#Tag
Log in
Aral Balkan
Aral Balkan
@aral@mastodon.ar.al  ·  activity timestamp 4 days ago
DrALJONES
DrALJONES
@DrALJONES@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp last week
DrALJONES
DrALJONES
@DrALJONES@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp last week
Joachim boosted
Khrys
Khrys
@Khrys@mamot.fr  ·  activity timestamp 3 weeks ago
The Japan Times
The Japan Times
@thejapantimes@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago
Khrys
Khrys
@Khrys@mamot.fr  ·  activity timestamp 3 weeks ago
dada
dada
@dada@diaspodon.fr  ·  activity timestamp 3 weeks ago
Khrys
Khrys
@Khrys@mamot.fr  ·  activity timestamp 3 weeks ago
c't Magazin
c't Magazin
@ct_Magazin@social.heise.de  ·  activity timestamp 4 weeks ago
c't Magazin
c't Magazin
@ct_Magazin@social.heise.de  ·  activity timestamp 4 weeks ago
ink
ink
@ink@merveilles.town  ·  activity timestamp last month
Carrie Shanafelt
Carrie Shanafelt
@carrideen@c18.masto.host  ·  activity timestamp last month
TEXT: The apparent simplicity—the unity—of the continuum between “women loving women” and “women promoting the interests of women,” extend- ing over the erotic, social, familial, economic, and political realms, would not be so striking if it were not in strong contrast to the arrangement among males. When Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms get down to seri- ous logrolling on “family policy,” they are men promoting men's inter- ests. (In fact, they embody Heidi Hartmann®s definition of patriarchy: “relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women.”) Is their bond in any way con- gruent with the bond of a loving gay male couple? Reagan and Helms would say no—disgustedly. Most gay couples would say no—disgust- edly. But why nor? Doesn't the continuum between “men-loving-men” and “men-promoting-the-interests-of-men” have the same intuitive force that it has for women?
TEXT: The apparent simplicity—the unity—of the continuum between “women loving women” and “women promoting the interests of women,” extend- ing over the erotic, social, familial, economic, and political realms, would not be so striking if it were not in strong contrast to the arrangement among males. When Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms get down to seri- ous logrolling on “family policy,” they are men promoting men's inter- ests. (In fact, they embody Heidi Hartmann®s definition of patriarchy: “relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women.”) Is their bond in any way con- gruent with the bond of a loving gay male couple? Reagan and Helms would say no—disgustedly. Most gay couples would say no—disgust- edly. But why nor? Doesn't the continuum between “men-loving-men” and “men-promoting-the-interests-of-men” have the same intuitive force that it has for women?
TEXT: The apparent simplicity—the unity—of the continuum between “women loving women” and “women promoting the interests of women,” extend- ing over the erotic, social, familial, economic, and political realms, would not be so striking if it were not in strong contrast to the arrangement among males. When Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms get down to seri- ous logrolling on “family policy,” they are men promoting men's inter- ests. (In fact, they embody Heidi Hartmann®s definition of patriarchy: “relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women.”) Is their bond in any way con- gruent with the bond of a loving gay male couple? Reagan and Helms would say no—disgustedly. Most gay couples would say no—disgust- edly. But why nor? Doesn't the continuum between “men-loving-men” and “men-promoting-the-interests-of-men” have the same intuitive force that it has for women?
Carrie Shanafelt
Carrie Shanafelt
@carrideen@c18.masto.host  ·  activity timestamp last month
TEXT: The apparent simplicity—the unity—of the continuum between “women loving women” and “women promoting the interests of women,” extend- ing over the erotic, social, familial, economic, and political realms, would not be so striking if it were not in strong contrast to the arrangement among males. When Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms get down to seri- ous logrolling on “family policy,” they are men promoting men's inter- ests. (In fact, they embody Heidi Hartmann®s definition of patriarchy: “relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women.”) Is their bond in any way con- gruent with the bond of a loving gay male couple? Reagan and Helms would say no—disgustedly. Most gay couples would say no—disgust- edly. But why nor? Doesn't the continuum between “men-loving-men” and “men-promoting-the-interests-of-men” have the same intuitive force that it has for women?
TEXT: The apparent simplicity—the unity—of the continuum between “women loving women” and “women promoting the interests of women,” extend- ing over the erotic, social, familial, economic, and political realms, would not be so striking if it were not in strong contrast to the arrangement among males. When Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms get down to seri- ous logrolling on “family policy,” they are men promoting men's inter- ests. (In fact, they embody Heidi Hartmann®s definition of patriarchy: “relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women.”) Is their bond in any way con- gruent with the bond of a loving gay male couple? Reagan and Helms would say no—disgustedly. Most gay couples would say no—disgust- edly. But why nor? Doesn't the continuum between “men-loving-men” and “men-promoting-the-interests-of-men” have the same intuitive force that it has for women?
TEXT: The apparent simplicity—the unity—of the continuum between “women loving women” and “women promoting the interests of women,” extend- ing over the erotic, social, familial, economic, and political realms, would not be so striking if it were not in strong contrast to the arrangement among males. When Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms get down to seri- ous logrolling on “family policy,” they are men promoting men's inter- ests. (In fact, they embody Heidi Hartmann®s definition of patriarchy: “relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women.”) Is their bond in any way con- gruent with the bond of a loving gay male couple? Reagan and Helms would say no—disgustedly. Most gay couples would say no—disgust- edly. But why nor? Doesn't the continuum between “men-loving-men” and “men-promoting-the-interests-of-men” have the same intuitive force that it has for women?
Michelle Hughes and 1 other boosted
Kim Scheinberg
Kim Scheinberg
@kims@mas.to  ·  activity timestamp 2 months ago
Jeppe Bundsgaard på Mastodon
Jeppe Bundsgaard på Mastodon
@jeppe@uddannelse.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 months ago
Jeppe Bundsgaard på Mastodon
Jeppe Bundsgaard på Mastodon
@jeppe@uddannelse.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 months ago