of course
techchick68 wrote:
“Whoa” is me? Whassa matter, you’re galloping too fast?
The term “separate spheres” refers to one interperetation of gender roles in the Victorian Era.
Some historians posit that in the white, middle-class, 19th century American culture that we call “Victorian,” the idealized role for a woman was in the home. Her sphere was “the home,” where she concerned herself with her house and her family, and her main mode of political participation was raising her children to be good citizens. She was also supposed to create a safe domestic haven for her husband to retreat to. His sphere was the increasingly harsh and impersonal outside world. The spheres intersected, but the primary areas of concern were supposed to be distinct. It has nothing to do with separatism.
I think Icerigger was trying to say that certain present-day commentators seem to be proposing a return to the modal gender roles of the Victorian era.
-Bean
She was getting into that whole Paul Revere thing…
But about “history”…a lot of people seem to think that “history” is names, dates, places. In that respect, in American history, we are going to get more information about white (presumed) heterosexual males. But it’s also legitimate to study (for lack of a better term) “minority” history, the history of social groups, of subcultures, of the traditionally disempowered (including women). For a long time, these threads of history were largely ignored in favor of “majority” history. It’s only been fairly recently that widespread attention has been paid to the minority. It appears that the writers of various history textbooks are trying to incorporate women into the broader historical picture, which IMHO is a good thing. Is discovering a comet less important than discovering the theory of relativity? Sure, but there are a lot of other sources for information on Einstein. Is three pictures of Civil War nurses excessive without a picture of Sherman? Perhaps, but what does the text say about Sherman vs the Civil War nurses? I don’t think it’s real, fair to blame “feminists” for believing it’s important to include the contributions of women to history in the teaching of history. As for using invalid or falsified statistics, that’s reprehensible regardless of who is doing it. It’s as bogus when done by feminists about the number of anorexics as it is when done by Rush about the number of acres of forest in America.
Green Bean wrote:
Probably they are. But it’s worth noting that feminists are also under the influence of this same model of gender roles, which rests on the assumption that women are moral nurturers while men are vicious aggressors.
Hmmm. I think some feminists see men as “vicious agressors”–but not all feminists feel this way. If a “feminist” is willing to lump all men into a category, then she is just as much of a sexist as the men she deplores.
My feminism is based on a belief that we shouldn’t make assumptions about people’s personalities, abilites, desires, or opinions based on their gender. It is sometimes difficult to to stop ourselves from doing this–but, heck, we sure can try.
Green Bean wrote:
That’s one of the problems, actually. There is a great deal of work done in feminism to shore up stereotypes of both sexes – the very same stereotypes that you would think they would try to get rid of. This is one of Sommers’ bones of contention.
Johnny-
It seems that you are referring to “feminism” as one set philosophy, and “feminists” as a group with unified opinions. “Feminism” is not one thing. Different feminists have different opinions, agendas, and ideas. There are many people whose opinions are, to me, reprehensible, but who call themselves “feminist.” To lump us all in together is unfair and inaccurate.
But I am not telling you anything that you do not already know (I hope!)
-Bean, who is not a Professional Feminist, but who will be one soon.
Green Bean wrote:
Right, and it’s a common mistake to lump them together. I think if you look at my posts you’ll find that I try not to suggest that any of the various feminist viewpoints are universal, even where I point out general trends whose existences are worth noting.
Oh yeah–absolutely. But some of your more recent posts on this thread implied otherwise–you goshdarn vicious aggressive MAN! I’ll bet you are cooking up some technological conspiracy theories right now…
Aw, heck. I meant “technological conspiracies!”
No, no. I assure you I can only conspire against one woman at a time. However, at the last meeting of the Fraternal Order of Patriarchal Opressors (FOPO), they announced some exciting new e-oppression technology that’s supposed to allow me to keep women down from across the world with the click of a mouse.
Dammit! Where’s Techchick when you need her?
Part of the problem is, some of the more vociferous feminists (e.g. the Dworkinites) DO want others to believe that their version of feminism is the “one universal” form of feminism.
Sorta like how Fundamentalists want others to believe that they represent all Christians.
