David Erasmus’ call for a Tannie Krisjan (Letters, March 8) is also a call for discussion. The contents of his letter suggests ambivalence is his own allegiance to feminism frustrated by the modesty of female achievement, or is he a sophisticated manifestation of the common woman hater? In the latter case he should know that if he hasn’t produced something like Oom Krisjan himself, he has done no better than the objects of his scorn.
If the former orientation holds true, it is articulated in very provocative language; for instance, “the testosterone-glazed identities of feminists” and ” …what possibly could they have been discussing all these centuries?”
It appears that an absence of subservience and acceptance in women irritates him as much as the triviality of the things they seem to be interested in. But feminism disdains these interests too, which is why I suspect our writer might be nursing a covert loyalty.
There are many reasons why no Tannie Krisjan exists not least of which is that people are not interested in a woman’s opinion. Otherwise wouldn’t a talented man have created a Tannie Krisjan long ago?
Women have become what they were brought up to be; they know that it is not their place to be funny and they know they are not supposed to want to change things. That there are exceptions is a wonder and a credit to all women.
And soon one of them will produce an Auntie Christa. You will miss it if you read the Cosmo. Ren Roux