. Women and Men being different is either a statement about Biological Sex, which does really tell us much about people, or a statement about Gender, which is made up hooey.

I looooove it when people tell me "you don't live in the reality" of blah blah blah. No. You don't. You live in a reality of "things suck for me".

DO PEOPLE SUFFER in sociopolitical systems? Yes. Statistically, many more women than men. Do fathers, good fathers, often struggle to get custody from mothers? Yup. Are courts unfairly biased towards women? Yup. IS THIS A CONSEQUENCE OF FEMINISM? NO. Courts traditionally award custody to the mother because women have been GENDER TYPED into child raising. How ironic, that you blame feminism for the very thing that feminism opposes.

Spousal abuse in very interesting social phenomena, if we are rational and scientific about it. Women beat men, and society doesn't take care of men as victims well. Why? GENDER TYPING. I'm more concerned about the women who are killed by their husbands though, to tell you the truth.

I'm an old school feminist, and I am about as politically incorrect as they come. And WE MUST NOT ALL BE ANYTHING. That's a feminist idea. You don't want to be androgynous? Fine by me. But let's not tell other people what they should be.

Let's agree that people can act, want, and be anything they like - regardless of color or gender or age.

P.S. Drum beating and getting in touch with your feelings and "manliness" - Feminism. The Promise Keepers - religious Programming.
posted by ewkpates at 7:36 AM on October 3, 2003


ewkpates, you live in a textbook world. Your world is defined by what you read, not what you experience. Your words are the words you've read, not your own. You are a 2nd-hand feminist, living your ideals vacariously through other people's struggles.

I have first hand experience of feminism's corrosive influence on society. I would not even open my mouth about it, had I not seen it's venom and it's power firsthand.

Gender Identity is made up, and then programmed into people.

Programmed? Oh really. You mean, blue is for boys and pink is for girls? LOL. Yeah right, I'm so brainwashed.

I'm talking about natural differences and natural traits that people have. You are defying nature with everything that you say. Just as a homosexual man is homosexual by his very nature, and has not been programmed into being homosexual. Your theory suggests that homosexuals are programmed into being homosexuals.

When I say the word "different" you read the word "unequal". This is the fundamental thing we disagree on. I accept there are natural differences between people. You want everybody to come off the conveyor belt exactly equal.

You know, even your "sisters" are turning their backs on you. Recent surveys in the UK showed that most people (including women) think feminism is outmoded and unpopular.

How does it feel to be the minority view now?

I'm more concerned about the women who are killed by their husbands though, to tell you the truth.

I'm more concerned about anyone being killed by their spouse. You don't care about murdered husbands? Your misandry is revealing itself.
posted by SpaceCadet at 8:30 AM on October 3, 2003


On the subject of children: in the UK, at least, feminists were an important part of early crusades against child prostitution and molestation. Among other things, they campaigned to raise the age of consent (from thirteen). Lucy Bland's Banishing the Beast includes one stunning report about an early-twentieth c. court case in which the judge sympathized with a man on trial for molesting an infant; it was, he said (I'm paraphrasing from memory) the sort of thing that any gentleman might do. Gulp. (See also Louise Jackson's Child Sexual Abuse in Victorian England, Judith Walkowitz's Prostitution and Victorian Society, and Paula Bartley's Prostitution: Prevention and Reform in England, 1860-1914.)

Another interesting feminist blog, by the way, is Trish Wilson's blog.
posted by thomas j wise at 8:54 AM on October 3, 2003


Congratulations, SpaceCadet, you've trashed an interesting thread with your know-nothing attacks. You're digging out the worst examples of behavior by women, judges, and anybody else who suits your purpose and attributing it to "them"... the evil ones... feminists. It's called prejudice. Here's how it works. Let's say Joe is a racist. This probably (these days) doesn't mean that he goes around ranting about black people being shiftless and using the n-word; that's the open racism of a couple of generations ago, when it was socially acceptable. No, it means that he rants about how affirmative action is ruining the country, it's white people who are oppressed now, &c &c. If a white person fails at something, he doesn't notice the whiteness, but if a black person does, it becomes proof that "they" can't handle the positions they've sneakily gotten access to by shoving aside "qualified" white people. You're doing the same thing with regard to women; if they behave well (by your lights) it's just the world going along its merry way, but if they get out of line, bingo! Damn that feminism! And every man who has problems in life is now a victim of feminist oppression. Never mind that women still don't have income parity, that they still have trouble reaching the highest positions, that they still have to live in fear of rape and subtler forms of male abuse that have no analog in the lives of the vast majority of men... those castrating bitches are taking over! It's a vast conspiracy, we must wake up and retake the high ground before we are completely encircled, beaten down, turned into slaves!

Seriously, either get over it or write a best-selling book exposing the evils of modern women (always a lucrative item). Coming in here and pissing on MeFi threads profits neither you nor us.
posted by languagehat at 10:42 AM on October 3, 2003


Never mind that women still don't have income parity

If that's true, why don't employers just hire women and cut their costs? After all, we're all equally talented these days. Why not hire the cheapest labour?

they still have trouble reaching the highest positions, that they still have to live in fear of rape and subtler forms of male abuse...

