posted
The NY Times article on Ivy League female students and the subsequent thread reminded me of this article I read in the magazine Lutheran Woman Today : Fuzzy Sweater Feminist
an excerpt:
quote: How is it that the word feminist came to be so unappealing? I have a theory from my long-ago days as a political consultant. It seems that whoever manages to define a term to his or her advantage and make it stick wins the contest. Men who don’t want women as equals seem to have loud voices. Over the years, they have reshaped the word feminist as a slur, and now many women and most young girls are reluctant to define themselves with that word. Rush-like guys call feminists a bunch of loud–mouthed man–haters and cry out, "Who’d want to be like them?"
Man–haters? Odd, but in all the years I spent at a girls’ high school in the ’70s, a women’s college in the ’80s, and in business in the ’90s, never once did I hear any woman denounce men. Maybe I was out of the room at the time, talking to a boyfriend.
Feminism, for me, has never included the thought that men are an enemy of any kind. Rather than allowing the word to be tarnished by negative stereotypes, why not focus instead on what it really means?
I like the down-to-earth, common sense approach. and the dabs of humor (check out the NFL response : ) I also find the idea of "gently re-claiming" the word feminist appealing.
The topic of social and economic equality for women can not take place in an environment that bandies words about with negative connotations attached . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunatly, not all feminists are as tolerant as she seems to be.
I have no problem with the word, and I don't automatacally assume a millitant feminist when I hear it, but I have had some up close and personal incounters with the type of woman who gave feminism a bad name in the first place.
Not fun.
Of course, I am sure a lot of women have had experiences with the male gorrilla-type man who does the same for man. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting that she blames men for reshaping the word, rather than the militant feminists who really did give it a bad name. Or do/did they just not exist?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I've often heard women denounce men (in media -- only very very rarely in real life) and I didn't even go to a girl's school. I wonder how she managed to avoid hearing it?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Interesting that she blames men for reshaping the word, rather than the militant feminists who really did give it a bad name. Or do/did they just not exist?
Do they? I know a lot of women who would consider themselves feminist, but none of them would I consider "militant". Are there any in numbers significant enough to change the definition? I think if the definition has come to really imply "militant" then it largely is due to loud stereotyping by those opposed to the movement. (which isn't all male, btw.)
I think this is a pretty effective tactic, though it is one I abhor. Namely, picking the fringe minority of a movement and talking as if they define the whole. This has worked to largely tarnish the words "Liberal", and "Environmentalist", too. I'm sure there are others.
The value to the opposition in doing this is to make normal people afraid to identify with the good things in the movement for fear of being lumped into the fringe. It's pretty effective actually.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: This has worked to largely tarnish the words "Liberal", and "Environmentalist", too. I'm sure there are others. [/QB]
Conservative Christian? Fundamentalist? The problem as I see it is not with a group of opponents co-opting language and tarnishing a noble cause. It's about a media that thrives on those loud fringe movements and uses the moniker to identify the outliers. I figure that eventually everyone will just say they're independant and leave it at that. Sort of like the social heat death of the universe.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I know is I hear encriminating things from the mouths of feminazis themselves. No one is telling them to say those things, and I don't think there is a conspiracy behind the fact that they always get press. The sensational is what sells.
They are what we hear. Those things stick out in our memories as we get irritated at what they say. People accuse them of being extreme because they are. And because they are getting so much attention, people wrongly assume that they are authoritative for the "feminist movement".
They give feminism a bad name, and the moderate, balanced, thoughtful feminists suffer because of it. And feminism is far from the only "group" of people this happens to.
That's how it looks to me, anyway.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mom was a feminazi for many years. She's lightened up a little, but she's still a man-hater.
I consider myself a feminist. I think that equal pay for equal work should be practiced across the board (it still isn't, btw.) I think that women should not be prohibited to do any job they are qualified to do, or to seek qualification, tacitly or explicitly (yup, that still happens, too.) I think men should treat women as equals in all things (some still don't.)
But it seems to me that the mainstream feminist movement has turned more toward lesbian rights and freeing the opressed women of other countries, which may be worthy goals and all, but when did they give up on the original goals of the movement? And why do they feel the need to condemn women who exercise their right to choose the path they want if that path does not conform to their ideal?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(BTW, I grew up on Free to be You and Me, among other things, and am now humming "Parents are People". That's the kind of sentiment I like-- mommies and daddies can each be anything they want to be-- except for mommies can't be daddies, and daddies can't be mommies! But if they choose to be just mommies or just daddies, that's good, too!)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Unfortunatly, not all feminists are as tolerant as she seems to be.
I have no problem with the word, and I don't automatacally assume a millitant feminist when I hear it, but I have had some up close and personal incounters with the type of woman who gave feminism a bad name in the first place.
quote:(BTW, I grew up on Free to be You and Me, among other things, and am now humming "Parents are People". [Big Grin] That's the kind of sentiment I like-- mommies and daddies can each be anything they want to be-- except for mommies can't be daddies, and daddies can't be mommies! But if they choose to be just mommies or just daddies, that's good, too!)
Oh my! This sounds like almost the exact same book that I have in Bernstein Bears format! I think it's called "He Bear, She Bear".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
We also had Stories for Free Children, which is currently out of print, but you can get it for $2.25 plus shipping. Man, that book had some great stories.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ketchupqueen, I agree with a lot of your post.
But how can "freeing the oppressed women of other countries" not be a feminist goal?
Unless, of course, you're talking about *American* feminists, who only care about oppressed *American* women.
Sorry to be snarky, but that really got to me. Feminism isn't about borders. And caring about women in other countries doesn't mean departing from the original goals.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But how can "freeing the oppressed women of other countries" not be a feminist goal?
The problem I have with this is they way people go about it. You can't just go in and change someone's culture. You have to work within it. And to do this, you have to have a profound understanding of that culture.
If you go in and force people to adhere to the beliefs of our culture, is that any better than going in and forcing them to accept our form of government?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But how can "freeing the oppressed women of other countries" not be a feminist goal?
Unless, of course, you're talking about *American* feminists, who only care about oppressed *American* women.
If they cleaned up their own house first, wouldn't they be in a better position to help others? And of course it's a feminist goal. But when they focus on it to the exclusion of helping abused and oppressed women down the block, doesn't that become a problem? Of course we should try to help women in other cultures who struggle with things like FGM and beatings, who have no legal recourse against an abusive husband, who have no say about whether to marry an abusive man with three other wives or not, or who have no right to vote or get an education. BUT. Should we do it to the exclusion of helping women who are facing similar trials right in our own backyards?
I didn't mean to imply that those weren't worthy goals. But I often see groups focusing on them to the exclusion of women here, because we live in such an "enlightened" country that if they're suffering these things, "it's their own fault." Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have the DVD of Free to Be.... It's a hoot watching Michael Jackson singing "You Don't Have To Change At All."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KQ, I do agree with your conclusion. But I have problems with your assumption that that helping women in other countries is to the exclusion of helping women in my own country.
I certainly haven't had the experience you have where women in first world countries are excluded because "it's their own fault." , and I agree, that's short-sighted, un-compassionate and frankly inexcusable.
I find it staggering you have found this the norm. And fairly depressing.
To be frank, if you were Australian I would accuse you of not knowing what you are talking about. I cannot think of a single feminist group here (extremists included) who would focus of on the rights of women overseas to the exclusion of the rights of women at home. Certainly I have never seen any suggestion of it being a woman's fault if she suffers any harm.
If that is the case in the US, I think it needs changing. Now.
**
Bev - yes and no. It's one of the issues I struggle with, actually. Who am I to make cultural assumptions?
Except, I know, unswervingly, that some of these practices are wrong . FGM is the most predominant of those. I draw strength from two things; one is the number of women who are publicly coming forward from these cultures to condemn the practice. The other is the fact that the cultures which proscribe penalties like stoning to death for a women for pre-maritral sex (even if it was rape) are complete patriarchies. So how do I have a moral imperative to interfere with their culture? Because I believe the right of women to participate in their government and society outweighs cultural relevance.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except, I know, unswervingly, that some of these practices are wrong . FGM is the most predominant of those. I draw strength from two things; one is the number of women who are publicly coming forward from these cultures to condemn the practice. The other is the fact that the cultures which proscribe penalties like stoning to death for a women for pre-maritral sex (even if it was rape) are complete patriarchies. So how do I have a moral imperative to interfere with their culture? Because I believe the right of women to participate in their government and society outweighs cultural relevance.
I share your ambivalence on FGM in particular (but on other issues as well). It kills me to think that whole societies of women are being denied sexual pleasure when the men are welcome to it--especially when I believe that men and women's sex drives are very different. (Not a popular idea these days.)
