There were some interesting issues that came out of that discussion. Is it indeed true that feminism disses motherhood? Or stay-at-home parents? Does being a feminist make it harder to be a mother, or, alternatively, a good mother? Is it possible to be a good mother and work at the same time?

Does feminism in general malign nurturing? Are feminists discouraged from being nurturing? Are nurturing women scorned by feminists and feminism?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
Lots of questions, and lots of women on this board who have points of view and experiences to share. Please, non-parents, feel free to weigh in -- you don't have to be a parent to nurture.

---

Would it be O.K. to observe ... that you also don't have to be female to nurture ??

Edited to comply with Michelle's request below.

[ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: James ]

[ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

I know that I would have missed out on much had I not taken on as large a part as I could with my two kids, right from the start. (Never could quite get the breast-feeding part, I do admit)

[ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

Take heart. There is, or was, a company that made a bizarre contraption that men could harness to their chests that simulated breasts, so that men could 'experience' the joy and bonding of nursing.

---

Unless they have electrodes that help to stimulate the sensation of a let-down reflex and the corresponding leak cascading down your chest, you just can't know.

Anyway I was a feminist from a very young age without being "indoctrinated" in it.

I remember I was out with my mom I may have been 3 or 4 and she had to go into a restuarant and order a sandwich and a coffee because "nice" women didn't smoke on the street.

I didn't understand the sense of this.

I didn't understand why people treated us differently after my father died. I learned at a very young age having a man around meant you got more respect and were treated better generally.

But about motherhood. When I got pregnant I read everything I could get my hands on. So I ended up breastfeeding even though there was a lot of pressure on me to bottle feed. After all being a young mother I could n't possibly be trusted.

It wasn't the "traditional, family values" types who supported me, it was the feminist, forward thinking individuals who said that I could do whatever felt right for me.

I was a stay at home mom for most of my kids lives, although I did take jobs at various times.

Nuturing does not come from staying home. Nuturing comes from the love you feel for your family.

I have seen plenty of stay at home moms who neglected their kids, and plenty of working outside the home moms who made their kids feel like they were the most special thing on earth.

Feminism is not antithetical nuturing in fact I would submit that when one is confident in ones self and ones' abilities she has much more to give to others as a result.

Dictionary.com defines feminism thusly

quote:

---

Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

---

I feel that being a feminist gave me an advantage as mother. I do wish I had worked more through the years and I do not think this would have in any way deprived my children.

Their father is a jerk. He was a very bad parent.

In women's studies, I once did a paper on "earth father/sky father" he was definately a sky father.

I think feminists make better parents because they can give both female and male children a certain belief system about treating people equally and without respect.

quote:

---

I think feminists make better parents because they can give both female and male children a certain belief system about treating people equally and without respect.

---

I would have been a happier kid in a dusty house with a more relaxed mother.

Anyway, societal expectations get internalized, and it makes us crazier than we need to be. That's my theory of the day.

[ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

But I rather think -- and feel free to contradict me if you like -- that I am an uber-nurturing woman, have been in many of the different situations I've lived through. I don't mean to flatter self by saying that, nor do I mean to regret how I've spent my time and energies, although I do think it's true that nurturers probably pay for their willingness to care for others under our current ruthless socio-economic arrangements. I certainly have.

I've been a teacher, an animator, a wife, and a full-time caregiver. I honestly think that it is feminism that gave me a large part of the courage of my convictions, that helped me to forget the brittle assessments of the outside world when I could see human need right in front of me.

I spend part of every day among a number of women who have given their lives to the hardest work there is, caring for the demented dying, work that is horribly underpaid and dangerously low-status. Knowing those strong women, so badly treated by the governments WE elect, who even so seem to have extra reserves of love for people who can return so little to them as they go that extra mile, has convinced me even more of my pride in being a woman, of the special strengths of traditional women's training and of feminism both.

I simply cannot see that those two traditions have to be in conflict. As others have noted above, it is nothing but good that so many men have begun to share in the real joy of nurturing -- babies, yes, but then I also remember my older brother just this spring, sitting quietly all day every day as others came and went from our dying mum's bedside, him the anchor that he and she both wanted -- what a wonderful calm I saw in him those days, what a wonderful loving competence too.

