General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy "fun feminism" should be consigned to the rubbish bin
These "fun feminists", who have little or no idea about the theory or practice of this movement, take advantage of the benefits that radicals have fought long and hard for, whilst contributing nothing. In fact, they are damaging to other women, and are destroying progress won by those of us who do not weep when men disapprove of our views.
So keen are the funbots on not upsetting men, they betray those second wavers who made great sacrifices to break the silence on male violence towards women. Heterosexual women know full well that most men run a mile away from proper, radical feminism, so they chose to spout the type of nonsense about lipstick and burlesque that the boys just love to hear.
It is not enough to call yourself a feminist because you are a strong woman. Thatcher was an enemy to feminism, as is Nadine Dorries. Like other liberation movements, feminism has an ideology and a goal. It is not about personal liberty and freedom, but the emancipation from oppression and tyranny for ALL women, whatever our race or class.
Some younger activists are radical in their approach, such as those who organise the annual Reclaim the Night marches across the UK, but increasingly, so-called feminist blogs are full of articles on how radicals are responsible for creating an image of feminism as being "against men". Did anyone notice white people, who were by definition responsible for the introduction and maintenance of apartheid in South Africa, being placated and excused by black civil rights activists? Do members of the hard-left doff their caps at the ruling classes in the hope that they will "keep them on board"?
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/08/fun-feminism-women-feminist
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Feminism is an important issue. There is no reason it should not be discussed in General Discussion. Since a little over half the adult population is made up of women, I'd say it's an apt topic for GD.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)When I wrote that comment, I didn't know if it would sink quickly as many threads do.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)about all kinds of subjects, and involving a large range of DUers.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)It's too bad we don't have an option to include group link(s) to a GD OP and get the value of broad DU coverage initially, but also take advantage of the staying power of a group dedicated to the subject matter...instead of starting a separate thread on the same subject matter in that group. I envision something akin to meta tags where, instead of specific words, we could use group tags so the thread also shows up in that group(s).
boston bean
(36,186 posts)to a different level.
At first it was meant that we need to discuss our personal issues because in doing so, women raised their consciousness and learned from one another that it wasn't just personal, it was political. It was nothing that they were doing individually that caused their problems, it was society, the patriarchy that caused their personal oppression.
Many women today feel that feminism means doing whatever you want to do, it's all about the personal, but in a different way. Empower oneself. Problem is that sometimes one womens empowerment may unempower other women.
Simply put, imho, a feminist is working towards fighting oppression and the struggle for equal rights between women and men. To bridge the gap. Not bring men to the level of women, but lift women to the status that men hold in society.
I've seen so many people saying now a day that feminism is equal rights for everyone. That is just not the case. Feminists believe in equal rights for all. You can't not believe that and call yourself a feminist. Yet, Feminism movement is the struggle for equal rights between men and women.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)"If men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working."
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)women. Take certain female politicians for instance...like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann. There are lots of women far more oppressive to the rights I want as a woman then many men that are Democrats. This doesn't make total sense.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I don't believe people should be excluded or included from feminism based on genitalia.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)More so then what gender you happen to be. My mother really has nothing nice to say about feminists but she is a conservative that votes for Repubs every election year.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)should vote for her in our super Tuesday primary that year. I had been an early Edwards supporter but when he dropped out before our primary I had many friends saying I should vote for Obama. I decided that it might be my only chance to vote for a woman for President. That was my gut feeling.
I have never regretted my vote. Not ever.
That said, I wholeheartedly support Obama for a second term. There is no question in my mind.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)PassingFair
(22,434 posts)I would have supported Jan Schakowsky though.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)even though I am male, I offer this, do you define feminism as that which simply angers men, or that which destroys the patricharchal power structure that will butcher us all like hogs. For example, many men and women are the sort of democrats that will refuse to vote for any GOP, and make sure that they show up to vote on election day to keep out the GOP. Everyone may have their issues, reasons, but in the end, there is a common goal.
And since I know it may be asked, I voted for Edwards in the primary, and supported Obama afterword, but if Hillary won the nod,would I have voted for her, even with her husband spewing out some stupid, hateful, vile things before and after the election, hell yes, because Hillary, regardles of what gender she happened to be, definitely respresented my interest much more than John McCain ever did. Women's interests are common interest, because whoever controls women controls the nation.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)plenty of men have reason to take a torch to it, too.
Only a handful of men - the richest and most powerful, aka the alpha males - ever benefit from a patriarchal system. The rest, well let us just say that while 80% of women have contributed to the gene pool, only 40% of men ever have: the rest got killed beforehand, either while trying to become good breeding material or by simply naked aggression (war, crime, etc.). A patriarchal system that doesn't look for an unspoken quota of "superfluous" men simply doesn't survive; as such I'm more than happy to betray it in turn.
And frankly speaking, we don't need any kind of *-archy.
What we need is more humanists.
tech_smythe
(190 posts)Men aren't the only ones holding up the patriarchal system.
a majority of women are as well.
yes a MAJORITY.
the women on this board must realize they are the exceptions to the rules.
and when it comes to courting and mating, women make ALL the damn rules!
Does anyone seriously think a MAN would have come up with the notion of chocolate and flowers?!
and idea can only take hold if people allow it.
and yes I DO think of myself as a feminist. I do want women to be socially equals.
I DO want the patriarchal system that has made my social life a living hell since I was a kid gone!
What makes me an outcast everywhere seems to be that I see both sides.
Men are victims almost as much as women by the system in place.
if you aren't beautiful on either scale, you're an outcast and told you're worthless.
that's crushing no matter who you are, or who you hear it from.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i would say it is even a minority on this board, which is my point of the Op and gets me in trouble, challenging this. to be for womens right is nifty, and appreciated and valued and thank you. if that is all a person has with this issue, cool. but that does not make one a feminist... IMO. it makes a person for human and womens equal rights. which is all that it is. that is enough.
but, going a layer deeper we see a society that is run thru conditioning, not the authentic self and THAT is what is being addressed. you are absolutely right. it is both genders. both are conditioned. both are hurt by it. it effects BOTH genders life taking them from the authentic self to a conditioned self that effect all of us.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)salib
(2,116 posts)The reality still stands that the dominant hierarchy is male. This has not changed.
Thus, if "a particular brand of feminism" is what is preferred by that hierarchy, then it has been co-opted.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)So far, crickets.
Maybe she has me on Ignore. Could somebody repeat the question?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)while still supporting equality. We just don't think (collective) you have to spit nails at everyone in your given path to accomplish it, nor is it a methodology that even works.
I'll take the label it it means inclusion and not 2nd Wave militancy. Thanks!
boston bean
(36,186 posts)That statement sounds a bit like some radio personality.
You do realize that you sound angry with other women?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)I am not angry, I avoid militancy, which this article is rife with.
So if women aren't foaming at the mouth in fury and men approve of the actions, its "fun feminism"?
Hell, I'll double down on that and place odds that the results will be twice as fast and three times as equitable once all of the vitriol of 2nd wave is moved from the mix.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)These types of conversations take place day in and day out in feminist circles.
They are opinions. They are differences of opinions. Yet each person speaking their opinion is a woman.
To broad brush an entire generation of women, who gained a hell of a lot more than any 3rd wave, now maybe going on the fourth, just seems to me to be a bit harsh, imho.
Feminism has been like this since the first wave. This isn't some game we choose a side in. It's a struggle against oppression. The conversations need to take place, should take place.
Funfeminism as the author calls it, speaks to a difference in opinion within feminist circles, surrounding personal empowerment, versus a collective movement.
Secondly, most feminists I know of, would never subjugate themselves to a male authority within the feminism movement. It just goes against what feminism is. That does not mean, feminists hate men, or don't think men can't be feminists, or want to keep them apart from the movement.
Another point the author was trying to make was in regards to men who go along with feminism because they enjoy the activity that results from the woman who feels they are personally empowered and therefore they are a feminist. There is definitely a discussion to be had there revolving around personal empowerment and other feminists who feel that personal empowerment is not helpful to the collective movement. But that does not mean 2nd waver, or other feminists hate men, and don't want them involved in feminism. It does not make them angry militants.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)Maybe the next promotion of 2nd wave could be a little less vitriolic than the OP.
That said, I must now go applaud the reply below as a work of art in response to this OpEd.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2012, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)
and maybe the opposite is true - the 2nd wave methods no longer apply in today's world.
The mid/late 60's was a time of significant change, a social rebellion/revolution happening concurently at many different levels. Anti-war, women's rights, church and social justice, fashion, music, art, Black Power movement, Yippies, Hippies etc. The thing most of these movements had in common was organizing and mobilizing which were new concepts and there was, by necessity, a lot of intersectionalism happening. Any protest would bring out a wide variety of issue-oriented sub-groups....sometimes it was like going to a bazaar and having competing causes trying to grab your attention and "protest energy". Back then, if you wanted to be heard and get your agenda broadcast, you had to be seen - in great numbers...you had to really get out there in the streets because we had a pretty limited access to mass communication....no cell phones, computers, fax machines internet.e-mail, Facebook/Ttwitter. So, by design, I think the 2nd waver's were necessarily loud, angry, and combative as they fought to get their agenda heard in the mainstream consciousness and force society to break long held norms/mores on the roles and rights of women. Today, the social structures on the macro-level have changed (albeit deficient in some areas like income equality) - women are running major corporations, political office, fighting in combat, and are working in every field available to men. Mirco-level institutions, like marriages have changed, too. I grew up in a very traditional Beaver Cleaver type family organization. My marriage/family structure was totally different - the wife and I both worked/shared baby duties/and shared decision making on everything.
Today, those macro-battles have essentially ended...well, they pretty much were until the Republican Party decided to run on a Back to the Past agenda. Now we're starting to see organized pushback - a reaction to the conservative movement's attempt to turn back the clock on settled social policy. Still, there aren't these massive revolutionary social changes taking place...the focus on women's reproductive rights are being channeled primarily through our political processes/institutions And social media/internet have replaced the 1st wave methods of bringing attention and effecting change. 3rd wavers are most certainly involved, in their own way, and using the technology tools and access to mass communication to make their voices heard.
I guess I look at the 1st wave, like a tide change...the first wave is the biggest and reaches up furtherest only to recede. The follow-up waves are smaller, but relentless and eventually you do reach the highest tide possible.
My $.02
On edit: Changed subject line and thread to reflect correct wave references (h/t Gormy Cuss)
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)...
eta: otherwise, good post.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)I guess I'm thinking 2nd wavers in the 60's and 3rd wavers in the 90's?
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Surfing off the coast of Maine. backatcha
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)Not all women are my sisters. Not Michelle Bachman. Not Sarah Palin. Not Phyllis Schlafley. Not many others.
I fight for the rights of all women, whether they choose to take advantage of them or not. But those who fight against the good of women deserve no special consideration due to the state of their chromosomes.
There is an angry militancy within feminism. There are women - like the one who wrote this piece - who feel that feminists aren't really feminist "enough" because they disagree with some element of those feminists' philosphy and agenda. Feminism has its circular firing squads and disagreements just like any other movement, and it does no favor to feminism and feminists to deny the reality.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Involved with men.. That kind of angry militancy?
The sort of batshit complete unhinged ness that takes a simple, easily-agreed upon premise; I.e. "the sexes should be equal"- and somehow manages to turn everyone who isn't a female separatist* into an enemy or a collaborator with the so-called "patriarchy"?
The kind of nutty, bitter nostalgia that looks to the insular echo-chamber noises of a small group who held sway over a movement for an approximately 3 month period in 1974 as the pinnacle of all thought and advancement, while denigrating the rights of other groups and the achievements and viewpoints of succeeding generations?
That kind of angry militancy?
