Some things are big
That’s my profound thought for the day.
Over the weekend I was emailing with friends about the death of establishment feminism this year, and about the new feminism we need to create going forward.
A few days ago I was asking you all to think about why there is still so much deeply-felt resistance to women’s equality. This is the lesson of radical feminism: that the gender revolution requires just that — a revolution. It’s not simply a re-shuffling of relative status among various classes of men, which is all politics has really been about for the past 6000 years. The gender revolution demands a re-ordering of the very fabric of society, of the male-female dyad that is at the heart of human existence.
It’s not going to be easy.
Let us learn from the past and resolve not to repeat our mistakes. One mistake that feminists have repeated a couple of times now is the belief that there is a silver bullet, some “one thing” that is the key to the problem. This has never been true, and especially not when the “one thing” is a legal remedy. First Wave feminists became fixated on the vote, but the vote didn’t bring the revolution. Second Wave feminists became fixated on the ERA and then on Roe v. Wade. Roe didn’t bring the revolution, and neither will the ERA. We need to change the fabric of society.
Narratives: think about narratives. Anthropologists of gender, like Peggy Reeves Sandy, talk about “scripts”: the stories that a society tells itself to explain the world. How men are. How women are. How they should be.
That’s why I’ve always believed that feminism needs to start in kindergarten at the latest. Our children need to grow up with a script of gender equality. Girls need to grow up seeing and believing in feminine power. Boys need to grow up seeing the same thing, and seeing, too, that a good man is one who loves and honors women. We need to give them the scripts.
82 Responses to “Some things are big”
-
Sandra S. says:
I absolutely agree that it needs to start young. I was raised by a mom who demonstrated competency across the board, and it shaped my perception of who I am and what women are capable of.
One of my favorite gender theorists is Sandra Bem, who discussed gender schema theory, and the idea of raising gender aschematic children. In simple terms, gender is a lens through which we view the world in general, and thus we judge ourselves as people on the basis of our gender role performance. In contrast, gender aschematic children are freed from thinking of themselves and others as gendered beings first- gender becomes largely incidental.
I think this is the (well, A) key. We need to cut back on essentialism. We need to cut back on the idea that men and women are inherently different on a fundamental level, that they want one thing and we want another. And we need to raise both boys and girls to be gender aschematic. This helps boys to see girls as equals, and girls to see themselves as equals. There will still be dissonance between what these kids learn and what society is like, but if gender aschematism and gender equality are part of their personal value system (we also need to encourage a passion for social justice, obviously), they’ll change the world as they gain power in it, and they’ll pass that on to their kids.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pm EST -
parallel says:
A quote from one of my favourite authors:
“Virtually any circumstance in a man’s life will make him a hero to some group of people and has a mythic rendering in the culture – in literature, art, theater, or the daily newspapers.
It is precisely this mythic dimension of all male activity which reifies the gender class system so that male supremacy is unchallengable and unchangeable….
….This goes right to the core of female invisibility in this culture. No matter what we do, we are not seen. Our acts are not witnessed, not observed, not experienced, not recorded, not affirmed.
Our acts have no mythic dimension in male terms simply because we are not men….”
The scary thing is, that this was written over 30 years ago. We women still do not have our own acknowledged narrative, our script is still only the lies dished out to us by men.
-
Sandra S. says:
Parallel, that is a wonderful (and troubling) point. It’s true that stories about men are epic stories about heroes. Stories about women are stories about martyrs or aberrations.
How can we make female heroism a strong meme and get it out there? It has succeeded before. In some ways Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a purveyor of feminist memes. Wicked certainly was (the book more than the musical). These stories can succeed, but why them, and how do we ensure that this success comes with enough of an impact to alter perceptions?
-
Violet says:
“Our acts have no mythic dimension in male terms simply because we are not men….”
That could be the epitaph for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
-
Foxx says:
The core of it, this:
“It’s not simply a re-shuffling of relative status among various classes of men, which is all politics has really been about for the past 6000 years. The gender revolution demands a re-ordering of the very fabric of society, of the male-female dyad that is at the heart of human existence.”
I don’t think there is ever going to be a “revolution,” in the sense of a fundamental change that will then be in place forever. Women are going to be fighting this battle forever. We are up against men’s programming to propagate their genes, that isn’t going away.
From that perspective I don’t see the “fixation” on the vote as a mistake. The first wave (was it really the first?) had incredible victories over many barriers. The game you posted illustrates that. The vote was the most intractable, absolutely essential, and justified the huge effort needed to win it. From the long view, that was simply one effort in the alas continual struggle. My mother did not, but I did, grow up ASSUMING I had a political voice. Talking about starting young, that is huge.
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
Violet, is that you with your Unity Pony?
I guess I don’t know which “wave” I am in – I’m definitely old enough for that 2nd wave and did participate in that politically. But my real interest in feminism was more about how patriarchal religions infiltrated what might have been a more egalitarian society and made being female evil, weak, lesser – and ruined the political, philosophical and spiritual structures because of those religions. I’ve felt for so many years that patriarchal religions are like a mental aberration, an illness, a possession by some malevolent energy – and if that could be exorcised, we could find our way back to our authentic selves – and structures.
I don’t know that I’m expressing that coherently as I am a bit preoccupied with a broccoli quiche which smells like it is done.
-
Kiuku says:
These scripts are what ended racism, and what is ending homophobia in this country. People are teaching equality in school, just not women’s equality. This needs to change.
I add that we start discussing it, with our friends and in our homes, even if it makes us deeply unpopular. We need to change the code of silence surrounding sexism first.
-
madamab says:
Foxx – I have to agree with you. Men and women are fundamentally different. We ignore that inescapable reality at our peril.
However, the idea that men and womens’ biological differences confer some type of superiority on the male sex is the idea that can, and should be challenged.