It sure sounds like feminism hasn't worked. It's been around for 40 years and it supposedly can't achieve it's fundamental aims (according to languagehat).

Seriously, either get over it or write a best-selling book exposing the evils of modern women (always a lucrative item). Coming in here and pissing on MeFi threads profits neither you nor us.

I didn't "trash" this thread. I've offered an alternative view to the sycophantic gushing attitude everyone else has displayed here. Feminism is but one ideology. You are sounding rather facist to suggest we all believe in it or else. It is my right to have my own beliefs and views. It is my right to express those views.
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:37 AM on October 3, 2003


Feminism is but one ideology.

No, it bloody isn't. That fundamental misconception is what undergirds all of your other misguided ranting. You take a diverse set of phenomena, and portray it as a unitary category that - presto! - has all of the evils of its most extreme pracitioners. Well, guess what: the whole world is NOT in thrall to the extremist feminazism you are describing. We ALL KNOW that extremist ideology of ANY sort is harmful. Time and again, good ideas have been perverted and used to harm others. Undoubtedly, feminism has been used, to a limited but deeply regrettable extent, in such ways. But instead of viewing it realistically, as a diverse set of social phenomena which changes over time and needs to be shaped wisely, you plug your fingers in your ears and scream about how evil it all is. Well, guess what, bucky? You aren't going to win many allies that way. You did indeed shit, piss, and puke all over this thread, by not speaking respectfully about a matter that is clearly of urgent importance to you. If you really do care about your cause, you would do well to chill out, learn to debate earnestly but respectfully, and listen as well as talk. Otherwise, people are just going to put you on their mental "Do Not Call" list.
posted by stonerose at 12:04 PM on October 3, 2003


you live in a textbook world. Your world is defined by what you read, not what you experience. Your words are the words you've read, not your own. You are a 2nd-hand feminist, living your ideals vacariously through other people's struggles

SpaceCadet--How do you know what people commenting here are living or experiencing?

The more you wrote here, the more pitiful you became. But thanks for revealing your hand for everyone to see--it's good to know.
posted by lobakgo at 12:19 PM on October 3, 2003


Spacecadet, at first I thought you were a spacecadet. But now I see you just misunderstand. Allow me to clarify.

We are different. That's the nice thing. The trouble is that society tries to make us think, sometimes on accident, that we aren't different. That men have something in common, and women have something in common, and that this commonality is not simply biological, but psychological as well.

Feminism is a sociopolitical movement that seeks to shift the burden of determination from the society to the self, and to make that determination intrinsically valuable. At least my brand of feminism does.

When we argue that "experiences" are more illuminating than "textbook understanding" we get into hot water. Sometimes its very hard to be objective when you've had a bad experience. Sometimes its hard to find a good textbook.

Our experiences don't legitimize our arguments. Experience sometimes persuades us against reason. You seem to have had some powerful experiences that you decided were the best argument that could be made.

My bottom line is this: People should be able to conduct their lives without being forced into a sexual relationship with anyone for economic reasons. People should be allowed to compete on an even playing field in any profession they like. People have an intrinsic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We can argue about statistics and perception until the cows come home. I think, Mr. Spacecadet, that you should consider what rights you want, and remember that others want those rights too. You don't want feminists running your life. They don't want you running theirs. You have more in common with them then you might think.
posted by ewkpates at 12:53 PM on October 3, 2003 [1 favorite]


It sure sounds like feminism hasn't worked. It's been around for 40 years and it supposedly can't achieve it's fundamental aims

You're absolutely right. Somehow, the best efforts of a brave and dedicated cohort of women have failed—in all of forty years!—to overturn the work of millennia of unrelenting male supremacy, so effective that the vast majority of women have accepted the situation, even (for instance) imposing footbinding on their own daughters in prerevolutionary China, so effective that even today many women fear and despise feminism as much as you do. "Kissing the rod" is an evocative phrase, no? Propaganda can be amazingly effective. Yours, however (as you may have noticed in this thread) is not.
posted by languagehat at 2:52 PM on October 3, 2003


Feminism is a sociopolitical movement that seeks to shift the burden of determination from the society to the self, and to make that determination intrinsically valuable. At least my brand of feminism does.

ewkpates, there is our difference. You believe in the self and it's rights, leaving the effects to trickle down to society. I believe in society as the focus, and the effects to trickle down to the individual. It's that simple. Label me as you like, I'm sure you can find something derogatory ("commie" springs to mind, and nothing could be further from the truth). I believe society is a model that has worked since we came down from the trees. Look at the common thread of all the cultures in the world. From Africa to India to Japan to the Catholic nations to Eskimoes to Pygmies - the common thread is the village - society. You hold the slim minority view that we are all completely separate from society, consumerist, lacking responsibility to the society around us. Technology has brought us forward, and that is a significant point. Feminism has destroyed families and society, but technology has allowed us progression in terms of standards of living.