*don't call them "man-hating" even if they do, technically, hate men.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)"If men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working."
and she just got worse from there. "It is not about personal liberty and freedom, but the emancipation from oppression and tyranny for ALL women, whatever our race or class."- what the devil does she think freedom from oppression IS, exactly? The freedom to obey yet another -archy, matri instead of patri but with the same end result?
You cannot build an effective equality without the other side also being equal to you.
You cannot build a healthy, effective movement of any kind by telling your members that they must abandon and ignore their husbands, lovers, brothers, fathers and sons- which she dismisses as people we're "expected to love" as though we really don't.
You cannot tell your members that they must abandon their heterosexuality (or bisexuality) entirely to be a "real" feminist, slut-shame them for it, then exclude them if they don't obey, and still wear a label of "freedom from oppression".
No thanks. Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with my third wave- more inclusion, less hate.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)Brava!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i mean, i did not read any of that.
mackattack
(344 posts)"For heterosexual women, feminism can be a nightmare. Women are the only oppressed group who are expected to love their oppressor. But please stop trying to play nice. Until we overthrow male supremacy and admit that male power is the problem, not radical feminism, nothing will change."
LadyHawk's conclusion can justifiably be drawn from the above statement.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)You really can't connect the two?
OP: "Women are the only oppressed group who are expected to love their oppressor. But please stop trying to play nice. Until we overthrow male supremacy and admit that male power is the problem, not radical feminism, nothing will change."
LadyHawk: what the devil does she think freedom from oppression IS, exactly? The freedom to obey yet another -archy, matri instead of patri but with the same end result? You cannot build an effective equality without the other side also being equal to you. You cannot build a healthy, effective movement of any kind by telling your members that they must abandon and ignore their husbands, lovers, brothers, fathers and sons- which she dismisses as people we're "expected to love" as though we really don't.
You cannot tell your members that they must abandon their heterosexuality (or bisexuality) entirely to be a "real" feminist, slut-shame them for it, then exclude them if they don't obey, and still wear a label of "freedom from oppression".
mackattack
(344 posts)"For heterosexual women, feminism can be a nightmare. Women are the only oppressed group who are expected to love their oppressor."
That interpretation certainly isn't a reach.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in the ability to have a discussion rather that interpret in the most negative way that can possibly be done. reading the whole of the article, that is not what is being said. taking a piece and interpreting it in the worst of light is weak.
boston bean said it well.
two different readings. but in discussion, then there might actually be understanding and expression
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)See this article:
I think it's time for feminists to re-open the debate about heterosexuality, and to embrace the idea of political lesbianism. We live in a culture in which rape is still an everyday reality, and yet women are blamed for it, as it is viewed as an inevitable feature of heterosexual sex. Domestic violence is still a chronic problem for countless women in relationships with men. Women are told we must love our oppressors, while, as feminists, we fight to end the power afforded them as a birthright. Come on sisters, you know it makes sense. Stop pretending you think lesbianism is an exclusive members' club, and join the ranks. I promise that you will not regret it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/30/women-gayrights
LadyHawkAZ's post wasn't really off based on Bindel's other writings.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am tired.
thanks tammywammy.... like the two paragraphs... NOT that i am agreeing with it.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Have a good night.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)a poster down below did. i am going to read those in the morning, too.
really
i just liked this one article. know nothing about the writer.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I'm the kind of person that if I read something that piques my interested I check out their other stuff, but I know not everyone's like that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Challenging and changing the traditional views of women and feminists themselves, from that of hard-headed political activists to a much softer, appealing yet powerful force.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/third-wave-feminism.html
i hunted your post down, cause you discuss.... lol. i have been doing a lot fo reading last night and today (couldnt sleep) and i came across this. i have not read the whole article yet, though i find it interesting. but this is the gest for me. this is what i pulled from my original OP that is being confirmed in this so far positive article of 3rd wave.
we are saying there is not a patriarchy. we are saying we are empowered. we are saying we dont have restraints. but for me, to suggest that we must conform to the soft spoken, well like "feminist" to be appealing to men, is exactly the issue and harm. the sell out.
mackattack
(344 posts)I didnt add any normative values to the interpretation. Not trying to take anything away. Is there only on correct interpretation? From reading the comments here, there appears to be confusion about the author's thesis.
Breakdown of key points made in the article; paragraph by paragraph:
1. "What is feminism? A political movement to overthrow male supremacy"
2. "feminist-lite" types can be found blogging nonsense about the need to include men in our movement...."
3. "We need to bring back the radical edge to feminism"
4. "If men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working."
5. "Heterosexual women know full well that most men run a mile away from proper, radical feminism, so they chose to spout the type of nonsense about lipstick and burlesque that the boys just love to hear."
6. ""It is not about personal liberty and freedom, but the emancipation from oppression and tyranny for ALL women, whatever our race or class."
7. "Fun feminism" isn't feminism at all. It is about the rights of the individual."
8. "For heterosexual women, feminism can be a nightmare. Women are the only oppressed group who are expected to love their oppressor."
So, being for individualism is bad. Engaging in and celebrating heterosexual relationships is bad for the movement. Finally, we need to return to the "radical" brand of feminism which includes the rejection of males as they, like whites in a racist society, are the source of oppression. That oppression cannot be rectified through any means other than rejecting the nightmare that is a heterosexual view of feminism.
tech_smythe
(190 posts)oh great!
SHE wants to be the oppressor. what a noble goal.
and here I am, stupid male idiot that I am, thinking that "Hey, we really need to be equals in all this"
that kind of rhetoric is what damages the cause, not help it!
imho, the black panthers, for all the good that was truly in their heart, DID NOT HELP THE CAUSE!
it made the whites who were on the fence choose a side, and usually it was the wrong side.
great people, scare the men.. you know THE ONES WHO HOLD THE KEYS TO LIFTING YOUR OPPRESSION!
not saying that I personally hold shit.
as I've noted before i'm as much a victim of the patriarchy as anyone.
being a fat, geeky male has done nothing but cause me trouble.
that i'm not even a good speaker has cost me jobs, as much as being fat has cost me dates!
but, what do I know? i'm just a stupid man.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and i did not read that, nor interpret that nor have i heard that ANYWHERE in any of the reading on radical feminism.
take it for what it is worth.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)the entire article reeked of exclusion. Feminism is for haters ONLY. Men can't be involved. Women who associate with men can't be involved. Women who sleep with, love or care about men can't be involved. Women who associate with, sleep with, love or care about men are faux feminists, traitors to feminism.
Her version of feminism is very shallow, controlling and rigid, and leaves out huge numbers of women- and then she seems surprised when the rest of us want nothing to do with it. Feminism is supposed to be anti-patriarchal, NOT anti-male or pro-matriarchal. They are not one and the same.
tech_smythe
(190 posts)you can hold two disparate thoughts in your head at the same time.
I know how much you love your family, your husband and son.
I also know how strong in feminism you are.
I understand how you're seeing the OP. (and the full one is an interesting piece)
But have you been to the feminist room in the past?
those are not welcoming posts.
Because you can love your husband, and still demand equality, and yet understand the other side of it too (the deep alienation a LOT of hard-core feminists express to men who are ON THEIR SIDE) doesn't mean everyone can.
The OP reads as thought this woman was hurt, badly by one, or a series of men.
People who write about what hurts them choose harsh, unforgiving words towards their tormentors.
I tend to agree with the general consensus on here. the OP is not inclusive at all.
it was a rant, a tear at women who dare love men.
it was a tear at women who aren't as vitriolically out spoken as she is.
this wasn't the kind of article you'd want to hang on the wall as the example of what a feminist, male or female, should be.
*shrugs* but that's me. I'm just a man. what do I know?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you are such a great guy, in going directions that are different than others. a flexibility of mind that i appreciate and value so much. lol. that i NEED.
you man
i have found especially thru this OP and in the past, i can read something that interests me, that i think has something to say that i want to discuss and explore, and the crap in it or as you say the hurt, harshness, rant of it, i totally overlook or reject from the mind or not allow because it is not relevant to the interest i have in the article. i think people that are hurt or rant have important things to hear and be said also, and i choose to listen and take out the essence of what they have to say, without throwing all of it out.
"you can hold two disparate thoughts in your head at the same time.
I know how much you love your family, your husband and son.
I also know how strong in feminism you are.
I understand how you're seeing the OP. (and the full one is an interesting piece) "
thank you for recognizing and acknowledging this. the core of who i am that i value so much. it is hurtful when it is not recognized because it is very much a part of who i am and what i live. i appreciate the poster that can understand this.
sigh.... i do see that there are times of an imbalance in the feminist world, tech. and i do see it as an opportunity to speak out and give my opinion which allows me to express what i value about men/boys and where i am seeing them being conditioned or hurt. i welcome those experiences instead of seeing it as a fault as a whole, but a chance to say something out loud that i think is very much needed to be heard. i see it in the mens forum, too. and you being the balanced man that you are see it also. you dont throw away those people. you gently give your thoughts to bring the person more into balance. you see it as an opportunity to exercise your ability to help your fellow man.
i guess it is whether the person chooses to see these things as opportunity or a given.
thanks for your post. i read it late last night and had a chance to think about what you say. there has been smoe really good posts in this thread that i value and appreciate and has allowed me to focus in a couple other directions, lol. yea.... i will have another perspective to put up soon, so we can do this ALL over. ah ha.
love ya. i just do. cant help myself. too familiar for the board and the net. i know. just is.
saras
(6,670 posts)As far as I know, it's not okay for ANY oppressed group to publicly, effectively express its anger, rage, or other negative emotions towards the controlling group - ESPECIALLY if that particular member of the group is working closely with the oppressors.
Feminist theorists also forget that it's possible to pretty much reject all "feminist" theorizing as not worth fundamentally any more than any other social science theorizing, which is to say, not worth jack shit, and still come to a radical feminist position based on one's own experience and the observed experiences of others.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Why "fun feminism" should be consigned to the rubbish bin
Posted by Julie Bindel - 08 August 2011 11:11
If men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Her very first statement was a joke, and gives you a big hint on what's wrong with radical feminists.
The next statement you quoted is equally as laughable. Radical feminists never gave a shit about the rights of "ALL women". They are exclusionists and this article just demonstrates that. If you don't act like a radical feminist and most importantly think like a radical feminist and buy into all their ideas (some of which are nutty as hell), then you aren't a "real" feminist. George Carlin summed them up pretty well...
They don't give a shit about black women's problems.
They don't care about Latino women.
All their interested in is their own reproductive freedom...and their pocketbooks.
That's why radical feminism is dying. Once they started crawling in bed with Ed Meese, it's been all downhill for them. Good riddance to bad rubbish. The third wave is here to stay and that's where the future is no matter how much the author of that article wishes it weren't so.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)It amplifies what you stated.
Full post at link.
Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique is still heralded as having paved the way for contemporary feminist movement - it was written as if these women [the poor and women of color] did not exist. Friedan's famous phrase, "the problem that has no name," often quoted to describe the condition of women in this society, actually referred to the plight of a select group of college-educated, middle and upper class, married white women - housewives bored with leisure, with the home, with the children, with buying products, who wanted more out of life. Friedan concludes her first chapter by stating, "We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: 'I want something more than my husband and my children and my house." That "more" she defined as careers. She did not discuss who would be called in to take care of the children and maintain the home if more women like herself were freed from their house labor and given equal access with white men to the professions. She did not speak to the needs of women without men, without children, without homes. She ignored the existence of all non-white women and poor women. She did not tell readers whether it was more fulfilling to be a maid, a babysitter, a factory worker, a clerk, or a prostitute, then to be a leisure class housewife.
She made her plight and the plight of white women like herself synonymous with a condition affecting all American women. In so doing, she deflected attention away from her classism, her racism, her sexist attitudes towards the masses of American women. In the context of her book, Friedan makes clear that the women she saw as victimized by sexism were college-educated, white women who were compelled by sexist conditioning to remain in the home...
