Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

great article in today's guardian by natasha walter

84 replies

bossykate · 12/10/2005 11:56

here

OP posts:
CountessDracula · 12/10/2005 15:55

hanging?

gingerbear · 12/10/2005 15:56

hmmm, true. Tis a long time since I have been on a girls night out and got drunk, so hard to recall what it was like.

teeavee · 12/10/2005 15:56

i think i've just translated a welsh slang term for absoultely 'off your face'! dont you anglos say that????

gingerbear · 12/10/2005 15:57

Ah, like Charlotte Church then?

ks · 12/10/2005 15:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

teeavee · 12/10/2005 15:59

does she manage to fit other words in between fk and fng?!

teeavee · 12/10/2005 16:00

erm, x posts...

monkeytrousers · 12/10/2005 16:16

I agree hole heartedly on Oliver James, I can't stand the man but I also have to say I don't agree with Walter either. It's very easy to conflate biological perspective with a moral one and make it look like biology is somehow the enemy of women. Too easy and quite disgracefully irresponsible IMHO.

Walter is here doing exactly what James does in misrepresenting scientific practice in order to prop up a non argument, basically trying to fan the flames of our indignation so we can't see the holes in the argument, of which there are many. Don't get me wrong, I'm a feminist, but one that embraces the facts of biology and finds no challenge to a women's autonomy there But only if we?re talking about women?s autonomy and not some barely altered male version..

Just one instance, when she talks about, ??men who sidestep their family responsibilities.? What real choice do these men have? About as much choice as women actually.

monkeytrousers · 12/10/2005 16:51

Or take this section, ?As well as saying that young women should take account of male violence, and curtail their own lives because of the danger around them, we must go on demanding that men take responsibility for this violent society.? Men need to curtail their own lives in order to protect themslevs from other men too. It?s not just women. Some men (as well as some women) never take responsibility for the misery they inflict on others. It's like saying that you shouldn't tale self defence lessons becasue it's not right that you should be attacked. That's not going to stop anyone from getting attacked is it?It is, in the words of Zoe William's in Saturday's G2, just nuts. She might as well have added a paragraph saying how unfair it is that we can't fly.

CarolinaFullMoon · 12/10/2005 17:16

hmmm, good point MT. What exactly is the average bloke supposed to do to stop rapists attacking all these "hanging" women? (love that expression ).

And we do actually have laws about working hours in the EU, it's just that no-one in this country seems to want to obey them.

teeavee · 12/10/2005 20:26

So, monkeytrousers, how could women be autonomous while embracing the physical realities of their own bodies?

I take it you disagree with the Camille Paglia quote?

Heathcliffscathy · 12/10/2005 21:10

i like oliver james. probably because i've read a lot of the research (particularly on attachment) that he has written about. I didn't think he was on an anti woman tip just that he is reporting on research that shows that one on one care by a consistent caregiver (not necessarily a mother, but hopefully someone that actually loves the child) is important for under twos.

i totally agree that this is less about biology and much more about the demands placed on women by the (relatively) recent developments whereby we no longer need to hunt and gather (with kids alongside) to survive and the nuclear family is deemed normal: i.e. a woman is supposed to parent her children pretty much alone. fwiw i think that it's impossible to do that without getting seriously depressed. and i also think that one of the things children suffer the most for is a lack of parenting by their dads. no daily mail reports about that tho are there.

Heathcliffscathy · 12/10/2005 21:11

not saying that single parent families can't do fantastic job btw. just decrying the (vast majority as far as i can see) of dads that i can only politely describe as 'hands off' to say the least.

aloha · 12/10/2005 21:20

But the Penelope Leach study did actually actively look at the parent carer rather than the mother carer, but as we all know, in the real world, women stay at home far, far more than men, and that's normally because they WANT to. Every study shows that most mothers of very small children who work fulltime would prefer not to. OK, they may not want the model that exists at present ie for such long hours and in such isolation, but equally very few women actively long to be the main breadwinner and work long hours so their partner can stay at home with the children. And I think we are absolutely deluding ourselves if we think that's true. My dh's ex left him because he refused to get higher powered work with longer hours so she could give up work (and found herself a super-wealthy man who works incredibly long hours and travels but she gave up work instantly and never went back). My dh was, and is, a very committed father who works part time so he can look after the kids while I try to work (getting back on freelance treadmill after quite a long time off). he would have been happy to cut back even more if I could have got a well-paid job, and I was offered well-paid jobs, but I didn't want them, I wanted to be at home at least two days a week.
And I agree that men are also at risk from violent men. In fact, men are far more likely to be attacked and hurt than women are (possibly because women are more sensible about being out alone at night). The men who aren't attacking women can't be blamed for the ones that are.

muminlondon · 12/10/2005 21:37

have you ever read 'Misconceptions' by Naomi Wolf? it's a very interesting account of how the power balance in a couple shifts after childbirth to the point where women end up compromising more than they ever believed they would.

I have a theory that older dads are more prepared to take on childcare responsibilities than those at the peak of their career in their 30s. Could that be true?

aloha · 12/10/2005 22:46

Dh not in 30s

Heathcliffscathy · 12/10/2005 22:47

loved misconceptions

motherinferior · 12/10/2005 22:48

My partner turned 40 a couple of months ago and promptly got new job which turned him into Cliche Absent Daddy

weesaidie · 12/10/2005 22:49

Never read it muminlondon but it doesn't surprise me!

monkeytrousers · 12/10/2005 22:52

It depends what you mean by 'autonomous' teeavee. Really, who on earth is autonomous in the current culture we live in? These are all fine arguments in ideology and in principle and I understand their academic worth, but it?s almost like people who literally don?t live in the real world pose them. When it gets down to the nuts and bolts of actually living your life in a society that is institutionally disposed to repressing you (and both men and women fall under this, I see it as a class distinction rather than a gender one, and Walter is always writing from a particularly middle class perspective - although I'm not challenging the fact that sexism and misogyny exists either, those are my pet projects as a matter of fact).... how do they help anyone other than academics form fabulously complicated academic arguments? It just seems sometimes that the emperor has no clothes coupled with the problem that feminists like Walter fall foul of the naturalist fallacy again and again, thus undermining their own argument before they?ve even took a breath.

The excluded middle in all this is that just as society represses it also facilitates. Without the current laws on discrimination, women?s lives would be much harder and the ?autonomy? we enjoy now would be the ideal we were striving for. Those laws just appear to not go far enough, and that?s because it would demand hundreds of years of revolution, conflict and war to even get close. The current economic system would need to be turned on its head, and a form of political revisionism practiced not seen since the Cultural Revolution. Generations of misery and horror, whose idealistic autonomy is worth that? It?s never going to happen, the fight is in the detail.

Why does 'equality' feminism always come down to spurious claims about biological determinism though? I'm arguing from a 'liberation' feminist perspective, which accepts that we are all repressed by the current systems that drive society and that gender identity is central to reforming any response that might elicit something resembling a 'contented, happy' life. Which realistically is also impossible to achieve but we are constantly disappointed because we are also constantly bombarded with images and information about how to be forever happy ? an unattainable goal and no one advocates a pragmatic path which is the only way to achieve any real goal, through negotiation and compromise.

I think as a society we?ve simply forgotten how to settle for less, and in doing so will never get anywhere near it. I know that will seem inflammatory to many ? I certainly don?t mean that we should accept our lot and be brutalised and discriminated against in any way. But there seems to be a collective misunderstanding about he very nature of life, even as around the world hundreds and thousands die on our television screens we see it as some anomaly. But it?s not, we are the anomaly. Western culture and its cosy illusions are the exception not the rule. Biology doesn?t discriminate, people do and they always will. That is a fact. We can develop a strategy from that fact only if we accept it. Otherwise we?re just tilting at windmills.

What the hell do I know anyway..it just depresses me to see these arguments rise up again and again just to be dismissed (and rightly so) so putting women on the intellectual back foot again.

monkeytrousers · 12/10/2005 22:52

sorry. didn't realise it was that long..

monkeytrousers · 12/10/2005 22:55

Aloha, I'm going to take 'how to make a reasoned argument' classes from you if you don't mind?

Blu · 12/10/2005 23:00

I know a MN-er who has some ace gossip on Oliver James RL child-rearing ability. Shall I see if she is prepared to tell us - or let me tell so that the trail is far from her?

Heathcliffscathy · 12/10/2005 23:02

monkeytrousers, what a post.

can you say it in more simple(ton) terms?

my interpretation of your post is as follows: we're pissing in the wind as we live in cloud cuckoo land as we're not being bombed to shite or starving to death, but at the same time we're oppressed by the very structures that keep us from being so....am i close?

so what do we do?

keep on keeping on. try to be nice to each other. not shop at supermarkets (haven't quite done this one, and am definitely not consistent on the one before), and just stop accepting any less that is our due, that is support and real help from our partners, and the state in parenting the next generation?

monkeytrousers · 12/10/2005 23:02

Oh tell!

Did you see that column on him 'explaining' the reasons for colic BTW? Just unbelieveable. The man is a bald David Brent.