The New Feminism (part 1)
Grandmother and granddaughter have a chat by the fence.
I’ve got about forty zillion things to attend to today, so I don’t have time this morning to write a full post. But I want to start pulling together some of our thoughts about the new feminism we’re building, what I think of as the Fourth Wave. And let me state up front that these things aren’t necessarily new; as an old bag with a long memory, I’m keenly aware that much of what we’re talking about was part of feminism 30, 40 years ago. Some of it has just gotten lost and needs to be reclaimed.
Here’s a start:
1. It needs to politically ecumenical. Women are women regardless of whether they’re Democrats or Republicans — or, for that matter, Whigs or Federalists, since feminism is a lot older and bigger than modern American political distinctions. As the Tomato Nation essay put it:
The definition of feminism does not tell you how to vote or what to think. You can vote Republican or Libertarian or Socialist or “I like that guy’s hair.” You can bag voting entirely. You can believe whatever you like about child-care subsidies, drafting women, fiscal accountability, Anita Hill, environmental law, property taxes, Ann Coulter, interventionist politics, soft money, gay marriage, tort reform, decriminalization of marijuana, gun control, affirmative action, and why that pothole at the end of the street still isn’t fixed. You can exist wherever on the choice continuum you feel comfortable. You can feel ambivalent about Hillary Clinton. You can like the ERA in theory, but dread getting drafted in practice. The definition does not stipulate any of that. The definition does not stipulate anything at all, except itself. If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
2. No more mealy-mouthed talk of “personal empowerment.” Sexism is structural and systematic, and overcoming it isn’t a personal voyage of self-actualization. Society itself needs to change.
3. We need cultural narratives of gender equality, and we need to saturate our society with those narratives. Our children need to grow up with scripts that show women and men on equal terms. And we need a popular culture that continues to reinforce those scripts.
4. We need an inspiring mythos of women’s ongoing struggle for equality. Just as the African-American journey has been narratized as a great national epic through Black History Month and the hagiography surrounding MLK, women’s struggle needs to be elevated in the public mind to the status of Noble Quest.
5. Patriarchy divides women and pits us against each other to rob us of our power. We must be mindful of this at all times, and avoid falling into that trap. Disagreement among women, even among feminists, is to be expected: we are, after all, half the human race. But as long as there is patriarchy, then all women share a set of common burdens, and we can only overcome them by refusing to play the divide-and-conquer games that patriarchy encourages.
6. No more of the self-abnegation that patriarchy imposes on women. Our struggle is the longest, hardest, greatest struggle for justice in the history of the human race. No more apologies for wanting to be equal. No more cringing and begging for crumbs. No more waiting in line. No more tacit agreement that our struggle is trivial because some women are rich or members of the dominant ethnic group. (Quick question: is the struggle for gay rights frivolous because many gays are affluent white men? Does that make homophobia any less wrong?)
What else? I gotta go do some stuff right now. We’ll continue.
98 Responses to “The New Feminism (part 1)”
-
Shane says:
Hmmm…. To expand on #4 in particular, I think its about understandings of the past and how they get applied in the present. With the African-American experience and how it became understood in popular consciousness, slavery/racism is the overriding sin of America’s past that must be redeemed. Understandably, this gives an added urgency to anti-racist efforts (which is also a perception that I’d say the Obama campaign tapped into and blatantly exploited, but this isn’t the place). Getting sexism into a similarly reviled status and presenting it as something that still exists (like racism still does) rather than something that abruptly ended with the granting of suffrage or at the end of the ’50s’ would help a lot. Its really about historical interconnectedness. Similarly, its also very important to counter the accusations of selfishness by highlighting just how broad a movement is being dealt with here, and that it really benefits all of humanity. Ideally, it’d be recognised as the most popular front of all.
It also strikes me that the problems you identify are assisted by the fragmentation created by third-wave feminist narratives. Read from another perspective ‘personal empowerment’ is really just ‘collective disempowerment’ in a shinier guise. This is helped even more by group dynamics where anti-feminist accusations can be applied pretty easily to other groups even if not to your own. After all, its your own ‘feminist’ subset that’s good and enlightened, and only the others that are misguided and selfish, so why not endorse that view of the others because you know it doesn’t point to YOU. Which is really the most selfish thing of all, and something that a broader movement would be in a better position to avoid.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:59 am EST -
sharonevolving says:
I must say that this is some good thinking. I am not sure I am totally in agreement with it all because of the personal empowerment thing. Part of the problem with feminism (whatever it currently is or isn’t) is that women tend to take on the establishment one at a time, and get picked off by snipers. However, those of us that have cracked this or that ceiling or barrier are empowered by it to turn around and help others find the way through. So the personal empowerment question isn’t settled quite yet for me. I do, however, agree that a massive shift in the collective consciousness is required, ASAP. One thing I saw completely missing this year was a collective force among women. I saw it in spots: PUMAs, the Republican women coming out against sexism when Palin got the nomination, and some blogs that supported Palin though she wasn’t pro-choice. But these are isolated small groups in a massive collective, and that collective needs moving to a new plane of consciousness NOW. If we accomplish nothing else, it must be to rope in women en masse to achieve this goal, regardless of political or ideological standing.
-
votermom says:
This is pretty meaty for a non-full post :)
On Number 4, an inspiring narrative, over at Anna Belle’s post at TNA on education, we thought Alice Paul and the Night of Terror is very exciting and dramatic.
-
soopermouse says:
if you get people to admit they have some privilege, that will silence a lot of their complains about oppression. They will want to feel empowered but without doing the work, so everything they did was empowerful ( TM Twisty).
In this context, a successful way of doing things was to emphasize and accept racial oppression as “true” oppression - or the only true kind of oppression and to play down gender oppression. I fell off my chair laughing when RQ told me that as a poor white woman she had privilege over black males.
I laughed because that is utter bullshit. Not going to deny the existence of racial oppression, but dude, in case you didn’t get that a man of any color is considered superior to all women of all colors, you flunked feminism and deserved a big dunce cap for the rest of your life.
Her argument was that a policeman would have taken her word over that of a black man. I dunno about that. What I do know is that she had 50 times more chances to be assaulted and raped than that black man ( while both are at large- prison is a special circumstance with different rules). That black men got the vote 50 years or so before women of all colors. That while the policeman might have appeared to listen to her more intently, half of it or more was probably ” pretend to listen to the bitch else she gets histerical”.
-
Violet says:
The point is not which oppression is worse, and it’s certainly not to deny other forms of oppression, all of which really do exist. The point is that women are the only group whose oppression-as-women is deemed irrelevant or non-existent. The phrase “Oppression Olympics” (which I despise) is used only to shut down women, never anyone else.
In fact, I’ll give you ten bucks if you can find any instance of AAs being lectured online about “Oppression Olympics” when they mention racism. The OO ploy is only used to silence women and to shut down discussion of sexism.
I’ll give you another ten bucks if you can find any instance of gay people in the liberal world being told that because many of them are white, they enjoy white privilege so obviously everything is fine and they need to just shut the fuck up.
-
Violet says:
Not going to deny the existence of racial oppression, but dude, in case you didn’t get that a man of any color is considered superior to all women of all colors, you flunked feminism and deserved a big dunce cap for the rest of your life.
No, it’s not that simple. Both forms of oppression exist. In some respects all white people have privilege over all non-white people, and in some respects all men have privilege over all women.
Again: the point is that oppression of women exists, is real, and is not rendered non-existent by other dynamics of privilege.