Specific problems and dilemmas of leisure class white house-wives were real concerns that merited consideration and change but they were not the pressing political concerns of the masses of women. Masses of women were concerned about economic survival, ethnic and racial discrimination, etc.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Besides, the wave wars are bullshit. Each wave of feminist thinking includes elements that are either not widely accepted contemporaneously or are later dismissed.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)mackattack
(344 posts)So the only true feminism is the author's specific version of it. We are all equal...some are just more equal, I guess.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I believe what she meant, was that heterosexual women have their own difficulties because they love their oppressor.
It sounds radical, but if you stop to think about in feminist terms, where we discuss the patriarchy and inherent male privilege in our society. Our husbands and our sons do not escape that, yet we LOVE them.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)Got it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Radical feminism is a current theoretical perspective within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on an assumption that male supremacy[1] oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.[1] Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s,[2] typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon"[3] prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form"[4] and the model for all others.[4] Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism[1] to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.[5]
Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (as in liberal feminism) or class conflict (as in socialist feminism and Marxist feminism.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I was actually saying it wasn't radical.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)was new or wasn't something that hadn't been said before.
Really Ruby, this is what feminism is, a bunch of loosely held together alliances, with a lot of offshoots and theories, it is not a homogeneous movement. I didn't find the article unwelcoming. Feminists discuss this stuff and disagree all the time. I absolutely find it acceptable to do that in 2012.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)Don't base membership (and value) on plumbing.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Many feminists would not like you relegating their well thought out positions be based on what type of plumbing they have. It goes a bit deeper than that.
Feminism is the struggle for equal rights between men and women. Not for men. Men already have more inherent rights than women in this society. If that wasn't the case there would be no need for a feminist movement.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)We live in a class society, not a gender based one.
Is Kim Kardashian "oppressed" by the man she hires to clean her pool?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)The haves and the have nots?
Kim Kardashian and Oprah Winfrey - women of the haves.
Joe the example pool guy and John the example construction worker (who both, say, work for women) - men of the have nots.
Quit the focus on whose voice is heard based on their plumbing and start caring about equality and people will be behind you 110%
Keep railing about "male privileged" and "male patriarchy" as the doom and woe of society and people will look at you like you have squirrel nuts on your head.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)I responded to a very similar post. I don't feel like typing it all back in here.
mackattack
(344 posts)That society is set up for male privilege. And while yes, some women have more power/prestige than some men (kardashian v pool boy) the entire socio-economic system is designed to benefit AND preserve male hegemony. This cannot be undone without a complete 'overthrow' of the existing order.
We know the argument best in the form of "white privilege." The argument, from the same era, states that all whites are essentially racist because they benefit from white privilege. Comedian Dave Chapelles dad was a big scholar in this field. So, according to these hegemonic-centered theories, if Dave Chapelle and I are driving through Dayton and and a cop comes up to us, I am going to have an easier time because of the racist system (im white).
Take it or leave it, but that is more or less what the underpinning of the "radical feminist" theory is.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)It is a distraction and a diversion from the class warfare that has been ongoing in this country since Reagan unleashed the damn Laffer curve and everyone stood back and waited for the trickle.
This mentality did wonders for the movement in the 1970/80s, and not it is time to grow with the new reality if it wants to continue any semblance of forward motion.
mackattack
(344 posts)misinterpreted what you were saying. my bad. Didnt mean to give you the lecture.
Not arguing against your view at all. Actually, I personally find it to be much more accurate with today's world.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)I would aver that it's been going on a LOT longer than Reagan.
ALL oppression is, at it's base, economic.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Which is why attempts to apply Marxist critiques to social relations, without any systemic reference to the structural economic problems of capitalism, - which affect each and every person in society - inevitably collapse from their own incompleteness.
Economic relations are the only absolute universal in a modern society.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I'm just a simple human being. Human beings can be assholes, and human beings can be loving, compassionate, and kind. There are many sorts of human beings.
I like to cheer on the human beings who are kind, compassionate, and loving. I do not like human beings who are assholes and who like to dominate, subjugate, or do harm to other human beings.
I don't buy into any ideas that a human being's genitalia determines whether a human being is one or the other.
Of course, I'm just an old woman who's been celibate for the past 11 & 1/2 years since my partner died. He was an extraordinarily kind, loving, and compassionate human being.
I have never been oppressed by "the Patriarchy", I've lived my life exactly as I wanted to, as a human being. It's not that there haven't been assholes crossing my path, it's just that I've always refused to let the assholes get me down.
mackattack
(344 posts)Hey now, dont sell yourself short. You stated, "I don't buy into any ideas that a human being's genitalia determines whether a human being is one or the other. " That is some heavy duty philosophical stuff. In sociology there are theories of gender and identity which state that gender is in fact a social construction and there is no such thing as male and female. All gender roles, social norms, and conditioning are based off of those created identity traits. We could just as easily base social norms on height or eye color.
See, youve got it! You fit right in. You just mentioned a major part of identity theory. You in the same league as the big dogs.
Sorry about your loss.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)discussion.
identity theory.
thanks
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)Thank you, sister. My condolences on your loss.
That was well stated.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)It's not my opinion - it's an undeniable fact.
See these stats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
That alone proves that there was, and still is a patriarchy.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)Where do you live? In Sweden perhaps?
Where I live, it is a patriarchy and it is the patriarchy that is the model for a society that has a class structure.
Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #56)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Then it's not about equality, but about advocacy.
What does feminism propose to do about the truth that women are only 8% of workplace fatalities? That women are only 10% of those incarcerated? That girls are only 40% of high school dropouts? That women are 0% of the people required to register for the draft?
Equality is a math expression, but it really isn't that hard. No one should take seriously discussion of "equality", when what is really meant is "more for me".
BTW, I think we should agree on some definitions to words like "equality", "rights" and "oppression".
Specifically, which rights do women lack?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to fight for the boys that fall behind in school or gay rights or black rights AND be a feminist fighting for and advocating for womens equality. i dont think feminism has a responsibility focusing on all rights any more than the gay community or the black community.
i think that a feminist, or a black, or a gay though, have an easier time advocating and fighting for and speaking out for all oppressed groups from experience. and i think they do.
over the years, i have always spoken out for men. it is hand in hand with speaking out for women.
that is a human concept. not the movement.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are you telling me that you cannot also think and be concerned about human rights? and fight for them?
that would be silly and i know this because i know i am quite capable and do.... and i dont think i am any more special than anyone else.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's just me. But on the upside, everywhere I go there's a quorum, and there's no disagreement on the goals of the organization even if they change from hour to hour.
Every individual holds an assortment of interests. It does not follow that feminism is about glbt rights or good education for boys or the environment because some of the individuals who identify as feminists also care about those topics.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and give the person the complete opposite of what they said.
i believe in a post right above i stated that i cannot see any feminist.... or AA advocate.... or gay advocate NOT standing up for human rights and against the wrongs. because we are so familiar with inequality and privilege, we recognize it easily. because we are so comfortable with speaking out, we are one of the first voice to do it without hesitation.
but i gotta ask, why the effort to ignore what i say to create the opposite of what i say.
exclusive? not exclusive? it is a persons choice of being interested or not. it is not a group that creates exclusion, it is an individual persons choice of being a part or not being a part.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I've asked you a couple of times what rights you feel you are missing. Your only response is the "right to your body" - paraphrased; to choose whether you're going to be a parent or not.
I think this is a poor example, because for men, our influence over parenthood choice ends at ejaculation, everything beyond that is someone else's call.
This is demonstrably untrue. I'm going to use you for an example because a) you're unusually fair-minded, b) because the subject is recent, c) because you fit the profile you described above. Yesterday, you said that you didn't realize that for the last 34 years, 18 year old men had to register for the draft and girls did not. As a parent of sons, who is "familiar with inequality and privilege" and can "recognize it easily", how could you not know this?
People don't recognize privilege easy because the only privilege one can recognize is that which they can project onto others.
...Like the 3 out of 5 college students who are women and the 80% of teachers who got there with the grants and scholarships from the federal educational equity program for women, and who intend to launch businesses to take advantage of the preferential treatment given to women owned businesses, they wouldn't recognize true privilege if they were soaking in it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am open to what i know and dont know and am not hesitant on stating it and learning and growing. to create a slight acknowledging i dont know all things to me is totally counterproductive. what i do know, having sons not yet 18 is the recruitment issue from the time the boys are very young, thru out their school years and making sure the paper is signed to keep that out of their life. now that i learned something i was unaware of, i will address that.
that is what i am saying about the innate desire for a fairness that comes so naturally to those in an oppressed group. and if i find in a feminist group the unjust representation of men, i am one that speaks up, though it will merely be with my own perceptions, knowledge and experience.
we do the best we can do as humans (i would hope, expect, desire) in all our imperfection. but to suggest that a whole of a movement must focus on ALL others to be legit when your movement, or the black movement or the gay movement focus on their issues, is typical conditioning of what and who female are suppose to be thru a patriarchal society that i reject.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Which is kind of my point. The (imo) best exemplar of fair feminism here didn't know about draft registration.
Clearly "the innate desire for fairness that comes naturally to those in an oppressed group" has its limitations. The OP shows that many if not most kinds of feminism are predicated on the idea that men are the problem. This view renders that kind of feminist completely blind to any experience on the other side of the equal sign. That kind of awareness is at best a distraction and at worst detracts from the goal.
I'm not suggesting that feminism should focus on all others. In fact, I'm saying that it can't. Feminism isn't about equality, it's about advocacy for women, and every other cause is only important to the degree that it is a useful recruiting/fundraising tool (e.g. "intersectionality" .
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i disagree with " predicated on the idea that men are the problem". at all. that is not how i perceived it nor is it how i see and feel feminism. which i think is the stinking point so often in discussion of feminism. i can cleary see the discussion is the patriarchy. the patriarchy is not about man, but a condition set up in society ruled by men that ALL of us are a part of and not a specific gender. it is not one gender effected. it is a whole. when one is treated less, it does not behoove any of us. when one is overvalued, it hurts them as well.
i dont see it as an issue with a gender but something much greater.
Scout
(8,624 posts)what are the men doing to improve their lot? would you be happy if more women died in the workplace, is that what you want?
"What does feminism propose to do about the truth that women are only 8% of workplace fatalities? That women are only 10% of those incarcerated? That girls are only 40% of high school dropouts? That women are 0% of the people required to register for the draft? "
why don't more men get off their asses and work to better the lot of all men, hmmmm?
oh, and don't fucking assume that feminists aren't working to improve the things you noted.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Therefore you can't have it too.
Feminism isn't about equality. Feminists might be multitasking to solve many other problems, but they're not doing it under the banner of feminism because equality isn't the goal.
Men "don't get off their asses" and advocate for themselves for several reasons, one of which is the fact that they've spent the last 40 years buying into the idea that feminism had the equality thing covered. They didn't understand - as you do - that feminism doesn't give a shit about them.
Scout
(8,624 posts)"Men "don't get off their asses" and advocate for themselves for several reasons, one of which is the fact that they've spent the last 40 years buying into the idea that feminism had the equality thing covered."
my god, do you actually read what you post? LOL i suppose now you'll claim that all the men have been emasculated and made powerless by the evil feminazi brigade.
feminism is about equality for women. if men don't like it, tough shit. work for yourselves. and stop whining about the women don't waaaaaaaaaaant us to be equal, they aren't working for uuuuuuuussssssssss. maybe if you'd quit whining and blaming you will see how equality for women is a plus for men too.
grow some ovaries why don't "you guys," and start standing up for yourselves.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)We fully agree; you're exemplary of feminism.
Feminist men are working against their own interests and indeed against equality.
Scout
(8,624 posts)i never claimed to be "exemplary or feminism" but don't let that stop you.
