Love Stories etc. [ Edited ]

[Choisya]

Thankyou foxycat - I still do not think many will see the connection between love stories and women's rights. And I don't think it will appear on the list - it was a minority choice - not mine BTW. Many are also put off by MW's 'immoral' life. She has always had a scurrilous press. Have you read Lyndall Gordon's excellent biography? Here is an interview with her about MW (with good references to Virginia Woolf too):-

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/booktalk/stories/s1339395.htm

PS to Ilana: I am warming to VW as I read through the various posts about her and have just ordered the Common Readers and Moments of Being.

---

foxycat wrote:
You're not a lone voice, Choisya. It's sad to see women who don't value what we fought for during the Women's Movement, and that they now hold their prestigious jobs because of our work during the past 30 years.

I think we still have Wollstonecraft on our reading list at Literature by Women, unless pedsplhleb changes the list again.

I like this one:

Women are systematically degraded by receiving the trivial attentions which men think it manly to pay to the sex, when, in fact, men are insultingly supporting their own superiority.

--Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 06-25-2007 06:25 AM

[IlanaSimons]

Glad to hear about VW, Choisya.
I still think her best pieces are To the Lighthouse and Mrs. Dalloway but they sometimes take a couple reads to warm up to.

---

Choisya wrote:
Thankyou foxycat - I still do not think many will see the connection between love stories and women's rights. And I don't think it will appear on the list - it was a minority choice - not mine BTW. Many are also put off by MW's 'immoral' life. She has always had a scurrilous press. Have you read Lyndall Gordon's excellent biography? Here is an interview with her about MW (with good references to Virginia Woolf too):-

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/booktalk/stories/s1339395.htm

PS to Ilana: I am warming to VW as I read through the various posts about her and have just ordered the Common Readers and Moments of Being.

---

foxycat wrote:
You're not a lone voice, Choisya. It's sad to see women who don't value what we fought for during the Women's Movement, and that they now hold their prestigious jobs because of our work during the past 30 years.

I think we still have Wollstonecraft on our reading list at Literature by Women, unless pedsplhleb changes the list again.

I like this one:

Women are systematically degraded by receiving the trivial attentions which men think it manly to pay to the sex, when, in fact, men are insultingly supporting their own superiority.

--Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 06-25-2007 06:25 AM

---

[Prof]

Rochelle, I think housekeeping is the subject of so many magazine articles because it's an important but neglected art. (This is my first "face." I think you discovered this one, because the only place I've seen it is in one of your posts, #673, on Virginia Woolf!) There's a serious book about this subject, Home Comforts by Cheryl Mendelson.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&bnit=H&bnrefer=ISLL&EAN=978074327286...

The last review is by Alison Rogers in Brill's Content. "Although it's a reference work, Home Comforts: The Art & Science of Keeping House packs the punch of a major novel." Dr. Mendelson is a philosopher. This could be a great book!

[Everyman]

Choisya wrote: I do not want to discuss these concepts, which I hold dear, because I know they are far too controversial for these boards and I will be in a minority of one

When did that ever stop you before?

will be in a minority of one in thinking that 'love stories' show 'Excessive concern for romantic love and physical desirability' and can harm women:-

Well, if the do, they are part of a long tradition. The Song of Solomon is pretty big on physical desirability, and the Trojan War wouldn't have been fought, at least if you believe the legends and not the economic probabilities, if Helen had been an unattractive hunchback.

But since, at least if you believe in the theory of evolution, the whole purpose of gender desirability in animal species (of which we are one) is to promote procreation among the fittest members of the species, there can be no such thing, biologically speaking, concern for romantic love and physical desirability is natural and necessary for us to advance evolutionarily as a species.

[Everyman]

---

foxycat wrote:
And in spite of the almost 200 years separating us from Wollstonecraft, too many women still think their purpose in life is to attract a man.

---

Well, of course, biologically that is their purpose in life. The primary biological imperative of any species is reproduction with the most desirable member of the opposite gender which one can attract.

We tend to forget, for all our technology, literature, etc., that at the core we are still a member of the animal kingdom, and subject to the biological imperatives of all species.

[Prof]

Dr. Simons, this is what I was thinking about last week, when I asked you about the value of reading groups. I only want to gain a "new" mind if it won't ruin a book for me! I used to be part of a group that met once a month, and it was great when everyone enjoyed the book, but the vitriol about the unpopular ones (usually the difficult ones, which I enjoy the most) was very discouraging.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:

See the last three quotations, too: Do we lose our minds and gain new ones when we’re in groups?

---

[Choisya]

I've read both of those Ilana and did not warm to them so I thought I would try her non-fiction

[Choisya]

And the subjection of women is part of a long tradition too Everyman. Sexual desirability and mating is one thing, excessive romantic love is another.

