I think that feminism is a good thing, and I value what I learn from it. But I had to give up on Feministe.
I rarely enjoyed reading it, but I continued because I thought it had something important to say to me. Okay, I'd have to filter out the gratuitious vulgarities, as I do with other sites that think fucking is a suitable modifying adverb and adjective, but I'd read the rest. From it, I'd get at least a sense of what the world looks like from the other side of Gender Gulch. Not all the answers or the right attitudes are on my side. Sometimes, none of them are.
Then I read this, in an article there about the death of Estelle Getty, of The Golden Girls:
Where else have you seen a popular sitcom (or any show) that revolves around women who actually kind of look like average women, who aren’t young and fabulous and beautiful, who have interests other than finding male companionship, who put their female friendships first, and who have sex after menopause?
...and I thought wait a minute.... Because, turn that sentence around and see how it sounds. Where else have you seen a popular sitcom (or any show) that revolves around men who actually kind of look like average men , who aren’t young and fabulous and handsome, who have interests other than finding female companionship, who put their male friendships first, and who have sex after menopause? Okay, the menopause reference doesn't fit. But the rest? If a guy had said it, the concept would have come across as stupid, even arrogant. Put their female friendships first? Its only one clause in the sentence, but it grated on me. Added to the vulgarities (and I'm not a prig, honest), I thought: I don't need this.
So I ditched it. I'll have to get my feminism elsewhere, I guess.
13 comments:
Yeah, a certain strain of the feminists would probably hate me a lot, even though I do consider myself feminist in a lot of my beliefs. However, I don't hate men. And so many feminists (not all, but many) seem to harbor a resentment or desire to exclude men. Or they seem to resent men who have the ability to take control and be the head of the house.
Not me. Give me a man's man that I can depend on. I don't want to have to babysit him.
Ok, I'll stop now. I write about this enough on my on blog. I won't hijack yours ;-)
I don't know a lot of women who consider themselves feminists, but my impression is that most of them, certainly the younger ones, don't hate guys. But those who do, for whatever reason, do seem to want to exclude or denigrate them.
To be honest, I'm not sure that *I* would be what you wanted, as I'm not a dominating person. I rely on my wife a lot - sometimes to take charge herself, sometimes to acquiesce when I do. To me, thats what the sharing part of marriage is all about. If someone WANTS to have the other be dominant, and they're cool with that, then fine. I just wouldn't be comfortable with having to be that, all the time. Don't think I could do that.
Don't worry about hijacking.
Oh, there's nothing wrong with sharing the being in charge part. But I'm sure your wife knows that she can depend on you...knows that no matter what, you're there for her. THAT's what I mean, Bill. That's a dominant man. Even when the woman is leading, he's still strong enough to let her do it when the time is right.
Hmm...I see the difference. I thought that you meant dominant as in dominant/submissive (perhaps not strictly, but generally), and that, I couldn't do. But the way you describe it, sure, no problem. Which is good, as the other way, I'm pretty sure I'd have to get a heavy black leather jacket with studs, and drink beer a lot, and I don't really want to do that. Now, a soft leather jacket, light brown, with a decent Merlot -- that might be doable (g).
Oh no...no BDSM...(or maybe just light and fun)...but still, not bondage, but just the D/s side.
It's more an emotional thing than an actual bondage thing. Usually the things are totally short term and acted out. They don't usually affect the whole relationship.
I've found that the ones who are all vocal, bold and bragging, big bad-ass leather types rarely know how to actually have a relationship without domineering. They're just all show. There's a difference between being dominant and domineering...sort of like being confident and having the right to be, or being arrogant and absolutely nothing to back it up with.
I believe I've heard that sort of person referred to as 'All hat, no cattle'.
Excactly
I was telling my wife about your comments regarding BDSM, this evening, and apropos of them, a bumper sticker I saw once came to mind:
Sticks and Stones
May Break My Bones
But Whips and Chains Excite Me!
A-hahahahahah :)
I'm still more of the mental D/s person instead of full on BDSM. Chains are not bad...whips, nah, not me... but a well placed riding crop can be nice ;-)
and Ohmygod, what your wife must think of me, Bill!
Actually, she thinks nice things about you, because I do. She trusts me.
LOL!
I actually packed up reading Feministe a while ago; I think the writer(s) produce the same stuff, occasionally using different words.
Feminism isn't about being "better than men" - it's about being equal to them! But that little bit seems to tick off the contemporary feminist.
I sense a blog post coming on... :-)
Carolyn Ann
A blog post coming on? Run away, run away!!!
Post a Comment