|
xssve -> RE: Feminism (11/7/2009 6:12:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucienne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella
To me at least, I don't see a need for women to argue in a way that "encourages our successes" because I don't see women as a victim class. I don't think we need to hold each other's hand in the name of sisterhood - if a woman is wrong, I'll tell her she's wrong. I'll do the same with a man.
...
I think it encourages women to be weak if you have to hold their hand and tiptoe around the negative, or interject it with a positive...it smacks of patting a puppy on the head - "Well honey, you didn't really do your research, and your argument is completely incoherent, but my what a pretty font you used to type it! Good work!" Seriously what is that?
...
Obviously just my opinion. But the idea that "women should stick together because we're women" really grates on me - what does that say about men? If women should 'stick together' who are they sticking together against? Non-women, of course. Men. And possibly puppies. Male puppies.
And for the third time (by my count) on this thread, you and I are in agreement. Except for the puppies thing. No one stands against puppies. I think this is a sign of the apocalypse.
By the way, not to be patronizing, but you really do have admirable sentence structure. It makes it easier to follow how I disagree with you. :)
What you are referring to here, and what I suspect Shakti may be finding so objectionable, is infantilization - which, like it or not, is a rider on paternal politics, just as male infantilization is a rider on maternal politics - both sides essentially object to it, as if it were all a question of who get to be infantilized from a strict institutional, social policy perspective.
Shakti's arguement holds more water, from an empirical basis: there is more empirical evidence of feminine infanitilization historically, and more current attempts to shape institutional policy in this direction, whereas your more conservative (paternal) fears tend not to hold up well under scrutiny, i.e., regulation, PC, which they tend to characterize as infantilizing and react to violently as a class of restriction (the "nanny" state), although in most cases, these are simply prudent and progressive social-economic policies, as a class.
i.e., conservative/paternal oppression fantasies tend to be more emotional than real, the "damage" abstract, whereas feminist fears of oppression have very distinct and well documented antecedents, the consequences very much corporeal, the damage empirically assessable.
|
|
|
|
