Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
Again, there was and still is collateral damage. This thread is all about ironing some of that out.
The question is, and its entirely reasonable, what about the men?
Well those are valid and fair questions - feminism and what its done hasn't been perfect.
Off the top of my head, "I don't know", but some of the examples that have been raised a just wrong.
-
Phew.
This is the last time I'm getting your back though. Next time you'll have to take on Giovanni by yourself.
-
A male/female couple have a child through a surrogate lending her uterus to the cause. The childminding arrangement is that the male stays at home and is the primary caregiver, while the female stays in her job. Who's the mummy and who's the daddy of this child?
I don't see Russell's basic point as particularly controversial, regardless of the counter examples and definition debates (and some exceptions). The fact that men and women have different 'bits' which are pretty important in the 'having children and making them breastmilk' lark is not a social construct. There's some biological things going on there.
That has led to lots of social constructs, tied with some other things going on in our society, but it's not a social construct in itself.
-
Anecdotally, Kyle, I'd say those class divisions you describe, are the product of shoddy education.
Well quite possibly. But they're still there.
The point about rape of men is important, as subsequent posts have shown.
I don't buy that Paul. It's an important point if someone said "only women get raped" or "men shouldn't have any interest in the 'victim side' of rape". But no one did. Just that it was a feminist issue.
Given that Ben called himself a male feminist, and no one seems to have jumped up and said "men can't be feminists", feminist != women. And people noted that it wasn't exclusively a feminist issue, just one for feminists, which they've made a bunch of progress for society as a whole over the past few decades.
And perhaps we can also respect a woman's choice without the home visit from Mr./Mrs./Ms. Judgy-Pants.
I had a similar discussion with someone about childbirth choices - commenting on women choosing to have elective c-sections rather than give birth 'naturally'.
My comment here is the same. As long as women are well informed by medical professionals, the rest of us can back off. A doctor or midwife or lactation consultant is going to inform a new mother of the benefits of breastfeeding and do their best to make it happen for the mother and child, after that the mother and baby and family will try and do their best to get by and their decisions are theirs.
-
And all the while, this has been contingent on the keeping of confidence not only of Woods's employees and "girlfriends", but of journalists and fellow players who frankly didn't even like the guy. It is quite fascinating.
See that's interesting. The value of the image of one man to his sponsors and the complicity of the media in keeping it there when some of them obviously knew, until it was broken and then they all suddenly switched and were all over it.
What he did with girlfriend #9 and whatnot, not so much.
-
And in the 'Angry Wimmin' episode, there's a moment that just makes me gasp: where it's related that some of the radical feminist communes extended invitations for other women to join them -- on the condition that they abandon their male children.
The later, more whacked out parts of the New Left in early 1970s America took their new (partially feminist ideals) to mean that partnering with one person was a bad idea (as part of the patriarchy). So orgies, and partnering up with different people each night became the revolutionary model.
A side effect of this was that previously strong activist groups were torn apart by endless meetings about the personal relationships and sexual activity of members who weren't following the new rules properly.
-
I wonder if you did a survey of high earning women, you'd find a different pattern in the earnings of their spouses than women earning the average female wage. Theoretically, having lots of dosh means you can choose a partner without worrying about their ability to provide - it would be interesting to see if that played out in fact.
Anecdotally, I would suggest that people tend to partner with people in similar social groupings, education levels etc, more than crossing those boundaries. And often income levels, though those things don't always carry through to income.
But CEOs of decent sized businesses aren't likely to have a partner who is a cleaner or labourer. It'll be lawyers, doctors, teachers, other business people etc.
-
I had even more reason to love family & friends on the 26th, after toppling over a 12m drop...waua!
I think we'd all like to discourage you from that sort of activity Islander.
-
Like Gio, I'm somewhat cheered by the massive losses from it all.
The problem is, the money will just shift onto other people some of whom we will eventually learn are no better. It's rearranging the deck chairs on the (not at all sinking) titanic.
-
Can we make Garth George an honorary political lesbian?
That's not just a toaster oven, that's a whole kitchen worth of appliances you'll earn for that conversion.