Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I've got nothing to say.
[nothing that isn't heat]
Well, I might say that having just held my 14 week old nephew, the thought of him being torn away from his mother is an extremely serious one.
-
It’s quite depressing knowing my desire provokes discussion that equivocates it to the worst of humanity. Since when did discussion of heterosexual marriage lead to discussion of incest, marrying horses, poly whatever, and other scintillating titbits and innanities which in the end are nothing to do with heterosexual marriage? Or my wanting to marry my partner??
Yep. Let's drop the barriers to gay marriage tomorrow, and we can start talking about everything else the day after.
-
I've learned a little in this discussion. Thanks.
-
Paul, to the degree in which HIV/AIDS is now no longer exclusively a power relation (which it certainly was 10 years ago) and is slowly moving back into the realm of a less socially constructed disease, the analogy doesn't hold.
Whereas all the other examples that have been laid out are very much about power imbalances, and the right to self-definition and self empowerment.
-
I’m always reluctant to say more than a little on the subject – because of my views below…
But, for me the reason why men can’t/shouldn’t identity as feminists has to do with power. Patriarchy is about a power relation, rather than what anyone wears (even if particular forms of dress are used as tools of that oppression*), or even particular forms of behaviour** and for that reason men identifying as feminists (or co-opting feminist conversations about what feminism means) is a way of establishing/maintaining power.
Now, it may be that when a society is highly patriarchal it might help more than it hurts. But for me, having men say they support feminism and feminists has none of the costs and almost all of the benefits.
I’ll shut up again now.
*there being nothing inherently patriarchal about the dress itself.
**this being again power/contextually dependent (rape fantasies etc, as the far end of this wedge, with all the discussion that’s gone on about them) -
Because (speaking for myself), the patriarchy has for me always been a power relation. Women could be entirely naked, or patched up in head to toe, and it wouldn't matter. Both are equally real.
I do think that the male gaze is a real phenomenon - I didn't realise how real until I went into gay clubs with friends - but how it is negotiated is something different entirely. If there is liberation, then dress will be a function of much more. If there isn't, it signifies little more.
And for the record, the sight of a woman is something that gives me great joy. Can't speak for anyone else on that either.
-
I don't mean to speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to clarify your position Sally.
Are you saying dressing in certain ways upholds the patriarchy?
-
Mildly off topic, but worth sharing: "VD is catching". Absolutely hilarious poster from the 1970s.
-
I'm reading the Brash biography at the moment. Now that he's faded from public life, it's actually a surprising insight into the character of the man.
I'd read a Key biography, auto or otherwise.
-
Yeah, frankly, the internet has enough of men and women not talking with each other, we can do without segregated discussions.
Yeah, QFT. The women might hear me talking about my penis... (horror!).
Are there any good willy jokes?
I don't know, but this guy is certainly trying..