Modern Feminism: A Good or Bad Thing?

[Flashforward]

As some of you know, I'm very involved in politics, and as such, I've been closely following the current presidential primary contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Recently, charges of sexism have been launched by the Clinton camp, not just at Obama, but at the media. After watching the fiasco at the rules committee meeting today, I got to thinking, is modern feminism, and by extension, the ideology that allows allegations like this to be made, a good or bad thing?

Now hear me out. I'm not attacking the basic tenets of feminism, namely the fight for gender equality, sexual freedom, far wages, reproductive rights, and all that good stuff. However, I am critiquing the way in which feminists have rallied around Hillary Clinton out of a shared sense of victimization. They feel that their sister has been unfairly treated and as a result they have rallied to her side in her defense. Traditionally, this is how leaders in the American feminist movement consolidated their base of support, not by attempting to empower women by critiquing the larger systems of power that hurt all minorities, women included, but instead by portraying it as a simplistic dualistic struggle of men versus women.

However, most feminists miss the fact that there are multiple dimensions to their oppression. As authors and cultural critics like Bells Hooks have noted, feminism, as it has been practiced, has primarily been a white bourgeois activity and movement. Modern feminism has worked so as to forward the interests of specific groups of women in society, not all women, hence the emphasis on issues like careerism and victimization. It has largely ignored the concerns of a large group of women, particularly those who prize their role as mothers and homemakers, as well as those who live in a different reality from most of those who have been active in the feminist movement.

Many feminists have also made the argument that a woman president would be considerably different from a male one without any proof whatsoever, relying on the sexist stereotypes of women as nurturers and caregivers to prove their argument. In fact, history shows that the exact opposite is true, and that it is possible that a woman leader might, in fact, be worse than a man. When in positions of power, women tend to adopt the same systems of oppression and domination that are exercised by men. Look at some of the women that have come to power in the United States in the last thirty years. Sandra Day O' Conor, Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Madeline Albright. Did their ascendency to power actually change anything in any fundamental way for women? I'd suggest otherwise, and say that some of them actually made it harder for women to get elected to office by way of their conduct and policies. They also helped to reaffirm policies that hardened and reinforced the current political and social structure. In fact, women in power have a tendency to emulate the violent behavior of men in a much more aggressive and extreme way, making them almost hyper masculine in nature. One only needs to look at someone like Margaret Thatcher to appreciate this argument. They compensate for a perceived need to be "tough" and as a result, they make militaristic decisions and conduct their policies much more harshly then most men.

The most disheartening thing is that the modern feminist movement has largely replicated the economic and racial hierarchies of American society in a condensed form. To a large degree, the interests minorities and the poor are excluded from the movement, neglected in favor of the interests of those dubbed by the right wing to be "feminazis" and upper middle class white women. Most of the leaders of the feminist movement have been upper middle class white women. The big icons from Steinem to Freidan fit the model. To some degree, women such as these have gained social equality with men, while many other women have not. They have been invited into the "boys club" while many women are still excluded. We see how the ideology of bourgeois feminism has played out in the election cycle, where white women are Hillary Clinton's biggest support base, because they feel that her election will somehow empower women everywhere. She doesn't intend to actually change the system in a way that will accomplish that, as her policies are more or less in lock step with patriarchy, but rather her sheer election as president would be a symbolic gesture that would somehow modify the lives of all women everywhere. In fact, all that her campaign will do is help one woman, and sends a message to other white women that they could be president one day if they happen to be connected to systems of power in the right way and play by the rules established by patriarchy. I personally don't see how that helps all women, or even all those that support her, especially those on the lower end of the economic scale.

These are my thoughts on the intersection between politics and the modern feminist movement. Feminism has done a lot of good in its time, however, my personal feeling is that it was built on a foundation of inequality and sexism that has manifested in the current presidential debate. Agree or disagree, I hope that this starts a vigorous debate on both ends. I look forward to see what other people have to say on the subject.

 

[Rampage]

VERY interesting read. I am sure there will be many comments to this one.

I must say that you lay out an argument in this posting quite well. I do think it is true that the feminist (and the civil rights) movement have been hijacked by the wealthy and privileged.

I disagree that female leaders simply capitulate to patriarchy once elected. I simply feel that one must understand that a new leader does not change the system, especially when one speaks of systems of government as complicated as ours. It is easy to say that Margaret Thatcher was overcompensating; it is more to the point that she was able to ascend in a Cold War world because of the policies she espoused, which were in step with Western politics (Ronald Reagan anyone?). In fact, I would argue that ANY British leader of that time would have a hard time not being on one accord with whomever was leading the US, at least to some large degree.

In explanation of the issue you have put a finger on in your post, when you have a movement such as feminism or civil rights, it tends to be defined by those that have the time and resources to fully devote themselves to it. This by nature often causes some voices to fall silent in relation. It is not rich white women's fault that they define this movement, it is theirs by work and money input. That unfortunately also ensures that it is limited in reality, failing to reach the majority of women and ensuring a strong pushback by men.

This situation is also going on in the civil rights movement, where working class and poor African Americans are more and more estranged from the elite class of Blacks who are both running the major civil rights groups and defining the debates of race, even at times turning on the most vulnerable of their own constituency and putting forth agendas that are glamorous but will do nothing to make regular lives better.

