I'm engaged

News for discussion
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: US

Post by megapulse » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:08 pm

"Well, I think the point here is do YOU define it that way? I can well see people taking this stance back when women couldn't own land and have jobs and blah blah blah but today it just doesn't make much sense to me."

absolutely agreed on this.

"a feminist cannot get married is a common stance.
many feminists do actually define it that way"

wish tommy was here with a great lemming response.

also please see the major feminists' views that i posted in this thread about marriage. they were married. they didn't want to be not married they wanted equality with their f-ing mates.


see tommy is a stay at home dad
see hubby is going to be too

see the song daughter -- she holds the hand that holds her down -- sometimes it's a hand that writes a false /one sided definition of the past in terms of being a victim

emma goldman, an anarchist and a feminist who kicked ass -- howard zinn wrote her play fyi -- he's married. not sure if he's a feminist. :)

"Anyway, I'm glad to hear you have a place to live for September and a job, that is great. I'm also glad you have survived the insanity of the power outages out there."

also, absolutely agreed. :)

Mile High Club
Posts: 3542
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 9:01 am
Location: Timbuk 4

Post by marky » Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:35 pm

also please see the major feminists' views that i posted in this thread about marriage. they were married. they didn't want to be not married they wanted equality with their f-ing mates.
When I read this I think man, if this isn't a prelude to an episode at the pub, I don't know what is. Everything about it seems to give the vibe "let's go down to the local pub right now"

User avatar
Swedish Sloth
Posts: 2540
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 1997 8:01 am
Location: Stockholm

Post by Sloth » Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:26 am

Sorry Marky for saying sorry marky. Sometimes I post without reading the whole thread... espcially when I am on vacation and paying by the minute for internet access at some cafe.

Feminists saying that 'feminists cannot get married' is not feminism so much as totalitarianism. If other feminists want to say, "don't get married in a church because churches are anti-feminist" than that would be okay.

Here are some other ones:

- Black people cannot be republicans

- Jews cannot support Hezbullah

- One cannot make vanilla flavored chocolate

- Martino cannot quit the bb of bb for forever twice

- Hippies are no allowed to be gay

I was married in a civil service, not a church, so that makes it okay for me to still be a feminist, right?

Will the governing council of feminism please enlighten me?
Pixie? What kind of person loses internet access for a whole month in 2006? Are you sure you are from Missouri and not Arkansas?

Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: US

Post by megapulse » Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:45 pm

right so here's the long explanation to the feminist question.

to answer your question and expound on the half truth that pixie has presented. there are several named forms of feminism. the original feminsists of the 60's who you may or may not be familiar with -- i was in high school b/c of my sociology courses, were Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer, to name two there were definitely others. They are known today as liberal feminsits. They did not believe as feminists that marriage was wrong. Just as earlier feminists did not believe it was wrong. Then along came Kate Millet in the 70's and a book entitled sexual politics, enter the new feminists, gender feminists, these folks do not agree with marriage. It is not a FEMINIST view that marriage is wrong -- it is the thought of one school of feminist thinkers in the united states. below is the website that explains this schism in feminism, and it's why years ago i told sloth and his wife i'm not a feminist and i don't like the term -- i do not like what has happened to feminism.


Feminist Views of Marriage and the Family

Within feminism, the discussion of marriage has shifted over the past few decades.

Virtually all feminists share a belief that men and women experience the family in totally different ways. This is not a biological truism; it is a statement of political and economic fact. For centuries, marriage laws favored men to such a degree that a wife could often be involuntarily committed to a mental institution on her husband's signature. Even after marriage laws had been reformed, the institution itself seemed to favor men, for example, in the distribution of housework.

But [/b]liberal feminists view marriage as salvageable, as an institution that needs reform rather than elimination.[/b]

The liberal feminist critique of the family began in the 60's, with Betty Friedan's pivotal work The Feminine Mystique (1963). Friedan argued that American women of that era were enslaved by domesticity and defined by their roles as mother and wife. Although she called the family a 'comfortable concentration camp', Friedan's goal was not to eliminate marriage. She merely wanted women to insist on more from life, for them to reach outside of marriage for fulfillment.

Years later, when some feminists used Friedan's theories to argue for abolishing the family, however, she wrote a second work The Second Stage (1981). Here, she explained that her theories had been misunderstood. Gender feminists were taking her criticisms much farther than she had intended them to go. Friedan asked for a reconsideration of marriage. She pleaded for feminists to move away from anti-family rhetoric and back to a dialogue that addressed the needs of most women, who were wives and mothers. She called for a humanistic evolution that would enrich the institution of the family by including the needs and desires of men in the picture. Betty Friedan represents the liberal feminist point of view.

Interestingly, another pioneer in woman's liberation has felt the need to publish a second book to defend the concept of 'family: namely, Germaine Greer. In the '70s, Greer, with her outrageous behavior and shocking language, declared a guerrilla war against dependency on men.

