Jump to content

Good Guys vs. Bad guys Rant


Recommended Posts

As I said, I mostly disagree with her. But given her initial positions, she argues them very logically. Don't make her right, but does make her interesting to read, IMHO.

It is like the realm of Sci-Fi. Assume Hitler hadn't chickened out on the shores of France and had invaded Britain. Most historians and military analysts say he would have won. There have been many great books assuming that happened and exploring the subsequent story. Great stuff to fire the imagination and the thunking process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure as to your point here. -k

Mallick's "melodramatic whining hyperbole" is very similar to a good portion of the first half of Atwood's most excellent, 'The Handmaid's Tail' where the protagonist, Offred, witnesses a world in whch men "...bruise women’s bodies, they humiliate us..., they expend great effort in keeping us pregnant, booting us away... are tireless in their attempts at control and resent our efforts to advance."

Now whether Margaret Atwood intended this to be a feminist commententary on modern times or not, the "melodramatic whining hyperbole" is used in a similar fashion to Mallick's use, including a transitory device where Offred and Nick attempt to escape the grip of the ultra-conservative, biblically arranged society that has oppressed her and women in general.

Its a very good book - it was even made into a decent movie - and Atwood has little trouble calling herself a feminist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mallick's "melodramatic whining hyperbole" is very similar to a good portion of the first half of Atwood's most excellent, 'The Handmaid's Tail' where the protagonist, Offred, witnesses a world in whch men "...bruise women’s bodies, they humiliate us..., they expend great effort in keeping us pregnant, booting us away... are tireless in their attempts at control and resent our efforts to advance."

Now whether Margaret Atwood intended this to be a feminist commententary on modern times or not, the "melodramatic whining hyperbole" is used in a similar fashion to Mallick's use, including a transitory device where Offred and Nick attempt to escape the grip of the ultra-conservative, biblically arranged society that has oppressed her and women in general.

Its a very good book - it was even made into a decent movie - and Atwood has little trouble calling herself a feminist.

I didn't read the book, have seen the movie, and wish to point out that it's a work of fiction. Many authors have created settings, ranging from Tolkien's Middle-Earth to Orwell's 1984 to Gibson's cyberpunk virtual reality, that illustrate themes they wish to write about. Atwood's construction of a setting where women's rights have been reduced to nothing in the name of a "greater good" is an effective means of illustrating how the freedoms we have could come under attack.

Mallick's shrieking hyperbole is an effective means of illustrating that she's nuts.

Atwood may identify herself as a feminist. There are others who do too. But by and large, it's not a popular sentiment, because the word "feminist" has become associated with radicals rather than with the ideals it used to represent. The word feminist now seems to indicate an allegiance to a mixed bag of ideologies of which some are rather outside the mainstream.

-k

{"Do you think women should have the freedom to pursue careers in whatever field they choose?"

"Yeah!"

"Do you think women should have the right to contraception and reproductive autonomy?"

"Yeah!"

"Do you think a woman should get paid the same for doing the same work as a man?"

"Yeah!"

"Do you believe in personal safety and security for women?"

"Yeah!"

"So do you consider yourself a feminist?"

"No way!"

"Why?"

"Because they're crazy."}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atwood may identify herself as a feminist. There are others who do too. But by and large, it's not a popular sentiment, because the word "feminist" has become associated with radicals rather than with the ideals it used to represent. The word feminist now seems to indicate an allegiance to a mixed bag of ideologies of which some are rather outside the mainstream.

People who don't have a clue about feminism tend to shy away from the label it's true. I'm sure it would surprise many of these people to learn that feminism is not a monolithic ideology, but rather a wide range of often conflicting schools of thought.

She finishes up the article with...

There was a wonderful unanimity in the place that gave me hope that men and women will one day team up and see the best in each other.

...which is kind of funny, because large numbers of men and women are already there. Maybe someday Mallick will get there too

Yeah, large numbers of men and women get along like you say. Large numbers of men also exhibit the types of behaviours Mallick describes in her controversial opening paragraph. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atwood may identify herself as a feminist. There are others who do too. But by and large, it's not a popular sentiment, because the word "feminist" has become associated with radicals rather than with the ideals it used to represent. The word feminist now seems to indicate an allegiance to a mixed bag of ideologies of which some are rather outside the mainstream.

-k

Well give me some examples of feminist ideologies outside the mainstream that could be construed as representative of feminism by your average person.

I hear what you are saying, but I doubt Mallick expressing some of her private thoughts could be considered 'shrieking hyperbole' - a statement itself which seems to be a bit of a hyperbolic stereotype. Where in Mallick's opening few paragraphs do you get "shrieking" from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well give me some examples of feminist ideologies outside the mainstream that could be construed as representative of feminism by your average person.

I'm certainly no authority on current themes in feminist ideology. But I believe that a lot of self-described feminists (as opposed to people who are feminists by most reasonable definitions but probably wouldn't identify themselves as such) hold to ideas that are outside the "mainstream" in 3 areas:

-economic ideas. Virtually nobody would disagree with the premise that men and women should get paid the same for doing the same job, but some feminists advocate for notions of "pay equity" that go far beyond this simple common sense idea. Some feminists note the loss of earning potential caused to women by their desire for work-family balance and advocate for intervention to rectify this situation. Some feminists are aligned with socialism or communism, arguing that capitalism is rooted in male behavior-- the desire to exploit, the desire to dominate, the desire to kill the competitor.

-anti-family ideas. Some feminists advocate the idea that marriage is inherently oppressive to women, or that motherhood is inherently oppressive. Mallick's words here seem to indicate that she thinks pregnancy is some sort of punishment or humiliation visited upon women by men.

