Duerk, glad somebody else saw the a. b. (that's shorthand from us veterans of the aurora borealis). Hey, now that you've got some time, you should get some good reading done, and I know you're not big into the lit scene like me and Lynnea and Miller, but if you're up for some good history that really sheds light on the workings of something we history people may take for granted, pick up de Tocqueville's Old Regime and the French Revolution. Very readable, very interesting. Or just stick to milking cows - whatever!
Lynnea, you knew I would have to respond, didn't you? Oh, and before I start jabbering about feminism as I have perceived it on my campus, I'd like to remind you of two things: Tutoring service? Pretty girl's phone number... service? Both would be greatly appreciated.
From my last comment, and my four years spent with all of you, one can surmise that I find women as the sort of enemy for whom I readily become a traitor - and sadly, I'm the sort of traitor that is sent back to his own lines because the enemy has no use for his treachery. But beyond my despondant place in this war, if women are the enemy (I don't think they are, but they could be), then it is only because they think it would be better if social power rested in their hands in a clear and decisive way - as it supposedly already does with men. The problem here is that women want to do what men already do - use their power to manipulate the other gender, but the difference is that women have a why that men never have had - revenge, and it is all the more sinister in its foreseeable outcomes. But enough about women wanting to be in control - I would venture to say they already are in more ways than I can possibly imagine.
I wonder why Gayle Rubin wants a sexually egalitarian society. This is one of the problems of the desire for equality that looms on our national horizon - we wish for there to equality where there is none. The sexes are not meant to be equal. I mean that quite completely, and now some people may be annoyed or offended by such a comment, but we aren't built equally, so why should we try to exist as sexual equals. By no means do I wish to see either gender lord over the other, but with two human beings there is no equality to be grasped by reason or sense, for the only equality within humanity is humanity itself - the place where we are equal is in our hearts before the throne of God, and nowhere else should we seek complete equality - something implied by the idea of equality itself. Relationships cannot be the source of all oppression, as Rubin claims, for that would mean that society, the generalization of human relationships, would be one giant repression, and to be freed from society would mean to reach all human potential. Imagine that: Six billion people wandering around, foraging for sustainance and interacting with no one! Thankfully the population troubles I predict would no longer be an issue. No, relationships are one of the clearest expressions of humanity - and like all human expressions, they have most certainly been corrupted, but corruption does not mean that what was corrupted was not once good - and can still be.
So women are perceived as the enemy only when they go against their role - whatever that relational role has been determined to be? I am not against women asking the important questions in life, nor even breaking out of those relational roles that take away from their womanhood, but the problem here is that many women try to break out of... being female, and that is somewhat due to our culture and civilzation giving some false and dangerous impressions of what that means, but it also seems to be an expression of antinomialism that is to be one of two character troubles that will destroy our society in our generation.
"...an androgynous and genderless society, in which one's sexual anatomy is irrelevant to who one is, what one does, and with whom one makes love." Just quoting the end of your... quote, there, Lynnea (and in my normal style, as an aside, Lynnea, I realize that this is not your view in toto, nor do I believe I am fighting against anything but the author of an essay you were relaying in jest to my comment from yesterday... anyway, just putting my thoughts down, so I hope they do no one harm). There is the essense of a great plague on our society - the thought that sexuality, that gender and all else quoted up there should have no effect on one's personhood shows that there is no clear understanding of what or where personhood is derived, and what it should include. Virginia Woolf explains in A Room of One's Own that if women were to come in contact with the men they sought to create - men that cannot be distinguished from women in manner or personality or position or relation - that women would no longer want the men because they wouldn't be men any longer. The androgynous society would marginalize the greatness of humanity found it opposite and yet balancing genders. I like women. Now I know that quote will come back to haunt me some day when I'm running for public office.
I want to do exactly what Robbie says I'm not allowed to do: I'm going to take these girl's (I assume it's a girl saying that her body is the only thing she owns, because any right-minded male would end up including an automobile, a baseball card collection, or an Xbox) comments to DUM DUM DUM! THEIR LOGICAL CONCLUSION. So here we go. First, let's just be serious and acknowledge that woman are obviously not the enemy, so the desire for some to withdraw the government's legal position concerning something like abortion cannot be seen as an attack against women and nothing more. Shoot, I'll take a war on terror to a war on women any day... the terrorists have limits to what they can do. Seriously, though, can a woman in America today claim that she is being marginalized by our government because the President was re-elected? I find this sad.
And the final quote, that a woman owns her own body... well, do any of us really own our own body? I mean, here's the problem with the perception of limitless ownership - can we do whatever we want with whatever we own? The obvious legal answer is no. I cannot take a car that I own over the speed limit without expecting legal consequences. I cannot simply throw my computer screen out the window of a twenty-story building simply on the basis that I own it. So ownership does have limits, and that includes our bodies. Now if we push this issue into the realm of abortion, it may become a bit more blurry than speeding cars and throwing computer monitors, but I don't think it goes pitch black, either. Maybe everybody is tired of this tirade, so we'll save the abortion debate for another blog - or maybe a blogger where somebody would really argue another side - maybe I'm thinking we're a bit more monolithic than we are, eh? Hope nobody's too offended (except Kurbis, but he didn't make it this far anyway, so I can use one of Brad's adjectives for God to apply to Kurbis - it rhymns with kiss my___).
I dreamt last night that I was in Iraq running around war-torn city streets with President Bush. It was pretty wild. A terrorist with a handgun tried to shoot me, but I grabbed the gun and twisted it in his hand so he shot himself. Is that supposed to symbolize something? And more than just I'm way messed up? Also, our President was pretty "kick ass" with this machine gun in my dream - so maybe some of it was true. Who knows? I'll quit now. And quit praying that I'll get arthritis in my hands so I'll quit typing. I'll type with a pen between my teeth if I have to. I hope everybody is doing well. Gabe - how's papa life? You're busy, so don't worry about answer. Okay, really done this time.
