Right, why is why "can't google" isn't necessarily the problem - a lot of this is going to be "but what do you mean by that word / in this context?"
― Andrew Farrell, Monday, 13 February 2012 14:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
the funniest iphone autocorrect i've seen is changing "sexting" to "destiny" :/
― first period don't give a fuck, second period gon get cut (lex pretend), Monday, 13 February 2012 14:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah but there's a difference between "who is Dale Spender" and "what do you mean by kierarchy in this context" - happy to discuss the latter. Not so much the former.
I dunno, "cultural essentialist" seemed to be the opposite/corollary of "biological essentialist" and didn't really need clarification? But I guess maybe we should touch on how there are two (opposing?) schools of thought saying gender difference is the result of nature or nurture. Obv almost all arguments of this kind are at their heart an and/both proposition not an either/or.
But the biggest difference is that the Cultural crew believe that this stuff is nurture - and therefore can be changed and the Biological crew think this is impossible (and maybe even "against nature") to try to strive for gender equality
(see if you can guess which side I'm on, huh?)
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 14:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
if anyone is going to continue to insist that gender is a ~biological~ thing, I'm going to treat them like a climate change denier, and just not engage with nonsense.
biological gender IS a thing, and anyone who continues to insist that it isn't is simply wrong, full stop. in an overall sense, we can measure the differences between men and women any number of ways, not just in terms of the gross architecture of the body, but also in terms of more subtle things like its chemistry and DNA. we don't fully understand what all of this means, of course, and individuals vary greatly, but this doesn't mean that we can't scientifically "perceive" biological gender. we can.
of course and like i very clearly said before, we can only perceive and understand the significance of biological gender at a remove, as filtered through the understandings of gender that we've inherited. that's what makes this subject interesting. we know that we are driven both by biology and by the cultural constructs that compose our understanding, and there's no way to clearly distinguish between the two.
to repeat another thing i said earlier, we can see the workings of gender in male violence as a phenomenon. male violence exists and is a problem in every culture in the world, and this has always been true throughout human history so far as we know. you suggested that if i were dropped into ancient sparta, i would be perceived as a wimp. of course i would. in case you missed it, that was the entire point of the paragraph you were responding to: that gender is, to a substantial extent, a cultural construct. but it's worth noting that ancient sparta was no less dominated by male violence than our world is today. this does not conclusively "prove" that male violence is a product of male biology, of course, but it does incline me to suspect that biology plays a role.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
You're not *even* wrong.
You seem to inhabit this weird fantasy world where male power is not prized and rewarded at every turn, and female power is not demonised and punished at every turn. Where male violence is not *fetishised* and portrayed as noble and good and female violence is not denied in order to keep some wonderful "pure" vision of "femininity" as opposed to "masculinity."
This fantasy world where violent women from Boudiccea to Margaret Thatcher can just be handwaved away.
A fantasy world where structural inequality does not codify "male" supremacy over "female" at every step because the rules were written to keep it that way. These ideas are not reinforced with cultural narrative over and again until ppl believe they are true bcuz other views just don't get presented, or are actively derided by those w the most to lose?
And then you want to turn around and talk about this highly contrived and exaggerated version of "masculinity" as being somehow inevitable, even biological?
And I just call: bullshit.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 18:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've been looking for the past half hour to see if I can find any studies that strongly demonstrate even the simple premise that testosterone leads to increased aggression. Can't find anything. And conversely, if you google 'violent women' you get lots of hits about violence against women, a review of a book about Hollywood fetishisation of female violence, and a Daily Mail article about teenage girl gangs.
If the starting assumption for discourse is that men are perpetrators and women are victims, which it seems to be, it excludes from serious consideration the violence women do against men, the violence women do against each other, and the (sexual) violence men inflict on other men. I'll keep looking for biological underpinnings to the assumption, there may well be something, but I'm inclined to think it'll turn out to be by far the lesser factor.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
I mean let's get this straight. I'm not denying that there's such a * thing* as male violence, or that male violence especially as used as a method of control against women (hello Chris Brown and domestic violence awareness) is not hugely problematic.