"Feminist men are working against their own interests and indeed against equality."
don't know whose ass this got pulled out of, but i didn't say it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"Feminist men are working against their own interests and indeed against equality."
I know you didn't say it. That's why you put it in quotes. 'Cuz I said it.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)You seem to have this idea that women have an easier time than men. Am I correct in this idea? And that somehow feminists have made life even more dangerous for men?
Childbearing is hugely risky and some 80% of the female population still bear children. The risk of mortality from the actual birth is right up there between firefighting and commercial fishing (within the top 10 most dangerous jobs- look it up). The main difference in what women die of and what men die of at those ages is that men are paid to work and women are not paid to bear children, or rear them.
It used to be that a spouse cared for the woman during this time of increased vulnerability, but nowadays women work at paying jobs (hopefully not as active firefighters and commercial fisherman- but her I know a lot of farming women and that profession is up in that top 10 as well- but that is another subject) and thus are responsible for both themselves and their young. I see few modern spouses acting as though the child-bearer is doing anything special. In both straight and gay couples, I might add. I do not know why childbearing seems to be so completely removed from all conversations having to do with feminism. It is such a huge thing.
Genetically the childbearing sex of the species has less variation in form and type than the sperm provider. (this would explain to me the higher incarceration rate of men that you refer to and the higher risk of dropping out os school, etc) The non gestating sex therefore can be considered the engine of evolution and thus has more variation and since only 40% of human males reproduce, whatever advantage these males have carries the population forward evolutionarily.
My personal issues with the subject of feminism have to do with my impression of it's failure to recognize (or discuss in a way that I understand) the huge impact of this childbearing and childrearing on opportunities and obligations emotional and physical.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I will say that society is predisposed to protect women from some of the legitimate risks they face; and occasionally to imagine others to show good faith.
This predisposition has resulted in an infrastructure to detect every injustice, real or perceived, and extrapolate it to absurd degrees.
Take "the pay gap". Due to many factors, women tend to gravitate toward lower paying jobs while men gravitate toward riskier ones. This obviously results in a pay (women make 77% of men) and safety (men are 92% of fatalities) disparity between the genders. So we have "equal pay" day. This year it is on April 7th. If men were to have an "equal safety" day, it would fall on December 1st - but I digress.
Reasonable people have inferred from this popular reporting that a female carpenter makes 77% of a male one, a misperception that the organizations are happy to promulgate. In reality, according to the American Association of University Women, once you compare people who work the same hours in the same jobs with the same experience, the gap is 5%. This is easily accounted for by the fact that women tend to not negotiate for salary. So there is no pay gap unless one assumes that all kinds of labor are worth the same money.
At your suggestion, I looked it up. Out of four million childbirths, 500 US women died due to complications in 2009, a one-time fatality rate of 12.5 per 100,000 - that 0.0125% is tragic and inexcusable. However, 4547 people died on the job in 2010, 631 truckers alone. Fishermen have a fatality rate of 203.6, each and every year. Four died 50 miles from here just this week. I find that equally tragic and inexcusable.
"Hopefully not as active firefighters and commercial fishermen"
I strongly disagree. Until women are represented in every profession, we won't see equality of pay and we won't see improvements in safety.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8325685.stm
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0250.pdf
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)But- you think that pregnant women, say with a 7 month old inside should be fighting fires?
I have no issue with non gestating people doing any hazardous job they are capable of taking on. I do not understand this trivializing of the physical toll of childbearing.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I interpreted that you were saying that women shouldn't be firefighters or employed in commercial fishing.
However, I think "my body, my choice" also extends to people's occupational choices. I think that a pregnant commercial fisherman should be allowed to do her job if she sees fit.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)but not because she has to to make a living doing super strenuous things while in advanced pregnancy.
I think this acting as though being pregnant is nothing is dangerous for the mother and the baby.
I had a friend who kept up her frenetic work pace flying between Canada and Germany 2 x/ month up until she delivered her baby 2 months prematurely. Very hard on the baby this was. The doctors all say to stop flying after 6 months, but people think "oh no big deal.....I'm tough...well maybe they are tough, but maybe the fetus is not so tough.
I, on the other hand, throwing up 24 x's per day for 8 months could keep up no appearance of normalcy, the only travel I embarked upon was to the toilet.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)I think that one has to try to compare these mortality rates in the same units, say # dead per 100,000
Death during childbirth has been tremendously reduced due to great advances in medicine and prenatal care. But we in the US still have a ways to go.
Also there is another measurement- called the "Lifetime risk of maternal death" - for industrialized countries it is 1 in 4300 women die due to some complication of childbearing (way down from 1 in 31, but still a difficult thing for a body to do).
http://www.childinfo.org/maternal_mortality.html
Here's another list of risky jobs with their risk of mortality expressed in deaths per 100,000 workers (I presume per year?) :
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/pf/jobs/1108/gallery.dangerous_jobs/index.html
The point I am trying to make is that people do chose these high risk jobs - men and women both. And these occupations pay the person to work and take these risks on.
Women have only recently been able to choose when/if to bear a child. And the republicans are working very hard now to remove that choice. Up until 100 years ago it was 1 in 100 women died in childbirth. I do not know of anyone being paid to bear a child. In fact for most women the financial suicide of giving up paid work, loosing out on the social security one would be paying into, etc. makes it nearly impossible to stay home with their child even for the first few years - the years that are so critical for the child.
I agree that safety improvements in risky jobs are crucial. Much better now in terms of safety for all professions as well. The interest in and continual improvement of safety standards is important for our entire civilization.
Women tend to take lower paid jobs so that they can spend as much time as they can with children, or be more free to take care of other unpaid family obligations that culturally fall disproportionately on women in our culture.
In my professions as both a scientist and as a farmer I have always made about 60% of what men in the same positions have made. At every job that I left either two or three men had to be hired to replace me and each was paid more than me- and asked to work just 40 hrs while I worked 70+. And I am not unique in this experience. But I am older, this may not be the case these days. At least I hope that some progress has been made.
mackattack
(344 posts)"What is feminism? A political movement to overthrow male supremacy, according to us radicals."
boston bean
(36,186 posts)More than one thought happening.
mackattack
(344 posts)Its the first sentence of the entire article.
Same thought happening...
"What is feminism? A political movement to overthrow male supremacy, according to us radicals. These days, however, young women (and men) are increasingly fed the line from "fun feminists" that it is about individual power, rather than a collective movement."
boston bean
(36,186 posts)"For heterosexual women, feminism can be a nightmare."
So, my point the first sentence in the article has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I am not sure what you are trying to extrapolate. I am not getting how you are mingling the two sentences together.
What do you think it means. Because she says "overthrow of male supremacy" in the first sentence, that many paragraphs later ""For heterosexual women, feminism can be a nightmare.", it means something significant. What does it mean? What are you saying? I don't get it.
mackattack
(344 posts)The quote about the nightmare was different than the "definition." Sorry, the two comments were not related.
I meant to reply to your post "That is a two way street, Ruby. " where you provided this definition of feminism: "Feminism is the struggle for equal rights between men and women. Not for men. Men already have more inherent rights than women in this society. If that wasn't the case there would be no need for a feminist movement."
I wanted to add the definition provided in the article as that is what we are discussion. However I clicked reply on your "I think that nothing in that article" instead of the correct one.
Thats why we are so confused about what each other meant. Sorry about that.
mackattack
(344 posts)Same statement can be made about white privilege (which the author does make). However, if this the correct interpretation, the author could have done a better job in writing the piece and laying out the argument to avoid ambiguity.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)People are not thinking of it in well argued feminist terms. This stuff has been around for ages.
The words, the sayings, the thought behind it, is for an audience that is familiar with it.
Some people hear this stuff and take great offense. They really shouldn't.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)accepting the general premiss now that the Dworkin 1980's militant version is becoming out of vogue?
Because yes, there are some of us who wanted nothing to do with that definition of "feminism" as we saw it do more harm than good.
Rather than work with each other to find points of agreement and moves toward equality, it took the "no prisoners" approach which turned off members of both genders.
Now (especially now ) members of both sexes are fighting for equality and women's rights. Lets not dust off this militant old corpse and set everything back 40 years.
I'll take Bernie Sanders over Michele Bachmann all day and twice on Sunday. So "fun feminist for equal rights" I am. Yay me!
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I can believe what I would like. We are both women, and we both face the same core oppressions due to the patriarchy.
We are not enemies. We are not militant against one another. There is a lot of theory out there in feminist circle, choose what floats your boat. Just because someone might not agree with you doesn't make them some 2nd wave militant angry bigot.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)The patriarchy does not exist for cryin' out loud.
It is a class warfare society out there, not a biological one.
Dude out there with a jackhammer has less control over my life and information flow than the female CEO of (name a media company).
THERE IS NO PATRIARCHY.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I believe differently.
If you think there is no inherent male privilege in this country, why are you interested in any feminism. Because if there is not inherent male privilege, and we are all equal already, and we can just become whatever we want to become, there is no need for feminism. It's all about personal responsibility, right.
I wholeheartedly disagee with that. I do believe there are glass ceilings. I do believe that women are paid less than men. I do believe that only 17 percent of congress are women, even though we are 51 percent of the population.
I believe there is a lot of disparity, and I think the numbers prove that out.
But like I say, you are welcome to believe what you would like to believe.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)I don't believe there should be a 'matriarchy' to supplant the once 'patriarchy'.
That is where I see the difference. Working within the class structure we have been dealt, not attempting to overthrow some imaginary gender bias. If there aren't enough women in Congress - then have more of them RUN FOR OFFICE.
I believe in equal rights for all.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Who called for a Matriarchy?
The call for an overthrow of male supremacy was made. That does not equate to replacing it with a Matriarchy.
Again, feminism is the struggle for equal rights between the sexes. If someone didn't have more rights than the other, there would be no need for feminism.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)Yes those were my extrapolated words, not OP - so what do you replace this supposed "patriarchy" with when you "overthrow" it, and in the mean time, who is addressing the class warfare that is dividing this nation in ways that gender never dreamed of?
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)Women of color/orientation are not welcome.
Help me connect these dots. Not adversarial - I am genuinely curious as to what the game plan is to drive equality when only one viewpoint is welcomed and represented (undistracted, heterosexual females).
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I'm sorry, but I can't help you connect any dots, because what you are asking is not within any realm of what I have written.
I have never said anyone isn't welcome. I suggest you go back and re-read what I have written. It's pretty inclusive.
mackattack
(344 posts)The author hints (not so subtly) at a matriarchy.
Using terms like "Nightmare," and "overthrow" to name a few dont bring to mind images of equality and sunshine.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Again, like I explained below. I think people are making way to much out of things, because they are not understanding the context and how feminists speak and what they mean. She's not speaking to people new to the movement. Anyone who has been around the block gets what she is saying.
Sometimes this stuff can be hard to get. Sometimes I have to re-read and re-read to get it.
I can see how someone might see it as radical. But truly, it is not.
mackattack
(344 posts)Then why does the author state, several times, that it is in fact radical? If it isnt radical then she shouldnt use the term.
"according to us radicals"
"We need to bring back the radical edge to feminism"
"I do not want to see its radical edge co-opted by over-privileged, self-serving faux feminists."
"These "fun feminists", who have little or no idea about the theory or practice of this movement, take advantage of the benefits that radicals have fought long and hard for,"
"Heterosexual women know full well that most men run a mile away from proper, radical feminism"
"Until we overthrow male supremacy and admit that male power is the problem, not radical feminism, nothing will change."
If that is just an academic term, and is not actually radical, it needs to be qualified and explained. Considering the article is published in The New Statesman and not a feminist publication or academic journal, it would reason that the main audience is the general reader and not, as you state, specifically for feminists.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)not that it is radical.
