Feminizing the public square

John/az2

New member
Not mine, but I thought it worth posting.

-----

Feminizing the Public Square

"Politics has a bad reputation in part because it involves argument, or
'petty bickering.' And that, in turn, fits poorly with a contemporary
shift in American sensibilities that is perhaps deeper than any change in
morals or views. The new sensibility reacts negatively to strong
personalities. (If Douglas MacArthur was too much for Americans to take
in the 1950s, he would be positively terrifying today.) It is
uncomfortable with sharply defined arguments; it wishes to defer tough
choices for as long as possible. It is emotional rather than logical…
"This is a womanly approach to politics, and its prevalence will grow as
politicians court 'soccer moms.' The spread of sogginess is, in fact,
part of the much-remarked feminization of America… A feminizing tendency,
too, is probably built into liberal democracy, and within, bounds, it's a
good thing: It civilizes and tames men. But taken too far, it threatens
the masculine stubbornness and intractability that serves as a bulwark
for republicanism… The shifting politics of guns and tobacco in the 90's
suggests that ours is not a populace jealous of its liberties. And it is
no accident that these liberties have traditionally been associated with
men, and macho risk-takers at that."
Ramech Ponnura, The Washington Times, Dec. 21, 1998, pg. 2, as quoted in
The Journal, March 1999, pg. 5.

"The radical feminist speak in one voice. They don't like what the
president, but he's their man. He's a man who gets it.
" 'His strengths outweigh his flaws,' says Patricia Ireland, president
of the National Organization for Women, who was joined by 15 other
feminist icons at the National Press Club in Washington to proclaim their
support for the president. Now we can understand why the new television
sitcoms are aimed at younger women, whose young female stars are
invariably described as post-feminist, and anti-feminist, or
feminist-not! Younger women have had it with the aging old guard.
"The feminist icons have surrendered all credibility in the Clinton
scandal, marginalizing themselves as their conservative critics never
could Barbara Ledeen of the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative
women's group, call them policy prostitutes: 'They're willing to sell out
the real interests of women to play partisan politics.'
"Betty Friedan, once the revered godmother of feminism, and Eleanor
Smeal of the Feminist Majority indulge in hypocritical mumbo-jumbo,
plundering what's left of whatever moral authority they had. They've gone
from attacking men who behave badly to supporting the Big He so long as
he shares their liberal politics. It's a strange position for feminists
who believe the personal is political.
" 'When personal responsibility is separated from virtue itself, then it
is possible to have a much celebrated male feminist who also gro0es and
harasses women,' writes Shelby Steel in the Wall Street Journal. 'The
female eunuch' described by Germaine Greer in the 1970s has morphed into
'the feminist eunuch' of the 1990s."
Source: Suzanne Fields, The Washington Times, October 1, a998, pg. A 19,
as quoted in The Journal, March 1999, pg. 5,6.

FYI
Not coincidentally, public, like virtue, derives from Latin roots
signifying manhood: 'The public' included only independent adult males.
Public virtue entailed firmness, courage, endurance, industry, frugal
living, strength, and above all, unremitting devotion to the weal of the
public's corporate self, the community of virtuous men. It was at once
individualistic and communal… If public virtue declined, the republic
declined, and if it declined too far, the republic died. Philosophical
historians had worked out a regular life cycle, or more properly death
cycle, of republics. Manhood gave way to effeminacy, republican liberty
to licentiousness, Licentiousness, in turn, degenerated into anarchy, and
anarchy inevitably led to tyranny. Novus Ordo Seclourm, the Intellectual
Origins of the Constitution, Forrest McDonald, University of Kansas
Press, pg. 71.

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
I think the whole premise is moronic. The authors are obviously insecure about their alleged manhood, and seek to blame women for their inadequacies and failure to stand up to their opponents.

Rather than feminization I would say its liberal and socialistic.