-
soopermouse says:
I don’t know Violet. This election seems to show that any penis is better than a vagina.
-
Nadai says:
Similarly, its also very important to counter the accusations of selfishness by highlighting just how broad a movement is being dealt with here, and that it really benefits all of humanity.
I’m going to have to disagree with this part of an otherwise excellent comment. Part of the cultural narrative that keeps women down is the idea that a good woman thinks about everyone else’s feelings, ideally before/instead of our own feelings, but at a minimum in addition to. Women need, desperately, cultural permission to be selfish, to put ourselves first without apology and without trying to spin it as good for other, more important people, too. Because even though I do believe feminism is good for the whole Human community, it really wouldn’t matter if it weren’t. Women have a right to demand what’s good for us. We shouldn’t try to placate anti-feminists by promising they’ll get something out of it, too; it just strengthens the idea that we aren’t good enough to deserve things for ourselves.
To me, it’s the same old argument about whether feminists should call ourselves humanists, because all Humans matter and using a girly word turns some people off. I’m sure it does. But it does because women aren’t seen as representative of humanity, and that’s the problem. Pretending that we can work for Human rights without reference to women specifically will only mean that our needs, once again, get discounted.
-
myiq2xu says:
There is an old joke where they ask Stevie Wonder if he resented being born blind and he replies “At least I’m not black.”
Being an oppressed and unequal white woman should not be acceptable because black men may have it worse.
Arguing over who has it worse or who has had it longer ends up being part of who gets freed from oppression first (or whose “turn” it is to be President.)
Just free everyone at the same time.
-
Violet says:
To me, it’s the same old argument about whether feminists should call ourselves humanists, because all Humans matter and using a girly word turns some people off. I’m sure it does. But it does because women aren’t seen as representative of humanity, and that’s the problem.
Exactly. The very fact that these arguments are made is evidence of how deeply ingrained and how acceptable sexism is. Or, to put it another way, of how completely women are dismissed.
Go to any website where someone introduces the idea of feminism, and I guarantee someone will show up (often a woman) saying, “Why just feminism? Shouldn’t we be talking about all people?” It’s because we’ve had it burned into us that women’s rights are silly and unimportant. Talking about women’s rights is too embarrasing for words. Got a find a way to include men so it will be important.
By the same token, here are things you’ll never see (at least among sane, enlightened people):
– Someone objecting to the Civil Rights movement because, gosh, shouldn’t we have also worked for the rights of white people to ride at the front of the bus and eat at lunch counters? Why single out black people?
– Someone objecting to “gay rights” because gosh, shouldn’t we be working for the rights of straight people to get married and be free from hate crimes? Why single out gay people?
– Someone objecting to “Free Tibet” because gosh, what about other countries? Why single out Tibet? Wouldn’t “Free Tibet AND China” be better? Or how about just, “Free Everybody!”
-
Cindy says:
Excellent post, Violet!
The following I’ve written as an open “letter” to Americans(from my perspective as a straight, white woman):
We are American women.
We have done eveything society asked of us.
We behaved in school.
We looked as pretty as possible at all times.
We learned to cook.
We learned to sew.
We went to church.
We dated nice boys.
We got married.
We took our husbands’ names.
We gave up our identities.
We took jobs for less pay.
We bore you children.
We lovlingly taught, nursed, guided, and nurtured these children.
We volunteered at our children’s schools.
We baked cookies for community fundraisers.
We volunteered at political campaigns.
We volunteered at nursing homes.
We took care of our elderly parents.
We have been loyal American patriots.
What have we done wrong? Why do you hate us?
Were we not pretty enough for you?
Did we not scream loud enough during childbirth?
Are we not dying at the hands of intimate partners fast enough for you?
Why do you hate us? -
qaz says:
I’ll give you another ten bucks if you can find any instance of gay people in the liberal world being told that because many of them are white, they enjoy white privilege so obviously everything is fine and they need to just shut the fuck up.
Great point!
-
quixote says:
I’m not sure we need to expand. Not because the list couldn’t fill encyclopedias, but because less is more when you’re trying to communicate. (Ask the ad agencies….) I think we need about three short slogans to start with.
As an academic myself, distillation isn’t my strong suit, but I’ll have a go since I brought it up.
Females First.
The Loneliest War.
Unite. It’s more fun.
(I did warn you I’m no good at this stuff. But there’s lots of you out there who can do better.)
-
Alwaysthinking says:
Yes. We Are. We exist. We live on this earth. We absolutely deserve full rights with no apologies. We also know how much we contribute to society. I just read this today, from a speech given by the American ambassador to people of one of the poorest of the world’s countries:
“Women are the foundation of society — they determine the health and well being of their families, caring for partners, children, aging parents, and the community. They are the providers of sustenance, advice, care, and stability in so many homes, but they are also leaders in their communities, in government, and in civil society.”
This is our own government’s message to people of that small African country as part of an effort to improve women’s health there. Should those qualities not also be recognized and rewarded here? Equality, of course, should not be a “reward”; it simply should BE. It also should be obvious to every man and every woman.
-
C says:
What is astounding to me is all the wonder and awe and self-congratulation about Obama being elected and the nearly total silence on the importance of Hillary Clinton’s 18 million votes.
As always, the woman’s accomplishments are just NOT as important, the breaking of this barrier not to be acknowledged.
I may be missing something but I just haven’t come across any portrayal of this strong candidate being of any importance after the election. Not only is she not vp, I don’t come across any consideration of her having an important role to play in the new Administration.
But - that is just the official media narrative. Those 18 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton were not all whiny racist old ladies - and they know it, don’t they? -
Greenconsciousness says:
Obama found out about Violet and comes up with a diabolical program to divert her organizing efforts:
-
Sis says:
OT; kinda.
I frequently speak up here, because I’m sick of whiny white people, and whiny black people, who came to my land, and in some cases gave me their name (Indian–very poor trade) and now step over my cousins on their way to their successes.
Free Turtle Island. Stop ignoring the third world country, starving, impoverished and disenfranchised people right under your nose. Stop trying to exercise your liberal guilt over *there*. Or with some other race. Bring it home. Where those whose land you took still wait for more than “thanks”.
moje cris tabernac
-
Sis says:
ahem. nice horses.
-
votermom says:
Greenconsciousness, LOL.
The Onion has been scarily accurate in its political satirs so llamas better watch out! -
Foxx says:
Money. Blue color jobs. No taxation without representation. Why should my taxes go to pay all those men working on the roads?
The real opportunity to earn real money makes feminists out of a lot of women.
-
slythwolf says:
You know what, Foxx, you’re right about the taxation without representation thing. Women should only have to pay 16% of the taxes in this country. What’s that? No? They want us to pay 52% because that’s how much of the population we are? Then put us in Congress, assholes.
-
DancingOpossum says:
“– Someone objecting to “gay rights” because gosh, shouldn’t we be working for the rights of straight people to get married and be free from hate crimes? Why single out gay people?”
Sadly, you CAN find this argument being made, in discussions about Proposition 8. Some African Americans have tried to argue that it was OK that Obama’s AA voters also voted for Prop 8 because a) gay people haven’t done anything for civil rights of AAs; and b) they need to wait their turn. I swear this is being treated as a legitimate argument among, admittedly, a small group of people. garychapelhill has it all documented on his blog.
Well, they are lovely horses, aren’t they? I do find these pictures very soothing. It is always good to go into the peace of wild things.
