@aidan,
aidan wrote:
So now a man is here to tell us what we SHOULD be discussing and what we ARE most interested in and what sort of work we DO find demeaning.
your sentiment RE: spendi's bigooted rant, is kind of the core of what I was talking about in my original piece: That being a man and speaking on the topic can be like walking on eggshells. If one is too mellow it's pointless, and if one is too direct they are now overstepping their bounds.
Spendi is totally off base, but it's not because he's a man. Your (and my) disgust has nothing to do with gender when you boil it down. His words would have been just as disgusting coming from a woman's mouth.
aidan wrote:
Diest - if you go on that blog and regurgitate a bunch of facts and statistics from Germaine Greer - anyone that's already read might and I say MIGHT because they MIGHT be a woman like me who would scan what you said and say to myself, 'Why the hell am I reading this - why don't I just read Germaine Greer, for goodness sake?'
Nah. Not my style. I'm not the type to make a blog entry and regurgitate. I'm just saying that I have no objection to reading someone's writing. What I was telling Gala, is that my subjective opinion on feminism is not unique. I'm not sure what objective would look like in terms of a person speaking on these topics. Germaine Greer will be subjective for that matter.
My opinion is going to be based on my experiences, and reading Germaine Greer only becomes another experience, it nor reading of any other person will make me any less subjective.
aidan wrote:
Some of us actually LIKE to read another person's experience and opinion on a given subject. Especially now, with the internet, when most people do do nothing but do a quick google and cut and paste 'facts'. Anyone can do that now.
The challenge with a blog or a free essay format is that you are trying to communicate ideas in a engaging way. Some use humor, others shock, and some have audiences that want just numbers and no conjecture whatsoever. The context of audience is important. As seen by the contrast of the audience of A2K vice that of the blog itself, the audience is different. I don't think my essay appealed too much to the A2K audience. The audience that reads the blog are twenty-somethings mostly, and they seemed to get my ideas.
If I've learned anything in this thread so far is that communicating many of these ideas across generations is going to be harder than across genders.
aidan wrote:
What I think would be most interesting, and this is totally my subjective opinion, is a mixture of fact (research your topic to some extent) and then communicate some subjective thought or experience of yourself, your friends, SOMEONE in your life, who has seen it affected by the subject of your topic in some way - allowing that others may have viewed it or been affected in another way.
When I was working as a Wellness Educator, I spent a lot of time on the CDC's website. There is a lot of useful statistics there that we used when we made our materials. The first entry I made was mostly an introduction, but on future topics, I do plan to offer numbers when possible to make some points.
aidan wrote:
What I can't deal with reading is stuff like - 'I think this and this happened to me and so this is the way it is....'
I don't know about the "this is the way it is" but sometimes, the "this is what happened to me" is what is most important, because it takes the topic outside of the theoretical.
aidan wrote:
And why do we have the need to call anyone anything anymore - if feminism was such a success - why do we still need a name for them? Aside from human or woman who is able to be respected simply for that reason- because she is.
To say feminism was a success is to say that the struggle is over. Slow down.
Additionally, I've done thinking about the idea and definition of feminism itself. I've asked myself the question: What is the difference between fighting for equality, and fighting for feminism? So far, my answer is incomplete. I've so far only thought to explore the notion that feminism is not solely the goal to make women and men equal in society, but additionally to make individuals more whole in accepting their masculine and feminine attributes. For the later of the two, I can't call it equality ans much as balance between the two.
I think men should be feminists not only for the support and love for their fellow woman, but because their mind itself has feminine traits, and that part of the mind deserves to be embraced as much as the part that eats beef jerky and yells "woo!"
aidan wrote:
I don't think I'm a feminist personally for myself, because I don't think I've ever needed to be, because I've never felt that I was ever treated differently to a NEGATIVE effect - ever- for my gender. If anything I've felt that I was rewarded for my gender by having people take more care with me (men and women) from my parents to my teachers to my professors to my employers, to the man on the street.
Whether it be negative or positive, being treated differently for reasons of gender is an imbalance.
I hold doors open for people, and I am very gracious when they hold the door for me.
In my opinion, true chivalry is more than showing the ability to kind and polite to one person, but to all.
aidan wrote:
And my first thought was to wonder if the story would have ended differently if there's been a male in the home.
Is that a feminist thought? I don't know - but I think it's a logical and viable question to ask.
It could be. There's a lot of variables here. Too many to reduce down to a single theme. A man in the house may have helped, but also support from family or friends. Your story didn't include a lot of details. That's a really sad story. I hate hearing about people who feel lost like that.
T
K
O