I agree that early education will be a big part of the success of the new womens’ movement. And once we reach that 30% critical mass in the government, we will be able to make a lot more progress in promoting that agenda.
I’m very optimistic because we are actually having these conversations now.
-
Kiuku says:
I disagree that we are fundamentally different. I agree that we are, men and women, fundamentally human, and pretera-super-extra women and men, and that whatever differences biological are not deterministic much less quantifiable.
For some reason all of my thinking on the Revolution ends in men being exterminated, or reduced to a manageable population. I see no end in men’s desire to oppress women. But I am seeing this out of my own oppression, this is not to say that it is impossible because I do not and will not believe that men’s desire to oppress women is biologically determined.
But I think focusing on the term Misogyny and bringing Misogyny into the discussion, rather than Sexism, since Sexism, and what it really is, seems to elude people, especially liberal men, who are the sexist of all.
-
Violet says:
Women are going to be fighting this battle forever. We are up against men’s programming to propagate their genes, that isn’t going away.
What endures forever is whatever base impulses drive men and women — but I beg you remember that our cultural scripts are so pervasive, so all-consuming, that is still virtually impossible to determine what those base impulses really are.
For the record, I do believe that there is a certain level of aggression in men that will always have to be managed by a script. Gender-equal societies have scripts that do just that, narrating myths that balance the sexes and illustrate the importance of equality. These scripts serve to keep men from turning into bullies.
But by the same token, it takes a script in our own culture — a constantly repeated script — to keep women from asserting their own natural aggressiveness. Never doubt the ubiquity of the script. An interesting experiment is to analyze the social messages in the media and quantify what percentage of them are dedicated to keeping women in their place. It’s a huge percentage. Why does this message have to be repeated so often? Because it’s NOT natural. People don’t have to be reminded constantly to breathe or eat or go to the bathroom. But women have to be reminded constantly, incessantly, to be demure, meek, submissive, etc.
-
Kiuku says:
I think starting in education is a good place. There are things that may foster Misogyny, hatred of women. Because women are not seen as normal and men are seen as the default, and humans are raised to fear what is different, or abnormal.
The truth is that women are not abnormal, and if any sex is the default, it should be women, but women are not taught. Men are taught, and the things men do, no matter what it is that men are doing, is focused on and heralded. The things that men do and the man sphere may change throughout history or across culture, but in a Patriarchy, men are focused on and called the default.
This needs to change in order to stop Misogyny. Men’s circle of discrimination needs to be ended. We need gender parity, and I’m very happy we now have The New Agenda to take us into the future of Feminism.
We need to stop men’s justification of discrimination through discrimination. Discrimination starts at birth, and when women are not in the areas where men are, they use it to justify that discrimination, thus completing the cycle, and causing Misogyny, hatred of women.
By making themselves the default in history and in the textbooks, a history that was filled with the slaughter of women of ideas, and the slaughter of ideas themselves, in order to be masculine, they foster Misogyny.
It is a Feminist work to make our own books, and our own history, but this also furthers the notion that we are different, abnormal and separate from mainstream “mens” history.
We need to be incorporated into the books. We need women in the books, not women’s books. I mean we need women’s books too, but we need Parity.
These are things we can focus on. We need to organize.
We need people to start thinking about all the suffering in the world. What if we could stop all the suffering? What if the suffering is caused by men’s unnatural domination of women and fixation on their subordination? What if war is part of the dynamic to keep women oppressed and if we no longer accept the oppression of women, war itself will have no use (accept to try and oppress women again)?
By accepting that the systems are designed with one goal in mind: the oppression of women, what if we can end all human ills? What if we could end war, and, by ending the systems which are insane, and designed to keep women subordinate to men, which is also insane.
Think about Patriarchal medicine, which is largely unsuccessful and the environmental disease we bask in now which is the product of our economy which does not reward scientific endeavors that do not continue the oppression of women, and a culture that does not reward scientific talent in half the population.
We are living in the sewers when we do not have to. We can have a clean environment, and scientific enterprise, good health care, and no war. The enlightenment is just a turn around the corner, as far as I am concerned.
-
Cindy says:
Violet, you wrote: “Girls need to grow up seeing and believing in feminine power.”
That thought takes me back to a comment I made several days ago, which I don’t think anyone responded to. I don’t have a post-graduate degree and am a retired public school music teacher. Because of that, I feel I may be wading in cotton that’s a little too deep for me when I comment here. But I really enjoy your writings.
Here is my idea, once again: Create and display on main streets everywhere (especially during March, Women’s History Month) banners that have images of women through history that have inspired and been positive role models for women and girls. These banners could be funded by having the public donate $$ in honor or in memory of a woman, or women, who’ve influenced their own lives. And as a P.S., I’m sure that each state has it’s own female historic figure or figures who have gone unnoticed.
Also, children repsond to VISUAL images FIRST! These banners could be instant teaching tools.
Thank you again for your website. I appreciate it very much, Violet. -
Alwaysthinking says:
Sigh… Yes, it is true, isn’t it, that from the earliest years, we are told to accept the double standard and not to complain. I think Hillary’s run — and then Sarah’s — threatened the patriarchal structure and they decided to level all the gun barrels at us.
We have oh so much work to do, but I hope we start afresh and do not allow ourselves to be intimidated again. I am speaking up in my small circles (well, actually, I did that 30 years ago, too, and was told — you guessed it — that I should just accept the double standard.)
-
Violet says:
Cindy, I remember your comment, though I’ve forgotten now which thread it was on. I thought at the time that was a cool idea! I’ve never lived anywhere that did anything like that with banners.
-
Foxx says:
Cindy, I too like the banner idea very much. I might even do something about it! It would be good if there was a central source for at least some of them.
Violet, excellent point about women’s aggression and men’s need to suppress it. Of course, we know where women unfortunately reroute it.