-
ElleR says:
In Cindy’s post, I noticed lots of words like volunteer and references to lots of unpaid family work done by women. Capitalism has a long history of dependence on free labor or underpaid labor. Women often work for nothing more than room and board, make a significant contribution to the common good, and get their social security docked (or no social security at all) in thanks for their services.
Patriarchy owes a huge debt to women — a debt it has no interest in acknowledging. Patriarchal society does not want to admit it is so heavily dependent on women’s work to function. It is one of the reasons it prefers to keep us and our work invisible.
There needs to be some part of feminism which works to make sure that women’s work is valued, in much the same way that feminism works to make sure that women are valued doing “men’s work.”
Women’s lives are often very different from men’s lives. Feminism should be about giving women the same kind of freedom that men have to live the lives they want to live. Therefore, feminism for me includes the following:
I would like to see women and women’s work given much higher social value. To me, this is of paramount importance. I actually believe that work traditionally associated with women has immense value — child and elder care, care of the sick, cooking, cleaning, creating wonderful domestic spaces. But patriarchy utterly devalues this type of work, because it is associated with women — and because they got it for free for so long. Interestingly, once this work is professionalized and masculinized, it commands a high price.
I would like a society structured in such a way that women who make the choice to have a child are not punished for making that choice. Let’s face it, to choose to have a child, unless you are very secure financially, can easily result in financial disaster. Scandinavia seems to have this figured out.
I would like to see a society that doesn’t accept rape as the natural order of things. As a woman’s fault. Once, there was a serial rapist loose in my neighborhood, and the reaction of the police was that women shouldn’t sit around in their undies watching tv with the curtains open.
I would like to see a society that doesn’t get off on the murder of women. Just think, how many victims of serial killers are women (in movies and in life) relatively speaking? Women are very often the victims of murder for no other reason than that they are women. In patriarchy, we are prey. It doesn’t have to be that way.
I would like to see a society that doesn’t accept at some level domestic abuse. If men were truly ashamed of this behavior, they wouldn’t do it.
I would like to see a society that doesn’t get off on the ridicule and trashing of women.
And, of course, I support the more traditional feminist goals –women and men having equal opportunities to enter whatever field of work they choose; women doing the same jobs as men, paid the same as men.
-
sharonevolving says:
Ladies, I am enjoying this conversation, and these viewpoints, but I have to say I am on a different page. I have lost my love of academic feminism when it failed to rally us to get one of our own elected. I have been in corporate America for 20+ years, and have faced two real issues that NEVER seem to get dealt with by feminist writers, until this election:
1. Access to REAL power for women, real positions of power, Congress, the presidency, CEO, etc.
2. The damning of sexism once and for all such that it is absolutely reprehensible to call women any of the names listed above.
I am not all about helping advance everyone’s cause anymore. Look where that got us. I am done waiting my turn, waiting for a break, or a helping hand. And I am done listening to scores of contemporary women start their sentences with “I am not a feminist, but…’ and then proceed with some complain re sexism or lack of power or women’s causes. WE HAVE TO WAKE UP and mobilize. The Year of the Woman in Presidential Politics…wasn’t. What else do you need to get it that we have gotten nowhere in terms of equality in this country? I think first we need to tear down the contemporary view of feminism which has us perhaps a step up on the socio-economic ladder from paroled felon. We need to educate women on where they came from, and how far there is to go - this is what AA’s did to keep their anger alive for generations. Until we claim our anger, until we lash back, maybe launch a modern Lysistrata movement, we will continue to keep on get what we’ve been getting. -
Violet says:
I agree with you, sharonevolving. Actually it doesn’t seem to me like you’re on a different page.
Your first item is one that definitely belongs on our list. 30% solution? Or 53% solution? Absolutely, we need to just GET WOMEN IN POWER.
As for the other things — claiming our anger, educating the public, refusing to take any more bullshit, etc — I think that’s what we’re talking about making happen.
-
Lisa says:
1.Yes, women in power- let’s steamroll right over the 30% solution and go straight for the 53%!
2. Damning of sexism. No apologies, no qualifiers- just NO ACCEPTANCE.
3. ElleR- Yes, it is important under the new “big tent” feminism that women’s work be highly valued. We all need to support each other - pro-choice or pro-life, stay at home mom or corporate executive, black, white, lesbian, straight, american indian and all ethnicities, christian, pagan and all faiths, we are all women and we are the majority.
Hey wouldn’t it be great if we could get those public service commercials “The More You Know” to be about women?
-
yttik says:
You know the first time I had real hope was when those Republican women gave a press conference on the sexism directed towards Sarah Palin. Carly Fiorina, Marsha Blackburn, etc. They came out and spoke respectfully towards Hillary Clinton and said that every woman in this country regardless of political party owes her a debt of gratitude. And they condemned the sexism that had simply moved from Hillary over to Palin. It was such a show of strength and bipartenship, and gender loyalty, it kind of took my breath away.
Now, I can’t stand Marsha Blackburn, R Tenn. Her politics are like finger nails on a chalkboard. But she was right on, she nailed every comment she made about sexism and I developed a new kind of respect for her. If I can find common ground with Marsha Blackburn, LOL, then anything is possible. And you know, I don’t let people bash her anymore. She and I speak the same language and share the same story, which is the story every woman in America shares.
-
octogalore says:
As sharonevolving said earlier, I am on this page except re personal empowerment.
I agree that it’s far better for women who move up to do so with the plan (and later execution of that plan) to help other women follow, and help other women who don’t have access to get it.
But one can’t do that without seeking personal empowerment first. Michelle Obama is a good example of that. She has argued against women going immediately fields of “power” as in stature and money, but her segue into a public sector position was made easier by her first achieving private sector recognition. If we’re aiming for 53% in terms of positions of “real power,” then we don’t get there individual empowering ourselves. If we’re all about helping “society,” guess who gets left out, and then individual anecdotes add up to data.
Of course, this is only step one; step two is to reach out to women generally. Point is I think the two are interdependent.
-
octogalore says:
oops, I mean “don’t get there WITHOUT individually empowering ourselves.” I promise to proofread better.
-
Heidi says:
First, I just have to say that I love your blog, and this post is a great example why.
Second, I think something that the 4th wave needs to focus on, specifically, is gender-based violence and the sex slave trade. These are issues that will get people’s attention and automatically connect people’s minds to the other historical slave trades, and get them to make associations without even trying. The fact is, gender-based violence is by far the most widespread and historically deep hate crime in the world. The United Nations has now labeled gender violence and the sex slave trade as the largest slave trade in the history of mankind by a 75% margin. If you focus on this, and make slave trade, slave trade, slave trade the slogan, along with hate crime, hate crime, hate crime, along with the staggering statistics, people will get the message.
The reason many women can’t agree and the reason much of society doesn’t take feminism and gender oppression seriously, is because they can’t yet absorb the smaller, daily grind issues of being a woman with the same conviction they do a minority’s experience, for example. Women’s oppression is so, so normal and has been going on for thousands of years. It takes a sharp, focused line of attack to wake people up, and the sex slave trade, which is going on RIGHT NOW, is the thing to do it. Remember, sex slavery and gender hate crimes are getting WORSE, not BETTER. The hate crimes against women in the Congo are now considered the worst gender hate crimes ever. The sex slave trade is third largest illicit trade, only behind guns and drugs. This is not progress. We are regressing and the factions among women, the rise of globalization, and the crisis in manhood are big reasons why.
