Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
They grapple with the question that, up until now, was not allowed to be stated.
Disturbingly, some grapple with it by finding elaborate ways to dismiss it. But an idea truly worthy of dismissal, could be managed in some other way. Most tragic is this argument that, since every woman has a father, a woman who truly hates men would be hating part of herself, and such a thing would be clearly impossible since it’s a contradiction.
A contradiction it is, yes. You can tell by the way such women behave. Apprehensive, twitchy, grouchy and mean. Whoever said contradictions were automatically and everlastingly expurgated from human affairs? Especially belligerent, omni-potent, omni-present and omni-confrontational political movements?
I have a theory about this. My theory is that I can convince any woman, anywhere, anytime, any fine lady you care to pick out for me, that feminism is hatred…or at the very least, that it has the capacity for this. All I need is some magic way of temporarily changing sex in a human, and a time machine. I’d turn them into men and transport them to the late 1970’s to walk around there for six months. Just walk around in the shoes, sister.
See, we don’t remember anymore how shrill the rhetoric was back then. Men had to give up “the power” — not some of it, but all of it. There was no talk about moderation, as you would have to have nowadays. Politicians weren’t that clever just yet…this was just post-Watergate. The talk was about a trading-of-places. We’d been oppressing women “for five thousand years” and it was their “turn” now. There was talk of seats on a bus, that MEN had been in FRONT and WOMEN had been in BACK and it was TIME for the WOMEN to sit in FRONT and for MEN to sit in the BACK so things would be evened out across time. There wasn’t any stigma about being an extremist in anything, and no glory in being a moderate about anything; too many baby-boomers running around, and young people don’t see the occasional wisdom in such a thing. It was all about whose turn it was.
They said, back then, what a lot of organized minority groups would like to say now if they could, but can’t. Gettin’-even-with’em-ism. It was out front-and-center in full force. Men are pigs; oh yeah, maybe not all men, but the ones that aren’t, are acceptable as collateral damage.
It was also pre-Clinton. Feminist had not yet been caught defending the most powerful male chauvinist pig the world had ever known. And so, since they hadn’t been embarrassed that way just yet, they were still powerful. They had real power. You couldn’t do anything without making the feminists happy, or at least satisfying them to the point where they’d leave you alone for a little while. And if you made them unhappy, you were a pariah. They’d get you.
Everyone, who was anyone, who made any decisions of any importance whatsoever, thought about the feminists. What might tick ’em off, what was “sure” not to. And if you could transport someone wrestling with the “feminist hate group” question back there, or transport that era back up here to the girl grappling with the question…the answer would be completely obvious. Feminists had a vision for men. It was a unified vision. And it was pretty far away from an equalizing one. They were already using the word “equal” in their slogans, yeah, but equality wasn’t what it was about. Not to the ones who were making the decisions about where the feminist movement would be going next. It was about grabbing that seat — demoting the “boys” to second-fiddle status, so we could find out what it’s like. And, to a lot of them, it still is about exactly that…even though a lot of ’em weren’t even born yet back then.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
OT, but… regarding this: I’d turn them into men and transport them to the late 1970’s to walk around there for six months.
I don’t want a sex change, thankyaverymuch, but PLEASE give me a call when you perfect the time machine. I’ll take ANY year between 1975 and 1980, even if it’s only for six months. That was the absolute BEST period of my life, feminism and all. Maybe even especially feminism. Since I don’t think you were “of an age” to truly appreciate one of the bennies of feminism for us MCPs, let me remind you: that being the fact women felt free to hit on guys. Well, some did, anyhoo. And, hard as it might be to believe, some of ’em actually hit on ME, God Love ’em.
Cue up Archie and Edith… {sigh}
- Buck | 01/07/2009 @ 13:50