QED.

Morganzola,

My daughter had the same opinion of Paglia's writing style - she made a point of remarking that it repelled her, even though she was interested in the content. However, when I came across the first chapter of "Sexual Personae" in a Penguin Mini, I was mesmerized by Paglia's ideas and intellect and wasted no time in ordering the full book. I like Greer as well - both towering intellects.

I believe human's are uniquely challenged in this area. Having been able to construct a reality whereby we transcend our immersion in nature, both physically and psychologically, we struggle to integrate our intellectual gifts with our innate instincts. Western development has accelerated at astonishing speed in the last one hundred years, and we're still adjusting to a paradigm that has allowed women into traditionally male spheres. We are still pushed and pulled by instinctual imperatives which, when all is said and done, are basically incompatible with the arrangement we have fashioned for ourselves.
The notion that pregnancy and childbirth are really only brief interludes in a woman's life, is a modern idea, compartmentalising the nurturing aspect of femaleness. The nurturing role of females has always been lifelong and innate, and was as integral to the development of civilization as the male contribution.


Vanna - your record is stuck again.

Poirot

Excellent points vis a vis Greer and Paglia. I find Greer a more accessible read than Paglia, however, they both have a grasp on the impact of women in the public sphere beyond yours truly.

I recall reading Alvin Tofler's Future Shock, in which he made a number of predictions of the impact of the speed of new technologies (although significantly overlooking computers) impacting on the human condition. This book, published in 1970 also failed to theorise the impact of women's entry into the public sphere in business and politics. A significant failing IMHO. Particularly given that The Feminine Mystique was published in the early 60's and Greer's Female Eunuch published in 1970. Surely Toffler was aware of the rumblings, the future possible effects of the pill and the increasing participation in Tertiary education by women.

Finding articles by such as Ian Robinson's are a well needed breath of fresh air, as too many people are stuck in mid 20th century views of male and female relationships and so much has changed since then.

I've just been reading this thread, and the first few posts on it, particularly those by Vanna, Kenny, Interested_Party and Atman just look like cyber-bullying. Too late to delete those, but I've deleted the one by Vanna above for continuing harassment. Comments which are purely ad hominem are abusive and against the forum rules. We're here to discuss issues, not call each other names.

It took me a while to understand this, but when heterosexual males are sexually attracted to a woman, that is misogyny.

If a male wants to have sexual intercourse that is misogyny.

If a male likes looking at the female figure, that is misogyny.

So basically when males try to get their intimate needs met, this is misogyny.

When men wait for women to actively initiate encounters, they are kept waiting a long, long time. Read some of stories in Bettina's in her book.

In our society, if men did not try to initiate sex, the vast majority of us would have never been born.

Psychologist Toby Green, wrote that within marriage, that men were more likely to be sexually underfed.

So it really boils down to men being the obedient supplicant, and doing what they are told to do by women, otherwise, they are misogynists.

Suck it up buster, you've been rejected, take it like a man, don't take it personally.

But then women are told to take things very personally.

James H.

In a "liberated" society, instincts are constantly challenged. Women are now educated and participating and, therefore, the old adage of "having one's cake and eating it too" comes into play.

Man's civilisation in the modern Western paradigm exalts the pursuance of material wealth. It is predicated on greed and excess - and this male-driven construct is so enamoured by all that glitters that he has elevated his female counterparts to physically join him in the pursuit.

Why is Western man so bewildered by the fact that the lure of material wealth and self-determination is as attractive to females as it is to males? Is it really so surprising that in order to participate, that the "new woman" has been created in man's image? She's playing his game and is compelled, therefore, to take on his shape.

Perhaps that's why demeaning pornographic representations of females are flourishing. Man is lamenting his androgynous creation, and doesn't know how to deal with it. Perhaps he is attempting to psychologically "put her back in her place".

Ammonite - yes, I read Future Shock, and your points are valid.