I believe then we can create a narrative from that. First, work to abolish slavery and hate crime, then establish the narrative to address everything else. It will work. Our time is now–it is 1865 for us right now and the tens of millions of women and girls in bondage need us to focus.
-
Violet says:
I think there’s some miscommunication here about what is meant by personal empowerment versus changing society.
For me, casting women’s struggle as personal empowerment makes it impossible to see the systematic bias against women. Instead of there being a built-in bias that pervades society, there are just individual women trying to feel good about themselves. Perhaps if they buy the right sneakers and work out more, that will help. And if they get a great job and feel personally empowered, then everything is fixed. Because in this view, there is no systematic bias against women. There is no social issue.
In contrast, seeing sexism for what it is — a systematic bias — is the only thing that will enable us to defeat it. Patriarchy is structural, it’s a system. This doesn’t mean that individual women shouldn’t be doing everything they can in their own lives to overcome barriers: of course they should, and more power to them. But no one woman alone is going to fix sexism. Because it’s pervasive and systematic.
Consider the race issue, which is in fact less of a deep-rooted system than sexism: individual African Americans have always been celebrated and congratulated for overcoming barriers, without taking away from the knowledge that racism was still extant as a social system that needed to be overcome. Just because Jackie Robinson was in baseball, the problem wasn’t solved.
-
Lisa says:
Yes, I agree that it CAN help all women if one succeeds and that personal empowerment can open the doors for others. The danger in that lies in the attitude fostered in third wavers.
They often fall into believing that the battles of sexism are for each woman to fight on her own. The ones that succeed often feel that they have earned it and others aren’t “working as hard” as they are- so they haven’t earned it. Hence, they not only don’t help other women along, but they often hold others back that aren’t “worthy enough”, such as the liberal feminist’s hatred of Sarah Palin.I have met many successful women who have absolutely no inclination to open doors for other women or give them a step up.
It is imperative that we foster an attitude of community, and keep alive the reality in women’s hearts and minds that sexism is still rampant. It is a battle that must be fought by all of us over and over again.
The very presence of women of power helps all women, BUT it IS important that women see the need to step up for each other as well.Personal empowerment is always easier with a strong presence of support behind you.
-
octogalore says:
Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense, and agreed. Personal empowerment should be part of a systematic strategy, not viewed as a solution in itself or, if achieved, any sign that there’s no underlying issue.
-
Lisa says:
violet you were writing at the same time that I was. I like your post better than mine! LOL
Heidi, I agree about the slave trade issue. It is horrific and is going on right here in our own country- not just overseas. It is the one issue that can bring the anger back to me in a flash. It is a great motivator.
-
Maggie Hays says:
I really like the idea, Violet, especially if one of the goals is to revive issues that the second wave was raising awareness on. :)
No more mealy-mouthed talk of “personal empowerment.” Sexism is structural and systematic, and overcoming it isn’t a personal voyage of self-actualization. Society itself needs to change.
Yes, I guess one of the goals would also be to debunk all the lies that the “third wave” has perpetuated. Most third wave members use all this “mealy-mouthed talk of ‘personal empowerment’” in order to maintain the status quo and some deny the inherent misogyny in this patriarchal society.
The kind of feminism I have chosen empowers me with the knowledge it has given me. I have full awareness that patriarchy often limits women’s choices with all its forms of abuse, discrimination, etc & its restrictive socialization to conform to gender ‘norms’, roles, etc.
I know that these might sound like big words (as we’re still far away from that?) but I really want revolution. I wasn’t there in the 60’s-70’s, but I absolutely despise this whole contemporary (& historical) patriarchal woman-hating culture and I want the entire male-supremacist system to be overthrown…
Patriarchy divides women and pits us against each other to rob us of our power. We must be mindful of this at all times, and avoid falling into that trap. Disagreement among women, even among feminists, is to be expected: we are, after all, half the human race. But as long as there is patriarchy, then all women share a set of common burdens, and we can only overcome them by refusing to play the divide-and-conquer games that patriarchy encourages.
That’s right. Patriarchy loves turning women against each other. This is upsetting. Women divided against each other will not unite against the oppressive system. :( Though, I admit, I do still believe in sisterhood; how about you, Violet?
I believe that women should stop being angry at other women because this is utterly fruitless. It distracts us from being angry at what/who we should be angry at: the whole patriarchy and its cruel guardians and enforcers.
-
Kiuku says:
The hardest part is getting this sexism labelled as hate speech. Women are oppressed by men. Just because men are 50% of the population does not mean that “cunt” and “bitch” are not hate speech like gay and nigger. It’s hard to get something passed as hate speech when 50% of the population partake in it. Men can see gay and nigger as hate speech because most of them do not partake in it, or enough of them do not, but nearly all men will entertain “bitch” “cunt” or “ho”. etc, in fact, coming up with new ones everyday.
If it is hateful, and it applies to women, it is hate speech. It needs to be called such and made illegal.
-
Heidi says:
Kiuku–you’re right, and this is included in the “abolish hate crimes and the slave trade” movement. Hate speech is not illegal in this country but it is definitely taboo when applied to any opppressed group except women. Make hate speech against women taboo! I want to see a day when sexist men only feel comfortable whispering “bitch” amongst themselves in a dark allies.
-
Shane says:
Women have a right to demand what’s good for us. We shouldn’t try to placate anti-feminists by promising they’ll get something out of it, too; it just strengthens the idea that we aren’t good enough to deserve things for ourselves.
To me, it’s the same old argument about whether feminists should call ourselves humanists, because all Humans matter and using a girly word turns some people off. I’m sure it does. But it does because women aren’t seen as representative of humanity, and that’s the problem. Pretending that we can work for Human rights without reference to women specifically will only mean that our needs, once again, get discounted.
Sure, and sorry if I came off as catering to male types, of which I’m one. What I mean though is spreading the idea that it isn’t selfish to be feminist, which isn’t as widely known as it should be. To again use the anti-racism example, part of getting that idea out is highlighting that racism is wrong even to those who could have benefited (and did) from the power structures it helped create. So I don’t mean subsuming women beneath ‘humanity’ so much as saying that liberating such a central social group has benefits for everybody, and then trying to use that point to counter the argument where yeah, something should be done for women some time, but they should just wait their turn behind other groups. In other words, changing the situation of women has all these beneficial flow-on effects (including helping to limit other forms of discrimination), and this makes it an even more urgent goal to achieve. And along those lines, while its specifically about women gaining a more just place in the world, getting sexism so maligned that even most men see it as real and wrong would help in the process.
-
Lisa says:
What about the tobacco ads that are on tv by http://www.thetruth.com ? Hate speech and slave trade and other horrid disgusting hate facts against women could be done in the same way- tv ads and print ads…. they have been very successful with their campaign.
-
deanbcurtis says:
Not to dissolve into a chorus of praise, but with so many inspiring comments, the fourth wave certainly won’t be without it share of voices.
That being said, the issue and improtance of cultural narratives is something I completely agree on. From what Violet has repeatedly mentioned…
3. We need cultural narratives of gender equality, and we need to saturate our society with those narratives. Our children need to grow up with scripts that show women and men on equal terms. And we need a popular culture that continues to reinforce those scripts.
to what sharonevolving posted…
And I am done listening to scores of contemporary women start their sentences with “I am not a feminist, but…’ and then proceed with some complain re sexism or lack of power or women’s causes. WE HAVE TO WAKE UP and mobilize.
It is in this that lies a pointed attack. To furvently stress accomplishments and behaviors as being explicitly feminist. Whether from artists, small business owners, or clay shooters. To blanket actions in favor of gender equality as feminist work. Not to water feminism down, but to make sure it sticks. So that it becomes ubiquitous. For as we saw throughout the third wave and coming to a boil during the election, it is more than just what an identified feminist extends the meaning to, but what mainstream culture will recognize. Now, that doesn’t mean once pop culture reaches a certain point, everything’s okay. But, as ElleR said…
I would like to see a society that doesn’t get off on the ridicule and trashing of women.
-
deanbcurtis says:
Blah, fervently.
-
No Blood for Hubris says:
“Women need, desperately, cultural permission to be selfish, ”
Women don’t need permission for anything.
Women need to go right ahead and do as they/we see fit.
-
Anna Belle says:
Actually Quixote, I LOVE “The Loneliest War”. Can I use it for a title of something (with credit, of course), or do you plan to use it yourself?
-
Sandra S. says:
Before reading the comments, and thus before I forget:
Essentialism. We have to address the fact that while in some ways men and women are inherently different, our culture works to exacerbate and punish those differences. Nobody benefits from rigid gender roles, and everyone benefits from a greater freedom of self-expression. In addition, we as people are too good to limit ourselves to what our bodies dictate we can do. So what if women’s bodies are built for mothering and men have more upper body strength? We build airplanes and fucking FLY. Biology is not destiny, and we shouldn’t tolerate any suggestions to the contrary. I define myself, I am not defined by my uterus.
Secondly, no circular firing squads and shaming each other. It is extremely difficult to change what you find sexually attractive, or what your favorite color is, or if you want children or not. Our focus as a movement should be on changing the larger structures and creating more possibilities and raising up women, not on shaming each other for our short-comings, even if some of our personal choices represent bowing to patriarchal pressure or seeking male approval. There needs to be room for sex-positivity, for personal expression, and for individual choice. At the same time, we as feminists are not obligated to accept every decision that a woman or a feminist makes as a feminist decision. Sometimes we just act in our own self-interest. We should try not to make feminism an impossible ideal.
-
Anna Belle says:
Sharonevolving, I am right there with you. Especially this: maybe launch a modern Lysistrata movement.
I’ve been thinking about this for years. We keep sleeping with the enemy. Duh.
But I do it myself…
-
Sandra S. says:
Oh, and accepting that women have extremely broad and varied experiences of the world. That helps.
And pragmatism. I’m a big believer in pragmatism. Lately, I read a post about rape on Anglachel’s blog. I know that its part of the accepted rhetoric that rape is a fate worse that death and that people who do it are entirely evil. But my experience of rape was one of mere annoyance until I was forced to tie it into this massive cultural bugaboo. It was not traumatic, it was the suddenly being victimized by association that was traumatic. Calling men evil rapists may be wonderfully cathartic, but it likely does nothing but make them defensive and resistant to the discussion. Similarly, telling all rape victims what their experience should have been is patronizing and dehumanizing.
Along the same lines, vehemently pathologizing and villainizing each individual male who commits rape or who sexually harasses, or who is a misogynist lets society at large off the hook. We must strike a balance between respecting individual experience and working to alter the larger context in which the experiences occur.
-
Anna Belle says:
Oh, and I like ElleR’s ideas too. In addition to Violets. I come here because the posts are great, and the conversation is sterling. I wish I could have this in real life.
-
Iridescence says:
I am a male who believes in the equality of women, thus I consider myself a feminist. I am absolutely disgusted with the way many members of my gender often treat women. Perhaps, I am the beneficiary of some patriarchal prividge but I would give all that up without a second’s heistation to see a society where women were truly equal to men and patriarchy was destroyed.
I would feel grateful that, in such a society, I would no longer feel pressured to conform to some ridiculous and destructive masculine and macho concept of my gender. I also think that women have a lot to offer society which many of them are currently being impeded or prevented from offering by sexism and patriarchy.
I also fully realize that we can’t progress as a society while a majority of our population are systematically discriminated against. I wish more males would come to share this realization but what I have seen in this years US election campaign, sadly, doesn’t give me much hope of that.
I think femism IS humanism, not in the sense that feminist goals should subsume themselves to some wider “humanist” agenda, but instead because the basic goals of feminism would undoubtedly benefit HUMANITY as a whole if they come to fruition.
-
Lexia says:
Can’t really add to the great comments above in the same caliber, but did have to say I just love that “second wave squared”. After a bit I got it - 4th wave, d’uh. Both now (after 3rd) and the exponential and true heir of the “2nd wave”. Even has identity properties - with a name like that, it has to be the right force, at the right time.
-
Suzie says:
Sandra, I agree that we always need to listen to the voices of different women. But, of course, that doesn’t mean that we can’t argue. In that spirit … if group A commits most of the violence against group B, isn’t it appropriate (a la Anglachel) to say that people in group A need to address this problem? That’s why I agree with her that men need to work against rape, even if they aren’t personally rapists and even if you didn’t find the experience that bad.
-
Cindy says:
Annabelle— An electoral “Lysistrata” is exactly what came to my mind at the end of May when the DNC cheated Hillary out of the nomination. We needed a revolution right then and there….. a revolution in which the women would say flatly..”we are NOT voting for an all-male Presidential ticket again..Ever!” I told all of my “feminist” friends that’s how I felt, and they were appalled.
ElleR—I’m glad you dissected the volunteerism that I mentioned. Your comments are excellent along that line.
Reminds me of one of the best quotes from Clare Boothe Luce (decades ago):
“In politics women type the letters, lick the stamps, distribute the pamphlets and get out the vote. Men get elected.”
I used that as my signature in my emails all thoughout the primary season, only I added “President” after the word “elected”. Seemed appropriate. Clare Luce was not so much ahead of her time as much as society today is so far behind. -
Sis says:
I think you really need to talk to someone about this rape. Seriously, see a counsellor about why you think the rape you experienced isn’t so bad. Someone done a number on you in more ways than one.
With concern, and love,
grandmother horse -
Yanni Znaio says:
Sis:
Concur.
I can say no more, except to say Sandra S., you shall be in my prayers.
YZ
-
Yanni Znaio says:
Suzie,
Concur with you, too.
I was in a good mood until I came home and checked in.
YZ
-
Northwest rain says:
New Feminism — that has a nice modern ring to it.
After the sad behavior of the old feminists like NOW supporting the ONE — and then these feminist making such hateful comments about Governor Palin — I knew that I was no longer a feminist like “them”.
I knew that a major shift was coming this year when nearly all my conservative Republican women friends were looking forward to voting for Hillary Clinton. Some of these conservative women hated Bill Clinton so much that at least one of my friends left the country. Now she wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton. My friends were so disappointed when Obama “won” the dem nomination. And they had all seen the video of Obama giving Hillary the finger — and the rude comments he made. The internet makes this a very small world. I was surprised at how fast women spread the details of Obama’s use such immature rude hand gestures.
The shift in Republican women who were willing to vote for a (gasp) democrat really surprised me. Their reason for voting for Clinton was because they knew she could manage this great country — as a bonus also many of their husbands were eager to vote for Clinton.
The old feminists have been left behind — somehow they must only speak to each other — it was shocking to see so many of the old feminists jump on the attack Palin bandwagon. These women would rather support a sexist male than a Republican feminist?
I do believe that many women are deeply disturbed by the misogynistic behavior of the media, of Obama and the younger women who joined the attack on Governor Palin. But then there is that large group of women who do not yet comprehend that the attacks against Clinton and Palin are really attacks against all women.
Slavery of women is a major issue which has not been recognized — and must be exposed. Education of women is also vital — the extremely patriarchal countries are dangerous to women and girls who want to go to school.
Hate speech and hanging females in effigy should be outlawed and strongly discouraged. Truman ended segregation in the military — and thus I grew up on integrated military bases. This took bold leadership for Truman to say — ENOUGH. I certainly didn’t know the significance of having black neighbors in military housing. To me it was absolutely ordinary, until years later when I learned how the military was segregated even during the second world war.
These are some of the things that American women can agree on — human rights ARE women’s right as well. We need to start somewhere and soon.
-
Northwest rain says:
By the way I love the photo of the horses.
Horses are very matriarchal. It is the females who make the young stud males behave. Animal behavior research is so fascinating. Darwin discovered and wrote about “female choice” — but after Darwin died no other Ethologist wrote about or studied female choice.
Female choice accounts for male peacock tails. Pen hens choose mates with showy (studly) tails. In fact male secondary sex traits are selected by the female.
Female choice was rediscovered a little over 3 decades ago — and now there is a large body of research into female choice.
Right now we need to figure out how to harness female choice.
-
Ali says:
I love the horses, too….. There’s a lot of powerful imagery using horses…. Inez Mullholand on the white horse, Pati Smith’s horses, Susan Rothenberg.
In regard to creating a script, education, etc. Many Americans still need to learn why this election was so bad for women. It’s a basic thing that’s lacking from mainstream discourse. Most see it just as, “oh, Hillary took it too far” or “Sarah Palin is just an idiot”. I don’t know how we are going to move further if this isn’t discussed and understood on a deeper level. I think something comprehensive needs to be put together in terms of this election.
-
DancingOpossum says:
Whoa, Sandra S. talks about being pressured to feel worse than she did… and you all jump in to tell her she should feel worse than she did.
Why isn’t she allowed to process what happened to her in her own way? Maybe her reaction shows great resilience, and strength; that’s how I see it.
She’s not the first person I’ve heard say this. We don’t know anything about her or her experience. Who are any of us to tell her “You SHOULD feel suicidal and dehumanized, or you’re not normal!” It’s the same thing the prolifers (and even some members of the “abortion should be legal, but it’s icky” squad) try to pull with abortion: “Oh but you SHOULD feel horrible about it, you should feel agony and mental suffering,” when in reality most women who have abortions don’t feel anything but overwhelming relief.
Not sure that telling a woman how she “ought” to emotionally process something is the best way to empower her, if that’s your goal.
-
Sis says:
You’re right off the rails DO. No one has said this:
“You SHOULD feel suicidal and dehumanized, or you’re not normal!”I’ll just leave my caution to the O.P. as is, except to say, maybe you should go do some thinking yourself.
-
votermom says:
I agree with DancingOpossum:
Why isn’t she allowed to process what happened to her in her own way? Maybe her reaction shows great resilience, and strength; that’s how I see it.
And I’m glad about that.
But it doesn’t change the fact that rape IS evil and the gender that does it should be called to account.
-
Violet says:
Let’s not get derailed. Sandra S. is entitled to feel however she feels. Sis spoke with concern and compassion. End of story.
-
ElleR says:
Northwest rain, I agree completely that “we need to figure out how to harness female choice.” And I love your extension of the horse metaphor/discussion.
Back in the early days of male backlash, there were a number of male biologists/anthropologists (Desmond Morris, etc.) who argued that male dominance was natural. Some went so far to argue that rape was natural. The emergence of female anthropologists who looked at things somewhat differently proved that what a scientist observes has a great deal to do with the eye of the beholder.
As it turns out, females in the wild have a great deal of choice. The term “to stand for it” relates back to the idea that does choose bucks as mates by “standing for it” — standing still enough to be mated with. It is their choice to mate or not to mate — and with whom.
For me, feminism is all about choice, the choice to live our lives as we wish, the choice not to be constrained by a male standard, the choice to create a society which is desisgned around the unique needs of women rather than the unique needs of men. And by that I mean –
When I first started doing business traveling, I became aware that I was one of the very few women on the plane, and I was embarrassed by the fact that my struggle to put my luggage in the overhead bin was holding up the line of exasperated males behind me. Then I thought, “What if women were the primary business travelers? Would there be overhead bins which are very difficult for women to deal with or would planes have been designed to accommodate female bodies?” Ithink the latter. For, in a world where women were the primary business travelers, women would have been designing planes, and they would have realized how difficult it would be for a woman to hoist a bag over her head.
Our world has been designed by men for men. I look forward to the day when women have the choice to design things to make life easier for women.
-
Sandra S. says:
I certainly didn’t mean to derail things, but I do see this as a major issue in feminist circles. If we’re having a discussion about the problem of giving lip service to empowerment versus actual recognition of structural and systematic sexism, then I think this is relevant as the flipside to the same coin. It is fundamentally dehumanizing and condescending to assume that an individual does not have a right to their own subjective experience of the world, or to deny that an individual knows their own mind. I used my own experience of rape as an example to make this point (perhaps I did so without clarity, and if so I apologize). But this is an issue in any major movement. How do you honor personal experience, while still attacking the major issues that exist with both force and realism? Realistically, you do not gain allies for your cause by demonizing everyone outside of the inner sanctum. But it is vital that we express how terrible the reality of sexual violence is. Simultaneous, we must speak of rape as a destructive force that seriously affects women. But how do we do that without having a silencing effect on women with a different experience of it? These are all very real questions to address as we move forward.
-
lexia says:
I agree with Sandra S. that making men who rape into inhuman monsters hides the prevalence and acceptance of rape. One friend I’ve always argued with about feminism said when I asked her about walking alone “Oh, you have to worry about the few nuts who are going to jump out at you”, even when she knew how much the threat of rape determined in some way the actions of every woman we knew. My friend was outspoken about injustice towards others, but I think facing that she herself belonged to a caste facing intractable, pervasive and serious injustice would have weakened her sense of agency. Turning the prevalence of male violence into “a few nuts” may have helped with that.
She has accomplished a lot in her life by keeping that sense of agency intact, though – it’s difficult to face what women are up against and not let it overwhelm you, to acknowledge the strength and agency and talents you do have, but also own up to the larger context in which these exist. I used the phrase “rights triage” for what seems to start a lot of arguments. Women have so few rights that focusing on gaining one seems to be ignoring others as important. I like Violets idea of “everyone fight” – we can’t give into the triage we’ve seen this last election that left the patient all but dead.
-
lexia says:
Just to clarify - my comment was posted before I saw Sandra S.’s second one so it references only the first, though I do agree about owning one’s experience.
-
no pasaran says:
So many thoughtful comments that I can’t really add too much to what has already been said so well. One thing, though, that I want to point out is how disturbing it is to see the hyper-emphasis of gender roles in toys. And it seems to be getting worse rapidly. It is crucial to address this as it targets girls as young as 2-3 years. As most of you are aware, girl toy sections are ALL pink and princess and domestic and beauty all the time (it has been referred to as the pink ghetto). Boys of course have all he-men and all action. It breaks my heart when I go to a b-day party with my two young daughters and yet again presents are princess heels and barbies. And meanwhile Gov. Sarah Palin is ridiculed and demeaned as Caribou Barbie. The patriarchy so obviously sneers at all things pink/barbie and yet so many of us are off to the store to buy exactly those items for our little girls.
-
Ava says:
DancingOpossum,
“when in reality most women who have abortions don’t feel anything but overwhelming relief.”
I agree, people can process things how they like. But funny that you should mention this… I am staunchly pro-choice but found my abortion at a young age to be traumatizing. Yet I don’t regret my decision. And in my situation it was liberal pro-choice men and women who told me over and over again this was not a valid response, that my action should only feel liberating.
-
Level Best says:
The conversations on this blog have been and continue to be fascinating and inspiring. This spark is one of the good things to come from this trash-heap of an election year!
-
Trecy says:
Great post and comments.
I want to add is that we need address how the “isms” (sexism, racism, classism, and agism) work together to shape women’s oppression.
I can remember being very upset in the early 70’s when doing “traditional women’s work” such as nursing was not held in high regard by the NOW feminists. I viewed this as a class issue. Many nurses from this era were from working class families and did not have the option of college.
It was unfortunate that women’s work was denigrated as women strove to advance in the male professions.
-
Alwaysthinking says:
In the past two decades, I have seen men arriving in the United States from other cultures who are accustomed to dismissing women as unimportant. For instance, my sister had moved to a new town to take an important, well-paid job. Her husband remained back in their old location and did not have a job at the time. However, when my sister tried to rent a house, the immigrant landlord put her down very rudely and told her he would not rent to her without her husband being present.
(Needless to say, my sister marked that house off her list.)I have seen this kind of attitude carried out by other new male immigrants and I am afraid it further complicates our already existing bias against women. I, for one, talk right back to them without deference, though politely. My opinion is that they came to this country for a reason that had to do with our ideals and that I will not accept their attitude of subjugation regardless of how they were reared.
Still, I know that the matter of bias is so ingrained, so inherent, and so structural that we must attack it on very broad fronts — the problems are much deeper than simple individual empowerment — as so many have already said on this blog. (We also never want to hurt the male members of our families.) Nevertheless, we must begin the retraining and the rethinking and, further, to absolutely condemn the type of woman-trashing we have seen this year.
It is so odd now looking back at the start of this election season. I paid no attention to the Republican candidates because, as I told my husband, they all looked alike — boring. On the other hand, the Democratic candidates offered some diversity and excitement. After all was said and done, however, the nation voted for boring. The female voices that offered hope, strength, and excitement were blatantly attacked by multiple and disgusting intimidation techniques — and allowed to get by with their verbal and possibly physical assaults.
-
Alwaysthinking says:
modification for clarity — the attackers were allowed to get by with their verbal and possibly physical attacks…
-
Violet says:
It is fundamentally dehumanizing and condescending to assume that an individual does not have a right to their own subjective experience of the world, or to deny that an individual knows their own mind.
Sandra S., regarding derailing — I only meant that I don’t want to get into an interrogation of your personal experience. Your feelings are your own.
But in terms of challenging the validity of the scripts running through our heads, which in turn shape our responses and opinions: that is an unavoidable part of feminism. Patriarchy works by brainwashing. Girls and women are indoctrinated all their lives to believe that male dominance is the natural order of things, and that women are naturally inferior, weak, stupid, or whatever.
That’s why consciousness-raising is an essential component of any effective feminist movement. In that sense we do indeed have to say to each other, “are you sure you know your own mind?”
The trick is to do that while at the same time honoring each other’s personal experience.
-
cellocat says:
Wow, what a great thread with excellent comments & discussion.
I think one problem with making “personal empowerment” more important than a broader effort to attack systemic sexism/misogyny is that it plays into a trap. And that is, that we tend to support people for or with whom we empathize. And, especially as women, we try to extend our capacity to empathize to as many people as possible. The bottom line, though, is that that is not realistic or possible. If you make emotion primary over values you’ll leave big holes in whatever you’re trying to accomplish. Our emotional capacity is human, not superhuman or divine in nature.
As long as we’re using the “personal empowerment” filter through which to view the world, then if we can’t empathize with a person or class of people, we’re more likely to judge others’ experience and dismiss it from consideration or attack it.
If, however, we identify and adhere to an overall value of feminism, and if we also adhere to the values of truthfulness and integrity, then whether or not we can empathize is irrelevant to how we respond to instances of sexism or misogyny. Many women couldn’t empathize with Palin because her life was too different from theirs and they judged it, and so then they either turned away (dismissed what she had to offer) or attacked (called her names, etc.) Had they been adhering to their feminist values they would have supported her even if they hadn’t voted for her. In other words, they’d have recognized the historic nature of her run and congratulated her on the achievement no matter their disagreements with her on policy.
Emotions are a dangerous guide when relied upon solely.
-
Anna Belle says:
Oh, thank you for this ElleR!
Our world has been designed by men for men. I look forward to the day when women have the choice to design things to make life easier for women.
People think I’m crazy when I start talking about sink height. Or the length of a vacuum cleaner handle. These are both designed for women, though, and because they are designed for women, men feel actual physical discomfort using them. This reinforces their unwilling to participate in what they already deem is women’s work, and thus invaluable.
There are very specific causes for the fact that housework load increases for women upon marriage and decreases for men. The whole world is designed for us to be their slaves. It’s as pervasive as the kitchen sink.
-
Anna Belle says:
Meant to add:
So it’s also a world designed by men for women to perpetuate the status quo.
-
m Andrea says:
That’s why consciousness-raising is an essential component of any effective feminist movement. In that sense we do indeed have to say to each other, “are you sure you know your own mind?”
The trick is to do that while at the same time honoring each other’s personal experience.
Oh please please please give me some tips, because I just want to call people retarded. Non-logic frustrates the hell outta me, and I see it almost as often as I see sexism.
Btw, this thread makes me happy, but it also makes me sad. Come on, folks, think.
1) Identify your implicit assertion.
2) Prove your implicit assertion is valid.
-
samanthasmom says:
Annabelle,
It’s called “custom cabinetry” for a reason. The counter on the right side of the stove is “girl height” and the counter on the left side of the stove is “boy height”. But then my kitchen designer was a woman. 8^) (We have his and hers vacuum cleaners, too. Alpha female married to alpha male for over 35 years. We’ve learned how to peacefully coexist.)
-
sam says:
Is it ever not a good time for an Andrea Dworkin quote? It’s freaky how every time I pick up her writing it seems to be speaking to exactly what I’m dealing with that day.
What are serious women; are there any? Isn’t seriousness about freedom by women, for women grotesquely comic; we don’t want to be laughed at, do we?
What would this politics of liberation be like? What would we have to do? Would we have to do something other than dress for success? Would we have to stop the people who are hurting us from hurting us? Not debate them; stop them. Would we have to stop slavery? Not discuss it, stop it. Would we have to be so grandiose, so arrogant, so unfeminine as to believe that the streets we walk on, the homes we live in, the beds we sleep in are ours, belong to us, really belong to us: we decide what is right and what is wrong and if something hurts us, it stops?
It is, of course, gauche to be too sincere about these things, and it is downright ridiculous to be serious.
-Andrea Dworkin “Beaver Talks”
-
Sandra S. says:
Alwaysthinking- This is a big one for me. I’m getting very worried about misogyny among immigrant populations. I don’t want to be racist or culturally insensitive (and please, readers, tell me if I am). But I do worry about this a lot. My cultural relativism must take a backseat to my intolerance of misogyny, but I just don’t know how to navigate this conflict.
-
Sandra S. says:
Violet-
“The trick is to do that while at the same time honoring each other’s personal experience.”
Agreed. But I do find this balance sort of lacking among many feminist circles. I understand the need to deconstruct dominant scripts. It’s a good thing. You’ve got it dead-on when you say that we need to do both.