Radical feminism from Wiki:
Radical feminism is a current theoretical perspective within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on an assumption that male supremacy[1] oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.[1] Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s,[2] typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon"[3] prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form"[4] and the model for all others.[4] Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism[1] to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.[5]
Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (as in liberal feminism) or class conflict (as in socialist feminism and Marxist feminism.)
She was writing for an audience who would understand these nuances. A lot of this stuff will sound radical, when it really is not. Sorry to keep repeating myself. Read up on it, and you might come away with a different flavor on the article. Many theories are discussed day in and day out in feminist circles. There are truly a lot of different flavors. Some of this I agree with, some not, and the same with other types of feminist thought.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)That's a good working basis for advocacy perhaps, but not equality. As a statement on equality it is at best a non-sequitur and at worst an oxymoron.
What rights do you lack relative to men?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is the definition of feminism. in a way.
lots and lots of people of both gender embrace equal rights. womens rights.
that is not all feminism is about. it goes beyond. and i dont think men and women can readily jump on board with an anything goes, perspective.
it is like mens rights.... per your position.
i think there is a difference between fighting for mens rights in custody/divorce, for an example and participating in the mens movement that has established itself.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)In that advocacy, one would repeat anecdotes of inequality to bolster the cause, but the existing inequality is only the rhetorical tool, not the cause itself.
I ask this question again of you because you brought it up. Which rights do you not enjoy because you are a woman?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)then i really have no control over that.
right now, the right to our body is an issue. but i see that as womens right which many support, not a total of the feminist movement. i feel the movement goes beyond mere rights. so though a man will support a womens right, that doesnt mean he supports the feminist movement.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... also created a school system 82% female and a workforce in which 92% of fatalities are men.
There is undeniably a lot of disparity, but if you think only your end of the stick is unsanitary, you're not seeing the whole picture.
You can't create equality for women without creating equality for men. It's the definition of equality.
Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #54)
tammywammy This message was self-deleted by its author.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Seriously. Nail on head.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Julie Bindel is infamous, as well as being biogted against transgendered folks and men, and many, many other women, including many, many lesbian feminists.
William769
(55,124 posts)And given her age she is not a second waver.
She has a problem with trans gendered woman and where have we heard that before?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)It is all a bit of an unholy alliance. We have been put in a room together and told to play nicely. But I for one do not wish to be lumped in with an ever-increasing list of folk defined by "odd" sexual habits or characteristics. Shall we just start with A and work our way through the alphabet? A, androgynous, b, bisexual, c, cat-fancying d, devil worshipping. Where will it ever end?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/08/lesbianism
William769
(55,124 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I've been reading through some of Julie Binder's articles tonight...interesting.
Scout
(8,624 posts)William769
(55,124 posts)Scout
(8,624 posts)which "some" is the question though, eh?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I'm a male feminist and this is divisive crap, and there are a bunch of women DUers who will agree with me on that!
As someone who woke up to the misogyny in our society because of violence against women (my best friend getting raped), I am enraged by this inflammatory, bigoted tripe.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that we had a conversation with about the movie where the woman is drunk, passed out and is "ok" with sex, and that isnt rape? he is a feminist.
the point of this article is, that shifting feminism to embrace all, is not really feminism. when we cannot talk about rape, about the issues that allow it, then that is no longer feminism.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)so you cannot make that declaration.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)What you're saying is that if someone doesn't buy into radical feminist 'theory', then they must be wrong and therefore can't possibly be able to address women's problems.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)the point of this article is, that shifting feminism to embrace all, is not really feminism. when we cannot talk about rape, about the issues that allow it, then that is no longer feminism.
This is not at all what the author is saying. She doesn't even mention anything about talking vs. not talking about rape. Embracing different, evolving viewpoints (and in some cases trying to nudge them into more productive paths) within feminism doesn't mean that you don't or can't talk about rape and power differentials. However, it is a valid viewpoint that some women hold, that they reject the radical view of sexuality, and don't see the radical analysis as producing any useful answers about how to erase power differentials that make women inherently "rapeable."
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)See, for instance:
I would ask if they also thought that there is such a thing as a bisexual gene, a criminal gene, an I love yellow more than pink gene .
When I say its a choice I dont mean its a choice like which washing powder you use, its a difficult choice, for some women in particular its an impossible choice.
You have in the past said that all feminists should be lesbians, why is that?
Radical feminism was premised on a critique of masculinity of men as a social class, it doesnt say, and never has said that men are inherently bad and that women are inherently good. That would be the antithesis to feminism because it would be saying that men cant change and that women are not responsible for anything. If youre a radical feminist and you dont even think about lesbianism as an alternative possibility then I think youre not particularly using your imagination.
You say oppose transgender surgery because as a feminist you believe that gender is socially and not biologically constructed, how then can you describe yourself as a lesbian, which is a gender based sexual orientation?
...
http://oxfordstudent.com/2011/11/28/q-a-with-julie-bindel/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/01/julie-bindel-transphobia
http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/campaigns-politics/%E2%80%98lesbianism-is-a-choice%E2%80%99-%E2%80%93-julie-bindel/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/08/lesbianism
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)I keep re-reading it and it STILL doesn't make any sense.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)And no, in 2012, it doesn't make any sense, but some still cling to it.
If you aren't a white, heterosexual woman, you have distracting issues (race, orientation).
Men have no business having an opinion, voice, support in womens rights - as they are the oppressors (patriarchy). Yes, you may have husbands, sons, fathers, etc that you love, but they are oppressing you and you need to break free of them.
Others will chime in. Those are my top two on the topic.
This shit was tired and dried up in the 1980s, but some still promote it.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Amazing! Are you retired? I am so envious of the time you get to spend on DU.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Sounds like this idea should have been retired along with the Aqua Net.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)on the Dworkian end of the the second wave spectrum. Bindel likes to be provocative more than actually debating an issue. Dismissing as "fun feminists" those who disagree with her view of second wave orthodoxy is par for the course with this writer.
The second wave had its problems and limitations but it also led to tremendous social and political change. So did the first wave. Likewise, I expect that feminism in the post-second era is seen as having problems and limitations too and the next wave will view itself as an improvement over this one. That's why I hate the whole wave wars approach to discussing feminism.
Feminism is not static and when it becomes static it's basically done.
mackattack
(344 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)And anyone who thinks calling young women "funbots" is ok has serious issues.
William769
(55,124 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)fishwax
(29,146 posts)Vanje
(9,766 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Fembots. Funbots. WTF.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)At least, according to the OP.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hardly a surprise that the Dworkin/McKinnon people were palling it up with Ed Meese in the 80s.
fishwax
(29,146 posts)Michel Foucault once said "Do not think that one has to be sad in order to be militant, even though the thing one is fighting is abominable."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)am off to bed. but i would be interested in what you have to say, ..... radical and fun
fishwax
(29,146 posts)both second and third wave feminism (granted: the terms themselves are perhaps problematic and subject to contest) are important and still have interesting and productive things to offer the world. Likewise, each has had problematic aspects that it must address; and, as the status quo marshalls forces against them, each has aspects that can be exploited through caricature. I'm not a fan of "fun feminism" as this article would paint it, but then I don't think that it gives a very accurate picture of where feminism is today. Her paraphrase of Natasha Walter, for instance--that she "claims that being able to wear trousers and drink beer on her own means sexism is dead"--ignores Walter's more recent work, which acknowledges that she was wrong about how easily the world might be rid of sexism. (I haven't read her latest book, Living Dolls: the Return of Sexism, but I've read some reviews and summaries of it.)
radical and fun: I'll take one binary from the article as an example--one can take from the article that "radical" feminism is about transforming societal/cultural whereas "fun" feminism is about personal empowerment/rights of the individual. Certainly it's possible that "fun" can destroy "radical" (in the sense that an insufficient attention to power dynamics, particularly as they present themselves socially and culturally, can take the edge off, sapping the movement's power and perhaps even making it counter-productive). At the same time, "radical" can also destroy "fun" (in the sense that insufficient attention to personal empowerment or "the rights of the individual" can have the appearance [or even the effect] of enabling an authoritarian impulse and/or inequalities). Those are dangers that both "sides" are certainly right to be cautious of, I think. But while they can destroy each other, but they don't have to. At least, I think/hope not. But that's not to say I have a clear vision for how the various oppositional threads within the big world of feminism may be reconciled or synthesized
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)for taking the time to explain. i especiallly like your conclusion. i am going to look at Living Dolls: the Return of Sexism tomorrow.
one of the things i really appreciate in all this, so many women with voice shift over time. growing and lessons.
i know the whole 2 and 3 dont really work for me. i was too young for two, and looking like we should well be out of 3 by now.
thanks. i appreciate your post.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,217 posts)or whatever. Jump off those segregationist bandwagons, and just TALK with those here on the site who share the same equality interests as you do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1139
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)little nonthinking comment doesnt do much. it is like being hungry and having a candy bar instead of nutritious food. to deny that there is an issue between second and third, as we have seen so much of an issue between the two seems silly. to ignore understanding for a pithy comeback means nothing.
i was born in the time at the beginning of the 3rd wave. i was unaware of the academic issue of feminism until just recently. i have watched society shift in a manner that has allowed these laws today to be passed, a disrespect of women as a whole world wide, thru out our media, a limbaugh rant and a youth that is being effected and assaulted in a manner none of us experienced.
i am curious where this is going for the youth, today.
i was single and playing until my 30's, i am woman hear me roar, for a lot of years. i am watching women i grew up, now looking at what we created saying, .... oh shit. women that promoted this individualist view saying oops. women that spoke out for this mentality shifting gears and wanting different for their children.
i have questions.
i like to understand
and i am not real impressed with pressure to ignore a desire to understand, and being told to simply accept. that is not my way.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)That started in the early 90s, although I concede the seeds of it began a few years earlier, but I don't think you are under 30.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)To seek further division among the 99 is foolish.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But it is pieces like this that remind me of the divisions in Marxism/Social/Communism in the early 20th century. Who is more pure, who should be declared legit, who should be purged.
This sort of infighting doesn't do feminism, or women, any good.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Showing once again that a member of a minority (or two, in her case) can be bigots. Her bigotry is so extreme against the transgendered that, for me, it negates anything of value she may say. I also find the OP article hateful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bindel#Transsexualism_and_transgenderism
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)to be come more and more fractured, until the number of members shrinks to ineffectiveness. That's my comment.
ZenLefty
(20,924 posts)Come to the rubbish bin with me. We have cookies.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Funbot-Striped Shortbread???
ZenLefty
(20,924 posts)Sorry, I'm a celiac.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If the former is true, then why is the author treating the latter as a bad thing?
Prism
(5,815 posts)And yes, Julie Bindle is a hateful bigot against the transgender. She once said she didn't want to be included in the LGBT community, and I am only too happy to honor her wish to not be considered one of us.
That said, here's a dinosaur who half hilariously, half pathetically doesn't understand "these damn kids today" and - the greater crime here - spends no amount of time whatsoever in attempting to dissect the environment in which the current generation of young women were shaped. All she knows is these women are doing things men like, and that is all she needs to know to pass judgement.
Bindle is, by definition, a reactionary.
One doesn't need to get into 2nd or 3rd wave internecine squabbling to understand where Bindle goes wrong. At base, she fails to account for the kind of social and cultural environment Generation Y came of age in. There are a few major points here.
Generation Y is heavily dosed on Girl Power. This is not only a brand of female empowerment that is almost expected of young women today, it is by definition a clarion call to individuality. (The dark side of this cultural expectation is the plague of Gen Y'ers with ridiculously high, unearned self-esteem that doesn't prepare them for the real world.) We've just spent the better part of twenty years at pains to tell each and every child what a unique and special and totally awesome snowflake they are, and Bindle is surprised that many young women incorporate their female identity and sexuality into that?
