| David |
10-10-2023 12:09 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandon
(Post 1288858)
|
The desire to enter the workforce (after having been kept out of much of it) is a Marxist impetus? This is whack.
The key in Friedan’s feminism is choice. She showed that women should have — and should make — choices. Work if you want, have kids if you want, break through a glass ceiling if you want, stay home and watch soaps if you want, sing if you want, drop acid if you want. Friedan helped create the element of will in the counterculture. That’s why every liberal arts college student between 1963 and 1973 read that book and shared that book and argued over that book.
Quote:
The Nicks story isn’t just about the sad reality of a mother ending the lives of her children because of her working obligations. It shows the mental discord created when women neglect what makes them good in order to embrace what makes them a Marxist. Sadly, Nicks’ love for dolls will never take the place of her children. Her life is a testimony to what happens when we give up our children for a much lesser good.
|
That’s a notably reductive reading — so much so as to be inaccurate — of Stevie Nicks, who has said countless times how fulfilled she in fact does feel with her choices. We can all find those comments in hundreds of interviews she’s given, so no need for me to do so now. This article is a case of drumming up a thesis and then forcing it into an existing set of circumstances to make them appear to conform to it, which is a nutshell definition of Marxism. Stevie is the wrong person to use as an example of unfulfilled feminine dreams. Nobody in entertainment or business seems as content with her professional road as Stevie. It’s part of what keeps her so out of touch with reality. Her life really is her dream.
|