It is in this way that both movements are falling short, failing to unify in the ways that they should. While the support that Hillary Clinton is receiving from women has been long touted in this campaign, the reality is that she should be winning easily if her female voting dominance were truly the case. She gets the majority of white votes, especially the uneducated, the old, and whites in areas with traditional problems with race. But she is not winning the primary season. That tells me that her support with women is much narrower than is being portrayed in the media. Otherwise this would be no contest.

Similarly, while Obama's candidacy is eye-opening and I believe he actually has a chance, the reality is that there are a lot of people in this country who cannot get past the color of his skin, and many of them are looking for the "reason" to present itself for him to be dismissed as a real candidate. Furthermore, it reveals itself in ow certain things have been covered, such a Jeremiah Wright. It is beyond the ability of many white commentators/journalists to understand that the Black church in America is often greeted with messages steeped in hyperbole for effect and also injected with criticism of the systems in this country; those same churches send thousands of young men to defend this country, men like Wright himself, who has 3 White House commendations and served in a presidential medical detail (LBJ) during his military service.

The reality is that her candidacy is revealing the divisions among women and the battle with Obama is revealing the divisions in the Democratic Party and the limited scope and depth of so-called racial healing in the US.

But back to feminism. The argument for pay equality, for example, has become quietly intense as businesses deal with salaried female workers who will produce less and cost MUCH more than their male counterparts simply due to the reproductive process. This, as much as anything, has led to the continued resistance to women as they move up the corporate ladder and as an issue has not been addressed by the women's movement. Holding the line here and not dealing with the realities of the workplace has served women poorly, often victimizing wage working women who truly deserve the equal pay as hourly worker receive pay for hours actually worked.

In the end, I hope that the lessons from this election cycle can lead to better understanding, and a better America. I worry, however, that it will lead to more division and strife, separating Americans by race, gender, and money.

 

[Karma]

you sure you're not a closeted chauvanist? im just curious because while you try to sound all analytical and objective? your post seems like it conveys some of YOUR OWN sexist views.

Many feminists have also made the argument that a woman president would be considerably different from a male one without any proof whatsoever, relying on the sexist stereotypes of women as nurturers and caregivers to prove their argument. In fact, history shows that the exact opposite is true, and that it is possible that a woman leader might, in fact, be worse than a man. When in positions of power, women tend to adopt the same systems of oppression and domination that are exercised by men. Look at some of the women that have come to power in the United States in the last thirty years. Sandra Day O' Conor, Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Madeline Albright. Did their ascendency to power actually change anything in any fundamental way for women?

you sound like Hugh Hefner, a man who claimed to be about liberating women and yet turned around in the same breath and said he did NOT believe in "equality of the sexes".

I am REALLY shocked at you listing Sandra Day O'Conor as one of the examples of a "woman being a worse leader than a man"

Sandra Day O'Conor made HISTORY becoming the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Her rulings were historically fair and balanced. her's was the last line of defense as Bush began to reshape the supreme court to advance his agenda for years to come.

Modern day feminism , like the civil rights movement is in a state of flux. many women, who were the children of the baby boomers and came after the initial feminist movement dont even understand what feminism is...or they've been conditioned to belive the male driven stereotype that feminist are all butch lesbians who hate men. The ORIGINAL feminists...those from my mother's generation, were ground breaking and helped to bring about major victories for the fight of women's rights but it seems that in a world post "ally mcbeal" that feminism has become something that people know the word but they dont know what it stands for...and judging by your post...neither do you.

are you basing your observations on women you know PERSONALLY who are card carrying feminists? or are you (like so many other men) going by what you see on tv , programs, opinions by spin doctors etc.

If it werent Hillary running for president, and perhaps another woman all together trying to win the nomination...would we be having this conversation? It seems to me that men want to use Hillary as a way to say "see what 40+ years of feminism has done?"

I'm a woman, and i started off supporting Hillary and while i DO think she's being unfairly scrutinized for no other reason than because she's a woman, i ALSO think she is making some bad choices that make it hard for me to stand behind her. My being a feminist does not compell me to blindly follow or support ANY woman who is clearly making bad choices that are not positioning her to win. But it DOES prevent me from taking cheap shots at HER for her efforts, which is the furthest ANY woman has gone in the race to the whitehouse thus far.


Sexism is alive and well in this country and while some people try to sound objective and clear minded about it, its CLEAR TO SEE that while other countries of the world are progressive enough to accept the idea and the reality of a woman as head of state...the United States in all its hypocritical posturing of equality, is not.

 

[Rampage]

Hillary Clinton, though groundbreaking in her own way, does NOT represent the furthest a woman has gotten. Geraldine Ferraro did actually run on a national ticket as Veep in 1984, over 20 years ago. This to me is part of what is so frustrating about this race.

Hillary was the presumptive nominee last year at this time, and she pissed it all away. She had the money, organization, and her husband's full (and considerable) assistance to help her as early as the beginning if this year. The fact that she will not be the democratic nominee has very little to do with her gender and a lot to do with extremely poor campaigning and not taking some of the blame for voting for the Iraq war.