-
Anna Belle says:
samanthasmom, glad you found a solution, but a lot of people (myself included) can’t afford custom cabinetry. Even if they could, why should they have to special order for equality in domestic chores?
Oh, congrats on 35 years. We’re on year 2. I already want my own bedroom back. :)
-
julia says:
Sam, I agree.
I just re-read Dworkin’s ‘I Want a 24 Hour truce in Which There is no Rape’ and it addresses everything we’re talking about. -
Sis says:
It’s online dearies. Just google the title. There’s even a couple laffs.
-
the15th says:
alwaysthinking, SandraS — this is probably the only place where I feel comfortable mentioning that I also worry about how the attitudes of men from cultures where women are (more) subservient will affect our culture. Especially as a woman in a technology field — many tech companies are replacing older American workers with H1-B visa holders. A lot of these new workers are men with wives at home, negating the need for companies to accommodate work-life balance. The percentage of women in computer-related fields has fallen significantly since the 80’s, and I can’t help wondering if it’s related.
-
Alwaysthinking says:
Sandra S. — I do believe also that the problem of misogyny in some immigrant populations is growing in the U.S., and of course it brings into play so many other things like deeply ingrained religious beliefs, whether they are right or wrong. I also think that some women in these groups want relief but are afraid to say anything. It may take a generation or two for them to assimilate but the treatment of women during this election campaign probably has emboldened the men and perhaps silenced more women. Our country could have been a symbol of leadership, but now everything is in disarray.
-
Lisa says:
Wow, I just read the 24 Hour Truce speech. Wow.
Over 20 years ago and I never heard about that… -
Yanni Znaio says:
China orders termination for mum-to-be
A STORM of international protest is building over a Chinese ruling that a Muslim Uighur woman who is six months pregnant must have an abortion or lose her home.
Chinese authorities have ordered Arzigul Tursun, who is 26 weeks pregnant, to abort her unborn child because she has two other children.
. . .
China says its population would have risen far more if 400 million abortions had not been performed in the past three decades.
And sadly, a disproportionate number of these abortions are terminating femaile fetuses.
-
Sis says:
I refuse to buy anything from China. I know, that’s so little. But very hard to do. You don’t shop at WalMart for one thing. (Is it true Michelle Obama. is on a WalMart board, or was until it became known recently?)
Why are we trading with China? Because women’s lives don’t matter.
-
Sis says:
Speaking of computers, up thread; my tech is a woman, but she makes most of her income contracting to corporations to teach applications to staff. You know how often Windows changes? Every time, thousands of corp staff need to be taught dedicated versions. She is making #################. In her mid 40s, owns two homes outright, another couple with her mother. Just bought a new convertible. Young women, go into computers, and if you’re teaching them, you don’t have to put up with the computer geek guys, who are we must remember, the guys who shut down BB and harass feminist boards with impunity.
Imagine, computer engineering doesn’t pay as well as the ghetto jobs in software the boyz pushed us into.
-
julia says:
Anna Belle, what an astutue comment, about vacuum cleaners and other cleaning tools being made especially for us. At first I thought, ‘how come I’ve never thought about this before?’ and now I know the answer: I have had few live-in relationships with men, and although I am hetero I don’t plan to have any more.
I really hear you about wanting your bedroom back. To me one of the biggest risks in living with a man, no matter how great he is, is loss of psychic space. And I often don’t realize how far gone it is until we seperate and I’m with myself again.“The whole world is designed for us to be their slaves” and their sexual slaves as well: who invented women’s razors, bikini waxes, makeup, hair dye? I am told
by both men and women that I’m so independent, yet I still shave my legs and underarms. They got me young and the brainwashing stuck.Why don’t we think men’s body hair is ugly (I do!), why isn’t there a billion dollar industry for them to make-up their faces, dye their hair, look young and svelte for us?
The answer proves your point.
-
Kiuku says:
I have one thing to say. Rape does make men inhuman pieces of shit. Treating rapists like they are inhuman pieces of shit is appropriate. Men in their oppression of women are inhuman as well. There can be no humanity in an oppressor to separate him from an animal. He cannot be rightly called a human being, and should not be treated as such. If saying it like it is means the poor lil rapists and oppressors won’t be “receptive” to the message so be it. I’m not interested in treated these non human pieces of shit like they are in a psychology session.
We can have a psychology blame the victim “understand” the oppressor session or we can have Revolution.
-
Violet says:
I really hear you about wanting your bedroom back. To me one of the biggest risks in living with a man, no matter how great he is, is loss of psychic space. And I often don’t realize how far gone it is until we seperate and I’m with myself again.
That was one of the most stressful things for me about being married. Couldn’t stand the lack of privacy and solitude.
-
cellocat says:
I think a lot of women have a hard time even realizing their need for alone time and solitude; those are not things that women are supposed to need or want. I know it took me years to recognize how much I value and need them.
When you don’t have time and space to yourself, it’s hard to think, process, center yourself. I think this too is a feminist issue.
-
Yanni Znaio says:
Sis says:
[snip]
Why are we trading with China? Because women’s lives don’t matter.
Why are we trading with China? Because
women’severybody’s lives don’t matter.The Chinese are equal opportunity oppressors.
-
Yanni Znaio says:
votermom says:
[snip]
But it doesn’t change the fact that rape IS evil and the gender that does it should be called to account.
I disagree.
Collective guilt is diametrically opposite from individual responsibility.
Just because the guy down the street burns down the store doesn’t mean you can charge me with arson.
Not that I wouldn’t shoot anybody I caught committing such an unspeakable act– and I would not lose one wink of sleep over it, either. Catharsis for all the rape victims I dealt with in a former life.
And yes, I carry concealed, and practice at the range weekly.
But, lest you get the wrong idea about why I carry let me say this:
One does not carry a tire iron and jack in the car in the hope of having a flat tire.
-
Alwaysthinking says:
the 15th — I just saw your comments regarding the influx of men being brought in under H1-B visas. I think you are right about their attitudes toward women. One of my sisters actually ran into this in the late 90s, and was appalled. She quickly left the organization because of its horrible attitudes toward women, and she told them why she was leaving.
-
ElleR says:
cellocat says:
“I think a lot of women have a hard time even realizing their need for alone time and solitude; those are not things that women are supposed to need or want. I know it took me years to recognize how much I value and need them.
When you don’t have time and space to yourself, it’s hard to think, process, center yourself. I think this too is a feminist issue.”
Some years ago, my son’s 4th grade class was studying Greek myth and I offered to make a presentation based on Jean Shinoda Bolen’s “Goddesses in Everywoman.” I took each goddess and presented her as representative of a certain type of woman. Then I had each girl tell which goddess she identified with and each boy describe which goddess was the most like his mother or sister. It was a lot of fun because the Greek goddesses offer many role models in addition to wife, mother, daughter.
One of the models is Hestia, virgin goddess of the hearth, who is known for her contemplative, reclusive nature and love of solitude. I have always identified with Hestia and Artemis, both virgin goddesses, which I interpret to mean women who do not “need” male companionship, and who often do just fine living alone.
Solitude is very precious, especially for those of us who are introverts; and especially for those of us who write. Men can claim solitude as a right; for women it is too often seen as a privilege.
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
ElleR - how lucky for that 4th grade class! Would that more interested parents do something like that!
Yes on the solitude - I guard mine quite jealously and seem to require more of it as I age.
I love Artemis.