When we are discriminated against, it's because society is just a jumble of individuals all out for themselves. When you have a society of individuals, you will always have discrimination. When you have a cohesive society, discrimination becomes obsolete by and large (of course there will be individual cases). This is because we're all working together (wow, think about that!).

You have ideals that can't be practised without causing the discriminations you pretend to fight against. An irony that most feminists don't get. The feminist principle is based upon "oppression of the female" perpetrated by the male, therefore it's principle motivation is vengence. Sorry, societies don't work that way.

languagehat, what do you want? 100% employment where we all achieve our maximum career potential while all kids are farmed out to day-care centres? 100% political correctness where not a "bad word" is spoken against anyone, be it by accident or on purpose? Children taught to believe there is absolutely no difference between men and women, we are all completely and utterly identical apart from the genitals bit (and we won't talk about that)?

You are the death of art, the death of romance, the death of humanity. I hope your view dies out as quickly as feminism clearly is according to modern women's views. You are an anachronism.
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:11 PM on October 3, 2003


Well, guess what, bucky? You aren't going to win many allies that way. You did indeed shit, piss, and puke all over this thread, by not speaking respectfully about a matter that is clearly of urgent importance to you. If you really do care about your cause, you would do well to chill out, learn to debate earnestly but respectfully, and listen as well as talk

stonerose, I would say that was a fascist statement. I have an entitlement to express my opinion. If you think I do not, you are a fascist. Respect the alternative view, as all debaters should. You sound hysterical. I've heard the alternative to my own view all of my life and kept quiet. Now it's time to speak and act, in a legal and rightful way. Allow me my right and do not try to intimidate me with your abusive language. If you cannot accept the alternative view without the need to become abusive, remain silent. Otherwise you do yourself and your cause a disservice.
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:31 PM on October 3, 2003


Uh....huh. I tell you how to advance your view by not alienating people, ergo I'm a fascist. Okay. Gotcha. Nice speaking with ya. I have to go get my propellor beanie tuned up now.
posted by stonerose at 7:01 PM on October 3, 2003


Uh....huh. I tell you how to advance your view by not alienating people, ergo I'm a fascist.

Err....hello? If I don't call you a fascist, I'll "advance my view"? I just couldn't parse that sentence.

Question: in terms of custody in the event of a divorce, and given that feminsm is about equality, clearly joint custody is something feminists would fight for, to ensure that women got 50% custody of their children. Wouldn't you want women to get 50% of the custody of children?* Wouldn't that be fair?

*do you realise that in reality 95%+ women win SOLE custody of their children?

Give me your feminist take on joint custody, especially given the fact that Australia is looking to make joint custody as the legal default in 2004.

Give me only a direct answer please, stonerose. Clearly you are for equality here.

And in terms of paying maintenance towards children, clearly as a proponent of feminism and equality, you would stand up for the view that women are as liable to pay maintenance in the event of a divorce as men are.

Come on stonerose, stand up for equality here!
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:48 PM on October 3, 2003


Sweetie, you're trollin' for a fight, and I'm just not the one to give it to you. Enjoy the silence.
posted by stonerose at 8:06 PM on October 3, 2003


SpaceCadet--you've passed pitiful at warp speed and have crash-landed on Planet Pathetic. Best of luck.
posted by lobakgo at 12:25 AM on October 4, 2003


stonerose I often enjoy the silence when a proponent of feminism can't answer such simple, stark questions. I really do enjoy that silence.

lobakgo, you contribute to this thread with two ad-hominem attacks. Why don't you simply answer the questions? That would really put me in my place.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:25 AM on October 4, 2003


mr cadet, if you're such an advocate of simply answering questions put forth, why did you not respond to my post above?

I believe society is a model that has worked since we came down from the trees. Look at the common thread of all the cultures in the world. From Africa to India to Japan to the Catholic nations to Eskimoes to Pygmies - the common thread is the village - society. You hold the slim minority view that we are all completely separate from society, consumerist, lacking responsibility to the society around us.

you are jumping to radical conclusions here. It is entirely possible to believe in society and still believe that society can be improved. Our social environment has not been a "village" for hundreds of years; tribal life may be satisfactory to you, but the modern world allows a richer and more diverse culture, and improving on that by fighting stereotypes of what certain people are meant to be is only to our advantage.

Are you in favor of returning to feudalism? perpetual war? monarchy? a craft-based economy? What humans did when they 'came down from the trees' may not be the preferred model for everyone, although the previous lords and monarchs might argue that it was a better set-up...
posted by mdn at 7:21 PM on October 4, 2003


mdn, I was talking about communities. And communities are made up of smaller groups of people known as extended families. I was simply saying that this is the way humans have lived for thousands of years over many different cultures. Hey, they still do! Only not so in the west, where society has been atomised, and feminism is one of the stronger forces that has helped this phenomena come about.

You're right....societies can always be improved, but when you perform a mass experiment on society like we're seeing in the west, the results aren't guaranteed to be good and wholesome.
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:26 AM on October 5, 2003


« Older And the Weasel Award Goes to......  |  Byronic Roleplaying?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments