In it, we discussed why it was perceived that women could not fill all the roles in society that men do on an equal footing. The juxposition of the pictures were to show men equal in non-traditional parenting actions which were perceived as a traditional woman's role. The premise was to show that women themselves have to break the barrier surrounding fictions concerning traditional societal roles and actions. If one felt men could not fill the parenting role equally to a woman, then that was to be presented and supported as well.

There were class presentations of each person's photo journal, followed by open discussion on each person's perspectives. We learned not only about how others view this issue, but how others saw our perspectives. Seminar series concluded by discussing what could be done to change the traditional role myths between the sexes. Part of that was tailored to women demanding respect and equality in every situation.

Different cultures and their gender and societal roles were also presented and discussed. If you had pictures from another country or society, the tradtional roles were to be identified.

The few men in the class admitted that they thought it was going to be either just a fluff class, or a good way to meet women. They found they really did not understand how silently insidious sexism is, of course most women in the class did not either.

edited to add: the pictures had to come from magazines or other type of public source

[ 26 November 2004: Message edited by: remind ]

[ 26 November 2004: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
But... but... my real name is Karen! And tomorrow's my birthday!! How'd you know?!!

---

This is an interesting article that discusses some of the reasons why many younger women have rejected feminism or have not connected with it. Of interest is the following:

quote:

---

Activists who try to make sense of these young feminists who are not Feminists conclude that the movement has an image problem. The reason so many people believe in feminist goals yet reject the label, they say, is that the media have given us a cartoon picture of liberationists as humorless, Birkenstock-wearing man-haters, our era’s version of the old-fashioned spinster. Feminism is still an “unfinished revolution,” they say, and young women share its goals. They just don’t like the packaging.

---

Personally, I think the media is reporting what it has seen for a long time. They have a role in public perception of any social movement but those in the social movement have to package their product in a manner that is going to have the most bang for it's buck.

[ 26 November 2004: Message edited by: sillygoil ]

I look at my 22 year old daughter, and I see someone with every bit as much personal, physical and emotional confidence, and every bit as much opportunity as any young men I know. I look around the business and professional community, and see a near equality of gender in terms of responsibility and sucess (when I factor out the now almost irrelevent old geysers held over from an earlier era. I look at the law schools and med schools, and see more than 50% of the places occupied by women. I look at the (all too rare) "new hires at well paying union industrial jobs, and I see what appears to be equality. (And no, I am not alleging "reverse discrimination", they are all there on merrit alone)

Can someone more familiar with these issues than I please point out what I could/should be seeing that I am overlooking ? What parts of the battle have not yet been won?

No cookies expected; only information.

[ 26 November 2004: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
Please tell me I didn't just read a thread started by a man about the demise of feminism? Please? I'll give you a cookie.

---

While women may attend law school in equal numbers, there are barriers in the practice that men don't seem to face. One lawyer I spoke to recently told me that when she started at her firm 10 years ago, there were 9 women partners. Now, there are 4. She had herself left the practice to do a masters in law, studying women in legal work. She was interesting to speak to, since she clearly had very little feminist analysis and was struggling to explain to me the advantage that men apparently have in the field of law. "It's not individual men," she said. "Some individual men were very helpful and supportive. It seems...bigger than individual men." And it is.

[ 26 November 2004: Message edited by: venus_man ]

Come on guys tell us all about feminism, what we should do, what fights are left if any, how does being a women in the world affect us or not, how can we include/exclude you?

Here just for you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:
[QB]But of course 'lance.

Here just for you.

[QB]

---

quote:

---

I look at my 22 year old daughter, and I see someone with every bit as much personal, physical and emotional confidence, and every bit as much opportunity as any young men I know... Can someone more familiar with these issues than I please point out what I could/should be seeing that I am overlooking?

---

Until all of us are equal, none of us is equal.

James, I don't intend this to sound unkind but it's not really all about your daughter. I don't have time to go into a lot of detail -- and I shouldn't be doing your research for you anyway.

But look at wage (non)parity; look at the incidence of violence against women and the transition houses that have waiting lists (while they're trying to keep their heads above water because they're so stingily funded); look at the percentages of male/female representation in our elected Houses -- federal and all provincial bodies; look at who holds the great majority of the part-time, minimum wage jobs in the retail and service sectors.

Look around the world at women both in war zones and otherwise, where rape, forced marriages, honour killings and other atrocities are commonplace. Look at the women in Africa and Asia who are displaced from their food production so that their land can be used by American corporations for cash crops -- while whatever pittance the corporations decide to pay the local people is entrusted to the men.

quote:

---

I think that woman shouldn’t be as man and vice versa. We are different in many, many ways. I believe that would be a mistake to try to make both equal. Woman (or females) are puzzled while trying to match themselves mith man.

---

Goddam right I was puzzled: Why, oh why, was it so damned difficult to find a man who was smart enough, good enough and fast enough to keep up with me?

quote:

---

But of course 'lance.

Here just for you.

---

Why, Debra! I'm touched!

(Chorus of BABBLERS (wearily)

We know, 'lance. We know...)

I was thinking more in terms of self-service, but your hospitality, as always, is gracious.

[ 26 November 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

Why, Debra! I'm touched!

(Chorus of BABBLERS (wearily)

We know, 'lance. We know...)

I was thinking more in terms of self-service, but your hospitality, as always, is gracious.

[ 26 November 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]

---

Touched!!???

Well I never! I mean I thought about but really.. I never.

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:

venus man: Pull that "women and men are not equal" crap one more time and you're gone.

---

I also said that we are equal in status, naturally. I came from the country where woman were in the high rank positions since 1920’s, and where first woman went into space and where woman worked in factories and fought in wars(WW2 for instance)with outmost bravery, therefore feminism for me is not such a big issue. Yet, I am certainly not a woman, that is physically, emotionally etc. etc. and therefore I am not equal in that sense to any woman. It doesn’t mean that someone is higher or lower, but rather natural distinct qualities that are, in my opinion, wonderful. And I know for myself that I will never be in the ability of understanding woman fully. Isn’t it beautiful? As Zoot pinted out :” ...right I was puzzled: Why, oh why, was it so damned difficult to find a man who was smart enough, good enough and fast enough to keep up with me?”
Socially? There are woman where I work occupying most of the management and supervisor position (it’s a government organisation).
However I think that whoever says that this sex is higher or lower then other, is simply out of touch with themselves and are ignorant.
Now, if you wish so, you can make me gone.

[ 26 November 2004: Message edited by: venus_man ]

I've read this assertion in a lot of feminist writing critiquing third wave feminism, but I'm not certain that 3rd wave feminists themselves would agree this is true.

There's a weird sort of concept that 2nd wave feminism was all one big, happy family sharing the same white, eurocentric view of a universalized womanhood that transcended categories like race, culture and class. And a lot of critique Helene Shugart, for eample) aimed at the 3rd wave feminists seems to be infused with a sort of nostalgia for the good old days where politics were worn directly on the sleeve and the enemy was easily identifiable... ie/ patriarchy. In this type of discourse, 3rd wave feminists seem to be portrayed as Gen X slackers who are somehow ungrateful to the "real" feminists of the 2nd wave who did all the hard work.

I tend to view this a little differently. 3rd wave feminist have, in a way, returned to the original impetus of 2nd wave feminism: it was Gloria Steinem (and you can't get more 2nd wave than this) who once said "the greatest gift we can give to one another is the power to make a choice. The power to choose is even more important than the choices we make."

edited because I kept pasting the wrong URL.

[ 26 November 2004: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
Oh, I'm not talking about 3rd wavers at all. I am a third waver! I'm talking about people like this.

I scanned it briefly. It hardly seems to be the most inflammatory text ever written. Is there some particular thing in there that I am missing?

edited because I kept pasting the wrong URL.

[ 26 November 2004: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

---

Look at skilled trades; a pretty big field, lots of opportunity, extremely good salary(a crafty tradesman in some high demand fields can make six figures), and almost no women! I'm sure they exist, but I've seen only 2 or 3 out of hundreds of aspiring tradespeople I've met at college, nor the dozens of actual tradespeople from across the country in several different industries I've met.

I find, more often than not, women are drawn to business, law, nursing or teaching when they go to school(this isn't a sexist generalization here, it's pure observation based on all the women I know and have asked).

But post-feminism IS part of the 3rd wave, something 3 wavers with 2nd wave inclinations seem to forge and one that seems on the rise as a response to the failure of 2nd wave feminisms to go beyond mere descriptions of female oppression... like some feminists, this woman is asking, "Okay. Oppressed. Got it. Now what?" In other words, do we accept victimization as our only credit in society or do we look at another way of creating agency, since it's very difficult to effect change when in binary opposition to half the world's population (ie/ the evil patriarchal conspiracy).

However, it's only one of many post-feminist positions: ie/ one example of choice in action, whether one agrees with it or not. I don't, but I can understand the frustration behind it (and in other 3rd wave controversies) and see the vaule of expanding the gounds of debate.

This debate actually did exist in 2nd wave feminism, but it was very much a minority and pretty much drowned out by the mainstream feminists that took control of the academy. It's just that it's starting to advance again. Theory and dogma is kind of like fashion... it circulates, disappears and then reemerges.

quote:

---

We are different in many, many ways. I believe that would be a mistake to try to make both equal.

---

For the record we are talking about things like equal pay for equal work. I don't want to be a man, although I really like them, I can't stand the crudity, the spiting up on the sidewalk and their tendancy to handle themselves in public. But if I can do the same job, I deserve the same pay. No question.

I often get told that I am not submissive enough and have lost a job becuase of it. I've also been denied promotions becuase my "eyes occasionally look too hard". (maybe its because I am used to putting up with their shit).

Every job I've had, I've been promoted, even the one they said my eyes were too hard. (actually they wound up making me a computer programmer from a bookkeeper cause I taught myself to program C++ in six months)

From the perspective of someone who has been in a tradionally male dominated job, I can tell you that sexism is very much rampant and we are not even close to ending the fight.

Right off I was lauded becuase I could do the job. (they had skinny 100 lbs women there too, but didn't discriminate against any one who was with the "in" crowd) Those who were seen as lacking (ie: couldn't beat the shit out of an inmate) were ridiculed. When I first got an inmates blood on me during his fight with another inmate, I was held up as an example (because you can't get blood on yourself without getting right in there and getting involved.

However, I like all the others was also subjected to a lot of shit. guards using the cameras to zoom in on my bust, ostracization when I (as a married woman) wouldn't screw another guard (who was also married).

One of the reasons there are less women in trades is because women who have children can't do the 6am shifts (I know cause I tried) but daycares don't open that early. We also can't do overtime (same daycare issues). but if we could I am sure you would see a lot more women in those areas.

but no we are stupid enough to bear mens children, be the responsible ones and hang around when they fuck off. we are the ones who make the sacrifices (ie put his new golf clubs ahead of a new washing machine that would make our job of cleaning up after him easier to do along with the full time job and making his dinner).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ravenscript:
However, it's only one of many post-feminist positions: ie/ one example of choice in action, whether one agrees with it or not. I don't, but I can understand the frustration behind it (and in other 3rd wave controversies) and see the vaule of expanding the gounds of debate.

---

Are you talking of pro-choice here? Post feminist positions, what a quaint way to say women must go back to were they belong, validating men's positions by denigrating their own.

quote:

---

This debate actually did exist in 2nd wave feminism, but it was very much a minority and pretty much drowned out by the mainstream feminists that took control of the academy. It's just that it's starting to advance again. Theory and dogma is kind of like fashion... it circulates, disappears and then reemerges.

---

Are you feminists who are anti-choice are just starting to resurface?

quote:

---

I think in this context (and to answer the original query that started this thread), some women and some feminists are just plain tired of being viewed soely in the "men are responsible for our oppression" paradigm and are starting to cast about for other options.

---

I don't think anyone with a brain in charge of things(rather than the "other head" being in charge) would say that equal payment for equal work in unreasonable, and to be honest, I didn't know it was actually happening. I kept on seeing stupid benchmarks like the number of CEOs on the fortume 500(hello? It's business, the most neopistic field on earth! Of COURSE the rich white guys aren't going to let themselves fall out of power! They hate EVERYONE, not just women!), or the overall indicators between the two sexes in the economy(something I still don't believe accounts for the fact that many get into certain fields which are either overpopulated or just not that great paying).

quote:

---

When that's all I keep seeing, you can't blame me for believing that it's a red herring, trying to make women and men not just equal, but perfectly the same, without any discerning characteristics.

---

No I don't blame you. These problems are pervasive and I have found that unless you are affected most people tend not to notice these things. I have this unfortunate habit of standing up to things that aren't right, most especially when they don't affect me personally.

This is where I think the "uppity female" label comes in. People are comfortable with the way things are. Its like they are afraid of change becuase they have this fear that they won't be able to handle the change. that their lives (though not always directly affected) will suddenly become something they are unable to control. What do you think?

As for your question, I think that people will always be afraid of change, but the bigger fear is probably that 'equality' will eventually sway the other way, as people who were once discriminated against demand more than their share, using the same arguement. When I started college, I was shocked, after working for 2 years at a job just slightly better than "aids needle sorter", to get enough money to go to college, at the number of scholarships limited to women and visible minorities. Was my horrible unsafe minimum wage non union job run by fascists somehow better than their horrible unsafe minimum wage non union job run by facists?

I definitely support programs to actually stop discrimination at the source, but trying to coax women into making certain choices(like the current computer science and engineering situation), or giving them opportunities where there really were none (me looking at the scholarships and bursaries and finding they're all for non-whites or women) only serves to alienate someone. Working on a global scale like that, trying to make the total statistical figures look the same, can easily result in inequity just as much as paying no attention can. I think, and have always thought, that programs to stop injustice at it's breaking point(ie. firing the old pervert who was sexually harassing my boss, programs to make sure that women earn the same as men for the same jobs) will always work better, both because normal people like me know that some things will not be tollerated in the workplace and in life, and because companies know there will be fallout for allowing a dissimilar structure to be tollerated. It's a difficult balance to maintain when trying to keep equality, and I think that some methods work better than others. Equality is a difficult proposition when faced with differences between groups, but it's an admirable goal which should be worked towards, in the right ways.

quote:

---

I should remind you that there are huge oppositions to nanotechnology, genetically engineered foods, et. al. much more vocal than any anti-feminist or anti civil rights group

---

Perhaps, but we still have genetically engineered foods invading everything. Soy beans for example are a favorite among healthy people. But you can't get non-engineered soy bean crops in the US anymore. And they are still playing with human cloning regardless, same with nanotechnology. I think these issues all, are creating a division (david and gothiath).

WRT those techs, it depends on which side you're on, I guess. Myself, I find that GMO foods and such are good because I'd rather take the risk and be able to feed the planet(yes, I know it's not happening, but how long can it be with this huge surplus before the world is flooded with food?) than not and feel superior because I helped stop it. I'd like to think that the people who are against the techs out of a selfish worry about nebulous, completely unsubstantiated risks to their own health(Genetically modifying things is millenia old, just not in these highly regimented, scientific ways) are the same as those who are consciously against womens rights, for whatever reason.

quote:

---

My views are that men and women are equal, but different. Because they're different though, they can never be completely equal without becoming less different.

---

I do not agree. I think that males and females are basically similar but are treated very differently by society. I suspect that we are treated so differently, that it is difficult to even realize how similar we are. I think Beauvior was correct on this one.

It seems to me that women today still face many of the same pressures women have always faced: children, careers, beauty pressures etc. Overt sexism is not tolerated, but covert androcentrism is still quite healthy. One big difference, IMO, is that there does not seem to be a firm feminist presense as there used to be to counteract this trend. Maybe I am wrong, but I think that women are at higher risk today of having gains taken away than at any other time since I have been alive.

May I offer an example?

I was recently trying to put forth a role model of sorts to my students by explaining how one of my former TA's was so incredible. I said as a self-declared feminist, she had an amazing GPA (3.94), full-time job outside university, an RA position, great social life etc. etc. I said it was hard to identify a weakness which you must do when completing referee forms. I said that she had so many outstanding qualities, that I would have to nitpick and say she was "not very athletic".

The next day, I was horrified to find a group of students who thought I was absolutely hilarious to say that my feminist TA was smart but massive. I said, "how did you get that impression"? They interpreted "feminist" and "not very athletic" to mean obese. So, I asked the class what they thought I meant by the phrase and only two interpreted it in the way I meant (rarely engaging in sports activities).

In any case, I was surprised that feminists are still stereotyped in this way and rather angry that my statement, as interpreted was not challenged. Why would they allow a prof. to make such jokes (remember that I was not)? I betcha I could get away with more sexist comments today than I could 5-10 years ago.

Finally, many of the commercials I see today are reminiscent of the 1950's. Very thin, made-up women sporting the latest fashions and sweet, sweet coy smiles as if they were created by a plastic surgeon. The rings they sport demonstrate their marriage to a great guy and the clothes they wear show their (husband's wealth). I think the feminist movement is in trouble.

Indeed, it could be just the opposite; that social behaviour impacts the brain (mind). For example, if I often engage in sports, perhaps I develop a different part of my brain than someone who does not. Alternatively, if a perfectly healthy brain is subjected to abuse, I do not think it out of sorts to believe that the mind/body will behave in unhealthy ways. The opposite is also true (that an unhealthy brain can be nurtured to the extent that the mind performs well). Imagine the results if we do not believe as much (i.e. in nurturing or abuse).

Thus, I believe that differences in brain use reflect correlation but not necessarily causation. This is in perfect keeping with Beauvoir. In fact, meta-analysis demonstrates that both sexes score very similarly in pretty much every discipline (Connell, 2002). It is a myth that males perform better than females in math, chemistry, science etc., and it is a myth that females perform better in english, communications etc. In fact, decades of psychological research have demonstrated that the finding of "no difference" is most common. But, this is not very interesting. The media wants to identify sensational differences not similarities.

Feminism has been a force for a variety of reasons and it has shaken the very foundation of our society to a point where both men and women are re-evaluating their role and/or contribution to their communities, families and society at large.

Feminism is an idea, but with any idea, there is a fight for control over what the idea stands for or how it is to be defined. Many women who are visible minorities would argue that feminism is a largely white, middle class movement (I tend to agree with that perspective - you may now throw bricks at me for speaking heresy) but it has indeed stimulated debates among every possible group or sub-group in our larger society. If feminism is anchored in a fundamental belief that women are herstorically disadvantaged as a group, then that group of women could be sub divided into sub groups of disadvantage or oppression. In other words:

a) women are herstorically oppressed.
b) minority women are herstorically oppressed.
c) physically/mentally challenged women are herstorically oppressed.
d) lesbians are oppressed.
e) the list goes on...

The challenge is to determine which sub category is more oppressed and therefore more entitled to a leg up in our society.

Do you see where I am going with this. Feminism for all of the good it has done, has also created divisions in our culture, in our homes, etc. I don't think that it has done so on purpose, I just believe it to be a natural function of basic human enlightenment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Possible reason for a negative reaction to feminism from women: they fear being labeled as man-haters. This is why you have women who are "not feminist, but beleive in equality". They beleive that women are just as capable people as men, but also love and respect many men; whereas the perception (I know not reality) is that feminism is for large hairy lesbians with brush cuts and army/work boots who hate men. This is grossly unfair not only to lesbians (who may or may not be "butch"), but to feminism because it associates misandry with feminism. Naturally, women who like men don't want to be seen as misandrists, so they reject the "feminist" identity.

---

quote:

---

As an instructor, I have often discussed feminist theory but with limited success. ... Are youger women just not interested? ...

---

quote:

---

Perhaps I have overstated the case. When I inductively discuss pressures towards thinness and beauty, it seems like most female students can relate to patriarchy, but when I turn to the economic aspects I tank out a bit. ... They refuse to acknowledge discrimination and I am confounded.

---

Cartman, shouldn't this tell you pretty much everything you need to know? The majority of women have not (so far as I can tell from reading history) ever self-consciously identified as "feminists", so the idea than relatively few do today hardly indicates "the demise of feminism". But, perhaps more to the point, it also seems clear that the majority of the women who did identify as "feminists", even early on, were "liberal feminists" rather than "radical" ones.

Most young women at university today are default liberal feminists - women can and should be allowed to do whatever men can do, including enjoy misogynist pornography, take advantage of class privilege, etc. The difference is that, since the battles of the 80s, such women are unlikely to consider that "feminism", which they tend to identify with the radical position. They're much more likely to consider it "common sense" (=liberalism). The reluctance of most young women in university to acknowledge existence of a systemic struggle over gender is no different and no more surprising than the similar refusal of most young anybody in university to acknowledge the existence of a systemic struggle over class. As liberal common sense teaches, only individuals can be held culpable for wrongs, and only individuals determine (through their "choices") their success. Systemic injustice, systemic constraints - this is what all students need to learn to acknowledge. And can be expected to resist!

On the other, would you not agree that the problem with this thread is its focus?

I have been wondering for two days now why looking at the title of this thread just makes me feel ... weak. Call me slow, but I finally figured it out.

quote:

---

would you not agree that the problem with this thread is its focus?

---

Absolutely. It's premise is false - that difficulties teaching young women about feminism indicate the "demise" of feminism - and just provides an excuse for the rehashing of tired "what's wrong with feminism" arguments. A more productive approach would have been to put the question - even the identical question - under a heading like "Teaching Strategies". There are, of course, real difficulties teaching feminism, difficulties only compounded when one is trying to do so as a man (starting with our right to say anything at all!). These difficulties are worthy of discussion, and good suggestions are always useful. But framing those difficulties as part of some kind of grandiose narrative of the "demise of feminism" is pompous and counterproductive.

quote:

---

Feminism does not focus on feminism. It focuses on the patriarchy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
I agree that males and females behave differently, but it is not a scientific fact that males and females behave socially different due to biological differences.

---

[ 29 November 2004: Message edited by: venus_man ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Borst:
Most young women at university today are default liberal feminists - women can and should be allowed to do whatever men can do, including enjoy misogynist pornography, take advantage of class privilege, etc. The difference is that, since the battles of the 80s, such women are unlikely to consider that "feminism", which they tend to identify with the radical position.

---

I realize that this thread began with a university lecturer's question, but I wonder if an exclusive focus on university students, or university graduates later in life, is the right way to answer the question. How do you interest people in acknowledging and learning about past struggles for equality that have, for the most part, been successful, that have been won?

Labour faces the same problem. It's hard to organize in a world where basic standards have risen to a level where organizing no longer removes the worst abuses, but merely adds some additional insurance.

I think you missed the part where I said I disagreed with the position noted in the article. I'm also not really sure how you are using the term, "pro-choice," since that specific term is usually reserved for discussion of abortion issues in feminism. But I will try and answer you to the best of my ability.

Like many "isms," post-feminism (like 3rd Wave feminism) refers to a wide rage of feminist theory ranging from those, like Sommers-Hoff, who asserts that there is no gender oppression, to others who see 2nd wave feminism as being too focused on the patriarchy which, as Chris Borst saliently notes, some post-/ 3rd wave feminists believe "puts men back at the center." Although some scholars at the extreme end have a confrontational relationship with 2nd wave feminism, many post-/ 3rd wave feminists have one foot in 2nd wave while trying to look beyond the binarisms of men = patriarchy; women = victim.

This does not mean that most 3rd Wave feminists are "denigrating their own," nor are they refusing to acknowledge 2nd wave concerns. What most are casting about for, through very different processes, is a new way of describing female agency. The very fact that there is debate and dialogue on these approaches and a reevaluation of 2nd wave feminist assumptions is a good thing in my opinion. I myself desire to be an agent in my society, rather than a victim of it, and in many ways the debates currently ongoing in 3rd Wave engagements offers the best opportunity in decades to examine my own position as a 2nd wave feminist (which I am by generation).

Remind writes: "Are you feminists who are anti-choice are just starting to resurface?"

This comment leads me to believe that you are referring specifically to abortion issues, which are not the topic here, and which is not what I was writing about. Choice, in this context, was referring to the notion that some feminists believe the point of feminism is to have choice in life: a broad example would be the choice to pursue a career, the choice to stay at home, or the choice to combine the two. This refers to some of the discussions in 3rd wave/ post-feminisms concerning female agency in society.

Remind writes: "What other options are you referring to here?"

For example, some third wave feminists are looking less at the oppositional relationships of women and patriarchy in favor of a post-structuralist approach that sees such discourses as an interplay between competing political/cultural/economic forces that are both positive and negative. Plus, they are more likely to examine mainstream feminist positions from diverse subject positions, something that challenges 2nd wave feminism's reliance on eurocentrisms and universal constructs of female experience.

They are also more likely to look at the influence of popular culture in the same way, where influences are both positive and negative (versus traditional 2nd wave analysis that would posit culture as purely diven by patriarchal imperatives).

There was a good summary of the 2nd Wave/ 3rd wave conflict in a recent article by Jennifer Purvis in the National Women's Studies Association (NWSA) Journal (Vol. 16, No. 3, Fall 2004, p. 97-123). Entitled "Grrrls and Women Together in the Third Wave: Embracing the Challenges of Interegenerational Feminism(s)," the essay offers a better description of the 3rd wave and its intersection with and revolt from 2nd wave positions than I could possible offer.

[ 29 November 2004: Message edited by: Ravenscript ]

quote:

---

Chris, you mentioned the "radical" position and I believe you attributed it to the 1980s. Can you elaborate a little on what the radical position is, and how younger women and men might feel uncomfortable being associated with it? Also, you describe the apathetic youth as wishing to consume mysoginist porn. Perhaps you could elaborate there as well.

---

Regarding these questions:

I did not attribute radical feminism to the 80s. Radical feminism is often dated from Notes From the First Year (1968) (see Documents from the Women's Liberation Movement) and continues strong to this day. If you want to find out more about it, that collection is as good a place to start as any.

As to why youth might not automatically take to it - uh, it's not liberalism. What more needs to be said?

Your link isn't working for me, but a documentary I saw not so long ago noted that different regions of men's and women's brains were activated when they were trying to solve the same problem -- although they came to the same or very similar solutions in about the same amount of time, give or take for the individual case.

I don't really give a rat's ass what region of whose brain lights up -- in a practical sense, there is more similarity than difference.

Edited for a grammatical error.

[ 29 November 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

and then edited to add:

Is this the article you were talking about?

If so, it actually contradicts itself.

quote:

---

Boys and girls were equally good at both tasks.

---

Okay, fair enough. But then:

quote:

---

If this is so, they add, the girls' approach could be more of an advantage in detecting fine changes in facial expression - making them better at "reading" people.

---

But this conclusion should not be drawn if the first statement is true!!! It is nothing more than pure speculation that upholds the stereotype!

Who says logic is the domain of the male*?

*based on the fact that the only scientist quoted in this article is male.

The fact that there is no outward difference leads me to only one question:

Yeah? So What?

[ 29 November 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

That shouldn't be too hard to do considering everybody has so far said at least one thing I disagree with. Given how emotional these debates are on this site, no matter how polite I try to be, somebody's gonna get chippy...so let's get chippy if needed.

This is the first of two posts. Here I explain my experience with the changes in feminism from working and dealing with a variety of feminists over the years. The second post is where I go after comments made by the various folks on this string, which I have arrogantly classified as dinosaurs and put into two camps: the chauvinist dinosaurs, and the cultist dinosaurs.

The "demise" of feminism depends on what your definition of feminism is. There are many different interpretations of what feminism is. It seems to me that other than a vague general commitment to improving the collective condition of women in society in one form or another, feminists vary immensely in their outlook and philosophy. That means the term is highly subject to one’s interpretation, and its meaning can change over time as things change in society.

I have met and worked with many women who call themselves feminists in the labour movement. While there are disagreements on various things, mostly their philosophical view is similar to mine, and we support most of the same concerns. On the other hand, there are many feminists that are members of smaller segregated or affinity groups not directly associated with a larger public interest movement (what I referred to as "cults" on another post) have very different views on life and on many issues.

1. Chauvinist mould never quite goes away:

quote:

---

I think that woman shouldn’t be as man and vice versa. We are different in many, many ways. I believe that would be a mistake to try to make both equal.

---

This is outright compost. Whoever wrote this doesn’t get equality at all. Of course women and men are different. That’s probably the most obvious thing in the galaxy. But they are both inescapably bound together by the fact they are both human and essential to the survival of the species (and don’t give me that genetic cloning BS either). That, at least to me, means they are by virtue of their existence equal—and the fact much of our societies have failed to reflect this is not only an historic injustice, but, I think, threatens our long-term survival. Different and equal are by no means exclusive.

For example, it’s well known the men in general are physically stronger than women that generally make them more suited for heavier lifting and hard repetitive calorie output. Yet women, because of their physique, have a better center of gravity and therefore have much better balance and dexterity, posture control making them better at gymnastic and aerobic activity and high-speed repetitive work. All of these functions are key to our society and economy. So, which is superior? Neither. So let’s drop the myths.

quote:

---

My views are that men and women are equal, but different. Because they're different though, they can never be completely equal without becoming less different.

---

More garbola. See above. It’s hard to imagine in this day and age, with all the evidence, political struggle and information that seems to have become common wisdom, that some folks out there still hold these backward-ass social Darwinist views.

quote:

---

I look at my 22-year-old daughter, and I see someone with every bit as much personal, physical and emotional confidence, and every bit as much opportunity as any young men I know. I look around the business and professional community, and see a near equality of gender in terms of responsibility and sucess (when I factor out the now almost irrelevent old geysers held over from an earlier era.

---

This is certainly true in various professions and trades, depending on where you are in the country. But that doesn’t mean that women have reached equality throughout all sectors of the economy.

On average, according to Statistics Canada, women in the work force still earn on average about 70 per cent of men. It’s true that most of this isn’t because bosses insist on paying women less. Rather, it’s what economists call a structural problem—or what some feminists and other activists might call institutional sexism. Among many trade unionists, the term “pink collar ghetto” is becoming more popular. It means that a huge variety of lower paying jobs—many of them skilled or semi-skilled, are being continuously filled mainly by women (office, service, home care, child care, banking, etc.).

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but it's scientifically demonstrated fact that women and men use different parts of their brain when accomplishing the same task. They are different.

---

This last quote seem very true to me, as I have read much of the same. But my question is so what? Just the fundamental necessity of men and women, the social need for creating communities, families and other collective supports to strengthen individuality and security for all proves to me that equality is not only ethical and moral, but it is essential.

The fact we may use different parts of our brains to accomplish the same task still means we can accomplish the same tasks. It also obviously doesn’t stop us from building communities and families together as a species; or limit our intellectual capacities; or stifle creativity or innovation; or block our basic instincts; or….. let’s get beyond it, folks

2. The cultists strike back (to the stone age):

quote:

---

The reason so many people believe in feminist goals yet reject the label, they say, is that the media have given us a cartoon picture of liberationists as humorless, Birkenstock-wearing man-haters, our era’s version of the old-fashioned spinster.

---

It’s true the corporate media won’t be supportive of feminism, simply because it won’t support any public interest movement seeking to expand democratic rights to working people, thereby infringing on corporate power.

However, there were, and may still be, tendencies among feminist circles that carry these traits: humourless, unattractive, unhealthy, unfriendly, negative, hateful, etc—the “all men are sexist” attitude, or that men were collectively responsible for the misfortune of all women. These are some of the dying trends that I noticed before. This is likely why a lot of women may support various things traditionally associated with feminism, but won’t use the term.

quote:

---

Come on guys tell us all about feminism, what we should do, what fights are left if any, how does being a women in the world affect us or not, how can we include/exclude you?

---

This is an example of those dying trends: the conclusion that because some males choose to comment on feminism, it means they are oppressing them by “telling them” what to do. I remember these comments being related to the 1980s feminist attitudes that “all men are sexist” and part of some imaginary evil conspiracy, then defined as “patriarchy,” to collectively keep women down or otherwise make their lives miserable.

Most new feminists, at least those in the labour movement I have discussed and worked with, aren’t encumbered by these paranoid hyper-inflated views. It’s too bad they are still so prominent on this list.

quote:

---

Men and women are not all that different in any functional sense. There is more difference within each sex than there is between the two sexes.

---

I disagree. The above is just one of a million examples showing this isn’t the case.

I really wish folks would get over confusing equality with likeness. Equal doesn’t necessarily mean the same. It certainly doesn’t between men and women, just as it doesn’t between varying cultures or between individuals in general.

You know what else is different but equal?

4^.5 = 6 / 3 = 1 * 2 = 1 + 1 = 5 - 3 = 1 / .5 !!!

Also, my brother and I. He has the greatest social intelligence and musical skill I've ever seen(I envy him for it), far greater than anything I'll be able have in my lifetime, but he couldn't hold a candle to my technical ability on his best day or my worst. Different. Equal.

When I say that they're different but equal, that's NOT some damned CODE WORD for NOT EQUAL! If that's what I was saying, then I'd say "MEN AND WOMEN AREN'T EQUAL. Get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich". Go figure.

Just like most of the hobbyist musicians I know wouldn't become engineers or vice versa, women and men as a statistical whole tend to be predisposed towards doing different things with their lives. I'm not going to claim to know every detail, nor that every case falls directly into the statistical mold, because I don't, and they won't. All I know is that some fields have lots of women in them (business being one), and some have next to none(any sort of skilled trade being one), and that can create de facto economic inequality on the larger scale before gender ever enters the equation.

I'm going to have to cash in my chips on this particular discussion topic. By outright denying that there are differences between the genders, you get things like the Supersize Me review which tore Spurlocks girlfreind and mother apart for being themselves. This isn't about equality, it's about uniformity, and I don't believe that women and men are uniformly the same in every single regard.

- There's too much guilt being thrown around for not being passionate enough about this one cause, and strict adherence to someone else's agenda. I've been told I'm a traitor to my gender/ nationality because I don't particularly like Margaret Atwood as a writer for godsakes.

- It seems to get bogged down in petty issues too much. Off the top of my head, the women complaining that not enough women made it to the list of top 100 greatest Canadians on the "Why I didn't vote for Tommy" thread. Focus on addresssing the bigger issues and things like that will resolve themselves, I think.

quote:

---

It seems to get bogged down in petty issues too much.

---

What may seem petty to women of our generation may be our oh-so-easy Gen Y dismissal of another woman's entire life work. We like to reap the superficial fruits of the western feminist movement without really thinking about where these things came from, or saying that the sexes problem has been solved. The lack of women Greatest Canadians is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.

