Degrees of Feminism

[violet_crown]

So you believe that gender equality would have happened so quickly without feminism?

I'm skeptical of the idea that we have achieved gender equality in this country, so there's that.

If you examine history and the way women's roles changed rapidly from the 1960's to the 1970's, do you think it's a coincidence that it coincides with Second Wave Feminism/The Sexual Revolution and Gay Rights?

This is a vauge statement, so I'll answer with something equally vague. I think that depending on what development you're referencing there's probably another political/economic/sociological development that I could point to that could be just as great or more than of an explanatory factor as Feminist doctrine.

Second, roles changed for whom? This is my point. Minorities and poor women had always had to work outside of the house to support their families. This was not a new development for us, and if it was feminist didn't help us achieve it. Second, changes in sexual mores ect only occurred within certain enclaves within society. It was by no means a blanket phenomena, and in fact the evidence would suggest that American society as a whole remained fairly conservative during this time.

Do you think it's a coincidence that women obtained the right to vote and started wearing no corsets and shorter skirts and pants soon following First Wave Feminism?

White women got the vote in 1920. Everyone else had to wait. And in fact, the sufferagettes recognized that advocating for anyone else to get the vote would be detrimental to their efforts to mobilize the Southern states, so women of color were cut out fairly early.

The pioneers of feminism were women who actively did things to change society on a wide scale.

I think the pioneers of feminism got theirs for thine and were happy to take credit for everything else.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm skeptical of the idea that we have achieved gender equality in this country, so there's that.



This is a vauge statement, so I'll answer with something equally vague. I think that depending on what development you're referencing there's probably another political/economic/sociological development that I could point to that could be just as great or more than of an explanatory factor as Feminist doctrine.

Second, roles changed for whom? This is my point. Minorities and poor women had always had to work outside of the house to support their families. This was not a new development for us, and if it was feminist didn't help us achieve it. Second, changes in sexual mores ect only occurred within certain enclaves within society. It was by no means a blanket phenomena, and in fact the evidence would suggest that American society as a whole remained fairly conservative during this time.



White women got the vote in 1920. Everyone else had to wait. And in fact, the sufferagettes recognized that advocating for anyone else to get the vote would be detrimental to their efforts to mobilize the Southern states, so women of color were cut out fairly early.



I think the pioneers of feminism got theirs for thine and were happy to take credit for everything else.

I should point out right about now that I'm working class and that my family is Irish and Native American, which weren't exactly beloved races of people in the early 20th century. To complicate matters further, my grandfather was actually born up in the mountains of West Virginia of all places, ran around barefoot, and lived in a log cabin with his many brothers and sisters. He escaped it by lying about his age to join WWII.

My mother was a victim of the unequal society which still existed in the 1980's, especially in the deep dark South, a society that didn't force negligent fathers to pay child support yet even though it was her ex-husband. The police also laughed when she reported that her ex-husband had brutally raped her.

So. My family may have white skin, but we weren't really included in the wonderful progressions in society until my generation. Isn't it funny that Third Wave Feminism happened around the same time?

I agree that true gender equality has not been achieved, and neither has racial equality. I do not mean to downplay the seriousness of either of those issues. However, progress is progress and we have no where to go but forward from here. Feminism was a crucial part of that progress, just like Civil Rights.

 

[rav3n]

Holding Feminism responsible for racial and socio-economic issues makes no sense to me. It's like having China invade the U.S. on the coast of California and rejecting the State of California for not battling them off, where the responsibility resides with the Federal Government to provide enough firepower to stave off the invasion.

 

[Thalassa]

I agree, and I also didn't mean to downplay any racial issues. Especially when talking about how feminism hadn't reached working class Southern women in my little sphere of the world, I can see how a black woman, for example, could be angry at someone who said feminism has accomplished equality.

Still, feminism gave us all rights we did not have before. At least my mother was able to easily divorce her abusive husband. These things must count for something. Just because the totality of equality has not been reached does not mean that people of varying races and socio-economic classes have not benefitted, though white middle class women may have benefitted to a greater degree.

I think the current state of feminism is making strides in also promoting women's rights in other parts of the world, including the rights of Islamic women in extremely oppressive, extremist cultures and African women undergoing female circumcision. I don't think feminists are giving up, and I don't think it's a case at all where feminists are sitting on their laurels saying "well middle class white women are fine"...though I would argue that many people who are anti-feminist use that as the basis of their argument for why we don't need things like feminism and civil rights anymore. It disgusts me whenever I meet a libertarian who says the civil rights act should be abolished. I'm like "oooh well I'm really glad things are going well for you and your white friends."

 

[rav3n]

Civil rights movements pushed blacks, yellows and reds to equal legal protection against discrimination that whites have always enjoyed. Feminism ensured that within each of these colour groups, women could vote and also be protected against legal gender discrimination, at least as it relates to workplace and other areas that impact on the ability to move from one economic sector to another.

Sure, there's still discrimination, racism and genderism. But compared to what it was prior to the Civil Rights and Feminist movements, it's a drop in the bucket. Hopefully, it will continue improving but not if people don't support equality. Might as well just bend yourself over a table and say "do me up the ass".

 

[Engineer]

Let's not conflate feminism and civil rights. They may be quite similar, but they're definitely different things. Perhaps they built off of each other's progress, and used one another as springboards, but I feel that you cannot combine them into a single, solitary movement.
Now, Marm, while I'm pro-feminist, I have to ask this question: what exactly is being done about the horrors of female circumcision, and the appalling way women are treated in patriarchal Islamic societies? I keep up to date on the news, and I can easily say that very few strides have been made over there, much to my sorrow. I honestly think that idle yelling about issues that aren't so pressing over in America should be replaced with actually getting up and doing something about the situation in the East. I'm sure there are many foundations and charities that would be all too eager to help if people agreed that it should be stopped, but like the sickening spectator-only intervention in Darfur... jack-fucking-shit is being done. It's something that pops up as a buzzword, generates a few dollars, and then fades away, but it needs to be goddamn stopped, not talked about. What good is awareness if nothing gets done?

 

[Orangey]

I dont think the identification of feminism by waves is as accurate as identification by ideologies, liberal, radical, socialist, conservative, nationalist, anarcha, libertarian and finally post-feminism.

Agreed. The whole waves thing, while convenient and immediately understandable (because the waves are associated with well-known public movements), is a severely simplified way of identifying feminist ideology and its development. It gives the impression to those who are not familiar with the very great variety in feminist thought that it is the sum total of everything feminism has to offer. Thus you get people who ignorantly proclaim that they "disagree" with feminism.

 

[violet_crown]

I get the feeling Wind-up rex was looking to Feminism as the miracle cure for the plight of black women and since it didn't provide a racial revolution in her eyes, it's rejected. Realistically, there's no way that Feminism could create miracle cures which is why the civil rights movement needed to happen first.

I see, and her dissatisfaction is understandable. On the other hand, one can't expect miracle cures for societal ills from singular political movements or from a particular president.

It's unfortunate, but it's reality...and that goes for any marginalized group or social issue.

Take a look at the population of the U.S. between 1790 - 1990 broken down by race and then a breakdown between white and hispanic. These statistics tell the story better. All non-caucasian races were marginalised including my own, but I don't hold a gender based movement responsible, instead looking to the Civil Rights movement to firstly equalise race and then Feminism to equalise gender.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html

First of all, I speak very plainly and find it supremely annoying when people start trying to "interpret" what I'm trying to say. If I had been trying to say that Feminism was suppose to provide a "miracle cure" or was at fault for causing racial inequality, I would have said that. Do not put words in my mouth if you're trying to have a discussion with me, Jenaphor.

Secondly, my issue with Feminism that I put forth in my initial post has yet to actually be refuted. Feminism began as a movement catering to the issues of only a subset of American women. This is not interpretation. This is fact. Feminism, when it was supposedly making all these great strides on my behalf, was still Second Wave feminism when it still was confined by racist and classist limitations. By definition, any gains made by feminism on behalf of minorities and the poor at this time were incidental to its the concerns of its canon. This is troubling to me.

Finally, I don't want to be a feminist because I don't feel the need to compartmentalize injustice. I don't need a particular vantage point for my activism, and I don't want to cling the bootstraps of someone elses philosophy to bolster my own moral sense. The causes of human indignity are complex and generally intertwined. I think focusing on just one source, like gender inequality, can blind you to others. I recognize that Third Wave feminism attempts to grapple with this and I applaud it for that. Nonetheless, I still don't like the term feminist, and would never want to be labeled as such. I feel basically that people are good, and worth fighting for. Is there a movement for that?

 

[Mole]

Feminism in the Arab Spring

The Arab Spring is turning nasty for women as the Islamists take over.

Women had hoped the Arab Spring would respect the human rights of women, but the human rights of women are being denied under Sharia, and women are being pushed back to the kitchen.

 

[Orangey]

Secondly, my issue with Feminism that I put forth in my initial post has yet to actually be refuted. Feminism began as a movement catering to the issues of only a subset of American women. This is not interpretation. This is fact. Feminism, when it was supposedly making all these great strides on my behalf, was still Second Wave feminism when it still was confined by racist and classist limitations. By definition, any gains made by feminism on behalf of minorities and the poor at this time were incidental to its the concerns of its canon. This is troubling to me.