What I'm denying is this idea that violence is something automatically and essentially coded into masculinity from biological sex up - rather than something which is learned, reinforced and rewarded at every step of a man's life.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 18:43 (3 years ago) Permalink
i think you're responding to an imaginary person in your head, cuz it sure as hell isn't me.
of course male power is prized and rewarded at every turn. or course female power is demonized and punished i don't wave any counter examples away. but the history of human violence, not just in western culture but in every culture ever known, is predominantly the history of male violence. to my mind, in conjunction with what little we do know about male and female biology, this makes it reasonable (not certain, just reasonable) to suppose that male biology plays a role in male violence.
would say the same of many other ostensibly gendered characteristics and behaviors, that biology probably does play some role. again though, it's impossible to clearly distinguish between the urgings of biology and cultural conditioning. but the fact that we can't know exactly what role biology plays does not mean that biology plays no role. in order to understand such things clearly, we have to accept huge amount of uncertainty. i.e., if you align yourself with either "crew", Cultural or Biological, you're missing the larger picture.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
i suspect that both factors play a role, nature & nurture.
Zora there's evidence that testosterone is released by men who are victors *after* the aggression is over but little evidence that testosterone causes violence or aggression. It's complicated, as all hormonal things involving humans tend to be.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 18:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
If the starting assumption for discourse is that men are perpetrators and women are victims, which it seems to be, it excludes from serious consideration...
i don't think you need a starting assumption. i think it's better to look at the available information and work up from there.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
Contenderizer you keep repeating the same things over and over as if you haven't read what I've posted (and certainly none of the books I've referenced) so you are also having a conversation with someone who is not me.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 18:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
Has anyone else read this? Should I go home and re-read it for this thread?
― one little aioli (Laurel), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
...and A Passing Spacecadet was right. We opened up a discussion of "women's issues" to well-meaning dudes and in less than 1 day it's become all about dudes and testosterone and male violence and we're not even talking about women at all.
Not even Myra Hindley.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 18:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
there's evidence that testosterone is released by men who are victors *after* the aggression is over but little evidence that testosterone causes violence or aggression. It's complicated, as all hormonal things involving humans tend to be.
there's also evidence that testosterone inclines humans to competitiveness, and is produced as a "reward" for competing successfully. and violence can be an effective competitive strategy, at least in the sense that beating someone up causes your body to produce more testosterone. violent criminals tend to have elevated testosterone levels relative to the general population, and we can't say for certain that causation is a one-way street in that case.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
That looks great, LaureL (ha! My iPhone just tried to change yr name, it's not me!) but I'm still reading Bitch which doesn't deny the possibility of female violence either.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 18:53 (3 years ago) Permalink
i've read all of your posts closely. i'm familiar with the concepts you're discussing. i repeat myself only because you repeatedly respond not to my arguments, but to a straw man that only tangentially connects with what i've said.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'm coming in at a tangent right now, because one of the things that's been upsetting me recently is male rape. I've heard reps from NGOs in Africa denying that there is a problem, denying that there is any need to include men in their considerations when setting up services to support victims or even when investigating war crimes. Yes, more women are probably victims. But the numbers of men who've been attacked isn't something anyone even cares to find out about.
This stuff: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men
I feel like this is a onsequence of stereotypes of both men and women but I accept that's not where this conversation is at right now. I just wanted to get it off my chest.
Contenderizer viz the quote you took out of my statement; your response is exactly the approach I think should be taken - to any subject - I was expressing my frustration that I couldn't find anyone doing that. Everyone writing about this stuff, including policy wonks at the UN, is trotting out the same lazy set of assumptions.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
onsequence = consequence, obv
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:56 (3 years ago) Permalink
As for discussing testosterone and male violence &c &c, I don't see how these can be things people-identifying-as-women-with-or-without-biological-determinants should ignore.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:58 (3 years ago) Permalink
We opened up a discussion of "women's issues" to well-meaning dudes and in less than 1 day it's become all about dudes and testosterone and male violence and we're not even talking about women at all.
in my OP, i talked about a number of things, not just male violence. when you argued with me (IN ALL CAPS), i narrowed things down to male violence in the hopes that it might provide a generally agreeable example of a gendered behavior with some relation to biology. maybe this is too "controversial" for this thread, i dunno.
anyway, the thread that this primarily expands out from, the feminist blogs & communities thread, was always open to guys, right?
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:00 (3 years ago) Permalink
You seem to inhabit this weird fantasy world where male power is not prized and rewarded at every turn, and female power is not demonised and punished at every turn.
This rhetoric may be emotionally accurate, but it is ott when compared to mundane reality. How so? Because it leaves no wiggle room for so much as one neutral male-female interaction at any time.
Let's say I invent a board game where men players take alternating turns with women players who compete for a share of power. To make this fair (though not realistic) at the start of the game both sides will have a million units of power. The rules will be your rules. At every turn men will be rewarded and women will be punished. We will do this by taking away one unit of women's power and giving it to the men.