I do believe that men are more likely to lust sexually after women not theirs than women are to lust sexually after men not theirs. In fact, I think that when women "dally", the reasons tend to be other than sexual, whereas men are more likely to dally for sexual reasons. So, to me if you are going to remove sexual pleasure from one of the sexes to cut down on adultery, it should be the men. Not that I think that should happen at all. So the whole reason (that I understand) behind FGM doesn't make sense.
Of course, it is entirely possible that I don't understand the reasons behind it *at all*. And I certainly wouldn't feel prepared to approach liberating these women until I did understand it.
And if the women are against it, I am a lot more likely to want to help them out of their situation. Just as I'd rather go to war to liberate an oppressed people than to force change on a people that didn't want to change in the first place.
Where the ambivalence comes in for me is when the women embrace (what I view as) sexist practices. That's a little more tricky.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that is the case in the US, I think it needs changing. Now.
I agree entirely.
quote: It kills me to think that whole societies of women are being denied sexual pleasure when the men are welcome to it--especially when I believe that men and women's sex drives are very different. (Not a popular idea these days.)
I could live with that, I suppose, if that's their belief. It's the fact that women are intentionally injured, almost never with pain relief, sometimes with fatal results, usually at a very young age, and it often has a bearing on their ability to healthily bear children that bothers me.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The other is the fact that the cultures which proscribe penalties like stoning to death for a women for pre-maritral sex (even if it was rape) are complete patriarchies.
You know, coming from a patriarchal faith myself, I believe that patriarchal order can only work when the men involved truly listen with understanding to the counsel of the women involved. It is so easy when someone is "in power" to not make the effort to understand the other side and dismiss their needs. I believe that the men involved are held heavily responsible by God for not doing so. I believe that they must follow the example of Christ who showed that true leadership and authority is embodied in his washing of his disciples' feet.
It's interesting, I was listening to a recent talk from a leader in my church just the other day (an apostle--meaning what he says is scripture to us). He professed quite strongly that the patriarchal order is eternal and ordained of God. But in the same talk he stressed that men and women are equal partners.
I remember wondering at this a great deal--it seems illogical to the human mind. I figure the only way it is possible is that this eternal, God-ordained "patriarchal order" does not resemble in the least what people tend to think of as "patriarchal order" as being. But Christ's illustration of leadership above must be kept in mind for this to make any sort of sense.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's the fact that women are intentionally injured, almost never with pain relief, sometimes with fatal results, usually at a very young age, and it often has a bearing on their ability to healthily bear children that bothers me.
And not only that, but a lot die because of the procedure.
[Edit - and having re-read, KQ's post says that. Yeah, what she says. ]
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could live with that, I suppose, if that's their belief.
Whereas I have a harder time accepting that. But it is still hard for me to feel right about forcing change.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I think you are exactly right when you say
quote: I figure the only way it is possible is that this eternal, God-ordained "patriarchal order" does not resemble in the least what people tend to think of as "patriarchal order" as being.
.
I personally do not believe in a God-ordained "patriarchal order" as you do. I don't agree with it either. However when I talk about a "patriarchal order" I am not referring to a one where the men listen, and are counselled by women, like your faith ordains.
I guess I talk about the sadly more realised example where anyone in power (in that case, men) will only listened to the empowered and will ignore the disempowered (the women).
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand, imogen. And I thank you for your respect of my beliefs. I agree that far too many of the examples of "patriarchal order" that we see around us are disgusting. I wrinkle my nose in their general direction!
I am disgusted to learn that they would go about FGM in those ways. The fact that they do it at all already doesn't sit well with me. But if I were an ambassador intent on making changes in their culture, it might go something like this (based on my limited understanding):
First, I would want to be male, since they'd be more likely to actually listen to me and consider my words. Or, that being impossible, I'd try to get male ambassadors for my cause.
Then I would ask them if they would like assistance in their procedure to make it more humane. Basically I would try to find out if it being a painful, risky, horrific procedure was essential to their belief. I would appeal to the problems that effect the males I'm talking to: trouble with childbirth and it's ramifications.
If I could help make the procedure more humane--yay. Small victory for my side.
If it is part of their belief that the procedure must be as it is, I would appeal to their feelings and "claims" that they honor and respect women. I would have to truly understand their mindset on this in order to be skilled, though. I would suggest that perhaps God allowed anesthesia and the like to become available out of mercy for His daughters.
