CK:
When are you going to discuss feminism and how it affects men and male politicians?
Harry C Smith:
Wouldn't that be a very tricky thing 2do properly - & fairly - without at least one woman in the mix? I can't see the Duran boyz wanting to touch that with a 20-ft pole! Not least of all 2b taken into account is how just the term 'Feminism' itself not only means different things to people depending on their age, class, sex, political affiliation, nationality, sexuality &, last but by no means least, their educational background & depth of understanding of what Feminism IS, what it means & the importance of its contribution to society!
As a well-educated, middle-class poststructuralist mid-30s polyglot agnostic gay socialist Anglophone man, raised in three countries & a citizen of two, by a single mother of nurse-midwife-journalist background, & a Labour-voting Australian solicitor atheist father, I'm happily aware of my own particular subjective bias; and I'm better schooled than most in the history, function & role of Feminism in 'Western' society. Yet I would never consider myself a classical 'Feminist', whose central purpose & thesis I would summarise as 'A woman is equally capable & valuable in any act or contribution as a man.'
I call myself instead a Post-Feminist: the above argument of classical post-War feminism is, for me & my ilk, so obvious & foregone a conclusion as to never need debating or any further proof again! Rather, to the Post-Feminist, the terms of discourse have long since shifted beyond holding the Man as the standard of comparison against which Woman must still be compared. And how even this may have affected Men is, to my mind, of such little consequence as to be almost comical - IF that is to be the only question for consideration! I don't see much difference between asking this & asking how racial de-segregation & integration has affected the poor dear old white people!
The Feminist project, & its successor movements, have unquestionably changed the world in vital & long overdue ways; but although the concept & the discursive mode in which we integrate its integral principles have moved beyond the male-female binary decades ago, the notion of some men talking about feminism (even if extremely well informed, which, regrettably, very few are - & I do include women here too), would be, at best, on very shaky grounds, academically, & at worst, less than half a debate, easily liable to become diatribal & highly likely of becoming offensive all-round, & performing a great disservice to everyone involved... however well-informed & sincerely well-intentioned all involved may have been!
CK:
ON WHO SHOULD DISCUSS FEMINISM Obviously, since I had asked a similar question before and have a known viewpoint on the subject briefly explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/10/youtubers-complain-about-claire-khaw.html, I should be on the panel. As you can see from https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/12/will-crosstalk-discuss-feminism-and.html, the Duran Boys know they have to tread carefully since RT is being run by a woman and have many female colleagues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarita_Simonyan
As a gay man, you would be a supporter of the Western matriarchy. A patriarchy would criminalise gay men as sex offenders, but a matriarchy would indulge you. Feminism operates by bribing men with extramarital sex until they are too stupefied or morally compromised to notice or care what feminism is doing to their society, nation and civilisation.
There is no need to divide feminism into waves or whatever. All those who refuse to condemn and criminalise extramarital sex are by default feminists, even if they are men complaining about feminism. The moment you treat fornicatresses as sex offenders is the day you cut off the legs of feminism. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2012/11/claire-khaws-aphorisms-on-feminism-and.html
I am basically saying at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlWEZgrMFVE that without patriarchy, not enough good strong men will be produced to defend the national interest. NO PATRIARCHY, NO NATIONALISM (of any kind civic or ethno).
I think the best way of getting round the problem of displeasing RT Editrix in Chief is just to make a direct approach and run the idea of having me on the panel past her. My message is after all global and universal.
No comments:
Post a Comment