-
Ali says:
Violet, I like that you are thinking proactively. This is exactly where our mindset needs to be right now- and with this site as well as the New Agenda – perhaps we can really start to organize and create real and tangible influences in our society. Actually, it seems like it is already happening with the success of the New Agenda.
Cindy, I love the idea of the banners… I like that it is a simple idea that could definitely get off the ground with some organized hard work. And yes, visuals are a very important part of perception! And of course, the projects themselves would create dialogue amongst our younger population if they were involved.
Violet, I love your idea of attacking education issues. I absolutely agree. As a teacher who has worked in highschool, adult ed and the nonprofit sphere (I have a Master’s degree in Multicultural Education), I would love to talk more about how to approach this huge need.
Just one thing… Kiuku…. I am sure I am misunderstanding your point when you brought up “male extermination”. Yikes! Any explanation appreciated….
-
Sandra S. says:
Kiuku,
While I don’t ever get so far as “male extermination”, I think we’re on the same page in a lot of ways. I think that we need to discuss (as Violet has above) that the supposed fundamental biological differences between males and females are very difficult to separate from the culturally reinforced differences in gender roles. I also think that when we focus on writing the Women’s books, we must also focus on writing women into the Men’s books, because otherwise we simply reinforce that we are a special case, and thus not the default- that we are inherently different. And in a hierarchical society, different means lesser.
I hate to rely on evolutionary psychology (which tends to be cynically used to suggest that misogyny is justified and natural), but our closest biological relatives, Bonobos have a much more egalitarian society than we do. Clearly not that much of our DNA is concerned with gender difference beyond basic sexual dimorphism. Although honestly, evolution has little to do with it anymore, as our society has moved beyond evolutionary development and into the much more sophisticated realm of memetic development.
-
sister of ye says:
I don’t believe in the “men’s drive to propogate their genes” as the basis of aggression. The patriarchal crap started before humans had any clear idea of genetic transmission. Besides, not all human cultures have been obsessed with nurturing only one’s own offspring.
I believe I made this comment here a few months back, but those supposed animal models for human behavior are products of a patriarchal perspective. A “dominant male” with his “submissive haren” could as easily be seen as a group of females saying, “We only need to put up with one to father kids, let them fight it out, and we’ll humor the winner to keep him here doing his job.”
Alas, no one seems interested in reading my novels, but I came up with an alien world where the women had a underhanded revolution where they genetically altered the males to be compliant and not-too-bright. Having grown up with six brothers, it was just too attractive an idea not to go with.
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
Cindy, because of your post, I decided to google historic women in NJ, where I live. I found out the most amazing thing – something that I was never taught in school and which I think should be common knowledge and celebrated.
I found out that unmarried women in the State of New Jersey had the right to vote from 1776 to 1807. Here is the link and a blurb from the National Park Service article:
http://www.nps.gov/revwar/abou.....ights.html
The framers of New Jersey’s first constitution in 1776 gave the vote to “all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds … and have resided within the county … for twelve months.” The other twelve new states restricted voting to men. Although some have argued that this gender-neutral language was a mistake, most historians agree that the clear intention was to allow some women to vote. Because married women had no property in their own names and were assumed to be represented by their husbands’ votes, only single women voted in New Jersey. But, in the 1790s and 1800s, large numbers of unmarried New Jersey women regularly participated in elections and spoke out on political issues.
In 1807, the state’s legislature ignored the constitution and restricted suffrage to white male citizens who paid taxes. This was largely a result of the Democratic-Republican Party’s attempt to unify its factions for the 1808 presidential election. A faction within the party wanted to deny the vote to aliens and the non-tax-paying poor. The liberal faction within the party gave way on this, but also took the vote from women, who tended to vote for the Federalist Party. In this way, New Jersey’s 30-year experiment with female suffrage ended-not mainly because of opposition to the idea of women voting, but for reasons of party politics. A renewed focus on the importance of women in the home (as opposed to the public realm) may also have been a factor in the change.
This has inspired me to do more research in NJ about historic women who lived here – and still live here! And, notice the calls for unity 200 years ago and who got disenfranchised. Having had my vote tossed away by Gov. Corzine at the convention, I was somewhat stunned to see that it happened 200 years ago!
-
votermom says:
Well, not to get all religious, but All-Mother is one powerful myth. The Catholics have it in the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God. I think President Cory Aquino used that vibe — as the widow of a marty figure, the assassinated opposition leader, she was very much a woman above reproach when she led the People Power revolution. Plu she had the backing of the Church.
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
My post has disappeared twice now. Am I not allowed to post?
-
Violet says:
Of course you’re allowed to post. Your posts are disappearing?
-
Violet says:
I see now what happened — you got caught in the spam filter. You and GreenC. That’s the Akismet filter, which I have no control over (they use fuzzy logic and secret sauce). I de-spammed you and deleted your duplicate comment.
-
Anna Belle says:
Free idea: T-shirts with pictures of women from history with the caption: Ask Me About This Woman. (or something like that)
-
Anna Belle says:
One of the concepts of the 2nd wave that I think we’ve lost and that I think was very valuable was the idea of women’s space. This was the idea of a place women go or a group they could join where they could express both their frustration with the present and their inspiration for the future without the listening ears of men. I think there is something to that.
I am also interested in exploring classes segregated by gender. My daughter was in an experimental all-girl middle school class and it did wonders for her. Boys were in the school, but they had their own classroom. It was a disaster for them, for the record, which I worry about, but it was fantastic for my daughter. I’m not sold on the idea, but I’m interested.
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
Thanks, Violet – typo in the last sentence: should be 200 years.
-
Cindy says:
to Other Delphyne—-Congratulations! What an incredible find about your own state. Really remarkable, and exciting.
And to AnnaBelle—your t-shirt idea is an excellent one.
Now we have to convince the public that women’s history is their history. (I think I saw a statistic that showed that women are only 2% of the written history included in our text books. Does anyone know the exact %?)
