Steinem defines feminism as seeking equality in all areas(*lol*)
Philip Lewis
experience!!):-
Feminism is whatever a feminist chooses to describe it as
regardless of what other (or even the SAME) feminists actually
say and DO at another instant.
Phil
-------------------------------------------------------
Steinem defines feminism as seeking equality in all areas
http://www.oxfordpress.com/op/42143303970086.bsp
By Kelley Gilreath
OXFORD PRESS
Gloria Steinem, a leader of the feminist movement and founder of
Ms. magazine, spoke to a mostly female crowd Monday night at
Miami University. She gave her speech entitled "Feminism 101"
which highlighted aspects of feminism and its opposition.
"There are two problems with the word feminism," she said. "One
is that people don't know what it means and the other is that
they do and they oppose it."
Steinem believes that everyone should be a feminist because
according to its definition, it stands for equality of everyone,
not just by gender, but by race, religion and sexual orientation.
She believes that the roots of sex and race are intertwined.
"You cannot be a feminist and be a racist, and you certainly
cannot be anti-racism and not support feminism," she said.
She also made a point of saying that men can be feminists.
She made the claim that pro-life advocates are the main
opposition to the feminist movement. She compared the
government's attempts to control the option of abortion to
hundreds of years ago when men would take control of women's
bodies. This was an offense punishable by death, she said, and
still should be.
"If we cannot control our lives from the skin in, how can we
control it from the skin out." She reminded the audience that the
question of reproduction is a fundamental freedom that is
uncontrollable by the government, the church or the tribe.
Steinem also discussed her belief that caretakers have one of the
hardest jobs on earth, but they are not given value for their
work.
"Many kinds of caretaking are not even considered work," she
said.
She told the audience her idea for placing a value on caretaking.
"Caretaking should be tax deductible, or if you don't pay taxes,
it should be tax refundable," she said. "We need to put economic
value on this type of work."
Along with her views about caretakers, including the housewife,
she discussed families from a feminist point of view. She said
that housewives are ignored until they put on a warrior role.
Then everyone listens to them.
She also said that women who are single mothers are made to feel
guilty because they are raising their child without two parents.
"A feminist point of view points out that men can be just as
nurturing and loving as women are when raising children, and they
should be given that opportunity," she said.
She said that not only are single mothers made to feel guilty
about their situation but people with eating disorders are made
to feel that the fault lies within the person.
There are over 8 million sufferers of eating disorders and 7
million of those are women. The majority of these women are white
and upper middle class.
Steinem said that the feminist point of view shows that the fault
does not lie within these women but from the warped ideal of
beauty that started with former model Twiggy.
"Everyone needs to understand that there is no one ideal of
beauty." She said that the ideal of beauty changes from culture
to culture, neighborhood to neighborhood.
Another topic she addressed was terrorism, including September 11
and school shootings.
"The cult of masculinity plays an enormous role in terrorism,"
Steinem said.
She believes that it is important to note that these school
shootings were done by white males who were "born into a society
that tells them they can rule others." She said that boys should
be raised more like girls, taught to be compassionate and
empathetic.
"We will understand terrorism better by better understanding
masculinity."
Steinem had a few audience members that opposed her views,
especially her pro-choice attitude, but overall she was well
received. Ten percent of the audience said they had been involved
with her movement through marches or other activist activities.
She stated that it is content, not form, that makes feminism such
an open movement.
"The art of behaving ethically and effectively is acting as
though everything matters."
Hanuman
> My definition (distilled from long observation and
> experience!!):-
> Feminism is whatever a feminist chooses to describe it as
> regardless of what other (or even the SAME) feminists actually
> say and DO at another instant.
> Phil
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Steinem defines feminism as seeking equality in all areas
> http://www.oxfordpress.com/op/42143303970086.bsp
> By Kelley Gilreath
> OXFORD PRESS
>
> Gloria Steinem, a leader of the feminist movement and founder
> of Ms. magazine, spoke to a mostly female crowd Monday night
> at Miami University. She gave her speech entitled "Feminism
> 101" which highlighted aspects of feminism and its opposition.
>
> "There are two problems with the word feminism," she said.
> "One is that people don't know what it means and the other is
> that they do and they oppose it."
"There are two problems with the word feminism," Hanuman said. "One is that
it belies it's own one-sided approach to 'equality' by blatantly putting
'fem' in it's name. The other is that people know that it is blatantly one
sided, yet continue to support it."
> Steinem believes that everyone should be a feminist because
> according to its definition, it stands for equality of
> everyone, not just by gender, but by race, religion and
> sexual orientation. She believes that the roots of sex and
> race are intertwined.
So, feminists speak for everyone, and everyone who speaks against feminists
is then a misanthrope? That logically follows, doesn't it? Correct me if
I'm wrong.
> "You cannot be a feminist and be a racist, and you certainly
> cannot be anti-racism and not support feminism," she said.
Heh. Tell that to the early feminists. There were plenty of racists among
them. I'm sure there are still racists in the feminist ranks. After all,
sexism and racism often do go hand in hand, and feminism is clear anti-male
sexism.
> She also made a point of saying that men can be feminists.
...if they bow to her authority?
> She made the claim that pro-life advocates are the main
> opposition to the feminist movement. She compared the
> government's attempts to control the option of abortion to
> hundreds of years ago when men would take control of women's
> bodies. This was an offense punishable by death, she said,
> and still should be.
>
> "If we cannot control our lives from the skin in, how can we
> control it from the skin out." She reminded the audience that
> the question of reproduction is a fundamental freedom that is
> uncontrollable by the government, the church or the tribe.
>
> Steinem also discussed her belief that caretakers have one of
> the hardest jobs on earth, but they are not given value for
> their work.
Feminist speak: value = money
Caretakers are given plenty of real value. Parents have a tough job, but
awesome rewards too. And since when is getting all of your bills paid by a
man not valuable?
> "Many kinds of caretaking are not even considered work," she said.
Such as what? Sitting around watching Oprah while waiting for the clothes
to dry? That isn't work, but it isnt' "caretaking" either.
> She told the audience her idea for placing a value on
> caretaking. "Caretaking should be tax deductible, or if you
> don't pay taxes, it should be tax refundable," she said. "We
> need to put economic value on this type of work."
IOW, we should pay stay at home moms to be stay at home moms.
> Along with her views about caretakers, including the
> housewife, she discussed families from a feminist point of
> view. She said that housewives are ignored until they put on
> a warrior role. Then everyone listens to them.
>
> She also said that women who are single mothers are made to
> feel guilty because they are raising their child without two parents.
No, they are made to feel guilty because kids raised without a father turn
out as criminals and scum far more frequently than do children raised with a
father, such that raising a child without a father could be thought of as a
form of child abuse.
> "A feminist point of view points out that men can be just as
> nurturing and loving as women are when raising children, and
> they should be given that opportunity," she said.
First thing she said that I agree with....
> She said that not only are single mothers made to feel guilty
> about their situation but people with eating disorders are
> made to feel that the fault lies within the person.
>
> There are over 8 million sufferers of eating disorders and 7
> million of those are women. The majority of these women are
> white and upper middle class.
I guess she doesn't count overeating to the point of obesity, heart disease
or death an "eating disorder." If she did, then there'd be many more men in
that statistic.
> Steinem said that the feminist point of view shows that the
> fault does not lie within these women but from the warped
> ideal of beauty that started with former model Twiggy.
>
> "Everyone needs to understand that there is no one ideal of
> beauty." She said that the ideal of beauty changes from
> culture to culture, neighborhood to neighborhood.
Well, I'll just hazzard a guess here in saying that only the stupid think
there is some ideal of beauty that is both static and can be lived up to.
In which case, what she's really saying is that people shouldn't be stupid.
> Another topic she addressed was terrorism, including
> September 11 and school shootings.
>
> "The cult of masculinity plays an enormous role in
> terrorism," Steinem said.
>
> She believes that it is important to note that these school
> shootings were done by white males who were "born into a
> society that tells them they can rule others." She said that
> boys should be raised more like girls, taught to be
> compassionate and empathetic.
>
> "We will understand terrorism better by better understanding
> masculinity."
Funny, from the rest of the above, it sounds like she's *actually* saying
that "we will elliminate terrorism better by elliminating masculinity."
> Steinem had a few audience members that opposed her views,
> especially her pro-choice attitude, but overall she was well
> received. Ten percent of the audience said they had been
> involved with her movement through marches or other activist
> activities. She stated that it is content, not form, that
> makes feminism such an open movement.
>
> "The art of behaving ethically and effectively is acting as
> though everything matters."
Notice how the reporters are biased. Schlafly does a lecture, and on the
exit, they interview only feminists who disagree with her. Steinem does a
lecture, and on the exit, they interview only feminists who agree with her.
Hanuman
--
"This is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200
years of history.... This is not normal government policy.... What we
have here is a form of looting."
- George Akerlof, 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics,
speaking about the Bush presidency
connor_a
She went soft on not mentioning the word "patriarchy" - and no mention
of masculine chivarly saving millions of womens lives every year, only
maculinity as boys shooting up schools and terrorism.
My thesis: Femininity is the root cause of chivarly and therefore
gender inequality whereby only men's lives and lifestyles are
sacrificed on behalf of "the oppressed"; he becomes the truly
oppressed whilst she lives anyway she wants in avoiding hazardous
environments.
MB
news:bqab3q$20dmfd$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Caretaking should be tax deductible, or if you don't pay taxes,
> it should be tax refundable," she said. "We need to put economic
> value on this type of work."
She said "We NEED to PUT economic value on this type of work." She admits
that "caretaking", or being a housewife as the rest of the world calls it,
has no (or very little) economic value. Taken to its logical conclusion,
her strategy is to have single women "caretaking," receiving money from the
government to support themselves and their children, and have single men
(aka "suckers") paying a majority of their income in taxes or child support
to support the single women.
> Another topic she addressed was terrorism, including September 11
> and school shootings.
> "The cult of masculinity plays an enormous role in terrorism,"
> Steinem said.
> She believes that it is important to note that these school
> shootings were done by white males who were "born into a society
> that tells them they can rule others." She said that boys should
> be raised more like girls, taught to be compassionate and
> empathetic.
A recipe for disaster.
> "We will understand terrorism better by better understanding
> masculinity."
Right, in the sense that masculinity is a factor in nearly everything in the
world.
Ian
> experience!!):-
> Feminism is whatever a feminist chooses to describe it as
> regardless of what other (or even the SAME) feminists actually
> say and DO at another instant.
> Phil
Just like Julie Mellor, now that feminism's collapsing round their
ears, and having caused lots of damage to our nation's youth, they're
having to resort to politics to keep their beleagured hategroup in
motion.
Gloria, too, is doing the same trick. Having ignored everybody for
years, the feminists now want to shore up their eroding power base
by associating themselves with other (truly) disadvantaged groups.
Ian
Yes. True. You want me to not take your seat away, then put out.
Feminism grew rapidly because the men of the time were chivalrous.
It's used that trick, the young men of today aren't that stupid.
gary o brien
well maybe she could start by asking the mothersn of the female
suicide bombers in palestine
rogue
Philip Lewis
> news:bqab3q$20dmfd$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > She told the audience her idea for placing a value on
caretaking.
> > "Caretaking should be tax deductible, or if you don't pay
taxes,
> > it should be tax refundable," she said. "We need to put
economic
> > value on this type of work."
>
> She said "We NEED to PUT economic value on this type of work."
She admits
> that "caretaking", or being a housewife as the rest of the
world calls it,
> has no (or very little) economic value. Taken to its logical
conclusion,
> her strategy is to have single women "caretaking," receiving
money from the
> government to support themselves and their children, and have
single men
> (aka "suckers") paying a majority of their income in taxes or
child support
> to support the single women.
Indeed - we have feminists in our 'new' labour goverment(UK)
activating for the same thing - not forgetting of course that
lover of young boys Germaine Greer
who has stated several times on national TV that the taxpayer
should bear ALL childraising costs!!!
Phil
Philip Lewis
"Ian" <dra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d33ce629.0312...@posting.google.com...
Yep - time after time we see the mind boggling arrogance and
egoism as these amoral morons simply ASSUME the moral high ground
whilst ignoring the devestation in their wake. Is everyone else
walking around fucking blind or something for surely it doesn't
take THAT much smarts to see through their blatant
hypocrisy!!
Phil
Ian
One wonders what Margaret Hodge would have said, had, say Nick Hornby,
written a book about the merits of looking at pubescent girls.
Some would say she'd say nothing.
Lydia Marie
> Feminism grew rapidly because the men of the time were chivalrous.
> It's used that trick, the young men of today aren't that stupid.
... which, of course, is why they're now flocking the schools of
higher education in droves everywhere in the world, deluging the
ranks of tomorrow's educated and professional elite.
Philip Lewis
"Lydia Marie" <mhop...@cc.edu> wrote in message
news:825b6629.03120...@posting.google.com...
'Elites' come and go - look what happened in the 80's millions of
yuppies got egg on their face and lost their jobs as stock and
property markets boomed then crashed. Now hordes of city slickers
and IT 'professionals' are leaving their carrears behind to train
as PLUMBERS and electricians.
The fact is when you have governments pushing 'university
education for all' along with dumbing down exams to make the path
easier - you end up with a surfeit of greenhorns clutching bits
of paper being devalued in proportion to the goverments
'success' in getting ever bigger proportions of school leavers
into 'uni'.
Far better to get out there and get some 'hands on' experience
under the belt and in any case most successfull entrepeneurs and
businessmen never bothered much with a formal education.
Phil
Ian
Educated and professional elite what? Because it certainly isn't
advancing the sciences.
All we need are thousands more degree qualified Journalists, Public
relations executives, lawyers, and business consultants. Not!
Interestingly there are thousands of women moving into medicine, and
humint too. In these two fields they have little disadvantage over
men, as I've always said if you read my past posts. However, the
problem with women in high ranking levels of medicine is that the
job requires more than 40 hours per week.
Ian
True. How many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb?
One, but what waste four years of your life studying such a
pointless degree?
Bob
> mhop...@cc.edu (Lydia Marie) wrote in message news:<825b6629.03120...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>dra...@hotmail.com (Ian) wrote:
>>
>>>Feminism grew rapidly because the men of the time were chivalrous.
>>>It's used that trick, the young men of today aren't that stupid.
>>
>>... which, of course, is why they're now flocking the schools of
>>higher education in droves everywhere in the world, deluging the
>>ranks of tomorrow's educated and professional elite.
>
>
> Educated and professional elite what? Because it certainly isn't
> advancing the sciences.
>
> All we need are thousands more degree qualified Journalists, Public
> relations executives, lawyers, and business consultants. Not!
A few weeks ago Bob heard a talk show host renting about how California
taxpayers are subsidizing the education of more lawyers, of whom they
have way too many already.
Do we need half the lawyers we have already? Should taxpayers subsidize
their education? NOT!
Q: What have you got if you have a lawyer up to his/ her neck in quicksand?
A: Not enough quicksand.
Bob
spammy
> Interestingly there are thousands of women moving into medicine, and
> humint too. In these two fields they have little disadvantage over
> men, as I've always said if you read my past posts.
Thousands of women are moving into two main fields: gynecology and
women's primary care. Women are not moving into difficult specialties
like primary research or surgery.
> However, the problem with women in high ranking levels of medicine is
> that the job requires more than 40 hours per week.
Most of them eventually quit or severely cut back their hours,
especially after getting married.
Philip Lewis
True - and that would be why it was broadcast this week that a
majority of UK doctors are no longer prepared to work or do home
visits outside of regular hours - the news reports didn't however
comment on how the vast influx of women into the profession has
been a likely contritbuting factor to this result.
I hope someone DOES point this out - otherwise the wrong
(costly!) message will get across i.e. we need more doctors
rather than we need to reduce the proportion of women doctors or
men doctors, now that would save taxpayers money as well as
provide a better service for patients but what politician would
have the guts to explain WHY the latter course would be a better
deal for both patients and taxpayers in general?
Phil
Philip Lewis
Good point - a couple of years ago I bumped into an old
aquaintance that had graduated (as a mature student) with a
philosophy degree, then he went out and got a job painting and
decorating!
Phil
Ian
This has been a long time obvious effect of women moving into
medicine. (Though I have to say, my doctor's a bird, and perhaps
the most driven woman I've ever met, top lass.)
However, (ever noticed how many guardian and times writers think
it's ok to start a sentence with "But" these days?) let's not
let the facts get in the way of an iedology, if only for Patricia
Hewitt's sake.
The next thing that will happen is that female doctors will only
make home visits to women, "for safety's sake".
(Call me nostrodamus in about 6 months or so.)
> Phil
Philip Lewis
I have consulted with a woman doctor also - and she was as good
as any man doctor I have come across, so I would agree that we
don't seek to exclude women from medicine but rather I think it
should be made abundantly clear that vocational standards are not
up for negotiation in order to make the job more 'family
friendly' as has happened already in the house of commons as you
know with mixed results!
>
> However, (ever noticed how many guardian and times writers
think
> it's ok to start a sentence with "But" these days?) let's not
> let the facts get in the way of an iedology, if only for
Patricia
> Hewitt's sake.
>
> The next thing that will happen is that female doctors will
only
> make home visits to women, "for safety's sake".
>
> (Call me nostrodamus in about 6 months or so.)
*LOL* I once had one of my dreams come true (I have quite a mad
sense of humour!) - I was about six years ago and I was working
in Northern Ireland on a longish IT contract. I was in a
bar(Portrush on the north coast) having scoop or three when two
brash pissed up irish gals came up to me and turning on what they
thought was their 'charm' they asked me to call them a taxi - so
I instantly retorted - 'sure - you're a taxi' and moved on -
about an hour later the two by now very drunk and slurring
lassies staggered up to me and wailed 'I thought you said you
were going to call us a taxi'. I did I responded and left them
wondering...
Btw - I am not usually so cruel but I had been annoyed by these
same lassies before, their drunken slobbering had interupted more
than at least one conversation with lassies that were better
mannered and more important - compis mentis! :-o)
Phil
>
> > Phil