What I find frustrating is that a large group of women will try to make her failure about sexism, when she in fact screwed it all up and is now poisoning the waters for ANY democrat as Pres, and even worse is playing up the fact that some whites will not vote for a Black man as a reason for the superdelegates to hijack this race.

It is disgusting, and highlights the sense of entitlement of Hillary Clinton and some women like her who mistake equality for guarantees and kid gloves treatment. How the hell can you hide behind sexism when you have a majority of the vote? Who is holding you down? Yourselves? Try doing all of this when the group you come from has 13% of the vote and 400 years of bad press.

Women have a history of major electoral success, the majority of voters, and yet I still hear this sexism complaint. I can no longer support it with a straight face, not in any significance, especially not in this race. I know it exists in society and I acknowledge that, but the pains taken to remove it from this race and the fact that she is losing to a Black guy in America shows it is time to get real.

 

[Karma]

Geraldine was on a losing ticket that was doomed from the start and was only campaining for the VP spot. Hillary has come off her two term run as a senator and is shooting for the TOP spot. THAT is further than Geraldine's aspirations.

No other woman has ever been taken as seriously when it came to running for the office of the president...it was unheard of for decades and then it was a dream at best...now it is...or until lately WAS a possibility.

Every woman who supports Hillary for what she's trying to do does not have a sense of entitlement. Some woman just want to see something that their mother's told them they could do actually come to pass. women have traveled to space, sat on the supreme court, the house and the senate. women around the world have been heads of state but in the US? the office of the president is blocked to women by a glass ceiling and whatever the reasons Hillary's loss will be...sexism WILL be one of them. to say its NOT is like saying that the reason a majority of people are still not sold on barack is for no other reason than he's black and in this country were racism and sexism are still very much alive...how can you think otherwise?

Hillary may have the popular vote but the media and anyone else with a mouthpiece is doing all they can to villify and discredit her. its THERE for everyone to see...so if some women stand behind her for sisterly solidarity, i CAN see why they're doing it. It tugs at my heart...and ive said that before in other threads. Her methods may be off, she may have the wrong people in her camp...thats nothing new. But there is a definate EFFORT from many fronts to crush her and it seems more pronounced than anything i've seen against any other candidate and that includes that asshole Bush.

I dont care if she's losing to a "black guy" or anyone OTHER guy. But if she's doing something right (and she must be if she has the popular vote) then the media needs to back off and so do the HORDES of supposed political experts who liken her winning the nomination to a defeat of mankind for all the ages.

 

[Flashforward]

you sure you're not a closeted chauvanist? im just curious because while you try to sound all analytical and objective? your post seems like it conveys some of YOUR OWN sexist views.

Actually, the vast majority of my arguments come from feminist texts, from Bell Hooks to Judith Butler.

you sound like Hugh Hefner, a man who claimed to be about liberating women and yet turned around in the same breath and said he did NOT believe in "equality of the sexes".

It depends on what you mean by liberating women. Sexually? Economically? Domestically? Socially? Are you referring to your own personal idea of what a liberated woman should be? Because if that's the case, there are a lot of women and feminists who would disagree with you on any number of fronts.

I am REALLY shocked at you listing Sandra Day O'Conor as one of the examples of a "woman being a worse leader than a man"

Sandra Day O'Conor made HISTORY becoming the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Her rulings were historically fair and balanced. her's was the last line of defense as Bush began to reshape the supreme court to advance his agenda for years to come.

The question is whether or not her appointment actually changed the system that helps to establish gender equality in society. It did set a precedent for women being on the court. However, while there, her rulings rarely reflected the needs of average working women. The only thing that she did stand up for was reproductive rights, but when it came to other issues that would actually enable other women to gain power, she did nothing. Instead, she is a sign to women that if you support the system of patriarchy, and if you don't challenge the status quo, you can gain power in American society. Think about female CEOs or other women that hold positions of power. Are they any better than men? In what way? Or do they simply reproduce the same systems of power that have been used to abuse other women and minorities in the past?

A good example of this would be Condeleeza Rice. How exactly did her positions and actions while in the administration actually help advance the goals of black women? Isn't that why members of the African-American community have rejected her to a large degree?

Modern day feminism , like the civil rights movement is in a state of flux. many women, who were the children of the baby boomers and came after the initial feminist movement dont even understand what feminism is...or they've been conditioned to belive the male driven stereotype that feminist are all butch lesbians who hate men. The ORIGINAL feminists...those from my mother's generation, were ground breaking and helped to bring about major victories for the fight of women's rights but it seems that in a world post "ally mcbeal" that feminism has become something that people know the word but they dont know what it stands for...and judging by your post...neither do you.

are you basing your observations on women you know PERSONALLY who are card carrying feminists? or are you (like so many other men) going by what you see on tv , programs, opinions by spin doctors etc.

The usage of the term "feminism" or "feminist" is amorphous. It's been shaped and reshaped so many times that it can literally be manipulated to mean anything you'd like. Taking that into consideration, it's very possible that you and I have different definitions of what a feminist is. My definition is that anyone who fights for women's rights and gender equality, regardless of gender, is a feminist. I'm inclined to believe that yours is more akin to the traditional white bourgeois feminism that believes in selective equality rather than comprehensive equality.