Politics has a bad reputation, not because of bickering, but because politicians lie, deceive, self-serve and are duplicitous. Resultingly benefiting only the politician and not his/her constituency.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
DC,

I knew it would get a response from you! ;)

I'm not saying it is all true, but I post it so that others can glean from it what they like, or choose to believe. Part of it may even be true, eh?

:D

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."



[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited March 31, 1999).]
 
"Part of it may even be
true, eh?'


Depends on your frame of reference,motivations, and intended purpose.
Fact: Men invented liberalism
Fact: Men invented socialism
Fact: Men invented communism
Fact: Men have historically excluded women from the decision making process
Fact: Men vote more than women
Fact: There are more liberal men voters than liberal women voters
Fact: A strong minded aggressive female is perjoratively labeled...the converse is not true.
Fact: There have been more male traitors and sellouts than women
Fact: The major religions seek to subjugate women and treat them as children

How's them apples?


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
We definitely have a problem with the the feminization of politics and society in general but it has absolutely nothing to do with "soccer moms" or even women in general. In fact, it seems that more women are "wearing the pants" these days because fewer men are willing to do it!

There have been numerous threads concerning the failure of people to take personal responsibility for their actions and seek to blame outside forces for their shortcomings. If the socio-political scene is becoming to feminine it's because too many men are lacking a pair of genital accessories big enough to take responsibility for their political impotence. Do any Presidents come to mind? Or better yet, any Senators? When these lack-luster leaders fail they blame women, radicals, the economy, the weather, the phase of the moon or any other handy excuse but never say "I was wrong, it was my fault".

A real man appreciates a strong woman. A real man loaths the gutless wonders that call themselves men when they are not. There's a woman in my karate class that kicks my ass on a regular basis and I respect and admire her.

Real men can wear pink and are not ashamed.
 
I know far too many independent, strong willed women to call what is happening to some of the male gender feminizing. These guys are just wimping out. And being the wimps they are, they want to blame their own lack of intestinal fortitude on female influence instead of being honest enough to admit it.
Anybody who has ever studied nature knows all to well that the female of any species is the most dangerous.

So to these poor victims of feminization I can only say "Git outta my way, punk!'



[This message has been edited by Grayfox (edited April 01, 1999).]
 
Whoever thinks women want to waffle in arguments, avoid conflict, are put off by "strong" personalities, or anything of the sort have never met my mother, my grandmothers, my aunts, or the women I have dated. These women were ready to tango at any required level with all comers at any time. Guess the author of this piece has never read Kipling :)

In the Emergency Department we get plenty of shootings. 2/3's of the ones shot by men live. 2/3's of the ones shot by women die. Now, I will admit, that the shootings by women is a much smaller group but when women do decide to fight, they are not playing.
 
Alright... I'll try to compose this response in such a way that I can communicate the reason for posting the original article and not offend to the point of mental shut down on the recieving end.

Filter out the word "feminizing" and read it for it's intent.

As has been noted in subsequent posts that there is in many facets of the human being more strength in women than in men, and I believe the intent of this article (which is a collection of quotes) is to say what Mikey said in his response, "... it seems that more women are "wearing the pants" these days because fewer men are willing to do it!"

DC,

I did not post this to be inflamatory. I'm married to a woman, and appreciate the great strength that is contained within her small frame.

It is my belief that men, in general, but not all, have dropped the ball and in order to take up the slack the woman has had to step in and assume the responsibility.

Case in point: Look at the numbers of single mothers doing all that they can to raise the children they have been left with, when the fathers have "hit the road" because of their lack of commitment to the responsibility inherant in producing a family.

I guess this article did a poor job of conveying this idea, and my apologies go out to you who did not understand my intent in placing it here.

Rich has asked my permission to lock this thread. As far as I am concerned that would be fine with me if he feels it prudent. Should that happen and you would like any further explaination of my position or thinking regarding this topic, please feel free to e-mail me.

Sincerely, your's in arms,

John

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
Thanks for the clarification, John. On it's face, the original post equates everything weak in men with what is typical in women. From that standpoint, I found it a bit much.

Given your explanation of context, it's fine.
Regards,
Rich
 
Back
Top