After exactly a million turns the men will have two million units of power and the women will have zero.
But it wouldn't matter how many units were involved to start, or what tiny fraction of a unit changed hands at every turn, the end result would always be that the men become omnipotently all-powerful and the women will be utterly, completely, nakedly, and absolutely powerless. This may feel true to you, but this is not the world I live in.
― Aimless, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:04 (3 years ago) Permalink
Zora it's not that I think ppl should ignore it, it just can veer perilously into "but what about teh mens!!!!" territory.
You're right, that this enforcement of "men as perps, women as victims" is a narrative that is deeply dependent on patriarchal and harmful views of both women and men.
It is worth looking at, in that sexual violence (especially as war crimes) is an everyone problem, not just a woman problem.
But one of my problems is, so often when women gather to talk about their problems and the narratives of their own lives, so often that narrative gets hijacked by men who want to substitute their own narratives about women, and I'm deeply tired of that.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
P.S. If the idea is to change how men act or think, then such ott venting is self-defeating, because we're not getting any recognition or reinforcement for right actions or right thinking. Whatever we do could not be enough, so why begin?
― Aimless, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
Being a tad too literal there Aimy, imho. "At every turn" may be hyperbole, but it's not hard to see that if you replace it with 'frequently' you get a world many of us would recognise.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
i feel like you're talking in circles, perhaps. I think it's important to examine what's at stake in insisting on a distinction like Nature/Nurture.
in almost every case I'd argue it's about preserving access to "nature" as a privileged or objective point of view. The idea of the distinction itself is something culturally given. Which is to say that the distinction nature/nurture always takes place on the side of nurture.
it's not that "nature" or an "outside" to culture doesn't exist (how could culture exist otherwise?) but that we only have access to it, as I said above, as a kind of negative capability. we can't really climb out of the hole, only dig deeper.
― ryan, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:11 (3 years ago) Permalink
Gendered behaviour with regards to biology is *not* "controversial." it's the absolute ur-narrative most cherished creation myth of all time!
What's deeply controversial is to actually say hey, maybe the similarities outweigh the differences, let's look at the science and numbers and find out how much of this is actual fact (not that much) and how much is narrative?
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
And that game gets played every day, Aimless. It doesn't end up with men: 2 million women: 0 but it does end up with men: £1 women: £0.70 that we've had to fight and march and claw to even get that high.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
Being a tad too literal there Aimy...
It has always been my approach that people ought to be given enough respect to take them at their word, to start out by assuming they said what they meant to say. When this approach leads me to a conclusion that seems, shall we say, off kilter, then my approach is to point out where it veered off kilter, as best I can make out. Then that person has the option of either confirming that they said just what they intended to say, or else rephrase things nearer to their intended meaning.
I know this is weird, but it is the best way I know to get at what people are trying to tell me.
― Aimless, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:16 (3 years ago) Permalink
How about this: is the lack of female-on-male violence (or female-on-female violence), or the perceived lack thereof, purely the result of cultural constructs and received culture?
― valleys of your mind (mh), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
OK, Myra Hindley. I can only work up a perspective on violent women by starting with science and building forward, which is why I was looking at testosterone and aggression. I started off by looking for studies on causes of violence so that I could rule biological factors out or in before moving on to social factors. Testosterone is the easy target, being the main biological driver for aggression, according to received wisdom.
Ultimately I would like to understand why this dichotomy of men = x, women = y is what it is, accept I will probably never get there, but I really feel like it has to start off as a gender-blind investigation otherwise it gets too hard (for me) to separate science from conjecture, nature from nurture, and so forth.
Perhaps I need a new thread for Totally Neutral Exploration of Gender Issues.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've just invoked the 70p rule so I lose bcuz we're back to Feminism 101 again.
The nature/nurture argument is important because it always comes back to "can these structures be changed?" and if you are someone who is getting some benefit from those structures, you see no reason to *have* to change. While if you are someone being oppressed by those structures, you HAVE to believe change is possible otherwise you'd put rocks in yr pockets and walk in a river.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
― ryan, Monday, February 13, 2012 11:11 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
yeah, but i've been saying exactly that all along, only inverted. just because we cannot directly perceive nature, can only see a construction from the constructed position of our own awareness, does not mean that nature is not perceptible, not real, not worth considering.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
what counts as violence? can any aggressive or dominance seeking behavior count?