-anti-male ideas. This, I think, is the biggest turn-off for mainstream women in regards to people like Mallick. Mallick herself illustrates this sort of thinking in her opener, so I won't bother, but the tone is typical: "THEY" are doing this and that to "US". I don't think many women subscribe to this sort of thinking at all. I believe most women like men, and I think most women believe that men who seek to hurt or oppress women are an aberration, not the norm.

I hear what you are saying, but I doubt Mallick expressing some of her private thoughts could be considered 'shrieking hyperbole' - a statement itself which seems to be a bit of a hyperbolic stereotype. Where in Mallick's opening few paragraphs do you get "shrieking" from?

Are we really about to debate my choice of adjectives? Really?

Just last week you described me as "hysterical", which as you probably know is a word rooted in anti-feminine stereotype. Are you really the right guy to be throwing stones on this one?

I chose "shrieking" because the statement was one that I just can't imagine being delivered in a calm and even tone of voice (similar to "they are burning crosses in Prince George as we speak," for instance.) That's all. Nothing more.

If I were to picture Mallick delivering this as a speech, I would picture Mallick's hands balled into fists, trembling with rage, as she delivers this opening paragraph. If Mallick does not wish to convey such an impression to the casual reader, she should probably avoid such over-the-top rhetoric.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No wonder the CBC didn't want Mallick, what a pile of s..t, she tries to juxtapose her anti men rant against the loving brother and the good cop... spare me. I don't really want to give her any more publicity but this is bad, even for Mallick.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/878656--mallick-good-guys-nabbed-russell-williams

Really, well I don't live it every day, most women don't, talk about stereotyping men, and your raving anti male feminist. !!

God bless you ... this claim of constant victimization makes me wish I could show Ms Mallick some real victimization. (Just kidding.)

A lot of this 'stereotyping' is just a general expectation about how men and women should act. What really gets me is how, when the manipulation is severe, women like Mallick will use guilt and shame to force the guy to 'man up' when it suits them.

She's contemptible, not because she's a woman, but because she's just so vile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowhere did Mallick claim all men were murdering pigs etc.

You will notice she uses the plural pronoun ... what do you think that means?

Men should weep. They bruise women’s bodies, they humiliate us in the House of Commons, they expend great effort in keeping us pregnant, booting us away from the bigger salaries, they are tireless in their attempts at control and resent our efforts to advance. Frequently, they kill women.

She doesn't say Williams did these things. She says men do them -- as part of the normal course of their day.

What does it take for you to stop being a gentleman, and realize you (as well as the rest of us) are being slandered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm certainly no authority on current themes in feminist ideology. But I believe that a lot of self-described feminists (as opposed to people who are feminists by most reasonable definitions but probably wouldn't identify themselves as such) hold to ideas that are outside the "mainstream" in 3 areas:

-economic ideas. Virtually nobody would disagree with the premise that men and women should get paid the same for doing the same job, but some feminists advocate for notions of "pay equity" that go far beyond this simple common sense idea. Some feminists note the loss of earning potential caused to women by their desire for work-family balance and advocate for intervention to rectify this situation.1 Some feminists are aligned with socialism or communism, arguing that capitalism is rooted in male behavior2-- the desire to exploit, the desire to dominate, the desire to kill the competitor.

1. Well, are you referring to maternity benefits or family allowances and tax breaks on household income and such as being an undesired thing?

2. Yeah I can see that. It is an interesting field of study though, more anthropology than any sort of workable ideology I think.

-anti-family ideas. Some feminists advocate the idea that marriage is inherently oppressive to women, 1or that motherhood is inherently oppressive. Mallick's words here seem to indicate that she thinks pregnancy is some sort of punishment or humiliation visited upon women by men.2

1. This excludes the change in divorce and property laws too I assume?

2. Mallick's words here is the private thoughts of someone enraged. Come now, how often do you share your inner thoughts and secrets? To me, I don't see anything in those opening passages to be anything more than the same internal dialogue that Atwood subjects Offred to.

-anti-male ideas. This, I think, is the biggest turn-off for mainstream women in regards to people like Mallick. Mallick herself illustrates this sort of thinking in her opener, so I won't bother, but the tone is typical: "THEY" are doing this and that to "US". I don't think many women subscribe to this sort of thinking at all. I believe most women like men, and I think most women believe that men who seek to hurt or oppress women are an aberration, not the norm.

But again, this is no different that your private thoughts about some other group - an ethic or religious group or whatnot. I wouldn't hold these opening thoughts to Mallick simply because they are a literary device used to contrast her public thoughts through the use of reason to resolve the conflicts between the private and the public. By the end of the article, her private thoughts have been modified by her experiences.

Are we really about to debate my choice of adjectives? Really?

Just last week you described me as "hysterical", which as you probably know is a word rooted in anti-feminine stereotype. Are you really the right guy to be throwing stones on this one?

LOL, no I don't want to debate you on your choice of adjectives, although I was certainly hoping you would have debated me on mine a week ago.

I chose "shrieking" because the statement was one that I just can't imagine being delivered in a calm and even tone of voice (similar to "they are burning crosses in Prince George as we speak," for instance.) That's all. Nothing more.

If I were to picture Mallick delivering this as a speech, I would picture Mallick's hands balled into fists, trembling with rage, as she delivers this opening paragraph. If Mallick does not wish to convey such an impression to the casual reader, she should probably avoid such over-the-top rhetoric.

No, I am more interested in why you chose that word when I didn't hear her voice that way at all, even in the opening paragraphs. I am not a big reader of Heather Mallick, but I have read enough I think, to get her style. When I read her stuff I don't associate her narrative construction with shrieking or anything like that, so I am curious as to why you do. For instance - a fair question I think - when you read some of the more radical feminist stuff, do you hear their voices as shrieky or shrill, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...