You really can't compare the status of women in G8 countries with others. There is a direct correlation between the educational levels of women, their participation levels in the work force, and how they are treated by men. Countries that lack a legacy of educating women are not very advanced when it comes to womens' issues.

I used to believe that very convincing rhetoric they teach you in public school about men and women being equals. That all those struggles ended in 1969. In the past year, I've been thrust into a caregiver role, and I now see this is not the case. I compare myself a lot to my boyfriend, and our male peers who rarely accept familial responsibilities, are not asked to, and live their lives free from worry or obligation.

Allegedly, I am hyper capable and responsible unlike these people's sons. Why does this mean I have to live my life in semi-servitude? Should I not be rewarded for being all those good things? Somehow I'm not, I'm expected to do these things.

The same may be said for men and women as well. The differences amongst women are likely as great as the differences between women and men. There is a great deal of overlap between the two; men are not all clones of one another and neither are women. I said earlier, that the most common finding of psychological studies is "no difference" (or not statistically significant), but this is rarely of interest to the media or many academics for that matter. As well, there is all of the social pressure to conform to gendered roles.

If a difference such as, say, "success in chess" is supposedly found to exist between males and females and there is also a difference in their brain chemistries, can we be confident that this social "success in chess" is due to brain chemistry or might we just be measuring something else such the influence of cultural norms?

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

His following comments indicate just how far equality has NOT came.

quote:

---

affirmative action hiring which has basically benefited young white middle-class women who have not experienced an iota of serious discrimination in their lives (unless you count The Bay running out of their favourite brand of lip gloss).

---

Rebecca West responded:

quote:

---

But to be honest, it isn’t the claim to secret knowledge of the female mind that vexes me so. After all, men have been telling women what they think for a long time, and women have long since learned to dismiss such posturing idiocy as mere wishful thinking.

---

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Borst:
I did not attribute radical feminism to the 80s. Radical feminism is often dated from Notes From the First Year (1968) (see Documents from the Women's Liberation Movement) and continues strong to this day. If you want to find out more about it, that collection is as good a place to start as any.

---

Thanks for this link Chris. I took a brief look at the Notes from the First Year and it certainly does seem a bit dated, to put it charitably.

For example, there's a four paragarph treatise on THE MYTH OF THE VAGINAL ORGASM, which concludes as follows:

"What we must do is redefine our sexuality. We must discard the "normal" concepts of sex and create new guidelines which take into account mutual sexual enjoyment. While the idea of mutual enjoyment is acknowledged in marriage manuals, it is not followed to its logical conclusion. we must begin to demand that if a certain sexual position or technique now defined as "standard" is not mutually conducive to orgasm, then it should no longer be desired as standard. New techniques must be used or devised which transform our current sexual exploitation."

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Ah, Budd, could you explain the point of that (deeply condescending) post? I'm not quite sure what you're driving at.

---

Perhaps you didn't have time to go to Chris Borst's link. I only found time this weekend.

1. I was there at the time -- joined my first Women's Lib group in 1968.

2. I read Chris's link.

Sure, sure, people point out the whole "anti-globalization" movement nussled around the gravity of protests like in Seattle... but it's also been pointed out that the median age of such protesters is MUCH older than in the past; part of that is demographics of course, but I think an even larger part goes much deeper.

quote:

---

She tries really hard to intice female undergrads to consider graduate work, OR develop a "feminist" worldview for that matter.

---

Imagine! A woman prof encouraging younger women to go on to graduate studies!

Why, back in my day (I got my BA the year you were born, YPK), a woman had to FIGHT to get into grad school.

Quite right too, eh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by YPK:

Sad that universities have become institutions of personal and political persuasion. I'm sure as hell glad that I graduated when I did.

---

Sad? This is one of the best teachers I've ever had, BECAUSE of her convictions, not becuase she pretended to be some sort of detached academic automoton, as have countless of academics have done in the past. [Although she didn't wear her views on her sleeve like I've conveyed, it just spilt through naturally through her defences... ].

Universities have ALWAYS been centers of political persuasion, competitive discourse, etc, with particular ideologies (see Prince Charles silly class based remarks about "people knowing their place" and you can clearly see the ideological/political underpinnings of the English upper tier educational system) of the day waging war/discourse on the other.

She treated male students with the outmost respect: she just didn't think they need more encouragement to go into grad school, unlike female undergraduates, who despite now OUTNUMBERING male undergrads are significantly underrepresented in many areas of grad work and faculty positions. Is this a political stance? Sure... but it's one that's in the interest of all of academia.

If she was actively favouring female students academically for political reasons I'd be on your side, but she went out of her way to avoid letting her personal judgements/feelings affect how she assessed her students work (whereby students hand in anonymous papers and identifiy them after grading).

So YPK, I think your being *just* a tad naive with your nostalgia of the "good ole days" of academia. You don't have to dig very far to see how "personal and political persuasion" have always been an active element in any academic institution... only that certain brands get codified as correct and others inappropriate.

[ 06 December 2004: Message edited by: Panama Jack ]

quote:

---

Imagine! A woman prof encouraging younger women to go on to graduate studies!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by YPK:

And if that woman shows no interest in pursuing graduate studies or "developing a feminist worldview"(!?), would her prof still try "really hard to entice" her to do so? And at what point would such encouragement become a kind of bullying? Professors should teach; keep the find-yourself self-help claptrap out of universities.

---

I get your point, but she doesn't bully, she just encourages who she feels are gifted, insightful students to continue their studies through their logical course! [Based on their previous work]

She doesn't tell them how to think, but rather, how to apply various perspectives towards an idea, one of these being from a feminist perspective. She won't think any less of a women who decides to end her studies and go become a housewife if that's her choice -- she just wants them to understand that these choices exist in the first place, and that it's something worth thinking about.

What is teaching if you don't share your own personal perspective/biases? As long as you're honest about them and explore countering views they inrich the educational system. Playing the "rationally objective and detached" prof is living a lie.

It's not that she DIScourages male undergrads from thinking about grad school, on the contrary she's more than eager about giving excellent references, suggestions about other departments, distilling the latest "who's who" in the field (mostly men of course).

Only that, she knows that if 14 students from her graduating class (6 boys, 8 girls for fun) are grad-school quality, more of those boys will go compared to the girls.

She sees this as a structural problem, as she feels both are just as qualified to take the next step, but one half are far more socialized to go on than the other (this is certainly the case in my family, and the subtle encouragement is not done consciously at all).

[ 06 December 2004: Message edited by: Panama Jack ]

quote:

---

Oh, well, YPK: it is no doubt true that all us hairy-legged feminists just clap all the resisters into leg-irons and prevent them from living their lives freely until they agree to join our cabals.

---

Wonderful! The old feminist "stereotype-the-dissenter-and-paint-him-as-a-Neanderthal" approach.

quote:

---

You are a boring waste of time, YPK. You have nothing to say.

---

It's not the women who are being stereotyped. Nosirree.

It's the puir wee men who are being stereotyped by all those stereotypical women! Why haven't we noticed this before? We gotta pay attention to all those stereotyped men! The cruelty, sisters, of asking them to stop taking over centre-stage at every opportunity! How could we have done it?

edited to add: PEOPLE are stereotyped. Both sexes. Can we all just cut it out?

[ 06 December 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

Since you obviously don't have a pro-feminist point of view, what are you doing here? There are over two dozen forums here on babble where anti-feminists like you can vent their spleen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
YPK and skdadl, I think you are both over-reacting. Panama's first post did sound like a prof leaning toward coersion, although I'm sure (from his other posts) he didn't mean that. I don't think either of you need to get all snarky about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Panama Jack:

Thanks Zoot.... I think my prof would be horrified to have me idiotically piegon-holing her into some sort of box (like I did for YPK in that first-post).... it just never occured to me that it would get translated into sounding like coersion, particularly in this forum.

---

Budd said:

quote:

---

Chris had said that these 1960s Notes were the original foundation for the "radical" position

---

This is false. I didn't say this, and it's not true. I said that radical feminism is "commonly dated from" the Notes. That's not the only such dating, or a necessary one, but it is a common one (from what I've read). But, if the radical position has an "original foundation", it is the experience of women under patriarchy - more particularly, their experience within putatively radical, egalitarian organizations under patriarchy.

Anne Koedt's paper in the Notes remains to this day their most widely read contribution. Perhaps because heterosexual genital intercourse remains (cf. Monicagate) the "standard" definition of "sex". Oral and manual sex are, it seems to me, much more standard - and widely acceptable - today than they were in 1968. But, they have remained secondary to "real" sex. And, given the sadistic penetrative standards of patriarchal sexuality, have also been normalized in deeply problematic forms.

Panama Jack said:

quote:

---

Increasingly, leading a less-than-reflected-life is seen as much easier and materially more rewarding than pursuing "the road less traveled" of rigorous intellectual pursuit, activism, or even altruistic volunteerism (as opposed to CV padding)

---

"Leading a less-than-reflected-life" is, and has always been, "much easier and materially more rewardingly than pursuing 'the road less travelled'". That's why the road less travelled is less travelled. I remain very dubious that this is "increasing" or that students are any harder to motivate today than in the past. I've often found a lot of rose-coloured-glasses, selective-memory nostalgia about students amongst professors ...

Finally, Puetski Murder said:

quote:

---

Andrea Dworkin makes me want to join the porn industry and became the next Jenna Jameson.

---

To which I say,

If there was any question as to whether feminism as a movement is still needed, this answers it for me. Scroll down to the end and read the men's comments. Depressing.

[ 07 December 2004: Message edited by: verbatim ]

The rules for this thread are that feminism will be discussed from a "pro-feminist" point of view. But what about those folks like me who think that feminism has actually damaged women's progress in many ways, as well as the progress of liberal, environmental and social justice causes? Are we to be exluded? I will leave that Solomon-like decision up to the moderators, and live happily with their choice.

I don't know if it's a breach of board etiquete to copy a post I made on another thread, but I'm gonna do it, cause I think it applies.

Early feminism, (and I'm old enough to remember, even if I'm a man), was mainly about sexual liberation - the right of a woman to engage in sex on her own terms. Somehow the movement got high-jacked by man-hating and fear and disavowal of sexuality. Even that most natural and fundamental of human phenomena, a man being sexual aroused by a woman, had to be discredited, and was re-named as "objectification" of women.
Women were to focus solely on the perceived "power imbalance" in male-female relations, according to feminists, nursing every grievance against men and utterly and disengenuously ignoring or denying the sexual power women have over men.

Human beings, male and female, will be repelled eventually by philosphies grounded on hate and exclusion. Feminism has long been a complete catastrophe for women, due to its rejection of biological realities, its inherent rejection and denigration of men, its willingness to torture logic and reason, and its malignantly exclusive focus on power, rather than love, communication, justice and trust.

A sad corollorary of this argument is that men too, have lost the promise of a world more shaped by genuine female wisdom, as women try to become men and forget what it is to be a woman.

Feminism is definitely dead, and as it has been mainly constituted, deserves to be. How very sad and funny to see the militant feminists in dismay at the rejection of their philosophy and even the name "feminist" by their own daughters.

Men's crimes against women have been unspeakable. But not all men are complicit, and in overlooking this basic fact, feminism has become little more than a highly sophisticated hate movement. Some women's thinking, especially that of second-generation feminists, has been so distorted and weakened by indulging in absurdity after absurdity, that basic tools of reasoning such as logical consistency and objectivity have been compromised. Feminism has a lot to answer for, especially to women.

quote:

---

Originally posted by looney:
Early feminism, (and I'm old enough to remember, even if I'm a man), was mainly about sexual liberation - the right of a woman to engage in sex on her own terms. Somehow the movement got hi-jacked by man-hating and fear and disavowal of sexuality. Even that most natural and fundamental of human phenomena, a man being sexual aroused by a woman, had to be discredited, and was re-named as "objectification" of women.

---

Well, I'd have to differ with the feminism being synonymous with the sexual revolution, which wasn't actually all it was cracked up to be, liberation-wise for women. Great for men, though.

The objectification, though, goes back to Freud -- who actually thought women most certainly WERE inferior to men. Much feminist theory dating back to the '60s had bases in Freud, and much continues to now. Reasonable? Probably not, but don't blame feminists for objectification, blame Freud. It was his idea.

quote:

---

Women were to focus solely on the perceived "power imbalance" in male-female relations, according to feminists, nursing every grievance against men and utterly and disengenuously ignoring or denying the sexual power women have over men.

---

There were power imbalances between men and women, and there still are in many cases. More so in the early days of the Second Wave. Women didn't have access to higher levels of education or career opportunities -- why wouldn't they struggle to change this? Sorry, making hubby beg for it pales in comparison to bringing home a decent paycheque, or having some autonomy in your life.

quote:

---

Human beings, male and female, will be repelled eventually by philosphies grounded on hate and exclusion. Feminism has long been a complete catastrophe for women, due to its rejection of biological realities, its inherent rejection and denigration of men, its willingness to torture logic and reason, and its malignantly exclusive focus on power, rather than love, communication, justice and trust. A sad corollorary of this argument is that men too, have lost the promise of a world more shaped by genuine female wisdom.

---

What biological realities? True, men can't have babies or breastfeed. The only thing it's impossible for women to do that men can is... um... well, I can't actually think of any... Unless peeing in a standing position (unmessily -- and I'm not convinced even men really have the hang of that) is really important to you. You'll probably say something about heavy lifting, but who wants to do that, anyway? Most men will try to get out of it if they can.

What the hell is "genuine female wisdom"? Is that the bit where one CREATIVELY makes hubby beg for a bit? Or the serene, beatific madonna-with-child image that doesn't exist except for rare moments (trust me, I have babies, I know this from experience). Or that timeless bit of wisdom, "Nothin' says lovin' like somethin' from the oven"?

Quite frankly, I'd prefer to develop some genuine HUMAN wisdom, one that men and women can share.

quote:

---

Feminism is definitely dead, and as it has been mainly constituted, deserves to be. How very sad and funny to see the militant feminists in dismay at the rejection of their philosophy and even the name "feminist" by their own daughters.

---

Don't be so quick to write it off. Sure, there are flaws. Yes, feminism, especially academic feminism, is not as inclusive as it should be, and there is some distance to go. On the other hand, a lot of men out there, just like yourself, have some distance to go before they even meet us halfway.

quote:

---

The rules for this thread are that feminism will be discussed from a "pro-feminist" point of view. But what about those folks like me who think that feminism has actually damaged women's progress in many ways, as well as the progress of liberal, environmental and social justice causes? Are we to be exluded? I will leave that Solomon-like decision up to the moderators, and live happily with their choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
The only thing it's impossible for women to do that men can is... um... well, I can't actually think of any... Unless peeing in a standing position (unmessily -- and I'm not convinced even men really have the hang of that) is really important to you.

---

More men and women are killed in STAGGERING numbers for reasons that have to do with racism, hatred of gays, relgion etc and we don't have annual remembrance of their deaths. We don't have candlelight vigils annually, we don't have memorial statues for them either. More homeless people starve to death every day in Canadian streets, more mentally ill people take their own lives and we don't commemorate them either.

We do commemorate AIDS victims and a number of other kinds of victims, but perhaps they are victims du jour? Or perhaps we simply don't care to recognize that there are victims in every socio-economic or cultural background for a variety of reasons.

What Marc Lepine did was tragic and hateful, but it is certainly not indicative of all men as all men are not women haters or anti-feminist.

It's as if December 6th has become a sacred cow that we cannot touch because the idea of December 6th has become a method of marketing concerns relating to violence against women. I have said before and will say again now, we will not solve issues such as family violence as long as we ignore or diminish other victims of family violence like, oh - men, children, the elderly.

How has feminism harmed the environmental, social justice and freedom cause? Because feminism has seized the forefront (or did, under second generation feminists) of the fight for social justice, environment, etc., and turned off the vast majority of folks who will never accept the patent absurdities, small-mindedness and misplaced anger of feminism. Feminism has set the fight for social justice back a full generation in my view.

What do I mean by "female wisdom"? I mean the right understanding of those things which women can see and understand that men cannot. This term is in a sense undefinable, since it contains an element of mystery. I would only truly know what female wisdom consists of if I were a female. Nonetheless, I have observed it, experienced it, and recognize and respect it. It has to do with a woman being fully in touch with herself as a woman, I think.

There is a way, I believe, of men and women being fully and authentically themselves - feeling and being valued despite or because of the things that make them different. I don't know what that way is. It certainly is not, for me anyway, a boss - worker relationship, or a superior - inferior relationship. It is a way that women can be fully feminine and men truly masculine, and each not feel threatened by the difference. I don't know what that way is, but it sure as hell isn't feminism, at least as I've seen it over the past 4 decades.

Sillygoil, your last post makes me ashamed in a way, for forgetting the truth of the points you make. Good on you, Sillygoil.

I believe that human beings in order to develop a response for a need in a community or to correct an injustice, feel a need to categorize things. There is a degree of logic to it when you look at it from the perspective of what I like to call "oppression categories".

We make a determination of who is the greater victim and therefore more entitled to sympathy, funding, policy development, legislation, social programs and a myriad of other responses to oppression based on their overall degree of oppression or how great a victim they are when compared to other victim groups.

So we can say that women as a group are herstorically oppressed, but that group is made up of sub-groups depending on their degree of oppression.

For example:

a) woman as victim
b) white woman as victim
c) visible minority as victim

There are, of course, bajillions of subcategories... take your pick.

Who is more oppressed and therefore entitled to a correction of their oppression? Who chooses? 14 women were murdered by a nutjob on December 6th and it is a tragedy. But look at the women who were killed - all were in University, all were studying to become engineers, an admirable aspiration.

Now let's examine how many hundreds of thousands of black women in Africa are infected with HIV and are dead or about to die. Which is the greater tragedy? How can we commemorate December 6th and not create national days of mourning for the hundreds of thousands of women dying from HIV AIDS?

It is a white women's movement - at least this is my experience. It is a middle class movement. It is a Western oriented movement with no concept of the challenges or degree of oppression that Canadian women couldn't ever dream of or experience in a thousand lifetimes.

Does this make me anti-feminst? Nope. It makes me aware that the feminist movement is surely in decline because it cannot see beyond it's own white, western based perspective of equality. It rejects criticism. It is hostile to critical analysis. It refuses to acknowledge that family violence, for example, is an issue that impacts another gender.

If feminism is what it claims to be, then it shouldn't try to silence those who criticize it. It can be extreme, it can be moderate, it can be many things - but just because it is feminist, doesn't make it correct or just or right 100% of the time.

I believe we must move beyond the narrow scope of gender and explore the real issues that divide men and women, rich and poor, black or white, muslim or christian, not from a gender based perspective, but rather, from a human perspective.

After all, we have to live together. Perhaps together we can find the answers rather than assign blame or feel unified in our sense of victimization.

There is something to be said for having been a victim and having learned from that experience. There is also something to be said for rejecting the need to be identified by oppression categories and working toward the common good.

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: sillygoil ]

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: sillygoil ]

quote:

---

After all, we have to live together. Perhaps together we can find the answers rather than assign blame or feel unified in our sense of victimization.

---

God, you're so right. All my life, I've been waiting for feminists like you. Those who will take the bull by the horns, charge ahead, will not let any power-abusers take control of the situation and make sure each and every one of us isn't subject to human rights abuses because, after all, Sillygoil is here, watching out for us. Don't worry anymore,girls, fags, dykes, disenfranchised....Sillygoil is here to make sure the discussion is...fair.

quote:

---

Originally posted by looney:
There is simply something hideously unjust and morally wrong and intellectually dishonest in ascribing blame for a crime on those who are completely innocent of that crime. Feminism, especially second-generation feminism, is flirting with this every time it castigates "patriarchy" or its equivalents, and pretends that this does not somehow tar all men. ...

Early feminism, (and I'm old enough to remember, even if I'm a man), was mainly about sexual liberation - the right of a woman to engage in sex on her own terms. Somehow the movement got high-jacked by man-hating and fear and disavowal of sexuality. ...

Feminism has long been a complete catastrophe for women, due to its rejection of biological realities, its inherent rejection and denigration of men, its willingness to torture logic and reason, and its malignantly exclusive focus on power, rather than love, communication, justice and trust.

A sad corollorary of this argument is that men too, have lost the promise of a world more shaped by genuine female wisdom, as women try to become men and forget what it is to be a woman.

---

This post is a lovely example of the masculinist liberal anti-feminist position. So long as "feminism" was about "sexual liberation" - men getting laid more often - it was JUST FINE, thank you very much. (Note the classic, though entirely misplaced, invocation of authority "I was there ...") Then women started to realize that sexual liberation was doing diddly about the real problems they faced, if anything was making them worse, and that a movement for women's liberation was needed. That, of course, was the beginning of "man-hating and fear and disavowal of sexuality". Feminism is only good (on this logic), when it is good for men.

Liberalism, of course, offers an out for this blatantly dominance-serving logic. Two actually. One is the invocation of "individual" crimes against the "tarring" of "all men". The other is the invocation of "biological realities" as cover for its insistence that women know and remain in their place (i.e., not "forget what it is to be a woman" - something determined by men, of course, not uppity women). As always, the oligarchs insist on the natural harmony of the dominant and subordinated classes, if only the subordinated (or, worse, their "militant" demagogues) would respect their place and not stir up trouble.

The invocation of "genuine female wisdom" is an interesting touch. Of couse, this wisdom is only "genuine" when it's what men want to hear. If "those things which women can see and understand that men cannot" - namely women's experience - happen to include things that men don't want to hear, then it's "patent absurdities, small-mindedness and misplaced anger", a "willingness to torture logic and reason" and the compromising of "basic tools of reasoning such as logical consistency and objectivity".

Sillygoil offers an interesting and much more subtle approach to liberal conclusions - a perfect capitulation to the divide-and-conquer strategy. That white supremacy, as well as patriarchy, is a constitutive structure of oppression should be evident to all. A corrollary of this is that even feminist groupings (and their reception) in North America will be structured by systemic racism. But rather than this showing the need for an analysis of intersecting dimensions of rule, and a critical coalition politics, we are told that this invalidates feminism and gender analysis in its entirety. The enormous, highly praised, thoroughly central work of feminists from the global majority (aka "visible minorities") is discounted completely. Which feminists and which feminist events are selected for coverage by the ruling-class media is taken to be the sum total of "feminism".

Developing nations where they don't even have the internet or a free press. South American countries where the stuggle to eat something that isn't buried beneath tons of human waste at the dump is another example. Middle eastern countries where there is no seperation of church and state. Nations run by despots.

Feminism isn't a blip on the radar screen when you are struggling to find something to eat.

I should state that I am not opposed to the basic goals of feminism, it's just that I find it hard to see feminist ideology to be credible because of the fact that it seems to be based on degrees of oppression or oppression categories.

There are some bright and hopeful things occurring in the world in spite of the divisions which exist within modern feminism. Certainly feminism has given other groups the wherewithall to examine their role in society. We are even seeing a growing men's movement (some would call it "the backlash" - love that word). There are groups of men AND women working together toward a common goal, a recent example is Fathers-4-Justice.

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: sillygoil ]

quote:

---

Feminism isn't a blip on the radar screen when you are struggling to find something to eat.

---

Actually, I think you'd be suprprised at just how feminism asserts itself in that exact situation.

HA!!

loony, you're going to have to be a little more specific about how/why Paglia supports your view. What you have presented is entirely too vague to debate. As bittersweet requested, let's have some substance.

As for this "feminine wisdom" nonsense... Aside from Blake's fairly astute observation that it's only "wisdom" when it's what you want to hear, I have to question the existence of "male wisdom" and "female wisdom" at all. You seek some sort of coming together where women can be truly feminine and men can be truly masculine, as if there is some sort of pre-programmed, black and white binary code. There isn't -- it's all shades of grey. "Being in touch with oneself as a woman..." What the hell is that? I can't be in touch with myself as anything else, but at the same time, share many characteristics with the men I know because, well, that's part of being in touch with myself, period. I would vastly prefer my daughters (I have two, myself) to grow up to be fully rounded people than to find themselves hemmed in by the constraints of what is "truly feminine". I'll take the good parts of feminine and masculine, thanks much, and use them how I will. Feminism is about having the choice to do so or not.

Sara, Paglia identifies herself as a feminist, although she is strongly libertarian and is highly critical of the second wave. Here is a brief synopsis of her career and views.

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sillygoil:
Feminism isn't a blip on the radar screen when you are struggling to find something to eat.

I should state that I am not opposed to the basic goals of feminism, it's just that I find it hard to see feminist ideology to be credible because of the fact that it seems to be based on degrees of oppression or oppression categories.

There are groups of men AND women working together toward a common goal, a recent example is Fathers-4-Justice.

---

Actually, sillygoil, this "degrees of oppression or oppression categories" stuff is something of your own invention. No feminism I've ever heard of is "based on" it. Feminism is also quite a lot more than a blip when it comes to food, given that (a) women are systematic underfed compared to men (the gap being larger in the global South), (b) women do more work than men, particularly in cultivating food (again, this being particularly the case in the global South), (c) feminist scholars have demonstrated conclusively that development strategies (i.e., in the global South) that aim at feeding and educating girls and women adequately have the greatest benefit all around.

That said, reference to "Fathers-4-Justice" as a model makes me wonder whether a certain moderator's suspicions haven't been right all along, and we're just dealing with a "smart troll". The low quality of the arguments put forward ("everything that is being mentioned in this thread is based on a western perspective of right and wrong, just and unjust"???), the utter ignorance of feminism, the constant characterization of feminism in terms of early 80s debates and the late 80s backlash, the recourse to any and all arguments so long as the conclusion remains "feminism isn't credible," the complete lack of any concrete and not merely vague and clichéd evidence - very curious. But invoking a rabidly anti-woman "men's rights" group?

I made mention of Fathers-4-Justice to highlight my assertion that the feminist movement has sparked other movements - some might call it a backlash, and others might call it enlightenment. It depends on your point of view. I am also, admittedly, fascinated with Fathers-4-Justice, though I don't agree with their perspective, I certainly think that they have launched an incredibly successful campaign and we cannot deny that they have grown considerably since their inception.

Their movement continues to grow and with growth comes credibility and public acceptance of their point of view. I cannot say that Fathers-4-Justice is anti woman either, they have women, mothers, sisters and even grandmothers conducting civil disobedience actions. Are those women also anti-woman because they belong to that organization?

Here is an example of a Canadian woman who is support Fathers-4-Justice.

Is she wrong and are we right? Why is she there? Why is she getting arrested? Is she part of the backlash?

Come on, use your head.

I haven't talked about PETA, another organization I am fascinated with because it hasn't been relevent to the overall discussion.

I have offered to chair a steering committee regarding increasing the capacity of visible minorities among Canadian women's groups. I have been active for years working with women's groups in Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon and in Lethbridge.

Your conspiracy theory is patently offensive and it is based largely on a presumption because I happen to disagree a number of opinions in this forum.

On the subject of "point of view", my assertion relating to oppression categories is how I interpret the way in which feminism presents itself. I also followed it up with a question - who should be more entitled to equitable treatment based on their degree of oppression. I have yet to hear anyone talk about it.

What I am learning is that many people are quick to defend their view of feminism and rightfully so. Should I not be as quick to defend my perspective? Because I disagree with many who post here, does that make me wrong?

As a visible minority who has been for years, trying to advocate for an equal voice in the feminist movement, I have been attacked for speaking out and criticising this very obvious degree of insensitivity and denial.

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: sillygoil ]

The only segment that is now slightly over represented are Francophone, who went from being unrepresented prior to bilingualism to now being slightly over represented because English people don’t care to or bother to learn French. Or by the time they decide they want to, can’t uproot them selves to immerse them selves in a language. (That’s another topic to discuss somewhere else if you care to.)

What was found though, is that while women make up most of the public service is that there is effectively still a glass ceiling in place and that very few women make it to the upper ranks of the public service. The question was why?

We (unfortunately) couldn’t come to any conclusions in class. But arguments were made from several sides. Namely:

1) Maternity leave ends up stunting careers. It is only recently that Paternity leave is on equal footing with maternity leave.
2) Men are more likely to work the insane and unreasonable hours demanded by high level jobs. (not saying work harder, just more willing to work longer)
3) Most women that are employed are in secretarial positions – they do not lend themselves to climbing the corporate ladder.
4) It takes time to breakdown stereotypes. The first battle was getting women in the public service, now it’s a matter of getting more representation in the public service.
5) Traditional stereotypes reasoning. “Men have more presence”…whatever.

The assertion that feminism has retarded and discredited social action generally is completely my own, not Paglia's, and based almost fully on gut feeling at that. But it's a real powerful gut feeling. I think I can find evidence and examples if pushed. There are many things I should respond to. Let me get back to this one in a bit.

Seeking to find a whole load of outrages and injustices flowing from feminism that my memory would not accurately supply, I typed in "critiques of feminism" on Google, and got back this page -

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=critiques+of+feminism

Following a few of the links on this page astounded me - it seems there's a whole world wide network of organized (?) anti-feminism I didn't know existed. I'm quite sure if I spent some time following this stuff, I could provide uncontestable evidence of men unjustly losing jobs, children, their possessions and their freedom due to the influence of feminism. My fear is that in pursuing this topic, as is so often the case with this kind of thing, I would find so much hatred, illogic and rancour mixed in with the legitimate grievances that I might end up supporting feminism!

I find it helpful in my thinking on these matters to distinguish between "men and women" and the "masculine and feminine". Every man has some feminine in him, and every woman some masculine. We ought to be completely free as men and women to construct our sexual personalities with whatever mixture of each we wish and be accepted fully by society. However it is the dimunition and discrediting of the feminine persona which I object to.

My core problem with feminism is its take on sexuality. I completely support any attempts to give absolute equality to men and women in the labour market and in educational opportunities. But when it comes to sexuality and relations between the sexes, I think feminism is wrong on every detail, and in every particularity and concept it advances.

Feminism ( at least second generation feminism ) teaches us to distrust and reject the masculine at every turn. Do you not think this has consequences? Do you not think that real marriages, families and people have been destroyed by this construct?

Feminism is incapable of true respect for the masculine or the feminine, and has consequently become increasingly irrelevant to the real world. But my thesis is not only that feminism has become irrelevant as a social force, but that it has caused significant unacknowledged harm.

I'm on a big "let's admit our sins" trip these days. It seems to me the only way to peace in the mid-East, and in the increasingly totalitarian world of the United States. Only by confronting our misdeeds can we begin to make real progress and assure they will not happen again. Why should this dynamic not apply to feminism?

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: looney ]

The true litmus test of any movement as far as I am concerned is whether or not it can withstand critical analysis or constructive criticism. In my exploration of feminism and, for example, father's rights groups/masculinism it has become abundently clear to me that both factions have more in common than either group would be willing or prepared to admit - there is resistance to change and an unwillingness to explore the reasoning behind either group's point of view.

As we are all part of this debate, perhaps we should explore both faction's commonality - maybe that is where we might find answers.

That said, thank you to those posters who continue to report that feminism is an ever-evolving and diverse thing. I've always had a problem with this particular "ism" being applied to such a fluid thing, but for the sake of simplicity I find the term appropriate for a number of reasons.

Also, thanks to those who, while disagreeing with some of the more disagreeable aspects of feminism, can still recognize that, in its varying shapes and forms, it is an imporant "ism" that should never be entirely dismissed on the basis of its shortcomings. Of which there are several, not inconsiderable.

Of its ethnocentric elitism I would say yes, but those qualifiers would apply more broadly to early feminism, as it has been recorded. We don't know much about it, as a movement, beyond what middle and upper middle class Western women have espoused since Mary Wollstonecraft wrote her treatise in the late 18th century. We should, appropriately assume that there have been women organized around gender issues before, during and after that, because to narrow it down to what we have enshrined in the canon of "feminism" would discredit what diverse women the world over have strived for for centuries.

Following on that, to call feminism a "Western elitist creation of white female privilege" is to completely discredit what has been accomplished by women, without any kind of privilege, the world over, in their fight for equality. It is only in its academic exploration that feminism can be said to be an elitist thing, since its definition has a history with women who had the economic and social class that allowed them to explore the more intellectual aspects of feminism. A Room of One's Own, and all that.

Where feminism fails is not in its production of theory in academia, but rather in its translation into the lives of everyday women. It is invented and re-invented as an "ism" both by those who support it and by those who detract from it. It does not properly recognize the many small battles that occur in everyday households, in countries where it has been forced underground, in the lives of Everywomen in Everyplace.

quote:

---

Reports of feminism's demise are...premature.

---

I certainly hope that you are correct in this statement because it (feminism) seems particularly relevant these days. Perhaps "demise" was a poor choice of words.

How could we actually tell (measure) if feminism is ascending or waning?

You could measure the success/failure of the NDP by the number of members they have or the number of votes they receive in an election, but I suspect that few would argue that feminism can be measured by the number of self-identified feminists (increasing/decreasing) because "feminist" seems to be difficult to define these days and it is certainly inappropriate to label anyone a "non-feminist".

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Cartman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:

How could we actually tell (measure) if feminism is ascending or waning? ... it is certainly inappropriate to label anyone a "non-feminist".

---

Could we measure the strength of feminism by quantifying the level of objectification of women in society? Off the top of my head, a standardized statistic (i.e. a rate) of the number of objectified images a person observes in a year, month day whatever over time?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sillygoil:
I also followed it up with a question - who should be more entitled to equitable treatment based on their degree of oppression. I have yet to hear anyone talk about it.

---

Because it's a dumb question. NO ONE is "more entitled to equitable treatment based on their degree of oppression." We fight oppression, the oppression of women, blacks, lgbt's, the disabled, working people, the unemployed, and so on. ALL OF IT. Your divide-and-rule question only makes sense from the point of view of the ruling class - how do we turn one group of proles against another?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sillygoil:
As we are all part of this debate, perhaps we should explore both faction's commonality - maybe that is where we might find answers.

---

Since you seem very convinced that women should appreciate and collaborate with men's rights groups, I presume that you are equally convinced that blacks, Asians, Latino/as, Jews, and the First Nations should appreciate and collaborate with white rights groups (like these)? Surely, we need to stop all this "white-hating" and just learn to work together for the common good?

quote:

---

Just because it's feminism, doesn't mean it's right. You may suggest that oppression categories don't exist, but they do and feminism created them because it's a neat and tidy way to look at priviledge.

---