tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post2802351487840693511..comments2023-10-10T06:48:40.299-03:00Comments on the feminist librarian: the "duck and cover" gambit, circa 1969annajcookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17573723390785613915noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post-18906257378811816702013-08-07T12:57:42.103-03:002013-08-07T12:57:42.103-03:00Wow, interesting history behind Stiles' resign...Wow, interesting history behind Stiles' resignation. I like your idea that the "duck and cover" gambit might be a way to align the user with the Powers that Be. <br /><br />Along those lines, I also notice that anti-feminists and non-feminists (are those two the same? maybe) often complete let gender traditionalists off the hook for, say, promoting harmful gender essentialism, especially regarding how all men are supposedly rapists and/or violent wildebeests. <br /><br />Instead, they misattribute a quote that "all men are rapists" to feminists like Catherine MacKinnon and act like it's feminists, and all feminists, who are responsible for that stereotype. <br /><br />I attribute the disproportionate focus on and blaming of feminism to a similar desire to remain aligned with the Powers That Be. Because, well, it's not feminists who are in charge and vastly powerful (and certainly not the few radical feminists who actually do think most men are sexual predators)- it's, for the most part, people who think about gender in only a very superficial "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" sort of way who hold power in various social arenas - most notably religious institutions and the political system.Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post-59394009922065671922013-08-05T20:34:34.630-03:002013-08-05T20:34:34.630-03:00What's striking to me is how little the dynami...What's striking to me is how little the dynamic has changed. That, like, they'd won the battle to get this issue on women's liberation published -- and yeah, sure, there was a lot of movement jargon going on there, but there was hardly a full-out "don't sleep with the enemy" vibe. On the contrary, we had a male contributor with a thoughtful piece on the toxic expectations of hetero masculinity which ended with a recommendation that we encourage men to experience a full range of human emotions, and maybe take on their share of domestic responsibilities (with a restructuring of the workplace to acknowledge that necessity). <br /><br />And yet what we get is "damn it, I probably shouldn't joke about how the typist isn't putting out because she got all radicalized...". <br /><br />What's also interesting is that Stiles was asked to resign shortly after the advent of this issue (over the publication of this issue and other differences between the editorial staff and the Methodist church). Knowing that, and knowing Stiles was to some extent a closeted gay man when he penned this editorial, I have to wonder how much it was being written as a piece he thought might cover their asses.<br /><br />Not that it excuses what he wrote -- but it does outline some of the political reasons behind the "duck and cover" gambit as it plays out over time ... a way for the user to align himself (or herself) with the Powers That Be.annajcookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573723390785613915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post-35120430658329385562013-08-05T14:08:17.100-03:002013-08-05T14:08:17.100-03:00Wow, gross.
So men back then still expected to ha...Wow, gross.<br /><br />So men back then still expected to have their fee-fees coddled and centered in conversations about gender, too, then?<br /><br /><br />Fannie Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04296502470605119779noreply@blogger.com