Anyway, that sort of thing. Baby steps.
And for the women who know they can only escape FGM by escaping the grasp of their culture, I would try to help them escape.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you would make an amazing ambassador, Bev.
Seriously.
I think you have the right idea. I think I would be counter-productive - too het up on the injustices to see what actually has to *happen* to stop them. As you said, it's baby steps. But many steps can make a whole different culture.
So, how would you feel about a new job, some overseas travel?
quote: I share your ambivalence on FGM in particular (but on other issues as well).
Bev??? How are you using the word ambivalence here? Imogen doesn't seem ambivalent on FGM at all. Sorry for being nitpicky. It's so incongrous I'm having a hard time putting it aside and going on with the rest of the thread.
quote:So* - if we're serious, as women (and as privileged, educated women) , how do we start stopping this?
Obviously we can't change into a male diplomat (tempting as it may be ) but there must be something we can do.
I think our first step is akin to this:
quote:And for the women who know they can only escape FGM by escaping the grasp of their culture, I would try to help them escape.
Unfortunately, for every two steps we take forward in granting asylum to women seeking to escape FGM and other "gender issues", we seem to take three steps back, at least in this country (and from what I've read, Britain isn't much better; I know nothing much about the situation in Germany or Australia.) We could make it easier for those women who do try to escape their cultures and come here to be granted asylum and helped to learn to support themselves once here.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ: Ambivalence as to what to do about it. Part of me wants to force a stop to it. I am *not* ambivalent about whether I believe it is right or wrong. I think it is an evil, disgusting practice.
In fact, it is my opinion that it is males projecting their weakness onto women as has been done so many times throughout history.
Like how many Christian teachers of the past taught that women were sinful sexual creatures (due to Eve, of course). Just because those men couldn't control their own impulses!
Or how Freud taught that women suffer from penis envy.
I even heard the ridiculous theory that women buy melons that are comparable to the size of their own breasts. Since the size of my breasts do not approach the size of any self-respecting melon, and I have no trouble whatsoever picking the biggest, juiciest one of all, this so called "theory" made me laugh out loud.
Male projection. It can get really, really ridiculous.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, for every two steps we take forward in granting asylum to women seeking to escape FGM and other "gender issues", we seem to take three steps back, at least in this country (and from what I've read, Britain isn't much better; I know nothing much about the situation in Germany or Australia.)
I don't know anything about this. Could you give more info?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I even heard the ridiculous theory that women buy melons that are comparable to the size of their own breasts. Since the size of my breasts do not approach the size of any self-respecting melon, and I have no trouble whatsoever picking the biggest, juiciest one of all, this so called "theory" made me laugh out loud.
Yeah, that must be why I like watermelon so much...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know anything about this. Could you give more info?
Sorry, missed this earlier.
We have now made it easier for women to seek asylum on the grounds that if they return home, they will be subject to forced marriage and/or FGM. However, we still don't treat detainees waiting for asylum hearings as humanely as we should. US law now requires that people seeking asylum request it IMMEDIATELY upon entering the country. Not everyone has a good enough grasp of the law or the language or is well informed enough to do so; they are now, under law, automatically turned back if they fail to request asylum immediately. Women are, of course, even less likely to have access to the education that would inform them of what they need to do to seek asylum. I thoroughly recommend the book Do They Hear You When You Cry?. (Be warned: there are some graphic depictions of FGM in this book.) I've read articles about similar treatment of detainees and asylum-seekers in Britain.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I even heard the ridiculous theory that women buy melons that are comparable to the size of their own breasts. Since the size of my breasts do not approach the size of any self-respecting melon, and I have no trouble whatsoever picking the biggest, juiciest one of all, this so called "theory" made me laugh out loud.
I need to find a grocery store that carries larger bananas.
quote:on the grounds that if they return home, they will be subject to forced marriage and/or FGM.
For serious?
Who are the men that force these women to marry them? Or are they already betrothed to someone against their will?
Sounds like a lot of good reform could be done right here in our country. Sounds like we could use more people who speak foreign languages working for us as well.
I would want to make asylum for these women as easy as possible.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
FGM is no more crucial to Islam, at any rate, than celebrating Christmas is to ours. It started out as a thing practiced by the people being converted, and somehow got turned into people thinkint it was a celebration of their new faith. And now some people are horrified at the suggestion of doing away with it. If you grow up in a dysfunctional family, Christmas is the time of year you most desperately pretend you are not dysfunctional until everything melts down all at once.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sounds like we could use more people who speak foreign languages working for us as well.