― ryan, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yes, more women are probably victims. But the numbers of men who've been attacked isn't something anyone even cares to find out about.
why are you bringing this up in this thread though? are you suggesting because sexual violence(primarily towards women by men) has been discussed that we must also acknowledge that men have also been raped? why is this an equivalence that needs stating?
every single time there's a conversation about this topic in a space, this (or something similar) comes up. i used to be on another, much smaller forum, where every time there was a thread about rape or something, the few female participants ended up getting pushed out of the conversation by male participants, who outnumbered them (though that wasn't the determining factor) by a long shot. eventually we just stopped posting in those topics.
if you want male rape to be discussed, then yeah, there's a conversation to be had about that, especially wrt to your point about stereotyping and assumptions. i'm just saying, is this the right place for it?
― gyac, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
What lack of female on female violence? Anyone who was ever 12 at an all girl school (I.e. me) will call this statement for the fantasy it is.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:23 (3 years ago) Permalink
this seems a bit unfair, at least as applied to this thread, which was specifically constructed to be open.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
i meant controversial wr2 this thread
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:27 (3 years ago) Permalink
WCC, if the game doesn't end up men 2 million and women zero, then the rules are different than you expressed them. Also, if clawing, fighting and marching have yielded an improvement, then at some point somewhere men have ceded some amount of reward to women, as opposed to punishment at every turn.
Again, if men are to be denied any credit for ever taking any positive actions in regard to assisting women to overcome this state of power inequality, or for ever allying themselves with justice for women, or for being anything but right bastards who break women's bones to bake their bread, then... I think you're missing an essential trick in getting where I assume you want to go.
From comments you've made already in this thread, I suspect your reaction will be that, just like a man, I am whining to be patted on the head and given credit for being a good boy, while I ought to be inflamed with anger at the INJUSTICE of it all, and if I'm not 100% with you, and can't do right without appreciation, then to hell with me.
The problem with that line of thinking is simple enough. If I must be 100% with you, and if that means I must necessarily think that all men are nasty, unfeeling, power-hungry dealers of injustice who stand on privilege at every turn, then... sorry. I'm a man and there is something unacceptable in that definition of me. Something of a catch-22 you might say.
But, hey, suit yourself.
― Aimless, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:32 (3 years ago) Permalink
Con, this whole "biology is destiny" thing is something that many (maybe most?) women experience, constricting the size and shape of our lives, on an almost daily basis.
It's this hydra-headed thing that no matter how many times you chop off one head, it sprouts another to bite you. So not wanting to engage with that, not wanting to argue it down yet again, is often due to sheer exhaustion rather than a lack of engagement.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
Aimless I don't argue with ppl who put words in my mouth. Just carry on having your discussion by yourself coz I don't see where you need me in it, considering you've already decided what I'm gonna say.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
What lack of female on female violence?
Well, the relative lack of women convicted of violent crimes would be the obvious reference point.
While if you are someone being oppressed by those structures, you HAVE to believe change is possible..
What's sad is the dialogue involving female-on-male violence in relationships has nearly completely been drowned out by so-called "men's rights" people with claims like "when a woman hits a man it's no big deal, but when a man hits a woman it's domestic violence!" I don't think yelling about where blame is placed is helping anyone.
― valleys of your mind (mh), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
nasty, unfeeling, power-hungry dealers of injustice who stand on privilege at every turn, then...
I think it's important to realize that men stand on privilege at every turn whether they are nasty, unfeeling, or power-hungry or not. Even ones who are allied with women, working to help women, etc. Like if you can't get that then you will always be having the wrong discussion.
― Melissa W, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
It's a numbers game, mh, and it's difficult to say "yes this exists. But can we please not let the narrative of the one place where women are unfortunately in the majority and men in the minority be written exclusively by that minority?"
Exclusively being the operative word there.
Also let's not even open the can of worms that is male on male violence which doesn't even need to be inside a relationship. Intra-sex violence as a real thing in this world.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
WCC, you are steering by your own compass and you are locked on to the course it has set for you. Good luck. Just realize that if you place a chunk of ferrous metal near a compass the needle is attracted to that instead of to magnetic north. If you don't notice this you can get pretty far off track.
― Aimless, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
WCC, that makes sense, and i'm not trying to get you to engage w it.
fwiw, and i hope this isn't offensive, myths abt "biological masculinity" are another kind of prison. they're a power-granting prison, which may seem like an oxymoron, but they can be brutally rough on men who don't conform. and like i said at the top, we all "fail" to conform (succeed at not conforming!) in various ways.
just so we're clear, i'm NOT in any way, shape or form trying to compare my struggles with supposedly "natural" masculine identity with the awful history of female oppression. i'm very aware that i was born to a position of unfair privilege in this and other respects.
re our differences in this discussion: i'm just kind of a fence-sitter by disposition. i'm the type to try to see merit on both sides of an argument, to find common ground rather than to "take a side". maybe that's annoying to those with more clearly defined positions...