So what? Are you saying that you have misgivings about "feminism" overall because of the problems that one segment of the movement, in one location in the world, had during the past? If you are, that's just as silly as someone saying that they have misgivings about black civil rights because one part of the movement, at one time in its history, advocated black nationalism, which they don't agree with. If that's not what you're saying (which I hope it isn't), then what exactly is the point of this gripe? To bring attention to the issue? Because if that's the case, then you should know that it's already been a HUGE issue in feminist discourse since the 1980s.

Finally, I don't want to be a feminist because I don't feel the need to compartmentalize injustice. I don't need a particular vantage point for my activism, and I don't want to cling the bootstraps of someone elses philosophy to bolster my own moral sense. The causes of human indignity are complex and generally intertwined. I think focusing on just one source, like gender inequality, can blind you to others. I recognize that Third Wave feminism attempts to grapple with this and I applaud it for that. Nonetheless, I still don't like the term feminist, and would never want to be labeled as such. I feel basically that people are good, and worth fighting for. Is there a movement for that?

Of course you have every right not to call yourself a feminist, but to be blunt, you haven't really articulated any good reasons why you shouldn't. To call yourself a feminist is not to "cling to bootstraps of someone elses [sic] philosophy," nor does it mean that you must be interested in women's issues to the exclusion of all/any other issues pertaining to human rights. But just as it is problematic to be myopic, so is it a mistake not to recognize difference.

It's interesting to me that in the same breath as you decry the second-wave's failure to account for difference among women (i.e., assuming that every woman's experience was the same, regardless of race, class, or sexual orientation, resulting in what amounted to a "white, middle-class" feminism), you also advocate deliberately blinding oneself to difference ("The causes of human indignity are complex and generally intertwined. I think focusing on just one source, like gender inequality, can blind you to others.") Which is it going to be?

 

[Coriolis]

Secondly, my issue with Feminism that I put forth in my initial post has yet to actually be refuted. Feminism began as a movement catering to the issues of only a subset of American women. This is not interpretation. This is fact. Feminism, when it was supposedly making all these great strides on my behalf, was still Second Wave feminism when it still was confined by racist and classist limitations. By definition, any gains made by feminism on behalf of minorities and the poor at this time were incidental to its the concerns of its canon. This is troubling to me.

Your facts are essentially correct. I have done more reading on the British suffrage movement, and know that there was dissent within as to whether the focus should be on empowerment for working-class women, or leveraging the resources of wealthy women (and supportive men) to influence the government. The simple fact that certain classes and races had more wealth and influence, however, made it easier for women in their ranks to effect change. Once those women got the vote, or better property rights, or employment rights, or whatever, it should be easier for the rest to follow on. To the extent that they have not, it is not a flaw in the strategy of starting where you can, with the "lower hanging fruit". The flaw is in failing to follow up on the initial successes. Ideally, expanded rights would be obtained for all women at once, but people who play all-or-nothing can all too easily end up with nothing.

Finally, I don't want to be a feminist because I don't feel the need to compartmentalize injustice. I don't need a particular vantage point for my activism, and I don't want to cling the bootstraps of someone elses philosophy to bolster my own moral sense. The causes of human indignity are complex and generally intertwined.

Let's not conflate feminism and civil rights. They may be quite similar, but they're definitely different things. Perhaps they built off of each other's progress, and used one another as springboards, but I feel that you cannot combine them into a single, solitary movement.
Now, Marm, while I'm pro-feminist, I have to ask this question: what exactly is being done about the horrors of female circumcision, and the appalling way women are treated in patriarchal Islamic societies? I keep up to date on the news, and I can easily say that very few strides have been made over there, much to my sorrow. I honestly think that idle yelling about issues that aren't so pressing over in America should be replaced with actually getting up and doing something about the situation in the East. I'm sure there are many foundations and charities that would be all too eager to help if people agreed that it should be stopped, but like the sickening spectator-only intervention in Darfur... jack-fucking-shit is being done. It's something that pops up as a buzzword, generates a few dollars, and then fades away, but it needs to be goddamn stopped, not talked about. What good is awareness if nothing gets done?

There are groups directly impacting the situation of women in the situations you describe. EngenderHealth is one that I have supported for years, and there are several working on literacy, health care, and economic independence for women in Afghanistan specifically. These situations are so dire, though, that they will not be cured overnight, nor very effectively without significant investment from the affected groups. How much resources can you direct toward these problems? Each one of us is lucky if we can truly impact even one, but many of us do not even make that effort. It is pointless to get worked up about all the problems remaining unsolved. But if each of us picked just one within our scope to affect and worked at it, things would improve immensely.

