I see your point and agree with you that it is a bit of a stretch; though I don't think that blog post had Harvey Weinstein and co. in mind. I just thought it would be of interest to share. That topic is more in line with:noddy wrote:their is something in that - tho im not sure about the final point on the attack on macho's as most of the current targets are as far removed from that as you can get.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:My Flagging Sense of Propriety
This blog is about the notion that loss of self-control by males regarding the pawing of young girls is a breach of “propriety.”...
...Most readers of this website are not looking for “politeness” but for an empirical, historical look at current controversies. As I look over my long development, I have concluded that emulation of my father the doctor is the key factor, for I went into science teaching as a substitute for a career in medicine. As a science major at the Cornell University State College of Agriculture in the mid-1950s, I had to take a semester of practice teaching to get my degree. It is that story of my alleged impropriety in the Fall of 1958 at Ithaca High School that is the focus of this posting.I was anything but a feminist in that conservative decade, but I did take myself seriously as a prospective chemistry teacher (a deviant choice for a young female, I was to learn).
My supervisor was Mr. Ming, who would take a brown bag lunch with other male science faculty. In my 1950s naiveté, I thought that they would be discussing matters of scientific relevance during their lunch break, so zealous Clare improperly showed up at their confab. Mr. Ming punished me with a bad grade: a“65” because I had an inadequate “sense of propriety,” a grade that my (male) Cornell professor changed to a “90.”
I am resuscitating this memory to make a larger point than some conservative or “moderate” commentators snowed by an “avalanche” of belated confessions: that women of my generation were politely and punitively excluded from the “male” sphere, and that this situation was of more interest to me at that time in the mid-to-late 1950s than various clumsy male gropings of adolescent-looking females seem to be today (https://clarespark.com/2017/10/27/moral ... nd-lolita/).
Or, if we dig deeper, is the entire Roy Moore flap better seen as yet another assault on Southern and Western “cowboys” by neo-Progressive liberals?
weinstein, spacey et all are almost the opposit - they are big on passive aggresive and two face, which is wimmuns magic to the macho
the greater point about the wishy washy line between men and women being actually equal versus women being pushed around by men is an interesting fight within feminism right now - ditto the changes in “sense of propriety” as per societies assumed levels of seedyness
this truly is the sheltered sexless generation.
Harvey Weinstein As Carnal Jew and
The Moral Chaos of Womanhood: The Harvey Weinstein Scandal and Lolita
I'm going to be a bit flippant and say that Ms.Spark's thesis is that Harvey Weinstein is a victim of latent anti-semitism and Pope Leo's Rerum Novarum. Because anti-semitism lurks behind everything, according to Ms.Spark.
Maybe that is too uncharitable but it is a running theme throughout her blog, almost to the point of comedy. That she is not necessarily wrong, if you follow the thread of her thinking, prevents that. I just have a very hard time seeing Mr.Weinstein (and Roman Polanski) as victims...and do see her own prejudice for liberal jews because they are Jewish there in the rationalization.
That being said, I like her blog and she can be informative, persuasive and provides a very spirited defense of bourgeoisie liberalism- something that's supposed to be a such a embarrassment that it oughtn't be addressed, as if its beyond defense or argument. In that sense (among others), I like her fanaticism and persistence.
...it's like people never heard of: give the devil his due