|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 15, @11:00AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I have to admit, she is notorious for wanting to define the nearest man's feelings and experiences (is that female privilege? maybe) if there's one thing we need to do, it's to stop women like her thinking they can change the nearest man's life story to suit her, I don't see why the nearest man should make her disfunction work.
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that the Globe even published something that wasn't full of misandry is amazing.
Cathy Young did a great job of pointing out the implications of war on both sexes - something the media cares not to look at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 15, @06:28PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I fail to see how you got that interpretation out of this column. I fail to see how she's changing any story to suit herself. She's stating a simple fact, that the Taliban committed atrocities against all its people, men and women.
Would you be happier if she said that the Taliban terrorized only women, and that men were having a ball over there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 15, @06:46PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not denying what you're saying, but you need to stop and think.
For example, take her book "Ceasefire!" it gives a image that men have been just as much attacking women marginalising them and insulting them etc but Feminists have been attacking men's rights for decades, and since a few men now fight back its suddenly 50% men's fault? That's not just ridiculous but dangerously unjust.
She does write things like that, I'm just saying what I see and warning you about it, but if you don't want to know that's fine by me.
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not to say that...women under the Taliban haven't been any more oppressed than men. Surely it matters that under the radical Islamic regime, only men are regarded as full-fledged members of the community and women are effectively barred from public space.
So, in other words, the extent to which a particular class is "oppressed" is determined largely by what explanation the government gives for this particular class being treated as such. Men could actually suffer more than women, and have fewer freedoms and rights - but so long as this suffering takes place in the written and spoken context of first-class citizenship, it is not "true" oppression? And women could be coasting through life like aristocrats - yet still command oppressed status just because of the insulting explanation given for why they are so privileged?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not denying what you're saying, but you need to stop and think.
I did do some thinking about this the last time Camille Paglia was referred to here and there was discussion that her support of men might be a double-edged sword. Cathy Young came to mind at that time.
There does seem to be at least one thing in each of her columns that gives me pause. For instance, she doesn't seem to be able to talk about Warren Farrell without the term "whining" rearing its ugly head.
I think we have to realize that these women, or any woman who becomes interested in men's rights, cannot help but have a strong opinion of what men are or should be like. It is that dissonance between their desire/perception/experience of men and what "society" is telling us about them that leads them (and us, for that matter) to speak out or become involved.
They have a vested interest in men and men's roles, as do all women. Mixed in with a desire for fairness and goodwill toward men is a natural desire to push male/female relations toward the ideal that was strong enough to get them involved in the first place. Their ideal is not necessarily my ideal or those of other men.
When all is said and done though, I would be pleased if the burning issues of the day were the differences between me and Cathy Young. At the moment she is certain helping to heat up the issues between MANN and N.O.W. and I appreciate her for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 16, @02:17PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the same thing can be said about men. Most men also have strong ideas about what women are like, and what they should be like.
The thing that bothers me about Warren Farrell is that he talks very negatively about fatherhood, about how it costs tons of money, and about how when you become a father it means flushing your dreams and aspirations down the toilet and living in perpetual misery, tethered to some brat, but at the same time he never mentions the option to be childfree. Not only does he paint fatherhood as awful, he tells men they have no choice but to subject themselves to the horrors of parenthood. To me, it sounds like he's telling men who clearly don't want kids that they must have them anyway.
This ties in with what I said about most men's perception of women. Most men think all women can't wait to have children, and that unless they agree to have kids, they can forget about ever having a mate. Yet on childfree message forums, the majority of the posters are women. The reality is that a man who doesn't want children is not doomed to either have them or remain mateless. It is fully possible to find a woman who shares his distaste for parenthood.
This is only one example.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