Greer called for the revolutionary breakdown of sex roles. She encouraged women to be promiscuous and otherwise sexually adventurous. She claimed that women have no idea of how much men hate them. Greer recounted stories of gang rape and brutality, and seemed to consider such violence to be the norm between men and women. Her solution: women should refuse to marry. If they do marry, they should refuse be monogamous or to accept the 'trappings' of marriage such as the husband's last name, a shared tax return, a wedding ring.... Equally, women should reject their role as consumers in a capitalist society.

Despite this gender rhetoric, however, Greer was not clear in her condemnation of the family. Nor was she unsympathetic to men, whom she considered to be fellow victims of the system. Instead, Greer wanted to replace the status quo with what she called an 'organic family'.

In a later book, however, [/b]Greer forthrightly defends a more traditional version of the family. She accepts the idea that a husband, wife and children constitute the basic familial unit.

The liberal ideal of 'equal marriage' -- in which men and women equally share responsibilities,[/b] including housework -- has been dismissed by gender feminists. In her essay "The Many Faces of Backlash", Florence Rush jettisons the concept of 'human liberation' on the grounds that male liberation has no historical basis. Rush considers liberals who espouse such ideals to be traitors. Their support...

"...is deceptive and far more insidious, and has taken an enormous toll. Many women find it hard to resist the promise of a caring, equal relationship with a sympathetic man."
The truly radical assault on the family began with Kate Millett's book Sexual Politics (1970). Although Millett's views were extreme, she presented them in a dispassionate and well researched manner that lent her credibility. In dealing with male/female relations ('sexual politics'), Millett dwelt almost obsessively on pornography and sado-masochistic literature, rather than on love, motherhood or successful marriages. To her, pornography seemed to epitomize the male/female relationship. And in attacking sexual politics, Millett attacked the entire structure of power in society; that is, patriarchy. Marriage was the agency that maintained the traditional pattern of man's power over woman.
Millett's theories were followed up and fleshed out by such extreme voices as Shulamith Firestone, Susan Brownmiller, and Ti Atkinson. As the edifice of gender ideology was constructed, it began to have an impact on the mainstream of feminism. Gender feminist Catharine MacKinnon described the shift from liberalism to the anti-marriage point of view. This was a change from desiring equality to demanding equity:

"Then [after liberal feminism], there was a women's movement that criticized...war as male ejaculation. It criticized marriage and the family as institutional crucibles of male privilege....Some criticized sex, including the institution of intercourse, as a strategy and practice in subordination."
The titles of popular feminist books from the early movement underscore the schism between gender feminists and women who chose domesticity. A partial list reads: Jill Johnston's Lesbian Nation (1973), which called heterosexual females 'traitors'; Kate Millett's Sexual Politics (1970), which redefined heterosexual sex as a power struggle; Kathrin Perutz's Marriage is Hell (1972); and Ellen Peck's The Baby Trap (1971), which argued that babies block liberation. The ideological message was clear: the personal is political, marriage is legalized prostitution; heterosexual intercourse is rape; men are the enemy; families are prisons.
When domesticity was not being torn to political shreds, it was ignored. For example, the popular anthology Sisterhood is Powerful contains 74 essays. Only one had anything to do with motherhood. Apparently this was not an issue that uniquely concerns women.

Background of Gender Feminism's Analysis of Marriage

Gender Feminist Catharine MacKinnon describes the shift from the liberal view marriage, family and heterosexual sex: Gender feminists' scorn for marriage and the family has not only distanced them from liberals, but from the majority of women who have chosen marriage and motherhood.

What are the specifics of gender feminism's theory of marriage?

Gender feminists consider marriage to be an involuntary state, in which women have the status of chattel. To them, marriage and the family are inextricably bound up with private property, the class structure, and the mode of production. In other words, the family is an aspect of capitalism. Much of this analysis rests on Marxist theory, especially the work of Friedrich Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto.

He argued that the oppression of women sprang from the nuclear family. But Engels -- much quoted by Kate Millett, a pioneer of gender theory -- was contemptuous of the notion that the family had subordinated women throughout history. Instead he placed the blame firmly on the shoulders of capitalism, which had destroyed the prestige of women within the family

Mile High Club
Posts: 3542
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 9:01 am
Location: Timbuk 4

Post by marky » Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:27 pm

This is all very interesting but I would like to know what marriage looks like from the standpoint of Erica Jong's Fear of Flying, that was a great, supposedly feminist milestone book that I read in me senior year of high school in 1989. Was she against marriage? I didn't read it because I was *told* to in school, I read it cause it happened to be there. I was part of this new pilot project for a high school for troubled kids, see and they got all this money to do it and bought all these paperback books, man that mostly people ignored but not me. So there was this room full of paperback books, right. And I used to go there and make copies of old NME articles on the Fall and The Cocteau Twins. Anyways, that's when I read some stuff that actually turned out to be influencers of Nietzsche like Schopenhauer (a feminist's nightmare to be sure) and Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther" of some young guy who kills himself. Also I was listening to Jane's Addiction back then - "Nothing's Shocking" anyone know that album? That is fucking amazing - heard the song "Jane Says" at the Scottish pub some weeks back, really great stuff. Very few American things are that good. Anyway....