And thanks to Violet and all others for positive feedback. I believe Reclusive Leftist is the most important web-site women have. -
Ali says:
Thinking proactively… I’m just wondering what can be done in regard to making feminism, in the way that we are speaking about it here, “hip”. I think the demographic 30 and below is a very important demographic to hit because this age range can spread trends very quickly. If you look at some of the 30 and under feminist blogs, many of them seem to be of the anti-sarah, anti-hillary ilk. And these sentiments spread like wild fires as we know.
Barbara Kruger created great design imagery that appealed to young and old alike. The “feminist video game” would be hip. Again, I like Cyndi’s idea because it could involve young people. And a great t-shirt that could appeal to younger women would be great. And video/ film is always more appealing to the young versus stuffy text. Of course a lot of this requires money. Money sure is power but women DO have money today.
Hah, just an aside, but look at how young and sexy “Obama girl” helped to make Obama so hip! Ick.
-
ElleR says:
Violet said: “This is the lesson of radical feminism: that the gender revolution requires just that — a revolution….The gender revolution demands a re-ordering of the very fabric of society, of the male-female dyad that is at the heart of human existence.
It’s not going to be easy.”
As a radical feminist, I couldn’t agree more. And, to disagree with Foxx, I feel certain is will happen; I think it has to happen if the human species is to survive.
The qualities which our culture has assigned to men and then overvalued are fast bringing about our demise; the qualities which our culture has assigned to women and devalued need to be rehabilitated, for empathy and the ability to relate, to understand oneself in a web of relationships, I think, are going to become more and more valuable as our interdependence grows.
I have never thought the issue was equality in the sense that men and women are the same, clearly we are not; nor are mares the same as stallions or lionesses the same as lions. But, unlike nature, our culture takes this biological difference and adds a value difference — giving men value and taking value away from women.
Like Foxx and madamab, I think men and women are fundamentally different, and I very much enjoy being a woman — in spite of all the cultural crap which goes along with it. Like madamab, I think that “the idea that men and womens’ biological differences confer some type of superiority on the male sex is the idea that can, and should be challenged.” On a daily, if not hourly, basis.
As to why the dominant male/submissive female meme is so hard to get rid of, here’s my far out attempt at an explanation:
The submission of a wife to her husband’s will represents the overthrow of the Bronze Age nature goddesses by the Iron Age Sky gods, which ushered in the era of patriarchal cultures. The Iron Age worldview imaged a male humanity taking dominion over a female earth. The control of women by men, therefore, serves as a foundational metaphor for western civilization’s belief that the ability to control nature is the key to survival.
Whether we’re talking about achieving control of food production through technological dominance over nature and the earth or control of land and natural resources and people through military conquest, the conquest, rape, and exploitation of the female body is the underlying model.
Today, this survival strategy is backfiring – and we need to back off. Patriarchy needs to be replaced and the patriarchal gods need to be overthrown just as the goddesses of the bronze age were.
It may not be easy, but it is inevitable.
-
Lisa says:
Youtube is very powerful with young people. If I was a musician or film maker I would be using youtube.
Modeling is very important for learning. Hearing how people should act isn’t as powerful as seeing examples acted out in front of you. I got nothin’ on that though…. just throwing things out there.
I am a painter and I also do collage art. Since the primaries ended I have turned my focus exclusively to women’s art. I talk about it endlessly to anyone that will listen. It surprises me how many people it “surprises”. When I was in college (a women’s college) the amount of feminist art still being made was huge. It just doesn’t seem to be happening on the same scale- or maybe it is but it isn’t getting the platform and attention it used to get.
I am trying to do my share!
-
Lisa says:
ElleR said:
Today, this survival strategy is backfiring – and we need to back off. Patriarchy needs to be replaced and the patriarchal gods need to be overthrown just as the goddesses of the bronze age were.
__________________________________________________YES! I think of that daily. Where did we go wrong? It all went sour when Goddess was replaced with God.
I don’t mean to offend any Christians here, or to turn this thread into an uncomfortable exchange on religious beliefs- an individual’s spiritual quest is a private matter. No matter what your faith, sociologically the defeat of Goddess was an important turning point. The return of Goddess to popular consciousness would be of real benefit to women.
-
Ali says:
Lisa,
Youtube – yes! The other day I was trying to find a youtube video of Sarah Palin stating her position on sex ed – you can imagine the crap I had to sift through. Actually, there was so much crap that it was impossible for me to find something sensical on Sarah Palin.
Well, in regard to feminist art, my college art instructors used to say to not worry about trends – because the pendulum always swings back. I think now is just about the right time to be making subversive feminist art.
And just to get back to graphics – those fascist looking Obama graphics were fabulous in regard to creating the feeling of a movement. The stolen slogan “Yes, we can!” with the Obama image was very powerful. The Obama team realized that every movement needs an image. An image they did have.
-
Trecy says:
One necessary part for making change is staying angry about what it is you want to change.
I believe that once the 2nd wave feminists achieved reproductive rights and better job options, the fire went out of the women’s movement. I see this reflected in my daughters, they have nothing to fight for. It is hard for me to understand why they are not outraged by the continued violence against women or women’s lower wages.
We need to raise the “consciousness of younger women!”
-
ricky says:
Take your daughters to Melissa Farley’s website. Then to Robert Jensen and Diana Russell’s work. There is plenty to fight for.
-
Shane says:
I believe that once the 2nd wave feminists achieved reproductive rights and better job options, the fire went out of the women’s movement. I see this reflected in my daughters, they have nothing to fight for. It is hard for me to understand why they are not outraged by the continued violence against women or women’s lower wages.