Considering how many languages are spoken in Africa alone, yes, we sometimes have interpretation problems.
quote:Who are the men that force these women to marry them? Or are they already betrothed to someone against their will?
Often they are betrothed or sold by their families against their will and sometimes against their interest. Again, I'm not against arranged marriage in every case, but if the woman doesn't want it enough to try to escape it, shouldn't we help her?
Another thing-- did you know that you have to provide documented proof of danger to seek asylum? I mean, I understand that we can't just let anyone claim that they're being persecuted, but I think the "proof" requirements are far too stringent.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My mom was a feminazi for many years. She's lightened up a little, but she's still a man-hater.
I don't have anything productive to add, except that I absolutely loathe and despise the word "feminazi." I think it reflects way too much of the Rush-type pundits' stereotypes; I think labeling anyone with this is extraordinarily counterproductive, because it gives opposers of feminism carte blanche to use the term and apply it to any and all women who believe that they should have equal rights of men.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um. My mother IS a feminazi. Or at least, was when I was younger. There is no other way to describe her accurately. I have never used the word about anyone else. But my mom, it accurately describes.
Just like I'm the Christmas Nazi.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, where are you getting your definition from that word? What does that word mean to you when you use it, and what does it mean to people who think that Rush has it right, that all feminists are basically uppity women and apply the word feminazi indiscriminately to anyone who argues for women's rights? In my view, anyone using that word lends credence to ditto-heads who equate feminism with militant man-haters. I react very strongly to that word because to me, it's akin to a racial slur.
posted
I think the author of this article misses the big problem with feminism. It's not something added to the definition by opponents of feminism, or a matter of extremists hijacking the definition; it's something inherent in the most basic goals of feminism. The big problem is that to promote social and economic equality for women inherently begs the question of why you aren't promoting social and economic equality for everyone, men and women. You don't have to actually denounce men - you still imply it if you promote women's rights and not men's, even though it may be unknowingly.
There was an excuse when it was blatant that women had fewer rights than men. Today, that excuse no longer holds.
Don't reclaim feminism. Instead move on to a more complete philosophy, promoting the rights of both men and women. Call it humanism if you'd like - and recognize that domestic abuse, birth control, the equality of the sexes, and similar issues are not just concerns for women, but rather should be concerns for everyone.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'know, this has all taken an interesting twist. Allow me to divert back to the usage of the word feminism, and the question of what it means:
The opening paragraph in the article:
quote:Fuzzy-Sweater Feminist
by Jennifer Basye Sander
Here’s how this feminist spent her day: taking a sick child to the doctor, vacuuming the living room, running a couple of loads of laundry through the washer and dryer, and baking a loaf of whole wheat bread. (Lest you hate me right off the bat, I will admit to using a bread machine.) In between loads of laundry, I read the obituary of the writer Elizabeth Janeway, who died this year at age 91. The headline in my local paper identified her as "Elizabeth Janeway, feminist author," and the article went on to say that "among feminists, Mrs. Janeway was a less strident, but still powerful voice." Less strident? Where did this notion that feminists are strident come from?
My thoughts:
Our assignment of application and meaning to words affects the state of our culture and society.
Our ability to do the work that needs to be done around gender equality is affected by these assigned and applied meanings.
I think some people - male or female, young or old - can be strident and obnoxious, hell-bent for election on being the loudest voice. This does NOT make all others who say similar things strident, obnoxious, etc.
I think we come to these conclusions about the "other" when we don't listen fully, carefully, thoughtfully. When we listen ONLY from our viewpoint, and not at all from the viewpoint of the other.
Molly Yard died today. She was known as a vigorous advocate of "liberal" causes. Now, don't wrinkle your nose - as you read the article you find out what helped shape her in her formative years, and what works she is known for . . .
posted
I consider myself a feminist, based on what I understand the word to mean.
That said, I am flabbergasted that the author of the statement quoted above has never encountered a "man-hater," or heard a woman denounce men. I most certainly have. In fact, when I was in college and grad school, it was the norm, and when it happened in a class, we male students were most emphatically expected to nod our heads.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
: ) I also find the idea of "gently re-claiming" the word feminist appealing. 
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Yeah, that must be why I like watermelon so much...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
