Printable View
I agree. Not only that, somehow I don't think it will take a week to exhaust the technical substance of this poem. But I suppose a heated discussion about feminism can be interesting, that is under the assumption that someone would be brave enough to take the side of the masculine message suggested here. Because, as Grumbleguts rightly said, men are not like that!Quote:
Originally Posted by genoveva
Smiling here, I don't know that its horrible, though I know what you mean. Its interesting how people immediately take to a camp. On the surface it appears sexual, which isn't outlawed yet (is it?), and but this all depends on the context, no? Time and again, context turns everything upside down. Anyway, we are not the author, nor the protagonist, simply the train spotter here. I'll put my sunglasses back on now.... even if its about a gardner, in love with nature, and the double entendre is actually our faux pas. :banana:
My, that is a bitter, bitter poem. The poet really holds nothing back in making him an unabashedly straightforward sob. I'll have to read it again and see if some more insightful comments spring to mind. Darn it, others have already had the fun of pointing out most of the naughty bits (though I'm sure there are more there yet unidentified). :brow:
Grumbleguts--I just saw this. Let me begin by saying that I agree with most of your post. I don't at all believe this represents men in general, and I have luckily never been involved with the type described here. All the same, I have to comment on your describing this as "feminist cliche." As a poem, it is describing a certain type of individual that does in fact exist. There are men with this kind of attitude. By identifying one such individual in her poem Porter may be displaying some sort of personal anger and resentment from a bad experience she either had herself or heard about, but it seems like a bit of a leap from that to some genralization about feminist thought. If you were reading a poem by a man who was writing about a woman who had done him wrong--and there have been many written--you might think he was bitter about women and you might think he had gone overboard in his resentment, but it would probably never occur to you to think of it as a "cliche" of male empowerment.Quote:
I should like to say in defence of the male half of humanity that I have never treated a woman with the contempt shown in this poem and doubt that many men are as callously, sexually predative as the one described here. Although I know that such do exist, it still strikes me as feminist cliche.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that men wrong women and women wrong men, and the wronged parties of either sex tend to get very bitter and sometimes get hyperbolic in their condemnation of the opposite sex. It seems to me, however, that only women who express this sentiment get placed in this kind of position where they're branded as "feminist," with the implication that being a "feminist" is in some way linked to hating men as a result of a bad experience. Call the author of this poem a bitter woman who has trouble trusting men. Say that she's wrong to express this type of opinion, but don't say that it's just some cliche rhetoric having to do with women's rights. To be fair I should say that I'm aware that there are some women who use the term feminism as an excuse for male bashing, and I disagree with their use of the term as well.
Grumble - couldn't both connotations be intended - thus strengthening the line?
Petrarch's - I don't think it is down to 'some men...' in this case - the protagonist is clearly sick - as in psychopathic. We all wrong people in love at soem time - we don't want to treat em like dirt for kicks - if we are at least relatively healthy!
By the way, I started a challenge on a new thread - anyone know where it migt have disappeared to?
Oh I found it - guess nobodies interested!
Chinaski--I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make. I want to be very clear about this. I was not trying to defend this poem as an accurate representation of the vast majority of men, or even of any man all of the time. I was not disagreeing with the idea that the poem is unhealthy in both the attitude of the speaker and the attitude towards men the creation of such a speaker implies. I agree that it is unhealthy. I think there are some unhealthy people out there, or people who have unhealthy moments, and this poem is describing one of them. What I was disaggreeing with is the identification of this kind of attitude with feminism. I don't see this as a "feminist" poem. I see this as a poem that was probably written by a woman who had issues with a certain man. Maybe the man who wronged her wasn't that bad and she's over-reacting as a result of being hurt. Maybe he had his own issues with women and was really just as heartless and vindictive as the poem makes him out to be. Either way I really don't see what that has to do with her position as a "feminist," unless the term feminist is being used as the equivilent of "man-hater," which I don't believe it should be.Quote:
Petrarch's - I don't think it is down to 'some men...' in this case - the protagonist is clearly sick - as in psychopathic. We all wrong people in love at soem time - we don't want to treat em like dirt for kicks - if we are at least relatively healthy!
I must admit that I have met feminists that have exactly the attitude presented by this poem. (Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that it is typical by any means - but they are out there, just as the man described in this poem is out there.)
It was feminists like this that refused to allow men that were enrolled on the "Women's studies" course at the Open University to view the lesbian pornography that was being screened at the course's summer school "for educational purposes". Apparently, men would only view it for sexual gratification and would not see it as the pure and beautiful art form that women would perceive it as (or some such tosh). A friend of mine, that was one of only 2 men attending the course, complained to the Dean of the OU and was sent a copy on tape - very sexually gratifying it was too! :D
(That was a joke, honest - I never actually saw it myself.)
I agree with most of the comments that say that this is a very misandrous poem. Even the most blatant womanisers that I have met have not been as one-sided and disrespectful as the speaker in this poem. I can't help feeling that these feelings are being attributed to him by, as Petrach's says, a very bitter woman. He hurt her, sure, but I doubt he was as much the monster as Porter makes out; these situations tend to generate one-sided viewpoints but are, on the whole, the result of a two-sided conflict.
See, there's my point. I just don't agree with this type of "feminism." IMHO a true feminist would be interested in equality, including having porn equally available or unavailable to both sexes. :DQuote:
I must admit that I have met feminists that have exactly the attitude presented by this poem. (Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that it is typical by any means - but they are out there, just as the man described in this poem is out there.)
It was feminists like this that refused to allow men that were enrolled on the "Women's studies" course at the Open University to view the lesbian pornography that was being screened at the course's summer school "for educational purposes". Apparently, men would only view it for sexual gratification and would not see it as the pure and beautiful art form that women would perceive it as (or some such tosh). A friend of mine, that was one of only 2 men attending the course, complained to the Dean of the OU and was sent a copy on tape - very sexually gratifying it was too!
(That was a joke, honest - I never actually saw it myself.)
Frankly, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Let me try this, and tell me what you think. I think its a great love poem.
He speaks:
Two people in this conversation, argument, or lover's tiff.
Since you proved that you loved me, I
Know what you are?
- Proving you loved me once, does not tell if you do now.
If you mistake what I gave you for love, you are
More beast than I
- I proved my love for you, and if you cannot see it, then you are more stupid than I am
And having eased in you my ambiguous lusts
I now can prove
That you're a dupe who let me wallow you
And call if love.
- after releasing /opening up myself to you about my confusing love, I can now show you are two faced to let me worry about you, and you call "that" love.
If I have feet of clay, yet you are now
The dirt they trod --
And in that moment when I brought you down,
I was a god!
If I am stook in my opinion, then so are you, and this time I was right!'.
I think you must have taken some of TBtheG's acid! :D
Nargh, he spilt it all over a thread, darn it. Come on, you must have seen a heated argument. :lol: I threw that out to kickstart the motor, but there are no double entendres, notice. GrumbleGuts left one possible, 'Ease in you', relaxed in you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
I think you'll find that what he 'relaxed' in her were his ambiguous lusts - hmmm, ambiguous, do you think there's a homoerotic sub-text there? Perhaps this macho man treats women so callously because he really wants to play hide the chippolata with a Bangkok lady-boy? Opinions please?
Is this a missprint? 'if'?Quote:
And call if love.
I think so blp