|
Author
|
Topic: The myth of the stereotypical feminist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alexandra Kitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14514
|
posted 16 October 2007 12:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Given the endless anti-feminist propaganda and stereotypes, the study was probably a useful public service for women, and many men, everywhere.
Doubt it. People who cling to stereotypes will dismiss this as liberal propaganda -- if they actually ever hear about it. And I find it fascinating that people assume that a big percentage of men don't already know it. A bit of reverse sexism to assume they don't, at any rate.
From: Hamilton, Ontario Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 17 October 2007 06:15 PM
(Back edited for clarity and documentation)Sineed asks if I think sexual orientation is a matter of choice. Hmmm... It seems to me that the very notion of "orientation" somewhat begs the issue, no? Also for something to be "a matter of" X (be it choice or biological "hard-wiring") eludes any model that would acknowledge BOTH influences, if such is the case. Empirically, my own experience is that of having been attracted to both genders. So some choice had/has to be involved -- if one dismisses the (unverifiable and therefore useless) hypothesis that one is "really" het or gay "deep inside", a view that can be validating but that can also cause suffering to people confronted with lack of respect for their feelings and choices. Empirically again, I have known many friends to cross over from one deeply held sexual preference to another, because of people they met and felt a deep attraction for or that they chose because of their qualities. Other folks identify or as labeled as "bisexual" or asexual, casting some doubt on how hard and fast is the notion of "sexual orientation" in the first place. But one can certainly understand how alleged or perceived LACK of choice has been used as a defense by gays and lesbians in a deeply homophobic society. Here is how this relates to the thread subject:
quote:
They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.
it feels to me as if these data validate a certain modicum of choice. If one can be feminist or not and make one's het partner more or less happy, one can presumably choose soulmate(s) for good reasons, including among either gender group, where most het people feel that they have no choice in this matter... and often feel "stuck with" suffering with a non-feminist, non-loving partner, for instance. It just seems to me intuitively that there is something both empowering and appreciative of one's partners in wearing a T-shirt that would state HETEROSEXUAL BY CHOICE or LESBIAN BY CHOICE or GAY BY CHOICE. On the political level, I wonder to what extent something like a "HET BY CHOICE" T-shirt would highlight and problematize (or, counterproductively, infirm) Adrienne Rich's conceptual breakthrough when she first identified "compulsory heterosexuality" in our society - a notion that has led to that of "heteronormativity"? (Just thinking aloud, as you see, and eager to hear your own feelings about these issues, Sineed and folks.) A tremendous essay: Adrienne Rich: Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence [ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708
|
posted 17 October 2007 06:18 PM
for some people its a hoice, for some it aint, IMHO. I asked a v. good friend who had just come out of the closet whether it was a choice once. He said, basically "are you kiddin? Why would I choose this? IE to be mocked, derided, insulted, etc., which is not to say he wasnt proud and activist about his orientation once he realized prayer and denial and wishing wasn't going to change reality or nature.I've also heard it said by gay friends tha, regardless of whether it is a choice or not, they are horrified at the prospect of science PROVING it is a matter of biological determinismfor some people. Such proof, they rightly fear, could be utilized by less enlightened souls in the service of selective eugenics programmes. On the other hand, of course, shitheads like Anita Bryant would say that its all a coice and, ergo, a sin. And then I've known radical lesbians, who, in their twenties, went so far as to advocate for sexual seperatism, and were furious at the thought that anyone would dare to suggest that they weren't "born that way." or that they were just "waiting for the right man." The catch is, some of these same militant women are now maried to men. So I would say "sometimes." But I still have no clue where Martin's non-sequitur comes from or its connection to the preceeding thread. Hey Martin. You highlighted these questions but never answered them: any women in your group, Martin?
any method whatsoever for getting input on your activities from women?
when was the last time you spoke to a woman? and
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
