Whatever happened to feminism?
steph...@gmail.com
for myself. That continued until I started to really explore feminism.
Did you know that recent studies show ivy league women are becoming
more and more likely to want to jump into motherhood after college?
This really affected me, as I am one of those women. So I thought:
could feminism be counteracting itself, spurring this?
At first feminism concentrated on gaining rights and equality, which is
a wonderful and empowering idea in nature. However, has it gone too
far? I feel it has split into two extreme and flawed sides. In the
first, it has obtained "freedom" by becoming masculine in nature. It
created female chauvinistic pigs. Christina Aguilera calls dressing in
lingerie and squirming on television supporting feminism, because it's
sexual freedom. Since when did sexual freedom mean objectifying women?
The other side of this is no better-- this extreme form of feminism is
not just anti-oppression, but anti-male in general. The goal was no
longer a search for equality, but to alienate females from male. Why
have women shown more interest in motherhood after college? Maybe
because we want to do something that we found beautiful in its rarity:
create a family without anti's and gender struggles.
This can't be what feminism is really about.
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Black Hat
"Did you know that recent studies show ivy league omen are becoming more and
more likely to want to jump into motherhood after college?This really
affected me, as I am one of those women. So I thought: could feminism be
counteracting itself, spurring this?"
Like deja vu all over again. I thought Betty Friedan got famous writing
that being a stay-at-home-mom married to a big paycheck ain't all it was
crapped up to be. That was 40 years ago.
I wonder if all you ivy leaguers think y'all want to be ultra
demanding ubermoms, being a cross between Martha Stewart and a Marine drill
instructor. I wonder if they think the world spins around those who is
"raising the next generation"
Be careful gang, that six figure income you marry may dump you for a 25
year old bimbo if you channel all your ambition and dreams into your
families and give up your own life.
Rick Merrill
> As a little girl, I was raised to believe in feminism and standing up
> for myself. That continued until I started to really explore feminism.
> Did you know that recent studies show ivy league women are becoming
> more and more likely to want to jump into motherhood after college?
Perhaps evolution studies have taught them the sole long-term criterion
of "success" is in fact reproduction.
> This really affected me, as I am one of those women. So I thought:
> could feminism be counteracting itself, spurring this?
> At first feminism concentrated on gaining rights and equality, which is
> a wonderful and empowering idea in nature. However, has it gone too
> far? I feel it has split into two extreme and flawed sides. In the
> first, it has obtained "freedom" by becoming masculine in nature. It
If by "masculine" you mean independent, self motivating, and educated I
would say, "hooray!" But then you introduced the word "masculine"
implying that you bought the old stereotypes. Mmmm?
> created female chauvinistic pigs.
I think that's the first time I've heard that phrase! Yes, there has
been an increase in female aggressiveness & female "dog eat dog"iness.
> Christina Aguilera calls dressing in
> lingerie and squirming on television supporting feminism, because it's
> sexual freedom. Since when did sexual freedom mean objectifying women?
It doesn't; I think you're right. BUT, what is implied by Christina is
that such 'femaleness' is now a choice, no less a choice than if the
person chooses to play the feminine lingerie card than if she chooses to
wear pants 24x7.
> The other side of this is no better-- this extreme form of feminism is
> not just anti-oppression, but anti-male in general. The goal was no
> longer a search for equality, but to alienate females from male. Why
> have women shown more interest in motherhood after college? Maybe
> because we want to do something that we found beautiful in its rarity:
> create a family without anti's and gender struggles.
> This can't be what feminism is really about.
"feminism" is just a word. The more each of us seeks equal treatment
for all genders, the better off we'll all be.
Nick (Nick Levinson)
* * * * *
. . . . [C]ould feminism be counteracting itself, spurring . . .
["jump[ing] into motherhood after college?"] . . . . This ["anti's
["anti-male"] and gender struggles"] can't be what feminism is really
about.
* * * * *
Many womyn make many choices, choosing different feminisms, and some
choosing to become mothers. I think most feminists are glad that's
happening. With 3 billion females in the world, variety of belief and
choice is inevitable.
Mothers who became mothers through choice and especially through choice
accompanied by a very wide range of choice (e.g., professions, arts,
living childlessly adult lives) are probably more devoted mothers, thus
probably better mothers, probably raising better children, who make a
better world. Feminists generally don't object to that.
You wrote:
* * * * *
. . . feminism . . . . created female chauvinistic pigs.
* * * * *
Not many. We'll survive them.
You wrote:
* * * * *
Christina Aguilera calls dressing in lingerie and squirming on
television supporting feminism, because it's sexual freedom. Since when
did sexual freedom mean objectifying women?
* * * * *
Christina Aguilera is in the (largely male-run) entertainment industry,
which usually demands that its female stars who are in their
teens-to-thirties (and beyond) be sexy in their performances, and what
the industry considers sexy is objectifying. The male customers (CD
buyers et al.) tend to demand the same, more or less. Few of them care
what she has to say about feminism of any kind, as long as her sales
are high. And if hers is a weak feminism, she has plenty of company. I
haven't heard she's helping feminism much, but she's probably not
hurting it any more than nonfeminists are, either.
Antifeminists are the problem.
You wrote:
* * * * *
The other side[:] . . . this extreme form of feminism is not just
anti-oppression, but anti-male in general. The goal was no longer a
search for equality, but to alienate females from male.
* * * * *
Few are anti-male. Their important contribution has been to show the
viability of not depending on men. And that's good. It's allowed womyn
more range of choice, including motherhood by choice, including being
with men when they want and not when they don't want. Society at large
doesn't agree, but radical feminists were mainly widening our road by
identifying more points of choice.
Without alienation, sometimes womyn are taken for granted. That's very
limiting. A space of womyn's own is very helpful. Alienation is one
means by which equality is achieved. Other means are also available,
but doing for yourself without men's involvement can be necessary now
and then.
Men are sometimes offended, but they'll do okay without us.
You wrote:
* * * * *
At first feminism concentrated on gaining rights and equality . . . . I
feel it has split into two extreme and flawed sides . . . . [one]
becoming masculine in nature . . . . The other side of this is no
better-- this extreme form of feminism is not just anti-oppression, but
anti-male in general.
* * * * *
The beginning pursuit of equal rights was heavily resisted by men. The
men were successful; the womyn, not. That led to rethinking strategy,
the disagreements were not resolved, and so some womyn helped men see
their own responsibilty. Sometimes, that worked. Sometimes, it didn't.
Being anti the enemy, anti the obstinate barrier to equality and
rights, became well-timed and sometimes productive.
You wrote:
* * * * *
[W]e want to do something that we found beautiful in its rarity: create
a family without anti's and gender struggles.
* * * * *
The pursuit of equality makes gender struggles inevitable. One gender
wants. The other denies. Either give up without a gain or struggle
ensues.
Raising children to be able to engage conflict makes the prospect of
winning more reasonable. That makes the children safer, and equality
likelier. They still need judgment. Just as karate masters taught male
students when not to throw a punch, and when to back off and avoid a
conflict, political struggle requires the skill of judging what to do
and when, and what not to do and when.
-- Nick
Gareth
news:1128809167....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> As a little girl, I was raised to believe in feminism and standing up
> for myself. That continued until I started to really explore feminism.
> Did you know that recent studies show ivy league women are becoming
> more and more likely to want to jump into motherhood after college?
> This really affected me, as I am one of those women. So I thought:
> could feminism be counteracting itself, spurring this?
> At first feminism concentrated on gaining rights and equality, which is
> a wonderful and empowering idea in nature. However, has it gone too
> far? I feel it has split into two extreme and flawed sides. In the
> first, it has obtained "freedom" by becoming masculine in nature. It
> created female chauvinistic pigs. Christina Aguilera calls dressing in
> lingerie and squirming on television supporting feminism, because it's
> sexual freedom. Since when did sexual freedom mean objectifying women?
> The other side of this is no better-- this extreme form of feminism is
> not just anti-oppression, but anti-male in general. The goal was no
> longer a search for equality, but to alienate females from male. Why
> have women shown more interest in motherhood after college? Maybe
> because we want to do something that we found beautiful in its rarity:
> create a family without anti's and gender struggles.
> This can't be what feminism is really about.
Steph, I've been lurking her for a long time (years actually) with only a
couple of posts but your post has prompted me to respond - I shall probably
be quiet again for another few years.
"Feminism", as I understand it, is a complex and broad church congregation
of values and women. Attempts to reduce feminism to a "this or that"
ideology fall foul of the very patriarchy that feminism has sought to
challenge (for example the binary thinking that outrageously and obscenely
claims you to be "right" and me to be "wrong").
Real life is obviously more complex than that: how are we supposed to make
sense, for example, of the reality that Andrea Dworkin was not only married
to a (gay) man, John, but also probably had a very private and meaningful
relationship with John? I, at least, am forced to accept that there is a
discrepancy between the private and the public and that female (and male)
identity is robust enough to not only accept the inevitable ambiguities,
ambivalences and inconsistencies but even, at times, to celebrate them!
Feminists like Carol Gilligan have emphasised a basic if idealised dichotomy
between man and woman as resting in an ethic of "justice" (man) and an ethic
of "care" (woman). This variety of feminism has sought to reveal that women
bring something distinct not only to male/female relationships but to
psycho-social life in general - an ethic of "care" (woman) as opposed to an
ethic of "justice" (man). [I would also argue that mainstream academic and
popular lesbian feminism is willing to frame men in a positive way but I
can't do justice to that argument in this post.]
One - but only one - experience that feminism brings to pregnancy and child
rearing - is the experience of oppression. Oppression is not just about
adversity but also about growth: the ability to grow requires a fertile
ground and feminists once had to - and had no choice but to - fight for the
basic ability to exist as dissenting voices and identities. The fact that
women and feminist women are now able to turn attention to family is not a
simple failure but a success - albeit a complex success. If feminists, Ivy
League or not, are able to invest their understandings of their oppression
in to a new generation of male and female children then I can find no fault
in their behaviour.
The ability of soft and hard core pornographers to successfully appropriate
the understandings of feminism for their own ends is worrying and
uncomfortable - but just because they cause worry and discomfort and
probably a fair bit of distress doesn't mean that "feminism" is in any way
challenged. The concept is much more self confident than that and has
parried far more aversive opponents than Ms Aguilera's producer (and Ms
Aguilera herself)!
I found a wonderful joke today and it's all the more wonderful for the fact
that the (anti-feminist) person quoting it didn't understand that it was a
joke but rather cited it as an example that feminists *hate* men and believe
that feminism is in perpetual dispute with men. It is really grade A+
humour:
'When asked:
"You [Dr Greer] were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a
woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?"
Dr Greer (denying that she said it): "I have a great deal of difficulty with
the idea of the ideal man. As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a
damaged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there
with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it
all the time. They never stop. I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop
one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for
each ejaculation, most of which don't take place anywhere near an ovum. I
don't know that the ecosphere can tolerate it."
Genius, pure genius - the fact that the person quoting it didn't get the
joke is however very worrying :-)
Gareth.
--
Address is munged to prevent spam. If you really want to reply then feel
free to reverse and remove "_" from my address. Otherwise please reply in
the group.