That’s where the powerful narrative of ‘its all past’ comes in. One of the more pervasive responses made by anti-feminists to feminist movements is that yes, some change might have been needed back in those unenlightened days, but now that this change has been made, everything’s solved for good and anybody thinking that there are still major systemic problems is just a whiner or can’t get over it. The clearest example of how this dynamic works is probably in how the postwar period (c.1945-1960) addresses first wave feminism, where suffrage is seen as on the whole a good thing and kinda necessary, but the present is seen as perfect and a society that only neurotics would question. From our perspective it seems so obvious that this wasn’t the case, but its not quite so easy at the time… Just like I assume people will look back on now and say ‘god, how could so many people not see all this going on?”.
On the issue of gender differences, I think the way they get reported and spread into consciousness doesn’t help. Its almost always presented as ‘Proof #4242091 that men and women are totally different and you’d have to be CRAZY not to accept this’, presumably because the people who report it (or some of the scientists who research it) think ‘men and women all human’ isn’t as sexy a story and would rather magnify differences and their importance to get the reassuring story they desire.
-
Violet says:
I’m certain from the comments here that several of you have read The Myth of the Goddess by Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, but for anyone who hasn’t, I highly recommend it. One of my favorite books.
-
Violet says:
A “dominant male” with his “submissive harem” could as easily be seen as a group of females saying, “We only need to put up with one to father kids, let them fight it out, and we’ll humor the winner to keep him here doing his job.”
Exactly. And I’ve put it in almost exactly those same words myself.
Unfortunately, a lot of that anthropomorphism (or should I say andropomorphism?) is still with us in animal behaviorists. Not long ago I was reading a study of wolf behavior where the behaviorist counted more dominance/threat displays from females towards males than vice versa, yet still somehow decided that males were dominant because the females didn’t really mean it or something.
-
Violet says:
Modeling is very important for learning. Hearing how people should act isn’t as powerful as seeing examples acted out in front of you.
We need movies. We need our struggle narratized, mythologized, even glamorized, the way other liberation movements have been.
Can anyone think of any movies about women’s struggle? I can think of only one — North Country — though ironically that was by a sexist screenwriter just cashing a check.
Imagine how different our culture would be if everyone grew up seeing movies that presented feminist heroes and feminist struggles as great, moving, noble themes.
-
Ali says:
I loved “Iron Jawed Angels”. The image of Inez on the white horse was very seductive, beautiful. Hillary Swank was also pretty amazing as Alice Paul.
http://www.hbo.com/films/ironjawedangels/
Yes, we need visuals, film, movies, , youtube videos, graphics, icons.
-
ricky says:
Moose.
He approaches her area, pisses and rolls in it so she can smell him, bashes the trees around, shreds a few Aspen saplings to show how terrifying he is. Snorts. She sighs, rolls her eyes, and decides if she has time and inclination. After she’s done with him she flattens her ears and flares her nostrils and he turns and hoofs it outa HER TERRITORY. Yes that’s right. It’s the female who has the territory. He’s out there roaming aorund, and on the highway, like the testosterone overdosed dummy he is.
-
atheist woman says:
Can anyone think of any movies about women’s struggle?.
Don’t be silly Violet. We have those already, they’re called romantic comedies. Yanno, all about women ‘struggling’ to get a man and not tear her panty hose. ;)
-
ricky says:
Iron Jawed Angels, with Hillary Swank. The story of Alice Paul.
Also, update on the fate of the bull moose. See crock pot at video’s end.
http://www.adn.com/ -
C.R. says:
Well, for me as a scientist, a starship with a woman physicist as Captain, another woman as Chief-Engineer and another stellar woman in Astrometrics — was very compelling. (“Star Trek: Voyager”.)
-
Anna Belle says:
Now there’s a narrative, Ricky, and a movie for you Violet. A film about aggressive mating practices like that, call it MATE, tagline: A Chick Flick, narrated by, oh, say, Frances McDormand. The COen Bros could even do it.
-
Anna Belle says:
Or tagline: A Romantic Comedy, either/or
-
Violet says:
Well, for me as a scientist, a starship with a woman physicist as Captain, another woman as Chief-Engineer and another stellar woman in Astrometrics — was very compelling. (”Star Trek: Voyager”.)
Luuuurrvee StarTrek. But that’s not what I meant by dramatizing feminist struggles. Think of all the movies, from Raisin in the Sun to Malcom X, that have dramatized the AA struggle.
-
Carmonn says:
What about something like Harlan County USA? (the documentary, not the one with Holly Hunter, haven’t seen it). Granted it focuses a lot on the men, but then the wives sort of created their own focus, out there on the lines getting shot at at 5 am when their husbands were nowhere to be found. And I believe she did something called the Year of the Woman before that, but I never was able to find a copy locally.
-
shyPerson says:
Hey Vi!
I know this is in the wrong place, and all, but I just wanted to tell you that in the Greta/Palin News photos with the Monday night Fox News interview, Greta’s parka is outsider bought, tech, like maybe Patagonia, with new wolf fur. Sarah’s parka is homemade Inuit style (maybe made by an Inuit co-op), old and looking quite worn, and has a recycled fur collar, like maybe from an old fur coat her mother had. I know. Got one just like it!
-
parallel says:
I see this reflected in my daughters, they have nothing to fight for. It is hard for me to understand why they are not outraged by the continued violence against women or women’s lower wages.
Bread and circuses. (Or Big Macs and the X factor).
In many ways it is less effort to keep women in their place in a “liberal” or wealthy society.
Throw them a few crumbs, give them shallow ambitions (to join the boys club), call it empowerment, and bingo – antifeminist, disinterested and compliant youth. The real, continuing problems women face don’t *seem* to affect them directly, therefore – what problem ?
The girls and women who do properly notice the problems are living it in a more intense way on a day to day basis. Both through experiencing more explicit violence, poverty, disenfranchisement and so on, AND by having the ability (sense, decency, courage) not to sweep it all under he carpet as nothing to do with the actual fabric society anyway.
