Except the part where she blames feminism. One of the worst cases I've ever seen is in the Berenstain Bears books. If you have never read them - DON'T. I don't let my kids get them out of the library anymore, because they're so sickeningly sexist. The father is a bumbling idiot who gets everything wrong while the mother and children look on and roll their eyes at him, but it's so cute and they all love him anyway.

The word for this is not feminism. THIS IS PATRIARCHY. Men aren't responsible for their own actions within the family because they're just stupid children, dogs, gorillas, cavemen - whatever. They just can't help their own primitive urges, they can't be faithful, they don't know how to do the laundry or dishes.... That is an attitude FULLY SANCTIONED by patriarchal thinking. This is why a woman's place is in the home - men just can't handle that stuff! Don't mistake it for feminist power. Sure, it's mainly women who get a giggle out of those men-as-dogs e-mails, but as a feminist, I am sickened by them. They are an example (and the examples are not rare) of how a sexist culture hurts men as much as women.

I have a sister who sends them and what's most disturbing about them is that she thinks they're worthy of ferrying and that others do too.

Le Guin is a God. She's 10 times smarter than me. Hell, she's 10 times smarter than everyone. I love her spartan website: it's as she believes her words are enough and she doesn't need any gussying to be read and she's right. Here it is:

http://www.ursulakleguin.com/UKL_info.html

As far as Lessing, I once had a friend say, "It's not that rich people lack compassion. They lack understanding."

And I think that's so. Wealth swaddles and muffles.

Plus, we all project. We all understand the ginormity of humanity through the itsy-bitsy of our single lives. Lessing's doing fine, so the world is fine, fine, fine.

Doris Lessing points out feminism's misandry which is plain to see for all but feminists. Asked for an example, she gives one which Lloyd then informs us is the sole basis for her statements about man-hating feminists. Amazing. Carol, it's an example. You know, a single instance to illustrate her broader point. Your intellectual dishonesty as usual serves you ill.

Funny how the Nobel winner shares similar views with the males that post here and are consistently labeled trolls. Is it not possible for the radical feminists to do some self examination ?

I'm looking at you Carol and friends.

Yeah that's pretty stupid stuff, but ... can we really extrapolate on the failings of feminism from the silly comments of an elementary-school teacher?

And yet Lloyd, this is exactly what you do time and time again. Some dipshit does something stupid and you're all I BLAME THE PATRIARCHY!!!!!

Broadsheet is continuously counting up the failings of men and the success of women. And never bothering too look at the other side of the equation.

Why, Lessing sounds like an MRA!!! Imagine that. A filthy MRA, or as Amanda Marcotte, your blogroll buddy refers to us: wifebeaters and pedophiles.

Uh ok. You're all wrong. Lessing won for the same reason Nadine Gordimer and JM Coetzee won. White, African, Anti Apartheid.

Doris is correct. Equality with regards to pay and opportunities are largely non-issues. If anything, these tables are presently tilted in favor of women. Child care, however, is an entirely different matter. It is a huge issue, as are education, male dropout, and male incerceration; all related issues, at least in my opinion.

Please have a look at this thread from Pandagon started by Amanda Marcotte. The thread is all about what assholes men are, and what an asshole one fathers rights activist named Glenn Sacks is in particular.

BUT do look at the the source material that Marcotte is complaining about. Look at the interview she is complaining about and look at Glenn Sacks' blog.

And ask yourself if Marcotte is being accurate or just spewing misrepresentations about this persons' belief.

And ask yourself why she is doing that and why you Carol Lloyd blogroll her.

Amanda's thread of smears, lies, and manipulations:

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/08/6148/

Glenn Sacks' thread that discusses what this is all about:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1255

Glenn Sacks' interview with Dr. Helen Smith that Amanda is reacting to:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/ask_dr_helen_5.php#comments

Glenn Sacks' response to Amanda Marcotte

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1257

and his update:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1258

Amanda Marcotte is a spokesperson for feminism and a feminist leader. She has been hailed at Broadsheet for being so. She has been published at Salon. She has one of the most popular feminist blogs.

What do you call her lies and misrepresentations? Silly statements?

How come Broadsheet never examines Glenn's blog and his philosophy and work? He discusses lots of gender issues concerning men and women, and he frequently agrees with major aspects of feminism.

Aren't you doing your readers, yourself, and feminism a disservice to ignore his work that tries to reconcile father's interests with women's?

Thanks for another clear-minded critique, Ms. Lloyd.

As usual, you manage to distill a truly thoughtful discussion in a very short space, in a way that opens complexity rather than minimizing or reducing it. I always enjoy your posts very much, and I think Salon should feature more of your work more prominently.

I take your point about glib and shallow blaming of sexist thought on feminism. I'm not sure I entirely agree that therefore the term feminist is misapplied to her. The Golden Notebook, which is usually held up as an example of this, is a mesmerizing but disturbing portrayal of one woman's deeply internalized misogyny. She offers no solution, nor any real liberation except dissolution of personality, but the fact that she was writing about the female psyche when very few others were is noteworthy.

Lessing has always been critical of fix ideologies. The bio of her I read mentioned uncritically her communist affiliations--all to the good that a former communist is now winning the Nobel prize. But her Children of Violence series records deep ambivalence about communism _and_ capitalism. Like many mid-century intellectuals, she was disturbed by the unthinking excesses of both extremes.

To me, her work was informed by a drive to push past political polarities, into some deeper understanding of messed up human thought and action that either eluded polarized thinking or ended up flattened by it. That's what I've always admired her for. I wonder if today, as impossibly narrow and polarized as public discourse has become, we apply easy labels--even when they don't entirely fit--because we've made it nearly impossible for ourselves to see the complex spectrum of human thought and behavior beyond them.