Finally, feminism is just a label, as are all the labels we have for the various forms of prejudice: racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc. And while Engineer is correct that feminism and civil rights are not the same movement (though they share some common roots), women's rights are civil rights. Moreover, they are human rights, same as rights for blacks or Jews or gays or handicapped, or any other identifiable group. Rex may not "feel the need to compartmentalize injustice", but that may be the only way we have made what progress we have. I hope we are coming closer to the ideal of simply seeing each person as the individual they are, without making assumptions or imposing artificial limitations based upon the categories they fall in.

 

[Rasofy]

Do you all know when this kind of ad will disappear?
...once women stop caring about these type of jokes.
Meanwhile, let me share a joke about women using computers.

MINUTES LATER....

 

[Lark]

Agreed. The whole waves thing, while convenient and immediately understandable (because the waves are associated with well-known public movements), is a severely simplified way of identifying feminist ideology and its development. It gives the impression to those who are not familiar with the very great variety in feminist thought that it is the sum total of everything feminism has to offer. Thus you get people who ignorantly proclaim that they "disagree" with feminism.

Well, to a certain extent I do think that when people say they are contra-feminism I often think "what, all of it?" because it does comprise a terrible broad, diverse and disparite variety of views. That's before you get into the question of whether or not womans liberation and feminism where or are synonymous too. I've known people who said they were in favour of one and not another.

Of the ideologies I've found most interesting within the feminist rankor I think anarcha-feminism is the best, it comprises criticisms, observations and insights about social change, opinion, tradition, representation which goes beyond politics and challenges the whole idea of politicisation per se too, I like the debates about "The tyranny of structurelessness" and "The tyranny of tyranny" which grew out of the feminist movements attempts to create a genuinely representative and inclusive movement, although like a lot of ideologies they engaged in their own version of reinventing the wheel too. I liked the fact that they challenged how representative feminism was of women, in the UK it was one of the few places were heterosexual women were able to object to the lesbian, seperatist, butch tendencies without being totally ostrachised as traitors from the get go.

Although I'd say that while it was very interesting and informed some of my thinking it didnt lure me into believing I was or could be sympathic towards feminism per se.

 

[Helios]

.

The real horror there is that the kid is using IE6 in the first place.

 

[Helios]

I liked the fact that they challenged how representative feminism was of women, in the UK it was one of the few places were heterosexual women were able to object to the lesbian, seperatist, butch tendencies without being totally ostrachised as traitors from the get go.

Because homophobia is cool.

 

[jimrckhnd]

Feminism, when it was supposedly making all these great strides on my behalf, was still Second Wave feminism when it still was confined by racist and classist limitations. By definition, any gains made by feminism on behalf of minorities and the poor at this time were incidental to its the concerns of its canon. This is troubling to me.

I definitely understand your concerns that much of the feminist movement, particularly in the past, had class and racial limitations - I've been known to observe that NOW was "The National Organization of Upper Middle Class White Women". However, it seems to me that if a person was facing a multiplicity of economic, political and social barriers – say an African American Lesbian – why they would not applaud a movement/organization that did its best to knock down ONE of those barriers. Feminism in the US had a lot to do with dispelling and flat out making illegal certain beliefs and practices which affected ALL women (women can’t be cops or firefighters, airline pilots, do most jobs in the military, etc.). One could equally argue that MLK was a failure because hey… he never really addressed gay rights. Well… that wasn’t his particular mission. It’s an omission I can easily forgive.

True you can be too narrowly focused but also you can be too broadly focused. Just because feminism has yet to come up with a cure for cancer and end hunger in Africa doesn’t mean that one can’t in good conscience classify oneself as a feminist as identities can be multiple and depend heavily on context.

 

[Lark]

Because homophobia is cool.

Yes. Exactly.

 

[Helios]

Yes. Exactly.

That's the second moment in this thread.

 

[Engineer]

Because homophobia is cool.

As much as I am in favor of gay equality, I have to say... please stop bandying this term about. Not all people who do not support gay rights are afraid of gay people, which is what this term means. I have several acquaintances who disagree wholeheartedly with homosexual behavior, but who actually have several friends that they routinely hang out with who are gay. This struck me as a bit weird, but nonetheless, it's where I got my point from. In a similar manner, if I like the color red, and you do not, expressing your disapproval (that being the extent of the disagreement), I would not call you a redophobe. You're not afraid of the color red. You just don't like it as much as I do.
A homophobe is someone who runs around calling people epithets to try to cover up his own latent fear that he'll become like those he hates. It's disgusting.

 

[Jaguar]

That's the second moment in this thread.

I'm way beyond two.