|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just read the article and did not get the impression that DeCoster is promoting this concept. She states that boy are taught this, and makes no judgement about it. And it's sandwiched in with critisism of the radfems. To me the statement is a subtle critisism of traditional child raising (that radfems seem to think is OK).
IMO the review is generally positive. I'd be very careful about hammering anyone too quickly. I agree with way too much of what she wrote to pick on her. Please read it over closely.
I'll reread it but on first take I don't think it's an anti-male statement at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 16, @02:39PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the above post. It didn't sound to me like she was saying that females are superior moral beings. Rather, she was saying (as far as I could tell) that boys are taught that girls are superior moral beings.
I, for instance, believe that American culture holds that females are a higher form of moral being. I believe that boys are taught that females are a higher form of moral being. But I certainly don't believe that females are a higher form of moral being.
I hope I've explained this point clearly. Again, I do not believe that females are a higher form of moral being, only that we are taught that they are. (And teaching that to boys is a particularly insidious form of evil.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, I e-mailed Coster after I first read this post. I explained to her that I agreed with most of what she read, but that I wanted clarification of her meaning behind the "higher mortal being" statement. In effect, she said that she was attempting to explain how, throughout the centuries, women were held up as the origin of life, nurturers of children, and beings to be protected (of higher "mortality" perhaps? She did not say). I believe the above two posters are correct in their assumptions about her work.
Just in case, I did reply to her and explained my own reasons for questioning the line... that the holding up of women as higher mortal beings came from a more ignorant time, before science revealed that woman and man share equally in the creation of a child, and before society knew that men, as well, can be nurturers of children.
She's a friendly and intelligent person, via e-mail, at least. And my e-mail to her shows what can happen if one is polite (but firm) in one's activism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 16, @07:48PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Go get em Nightmist!
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 17, @09:43AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I spoke to the person and asked her about it. She was not very nice at all. I tried to be nice but got a very bad response. I won't email her again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's curious. Here's my entire exchange with her. What did you say to her and what were her replies?
-----
While I respect much of what you wrote in your review of Christina Hoff Sommers' "The War Against Boys," I must take issue with you labeling of women as men's superiors. No doubt, the sexes are different, but women are no more higher mortal beings to men than are men of a higher degree of justice and altruism (another popular notion).
Respect is an earned thing. No woman (nor man) is my superior being. I do wonder what led you to the conclusion that women are superior. Please inform me.
---------
you are misunderstanding meanings. "Superior" is your word, not mine. In the traditional patriarchal society, from ancient times onward, the view is this : Women are the origin of all things; the female is exalted above the male as the protected, precious species capable of giving birth and nurturing offspring. Patriarchal history, instead of
berating women from a perspective of sexism, is actually filled with examples of well-meaning idolatry of women, from Greek mythology to more modern times.
Best wishes,
Karen De Coster
--------
Thank you for the explanation. Even so, I disagree that women are higher mortal beings. Those sentiments come from more ignorant times, before biology revealed how human reproduction works (at least until science replaces sex).
Eggs from the female are fertilized by the male, and the female carries the child to term. While it could be argued that because woman carries the child and gives birth to the child that she is the child's "origin," the fact remains that half of the child's DNA (not to mention the determination of his or her sex) comes from the father (In direct contradiction with the belief that all human life starts out female, all embryos start out with the ducts to create either a female OR a male. It takes the Y chromosome to first create testes, and then the secretions from the testes to chart the course for the embryo to use the masculine ducts to develop into a male fetus).
As well, I must state that the vast number of stay-at-home dads populating the U.S. and other countries these days sheds light on the fact that woman is not the only being capable of nurturing a child.
Again, I agree with the majority of your review, but that one line just stuck in my craw. You write well, though. Keep it up.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
