envision it
Ooooh man. Because women don't exist according to history manifested by (European) males.
It's annoying, I was reading this book that is supposed to exemplify new young feminists, yet was still talking about women being able to be intelligent and SASSY and SENSUAL. That propagates the same expectancy that women have to be image oriented or beautiful to be...women. I read an article in Harper's about the new wave of supposed "post-feminists" who are advocating abstinence and modesty. Obviously, these women's agendas are more than feminism. Hello, right-wing Christian prophecy. But of course, all these labels I am using are more destructive and factional or just as destructive and factional as thosewhose ideas I am annoyed with. Anyway, the article compared these two "prudes" who are pro-abstinence to the feminst-philosopher Andrea Dworkin who was possibly the most militant, fundamentalist feminist known. Dworkin's basic thesis was that all acts of sex are inherently misogynistic and deprecating to a woman and therefore women are willfully engaging in their destuction by submitting to (heterosexual?) sex. Pretty strict I'd say. And the interesting thing is that she was "married" to a gay man.
And I am confused about how this all relates to me or affects me and my friends, some of whom I see as prime examples in what Dworkin would refer to as their self destruction. Sometimes I think that it can be as easy as people being educated with movers and shakers counter-cultural and counter-ideological statements and philosophies. But, it's not that simple. Women's inequality is so deeply rooted into our psyches that it seems may be there has been some evolutionary mutation that has made women less powerful and more compliant to the imperialist male. But, I don't believe in solely blaming genetics as the reason for our struggle.
I wonder what feminist studies in college entails.
Do I really want to be dictated what to think about feminism and women or is that already just predetermined by the claustrophobic circumference of knowledge that is floating and buzzing on our planet?
Or do I just want to blow all this off and be satisfied with women's progress and stop being so misanthropic and critical of the world?
No. I will dissociate from any damaging medium that promotes the exploitation of women. That is about where I am right nw. Tryig to shake off any notion that femininity is in the eye of the masculine beholder. It's interesting that masochism has the same root as masculine, a more fair history would prove that they are more synonymous than not.
And of course, I am not attacking males per se, but masculinity, which manifests itself in men as well as in women. It's interesting, in the psychology book for developmental psych that I have to read, it says that the best type of gender scheme is androgny because that means that a child will act on the basis of what he or she likes or doesn't like, is attracted to or isn't; not what is predetermnied and reinforced by adults to conform to gender roles.
Lots more but I'll just accost an actual human next time.
It's annoying, I was reading this book that is supposed to exemplify new young feminists, yet was still talking about women being able to be intelligent and SASSY and SENSUAL. That propagates the same expectancy that women have to be image oriented or beautiful to be...women. I read an article in Harper's about the new wave of supposed "post-feminists" who are advocating abstinence and modesty. Obviously, these women's agendas are more than feminism. Hello, right-wing Christian prophecy. But of course, all these labels I am using are more destructive and factional or just as destructive and factional as thosewhose ideas I am annoyed with. Anyway, the article compared these two "prudes" who are pro-abstinence to the feminst-philosopher Andrea Dworkin who was possibly the most militant, fundamentalist feminist known. Dworkin's basic thesis was that all acts of sex are inherently misogynistic and deprecating to a woman and therefore women are willfully engaging in their destuction by submitting to (heterosexual?) sex. Pretty strict I'd say. And the interesting thing is that she was "married" to a gay man.
And I am confused about how this all relates to me or affects me and my friends, some of whom I see as prime examples in what Dworkin would refer to as their self destruction. Sometimes I think that it can be as easy as people being educated with movers and shakers counter-cultural and counter-ideological statements and philosophies. But, it's not that simple. Women's inequality is so deeply rooted into our psyches that it seems may be there has been some evolutionary mutation that has made women less powerful and more compliant to the imperialist male. But, I don't believe in solely blaming genetics as the reason for our struggle.
I wonder what feminist studies in college entails.
Do I really want to be dictated what to think about feminism and women or is that already just predetermined by the claustrophobic circumference of knowledge that is floating and buzzing on our planet?
Or do I just want to blow all this off and be satisfied with women's progress and stop being so misanthropic and critical of the world?
No. I will dissociate from any damaging medium that promotes the exploitation of women. That is about where I am right nw. Tryig to shake off any notion that femininity is in the eye of the masculine beholder. It's interesting that masochism has the same root as masculine, a more fair history would prove that they are more synonymous than not.
And of course, I am not attacking males per se, but masculinity, which manifests itself in men as well as in women. It's interesting, in the psychology book for developmental psych that I have to read, it says that the best type of gender scheme is androgny because that means that a child will act on the basis of what he or she likes or doesn't like, is attracted to or isn't; not what is predetermnied and reinforced by adults to conform to gender roles.
Lots more but I'll just accost an actual human next time.