Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Thoughts Running Through My Mind


First: Yay - we won the cricket!

Second: I don't understand this article at all. How do you "take a break" from being a feminist? Either you are one, in which case it informs your understanding of matters in the world, your reaction to them, or you're not because you don't believe in it. Yes, there are different methodologies, different beliefs as feminists - I struggle frequently with my contradictory thoughts over pornography and the sex industry, for example. But I really don't understand this and the law professor proposing it doesn't seem to justify it, either. Answers on a postcard, please.

Third: This article is also interesting for an illustration of perhaps why feminism is still a necessary part of my life - the time when we are not divided into trollops and angels will be a blessed one. Furthermore, it echoes something that I've found here in Costa Rica - unions dominated by men, who require a classless society but don't really want the wimminfolk involved in anything, sweetheart.

Fourth: the case of the boy who raped a girl and got a 2 year supervision order is one of the most revolting things I have read recently. Impressively appalling. I understand that there are problems with institutionalising young people who have committed crimes, but it really is a disgrace. If even the readers of The Daily Mail are appalled by this, it must really be bad.

Fifth: This story, about a rapist finally caught after twenty years - a "pillar of the community", married with children - was interesting both because of how he was caught using new DNA techniques, but mostly for the interview with one of the victims. She was... just incredible to listen to. After the horrors of what had happened to her, she was mostly concerned for her daughter - who, when this resurfaced as a cold case, was the age at which the woman had been raped - and whether or not her partner could cope with it. She was so matter of fact about it all, about the fear she had. No one should EVER have this sort of power over another person. The most interesting thing was her reaction to finally seeing him... the relief that he didn't have that power anymore, instead of reacting angrily to the fact that such a feeble little man managed to have sway over her life for so long, and could damage her in that way.

Sixth: I love me some Woman's Hour. We all know that - I make no bones about it (where ON EARTH does that phrase come from?) . However, this was absolutely ridiculous: a debate on what annoys men and women about each other. It's frothy rubbish anyway (Fridays are always worse on Woman's Hour because Jenni Murray doesn't do it). What was extremely annoying was that this was advertising some ridiculous person's "husband training school" - she'd started writing a book about it and decided to do it in real life. They are not cocker spaniels to be taught to piss outdoors. They are men and, for the majority of women, our partners in the home and bedroom. They are for all of us, hopefully, our friends, colleagues, sons, brothers... It makes me EXTREMELY angry to read things like this, because this is what people think feminism is about, when it's as far away from what I believe as could possibly be my feminist viewpoint. It has become some sort of mainstream, accepted position to denigrate men in this way, and it belittles us all, quite frankly.

Furthermore, an important point about relationships: they are supposed to feature compromises. How can you compromise with someone you think lives in a disgusting manner, as this woman claimed, simply because her husband left dirty dishes in the sink - SHOCKER. Yes, things annoy us about living with other people - we are all idiosyncratic individuals. But... for Pete's sake, this was ridiculous.

And I know I shouldn't be so angry at rubbish like this, but it's irritating and fuels anti-feminism...

Anyhoo, that's me for now.

3 comments:

Bob said...

I've managed to set up my own blog - 'It's All About The Bellinis'. Nothing on there yet though!

Anonymous said...

I'm lame - haven't commented here before (I do read your brilliant stuff, I do!), and I read the article you're talking about, the interview with the Harvard law professor about 'taking a break' from feminism. Basically I felt that the article itself didn't explain her views very clearly (neither did she, of course), and I would be intrigued to read her book. I know that I have a bias toward women who have reached prominent positions in male-dominated positions, and I will take my Ivy League role models where I can get them. But if she was saying (as I think she was) that maybe we need to recognise that a focus on gender as *always* the first problem to tackle might not be working, then I'd be intrigued by that argument. I don't like her rhetoric, the whole taking-a-break idea, because it does suggest (probably unintentionally) that we'd all be happier if we just stopped worrying our pretty little heads about equality. And I don't agree that the battle is won, although certainly in the West most people pay grudging lip service to the idea of equality. Hmm. OK, I don't know.
Did you read the thing about this loathsome Tommy Sheridan character and women in the Scottish Socialist Party (witches and shrews) vs his 'fragrant' wife?
Um, ok, this is a ramble not a comment. Keep up the good work!!
xx

pumpkin29 said...

Rambling is the modus operandi of this whole bloody blog, so feel free to ramble here!

I think that you focussed on my point about "taking a break" - what exactly does she mean by that? I'm all for interdisciplinary means of fixing problems, but I think that she has gone for something that sells, rather than it being what she actually wants to say.

And yes, to the Tommy Sheridan thing - I agree with the rather delicious contradiction of who the News of The World had to rely upon instead of attacking. Although, of course, now that they've lost, can go back to saying women who have sex are morally bankrupt.