Personally, I think your post does reflect a bit of sexism in your thinking, especially since I'm fairly certain that you wouldn't be anywhere near as critical of my post if I were a woman instead of a man. I tend to think that a lot of women automatically label a man sexist just because they don't agree 100% with the way the feminist movement has been built and conducted. If you question it, you're suddenly a sexist. I am automatically your enemy not because I disagree with the goal of equality, but how you get there. In other words, in order to voice criticism about it and not get heat for it, you have to be a woman, and I don't think that's fair.

Furthermore, it should be noted that a lot of feminists are very self-centered, and you can see that from the fracturing in the feminist movement itself. A lot of women have been repulsed by modern feminism because they feel that it's become something other than what suits their needs. You should know full well that being in the academy, especially the department I'm in, constantly exposes me to all kinds of feminists, not just the radical ones. As such, I can tell you with certainty that a great deal of women have been alienated from the feminist movement, mainly because feminism itself has taken on a mythology and radiance of sexism, one of the sort that restricts the roles of women and confines them to certain areas of the public sphere. Operative feminism is no longer about liberating women per se, but rather transforming them into a particular kind of woman, not enlarging their life choices, but restricting them, and that's the problem.

If it werent Hillary running for president, and perhaps another woman all together trying to win the nomination...would we be having this conversation? It seems to me that men want to use Hillary as a way to say "see what 40+ years of feminism has done?"

I'm a woman, and i started off supporting Hillary and while i DO think she's being unfairly scrutinized for no other reason than because she's a woman, i ALSO think she is making some bad choices that make it hard for me to stand behind her. My being a feminist does not compell me to blindly follow or support ANY woman who is clearly making bad choices that are not positioning her to win. But it DOES prevent me from taking cheap shots at HER for her efforts, which is the furthest ANY woman has gone in the race to the whitehouse thus far.

The question is whether or not you supported her because you felt that she would further your goals as a woman in the struggle for equality, or whether or not you felt that she would serve as a figurehead or benchmark to which all women could aspire. Feminists like to talk about a rhetorical glass celing when it comes to gender, however, how many women would actually get the chance to rise to the top like Hillary? Very few if any at all. What does it say that the first serious woman candidate for the presidency of the United States had to rely on her name and the record of her husband to even be competitive in the race? What does it say that she had to take on the role of the victim to even be a contender after her loss in Iowa? What does it say that she had to be more aggressive than most men to even stand a shot at the presidency? Doesn't it mean that she's not really winning the race as a woman, but as a woman trying to be a man?

Sexism is alive and well in this country and while some people try to sound objective and clear minded about it, its CLEAR TO SEE that while other countries of the world are progressive enough to accept the idea and the reality of a woman as head of state...the United States in all its hypocritical posturing of equality, is not.

Sexism is alive and well, on that you and I agree. However, simply saying that a female head of state is progressive is rather sexist, especially since Margaret Thatcher automatically proves that having a woman in charge CAN be worse than having a male leader. She was worse than Reagan and almost as bad as Bush, especially with her crack downs on civil liberties, her aggressive foreign policy, and the generally oppressive nature of her administration. For comics fans on the board, you can appreciate that Alan Moore wrote V for Vendetta not about Reagan or Bush, but about Thatcher.

Being progressive means actually adopting policies that help women and not just accepting the rules established by men so that women can gain positions of power. Instead, these women have fully accepted patriarchy, and that's the problem. If the goal is equal parity with men, you need to think about whose system that ideology functions in. Isn't it a male oriented and dominated system to begin with? Doesn't that automatically transform the supposedly progressive woman into a man to some degree? Women adopt the values of men to gain power, and they, in turn, exercise the same conventional policies as men once they obtain the power to enact any substantive sort of reform.

 

[Rampage]

Every woman who supports Hillary for what she's trying to do does not have a sense of entitlement. Some woman just want to see something that their mother's told them they could do actually come to pass. women have traveled to space, sat on the supreme court, the house and the senate. women around the world have been heads of state but in the US? the office of the president is blocked to women by a glass ceiling and whatever the reasons Hillary's loss will be...sexism WILL be one of them. to say its NOT is like saying that the reason a majority of people are still not sold on barack is for no other reason than he's black and in this country were racism and sexism are still very much alive...how can you think otherwise?

It is indeed true that all of Hillary's supporters do not have a sense of entitlement. But some do, and the charge of sexism for Hillary simply rings hollow. Women are the MAJORITY of registered voters. MAJORITY. In contrast, some polls have put the number of white voters who admit that race is a factor in their decision at the same number as TOTAL Black voters. Even if you believe that racism and sexism are equal factors, women have the ability to completely cancel that out. African-Americans do not.

As far as Ferraro simply being a part of a doomed campaign, her candidacy was met with a lot of enthusiasm, and her (and Mondale's) loss was a disappointing example of women's failure to support one another electorally.And if Hillary does not get the Veep spot, she will still be behind Ferraro, who at least was on the ticket.