What a terrible thing, that some younger women seem to be living in a thin, nasty culture that fails to teach them that feminism is about love, real love. When early and later feminists got angry and militant, it was because they had been trained to love and then found that the world scorned their strength, considered it something to be exploited and condescended to.

The scorn and the condescension have to be fought. But the tremendous strength of the history that women carry forward with them is a source of pride as well. We are not only nurturers but are often the carriers of craft culture, a culture in need of saving especially now, with the post-industrial race to the bottom.

I am a fierce feminist, but when I realized that all my own projects had to be set aside -- for years -- to walk someone I love through his crisis, choosing him was no problem at all.

Yes, those choices still cost us money; they cost us our pensions; they could cost us our own freedom as we age. That is wrong, and must change.

quote:

---

Nuturing does not come from staying home. Nuturing comes from the love you feel for your family.

---

I agree, and would add that one must love oneself in order to truly love/nurture another. Sure, sure, there are the self-loathers who care for other people, but is that really nurturing??

quote:

---

I would have been a happier kid in a dusty house with a more relaxed mother.

---

My house is pretty darn dusty, and I strive to be the most relaxed and laid-back. Having rescued my son (and ultimately myself) from a highly stressful, abusive situation, my goal now is:

Peace, man.

There is so much that needs done in this world and so much of it falls on women's sshoulders.

There is so much hurt and so much sorrow. So much pain still exists in being born female into this world.

That we must nurture each other as well our families and children.

I will always treasure my feminist friends, I will always admire and appreciate those that have gone before me and blazed trails so that I can take for granted certain rights.

quote:

---

I would have been a happier kid in a dusty house with a more relaxed mother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
What a terrible thing, that some younger women seem to be living in a thin, nasty culture that fails to teach them that feminism is about love, real love. When early and later feminists got angry and militant, it was because they had been trained to love and then found that the world scorned their strength, considered it something to be exploited and condescended to.

---

I think this is unfortunately very true and I don't know how it will get better. Out of a class of 30 some education student taking a women and education class, 2 people self-identified as feminists. These are future teachers. Women (the class was predominantly female) who will not go out into the world and teach that it is ok to be a feminist, that it simply means you value equality.

And it made me sad that even in my Women and Politics class many women tended to start their answers with "I'm not a feminist but...." I just don't know what it will take for people to realize that feminism is still relevant today. I think my generation may be a little spoiled. May think equality is inherent.

Also, I really appreciate the discussion regarding feminism and parenting. I value my belief system for myself but I love how you have all demonstrated that it won't only be me who is a better person for it- that some day a little one (or maybe two or three) will be better off for it as well.

It also makes me want to call my mom and say thank you.

My point, I guess, is that my mother went through some pretty agonizing stuff, something that she now acknowledges was pointless. She had depressive issues to start with, and then this image she felt she had to live up to made that even harder to deal with. Start with feelings of inadequacy and build on some more.

I like my house clean and tidy, but not at the price she paid. It couldn't ever be worth it.

for me, feminism is somewhat difficult to define. the best way i can explain my feelings is with these 2 quotes (i'm the quote queen!!! lol)

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." ~Rebecca West, 1913~

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." ~Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler~

feminism, contrary to popular belief is not about hating/ castrating every man you come across. it's about respect. it's about being seen as a whole person...it's about being seen as more than just what you have between your legs. we ladies have been forced into a box we can't seem to escape. we are expected, these days, the bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and serve it up all pretty for hubby. do i think our situation is futile? hell no!! it's just gonna take some work to get to where we want to. as a young woman, every day, i am presented with conflicted messages. we are told "celebrate your sexuality!! embrace it!!! but, if you do, that makes you a slut!" this is not referring to sleeping around, i mean it just seems as if we are not allowed to acknowledge sex drives whatsoever... this is how it is...we have conflicting messages thrown at us every which way...believe it or not it IS possible to be a strong, proud woman and yet still be nurturing... it IS possible to be "girly" and yet still not ahve a nurturing bone in your body. nurture is not male or female. it has no gender and should NEVER be assigned one. anyone who loves can nurture...a vagina is not required. one can be strong and tough and not have a penis. men are not cold and incapable of love...they are as capable of caring for their kids as women. feminism is not about who does the dishes or takes out the trash. is one sex better or more important than the other? no, or at least it shouldn't be that way. we (women and men) need each other. no sex should dominate over the other. the saying "can't live with 'em, can't live without out them" holds true. in all of us, there exists to capability to love, to nurture. in all of us there exists the abilty to be tough, strong, and independent. respect us for what we are..women.

I'm a feminist because I don't believe people, especially women as this has always happened to them the most, should be forced into performing in certain ways. Nurturing has traditionally been a woman's role and it's wonderful to see more men sharing the work involved. Now, if only those who nurture would be given more respect, it would be a big step in the right direction.

It is because different groups have defined feminism in different ways that there is confusion about what it really means. That may be why many young women who believe in equality between the sexes don't identify as feminists.

quote:

---

I can't really comment on this thread but I'm going to enjoy reading the discussion.

---

Really? You seemed to have a lot to say about in the Susan Smith thread. Don't clam up now, princess.

[ 02 September 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

In my intro to existentialism class, the "feminist" critique of existentialism was more or less proposing replacing male domination with female domination, full of intentional misrepresentations of Sartre and Nietzche. The author quoted Valerie Solanis (SCUM manifesto), and went on at length about how women are superior to men because they are strong and soft. I couldn't believe it, and my prof wouldn't take negative feedback about it from anybody. In my other class, the "feminist" critique of the scientific method was discussed. The main objection was that the scientific method was anti-woman because it left no place for the "female trait" of instinct. In this class, the prof was much more open to people saying "well, that's not how I understand feminism", which was good, but still, the situation was frustrating. My problem with both of these critiques is that they assigned male and female traits and characteristics, which to me essentially leads to more exclusion and inequality.

I'm not hesitant to say that I'm a feminist, because it wasn't the academic brands that I was exposed to- it was my mum, who quit her job when they wouldn't give her more than 6 weeks maternity leave after she had me, and encouraged me and my siblings to do whatever we wanted to with our lives. I've had people tell me that she isn't a "real" feminist because she "didn't work" or go to school, and usually, I've tried to explain it to them that feminism is about being able to make your own choices, but sometimes I just tell them to fuck off. (I know it's not the most productive of responses, but...)

quote:

---

I couldn't really figure out why so many girls/women at the university that I attend qualified much of what they said with "I'm not a feminist, but..." and then I took a couple classes where the profs showed us "feminist" critiques of whatever we were learning about.

---

Well, there's context to consider. Many feminist theories have some basis in some more radical thought/philosophy (such as Solanis and Dworkin) than most feminists subscribe to, and that also needs to be placed in a historical context.

My personal experience has been with feminist film theory, largely Laura Mulvey's theories, which were largely based on Freud. I've always felt that this was a major failing, and was permitted to dispute the theory in my final paper, and recieved an excellent mark for doing so. I don't think the rejection of Freudian feminism necessarily negates one being a feminist, but it does create some dispute between feminists who tend to one side or the other. Certainly, more academics are familiar with the theories that are partly based on Freud because they are in the business of dealing with theory. I think that they also deal with exactly the same things the rest of us do in day to day life, but maybe see it through a slightly different filter. I think if we lost some of the rhetoric, we're actually closer together on the real issues than we'd imagine.

edited to add: Here's an article that explains a bit about Mulvey. I had the opportunity to meet her when I was in university. She acknowledged some of the weaknesses in her theory then. Very nice woman, too.

[ 02 September 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

My problem with both of these critiques is that they assigned male and female traits and characteristics, which to me essentially leads to more exclusion and inequality.

---

"Essentializing" is still a big discussion among feminist scholars. Some want to embrace a female "nature" that is different from (not superior to) male "nature" and work towards those things that are considered "feminine" (such as nurturing, intuiting, child-rearing) being valued equally with traits that have traditionally been considered "masculine" (such as strength, bravery, leadership) and therefore valuable.

Others fear, I think rightly, that assigning the descriptor "natural" to any trait leaves open the possiblity that those who don't demonstrate that trait will be viewed as "unnatural" or aberrant. If nurturing is natural to women, what is to be made of a woman who rejects that role? Does she then cease to be a woman?