Lynnea, you knew I would have to respond, didn't you? Oh, and before I start jabbering about feminism as I have perceived it on my campus, I'd like to remind you of two things: Tutoring service? Pretty girl's phone number... service? Both would be greatly appreciated.
From my last comment, and my four years spent with all of you, one can surmise that I find women as the sort of enemy for whom I readily become a traitor - and sadly, I'm the sort of traitor that is sent back to his own lines because the enemy has no use for his treachery. But beyond my despondant place in this war, if women are the enemy (I don't think they are, but they could be), then it is only because they think it would be better if social power rested in their hands in a clear and decisive way - as it supposedly already does with men. The problem here is that women want to do what men already do - use their power to manipulate the other gender, but the difference is that women have a why that men never have had - revenge, and it is all the more sinister in its foreseeable outcomes. But enough about women wanting to be in control - I would venture to say they already are in more ways than I can possibly imagine.
I wonder why Gayle Rubin wants a sexually egalitarian society. This is one of the problems of the desire for equality that looms on our national horizon - we wish for there to equality where there is none. The sexes are not meant to be equal. I mean that quite completely, and now some people may be annoyed or offended by such a comment, but we aren't built equally, so why should we try to exist as sexual equals. By no means do I wish to see either gender lord over the other, but with two human beings there is no equality to be grasped by reason or sense, for the only equality within humanity is humanity itself - the place where we are equal is in our hearts before the throne of God, and nowhere else should we seek complete equality - something implied by the idea of equality itself. Relationships cannot be the source of all oppression, as Rubin claims, for that would mean that society, the generalization of human relationships, would be one giant repression, and to be freed from society would mean to reach all human potential. Imagine that: Six billion people wandering around, foraging for sustainance and interacting with no one! Thankfully the population troubles I predict would no longer be an issue. No, relationships are one of the clearest expressions of humanity - and like all human expressions, they have most certainly been corrupted, but corruption does not mean that what was corrupted was not once good - and can still be.
So women are perceived as the enemy only when they go against their role - whatever that relational role has been determined to be? I am not against women asking the important questions in life, nor even breaking out of those relational roles that take away from their womanhood, but the problem here is that many women try to break out of... being female, and that is somewhat due to our culture and civilzation giving some false and dangerous impressions of what that means, but it also seems to be an expression of antinomialism that is to be one of two character troubles that will destroy our society in our generation.
"...an androgynous and genderless society, in which one's sexual anatomy is irrelevant to who one is, what one does, and with whom one makes love." Just quoting the end of your... quote, there, Lynnea (and in my normal style, as an aside, Lynnea, I realize that this is not your view in toto, nor do I believe I am fighting against anything but the author of an essay you were relaying in jest to my comment from yesterday... anyway, just putting my thoughts down, so I hope they do no one harm). There is the essense of a great plague on our society - the thought that sexuality, that gender and all else quoted up there should have no effect on one's personhood shows that there is no clear understanding of what or where personhood is derived, and what it should include. Virginia Woolf explains in A Room of One's Own that if women were to come in contact with the men they sought to create - men that cannot be distinguished from women in manner or personality or position or relation - that women would no longer want the men because they wouldn't be men any longer. The androgynous society would marginalize the greatness of humanity found it opposite and yet balancing genders. I like women. Now I know that quote will come back to haunt me some day when I'm running for public office.
I want to do exactly what Robbie says I'm not allowed to do: I'm going to take these girl's (I assume it's a girl saying that her body is the only thing she owns, because any right-minded male would end up including an automobile, a baseball card collection, or an Xbox) comments to DUM DUM DUM! THEIR LOGICAL CONCLUSION. So here we go. First, let's just be serious and acknowledge that woman are obviously not the enemy, so the desire for some to withdraw the government's legal position concerning something like abortion cannot be seen as an attack against women and nothing more. Shoot, I'll take a war on terror to a war on women any day... the terrorists have limits to what they can do. Seriously, though, can a woman in America today claim that she is being marginalized by our government because the President was re-elected? I find this sad.
And the final quote, that a woman owns her own body... well, do any of us really own our own body? I mean, here's the problem with the perception of limitless ownership - can we do whatever we want with whatever we own? The obvious legal answer is no. I cannot take a car that I own over the speed limit without expecting legal consequences. I cannot simply throw my computer screen out the window of a twenty-story building simply on the basis that I own it. So ownership does have limits, and that includes our bodies. Now if we push this issue into the realm of abortion, it may become a bit more blurry than speeding cars and throwing computer monitors, but I don't think it goes pitch black, either. Maybe everybody is tired of this tirade, so we'll save the abortion debate for another blog - or maybe a blogger where somebody would really argue another side - maybe I'm thinking we're a bit more monolithic than we are, eh? Hope nobody's too offended (except Kurbis, but he didn't make it this far anyway, so I can use one of Brad's adjectives for God to apply to Kurbis - it rhymns with kiss my___).
I dreamt last night that I was in Iraq running around war-torn city streets with President Bush. It was pretty wild. A terrorist with a handgun tried to shoot me, but I grabbed the gun and twisted it in his hand so he shot himself. Is that supposed to symbolize something? And more than just I'm way messed up? Also, our President was pretty "kick ass" with this machine gun in my dream - so maybe some of it was true. Who knows? I'll quit now. And quit praying that I'll get arthritis in my hands so I'll quit typing. I'll type with a pen between my teeth if I have to. I hope everybody is doing well. Gabe - how's papa life? You're busy, so don't worry about answer. Okay, really done this time.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home