---

Everyman wrote:
Choisya wrote: I do not want to discuss these concepts, which I hold dear, because I know they are far too controversial for these boards and I will be in a minority of one

When did that ever stop you before?

will be in a minority of one in thinking that 'love stories' show 'Excessive concern for romantic love and physical desirability' and can harm women:-

Well, if the do, they are part of a long tradition. The Song of Solomon is pretty big on physical desirability, and the Trojan War wouldn't have been fought, at least if you believe the legends and not the economic probabilities, if Helen had been an unattractive hunchback.

But since, at least if you believe in the theory of evolution, the whole purpose of gender desirability in animal species (of which we are one) is to promote procreation among the fittest members of the species, there can be no such thing, biologically speaking, concern for romantic love and physical desirability is natural and necessary for us to advance evolutionarily as a species.

---

[IlanaSimons]

Got it. So maybe this Nietzsche quote from this week holds:
"Go up close to your friend, but do not go over to him! We should also respect the enemy in our friend." More mildly: I/we need to find confidence in some opinions in isolation. Other people won't confirm them.

---

Prof wrote:
Dr. Simons, this is what I was thinking about last week, when I asked you about the value of reading groups. I only want to gain a "new" mind if it won't ruin a book for me! I used to be part of a group that met once a month, and it was great when everyone enjoyed the book, but the vitriol about the unpopular ones (usually the difficult ones, which I enjoy the most) was very discouraging.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:

See the last three quotations, too: Do we lose our minds and gain new ones when we’re in groups?

---

---

[Choisya]

How many men do you think will read this book Prof? And don't more men need to learn the art of housekeeping so that they can help their hard working wives? It may well be a great and serious book but I bet it is aimed at the women's market, like most of the others on the subject of housekeeping.

---

Prof wrote:
Rochelle, I think housekeeping is the subject of so many magazine articles because it's an important but neglected art. (This is my first "face." I think you discovered this one, because the only place I've seen it is in one of your posts, #673, on Virginia Woolf!) There's a serious book about this subject, Home Comforts by Cheryl Mendelson.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&bnit=H&bnrefer=ISLL&EAN=978074327286...

The last review is by Alison Rogers in Brill's Content. "Although it's a reference work, Home Comforts: The Art & Science of Keeping House packs the punch of a major novel." Dr. Mendelson is a philosopher. This could be a great book!

---

[Choisya]

Yes biologically that is true but that does not necessarily mean standing on your head to attract ONE desirable member of the opposite gender and serving him like a slave for the rest of your life. The animal kingdom tends to order it differently. Men have always been more promiscuous than women and keeping a woman as your sole possession has primarily been to ensure the continuation of a male line. As in-vitro fertilisation and other such techniques become more widely available it may no longer be necessary for women to go such lengths to attract a mate and our attitudes to relationships may change drastically.

There is also the consideration that the world is vastly over-populated and our biological imperative might more sensibly be that of adopting more babies and looking after the ones that are already here.

Oh dear, more controversy

---

Everyman wrote:

---

foxycat wrote:
And in spite of the almost 200 years separating us from Wollstonecraft, too many women still think their purpose in life is to attract a man.

---

Well, of course, biologically that is their purpose in life. The primary biological imperative of any species is reproduction with the most desirable member of the opposite gender which one can attract.

We tend to forget, for all our technology, literature, etc., that at the core we are still a member of the animal kingdom, and subject to the biological imperatives of all species.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 06-25-2007 11:40 AM

[Prof]

Most of the men I know, old and young, learned the art before their wives did, when they were single and living on their own. They don't help, they do the lion's share (which is an appropriate idiom)!

Has anyone here seen this in contemporary literature?

---

Choisya wrote:

And don't more men need to learn the art of housekeeping so that they can help their hard working wives?

---

[Prof]

Yes, and then it becomes a matter of preserving this feeling! How do you protect yourself? Do you take notes, write journal entries, etc. to build your defenses before you venture forth?

---

IlanaSimons wrote:

More mildly: I/we need to find confidence in some opinions in isolation. Other people won't confirm them.

---

[Choisya]

I agree it has changed in recent years Prof - my eldest son is a house-husband looking after a child while his wife is the breadwinner. But I know very few men of my generation who either lived on their own or who learned to cook or housekeep, certainly not either of my husbands nor my father or grandfather. There are frequent articles in our press about the burden working women today are carrying in this regard. More women in the UK today are choosing to have a child/children yet to live alone because they do not also want to look after a man. It is also class related with more middle class, professional, men helping with children and chores than working class men. Perhaps it is different in the US and men have at last become more enlightened. This is from one of our government surveys (ESRC):-

'Childcare and housework are not shared equally between men and women. According to analysis of the Time Use Survey undertaken by the Equal Opportunities Commission, working mothers of children do on average over two hours of childcare per day during the week and one and a half hours at weekends. The equivalent for fathers is around 45 minutes of childcare in the week and just under an hour at weekends. Mothers spend over twice as long over household tasks during the week than fathers, and over 45 per cent longer at weekends.'