-
parallel says:
that should be – actual fabric OF society
-
Shane says:
Throw them a few crumbs, give them shallow ambitions (to join the boys club), call it empowerment, and bingo – antifeminist, disinterested and compliant youth. The real, continuing problems women face don’t *seem* to affect them directly, therefore – what problem ?
Perhaps its a problem with the whole narrative of personal empowerment taking priority over ideas of social change. Namely that those who aren’t empowered don’t get seen as possible victims of discrimination or prejudice, but get blamed for their own personal failings. Similarly, those who do manage to get ahead can be content that they were good enough to succeed and not question the process itself.
-
slythwolf says:
HE’S A FLUFFY HORSIE!
*goes to read actual post*
-
votermom says:
Also with narratives, how about tying in with environmentalism ,which IS hip now, thankfully, (going green). Mother nature, Mother Earth — the unchecked patriarchy as being responsible for the r@pe of the earth which is destroying all of us.
-
Beth H. says:
A couple of thoughts.
1.) I’d like to see a feminist movement that allows women real choice ie.: a choice to like or not like men, a choice to work or to raise children or to do some of both, a choice to have faith in God, Goddess or nothing at all, etc…. The movement I rejected over the last 25 years was one where I didn’t feel like I had these choices and that I didn’t fit in as someone who loved men and her husband, wanted and had an equal partnership with him, was a Mom and a professional woman, and yes more of a conservative than a liberal. I went to a very feminist all girls school and we were given in my opinion a limited idea of what it is to be a feminist — it was all about having a career and having a particular kind of career — anything considered “feminine” was not the right career, ie: librarian, teacher, nurse. Work comes before family etc….
2.) Christianity is not intrinsically patriarchical — the church in various denominations has been co-opted by partriarchical thinking. God is not a MAN or a WOMAN. There are strong women role models in the Bible — they are just overlooked like women are in our history as a whole.
My two cents for now.
-
ElleR says:
Great conversation. And it also reveals why feminism is a hard nut to crack. There are those of us (like me) who approach it from the mythological/religious/human consciousness perspective and those whose interest is in dealing with the everyday aspects of feminism in daily life, and those of us who see differences and those of us who see likenesses, etc.
But, the good thing is that everyone on this blog agrees on the central thesis that misogyny is alive and flourishing in 2008 and that it is, as Violet says, “a big thing.” And not a good thing. And, something needs to be done about it. And there are lots of good ideas here.
One issue that has not been addressed so far, at least I don’t think so, is the “revolution from within” — the deep emotional change that takes place in a woman when first she really “sees” misogyny. As Anna Belle said on her blog “once you see it, you cannot unsee it.” The change that took place in me went all the way to the core of my being — to the erotic.
I confess that in my youth I responded positively to displays of male dominance. When my sons were in highschool, I started noticing their male dominance behavior when girls were around and the posoitive reactions they also got. Today, I have had my fill of male dominance and when a man begins his male dominance dance, my reaction is nausea and a quick exit. Which means I don’t have any males in my life — other than my sons. Which is OK with me.
-
Alikatze says:
I couldn’t agree more with the first poster, Sandra S.; you cannot get past stereotypes (read in this case: gender stereotypes) until you eliminate them across the board. When parents teach their kids that girls play “house” and have Barbie dolls, girls & boys create a stereotype of what girls are “supposed” to do. When boys decide to play “dress-up” in mommy’s clothes, everyone freaks out — “that’s not for boys!” We have to get beyond what is “for girls” and what is “for boys.” Unfortunately, I find grade school teachers to be the most gender stereotyped adults out there — there has to be a liberalization of education across the board. I think we also have to be willing to support all of those that buck stereotype trends, no matter how outlandish.
-
Keri says:
Our generation was a bit lucky with that. I started school in the fall of 1972, just as title IX first went into effect. For the rest of the 1970′s at least a token recognition was made of the women’s movement- although mostly focued on the first wave, at least were did learn a bit about Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth and Lucy Stone in the public schools during the 1970′s. Of course once Reagan came in that all went away. But I think enough registered in the conciousnesses of our generation- especially those of us who attended public elementery schools, that many of the more vocal PUMAs are of our generation.
-
cellocat says:
In school, I was lucky too; I grew up in a place where they showed “Free to Be You and Me” every year. Hokey and dated now, but still wonderful; two babies (puppets) talking about gender, a skit about a boy who’s jeered at for wanting a doll, etc.
I also had a high school English teacher who did me the favor of explaining to me that part of the reason that I was unpopular was that I insisted on telling the truth, and that the boys didn’t like that, and that the girls who wanted to be liked by the boys therefore didn’t like that. She framed it as a positive character trait, and praised me for being willing to speak up, even though it cost me socially. I appreciated that; it gave me something about myself I could value even through hard times.
On a positive note, I spent the weekend in a workshop called “Bringing Baby Home”, with a bunch of other couples. It was healing to be in a group which included so many men who were challenging themselves to be open, to work on achieving parity and balance in their relationships, and to walk away from the distance, aggression, and controlling nature of their fathers.
I feel funny about talking about things like pregnancy and having babies on this site, but I think that my hesitancy also is indicative of the need to broaden feminism to include women’s choices across the spectrum. I fear being alienated from the feminist movement due to my choice (late-ish in life as these things go) to get married and to have a child. But it’s nice to feel that here and at TNA, there is a community of people interested in a big tent approach.
-
Violet says:
I feel funny about talking about things like pregnancy and having babies on this site, but I think that my hesitancy also is indicative of the need to broaden feminism to include women’s choices across the spectrum.
May I ask why you feel funny? I like babies.
-
Violet says:
Perhaps its a problem with the whole narrative of personal empowerment taking priority over ideas of social change.
Can I get a hell yeah?
