hmmm

Ok...so reading this piece basically proved everything i've been telling my morehouse friends wrong. Since the start of my education at Spelman College, I have been reassuring my male friends that classes like ADW and women studies did not "male bash." How am I supposed to combat these topics with pieces like these? Although I feel conflicted. I thought that the purpose of being pro-feminist was to embrace the idea of the reeducation of history, and to allow for the perception of an idea that contrasted the "male norm." If this definition is held true, then I really do not know how to interpret this piece. Am I supposed to take this with a grain of salt? Or am I supposed to think of this as some woman who has been through or seen some horrible experiences with men, and this is why she feels this way. Or maybe because I've been socialized to think that?..lol..somebody please help me out. One of the examples of this was “there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.” I mean, I can understand "reeducation," but elimination entirely? I understand that we all were raised and live in a male driven society, but does that mean we have to go to the exact extremes of feminism or nothing?

I was completely thrown off when she said, “SCUM will keep on destroying, looting, fucking up, and killing until the money-work system…” Is her way of changing the names males have like the devaule women in rap songs? Or is she just trying to be spiteful? I think that maybe it is to throw back what they do to women on men. I think that she supports this when she says to “encourage other men to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive.” One thing I wanted to bring up was if men were supposed to be beneath women?..or is she saying we should lower their standings to make up for what they have done to women? My response is that I don't think we can fight fire with fire..