Re women living alone:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=366694&in_page_id=1879

Yes. it would be interesting to know whether the changing roles are reflected in contemporary literature - or in films/TV etc.

---

Prof wrote:
Most of the men I know, old and young, learned the art before their wives did, when they were single and living on their own. They don't help, they do the lion's share (which is an appropriate idiom)!

Has anyone here seen this in contemporary literature?

---

Choisya wrote:

And don't more men need to learn the art of housekeeping so that they can help their hard working wives?

---

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 06-25-2007 12:15 PM

[IlanaSimons]

I have two partners in my life (mother & lover) who help me sustain delusions of grandeur. And the occassional drink.
You?

---

Prof wrote:
Yes, and then it becomes a matter of preserving this feeling! How do you protect yourself? Do you take notes, write journal entries, etc. to build your defenses before you venture forth?

---

IlanaSimons wrote:

More mildly: I/we need to find confidence in some opinions in isolation. Other people won't confirm them.

---

---

Message Edited by IlanaSimons on 06-25-2007 12:09 PM

[Prof]

What a great expression! Yes, my spouse and my parents put me back up on a pedestal when I've been knocked down. I think men in particular have very good senses of humor, and are able to get things back on track with their jokes and play-acting.

It's iced tea and cookies for me. (What does this say about the difference between us?)

---

IlanaSimons wrote:
I have two partners in my life (mother & lover) who help me sustain delusions of grandeur. And the occassional drink.
You?

---

Prof wrote:
How do you protect yourself? Do you take notes, write journal entries, etc. to build your defenses before you venture forth?

---

---

[IlanaSimons]

---

Prof wrote:
It's iced tea and cookies for me. (What does this say about the difference between us?)

---

you're healthier. but we both get the comfort of the oral fix.

[Everyman]

As long as we agree that excessive is in the eye of the beholder. You apparently do not want to be romantically loved to a point that you consider excessive. But perhaps some women might enjoy what you consider excessive, and I don't think you should impose your preference on them.

---

Choisya wrote:
And the subjection of women is part of a long tradition too Everyman. Sexual desirability and mating is one thing, excessive romantic love is another.

---

Everyman wrote:
Choisya wrote: I do not want to discuss these concepts, which I hold dear, because I know they are far too controversial for these boards and I will be in a minority of one

When did that ever stop you before?

will be in a minority of one in thinking that 'love stories' show 'Excessive concern for romantic love and physical desirability' and can harm women:-

Well, if the do, they are part of a long tradition. The Song of Solomon is pretty big on physical desirability, and the Trojan War wouldn't have been fought, at least if you believe the legends and not the economic probabilities, if Helen had been an unattractive hunchback.

But since, at least if you believe in the theory of evolution, the whole purpose of gender desirability in animal species (of which we are one) is to promote procreation among the fittest members of the species, there can be no such thing, biologically speaking, concern for romantic love and physical desirability is natural and necessary for us to advance evolutionarily as a species.

---

---

[Everyman]

I'm not sure how many men will read the book, but both my sister and I married late and lived alone for many years, and I can assure you that my home was much more neatly kept and much more "housekept" than hers. That only women and not men are interested in housekeeping is an opinion based on gender prejudice, which feminists of all people should eschew.

---

Choisya wrote:
How many men do you think will read this book Prof? And don't more men need to learn the art of housekeeping so that they can help their hard working wives? It may well be a great and serious book but I bet it is aimed at the women's market, like most of the others on the subject of housekeeping.

---

Prof wrote:
Rochelle, I think housekeeping is the subject of so many magazine articles because it's an important but neglected art. (This is my first "face." I think you discovered this one, because the only place I've seen it is in one of your posts, #673, on Virginia Woolf!) There's a serious book about this subject, Home Comforts by Cheryl Mendelson.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&bnit=H&bnrefer=ISLL&EAN=978074327286...

The last review is by Alison Rogers in Brill's Content. "Although it's a reference work, Home Comforts: The Art & Science of Keeping House packs the punch of a major novel." Dr. Mendelson is a philosopher. This could be a great book!

---

---

[Everyman]

---

Choisya wrote:
Yes biologically that is true but that does not necessarily mean standing on your head to attract ONE desirable member of the opposite gender and serving him like a slave for the rest of your life.

---

My wife would laugh uproariously at the idea that this is even remotely what she did. She would be laughing too hard to resent the remark, but I will resent it on her behalf.