What we have is a generation of young women with high self-esteem, no shame about their sexuality, and an almost off-hand willingness to cast off the shackles of male judgement on their proper place in culture and society. "Boys can sleep with whoever they want and be celebrated, but I do it and I'm a slut? To hell with that. I'm going to have as much fun as I want without society guilting me about it."
This actually is progress. It actually is equality. But Bindle - not shockingly - can't quite get past her problems with sexuality and tries to paint this as regressive submission to the patriarchy.
This reminds me quite a bit of a similar internecine battle you see crop up in the LGBT community from time to time. There is a strain of radical queer theory that holds LGBTers are different and apart from the rest of society - and that this is a good thing. When they see LGBT couples getting married, they sneeringly refer to them as "assimilationists" who are submitting to disordered society's expectations of monogamy and family structure.
But here's the thing, the queer radicals both won and lost. They did a great, great service in fighting for equality and bringing attention to the AIDS epidemic. But their victory ironically enabled them to be set aside. The result of their victories are those so-called assimilationists. LGBTers are becoming so accepted by society as equals that they are being included in it.
So Bindle is on the losing end here as well. Her brand of radical feminism paved the way for these "funbots" she sneers at. She doesn't understand that these funbots are not the antithesis of her ideology, but the result of it. She is so consumed by the hatred that has driven her ideology for so long that she cannot taste or savor the victories that are her's.
It is ironic, and very sad in its way, but the Bindles of the world are being phased out. This is inevitable and as it should be. At this point, her ideology and her are in their death throes. The result? A sad spectacle like this article. But not an unexpected one. Circle of life, Simba.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)And, Bindel is also against marriage equality.
Prism
(5,815 posts)I had not heard that one. Her animosity towards LGBTers is well-known, but somehow that tidbit never caught my ear.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)She's against all marriage, both straight and gay, and believes everyone should have civil unions.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Whatever you want to call it. ie people shouldn't be "joined" legally, but is MORE against this for same-sex women couples. It's becoming the oppressors. I mean, wtf?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)so much i am going to have to do two posts to yours, addressing two different issues. while i love the insight, the balance of your post, i also see where the credit is given for the direction the smaller elements (feminist and gay) of extreme did good. and where other issues lies. personally, from my manner of learning, i prefer to take the good and not have the need to "sneer". not my thing, not healthy, and does not do society as a whole any good.
but i do like your point that in what radical actions caused is also responsible for what is created today. very good point. i am such a believer in action/reaction and more what i look at. which is more my approach in this. why "sneer" is not necessary.
with all things, all actions... it will create. there will be good or/and bad in the creation. so i feel our responsibility is to watch, learn and address the nonhealthy that comes up from any particular action and address that. not dismiss all of what was. not to merely sneer and ignore. but address the new issues and go from there. a continual.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Speaking from an LGBT perspective because it's what I'm most familiar and comfortable with, I will never look down upon what the queer radicals of decades past accomplished. They literally shotgunned the community into mainstream society and made people see what the AIDS epidemic was doing when polite society, the media, and government were all too ready to look the other way. Those radicals did an invaluable and irreplaceable service. Every single LGBT individual who comes out to find a more tolerant and accepting society owes inexpressible gratitude to those radicals.
However, that said.
The strain of radicalism that eventually morphed into a hatred of "assimilation" is no good. It's damaging. It is now actively harmful to LGBT youth who want nothing more than to be considered no different from their heterosexual friends and family.
The trap of radicalism is that it can and often does go too far to the point that it has out-lived all practicality and usefulness. Bindle goes too far in too many ways. I would say she is now falling more on the side of opposing female sexual liberation than supporting it. Reading her words and other articles she's written, she really almost comes off as a sexual martinet. Sometimes people who fight for freedom forget that freedom means there are going to be a lot of people out there who do things with it that you may not personally approve of. This is very much the case with Bindle. From all appearances, she doesn't seem to be fighting for women's liberation as much as she's fighting for The Freedom To Behave as Bindle Wants You To.
But that is no freedom at all.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)But there is a serious problem with the mindless hedonism that grew out of Girl Power and learnt its morals from Sex and the City, a problem which Natasha Walter examines in her new book, Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism.
Walter, for those not up to speed on the feminist canon and who is, these days? wrote The New Feminism, published in 1998, which delighted in the progress that had been made towards an equal society. ''Here's feminism as phoenix, as blazing torch lighting the way to a new century,'' wrote Michele Roberts in a breathlessly enthusiastic review. Now all that optimism has turned to dust. Living Dolls analyses the increasing sexualisation of feminity and the extent to which young women are led to believe that their bodies are their only passport to success.
Far from relations between the sexes flourishing emotionally and physically, against a backdrop of mutual respect, understanding and equality, a generation of young girls is interpreting liberation as the right to behave like top-shelf models. These women, interviewed by Walter, are also committed to no-strings sex, celebrating one-night stands as notches on their designer handbags. For them, STDs are almost a badge of honour, eating disorders commonplace and men who talk of love and commitment are sneered at for "going soppy".
"In previous generations many women had to repress their physical needs and experiences in order to fall in with social conventions, and feminism was needed to release them from the cage of chastity," writes Walter. "But what I heard from some women is that they feel there is now a new cage holding them back from the liberation they sought, a cage in which repression of emotions takes the place of repression of physical needs." In short, they daren't feel because it might limit the exercise of their freedom. "It's my choice," is now an argument-clincher for any kind of louche behaviour.
*
Walter's answer is that both men and women have ceased to be aware of the extent to which they are being manipulated by images in advertising and magazines because they no longer discuss those once hotly-debated topics. Writer Kate Figes, who has two daughters, aged 16 and 20, was shocked, but not surprised, by reading Walter's book . "It was really distressing, as I see how close to the edge my daughters could be. Girls have little idea of the sexual stereotyping because it goes below the radar.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/6969532/Feminism-what-went-wrong.html
________________________---
she perceives it a bit differently than you. and what she is seeing and hearing from the young women today. i was given this womans name in one of the posts last night and have been reading about her shift in position and growing insight to what is happening with our girls today.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Isn't that what the right wingers try to do to women to 'put them in their place'?
I think that women feeling like they have just as much right to want to have sex as men is an improvement, not an issue. That is going to mean that some women, like some men, are going to have a lot more and with a lot more partners than some of us would be comfortable with. At the same time, some people are happy being celibate their entire lives.
None of that is a problem. The problem is this:
Vanje
(9,766 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)I simply remain saddened by the odd over sexualized images thrust on us all these days.
I do not understand how everyone does not see it for what it is- enslaving images.
Response to seabeyond (Reply #160)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Prism
(5,815 posts)What old school feminism has accomplished - and it should not be sniffed at - is putting this pendulum in motion. It will invariably swing too far in one direction. Right now, there's a hypersexualization in culture. But this hypersexualization isn't merely limited to women. Men are right there with them. If anything, I find young men and women behave more alike nowadays - and that is a kind of equality. It may not be the kind envisioned twenty or thirty years ago, but there's no denying men and women are becoming more similar over time than different. This is progress. No progress is perfect or exactly where we thought we were going. When has it ever been? But bemoaning "Wait, I didn't know they'd do that!" Horse, barn, etc.
However, just as freedom allows Generation Y to grope their own way forward, there will invariably be a reaction against it and an adjustment. The pendulum will move the other way, and women will collectively scrap together a new idea of what it means to be empowered and valued.
My one problem with pieces like these, however, is that they are narrowly focused on pop culture. Pop culture can be indicative of trends, but it can also stereotype like the Dickens. While I know plenty of young women who behave as the article describes, I also know plenty who do not, women who have grasped at their sexual freedom without taking it to the volume the author decries.
Think of gay men. For every club-hopping fashionista who's having fabulous sex with a new man every week, there are four other gay men sitting at home with their boyfriends watching 30 Rock. But what image prevails? And what image do cultural commentators always reach for when bemoaning Where The Community Went Wrong?
There's a laziness here, an almost intentional lack of nuance and subtlety. Yes, some women are going wild. But how many? Most? I wouldn't say most. A noticeable bunch, certainly, and there are a few cultural trends that are worrisome, but hedonism is a strong word, and I think the authors are giving too much weight to this aspect of Generation Y's feminism.
I see a lot of sexually liberated young women out there. I do not see roving bands of cosmetic surgery obsessed bimbos. They're the exception. They stand out because they are the exception.
I don't think the authors are giving today's young women nearly enough credit. They're not graduating college in record numbers by boobage alone. It's weird to see feminists intimating that that is too much the case.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in cosmetic surgery for said boobage of 500% that is worrisome. i read a study where "7.3% of the women admitted to having participated in "multi-person sex," 52% reported being pressured, and 43% reported being threatened or forced. The average age for first encounters with group sex is 15.6 years of age." http://www.speroforum.com/a/OMJAWVTVPH29/65717-Appalling-report-on-teenage-group-sex
walker has shifted her position:We have arranged to meet to talk about her new book, Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism. It is organised in two distinct parts, and the first finds Walter taking a journey through the seedy underbelly of modern culture, an excursion that starts, in faintly surreal fashion, at a "Babes on the Bed" competition in a Southend nightclub, a contest to find a glamour model for Nuts magazine. It's difficult to imagine anyone more incongruous here than the intellectual, refined Walter; especially when the DJ starts shouting, "This is Cara Brett! She's on the cover of Nuts this week! So buy her, take her home and have a wank." The uncomfortable scene grows uglier as a series of young women take to a bed and strip off their bras to "joggle" their breasts before a throng of men.
The journey continues through interviews with a former lap dancer called Ellie, who helps illustrate just how sexist the culture has become: "Now," says Ellie, "women get told they are prudes if they say they don't want their boyfriend to go to a club where he gets to stick his fingers in someone else's vagina." She interviews a woman she calls Angela, who, in describing her work as a prostitute, says that "basically you've consented to being raped sometimes for money". And then there's pornography addict Jim, who says that "porn is way more brutalising than it used to be. There is this unbelievable obsession with [extreme] anal sex . . . It's far more demeaning to women than in the past."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/25/natasha-walter-feminism-sexism-return
the point is, we have to be flexible and be able to recognize when we are not doing so well an address it. not pretend it does not exist.
i think more and more people, women in the 3rd wave, are recognizing this. and addressing it. i think that is a responsibility that we have. just like you dont throw out the baby in the bath water in the 2nd wave, you dont with the third. but you definitely recognize there is dirty water and get rid of that. that is part of progression.
but then, this would be a difference in the core of 2nd and 3rd. 2nd would look at the effects of the whole, and 3rd would look at self. 3rd has to see it as a whole, too. both our young boys and girls are a part of this experiment. and it is about their health.
i can only look at it from the personal, where i see the reality of it. and like i tell kids and niece and nephews. the niece that is oldest, in her low 20's got more into the individual mentality and it has effected her and her life. now, with two babies and different fathers, and first divorce, she is seeing a lot fo missteps and has adjusted her thinking. started looking from a bigger picture. but the younger kids have watched those in their twenties and they have seen a lot of the mess in what is happening today. with all the new of the net and social network and instant and self gratification and thought. they at least have an example to see what can happen. and what i am seeing with these kids is a shift in their thinking. i have also read studies on it.
i agree with your post. but i dont have to take all of an article and all of who the person who wrote the article to not see a value in what she is saying either. that is all the OP is.
i know how busy you are. glad you were able to come back in and post. this thread has given me so much to think about from a number of poster, and that i appreciate and value. next OP i am seeing a need to go in a different direction because of the info in the thread from those that took the time to actually have a discussion. wonderful stuff.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And more specifically, have they ever done it in a way that didn't bemoan the "promiscuity, the crass sexuality, the vulgarity"?
Didn't they do that in Socrates's time?
This is more of the same old, same old.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I agree that her views on transgenders are bigoted. However, I did not see that mentioned in this article. It was not something that I was even aware to address.
Onto a more generic question, for discussion.....
Feminism and trans due seem to be at odds in one major way. Feminists who believe that gender is socially constructed... does that make one transphobic?
Feminists believe that gender is socially constructed, putting it at odds with transgender who believe their gender is innate.
The idea that gender is something one is born with would turn feminism on its ear, make the entire theory moot. Feminists have been trying to break gender barriers. Feminists separate biological sex/gender to achieve that end. If it is the case that gender is something one is born with, it makes the inference that there is an intrinsic difference between men and women and women are cast a lot they cannot change.
I think it makes for an interesting discussion.
I agree that trans people experience misogyny or sexism on a level some women might never know, and I do believe trans people should not be shunned from feminism. All of the bigotry they face emanates from the same place. The end result is very much the same.
I look forward to learning and hearing others thoughts..
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)And whether gender is socially constructed or innate is something I have spent a LOT of time thinking about.
I believe that gender is mostly socially constructed, and I also support every individual's choice to identify with and present as whatever gender they wish, if that is something that calls to them strongly.
I do not understand what it is like to have a very strong affinity toward expressing as one gender or the other (whether that gender is a biological match or not). I am female-bodied and express as female but am basically what I believe people call "genderqueer" inside. The fact that I am "female" is just not important to me in any way and I do not identify strongly with women, womanhood, or "femaleness" in general.
But I also understand that gender identity is VERY important to some people, and so if people feel very strongly identified as the gender that doesn't match their biological bodies, I don't have a problem with that at all and fully support the choice to express gender however they wish. I don't understand the desire to do so, but I understand that the desire does exist and is extremely important to some people (even though I don't understand "why" because I don't share the experience of having a strong gender identity myself, either cis or trans).
I would like to ignore gender entirely. I think there is way too much emphasis on it overall.
But fact of the matter is, since I am living life as a female in a female body, even if I don't feel "female" (or even particularly care about whether I am "female" or "male" or "neutral" , a large part of society SEES me as "female" and TREATS ME as "female", so that made me start caring about feminism more.
Basically, I realized that I am affected by how society views women, even if actually "being a woman" is just not important to me in any way.
The Philosopher
(895 posts)why gender isn't both socially constructed and innate as well. There's always going to be a difference between what IS and what we make of it. Humanity has a track record of saying something is X until some jerk comes along and shows otherwise and throws everything into chaos. Luckily humanity also has a track record of recovering from such chaos because we're as much sane as we're nuts.
The only reason one has to be at odds with the other is through ignorance or lack of compassion. You can socially deconstruct gender and still have a definite gender; you can have a definite gender and accept (or reject) a socially constructed one.
And, of course, there's no spell check. Damn.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Personally, I think most of our personality traits are a combination of nature and nurture, and the degree of each very much depends on the individual, experience, genetics, and a host of idiopathic unknowns.
But, and I know this threatens my Gay Card, I'm not entirely persuaded sexual orientation is entirely inborn. I think some people are born with a certain orientation and others are shaped into it by their unique experiences, environment, and how that interacts with their genetic predispositions.
(Before anyone kills me, I firmly believe by the time adolescence rolls around, orientation has evolved to the point of being hard-wired into the noggin).
So it is with gender. There are definite social influences there, particularly in early childhood and how parents treat boys and girls differently. But, I firmly believe genes can predispose people one way or another.
So it's a bit of both, really.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Beautiful. Thank you.
bullwinkle428
(20,627 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)I wish I could rec and bookmark your post.
~ Julie Bindel
I have many problems with Bindels piece: shes resolutely opposed to (and seemingly very threatened by) anything post-second-wave and remotely intersectional; she is dictating what type of feminism is acceptable (and what type apparently isnt) and what sort of feminist everyone should be (as if theres a bullet point list of criteria); and shes horribly silencing of young or "just arrived" feminists who are still finding their place in the movement and figuring out where they stand. I thought it was a disgraceful article.
That pretty much sums up my stance, still. Let me develop on a few points. There is no bullet point list of criteria for feminism, and the argument that there is and that you must be a certain type of feminist is hurting the movement. I dont personally have a tolerance for the belief that feminism is some sort of dirty word that should be avoided (and theres a discourse, currently, that we should change the name because its so loaded with negativity), and I have little patience for the argument that the term has come to represent something that is so uncomfortable to many that they would rather deride feminism than identify with it, but at the same time, insisting that there is only one way to do feminism is nonsensical. (That sentence got very long; I apologise.) Its not a case of you are either with us or against us; its a not a binary state. Yes, one would assume that there is a fundamental set of core beliefs that feminists share but there doesnt need to be a rigid typology to which we all must subscribe. Bindel appears to be advocating that there is. If you are not part of a radical movement that seeks to overthrow the patriarchy, then youre not allowed to play in her gang. I mean, who doesnt want to overthrow the patriarchy? I certainly do. But if Im the kind of feminist who doesnt see that as our most crucial goal, would I be any less of a feminist? I dont think I would. If I want my feminism to include men, am I not a feminist any more? Dont be ridiculous!
Which brings me to a related point. We feminists can be an unforgiving lot. We will call you on your privilege, we will tell you each and every time youre being patriarchal, and our ism radar is like a finely tuned military machine. We will shout and scream. (Or maybe thats just me.) The feminist interweb, which is where the majority of the feminist debate takes place now, is a minefield. Half of the feminist blogosphere seems to be waiting for the other half to say something which could remotely, vaguely, even at a stretch be construed as anti-women or anti-feminist. Sometimes this vigilance is welcome (trolls and misogynists are easily identified) but sometimes it means that feminists who have things they want to say are too terrified to say them. If you say something anti-woman/ feminist, then of course you should be called on it but too often thats not the real motivation. In short, what some feminists are very good at doing is silencing other feminists. (If youve ever happened upon some in-fighting between feminists on one of the more popular blogs, youll know what I mean.) As a rule, its the young, new feminists who are most silenced by the older, established (and generally quite privileged) feminists who are there and ready to pounce. I dont think its even a conscious action at times, but it is prevalent. Bindel is one such established (and privileged) feminist. And in defining and stating what she thinks is pointless feminism, she has silenced an enormous number of young feminists who are still trying to find their way with the movement and who have many important things to say.
....
http://tenderhooligan.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/where-julie-bindel-tells-us-all-what-sort-of-feminist-we-should-be/
Rex
(65,616 posts)K&R.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Someone who is supposedly FOR gender equality but against either women or men or transgendered people is a walking mockery of the idea of gender equality IMNSHO.
Prism
(5,815 posts)That is really fringe material, and I'm a little surprised she honestly thought it was ever practical or even possible that legions of women were going to magically decide to become lesbians based on political ideology. That's a sign of a radical who has no interest in engaging the real world the rest of us live in.
That whole "expected to love their oppressor" bit also perked the ears. It sounds all the wrong "Warning, personal unresolved issues ahead!" alarms.
fishwax
(29,146 posts)Vanje
(9,766 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Well said.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Response to Prism (Reply #146)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Prism
(5,815 posts)I'm still flabbergasted by "political lesbian." I just do not understand how anyone can reasonably think legions of women were going to magically transform into lesbians overnight in the name of a political ideology. Political ideologies need to be at least passingly practical, and that one is so out to lunch, it's staying for dinner.
The fact she has not let it go after thirty years of all evidence against it defies all credulity.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is how i took it. and had a grin reading as i am understanding what she is saying there is not a chance in hell i am going to all of a sudden jump on the other side though maddow has made me think about it.
but i know there have been times saying an extreme something has allowed a point to be heard. the subtle does not always work. in listening to her position, i merely took it as something to peel an onion and dig a bit deeper. and for me, it provided insight. not a demand to be gay. as a hetro woman married and living in a house of boys/man, i get the point.
Response to Prism (Reply #256)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)And that "slut walks" are part of our popular culture - to defend against patriarchal ideas that a woman who has lots of sex is a slut, and that women who were raped were somehow "asking for it" because of the way they were dressed, or because they are called a "slut."
I think she's taking too conservative of an approach, but it's not something new. Whenever something goes mainstream, people will whine about the "big tent" their movement has become, overlooking the fact that they should be happy their movement is growing and going mainstream.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and i totally respect and love your posts. but i think with limbaugh and other "entertainers" we see what the supposed acceptance of derogatory words give us. if nothing else, i think this is the clear lesson with the limbaughs of the world why we can never own "slut" and other words taking the ugly out of them. it is not possible and in my opinion escalates the ability of sexism and misogyny in our culture and society.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)That's the point of the slut walk, I believe. Its purpose is to take the power away from the word itself, along with those that would use it.
It's also used to draw attention to our patriarchal society and make people think. Maybe you're right - no one can own the word, but we as a society can take its power away to the point where using the word is thought of as a passé injustice of the old times that was weeded out as our culture evolved.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)taken away thru the decade of owning these words and the slut walks, with how limbaugh used them and the rw use them as a weapon against women. when men as a whole (and i do believe this) still view sexually active women as sluts and not equal to them, the word cannot be de-powered.
a very real example i use is the gay community. they, too, have owned the words meant to be hurtful. de-powering them. and it works for some. but as a community as a whole those words are still used in such a hurtful manner, that they result in the deaths... suicides.... of our children being taunted by them. it is easy for those of us mature, confident, to say these words are no longer hurtful. but i remember recently reading a handful of articles of young women being taunted with slut and other insults and one in particular committing suicide.
this is not merely an intellectual exercise for me. it is a reality in our community that i see more fragile people enduring. and not always being successful coming out on the other end.
i think the experiment of depowering the words has majorly failed and we have had absolute examples of exactly that. i cant endorse that anymore.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cause words and there meaning matter
just a thought. but in raising our girls to embrace slut the feel and definition of what it is is still there. regardless. so though we are saying their sexuality is as equal as to a boys sexuality, allowing the word slut to be given to our girls to hear/be.... i am thinking.... subconsciously gives the behavior of sexuality that is not healthy for them. it is not healthy for either gender. the boy is not dealing with the definition of slut. but even with our boys, a sexual behavior that is not healthy does hurt. we are not only ignoring this aspect with our girls, but we are giving them a word to own, that subconsciously approves, demands, insists on the unhealthy experience of our sexuality. so, in a way we are helping to clear the way for our girls to walk sexuality in a very unhealthy manner. all in a subconscious, nonpurposeful way.
first time exploring this thought and possibility. no more.
librechik
(30,663 posts)There's a fine line between sexual freedom and sexual slavery. Our attempts to free women from oppression have delivered them into commercial exploitation.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)so I apologize in advance if this turns into a novel-length post.
One of the things about SlutWalk that everyone needs to remember is this: social change is never an overnight thing. It's going to be awhile before we know if it has worked as intended, but I think that the whole Rush incident is a good demonstration of early success. I know I've seen dozens of articles and postings this past two weeks proudly proclaiming "I'm a slut and I VOTE!" or "Proud to be a slut!" or "30 signs you're a slut". Without the outrage generated by the Toronto PD and the resulting marches, I don't think the Limbaugh comments would have been more than a one-day wonder in the news cycles- if you think about how many times he's made horrifying comments and gotten away with it, and stop to think about what's different this time, I think you'll see what I mean. What the marches did was start to shift the concept of slut away from "dirty cheap lay" to just "woman in charge of her sexuality", and women are starting to pick up the banner.
Re the suicides: any word, with enough hostility behind it, can harm a child or teen. I can remember Brain and Four-Eyes in grade school hurting worse than Slut in high school- any of the three would cause me to laugh in someone's face today, but back then they almost did drive me to suicide. The problem with bullying and insults is that it hits a vulnerable young person with rejection and outcast, at a time of life when fitting in is paramount, and in most cases without a support network of their own to help them cope with it. It's not the individual word that matters- it's the hostile, rejecting attitude behind it. I think the more we accept personal sexuality- gay, straight, celibate, multiple, monogamous, transgendered, whatever- as normal, the less this will be a problem. But again, this is something that will take time, and unfortunately there is no overnight miracle solution.
