"If you dislike feminism ... "

[Cormac]

Now where did I say that? I simply asked if a statement was an opinion or fact. Answer seemed to indicate opinion. As i was not sure (hence the need to ask) I am pleased that that has been cleared up. You read much into my words that is not there. Its understandable, as we are new besties. The longer you know me the more you will come to understand that I am a simple fishie. What ya see is what ya get. Not that complicated.

Can you do me a favour? Will you learn to use the quote function?

A few times to date I've started to read what I thought was your post, thinking to myself, "this is a remarkably astute and charming person", only to realise I was reading my own words.

When I divided your post from mine, obviously, I still felt yours indicated an equally astute and charming person, but it wasn't quite as familiar...

I think part of the problem might be that you're not scrolling down far enough below the {/quote}, while adding one too many.

Now that's strange, on tapa it looks ok my end. How's this look on pooter proper?
(Two astute charming people? In the one place? We must be besties )

This looks perfect.

[charlou]

Cunt posted this elsewhere ...



She articulates so well so much of what I too think about this.

I'm also very moved by her understanding and humanity. Society needs more of this.

[Coito ergo sum]

That is depicted in popular culture still, quite consistently. A scene that comes to mind is in the movie Cinderella Man where Russell Crowe is eating with his very poor family. His son is still hungry, so he gives his piece of ham to his son so he could have more. Renee Zellweger's character, however, is not called upon to give up any of her ham, even to the point of a 50-50 split. It's still the male who is generally expected to save the female, defend the female, take a bullet for the female, etc.

[Bella Fortuna]

Yeah, mothers are never expected to give anything of themselves to their children.

PS. You gonna eat that ham?

[Robert_S]

Yeah, mothers are never expected to give anything of themselves to their children.

PS. You gonna eat that ham?

Not in a movie where Russel Crowe is the kind of badass who doesn't even [i[need[/i] protein and calories.



GWW always makes the point however, that men DO while women ARE. Self sacrifice is the act of an autonomous agent while merely surviving is the act of a passive object.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, mothers are never expected to give anything of themselves to their children.

PS. You gonna eat that ham?

No, of course mothers are expected to give of themselves for their children. The point was that the man should do it first, and the man has the primary responsibility to save not only his children but his wife. The wife has to save the children, but not the husband. A man saved by his wife in a situation threatening them both is not a real man, according to the ongoing trope, that is.

[rachelbean]

Yeah, mothers are never expected to give anything of themselves to their children.

PS. You gonna eat that ham?

No, of course mothers are expected to give of themselves for their children. The point was that the man should do it first, and the man has the primary responsibility to save not only his children but his wife. The wife has to save the children, but not the husband. A man saved by his wife in a situation threatening them both is not a real man, according to the ongoing trope, that is.

This is quite illogical though, because men naturally need more protein than women. If I had to split meat between my husband, me and children I'd do it in the logical order needed for us all to survive, and I'd hope/expect my husband to do the same

[Robert_S]

Yeah, mothers are never expected to give anything of themselves to their children.

PS. You gonna eat that ham?

No, of course mothers are expected to give of themselves for their children. The point was that the man should do it first, and the man has the primary responsibility to save not only his children but his wife. The wife has to save the children, but not the husband. A man saved by his wife in a situation threatening them both is not a real man, according to the ongoing trope, that is.

So you reject the old patriarchal assumptions and values that attempt to shoehorn people into gender roles?

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, mothers are never expected to give anything of themselves to their children.

PS. You gonna eat that ham?

No, of course mothers are expected to give of themselves for their children. The point was that the man should do it first, and the man has the primary responsibility to save not only his children but his wife. The wife has to save the children, but not the husband. A man saved by his wife in a situation threatening them both is not a real man, according to the ongoing trope, that is.

This is quite illogical though, because men naturally need more protein than women. If I had to split meat between my husband, me and children I'd do it in the logical order needed for us all to survive, and I'd hope/expect my husband to do the same

Well, that's right, and I'm not mentioning it as a defense of the practice. I only noted it because it stuck in my head years ago -- a woman I knew several years back when that movie first came out was very taken by that scene -- Russel Crowe's character came across as a real man, and that was how it should be, etc. Although I did not bring it up at the time, as my political discussions have a time and place, it occurred to me that Renee Zellweger's character did not give her meat tot he son. I would think that the mother would give half her meat to the boy and the father half his -- that would make more sense. The guy was off to the loading docks to toss 150 pound bags of stuff onto ships for 12 hours. While his gesture is certainly heartwarming in that he placed the wellbeing of a young child above his own -- it seemed strange overall.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, mothers are never expected to give anything of themselves to their children.