The whole “empowerment” meme needs to go. Patriarchy is structural, and the devaluing of women is systematic. Treating women’s equality as a matter of “personal empowerment” is a cop-out, a way to avoid actually demanding that men or society as a whole change. Most importantly, perhaps, it’s a way of avoiding blame.
Can you imagine if the Civil Rights struggle had been narratized as “personal empowerment”? How absurd would that be?
-
Kali says:
Treating women’s equality as a matter of “personal empowerment” is a cop-out, a way to avoid actually demanding that men or society as a whole change. Most importantly, perhaps, it’s a way of avoiding blame.
Couldn’t agree more. Even some feminists are comfortable with acknowledging that women are victims but get very uncomfortable when the perpetrator is named. The focus of the discussion is kept on what women need to do to avoid being victims, and which women are deserving of victimization (e.g. Palin would fall into this category for many so-called feminists), rather than how society and men need to change to stop victimizing women and children. Doing the latter would get you labeled as a man-hater and many women, even feminists, fear that label.
-
cellocat says:
IMO, the personal empowerment meme is a way to divide and conquer. First, you define what it is to be empowered in a way that only allows certain women to be likely to achieve it. Then, since it often involves a bending of the rules, you decide who’s actually achieved it.
Violet, regarding feeling funny talking about pregnancy/family things is probably my own issue. It probably also comes from spending most of my time for a few decades with other people who’re firmly planted in the left liberal arts crowd who think that due to overpopulation, we shouldn’t be reproducing in the first place, and then definitely making the mistake of thinking that having children is as important or serious a matter as fighting social injustice, environmental degredation, etc.
-
cellocat says:
oops, that was unclear. I meant that those same people who believe no one should have children at all also think that it’s a mistake to think of childrearing as being as serious a matter as fighting social injustice, etc.
I have come to believe that bringing up a child in a household environment of love and respect is actually very important.
-
Violet says:
also think that it’s a mistake to think of childrearing as being as serious a matter as fighting social injustice, etc.
I would think that these are people who don’t have children. Or maybe I just hope that. Because everyone I know who has children knows that raising your kids is the most important thing in life.
-
Lisa says:
cellocat that makes me sad that you have hestitations about talking about kids and babies.
I have kids, and I am a stay at home mom/artist.
Just because it is a stereotype that women should stay home and care for kids and that women are the nurturers, doesn’t make it wrong to do it. My self absorbed third waver sister in law actually called me a breeder once. (We don’t speak anymore by the way).
I think raising aware intelligent loving children is one of the most noble things a person can do!
-
Sis says:
Something about good men blah blah — Vi.
Or:
CBC documentary: The Disappearing Male
It can be viewed online:
http://www.cbc.ca/documentarie.....aringmale/——————
-
sharonevolving says:
I published a blog on this, and will keep doing so.
I think we need to be honest here with ourselves and admit that feminism is dead. Completely dead. Why do I say that? Most women these days seem to start their sentences with ‘I’m not a feminist, but…’ and they feel little or no connection with the feminism of the suffragettes, who felt that by advancing the causes of women, they were advancing the cause of all oppressed groups.
I was more than a little annoyed with reactions to Clinton, Palin, and McKinney (funny how the world was in love with a black man running for president, while the black woman running for president ran in a media blackout). The reactions were always of this vein: ‘Sure I want to see a woman in higher office. Just not THAT woman.’
We waited 24 years for a woman to get on the national stage. This year, three women did. Clinton garnered 18 million primary votes – the most in US history for any candidate in any party. McCain and Palin garnered 58 million votes to Obama’s 65 million. She was the first woman VP to run since Ferraro, and Mondale Ferraro got 37 million votes against Reagan’s 54 million. Think about this: 46% of the people in this country voted FOR a woman on the VP ticket. That’s huge.
But here’s the bad news. Despite having three women run on three separate tickets, women failed as a whole to respond to the rallying cry of our lifetime: get one of our own into the highest office in the land.
Feminism failed to rally us. We don’t even know what feminism means now. Is it Steinem’s feminism? No, she sold out. Is it NOW’s feminism? Well, who are they again? Did they say or do anything to help women in this election? Or are they just pro-lesbian and pro-abortion? THAT’S the organization that speaks for us? Gimme a break. The strongest force for feminism in this election turned out to be…wait for it…John McCain. By putting Palin up, he gave women what those of us on the front lines have been fighting for: access to real power, and an absolute intolerance to sexism.
How many of us ‘feminists’ recognized that?
The term feminism is largely controlled by academic elites who are comfortably ensconced in tenure, penning whiny articles about the patriarchy, and who don’t face the battles those of us in Corporate America do. They didn’t come out for women, in fact, they didn’t see the women on deck this year as worthy. Shame on them. This standard never applies to male candidates. We never wait for a better model with those.
We need to kill off feminism, and whatever it means, or doesn’t today. I am ready for ‘womanism’ – where the sisters (and the men who love and support us) start doing it for ourselves. -
Ali says:
I’m very into marketing – as an educator I saw how poor marketing, a poor choice of buzz words killed an “ebonics” curriculum which the media completely misrepresented and destroyed.
I agree with Sharon above – the “f” word is toxic. It means too many things. It’s totally uncool. It either needs to be reclaimed and/or reinvented or totally abandoned for a new label. At any rate, the new feminism, or womanism or whatever we want to call it needs to be fresher, hipper, more inspiring. It needs to have the feel of hotness, revolution, victory.
-
Violet says:
Not ‘womanism’ — that already means something else.
And any word we come up with will be toxified. That’s how it works. The suffragists became “suffragettes” and the very term a matter of ridicule. Women’s liberation became “women’s libbers” and the very term a matter of ridicule. Same with feminism. Will be the same with any new word.
-
Keri says:
No, name changing does nothing, they just demonize the new word the same way. Feminism isn’t dead, all the women who ran this time call themselves feminists. The PUMAs called themselves feminists. We fight for feminism, I say. The term feminist dates back the late 19th century activist women. I will proudly call myself a feminist. Never mind the ones who caved into patriachy, that happened in the first wave too. No, I refuse to give into the misogynists, feminism it is and always will be!
