-0...9-
Suzie wrote this: Please go read it before it is lost
Young & old, mothers & daughters (by Suzie)
Echidne linked to a NYT column by Christine Stansell on Thursday. This passage angered me:
... in the first decade of the new [20th] century, though, an influx of bold young women, allergic to the old pieties about female purity and comfortable working with men, displaced their moralistic, teetotaling elders.
Just what we need: Another feminist pitting the sexy young against the old prudes, I thought. But I didn't finish my writing after I double-checked my discharge instructions, which said I shouldn't drive, return to work or make any critical decisions. That saved me from attacking a historian who has just published a fascinating book, “The Feminist Promise: 1792 to the Present.”
Some may remember Stansell, a history professor at the University of Chicago, for her letter "Feminists for Clinton." Her husband, Sean Wilentz, also was a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter.
In her book, she writes about the French and American revolutions, "revolutions made by men who saw themselves as brothers overthrowing tyrannical fathers -- as the Americans and later the French labeled their kings." How did women fit into this political family? "Women would be acknowledged as mothers, not sisters, present at the edges of the political community in their families and safely under the governance of men."
Women used this role to ask for rights: As mothers, they needed to protect their home. In contrast to these practical women who worked within the system, Stansell describes radical, rebellious women she calls the daughters. She acknowledges that these descriptions are not tied to age, and she says feminism achieves the most when mothers and daughters work together. For example,
More at Echidne of the Snakes 8/28/10, After the above, Suzie begins her own analysis of the double standard used by an otherwise fine feminist writer. In my opinion, in a concise way , Suzie gets at the heart of the problem in contemporary feminism.
Echidne linked to a NYT column by Christine Stansell on Thursday. This passage angered me:
... in the first decade of the new [20th] century, though, an influx of bold young women, allergic to the old pieties about female purity and comfortable working with men, displaced their moralistic, teetotaling elders.
Just what we need: Another feminist pitting the sexy young against the old prudes, I thought. But I didn't finish my writing after I double-checked my discharge instructions, which said I shouldn't drive, return to work or make any critical decisions. That saved me from attacking a historian who has just published a fascinating book, “The Feminist Promise: 1792 to the Present.”
Some may remember Stansell, a history professor at the University of Chicago, for her letter "Feminists for Clinton." Her husband, Sean Wilentz, also was a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter.
In her book, she writes about the French and American revolutions, "revolutions made by men who saw themselves as brothers overthrowing tyrannical fathers -- as the Americans and later the French labeled their kings." How did women fit into this political family? "Women would be acknowledged as mothers, not sisters, present at the edges of the political community in their families and safely under the governance of men."
Women used this role to ask for rights: As mothers, they needed to protect their home. In contrast to these practical women who worked within the system, Stansell describes radical, rebellious women she calls the daughters. She acknowledges that these descriptions are not tied to age, and she says feminism achieves the most when mothers and daughters work together. For example,
More at Echidne of the Snakes 8/28/10, After the above, Suzie begins her own analysis of the double standard used by an otherwise fine feminist writer. In my opinion, in a concise way , Suzie gets at the heart of the problem in contemporary feminism.
posted by Greenconsciousness
at 7:48 AM - Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment