Some comments on the Feminism Debate
While busy with an (unexpected) house-guest and other things these past couple of weeks, we had time to at least keep some sort of tab on hot topics on the blogs. So we've been following the whole debate on feminism started off by this post with interest - not least because it tied into similar debate on US blogs a little while back about women piggy-backing on feminism yet disparaging it in public. (Predictably enough, it's Althouse. And do check out the comments to Echidne's post...)
We're (perhaps wisely) going to try to keep our noses out of it. But one graf from Auds at realitycheck(dot)ie we want to comment on, as it also concerns the male sex (on which point we claim inborn expertise):
And we rather think that the point at which feminism - and by that we mean the fight for equality of the sexes which Auds seems to slight - has succeeded is when the woman can be the one to roll over and as a matter of course speak up for her sexual needs. Not that we've ever had such complaint, you understand.
p.s. while Auds says of Madam Robinson "while I consider her radical, would not be viewed as a waaay-out-there radical feminist", we note that Freedom Institute object of worship David Horowitz considers her worthy of a place on his "Discover The Network" conspiracy blacklist. Though sadly, he has yet to discover the links between our former President and Osama bin Laden. A breach for Davey Vance to leap into?
We're (perhaps wisely) going to try to keep our noses out of it. But one graf from Auds at realitycheck(dot)ie we want to comment on, as it also concerns the male sex (on which point we claim inborn expertise):
"With the 60s and 70s a new wave of feminism emerged – the sexual revolution – a new “woman’s lib” which could have been as easily orchestrated by Hugh Hefner of the Playboy empire!We feel the need to point out that for many (most?) men it historically has been a "fleeting physical encounter", as a simple matter of biology (and anthropology as well, we guess). The facts of life were that until recently, men didn't get pregnant but women could, so sex had vastly different consequences depending on your gender - witness the abandoned mothers, even today. The advent of the Pill merely extends this freedom (long enjoyed by men) to the female sex, and it shouldn't be begrudged.
Freedom for the prosaic and stifling life of the home was promised through free love. The oral contraceptive pill effectively separated children from sex – irreversibly changing the perception of sex – from the procreative to the purely pleasurable changing the context of sex from within a loving, stable and committed relationship to a fleeting physical encounter and changing the expectation of sex for women – instead of mating with her husband for life who would father her children and enable her to fulfil her potential as a mother and as a woman to hoping that he won’t roll over in the morning and tell her that she’s crap in bed."
And we rather think that the point at which feminism - and by that we mean the fight for equality of the sexes which Auds seems to slight - has succeeded is when the woman can be the one to roll over and as a matter of course speak up for her sexual needs. Not that we've ever had such complaint, you understand.
p.s. while Auds says of Madam Robinson "while I consider her radical, would not be viewed as a waaay-out-there radical feminist", we note that Freedom Institute object of worship David Horowitz considers her worthy of a place on his "Discover The Network" conspiracy blacklist. Though sadly, he has yet to discover the links between our former President and Osama bin Laden. A breach for Davey Vance to leap into?
| Permalink 
|