PS. You gonna eat that ham?

No, of course mothers are expected to give of themselves for their children. The point was that the man should do it first, and the man has the primary responsibility to save not only his children but his wife. The wife has to save the children, but not the husband. A man saved by his wife in a situation threatening them both is not a real man, according to the ongoing trope, that is.

So you reject the old patriarchal assumptions and values that attempt to shoehorn people into gender roles?

Generally speaking, yes, I do. That does not mean that I deny the existence of gender roles in our culture, or the existence of cultural norms. The question is the propriety of them, I suppose. And, when we are discussing feminism, in terms of the goal of equality for women, extant cultural gender norms are almost always at issue.

In my own life, I am trying to raise my little one to rise above gender norms. But, alas, she will live in the real world, and all sorts of "norms" will apply throughout our culture. Some apply already, as my wife She Who Must Be Obeyed is in favor of some of them. Girls should wear pretty little outfits and girly colors like pink and such, in her view. I have very little ability to impact that. Although as far as norms go, the fact that women often wear skirts and frilly stuff is not the worst. The ones I'm concerned about are the more substantive ones that effect her personal autonomy and notions of self-worth, etc.

The "norms" I want her to avoid are the ones advanced by Apelusters and such -- the "norm" that Apelusters advance, for example, that women are less able to say no to offers of wine and the flirtations of prominent men. That's a norm I don't want my little one ever embracing. She will be able to deal in a social context as equals, whether she's wearing pink or whether she is wearing blue.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, mothers are never expected to give anything of themselves to their children.

PS. You gonna eat that ham?

No, of course mothers are expected to give of themselves for their children. The point was that the man should do it first, and the man has the primary responsibility to save not only his children but his wife. The wife has to save the children, but not the husband. A man saved by his wife in a situation threatening them both is not a real man, according to the ongoing trope, that is.

This is quite illogical though, because men naturally need more protein than women. If I had to split meat between my husband, me and children I'd do it in the logical order needed for us all to survive, and I'd hope/expect my husband to do the same

Well, that's right, and I'm not mentioning it as a defense of the practice. I only noted it because it stuck in my head years ago -- a woman I knew several years back when that movie first came out was very taken by that scene -- Russel Crowe's character came across as a real man, and that was how it should be, etc. Although I did not bring it up at the time, as my political discussions have a time and place, it occurred to me that Renee Zellweger's character did not give her meat tot he son. I would think that the mother would give half her meat to the boy and the father half his -- that would make more sense. The guy was off to the loading docks to toss 150 pound bags of stuff onto ships for 12 hours. While his gesture is certainly heartwarming in that he placed the wellbeing of a young child above his own -- it seemed strange overall.

It was a movie.

The conservative households that I know don't operate that way. The man gets the most, as he is the one doing the heavy lifting. Without the man bringing home pay, the family gets nothing.

On the topic of movie memes, Ip Man comes to mind as another one like Cinderella Man. In fact, there's probably hundreds of movies that have used this meme.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, it was a movie, and popular movies tend to reflect cultural norms, or the general public's romanticized and idealized cultural norms. Women to the lifeboats before men, even in the 21st century, and all that.

[Robert_S]

Yes, it was a movie, and popular movies tend to reflect cultural norms, or the general public's romanticized and idealized cultural norms. Women to the lifeboats before men, even in the 21st century, and all that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first

[Cunt]

What if you don't dislike feminism but dislike anybody who demands you see things their way when they don't know what you see, and probably don't care.

Ah .. there is that.

I find it an extremely negative, dictatorial and, more often than not, uncomprehending brand of feminism.

If ignored, will it go away?

It's one of those things I think you have to be very careful and very precise when critiquing.

Just ask Cleese, Rowling or any of the other far-right nutbags who have dared criticise the new gendered feminism.

[Sean Hayden]

What, those rich guys? --my heart fukin' bleeds man.