Here’s another problem: yes, without question students can find oodles of sources other than their textbooks for learning about Einstein-- but I can say with total certitude that 96% of them won’t. The battles over textbooks are important because the vast majority of students will discover nothing more about the topics these texts cover. I agree that textbooks should expand their coverage to include the perspectives of those who weren’t elite, married, European-descended males. But what’s appropriate isn’t an exaggeration of the lasting importance of this or that woman (for example), but a rigorous examination of the social history of different periods. In the long run it’s much more important for students to understand fully what prevented more female/African/etc “great figures” from arising in the first instance, and how little the changes at the “great figure” level often affected the lives of most of the world’s inhabitants.
I have actually heard women try to make
the claim that all men are evil by nature.
I’ve even heard one “liberal” man in a
political speech making the same claim in
an attempt to sway a feminist audience,
which was the most pathetic thing I
have ever seen. Some people are really
desperate for attention I guess.
But about the man-hating women (funny how
there’s no term for that like misogynist–
perhaps female chauvanist is it),
you have to acknowledge the humor in
watching an extremist play their childish
game. It’s like watching some wannabe tough
kid from the ghetto. They don’t want
a response to “all men are nasty”. They want
to shock you into silence.
You see they’re deathly afraid of an
intelligent response, because it’s so easy
to cast their claims aside. If responding
by saying that “only idiots make sweeping
generalizations” doesn’t phase such a
person, you can just note to them that
they’re condemning 3 billion fellow
humans when they probably have only known
100-200 males at all well in your life,
if that. Some haven’t known any,
at least not masculine men anyway.
Which isn’t a surprise, because most
feminists refuse to be feminine 
It’s like the joke about women who see
phalluses (phalli) in every mundane object.
They see 'em because they never get anywhere
near a dick and it’s driving them crazy,
they just don’t know it. Some people are
just too stupid to realize they’re stupid.
They live around people who are just as
ignorant. That’s the problem with tribalism,
which is what feminism is essentially,
everyone in the tribe can be completely
out to lunch, it’s called groupthink.
Anyway I think it’s time that feminism
got back on track with the standard leftist
idea of equality in pay, education, etc.
Or maybe that’s a humanist thing, which
is like leftism without any teeth.
For, like all things that drift toward the
right wing, feminism has become just
a bit loopy.
Don’t agree? Reply!
e999@excite.com
I have actually heard women try to make
the claim that all men are evil by nature.
I’ve even heard one “liberal” man in a
political speech making the same claim in
an attempt to sway a feminist audience,
which was the most pathetic thing I
have ever seen. Some people are really
desperate for attention I guess.
But about the man-hating women (funny how
there’s no term for that like misogynist–
perhaps female chauvanist is it),
you have to acknowledge the humor in
watching an extremist play their childish
game. It’s like watching some wannabe tough
kid from the ghetto. They don’t want
a response to “all men are nasty”. They want
to shock you into silence.
You see they’re deathly afraid of an
intelligent response, because it’s so easy
to cast their claims aside. If responding
by saying that “only idiots make sweeping
generalizations” doesn’t phase such a
person, you can just note to them that
they’re condemning 3 billion fellow
humans when they probably have only known
100-200 males at all well in your life,
if that. Some haven’t known any,
at least not masculine men anyway.
Which isn’t a surprise, because most
feminists refuse to be feminine
It’s like the joke about women who see
phalluses (phalli) in every mundane object.
They see 'em because they never get anywhere
near a dick and it’s driving them crazy,
they just don’t know it. Some people are
just too stupid to realize they’re stupid.
They live around people who are just as
ignorant. That’s the problem with tribalism,
which is what feminism is essentially,
everyone in the tribe can be completely
out to lunch, it’s called groupthink.
Anyway I think it’s time that feminism
got back on track with the standard leftist
idea of equality in pay, education, etc.
Or maybe that’s a humanist thing, which
is like leftism without any teeth.
For, like all things that drift toward the
right wing, feminism has become just
a bit loopy.
Don’t agree? Reply!
e999@excite.com
The term for someone who hates men specifically is misandrist.
[understatement]There are other mistakes in your post, too.[/understatement]
–John