As for wanting to replace male domination with female domination, well...in theory, if not in practice, the pendulum has to swing all the way to the other side. It is a very useful analytical tool to reverse the dominant paradigm. Revolutions don't start by aiming for the middle-ground; that's where you (hopefully) arrive after you've displaced the current power structure.

I'm a little surprised that a feminist professor would not problematize and put into historical context radical feminist theory for what I'm assuming was a class of undergraduates. That she wouldn't entertain criticial discussion of the matter is also a problem, however, you shouldn't blame feminism for that. Even feminists can be bad teachers.

quote:

---

I'm a little surprised that a feminist professor would not problematize and put into historical context radical feminist theory for what I'm assuming was a class of undergraduates. That she wouldn't entertain criticial discussion of the matter is also a problem, however, you shouldn't blame feminism for that. Even feminists can be bad teachers.

---

I'm horrified. Wonderfully well put, andrean; and Amy, I'm so glad to read a strong, critical intelligence coming through every word of those histories you've written there.

As for this, Amy:

quote:

---

sometimes I just tell them to fuck off. (I know it's not the most productive of responses, but...)

---

quote:

---

Really? You seemed to have a lot to say about in the Susan Smith thread. Don't clam up now, princess.

---

The moderator, audra, if I understood her correctly from an earlier thread had suggested that it was not appropriate to say critical things about feminism in the feminist forum so I was trying to observe her direction.

[ 02 September 2004: Message edited by: ShyViolet417 ]

quote:

---

I'd respectfully ask that you not call me princess. That's a term of endearment that you are misusing to be insulting towards me and I'd appreciate it if you stopped.

---

It isn't necessarily a term of endearment, and it's a different use, not a misuse. I wasn't aware of any prohibition on sarcasm.

You're going to find, Hailey, that when you use backhanded insult tactics on people (ie: saying "I'm not sure that it's possible to make both a success" in reference to combining working and childrearing while addressing a working mother), they're going to be a little hostile. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're also going to take some flack for it. That's the nature of posting on a message board.

So either suck it up, princess, or keep your trap shut.

quote:

---

can we get back to nurturing? please????

---

Would love to, Violet. But in my view, I'm not attacking Hailey -- I'm just dishing back what she's asked for. Nobody implies that I'm not a good, loving mother or that my children are not a priority for me -- regardless my employment status -- without being set straight.

[ 03 September 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:

Is it indeed true that feminism disses motherhood? Or stay-at-home parents? Does being a feminist make it harder to be a mother, or, alternatively, a good mother? Is it possible to be a good mother and work at the same time?

Does feminism in general malign nurturing? Are feminists discouraged from being nurturing? Are nurturing women scorned by feminists and feminism?

---

The problem with asking questions like these is that within them is the presumption that feminism is a single, unified ideology. It's not, and it is well nigh impossible to provide the definitive feminist response to any question.

That being said, I don't think that most feminists are dismissive of motherhood/nuturing but, if the perception is that they are, there is good reason for that. Women's roles have, in recent history, been devalued and viewed as inferior to men's roles. Women's work has been perceived as frivolous, unimportant, "not real work", etc. Feminists who wanted to break free from the social constraints that bound women believed that they had to identify more closely with men, do the things that men did in order to achieve the rights that men enjoyed. The corollary of doing things that men do is not doing the things that they don't do. Men didn't raise children or care for the sick or the elderly so feminists found it necessary to reject those traditionally female roles, some because they actually didn't want to raise children, etc, some because they felt that raising children wasn't enough, they also wanted a career but couldn't support both roles.

Some feminists honestly believed that the only way to achieve independence and equality with men was to abandon nurturing roles. Women were seen as weaker because they were caregivers; in order to demonstrate that they were not weak, women had to take on roles that showed strength. Mothering and caregiving weren't (and mostly still aren't) perceived as occupations that required strength, so...

quote:

---

The problem with asking questions like these is that within them is the presumption that feminism is a single, unified ideology. It's not, and it is well nigh impossible to provide the definitive feminist response to any question.

---

Yes, I know. In part, that was the point of asking them.

quote:

---

That we further feel entitled to criticize and dismiss feminism for supplying us with the luxury of those choices demonstrates both how far we've come and how much further we still have to go.

---

quote:

---

I'm a little surprised that a feminist professor would not problematize and put into historical context radical feminist theory for what I'm assuming was a class of undergraduates. That she wouldn't entertain criticial discussion of the matter is also a problem, however, you shouldn't blame feminism for that. Even feminists can be bad teachers.

---

Oh yeah, I totally don't blame feminism for that... I just think she was more concerned with getting published, and didn't care whether we learned to think critically of the stuff we read. I also don't think that she thought that context was relevant, for some strange reason.

quote:

---

Scout, I would just assume it was basic respect not to refer to someone by that term when it was intended to be mocking or unflattering. I wasn't aware that only women who were like minded to you are deserving of that respect.

---

Well now you are aware.

You have disrespected feminists repeatedly since you got here. You have outright suggested we might not make good mothers. It's not like many of us aren't aware of what you get up to back at the Mothership either.

I have no respect for you. Based on your obvious lack of respect for many of us here. You get what you give.

I think you are narrow-minded and immature. Do spare us anymore insincere apologies as well, as it is apparent that you will almost immediately be ignorant again, apparently without being aware of it each and every faux pas no matter how closely they resemble each other! Batting your eyelashes might be cute when dealing with your "husband" but most of us aren't so gullible.

I also think your life is very convenient when it comes to debating here on babble, I mean how cute is it that your sister-in-law is a feminist!

quote:

---

It's not like many of us aren't aware of what you get up to back at the Mothership either.

---

Meaning?

quote:

---

I mean how cute is it that your sister-in-law is a feminist!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShyViolet417:
it's become an insuolt to be called one, in fact. my brother jeers at me and calls me "little miss feminist" whenever i try to stand up for myself.

---

And my response to that would be, "And don't you forget it, dickwad. And while you're at it, go fuck yourself."

quote:

---

I'm glad you've made me aware although I find it troublesome.

---

Troublesome? Made you aware? This is a pro-left, pro-feminist board. If you weren't or still aren't now aware of how many of the things you spew are going to insult or upset other folks here you are completely clueless or just being provacative.

quote:

---

If a traditional male decided to only show respect for women who were like minded and be rude to feminists you'd take issue with that yet you celebrate that inconsistency.

---

Pardon? Celebrate what inconsistency? Men who feel as you do and behave as you do certainly won't get my respect either, they will get the sharp side of my tongue. I pretty consistent on how I feel about fundies like you Hailey.

quote:

---

Meaning?

---

Meaning I've read enough of your tripe at FD to know how you really feel. Your are far more delicate here, always apologizing and acting naive.

quote:

---

In a large family there is going to be a lot of diversity. He chose to marry outside of the circles at church and that's really his choice. I'm not saying she's Andrea Dworkin but she has holds more feminist ideals than anyone in my family.

---

The inconsistency is that you wouldn't allow someone to be belitting towards you if they disagreed with you but you model that behaviour.

And, yes, I'm less candid here on some matters but that is out of respect for the fact that I've been told that those views are not always appropriate to share here.

I thought of the SCUM Manifesto, when it first came out, as a brilliant rhetorical coup, and I pretty much still do. I mean, that magnificent first sentence is utterly over the top, and was at once recognized as such. It doesn't signal a serious program following but an attitude. At the time, in the context of, eg, Yippie politics, it was received as a tonic, a corrective, a way of shaking people awake to a problem.

No question that Solanas was troubled, and she went on to commit a horrible crime. Her writing was always as much art as it was politics, and it is tragic that she became steadily more and more confused about any boundaries between the two. In some ways, she reminds me a bit of the French "Situationist" Guy Debord, although I wouldn't push that parallel too far.

But any women's studies prof who is teaching her stuff straight and programmatically is silly and humourless, I would say.

[ 03 September 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

I wasn't aware of any prohibition
on sarcasm.

---

Didnt Michelle point out above that there was "no need for sarcasm here"

How can I be a effective stirrer of the trouble cauldron if you can rebut me with reason?

You're destroying all my fun and I just got the popcorn made.

On a serious note, I should not have said that. It was inflammatory when saner moods should prevail

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
One slight quibble about Valerie Solanas, Amy:

I thought of the SCUM Manifesto, when it first came out, as a brilliant rhetorical coup, and I pretty much still do. I mean, that magnificent first sentence is utterly over the top, and was at once recognized as such. It doesn't signal a serious program following but an attitude. At the time, in the context of, eg, Yippie politics, it was received as a tonic, a corrective, a way of shaking people awake to a problem.

No question that Solanas was troubled, and she went on to commit a horrible crime. Her writing was always as much art as it was politics, and it is tragic that she became steadily more and more confused about any boundaries between the two. In some ways, she reminds me a bit of the French "Situationist" Guy Debord, although I wouldn't push that parallel too far.

But any women's studies prof who is teaching her stuff straight and programmatically is silly and humourless, I would say.

[ 03 September 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]

---

That's exactly it, actually. Both the teacher and the author of the article we read used it "straight and pragmatically". It was a sure way to encourage the "I'm not a feminist, but..." kind of response that is so common.

[ 03 September 2004: Message edited by: Amy ]

quote:

---

It was a sure way to encourage the "I'm not a feminist, but..." kind of response that is so common.

---

Feminist is about as vague a term as I can imagine. I did take a few classes in university that walked us through the various streams and some of the extremes of feminist thought. I was, and remain, deeply pissed at a professor who gave me the lowest mark of my univeristy career for having the audacity to criticise some aspects of 'liberal' feminist thought whilst being in possession of a penis.

There is a tendency, for some reason, to be more tolerant of some pretty extreme views within feminism. This turns a lot of people away from the central message, which is, in a nutshell: "Nothing should stand in your way, that doesn't stand in anyone else's way, to wherever you are trying to go."

I'm going to be a parent soon, and I am very possibly the more nurturing half of the parent puzzle. I can't imagine arborwoman not wanting to go back to work after a year, she'll be going crazy (she likes her job, which helps). I would happily be a stay at home dad for years, if we could afford it (and I didn't like my job so much).

quote:

---

From Andrean: I appreciate the right to help choose my government representatives

---

quote:

---

From Hopebird: "Out of a class of 30 some education student taking a women and education class, 2 people self-identified as feminists. These are future teachers. Women (the class was predominantly female) who will not go out into the world and teach that it is ok to be a feminist, that it simply means you value equality."

---

That may be doing a disservice to the education students. Just because they don't self-identify as feminists doesn't mean that their education hasn't been profoundly shaped by feminism in the academy or that they won't pass these precepts on when they teach.

quote:

---

There is a tendency, for some reason, to be more tolerant of some pretty extreme views within feminism. This turns a lot of people away from the central message

---

quote:

---

From Zoot: "Does feminism in general malign nurturing? Are feminists discouraged from being nurturing? Are nurturing women scorned by feminists and feminism?"

---

There's always been an uneasy relationship between feminism and nuturing, because of the power of biological determinism. I think this is changing... at least, I hope it is. I'm old enough to have burned my bra in the first wave of the 70s, and back then it was about choice... and it still should be, whether that is st stay at home or work outside of it.

I'm not a mother yet, but I've always planned to be one and I'm looking forward to the day that I am. I'm actually working out more and more and building up my muscle strength for the next year, half planning on pregnancy about a year from now.

I'm a journalist. I've worked since I was 12. I've also just started my own business. In the future, I'm planning on being a City Councillor, and, one day, possibly, a Member of Parliament.

I'm 26 and married to a man who's doing his PhD.

I AM A FEMINIST.

I define feminism very simply.

The belief that men and women are equal in value, and intelligence and that people should not be forced to "be" a certain way simply because they are a man or a woman.

The usual things, if a man cries naturally during sappy movies and frosts his hair, good for him, if a woman wants to be a power lifter and dress like a lumber jack, fantastic.

We are human beings.

That, however, goes the other way as well.

If a man is or wants to be a muscular, deep-voiced, firm, man who fixes and builds things, then that's SUPER. If a woman wants to be a home maker and focus her energies on nurturing her children, her husband and her home, that's great.

I DO find that these more common, traditional, choices are maligned in academic circles.

However, that's what we (my husband and I) are immersed in right now, so, I don't know if that's the "norm". I'm surrounded by fish and plants at the moment, so, I don't remember if there are deserts and trees "out there", outside of the cities and university campuses.

I have heard negativity expressed by "feminists" towards women who nurture, who focus on their families and homes. I have also hear nastiness directed at feminists by so-called "conservative" people.... who do actually support a woman's right to vote and wear pants and work.

So, I think it all depends on one's definition of feminism. Some people, feminists and those who would not describe themselves as such, believe that in order to be a feminist one must believe in a list of other things. Like universal daycare, gay marriage and abortion on demand. I personally don't think one has to believe in those things in order to be a feminist.

I would describe my mother as a feminist, and my father too. My mother is a proffessional who has a bit of tartness towards women who are home makers or who breastfeed, or who spend time on their clothes and makeup. My father is a very "manly" man who spent years in the Airborne and makes pies and cookies for his children while doing their laundry.

Like all labels affixed to groups of advanced monkeys who hold some common beliefs, there are those who would point to others in their group and say they aren't "good" feminists, Christians, Communists, Conservatives, etc.

quote:

---

Scout, what I meant is I find it troublesome that you can pick and choose who to be polite to - that you are only to be polite to someone who is like minded.

---

Actually that's not true. Scout and I disagree on things and we have had polite messages back and forth.

quote:

---

Actually that's not true. Scout and I disagree on things and we have had polite messages back and forth.

---

And we are going to do so, again, right now.

quote:

---

And, Beverly, I object to you saying that those who are "anti-choice" shouldn't be discussing feminism.

---

And I don't feel like it either.... since we have already had a VERY POLITE chat about said subject.

Instead, I'm going to get on my bike and go and make another Fish Plant. It's a big bowl-shaped vase with a plant in the water, and a FISH living amongst the roots.

Why?

Well, we aren't good enough if we are staying home full time with the kids.

We aren't good enough if we aren't working full time.

We are bad moms if we work full time.

We are weak women if we stay home and raise the children while our husbands support the family.

We are not feminist enough if we aren't working full time.

We aren't nurturing enough if we work full time and let a daycare raise our kids.

I mean - this is a constant theme and it is women doing it to themselves. As if there is some mystical bar we have to raise in a constant struggle to prove that we are equal to men and should we choose to pursue full time work, we learn very quickly that the grass is greener being a stay at home mom.

But we are weak if we are economically dependent on our husbands?

I have experienced most of these feelings and I have also worked in a "man's world"... newsflash - it blows! I actually feel sorry for men who define themselves through their employment and whose obituary reads like the job history section of a resume.

quote:

---

Why?

Well, we aren't good enough if we are staying home full time with the kids.

We aren't good enough if we aren't working full time.

We are bad moms if we work full time.

We are weak women if we stay home and raise the children while our husbands support the family.

We are not feminist enough if we aren't working full time.

We aren't nurturing enough if we work full time and let a daycare raise our kids.

---

The most disturbing thing, to me, is not that it's men foisting all this guilt onto women -- women are constantly warring with each other over these very things.

I know that most of you find Dr. Phil pretty drecky (and you'd be right! ), but the two shows he's had where working moms and SAHMs faced off really made me think. The men who'd like to keep women down don't have to lift a finger because we are all too willing to eat each other alive for the decisions we make.

What I'd like to see is women supporting each other's choices, regardless. It should be fine to stay at home with your kids (or without them, if you choose not to have 'em) and be supported by your spouse, if that works for both of you. It should be okay to pursue a career and not have kids without being labelled cold or un-nurturing (is that even a word? Oh, well.), or to pursue both work and family without people telling you that you must be, of necessity, inadequate at one, the other or both. I'd also like to see all these questions applied equally to men and women.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
The big question is: Why can't we stop hurting each other?

---

For men, there's the beer commercial, where all of their shortcomings are raised to the level of what every man should strive for. No conflict there - you can be unattractive, not very bright, slovenly, and still have a cool car and beautiful women flocking to you.

When you put too much pressure on a group, it sometimes turns in on itself. This is what I believe happens with women. We internalize too many conflicting messages of what it means to be the Perfect Woman. We need an outlet for the pressure, would like to unload it more on men, but they still have most of the power so it's deflected. So we turn on each other. At least some of us do. I suspect that women's competitiveness with each other may be somewhat overstated by those who may not understand the close friendships that women enjoy.

That's my theory, anyway.