(no subject)
i feel ill.
no, wait, that was yesterday. today i'm just disgusted.
the subject of my disgust is rather unfortunate in that it's something i should probably like.
here's a long article about the changes in the past 40 years in feminism and men's lib movements: http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_feminists.htm.
the beginning hit home with me, as i've done the "soft man" thing and had nothing good come of it. at first i was interested in what this supposedly more equitable "standup guy" might be, but the scattered and vague impressions given through the middle of the letter started my dread for what it would eventually become. my expectations were unfortunately met at the end when the concept was summarized.
i realize that the concepts involved here are archetypes rather than individuals and so should be judged on principles appropriate for archetypes, but that's exactly where my problems arise here; the "standup guy" seems to be to be designed to be nothing short of everything a woman could want in a man.
here's where my problem comes in: if we were discussing an individual, i would be in full approval. if some man meets this idea i say "more power to him". however, this is designed to be an ideal towards which men are supposed to strive and be able to attain. this is supposed to be set forward as the image of the man who is liberated and in touch with reality, life, himself and others.
of course, i'm disgusted by this archetype in exactly the same way as i'm disgusted by the archetype i see many women attempting to emulate recently, so perhaps they make a good pair. i just wish i knew how to discourage it.
no, wait, that was yesterday. today i'm just disgusted.
the subject of my disgust is rather unfortunate in that it's something i should probably like.
here's a long article about the changes in the past 40 years in feminism and men's lib movements: http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_feminists.htm.
the beginning hit home with me, as i've done the "soft man" thing and had nothing good come of it. at first i was interested in what this supposedly more equitable "standup guy" might be, but the scattered and vague impressions given through the middle of the letter started my dread for what it would eventually become. my expectations were unfortunately met at the end when the concept was summarized.
i realize that the concepts involved here are archetypes rather than individuals and so should be judged on principles appropriate for archetypes, but that's exactly where my problems arise here; the "standup guy" seems to be to be designed to be nothing short of everything a woman could want in a man.
here's where my problem comes in: if we were discussing an individual, i would be in full approval. if some man meets this idea i say "more power to him". however, this is designed to be an ideal towards which men are supposed to strive and be able to attain. this is supposed to be set forward as the image of the man who is liberated and in touch with reality, life, himself and others.
of course, i'm disgusted by this archetype in exactly the same way as i'm disgusted by the archetype i see many women attempting to emulate recently, so perhaps they make a good pair. i just wish i knew how to discourage it.