Carrie Shanafelt
@carrideen@c18.masto.host  ·  activity timestamp 5 days ago
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
@carrideen@c18.masto.host  ·  activity timestamp 5 days ago
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
@kims@mas.to  ·  activity timestamp last week
Jeppe Bundsgaard på Mastodon
@jeppe@uddannelse.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago
Jeppe Bundsgaard på Mastodon
@jeppe@uddannelse.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago
Storie Spettinate
@storiespettinate@mastodon.uno  ·  activity timestamp 3 weeks ago
JdeBP
@JdeBP@mastodon.scot  ·  activity timestamp last month
Mediapart
@mediapart@mediapart.social  ·  activity timestamp last month
Mediapart
@mediapart@mediapart.social  ·  activity timestamp last month
The Japan Times
@thejapantimes@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 3 months ago
Antanicus boosted
loStronzoRocco
@desantis@mastodon.bida.im  ·  activity timestamp 3 months ago
Antanicus
@antanicus@puntarella.party  ·  activity timestamp 3 months ago
loStronzoRocco
@desantis@mastodon.bida.im  ·  activity timestamp 3 months ago
Ehay2k
@Ehay2k@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 4 months ago
Cory Doctorow
@pluralistic@mamot.fr  ·  activity timestamp 4 months ago
Cory Doctorow
@pluralistic@mamot.fr  ·  activity timestamp 4 months ago
Ehay2k
@Ehay2k@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 4 months ago
Home Login