-
sharonevolving says:
I don’t know. I think the term is too loaded, and means too many things to too many people. Somehow, it’s become a calcified semblance of itself. No longer about advancing women’s causes, it’s everything from pro-lesbian to radical to anti-Republican to pro-choice (even extremist views on that subject) to anti-mothering to anti-Palin. This bothers me. I am a mom, a PhD candidate (thinking of switching her topic to something on Kali, feminism, and this election) and a high tech program manager. I have faced a ton of sexism on the corporate front, and yet, my academic feminist friends don’t seem to understand my struggles at all.
I don’t know what feminism means anymore. The girls at feministing seem to think it’s fine to destroy Palin. When did feminism become about destroying other women?
We’ve lost the way here, and I think anytime you use that term, you run the risk of not knowing what it means to your audience because it’s too loaded. I think another wave isn’t the answer. A revolution in thinking is what’s needed. -
Ali says:
Sharon,
Funny you should mention “the girls at feministing”. This is obviously a site that seeks to make feminism “cool”. However, it is only feminist by DNC standards if you know what I mean. I have been emailing one of their editors in regard to the sexist anti-Palin advertisements on their site. Funny how uneducated Jessica Valenti was on the issues of Palin and sex education. During our email convo, Jessica linked to a few articles as “proof” that Palin was anti contraception education! Thanks to Violet and her radio program via DC Media girl I knew this to be false and sent her the appropriate information. I would think that would be a story in itself for Jessica – the fact that even a feminist site would get it’s facts wrong about an issue that affects young women. Still, the offensive advertisements continue to plague their site…. and the gratuitous Palin bashing continues to be good sport….
-
qaz says:
Ali, that website said nothing when Hillary was being viciously trashed in the media.
-
Violet says:
Folks, you need to stop worrying about Feministing, which is a lost cause.
I wrote to Jessica at the time of her Guardian article trashing Palin — this was when Palin was first announced, and Jessica’s article was a farrago of lies topped by the assertion that Palin was the antithesis of everything feminism stands for. I set Jessica straight then. She knows perfectly well that she’s spreading lies.
It’s just like Amanda Marcotte. I wrote to her when she started the lie that PUMAs were GOP ratfuckers; I gave her the whole history and asked her to print a retraction. She never did, of course, and has continued to spread the lie.
Both Jessica and Amanda know me, so it’s not as if they might have mistaken me for a crank writing to them out the blue. Both of them have known all along exactly what they were doing and just how dishonest they were being.
Ignore them.
-
Ali says:
Thanks, Violet. Wow, that’s some perspective. I had no idea that they were KNOWINGLY spreading lies. It’s really disheartening, though, how many women are influenced by this site….
I guess the only way to fight it is to offer other viewpoints. But far too many women feel comfortable with feministing feminism.
-
Ali says:
Hah! Well to think I defended Jessica when Anne Althouse attacked her for wearing a shirt that showed she had boobs in the presence of Bill Clinton.
Well, if I had to do it again I’d defend her still, cause I’m not partisan with my feminism, ya’ know.
-
Violet says:
I had no idea that they were KNOWINGLY spreading lies.
I suppose the alternative is that they’re in the grip of such severe delusion that they’re unable to perceive reality. But it amounts to the same thing.
-
Lexia says:
Amanda Marcotte lost me when she stated last year sometime that white women have it much better than black men, then cut off discussion by saying she wasn’t going to engage in “oppression olympics”. Neat way to erase a whole lot of overt, on-the-books differences that favor black men over all women: hate crime legislation, employment discrimination law, average incomes and overtly supremacist religions, just to name a few.
She also said that the terms bitch, whore, etc. weren’t hate speech because they were directed against individual women, where as racial epithets were always used against a whole race. The word “cunt” doesn’t bring the cultural hatred of women and women’s bodies into a laser-like focus on one individual or the word “bitch” focus more than one person’s outrage on a woman who dares to cross him, because the woman may have deserved it, but the target of a racist epithet never deserves it? I agree about the last part, but sexist speech is never justified.
-
parallel says:
cellocat, sharonevolving, and others – what you are describing is not feminism, it is one of the (male-created) fantasies of feminism, or “straw feminism” if you like that term.
That is, the idea that feminists just want everyone to be Ugly ! Hairy ! Lesbians ! and Hate !!! Babeeyzzz !!!&%$*££!!
Not that there’s anything wrong with being ugly or hairy or lesbian, seriously there isn’t.
I mean people really need to get over themselves on the whole – “but feminism will turn us all into scary scary lesbians” – thing.
And not everyone should have to be in lurve with your precious precious offspring either.
But really, “hating babies” etc is just not what feminism is about.
-
Cyn says:
I think feminist is the most beautiful word in the English language
To me, it means one woman working for the good of all women.
-
Yanni Znaio says:
Ali says:
Lisa,
Youtube – yes! The other day I was trying to find a youtube video of Sarah Palin stating her position on sex ed – you can imagine the crap I had to sift through. Actually, there was so much crap that it was impossible for me to find something sensical on Sarah Palin.
I believe there’s a “Sarah Palin channel” on YouTube that was designed to help filter out all the crap and only contain “realistic” clips.
Best regards,
YZ
-
Sis says:
I really wish it was (more easily) possible to have a YouTube you could actually use as an edcuational source. I am so effin sick of this “free speech” out to hate speech.
I resist I resist using it, as I do Dickepedia. I wouldn’t buy a DVD of all that just to get aat the 1/1000 that isn’t vomious about women in general or some woman in particular. Why do I have to support it with my hits?
Is there no place to complain? Would it make any difference in a world that raises up a Larry Summers and a Larry Flynt?
