> Brett, my point is that knowledge, power, money do not work alike for
> both sexes. BECAUSE men are supposed to be dominant in a hetero
> relationship, having these advantages gives them points in th sexual
> marketplace. BECAUSE women are supposed to be not dominant in a hetero
> relationship, the signs of 'success" work against them. You keep
> conflating my points about gender into generalizations about age versus
> youth. But these are not general "problems" about "older folks" versus
> the "rest of us."
i wouldn't be so sure about that.
examples of people believing one thing and saying another, wanting one thing but supporting another, etc., are given in substantial detail on this list each day.
just a few years ago it was very alamodal for young women to be explicitly 'antifeminist' for various reasons. none of them would submit to the conditions prevalent prior to the rise of the feminism they rejected. i'd rather not ex- hume all the blabla that went on all those debates. but i do want to point out that a lot of old(er)-line feminists viewed the rejection a betrayal, a recidivism borne of ig- norance, a capitulation in the ongoing battle between the sexes, etc. yet what had happened, in a way, was that fem- inist battles had succeeded to the point where any actual return was well-nigh impossible, because the advances had become 'naturalized'--an almost transparent aspect of soc- iety. so i think it's fair to say that there *is* a gener- ational dimension to these changes.
i'm quite convinced that 'feminist' advances will proceed apace--thanks, of course, *in part* to explicit effort on the part of feminists. but as time goes by the impersonal imperatives you recited will become ever-less compelling-- so you really ought to think twice about dashing them off as though they're self-evident truths. for a lot of young people they *aren't*--which is, i think, exactly what you want, no?
> Again, I am not talking about the number of dollars -- but about what
> dollars mean. A woman who earns a big income has much LESS sexual
> possibility than a man who earns the same -- but also, she has less
> possibility than a woman who earns less. Because many, many men have a
> problem with earning less than a woman. It challenges their superiority,
> ego, privilege.
and beside those 'many, many men' are those who are *not* threatened by these things. in disregarding them you dis- regard positive signs of progress in order to recite the same old totalizing message. that's not to say that i re- ject what you say--i don't--but i *do* think the failure to digest that simple fact is counterproductive.
> yes, i agree that one cannot forbid. But we CAN encourage people to
> think about their expectations of gender, and challenge their
> disinclination to examine their supposedly innate and unchangeable
> preferences. After all, if i said, well actually I'd like to just keep
see above.
> all my money and white skin privilege -- that's what feels good to me,
> that's just the way i am-- I wouldn't get much sympathy on this list!
> In fact, social customs and expectations play a big role in how people
> act and what they want. Tolstoy was an immensely experienced 36 or so
> when he married his wife, a 16 or 17 year old virgin straight out of
> finishing school. I think a man who did that today would look weird --
> pathetically insecure, or maybe even a pervert. But in Tolstoy's day it
> was the norm.
i think your comment suggests a tremendous disrespect for young people. and you wonder why there are genera- tional breakdowns in these discourses. heh.
> maybe if old man-younger woman was treated less as a desirable norm
> - -- if Sean Connery and Warren Beatty DIDN"T get the young beauties --
> there'd be less of it. And maybe if Joanne Woodward got sexy parts
> instead of having to play unhappy old ladies, there'd be more male mays
> and female Decembers.
i think basing practical social criticism on films in insane.
and i'll tell you another thing: when feminism succeeds, it'll need to disappear.
cheers, t