The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Two women who were out of control > Comments

Two women who were out of control : Comments

By Brian Holden, published 18/2/2010

In the 1920s and 30s there were almost no women voluntarily performing physical feats which demanded maximum mental stamina.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Wilson: "some weird people...use...comments as a platform...what matters [to them] is the opportunity to go public"

You really can't help yourself can you, Brian? You just completely summed up my point in one comment.
1) You have a tendency to denigrate "the other" as a means to make your heroes/heroines more heroic, describing those who critique your article as "weird" and the "male establishment" in your article as flabby;
and
2) You have a tendency to attribute motives to others without having met them; so that those who critique your article are only motivated by "publicity" and don't really understand what you are saying just as the "male establishment" in your article is controlling and allegedly felt alienated by these women.

Wilson: "The sole purpose of my writing this article was to inspire those who read it."
Perhaps, but the way you chose to do this was to denigrate the "other", in this case, the "male establishment" of the period. To paint men as the villains of the piece. Although this is a lovely narrative device, it invites a backlash, and, more importantly, undermines attempts at equality and understanding.

Your stance is morally equivalent to those old westerns that painted the white settlers as the oppressed, the Indians as sub-human terrorists with no reason to oppose the passage of the Europeans across their lands, and John Wayne and the calvary as the heroes that save the day.

Severin: "Apparently praising women, any women is an act of misandry..., you would never have expected the anger...for some few males"
No, Severin, the act of misandry is praising women at the expense of men. And no, I'm not angry, just pointing out the moral double standard. Why don't we call it the Ray Romano effect?
Posted by Stev, Sunday, 21 February 2010 11:00:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amfortas: < pynch - "As to white feathers, the idea was started by a bloke who recruited the first 30 women. The government issued badges to identify people staying at home working in the war effort to counter the feather effect."

Amfortas: "Ah well, what can I say in the face of such a well supported and referenced factoid that it was a bloke to blame.">

Here is the name:

Charles Cooper Penrose-Fitzgerald (30 April 1841 – 11 August 1921).
Royal Navy Vice-Admiral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cooper_Penrose_Fitzgerald

I would say that he and anyone who distributed the white feathers believed they were being patriotic and supporting the soldiers who'd joined up.

Non-participants, however, well also identified by not having government issued badges identifying them as doing war work at home.

One fellow apparently said that he collected enough white feathers to make a fan. He didn't seem bothered by it.

Whether or not any of those actions and perspectives is admirable would be a matter of understanding people's lives and behaviours in the context of their time.
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 21 February 2010 11:16:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stev: Thanks for taking the trouble. I get the point of what you're doing because I do that myself. For example, if in a movie I see a woman slap or verbally abuse a man, I reverse the picture and decide that if it's unacceptable for a man to do it, then it's not acceptable for a woman to do it either.

The only little stumbling block in our self-testing, is that we need to be sure that we know whether or not the reversed image is an actuality past or present, or just a possibility. For example, "... with the obliging men adjusting themselves to the female image of what women should be."

Nobody wants that do they. However it is speaking of the 1920s and 30s - that is, it's an historical account of a time when women did adjust themselves to male dominance and had to be prepared to live as social pariahs for not conforming to the prescribed female social role. That was and is unacceptable. The vast majority of men were never in this position, but women were. You have therefore illustrated the point of feminism and one of the reasons that it came to be.
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 21 February 2010 11:46:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good info, Pynchme.

Well done.
Posted by Amfortas, Sunday, 21 February 2010 1:01:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Whether or not any of those actions and perspectives is admirable would be a matter of understanding people's lives and behaviours in the context of their time.'

Well well well!

This is the first I've heard any of this sort of gear! There I was thinking all those nasty misogynist men who since the beginning of time 'enslaved' their wives just hated women or were just the naturally abusive gender pynch.

Or does this new generosity only apply to woman?

'I reverse the picture and decide that if it's unacceptable for a man to do it, then it's not acceptable for a woman to do it either'

That conflicts greatly with your comments on any topic to do with domestic violence.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 22 February 2010 9:27:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your reply, Pynchme. I think we are very close on our thinking about this. I'm glad you approve of my technique.

You stated that:
"The only little stumbling block in our self-testing, is that we need to be sure that we know whether or not the reversed image is an actuality past or present, or just a possibility. "

Of course, Brian has no actual evidence that these women felt controlled, alienated, or anything else. It is a possibility not an actuality (to use your language).

Instead, he chooses to rely on a commonly-used rhetorical or narrative device that is designed to inflame the faithful's indignities and thus heighten their appreciation for the heroic achievements of the central characters. My simple observation was that this male bashing was unnecessary and unhelpful.

Brian only has to say: "Fair enough, mate, I'll tone it down next time" and we'd all be happy :-)
Posted by Stev, Monday, 22 February 2010 11:31:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy