Technically Mel Gibson was originally a US export, but we can’t disavow all responsibility for him, unfortunately!Well, you’re in Australia and she’s Australian. I think she’s one of your better exports, an improvement on Mel Gibson anyway.
Part of the problem that feminism, particularly in its postmodern incarnation, has to deal with is the underlying assumption of male superiority, especially in its less overt forms. Essentially, what this means is that it’s perceived as okay for a woman to wear trousers, for example, because that indicates that she is aspiring to the status of men; whereas if a man wears a skirt, he is effectively indicating a desire to lower his status to that of women. Part of the reason homosexual men tend to be objects of fear and hatred for heterosexual men is that they are perceived to be weaker, to be undermining the dominant role men are ‘supoosed’ to assume in society, and thus a threat to the status of other men.
If feminism and Marxism spring from the same root, how do you explain Margaret Thatcher?
Oh, please do some research. Margaret Thatcher is on record as saying she owed absolutely nothing to Women’s Liberation or Feminism.If feminism and Marxism spring from the same root, how do you explain Margaret Thatcher?
Thatcher’s anti-Marxist political philosophy actually alienated her from the feminist movement. “We want women’s rights – not a right-wing woman” was the feminist chant while she was if office. Thatcher’s policies went against feminist ideology at the time. And if you want it straight from the horse’s mouth, then read this very recent (Jan.2012) article by a rabid feminist -
I’ve no doubt she said that - but that’s surely a piece of ignorance on her part that sprang from a complete denial of the earliest achievements of the suffragette movement. Without the initial gains of feminism, Margaret Thatcher would never have gained political office in the first place. No wonder real feminists spoke out against her - biting the hand that feeds you is usually not a good idea.
Feminists are indeed hypocrites. They ensure their hypocritical attitudes are on display when they make nonsense statements about things like “…we make fun of male hairdressers”, when one of Australia’s most feted celebrities was a male hairdresser by the name of Edward Beale who operated a chain of hair salons starting in Melbourne the 1970s. My own mother worked in melbourne for a city salon owner, male, who did the hair for all the soacialites and was feted himself by high society.
The hypocrisy is real, but be a bit cautious with this type of criticism, because it can stir confusion. A lot on the Left are well aware of the growing backlash against them for the earlier Feminist social and legal changes; and their response is, oddly enough, not to suggest we work toward undoing the error, but instead to, effectively, feign empathy with those recently wronged. They’ll typically start by insisting that we’ve simply gone too far or are in too deep with Feminist progress. They’ll end, of course, by encouraging everyone to begin some long-overdue movement toward finally ridding men of all the burdens they needlessly endure trying to uphold an out-dated culture’s sexist notions/expectations of masculinity. Yeah, that’s what we need: Feminism for Men!
And there you have it…
You protest too loudly, and display your privilege too prominently.
Why should a man not wear a dress if that is his inclination? Is this different to a woman wearing trousers, or do you think all women should wear skirts and dresses too? Frankly, if my husband has better legs than I do - and he does! - why should he be the one to wear the trousers in the relationship?
When the need is there, by all means, respond. Don’t assume weakness when it’s not manifest. Surely this is a simple thing to understand. When I married my husband, I committed to looking after his welfare too - that means taking care of him when he is vulnerable, such as when he is ill. This is not practically different to the commitment a man makes to take care of a woman when she is not capable of taking care of herself.
I had the impression that someperson555 was criticising feminism, but I guess if you are overly sensitive to those who disagree with you a little, you could interpret his/her posts as left-wing feminist…
They do. Priests and choir boys wear them. I’ve never seen a Pope wear trousers. Scotsmen (and Greek guards?) wear skirts. They call them cassocks and kilts of course.
Oh my, what a circus.
what are you talking about?? first of all im a MALE, so im NOT a feminist. and i HATE feminism. my post was supposed to be a thought experiment for feminists, because they are indeed hypocritical, they demand special treatment for women.
you are right, i should be careful in making arguments like these, one person already misunderstood as you can see…ahem (john21652)
lol yes, he completely missed the point. i was criticizing feminism. but even though i criticize feminism, i do still hold a radically different view than the traditionalists. i believe in a meritocracy. i reject this liberal egalitarianist dogma that “we are all equal and kumbaayaa”, but i also reject this silly conservative notion that we should uphold completely arbitrary norms and traditions.
im sure these women are twice as “masculine” as I am or any other average man today. they didnt need “affirmative action” to get the job for them, they worked for it and EARNED it themsleves.I never misunderstood you. I agreed with you!
Fine then, you get your husband to wear a dress down the street and note the comments and wry looks. I wonder why that will happen? Convention perhaps? Or maybe it will be because of the signals he will be sending out; the symbolism. Symbols do indeed communicate much in any given society. If you wish to be at variance with the accepted symbolism of your own society, go for your life…just don’t complain when most people will say how silly it looks.
Please do tell us which courtesies are remnants of a belief that women are too weak to look after themselves. I’d suggest that a courtesy is a courtesy and the feminists have attempted to denigrate the very notion of it. I, for one, had a radical feminist criticise me for holding a door open for her and that was despite the fact she had an arm full of books!
What a load of codswallop. Men are, or should be, trained to be leaders. They don’t need anyone’s permission to show courtesy.
This husband of yours, his existence seems at odds with a lot of what you’ve written on other threads.
And if you’d had your wits about you you would have noticed that half way through that post I as addressing you. I know it’s hard for some feminists to not be so emotional when they see criticisms of their ‘philosophy’, but sometimes a little rational thinking can sort out obvious problems…
Being a mother is women’s work and men can never do it. That’s despite the fact that the feminists wish otherwise.
As I wrote earlier, most men would kill to be able to spend more time with their kids. It is the structure of society that has caused the bread winner to have to leave home for the work place. And it is biology that causes an infant to need its mother at home. As for having no time for anti-male diatribes, then prove it by renouncing here the feminism that is responsible.
The assumptions that cause you to view social structures as patriarchal are the result of necessity. Your last sentence is just plain wrong.
Walk around a mall here and you may well see a man and woman wearing matching jelabas. A couple of hours south in Morocco it’s the norm. They’re dignified - made of cotton they’re cool in the summer, made of wool warm in winter. Give the fashion industry time and the young will wear them in Australia too. It’s not feminism, it’s fashion.
How about: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. – 1 Cor 34-35
Totally agree with this sentiment, thinking in reverse it makes sense. If I was having lunch with someone on a first date, I’d be comfortable with splitting the bill 50/50. Once we know each other better, I’d be happy to be treated by her paying the full bill if she earned considerably more than me. Would I want to be provided for with the assumption that I naturally needed her financial support? Not at all, I would find it highly weird. Long-term, once in a relationship, I would be happy to be a net receiver of shared income (although not by a huge amount), because of our shared life and value to each other. To be treated otherwise, to be treated like a sexist man treats a woman, would make me into a radical manist.