In this election, Hillary was THE nominee. She blew off the caucuses and and failed to address the runup to the Iraq war. She has failed to inspire outside of her core constituency and now has engaged in the politics of division with charges of sexism and by playing up constituencies that have issues with race. If she were male, she would have already been shunted to the sidelines of this process. Indeed, if the roles were reversed, Obama would have already been shoved aside (or more likely would have GRACIOUSLY stepped aside). If anything, her gender (and race) have been more beneficial than a detriment.

And she does NOT have the popular vote. MSNBC has her down by half a million, and the truth is that Barack won a lot of caucuses, none of which have a popular vote count. So he gives away many votes in states he has won due to no vote counts and still leads.

 

[Flashforward]

Hillary may have the popular vote but the media and anyone else with a mouthpiece is doing all they can to villify and discredit her. its THERE for everyone to see...so if some women stand behind her for sisterly solidarity, i CAN see why they're doing it. It tugs at my heart...and ive said that before in other threads. Her methods may be off, she may have the wrong people in her camp...thats nothing new. But there is a definate EFFORT from many fronts to crush her and it seems more pronounced than anything i've seen against any other candidate and that includes that asshole Bush.

I dont care if she's losing to a "black guy" or anyone OTHER guy. But if she's doing something right (and she must be if she has the popular vote) then the media needs to back off and so do the HORDES of supposed political experts who liken her winning the nomination to a defeat of mankind for all the ages.

Might that be because she lost, and continues to stay in the race? The media has done its best to push out every other candidate in every other cycle once they no longer had a shot at winning, and yet when it comes to Hillary, it's sexism. I don't get it. When the standard is applied, equally, which it has been this cycle, it's not sexism. It's punditry. If the tables were reversed, Obama would have been forced out weeks ago. The only reason Hillary is allowed to stay in the race is because of her last name. I didn't see anyone complain or protest when Carol Mosley Braun was pushed out in 2004. Where was the outrage then?

Secondly, Hillary doesn't have the popular vote. In order for her to have the lead in the popular vote, you need to count the full votes from Florida (where no one campaigned) and Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot), while excluding results from Puerto Rico, Washington, Nevada, Iowa, and a few other caucus states because they didn't keep official tallies. Her popular vote argument is illegitimate.

The reason her loss is so tremendous is because only six months ago she was the inevitable nominee. Now, she's relying on shifting metrics and weak arguments just to stay in the race, and when people criticize her for the crappy campaign she's run, they get accused of being sexist. It's over, and it's not sexist to say so.

 

[Karma]

you're right...we WONT agree on feminism because I DON"T think a MAN should be telling a WOMAN how to achieve her goals of equality or HOW to fight for woman's rights. that's absurd. Feminism was born out of the growing NEED of women to liberate themselves in their roles, their sexuality, their social standing in a repressed, male dominated society. the movement gained fire and strength through the 50's and 60's..it coincided with the sexual revolution (though many early feminists did not readily identify with the sexual revolution as their personal cause at first) the 70's and 80's saw it grow even more as it turned its attention to PORN and Reproductive rights.

My mother was apart of that generation and was a feminist... and I have followed in her foot steps.

A liberated woman is a woman who defines who own path, who lives her life her way and has the opportunity and the right to pursue any endeavors that a man could. she is the mistress of her sexual role and identity and does NOT have to bend to the will to a man. she does what she wants because it is what SHE wants. She has the right to decide what to do with her body (abortion or not) and should be paid EQUALLY for doing the SAME job that a man does.

Men wouldnt stand for women telling them what THEIR role in society should be...and women shouldnt have to bear that from MEN either.

 

[Flashforward]

I disagree that female leaders simply capitulate to patriarchy once elected. I simply feel that one must understand that a new leader does not change the system, especially when one speaks of systems of government as complicated as ours. It is easy to say that Margaret Thatcher was overcompensating; it is more to the point that she was able to ascend in a Cold War world because of the policies she espoused, which were in step with Western politics (Ronald Reagan anyone?). In fact, I would argue that ANY British leader of that time would have a hard time not being on one accord with whomever was leading the US, at least to some large degree.

I agree with most of your points Rampage.

You do have a point when it comes to Margaret Thatcher specifically, however, I think that the argument has legs when one enlarges the scope of the analysis. After all, how does that explain other female-led regimes in other parts of the world? Arroyo in the Philippines or Bhutto in Pakistan, just to name a few? Both were extremely corrupt and simply capitulated to the dominant system at the time they took power. None of them attempted to enact reforms of the kind that most women claim that female leaders will undertake, nor did they fundamentally change the way in which those nations functioned. Instead, they simply became part of the system.

That's not to say that a woman couldn't be a transformative figure in national politics, as the president of Liberia, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, has proven. However, she's basically been forced to rebuild the government from the ground up after the regime established by Charles Taylor basically destroyed the infrastructure of the country. When you look at the majority of female leaders that have taken power in the last five decades or so, many of them have simply adopted the stances of patriarchy after taking charge. Whether or not they did so because they were unable to actively change the governments which they led is up for debate, however, they still did reinforce the status quo and existing systems nonetheless.

 

[Rampage]

I agree with your last statement Farrah, except the first couple of sentences. While men should not dictate to women how to go about equality, to say that men have no input in the process is a recipe for disaster. Men are here, and are not going away. It is only logical that in this issue, there are two sides. Civil Rights did not become an issue simply because southern Black preachers walked into stores and got themselves arrested. Whites had a dialogue about what this country stood for and began to join in what Blacks were fighting for. Combined with judicial victories, change occurred, though not as much as it seemed at the time.

Intertwined with reproductive rights are the man's role in children and responsibility (financial and otherwise), intertwined with wage rights for women is the very real male counter that very often the work is not equal even for the same position. These issues are not simply for women to chat about and effect change, they are for both sexes to work out as we move forward. Accusing people of sexism because a woman who was a candidate in large part due to her husbands popularity and messed up a handwrapped candidacy is not productive.

 

[Flashforward]

Men wouldnt stand for women telling them what THEIR role in society should be...and women shouldnt have to bear that from MEN either.

This is the only part of your post I disagree with. Feminism, in and of itself, dictates that women need to change society, and that can only happen by modifying the role that men play in shaping it. Most feminists do want to change the role of men in society. It's necessary for what they want to accomplish. As noted earlier, a lot of feminists label men as an enemy of sorts and tend to see them as benefitting from gender privilege, which is true to a degree. However, their problem is that they exclude men from being part of the feminist movement by automatically labeling them as antagonists of the cause. Instead, what women should do is craft a more inclusive feminism that welcomes men into the fold and which illustrates ways in which feminism isn't only helpful to women, but to men as well. Feminists can't expect to change society by simply imposing their views on men. Effective change can only happen when there is constructive discourse between the genders in a way that is satisfactory to both parties, and that only comes about when both men and women are open to hearing the ways in which each feels that feminism could improve society.

 

[Karma]

This is the only part of your post I disagree with. Feminism, in and of itself, dictates that women need to change society, and that can only happen by modifying the role that men play in shaping it. Most feminists do want to change the role of men in society. It's necessary for what they want to accomplish. As noted earlier, a lot of feminists label men as an enemy of sorts and tend to see them as benefitting from gender privilege, which is true to a degree. However, their problem is that they exclude men from being part of the feminist movement by automatically labeling them as antagonists of the cause.

most men seem to dismiss the need or even the credibility for feminism. they let the fanatical offshoots (such as staunch lesbians for example who would even go so far as to change the spelling of "women" to "womyn") define the entire movement. they IGNORE the beginnings of feminism or the tremendous accomplishments it has achieved. you see people like Bill O'riely and Rush Limbaugh who want women to stay in the house, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant ....whose life is only to serve a man. There was a time when a woman couldnt even get a checking account without the signature of her husband or father. that is what my grandmother had to endure...but it is what my mother and I want to make sure NEVER becomes the "norm" for a woman again.

Ann Coulter seems to think that woman are PHYSICALLY inferior to men and that we cannot do the jobs we set out to do in law enforcement and military. SHE would have us back in the house, standing BEHIND men when we walk and unable to run our lives without a man. She is the ULTIMATE disgrace and sell out to women and women's rights....she's like a MAN trapped in a woman's body quite honestly and its NO WONDER she excells so well in the republican party...a party that is dominated by rich old white men who are out of touch with society and have no REAL RESPECT for diversity and minorities.

Instead, what women should do is craft a more inclusive feminism that welcomes men into the fold and which illustrates ways in which feminism isn't only helpful to women, but to men as well. Feminists can't expect to change society by simply imposing their views on men. Effective change can only happen when there is constructive discourse between the genders in a way that is satisfactory to both parties, and that only comes about when both men and women are open to hearing the ways in which each feels that feminism could improve society.

where were the MEN when Women were risking their lives protesting for reproductive rights? where were the men when women were struggling to find legal and even SOCIAL protection from the long standing practice of TOLERATING domestic violence behind closed doors? Where were the men when the feminists declared war on Hugh Heffner after he STUPIDLY remarked that "viewing women as sex objects is what makes the world turn"? the feminist movement pummeled the "playboy" empire in the 70's and 80's and nearly destroyed it....

It isnt MEN who have needed help in redefining their role in society.

I honestly admit that i find it hard to imagine most men in this day and age CARING ENOUGH about Feminism to want to be apart of it. Many men think that feminism is out to destroy them...and really its not. One of the best signs i ever saw from the protests of the feminists was "OUR BODIES, OUR LIVES, OUR SELVES"

its about women being able to control their lives and their roles and hopefully men would respect women in whatever roles or lives they choose to lead just as men expect women to do for them.

I agree with your last statement Farrah, except the first couple of sentences. While men should not dictate to women how to go about equality, to say that men have no input in the process is a recipe for disaster. Men are here, and are not going away. It is only logical that in this issue, there are two sides. Civil Rights did not become an issue simply because southern Black preachers walked into stores and got themselves arrested. Whites had a dialogue about what this country stood for and began to join in what Blacks were fighting for. Combined with judicial victories, change occurred, though not as much as it seemed at the time.

I understand and agree open dialogue between the genders is NECESSARY but EVERY DAY there's a reminder of just how DEEP the sexist, chauvanist mentality runs in this society. men use the bible, they use skewed and spun history or whatever they can find to justify their dated, repressive views of women. if you watch shows like "Trading Spouses" or "Wife Swap" (which nauseate me to no end) you see families where the man literally is waited on hand and foot by his wife and she is treated like a servant...and he justifies it by saying "the bible says..." or whatever other nonsense he can come up with. its ABSURD.

Intertwined with reproductive rights are the man's role in children and responsibility (financial and otherwise), intertwined with wage rights for women is the very real male counter that very often the work is not equal even for the same position. These issues are not simply for women to chat about and effect change, they are for both sexes to work out as we move forward. Accusing people of sexism because a woman who was a candidate in large part due to her husbands popularity and messed up a handwrapped candidacy is not productive.

its tricky for me (and alot of women) when it comes to the man's role/perspective on the issue of reproductive rights. i feel like if a man is THAT opposed to the woman terminating her pregnancy, then he should sign documents to assume ALL legal and financial responsibility INCLUDING the medical care for the woman during the pregnancy...but even then, that could cause psychological problems for the woman so what then? a woman's right to choose is so precious...its not about having the option of abortion as a failsafe, its about knowing that we have the right to decide what happens with our bodies...it seems so obvious and yet we live in a country where men, religious groups and government entities think they should be able to tell us women what we can/cant do with our bodies.

its no less ridiculous than the times when birth control was ILLEGAL or when consentual sex (such as sodomy for those who wanted to do it) was illegal.

 

[Rampage]

where were the MEN when Women were risking their lives protesting for reproductive rights? where were the men when women were struggling to find legal and even SOCIAL protection from the long standing practice of TOLERATING domestic violence behind closed doors? Where were the men when the feminists declared war on Hugh Heffner after he STUPIDLY remarked that "viewing women as sex objects is what makes the world turn"? the feminist movement pummeled the "playboy" empire in the 70's and 80's and nearly destroyed it....

Men were there in every instance. Tipper Gore's crusade against porn is nothing without Al Gore, her husband, using his influence to call congressional hearings. The male-dominated courts set the stage for equality for women with Title IX and case after case of gender equity that women won, often with no women on the courts to help. I mean how many women were on the Supreme Court when Roe v Wade was decided? Activist prosecutors and law enforcement (overwhelmingly male) led to the sea change in domestic violence prosecution.

And I care about feminism in terms of equality for women. I have a niece and a cousin who I never want to have to deal with men who dismiss them or degrade them due only to their gender. That is enough for me to talk about this and stand for it. And I am not alone. But I want EQUALITY, a chance for everyone and an honest discourse about roles in society. A discourse takes both sides, women AND men.

ts tricky for me (and alot of women) when it comes to the man's role/perspective on the issue of reproductive rights. i feel like if a man is THAT opposed to the woman terminating her pregnancy, then he should sign documents to assume ALL legal and financial responsibility INCLUDING the medical care for the woman during the pregnancy...but even then, that could cause psychological problems for the woman so what then? a woman's right to choose is so precious...its not about having the option of abortion as a failsafe, its about knowing that we have the right to decide what happens with our bodies...it seems so obvious and yet we live in a country where men, religious groups and government entities think they should be able to tell us women what we can/cant do with our bodies.

its no less ridiculous than the times when birth control was ILLEGAL or when consentual sex (such as sodomy for those who wanted to do it) was illegal.

I agree in that regard. Another issue for many men is the fact that a woman, through abortion and the ability to give up a child for adoption, can terminate her parental responsibilities. Men have no such power and that is a part of the hesitancy about abortion on demand. The fact that men carry the responsibility (at least by law) but none of the power in reproduction. Personally, I believe this idea is overshadowed by a person right to their body and the fact that I cannot fathom putting women or doctors in jail for that choice. But it is a consideration that has not been breached, and the fact that women have that failsafe as a result of that consideration is contentious.

In fact, I believe that one of the big issues of r many men (and me to a lesser degree) is that part of the feminist movement deals with rights, but not responsibilities. Let women serve in the military (which we do), but make them sign for selective service and set their service based on reality, not what we would idealistically prefer. Pay equal pay FOR EQUAL WORK, but either give men more time to spend with families by federal law or consider that companies are not discriminatory if they view men in certain jobs as more desirable due to biological realities.

 

[Flashforward]

where were the MEN when Women were risking their lives protesting for reproductive rights? where were the men when women were struggling to find legal and even SOCIAL protection from the long standing practice of TOLERATING domestic violence behind closed doors? Where were the men when the feminists declared war on Hugh Heffner after he STUPIDLY remarked that "viewing women as sex objects is what makes the world turn"? the feminist movement pummeled the "playboy" empire in the 70's and 80's and nearly destroyed it....

It isnt MEN who have needed help in redefining their role in society.

I honestly admit that i find it hard to imagine most men in this day and age CARING ENOUGH about Feminism to want to be apart of it. Many men think that feminism is out to destroy them...and really its not. One of the best signs i ever saw from the protests of the feminists was "OUR BODIES, OUR LIVES, OUR SELVES"

its about women being able to control their lives and their roles and hopefully men would respect women in whatever roles or lives they choose to lead just as men expect women to do for them.

That's the problem. You can't decry sexism, then ignore half the population just because they're male. If a certain segment of the male population doesn't see the need for the feminist movement, then you need to educate them, not ostracize them. It's the same way that African Americans can't get rid of racism without dealing with all issues of racism, not just those that affect one particular community. Sexism isn't just a problem for women, it's a problem for all people, and until ardent feminists recognize that fact, they'll continue to fail in their endeavors. Unless they intend to dominate men, that is.

Also, men, particularly minorities, helped set the groundwork for what would later become the feminist movement in the late 60s and 70s. Men helped pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which helped limit not only racial discrimination but gender discrimination as well, and allowed women to express their grievances through a legal framework. Men and women have worked together through the Civil Rights movement and beyond to advance the rights of women. It's only when selective bourgeois feminism took over that the alliance split, and men were alienated from the movement.

I honestly think that you need to structure your argument more carefully. What men are you talking about? All men or white men with power? There is a difference, and to act like there isn't only polarizes both sexes against each other in a forceful, unconstructive way. I mean, what about gay men? Are you arguing that they're not for feminism? What about transsexuals or eunuchs? What about minorities who are just as oppressed as women? There are so many different categories and to generalize men as a single group like you have here, and like most feminists do in their theorizing really has a negative impact on gender relations. Not every man is your enemy. There are a lot of men who want to work with you, but who disagree with the more radical elements of feminist ideology. The feminist community really needs to consider that before articulating positions that revolve purely around issues of sex. To assume that all women have certain qualities or that they are all different from men in some cognitive way, simply isn't factually accurate and reeks of the kind of essentialism that prevents actual constructive discourse from taking place.

 

[Karma]

That's the problem. You can't decry sexism, then ignore half the population just because they're male.

why not? it's so much fun?

Also, men, particularly minorities, helped set the groundwork for what would later become the feminist movement in the late 60s and 70s. Men helped pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which helped limit not only racial discrimination but gender discrimination as well, and allowed women to express their grievances through a legal framework. Men and women have worked together through the Civil Rights movement and beyond to advance the rights of women. It's only when selective bourgeois feminism took over that the alliance split, and men were alienated from the movement.

Im aware of that...but at the same time, many figures of the civil rights movement did NOT support women on the issues of reproductive rights. feminism didnt become more "radical" as you call it until they declared war on Playboy and the porn industry...suddenly men couldnt seem to get behind THAT movement and that is well documented. This was BEFORE Tipper Gore btw.

I honestly think that you need to structure your argument more carefully. What men are you talking about? All men or white men with power? There is a difference, and to act like there isn't only polarizes both sexes against each other in a forceful, unconstructive way. I mean, what about gay men? Are you arguing that they're not for feminism? What about transsexuals or eunuchs? What about minorities who are just as oppressed as women? There are so many different categories and to generalize men as a single group like you have here, and like most feminists do in their theorizing really has a negative impact on gender relations. Not every man is your enemy. There are a lot of men who want to work with you, but who disagree with the more radical elements of feminist ideology. The feminist community really needs to consider that before articulating positions that revolve purely around issues of sex. To assume that all women have certain qualities or that they are all different from men in some cognitive way, simply isn't factually accurate and reeks of the kind of essentialism that prevents actual constructive discourse from taking place.

the feminists have always stood shoulder to shoulder with the gay rights movement. its well documented and it hasnt changed that much, so to ask "what about gay men, transsexuals, etc" is immaterial because feminists and gay men have been natural allies for at least a couple of decades now. gender identity, roles, sexual freedom and orientation...these are issues that resonated through BOTH movements.

 

[Flashforward]

why not? it's so much fun?

Be serious, or I'll get Cat-Scratch to flirt with you again. :hehe2:

Im aware of that...but at the same time, many figures of the civil rights movement did NOT support women on the issues of reproductive rights. feminism didnt become more "radical" as you call it until they declared war on Playboy and the porn industry...suddenly men couldnt seem to get behind THAT movement and that is well documented. This was BEFORE Tipper Gore btw.

Certain ideas were introduced before their time in the 70s and 80s when men weren't ready to surrender their power and long standing status within the operative patriarchy. However, the radical side of the feminist movement exacerbated the tensions between the two groups by insisting that porn was anti-woman. Many studies on pornography now, while critical of the lifestyle it leads to, often consider it to be a sexually liberating profession for women. The women's studies and English departments at UC Berkeley have been at the forefront of new scholarship on pornography and have produced some pretty interesting stuff.

the feminists have always stood shoulder to shoulder with the gay rights movement. its well documented and it hasnt changed that much, so to ask "what about gay men, transsexuals, etc" is immaterial because feminists and gay men have been natural allies for at least a couple of decades now. gender identity, roles, sexual freedom and orientation...these are issues that resonated through BOTH movements.

You're right. But that just points to the fact that in entering into the argument, you automatically lumped all men together knowing full well that there were differences between them. The point I was trying to make is that for feminists, not all men are their enemies, and that in fact, many men share in their struggles and want to see their movement for equality through to fruition.