September 26, 2013

"The Left must constantly re-write its own history to create the appearance of consistency in its advocacy of progress..."

"... but the Left’s definition of progress is itself constantly changing, and feminism’s embrace of pornography — celebrating objectification as 'empowerment' — is but one example of this re-definition project."

***

Here's a book that was published in 1990: "Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism."



I have that on a shelf in my office, along with many similar tomes of the time.

7 comments:

Richard Dolan said...

One could write the same thing about the Right. Just contrast speeches by, say Sen Robert Taft with those of Pres GW Bush (on almost any topic); or the views of conservatives about the gold standard in monetary policy (for it before they were against it, and maybe no longer 100% against it now), just to pick two topics at random. To live is to change with circumstances, and that's true no matter what one's political philosophy may be.

Perhaps there was something in the water today, but Nicholas Kristof had a similarly themed op-ed in the NY Times, giving the usual lefty attack on Ted Cruz and the Repubs. He contends that the Right Wingers are taking the Repubs to extremes, blah, blah, blah. As I was reading it, I mentally substituted "Left" whenever he wrote "Right," and "Dems" whenever he wrote "Repubs." The op-ed worked just as well on my rewrite as his original. That's a pretty good indication that the starting thesis for his piece was bunk.

ThomasD said...

One could say such a thing about 'the right' if one were willing to clarify or define what makes one 'on the right.' Burke? De Tocqueville? Disraeli? Henry Adams? Von Mises?

A broad brush does nothing to cover over the hypocrisy of Feminism.

SJ said...

Ann, I can remember seeing comments from you previously, about the history of homosexual-rights activists.

You said something like "the activists of the 1970s were talking about personal choice...then sometime in the early 1980s, they began to claim that homosexual behavior was an inborn tendency."

Does this change of strategy mimic the change in feminist response to pornography?

Why, in either case, is there no in-movement history about the change of rhetoric?

Shouldn't such a drastic change require some explanation to members of the Cause about the reasons for the change?

Crunchy Frog said...

Feminism has always been at war with Eastasia.

ALP said...

In the late 1970's early 1980's - during my very early years in college, there was an active feminist group on my campus. One of their projects was aimed at stamping out oppressive fashion - namely high heels. The group circulated a flyer I remember very well, as it included a well drawn (using medium felt tip pen) cartoon style image of a woman's foot shoved into what must have been a 5"+ heel. I remember thinking how exaggerated and absurd the image looked, but it was done to make a point. I had never seen any woman in heels THAT high at that point in my life.

Thus I'll never forget the first time I was watching a talk show a few years ago, the first time in many years, watching a female guest simper across the floor in heels looking identical to those on the poster from decades ago: impossibly high, to the point of parody! WTF???? "That's the shoe from that old poster from decades back!"

Apparently, that college group did not make much impact. I thought it might have been a fluke but no! The 5" heel seems to be standard issue for women these days. I guess wearing shoes that impede a woman's natural walking movement are ok now. Combine this with the existence of "stiletto surgery" - can foot binding be far behind?

The saddest part is that its other women urging other woman on in this competitive game of "I can suffer more than you can to look good". Its as if they were invented by the producers of a Japanese game show: if you can walk down the block in these impossible heels, you'll advance to the next round.

Shit, I'd consider wearing a corset before those shoes - at least you could run farther if needed until you passed out or fell over.

Jim said...

Crunchy Frog FTW.

Zach said...

I've got to say, being anti-porn always seemed more consistent with "classic" feminism to me.

Thesis: men take unfair advantage of women, don't respect them as equals, and push them into marginal roles.

Example: porn takes advantage of women, putting them into subservient and often degrading them. Equality doesn't feature -- it's just wish fulfilment for males.

Conclusion: porn is an example of bad male behavior and should be opposed, at least in broad outlines

The pro-porn argument is much more strained. Now porn is a rebellion of some sort, and is liberating people from unreasonable restrictions. But there's an uneasy balance between liberation and antisocial behavior. A lot of people's fantasies would be unhealthy if they actually acted on them. Being a pro-pornography feminist comes uncomfortably close to advocating that kind of behavior.