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
Aimless, Melissa has answered you pretty comprehensively.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
It would be cool if people who don't actually want to examine their ideas about gender would do something other than post here, thanks!
― one little aioli (Laurel), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
Melissa, you are completely right and it makes me feel kind of like crap every time this point is articulated, because it's a privilege that I'd like to escape in some ways, because there are so many things that I'd like to do or change that it doesn't help with.
That and I would like to believe that there is something to meritocracy, but there are some points in my life where I consciously know it's not personal merit but personal privilege that's influencing things.
― valleys of your mind (mh), Monday, 13 February 2012 19:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
it's important to realize that men stand on privilege at every turn whether they are nasty, unfeeling, or power-hungry or not.
Yes. I would agree with that. Since the privilege is built into the society, the only way off it is to stand outside society. I do that from time to time, but only because I sometimes go wander around the wilderness where there aren't any other people. As soon as I return, I'm back on privileged ground.
Explain to me how I can alter this state and I will attend well to your words. But if there is nothing I can do, then please do not blame me for doing nothing.
― Aimless, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
now i am obsessively summarizing an article whose meaning is entirely manifest. clearly it struck a chord.
― horseshoe, Thursday, 23 July 2015 00:27 (6 days ago) Permalink
EMOTIONAL LABOR: DON'T DO IT.
(or force people to acknowledge that it's a thing and make its practice more shared somehow.)
― horseshoe, Thursday, 23 July 2015 00:28 (6 days ago) Permalink
agree i didn't need to read it to know it was trueesp difficult when someone is required to do emotional labor for money (like as a teacher or in another caring profession) and then do the same outside of work for freeas i said, i think the hashtag is crass but there's no arguing with the idea of unpaid emotional labor
― La Lechera, Thursday, 23 July 2015 00:30 (6 days ago) Permalink
yes i think being a teacher has something to do with how hair-trigger i am about this.
― horseshoe, Thursday, 23 July 2015 00:34 (6 days ago) Permalink
it's probably part of why you were drawn to the profession in the first place -- me too! it's just that it takes a lot from a person and there's a finite amount of caring pie to eat and if there's only one slice left, i'm probably saving it for myself because i need some care too.
― La Lechera, Thursday, 23 July 2015 00:39 (6 days ago) Permalink
― not a garbageman, i am garbage, man (m bison), Thursday, 23 July 2015 02:43 (6 days ago) Permalink
also i wanna say lauren chief elk is a rad writer and i like her ideas a lot
Almost every job where you care for others is paid poorly, whether it is physical or emotional assistance you are providing. My overly generalized, but most times valid, observation is that the more your job benefits a group of people that you can identify as individuals, and more tangible the benefits you provide, the worse your job is compensated. Doctors are about the only glaring exceptions to this rule.
― Aimless, Thursday, 23 July 2015 02:59 (6 days ago) Permalink
that spinsterhood article is beautiful writing
― lex pretend, Thursday, 23 July 2015 07:15 (6 days ago) Permalink
Bolick goes on to ask,You are born, you grow up, you become a wife.But what if it wasn’t this way? […]What would that look and feel like?with dramatic line-drops between each question, as if she is blowing our minds; as if these exact questions haven’t already been asked and answered by generations of women for decades or centuries. I couldn’t help but wonder: why does Bolick’s account of women’s existence seem so much more archaic than a book published in 1936?
You are born, you grow up, you become a wife.But what if it wasn’t this way? […]What would that look and feel like?
with dramatic line-drops between each question, as if she is blowing our minds; as if these exact questions haven’t already been asked and answered by generations of women for decades or centuries. I couldn’t help but wonder: why does Bolick’s account of women’s existence seem so much more archaic than a book published in 1936?
― difficult listening hour, Thursday, 23 July 2015 09:51 (6 days ago) Permalink
Aimless did you read the article? The low wages of ppl in caring professions is not even remotely the point. That's obviously not news.
― La Lechera, Thursday, 23 July 2015 11:50 (6 days ago) Permalink
In this post-Obergefell world we need to reclaim these terms.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 23 July 2015 11:59 (6 days ago) Permalink