Which brings me to your second post: implying that there is some standard of normalcy in human sexuality that everyone must live up to is never, ever a good thing. That is where words like "slut" and "ho" get their power. I think I know you well enough to know that's not what you meant by your second post, and I understand what you were trying to say, but you might want to think about the implications of imposing one "healthy" standard of behavior- monogamy- and crafting language around it. Personal freedom, acceptance and sexual diversity- from those embracing celibacy to those practicing polyamory and everyone in between- was the whole point behind the rebranding of the word, and that's a lesson that would be healthy for anyone.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 17, 2012, 11:08 AM - Edit history (2)
instead of working at seeing the worst of who we are. i am going to disagree there is any implication other than what "healthy" is. i chose that word for a reason.
one can be unhealthy in everything be it exercise, eating, drinking, gambling, saving money, spending money, and yes, even sex. there is a balance there. it is different for all of us, and we should know within self at the point of unhealthy. (though, thru experiences that shape us in early life a person may have a tough time recognizing the point of unhealthy or hurtful behavior because they have been unhealthily effected at a young age that messed up the ability) i feel i am about norm, and no different than others. i can feel when i am being unhealthy and when i am not. i assume most all of us can. and yes.... there are places even in sex when one can walk into unhealthy, whatever that would be for them.
for me, that is what is important. that leaves out the judgment, and allows the uniqueness of a person. but it is a reality.
there are a lot of people that believe as you, .... that we can own the word. i do not believe that. what i have watched over the years, and with the net and so many strangers in our homes today, thru the net and what i see in society and the media, i so disagree with you. i think it is clearly evident what a crock it is. whether it is blacks owning the words, and gay community or the women community. i think it is even worse in the women community cause the patriarchy is so ingrained with both genders unknowing participants.
when i hear the very men that are participating with great cheer in the 3rd wave and declaring themselves feminist because they stand for womens rights, then on the other hand denigrate, dehumanize, and are so very disrespectful to women in language, i know the owning of words does not work. they are separating womens sexuality from male sexuality. they are reinforcing that womens sexuality is about mans sexuality, not owned by women. and THAT is an issue to me. the label continues the mentality that women are here to serve. that is the evidence to me, that it is now about individual ownership but a group to serve.
i believe and feel that the words that we use are internalized and we make the words a reality to fit what we tell ourselves. i believe the words we use matter. no child kills themselves with four eyes. they do with the F word or slut.
always good to read your posts, that are almost always opposite of how i see things and almost always looking at the same end result. which makes it fun.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Yet another way to label Porn as evil. Count me out of this witch hunt.
The term is "Sex Positive Feminism" and yes it exists, and yes it is feminist.
Save your purity purges for the Fundies.
.
librechik
(30,663 posts)I find them demeaning, not liberating. I guess I'm old fashioned. But then I think Madonna is more of a whore than a femist. What is wrong with me???
Rex
(65,616 posts)what brain trust came up with that idea and what is it?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and took it a bit further, the harm i see with it.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)I see nothing liberating about any woman dressing in this way, Or dressing girls in this way.
I was of the generation that wanted work toward equality. I came from the time when men were "caught" by women who looked provocative so that they could marry and then move up the social ladder.
I feel that overt sexual display is unfair to both sexes.
Nowadays men in general are not "caught" by women, but I see that form of dress as a sort of violence against men and women with brains.
naughty nina
(12 posts)Gawd, get a sense of humor! I love men and any of their ilk that would even dare call themselves a feminist gets my complete scorn.
Rex
(65,616 posts)you didn't troll very well...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)The air around your post is redolent of pizza... pepperoni and sausage if I'm not mistaken... I am... too late.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)I am a feminist. I have been a feminist since a lot of the women here calling themsevles feminists were in diapers. The nonsense spouted by many "radical" feminists these days puts me between laughing, crying, and being sickened by how feminism has been twisted by ideological purists. Or, I should say, the purists of whatever form THEY believe the ideology should take TODAY.
My first encounter with the destruction of feminism by "feminists" was through the ravings of Katherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, who hijacked a good part of the movement to salve their own damaged psyches. While they still have their followers, there is always someone new on the "radical" feminist scene to distract women from the prize.
I welcome the "fun feminists," whatever the hell that actually means. Sure - a lot of them may be fluffy and tentative (and annoy the rest of us by giving a rip what men think), but there is no greater harm in that than in the agendas of some of the radical fringe. Nascent feminists radicalize, learn, and grow, assuming they aren't driven away from the movement by the holier-than-thou crowd.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I now know I want nothing to do with the kind of feminism the OP states, or 2nd wave or any of that nonsense that excludes some women by being outwardly bigoted about it.
The nerve to hint that we shouldn't be loving our men. oiy! way beyond ridiculous.
Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)There was this wrong turn that feminism took, and it seemed to happen in the 1980s and 1990s. At that time, many leading feminists retreated to women's study departments and began writing theory, which began to take on an esoteric character that seemed alien to the actual lives of most women, garbage about whether consensual sex between men and women was even possible under the existing patriarchal system, which to my mind demeaned and trivialized actual violence aganst women.
The one example the author cites of the "slutwalk" I think actually disproves her point. As we saw recently with Limbaugh, there are some folks out there, yes, mainly men, who still use the concept and slur of the "slut" as a hammer against the rights of women. These slutwalkers, whoever they are, are showing more of a knowledge of the "theory and practice" of feminism than the author credits them with: they are engaging in an ironic form of political theater that makes a point. Sadly, it's the mark of a zealot, left or right, that they don't do irony well.
mahina
(17,506 posts)"It's not enough to..." based on the author's expectations of others' behavior.
Not interested.
Freedom and liberty for all.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)A healthy brand of feminism wouldn't define itself in terms of men in any way, good or bad.
A healthy brand of feminism, like a healthy brand of African American equality, or LGBT equality, etc., has to do with whether that group has equal rights and priviledges in society, not whether it makes white people or straight people or anyone else happy.
I see this meme a lot that because a lot of the men who embrace feminism embrace third wave feminism, that somehow that discredits the third wave brand. A lot of white people embraced Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement for equality. Did that discredit him and his brand of the fight for African American equality? OF course not. That is failed logic of the most absurd kind.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)Especially since you're basically saying that "most men run" from feminists, suggesting cowardice. Isn't that judging a gender? Isn't that the definition of being sexist? Even if you didn't mean to suggest cowardice, you ARE judging the majority of a gender, and that most certainly is sexist.
Seems what you want is not emancipation from oppression but instead the freedom to re-insult and demean the opposite gender. I'm all with ya on the former, not so much on the latter two.
The reason some people see posts like yours as anti-men is because it is a gender insult to say most men "run" from feminists, especially when the reality isn't as you've described - as stereotypes often have that bad aim, something I'd think a feminist would know.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Well, good luck in convincing well-wishers that they cannot be feminists.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)Now, do I think that the younger feminists can and should read up on the Greers, Stienems, Jongs, etc, yes. Even if they do not agree with them, they can at least be conversant in the theory. Do I think the older Feminists can read up on the younger ones and learn about them? Yes..
What cannot and should not happen is where someone deicdes to attack because they do not meet a standard of woman. With all due respect, women get enough of that shit from Men, do they really need it from women? In all dues respect, if the boys get secure enough to adpat feminine stuff, and the ladies do, in the words of a feminist quoted "get muscles and tattooes" so what? The Celtic Druidesses (the fine ladies that killed the king as human sacrifice when he got old) had tattooes and muscles, did that make them traitors to womanhood? If you are going to have people wage war on the old stereotype only to have some new stereotype sit on the throne afterword, you will not inspire people to fight.
I do not think seabeyond is trying to do any of that. BTW. I think she is trying to focus on what is imporant, are people being freed from domination? However, it seems apparent from this thread that it brioguth up all the stuff festering. It does not help where Susan Faludi accuses the young of "matricide."
http://commentary.susanfaludi.com/
The bottom line is, liberation is not just about people you like, or even people you agree with, because the powers that be will find any hole in your ranks, any civil war,and exploit it, just like they tried to turn woman and blacks against each other in 2008. We need to get past the barbs, and yes, the prejudices we liberal men and women do not like to admit we have, despite the fact we know we have been programmed since we were infants. Liberations must occur for all, and we cannot let ourselves become the next sets of tyrants.
flvegan
(64,389 posts)No surprise.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)I was raised in a father-free home by my feminist mom to support women's lib. I read Ms. magazine back in the 1970's when my mom had a subscription, and it occurs to me that I am not alone in this: there's a whole generation of men out there who were raised by feminists, and these feminist moms did more for the next generation of women by raising their sons right than anything Andrea Dworkin has ever done, said or written.
Women's liberation is a concrete political and social program. Feminism, of the brand this author seems to espouse, was directed at some sort of poststructuralist theoretical word war that I'm not smart enough to understand, except that another journal article doesn't make a damn bit of difference for most women one way or another.
My generation-and I'm 43 now, concieved during the summer of love-has heard this sort of thing our entire adult lives. This does not seem to be about feminism so much as generational politics. Feminism has achieved concrete things, though one wonders if perhaps it did more to crack the glass cieling for women at the top than it did to help the many more women who are service workers, for example. And yet the toothpaste is out of the tube. American women (and couples) practice birth control, and they have increasingly done so for about 100 years. Women are not going back to being homemakers, that's just not happening. The first act of the greatest Democratic president since LBJ was to sign the Lily Ledbetter Act. Left, right and center, these are real changes that the feminist movement can take pride in, and improve upon.
So what do they do? Sit around and gripe about the young feminist women. I cannot believe it! Instead of using the opportunity to show some of the solidarity with women they have professed to want to see, these older leaders of a successful movement shake their heads at the youngsters. It's as if the founding generation, around 1820 or so, took time out to castigate the younger foks about how they don't appreciate what they have because they never were part of the British empire.
If you feel superceded, it could be because you haven't kept up.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)who are not exactly like her or don't espouse her exact beliefs.
specifically i agree that being a strong woman doesn't translate into being a feminist. to be a feminist you have to care about other women and their rights and privileges or lack thereof
Rex
(65,616 posts).
Response to seabeyond (Original post)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
DutchLiberal
(5,744 posts)I always considered myself a 'feminist man', supporting feminist ideals and goals, challenging sexist and misogynystic ideas. My male friends, who are not particularly invested in this, will attest to that.
However, after what I've seen and read on DU from the site's most outspoken feminists, I've gradually been turn off more and more from 'feminism'. Especially after having paid a visit to the Feminist forum for the first time and reading a lot of those threads. I literally couldn't believe what I read there. To me, most had nothing to do with gaining equality and equal rights for women. Most had to do with looking for problems and issues when there weren't any (seeking out things to get offended about).
In my honest opinion.
I would write an OP about the five major problems I have with the "DU brand" of feminism (they're easily identifiable and broken down into five categories), but I fear somebody will quickly alert it and have it hidden within the blink of an eye. Not because of what I would write would be offensive or ugly, but because it would involve criticism of women... which isn't really allowed on DU anymore, no matter how nicely you phrase it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)interested control nut. Why is so much of this anti trans stuff foisted on DU lately? Any ideas?
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)nt
dogknob
(2,431 posts)Perhaps it is another flaw in the system that has been going ever since men discovered that they can shut women up; the system where virtually every decision one makes in life is linked either directly or indirectly to violence and who is willing to use it.
Any positive change in sexual relations is ALWAYS going to be a mutual decision. Period.
Ego is ubiquitous.
Asshole is an equal-opportunity employer.
Response to dogknob (Reply #258)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.