That's the concluding paragraph of Michelle Goldberg's new column, "Why Sex-Positive Feminism Is Falling Out of Fashion" (NYT).
When I first read the headline, my snap answer to the question "why" was: Because the sex-positive feminists got old. Young people have the delusion that they are the first human beings to truly experience sex as it's meant to be. They get older and imagine they've discovered critique that's different and better than what those who've gone before them were ever able to perceive.
I've been reading and talking about sex and feminism for 50 years, so things have cycled around at least 3 times, and I myself have been many different ages. I must say I'm a bit impatient with — bored by — efforts to recount the historical phases of American feminism that do not struggle with the disruption that had to do with Bill Clinton and protecting the interests of the Democratic Party.
But there are so many men to protect — husbands, boyfriends, present and future. Most people don't keep feminism at the top of their priorities, so it's going to get distorted into the shape they want it to be. Is pornography the subordination of women? You'll never get an accurate answer. Is your interlocutor in love?
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
"Sex-positive feminism became a cause of some of the same suffering it was meant to remedy. Perhaps now that the old taboos have fallen, we need new ones. Not on sex, but on callousness and cruelty."
Translation: "I want the one-night stand I go home from the bar with to respect me."
It doesn't work like that. "Sex-positivity" has always been a scam. Society has always been positive about sex, but the difference is that our cultural institutions used to respect that sex was also powerful and dangerous. That's why you don't hop into bed with any stranger, why prostitution was often tolerated but rarely celebrated, and why marriage was so important.
"Is pornography the subordination of women? You'll never get an accurate answer."
There is no accurate answer, because "pornography" is too many different things, and women are too different, as are men.
The question itself is the problem.
Ann: "But there are so many men to protect — husbands, boyfriends, present and future."
Or as Henry Kissinger put it: "Nobody will ever win the Battle of the Sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
Pornography is about pussy, not women.
I started to get glassy-eyed at feminism when it had to be preceded with an adjective, telling you what kind of feminism it was. Because nothing can be left alone and must be peeled away, and taken to others- bit by bit- to be used as they wish, claim it for their own, and redefine it. Usually as a hammer with which to pound people over the head.
Every time Michelle Goldberg has a column brought to my attention, I think less of her. I would have thought nothing of her if I had never heard of her. That would have been a better opinion of her.
As for feminism- we've done a pretty damed good job focusing on women and women's rights over the past 30 years or so. Sure, there will be grievances as long as their are Leftists. It's what they live for. But, if you want to see how far we've come in our focus on women and shoring up their 'rights', have a look: Men no longer going to college
"Is pornography the subordination of women? You'll never get an accurate answer."
Now do bodice rippers.
Perhaps now that the old taboos have fallen, we need new ones. Not on sex, but on callousness and cruelty.
I'm 14 years old, and my favorite-y color is lavender.
I must say I'm a bit impatient with — bored by — efforts to recount the historical phases of American feminism that do not struggle with the disruption that had to do with Bill Clinton and protecting the interests of the Democratic Party.
Bill Clinton was just the first and most obvious. For all of history the elites have made rules that they do not follow.
The central feature to this biologically is the fact that the majority of males in any species do not have access to reproduction or females even though this is one of the imperatives of life.
For our species that translates out to: "It is good to be king."
Women just generally go along with whatever the dominant male in the social group wants.
Sexual harassment was always meant to strengthen the position of the elite males. Not actually help women except to keep ugly fat men from bothering them.
The democrat party explicitly picks it's females leaders, as represented by Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, for their proclivity to serving and supporting the sexual activity of the male leaders. The GOPe wing of the Republican party is full of perverts and adulterers as well.
The interesting thing about Trump was he was unusually honest about his sexual activities compared to the average rapist like Clinton or Biden or Weinsein or Lauer or Rose.
Trump also didn't have to resort to rape. I think this was one of the things that really made the aristocracy mad.
Trump also didn't have to resort to rape. I think this was one of the things that really made the aristocracy mad.
I get the impression from some lefty acquaintances that they think he was insufficiently hypocritical. It really bugs some of them that he had sex with a porn star. I think that was pretty stupid myself and as a Christian I think its immoral, but the choice was between him and Biden and before that Hillary Clinton, so for me it was a no brainer. Haven't seen my sister-in-law since she gloated about Trump losing the election, even though I did my best to never talk about politics with her, wonder what she thinks about the price of gas and inflated food prices since she and her husband are on fixed incomes.
I'm pretty sure that the way the libido works--and this is especially true in adolescence--someone is bound to get screwed over in casual sexual encounters....This whole problem could be solved if they set about developing sex robots with the same energy they put into putting men on the moon or developing vaccines.
Achilles. Your last sentence; Word. And he didn't have to resort to graft to get rich. What is to be done with such a guy?
"Is pornography the subordination of women? You'll never get an accurate answer."
Never?
I'll spare you further trouble and give you the one accurate answer: it depends.
This morning the rowing coach asked if anyone had seen the TV show "Cheers." She knew the song but never saw the show. Twenty something.
So odd how Progressives govern and sell their ideology on emotions but view relationships so unemotionally. It’s pretty much how you’d expect sociopaths operate.
Feminism always struck me as a navel gazing exercise. I have lived throughout the entire period of feminism and always known authentic women (including my mother and my wife) who didn't need activists to tell them how they should be. They are largely unchanged by the whole arc of feminism.
On the other hand, I think feminism helped some women who did not feel they could stand up for themselves by raising awareness of how social structures were unfair to women who wanted "nontraditional" paths in life. But feminism also did an awful lot of damage by insisting that women could "have it all". That never made sense and really hurt many women who tried to have it all and now feel empty and used by not prioritizing aspects of life that provide fulfillment over time.
If you go to Bing Images, you can see literally thousands of women posing in naked selfies and engaging in sex acts of all kinds.
I suppose they are all begging to be "subordinated."
Sex hangups are like assholes...
Perhaps now that the old taboos have fallen, we need new ones. Not on sex, but on callousness and cruelty."
There have always been taboos on callousness and cruelty. That's why they're called callousness and cruelty.
The most interesting thing in all of the casting about every 15-20 years so, just as that generation's cohorts of academic females hits middle-age, is that men never worried about these things...until recently. My take on it is that men, collectively, have observed just how effective all of this nonsense is at getting this bennie or that accommodation, and are tacking toward complaining about everything just to get their advocacies noticed, much less acted upon by policy-makers.
The Puritans were pretty sex-positive, but only within the framework of marriage.
As soon as they are taboo, we can have callousness and cruelty fetishes
Wake me up for the AI Robots, space aliens (green skinned as in Star Trek preferred; other colors, flavors, shapes of course also desired), and direct brain wires a la Niven.
The problem with any attempt at human engineering is that people don't act like classes, they act like human beings. Always have; always will.
Barbara Cartland said it best: "The critics can make fun of Barbara Cartland. I was quite amused by the critic who once called me “an animated meringue.” But they can’t get away from the fact that I know what women want — and that’s to be flung across a man’s saddle, or into the long grass by a loving husband."
I grew up abroad, so when I think of the development of feminism I think of it in a larger context than just the US. Bill Clinton had f-all to do with the arc of feminism outside the US.
I grew up abroad, so when I think of the development of feminism I think of it in a larger context than just the US. Bill Clinton had f-all to do with the arc of feminism outside the US.
Bullshit. They defended him too.
"feminism" Does that even mean anything any more?
"Somehow, as sex positivity went mainstream and fused with a culture shaped by pornography, attention to emotion got lost."
Be careful what you bitch for.
I love a response I once heard: aren’t we old enough to think about something other than sex?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा