You would probably call me a leftist, but I am well armed and proficient. Take it from an old man who has fallen for every trick in the book at one point or another: it is propaganda that teaches us to label each other instead of meeting man to man.
The problem is patriarchy that is aggressive, competitive and violent. Balance is needed. Time to meet woman to woman, woman to man... Enough of only man to man already!
Certainly concur about patriarchy and all its idiot insistence on female subjugation.
As for woman to woman and woman to man, thanks for the sensitivity training, but the sexual division is meaningless in this context. That's why I left it out.
I reckon the patriarchy done it, but it is not my fault that the word 'man' is not gender-trapped, or that the word 'woman' is. When I use the word brother or man, I refer to everyone of both sexes, every age, every gender, every creed, every heritage.
The word woman, whether we like it or not, is an explicitly sexual reference that defines a subset of mankind by its sex. When sexuality is not the subject, insisting that it must be introduced sexualizes women more, not less. In other words, separating us into sexes when chatting about non-sexual subjects is exquisitely, quintessentially, sexist. In one man's opinion.
My wife, with whom I've been in stupid ga ga love since 1975, is womanhood incarnate, and she (female, uterus-having she) is also the best man I've ever known. Everything I've ever looked up to in a man, she exemplifies. I'm not demeaning her or my other female brothers with that silly, awkward, foolish, and self-defeating sexist requirement: I don't, and I won't.
You would probably call me a leftist, but I am well armed and proficient. Take it from an old man who has fallen for every trick in the book at one point or another: it is propaganda that teaches us to label each other instead of meeting man to man.
The problem is patriarchy that is aggressive, competitive and violent. Balance is needed. Time to meet woman to woman, woman to man... Enough of only man to man already!
Certainly concur about patriarchy and all its idiot insistence on female subjugation.
As for woman to woman and woman to man, thanks for the sensitivity training, but the sexual division is meaningless in this context. That's why I left it out.
I reckon the patriarchy done it, but it is not my fault that the word 'man' is not gender-trapped, or that the word 'woman' is. When I use the word brother or man, I refer to everyone of both sexes, every age, every gender, every creed, every heritage.
The word woman, whether we like it or not, is an explicitly sexual reference that defines a subset of mankind by its sex. When sexuality is not the subject, insisting that it must be introduced sexualizes women more, not less. In other words, separating us into sexes when chatting about non-sexual subjects is exquisitely, quintessentially, sexist. In one man's opinion.
My wife, with whom I've been in stupid ga ga love since 1975, is womanhood incarnate, and she (female, uterus-having she) is also the best man I've ever known. Everything I've ever looked up to in a man, she exemplifies. I'm not demeaning her or my other female brothers with that silly, awkward, foolish, and self-defeating sexist requirement: I don't, and I won't.
I agree that Roman culture has bequeathed to us some quite harmful ideas, including among others the notion of the family as a toy sovereign monarchy.
I don't see that as particularly Roman.