So was Erica Jong against marriage? It was a great book she wrote.

Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: US

Post by megapulse » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:15 pm

mark this is interesting, imo. especially your high school involvement in class -- it's really cool. personally i think high schoolers are the brilliant untapped minds of america, once we get to college it all goes down hill b/c kids learn how to kow tow for a grade and a job and start to spew someone else's rhetoric. a lot of teens aren't like you were but there is something about the ones who like to discover things that is so pure . . . you know, not for a grade. that's really cool about you and the books. i like that story.

i wouldn't say erica jong isn't against marriage, that i know of. she's married. jong is one of her husband's last names. i just looked it up, okay, if she's against marriage she has an odd way of showing it: "Jong has been married four times"

fear of flying is great, so is the poetry in the book fruits and vegetables. she's funny, she's brilliant, and she's sexy. really, how can you not like erica jong? now i want to be reading fruits and vegetables -- really i do -- it is the kind of poetry that makes me go wow, i want to write poetry!

i am trying to think of what i was listening to in 89 it seems like that was part of a black hole in music for me.

User avatar
Tommy Martyn
Mile High Club
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:01 am
Location: a desk

Post by Tommy Martyn » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:05 am

FYI I used to see Germaine Greer all the time at college. She was probably in her 50's then. She had great legs. She used to wear short skirts. Perversely, she had nothing to to do with the politics lot. She was (still is as far as I know) part of the English faculty.

At college I got involved with a Canadian woman who was doing a Phd in feminist theory. Her hero was Carol Gilligan. I went to some of her seminars. Is she still big news in feminist theory?

Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: US

Post by megapulse » Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:11 pm

i have no idea about carol gilligan, maybe pixie knows. what was her seminar about?

my hero is actually a black female who calls herself an activist and mother, not a feminist. she was recently carted off by the cops in philadelphia and i think new york city too for protesting the war at a recruitment office, she's a poet named sonya sanchez -- maya angelou once said the world would be a better place if more people knew her, and i believe maya angelou was right.

this conversation is really timely b/c the feminists author Linda Hirshman who wrote Get to Work was on the Colbert Report recently and the hubby and i were not impressed. I actually like what she has to say in the book, but had to look it up online because she did such a piss poor job of explaining it on the show.

On the show, she stated that women should work because it gives them "the power" and it is the "right" thing to do. Then she did not explain how it was the right thing, why it was the right thing, or what kind of power they got from working. It was an unsubstantiated statement that she made repeatedly making her look more like Jerry Falwell than a professor of philosophy, embarrassing. Of course, in her defense most folks on that show look like they are about to have a nervous breakdown and she did not. She just sounded like a person who has no way of explaining something in terms of logic.

Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: US

Post by megapulse » Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:02 pm

whoops, maya angelou may be right but i was wrong

the quote about sonIa sanchez is "this world is a better place because of sonia sanchez."

here's part of one of her poems. i think it ties nicely into the song quote from mark in the other thread, what's so funny about peace love and understanding?

Poem for July 4, 1994

This is the time for the creative
Man. Woman. Who must decide
that She. He. Can live in peace.
Racial and sexual justice on
this earth.

This is the time for you and me.
African Americans. Whites. Latinos.
Gays. Asians. Jews. Native
Americans. Lesbians. Muslims.
All of us must finally bury
the elitism of race superiority
the elitism of sexual superiority
the elitism of economic superiority
the elitism of religious superiority . . .

Come, come, come, move out into this world
nourish your lives with a
spirituality that allows us to respect
each other's birth.
come, come, come nourish the world where
every 3 days 120,000 thousand children die
of starvation or the effects of starvation;
come, come, come, nourish the world
where we will no longer hear the
screams and cries of women, girls,
and children in Bosnia, El Salvador,
Rwanda . . .ahahahahAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHH
Ma-ma. Dada. Mamacita. Baba.
Mama. Papa. Momma. Poppi.
The soldiers are marching in the streets
near the hospital but the nurses say
we are safe and the soldiers are
laughing marching firing calling
out to us i don't want to die i
am only 9 yrs old and i cannot
get out of bed because they have cut
off one of my legs and i hear the soldiers
coming toward our rooms and i hear
the screams and the children are
running out of the room i can't get out
of the bed i don't want to die Don't
let me die Rwanda. America. United
Nations. Don't let me die . . .

User avatar
Mile High Club
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:19 am
Location: St. Louis, MO

Post by TragicPixie » Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:04 am

kind of have internet. it's slow and still need to get things done before school monday - back soon, I swear... I think anyway.

I am at least alive.
Lie to me, it takes less time to drink you pretty.