| Subject: Re: Women's Movement column |
Author:
Jung!
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:10:18 03/28/03 Fri
In reply to:
Carmen
's message, "Re: Women's Movement column" on 10:30:44 03/28/03 Fri
First, thank you for suggestions for further research, I like many others are always looking to broaden my horizons, and I particularly welcome works that challenge my currently-held viewpoints; for how else are we to know whether those viewpoints can hold up?
Secondly - I don't condone any form of women being "lower" then men, and I can't speak to various other cultures (A - because I don't belong to them and B - because this column takes Amerian society as its focus), but I'm not so sure a cultural norm of women lower than Men EVER existed on a societal level in the United States. Household to household is one thing; I'm sure in some pockets of population, women were seen as property. Ther are other pockets of population that don't adhere to the dollar as legal tender. You know, it takes all kinds. What we do know is that over time, certain roles evolved some of which were held more by women, some more by men. How do we know those roles were wrong? Could it be possible that inherently men are better at some things, and women better at others, and that all of those things add up to benefit everyone in society as a whole? Where does the attitude of trying to make everythign unisex or feminized come from? Also, I'm afraid I don't understand the statement "a society based on male thinking patterns." Please elaborate. Also, I think it's obvious that today's version of the "movement" is heinously anti-male. I can't count the instances of male bashing or anti-male language or attitudes that I encounter in real life and especially in pop culture. Every time I point an isntance out to a woman, the answer is usually "well that's what you get for centuries of treating us like crap!" Is this really the attitude of the enlightened feminist because it doesn't sound very enlightened to me.
Lastly - please don't accuse Jung On Cue of employing any sort of "methodology." If you'll look back over the articles, you'll notice I am careful not to use a siteable source, or any kind of fact that could be challenged. Yes, Lou Larsen's column had some, but he was a guest and I'm not going to tell him how to write.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 