The feminism of the 1960s and 1970s, reflecting and feeding into a revolution in women's lives, spoke the language of sisterhood — the assumption that there was a shared female experience that cut across class, ethnic and generational lines. The reality was that, at that very moment, sisterhood was dying. Gender politics still encourages us to talk about women as a group with common interests and demands.
This is an essay sparking off huge debates in Britain. What do you think of it?
This comment is on the essay:
According to the author:
'But it is striking how little anyone mentions, let alone tries to quantify, the offsetting losses when women choose work over family. This is stupid.'
The offsetting losses has to be corrected, as are all losses corrected, but to expect women to go back to the kitchen sink and childbearing alone and leave work is ridiculous. Of course, the author never says it, she steers clear of any clear comments in the long essay, most of which is useless reading by the way, but the last few sentences sums up her opinion on this.
There are always pros and cons of a change. And to bluntly put things as 'women choosing work over family' is so chauvinistic. Why don't we hear stuff as men chhosing work over family? Is it because that is an established norm kneaded into the hard mentality of the society and the author?
As much as I am generally in favor of women working and being (more!) independent than men, expanding the scope of this blog is hardly going to serve your core purpose.
Also, being cynical, I can't help but wonder if your 'street interventions' are going to change the nature of a street. 'Take back the night' programs were succesful on those nights, and disappeared the next. I suspect the only ones impresed would be the ones who already concur, and the 'lyrical', artistic protests may impress many. And there it might end.
Im only too happy to read 'might end', coz there is a big chance it 'might not'.
so are you really cynical or just dont see things in other ways?
Post a Comment