Self identification, how far should it go?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apache fruitloops unicorn
Only what I've read from her article and her comments on her twitter, which were pretty interesting too - she's getting a heck of a lot of flack from the LGBT community over this stuff and is dealing with it very well. No she doesn't say she was "brainwashed" per say but she is speaking out about the current "queer" narrative. It doesn't seem like it was necessarily being born with the feeling of being male per say but more that she is a lesbian and was a bit of a tomboy, then when someone suggested she was trans it sort of made sense to her at the time - she does seemingly have GD though.
Doesn't seem to no, for example, in one reply to someone on twitter who said "hands off my HRT" she explained that she wasn't trying to take away anyone's HRT.
No to either, I'll take a look at them at some point though.
@Threepwood
"Men not being men"
Doesn't that heavily imply the use of gender stereotypes?
What should a man behave like?
How would you tell if a man "wasn't being a man"?
"Men not being men"
Doesn't that heavily imply the use of gender stereotypes?
What should a man behave like?
How would you tell if a man "wasn't being a man"?
Soldato
@Threepwood
"Men not being men"
Doesn't that heavily imply the use of gender stereotypes?
What should a man behave like?
Well, to start with.. A man should not behave in way that oppresses a woman!
You would have to read the book really, I don't much like dropping spoilers but it is more along the lines of dysfunctional men being the oppressors of women, with the reasons why through recent(ish) history they are dysfunctional/not whole in the first place; what we have lost and what a man needs to find again in order to function better. It is a weak man who oppresses a woman because they are afraid of them. They lack the confidence to allow a woman to be a full woman, and take their own sorry state out on them. Honestly read the book if you want the full nuance of all this, it is full of excellent insights through the ages with regards to men, masculinity and in turn their relationship theirself, with women, and mothers, fathers etc.
We have lost the wholeness in a lot of things, we all know mother earth and father sky... But there once was father earth and mother sky too (still is but we seem lost in single duality instead of whole double duality of things nowadays) things have obviously changed somewhat since the 70's greer and the 80's/90's cusp Bly, but without reading them you miss two excellent points of reference when talking about both sexes singularly and both sexes together.
Yes, some have said both greer and Bly are a bit stereotypical but you cannot escape the 'norms' which is not to say that is the only way things should be, or are. Neither author is for there being no diversity of sexuality/gender, but you would never get greer to say a transexual man is a "full" woman. She is not against it, just, only a natural born woman can be a natural born woman... Whereas a man who is now a woman will always be a woman who used to be a man. She's like a feminist who is not afraid to call a spade a spade* (thankfully, as it was just what a lot of women needed to hear, her book that is, in the 70's).
*not racist, rolleyes flakes of snow etc
Nope, massive lol. Thats not to say a man should never "show the sword". If you are incapable of that, or cannot even hold it you are not quite the person you might be.
Greer showed the sword very well in an intellectual manner with the female eunuch.
Last edited:
