The gals at Bread n Roses still want the discussion:
So I'm still reading the thread at Bread n Roses about Why so-con women are so angry.
Of the women involved in the anti-SOW blogburst, Brebis Noire wrote:
These women have totally absorbed an individualistic and history-ignorant analysis of their own lives and feminism.
Now, what power of telepathy does she have to make that judgment? What does she know of the analyses made by me or other women who participated in the anti-SOW blogburst?
Again, the "so-con women are dumb" motif, because if you're not a feminist, you're ignorant and stupid. Naturally
One of the posters stated that the feminist movement of the 1960s was essentially Marxist, and that only the 'first-wave' of feminism even made sense to her.
The feminist movement of the late sixties definitively was Marxist in inspiration.
I'm not angry at them so much as dismayed by their ignorance of recent history. Maybe they didn't talk to their mums enough about their experiences, or maybe their mums kept the code of silence?
Give me a break. I have a BA in history, I have read lots about the sixties. Not to say I'm an expert by any means, but I'm certainly no slouch.
In Quebec, the women of that generation were definitely not silent, and I have a sense that women in their 20s and 30s are more aware of the collective experience of their mothers and grandmothers. I just don't see as much opposition to feminism here as I do in the ROC.
As I have studied Quebec history and was raised in Quebec, I would say the lack of opposition to feminism has more to do with the socialization people receive through various institutions. In Quebec, people are afraid to contest la pensée unique. There are lots of women who oppose feminism, but they do not voice it and do not feel they have a medium to voice it. I would say the general tendency among Quebeckers is to not rock the boat when it comes to anything having to do with the sphere of ideas, let alone feminism.
I love fern hill's commentary:
Ok, to sum up the various answers to the question: so-con women are really angry at the power structures (men) around them, but can't direct anger there so direct it at feminists
Notice how they have to find an explanation ulterior to what so-con women say to deflect the real issues. Nevermind that in my case, I have never been struck with the inability to be forthright with the men around me-- or women for that matter.
skdadl writes:
Maybe that desperation to believe in syrupy traditional families arises precisely from knowing that one's own is not and yet falling for the myth that everyone else lives in one.
I don't know that anyone really believes that everyone else is living the "syrupy traditional family. There's nothing wrong with projecting an ideal, and wanting to aim for an ideal. What is wrong with wanting to live in harmony and emotional warmth?
Wow, that's a very jaded view of lfie and the family.
anne cameron writes:
There they are and for however many years they've been coddling their critter, doing their best to keep it at least tame enough it won't eat the children.
What a jaded view of men. And you wonder why people think feminists are men-haters? That perception is completely false in my life.
They've been stay-at-home wifey-poo for decades, they've swallowed all manner of protest, they've been subservient and obedient and all the things they were told were good and that they should be and they've voted as they've been told to vote and kept a clean house and ironed pillow slips and...and they've stood by their man! Dammit but they've stood by him, and his brothers, and nephews and political party and
and they KNOW better than any of us do, just how much they've given away of themselves and themSelves
Wow. Is that ever jaded. "Swallowed all manner of protest"? I think they have me mixed up with some other crowd, and I know this is true for other so-con women.
Yes, we "give our SELVES" away, but we also get a lot back. Giving the gift of self doesn't mean you SELL yourself out. I think there is a failure to make that distinction.
...and there's Harpoon, and he's who they voted for when they obediently went to the polls and he's a dweeb, and they know it.
And what power of telepathy makes you know that? I didn't "obediently" vote for Harper. And I don't think he's a dweeb.
But if they admit they are wrong about even one little thing they have just had to admit they've wasted all those years and all those hours ironing!
Again, the stereotype is about fifty years too late. I'm not Martha Stewart. Most stay-at-home moms aren't, I suspect.
For all the septage they heave at us, what sits and festers in their own guts and souls is worse.
More presumption. What act of mindreading does this person have to make it possible to make that judgement?
The thing about this thread is that they're commenting on this blog on their forum, without mentioning the name, or my name, so that readers don't necessarily know who they're referring to, all the while making these comments about so-con women, without any chance for rebuttal. Mind you, most of the women reading would probably agree with them, on an ideological basis. Still. I just find that very convenient of them to have all these comments, and not allow challenges. They want so-con women to be challenged, but they don't want to be challenged themselves.
Oh wait, except they have too many of these people in their lives, anyway.
Except they seek my blog out.
Very interesting.
At any rate, this is what this blog is for: to give ME a voice.
