"She is hip to modern phrases like 'assigned female at birth,' to Generation Z’s increasing acceptance of nonbinary identities and Facebook’s 56 gender options and men’s diminishing sperm counts. But the parameters of her book stay, mostly, safely in the past. 'What is clear is that today one can choose whether or not to call oneself a woman,' she writes. 'What is more complicated is the meaning that the term "woman" has to those who use it to describe themselves.' For Faderman, who writes about Betty Friedan having called proud lesbians the 'lavender menace,' to omit a discussion of 'trans-exclusionary radical feminists' — an insult lobbed at J.K. Rowling, among others — seems notable, if understandable. That conversation can get very, very heated. Perhaps Faderman is simply waiting, and watching, for time to cool things off."
Writes Alexandra Jacobs in the NYT in "'Woman' Is an Ambitious Attempt to Capture Four Centuries of Being Female/Lillian Faderman’s exhaustive survey of American history comes up to the present but stops short of engaging with today’s charged gender debates" (reviewing "WOMAN/The American History of an Idea" a 571-page book by Lillian Faderman, who, we're told is "one of the pre-eminent L.G.B.T.Q. scholars of our time" and published by Yale University Press).
I think "What is more complicated is the meaning that the term 'woman' has to those who use it to describe themselves" is a good question. But my question is, does Faderman answer it or just point to it as a "complicated" question?
Jacobs, the reviewer, seems disappointed, but what is she doing other than noting what's not getting talked about? Is everyone "simply waiting, and watching, for time to cool things off"? Where's the courage? Where's the heft? Jacobs gets to write a review in The New York Times, and Faderman has a whole giant doorstop of a book with a hyper-elite publisher.
Or should Jacobs be faulted for failing to engage with the idea that "woman" is an idea?
पोस्ट्स
३१ टिप्पण्या:
---Or should Jacobs be faulted for failing to engage with the idea that "woman" is an idea?
Sheesh Ann! Uh, pass the dramamine, please.
I can report that none of this fabulous confusion seems to have reached the Amish yet. I'm not certain when it will.
I'd go with the nagging instinct.
Woman - Adjective - A historical hominid sex definition that was invaded and taken over by numerous other sexes, and genders, in a process that is still ongoing, and with the approval and acquiescence of many women.
Used in a sentence:
"That woman perxyn was just arrested for exposing her penis to that 7 year old, but I didn't actually see it happen."
Perhaps she wants her book to still be read a year from now.
At some point historians will have to grapple with an inanities such as "terf" and 56 genders, but anybody writing about it today is going to either overstate or understate (probably overstate) its significance to our culture.
A large percentage of the hardcore second wave feminists were lesbians. Women who enjoyed having relationships with men, wanted to raise families with them, and who enjoyed their femininity had a very different agenda. Most women in the second group have no difficulty explaining what it means to be a woman themselves. A lot of it needs the other half of the sexual equation, men, to complete the description. Lesbians and the men who are woman wannabees are missing that component. The transwoman I worked with described "womanhood" in terms that were completely superficial. Things like being allowed to cry when the dog died. My male boss cried with me when my dog died.
What is clear is that today one can choose whether or not to call oneself a woman,'
But, is This REALLY true?
Phyllis Schlafly 'called' herself a "woman"; but was 'she' any more a "woman", than Clarence Thomas is a Black?
In Order to BE things, you HAVE TO pass the political tests that DEFINE Those Things
Gender's time has passed, it has peaked and is on the downswing as those who first found it titillating now find it oppressive and limiting. Sex - the biological, material, measurable reality - is coming back and will put gender back in the academic box where it began.
And I thought objectifying women was bad...
Is being "one of the pre-eminent L.G.B.T.Q. scholars of our time" the same as being the tallest dwarf on the basketball team.
I laughed out loud when I read the quote : )
How simple women must be that a man can snip a little here, takes some drugs there and voila: I feel therefore I am.
""Is being "one of the pre-eminent L.G.B.T.Q. scholars of our time" the same as being the tallest dwarf on the basketball team."
"I laughed out loud when I read the quote : )"
Me, too. BOTH are wonderful.
Thank you.
I do find it interesting that the lead graf would rely on the authority of "any newspaper editor in 2022". It's pretty clear in 2022 - at least in 2022 America - newspaper editors are clearly not the ones who have an authoritative view of what's real and what's not. Fake news starts at the top.
Does "one of the pre-eminent [random letters] scholars of our time" find it problematic that she has 'man' in her name? Isn't that just another remnant of the patriarchy? Shouldn't she change it to fight the (literal) man?
Lillian Faderman, who, we're told is "one of the pre-eminent L.G.B.T.Q. scholars of our time"
I am a big believer in the Let's Get Brandon to Quit movement, though I think he should wait until Trump replaces Kamala.
I had no idea that it was now a scholarly subject.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
PM said...
How simple women must be that a man can snip a little here, takes some drugs there and voila: I feel therefore I am.
But the problem is that many of these men pretending to be women don't even do the snip. That's why you have a guy (who pretends to be a woman) running around in the locker room exposing his penis to high school girls.
There is a joke about the chicken and the pig. The chicken has an interest in the eggs. The pig ha made a committment to the bacon.
I would have more sympathy for these guys pretending to be women if they actually did chop off their meat and two veg. Until then it is just playacting.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
I follow the biology… The Science.
+10, John Henry!
" L.G.B.T.Q." - the last two letters are pronounced 'eunuch'.
Alexandra Jacobs is an ovary-busting bitch.
Gender o'clock is last call at the Sports Bra
Men are the best women, anyway.
A large percentage of the hardcore second wave feminists were lesbians.
I've encountered the gender critical crowd on Twitter and I'll tell you that these lesbians know womanhood well enough. They know that womanhood doesn't come with a penis and that they don't want their "woman" partners to have one.
"I'd go with the nagging instinct."
Wait, whut? I thought I was just a woman born without the nagging gene; TIL I am not a woman!
"I think "What is more complicated is the meaning that the term 'woman' has to those who use it to describe themselves" is a good question."
I only see an assertion that x is more complicated than something.
If the question you refer to is, what does the term w mean to people who use it to describe themselves, there are two kinds of answers: it means one thing to people who actually are women, and something else to people who are not.
Sex is male and female. Gender is sex-correlated physical and mental attributes, masculine and feminine, respectively, The transgender spectrum includes individuals with physiology or orientations that are divergent from normal.
I feel sorry for young parents and their children, we're truly living in a decadent time.
Clarence, this is stupid stuff.
Question: How many kids do you have?
Answer: Four... one of each.
A history about 400 years of women, but the important part is supposed to be the world since last Tuesday? Chronological Snobbery again. It's a form of self-centeredness by the reviewer, defending her subculture as the only really important one
There are two biological sexes, male and female, determined at the genetic level before birth.
If you have XY chromosomes, you are male.
If you have XX chromosomes, you are female.
Everything else is sophistry or genetic abnormality.
John Henry said...
...
"There is a joke about the chicken and the pig. The chicken has an interest in the eggs. The pig ha(s) made a committment to the bacon."
One of my managers used that trope in a meeting. Silly me, I popped off a response "It's a poor bargain for the pig, then!"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा