Lately, I’ve been finding some MAJOR misconceptions about feminism out there in my internet surfing. I’m talking, REALLY REALLY MAJOR. I know that “feminism” as a social movement is highly political, but I’ve been really surprised at some of what I’ve seen lying about in cyberspace about feminism and feminists. So, I’m going to post a couple of links here, to a couple of feminist bloggers who have kindly opened the floor to questions from people about feminism. The questions they have received have been, mostly, genuine and earnest, as have their responses. If you have ever had a question about feminism, I encourage you to read these posts/threads through.
Normally, I *think* I try to answer people’s questions and comments with respect and candour (save for a couple of times when I felt particularly antagonized/vilified/annoyed). But, I know there are lots of people who surf my blog and do not comment (hello out there!), and perhaps some of these folks might feel intimidated by a lack of academic lingo or just general background knowledge about what I’m talking about. And so, I’m going to follow suit with my feminist blogger fellows, and offer to answer any question you might have about feminism.
One caveat: if you’re asking, don’t be disingenous, and be civil. I will answer in good faith and with civility if I feel you are asking in good faith and being civil. Otherwise, please don’t bother: this is not an invitation for anti-feminist/misogynist trolls to slam feminist ideology. If you persist, be warned: I can give as good as you’ve got, and if things get out of hand, I will simply apply universal comment moderation to this post, your comments won’t get through, and you’ll have wasted all that energy.
And, as Molly says, I do not claim to represent all feminists in all their various forms.
so, here’s your chance to ask anything you’ve ever wanted to know about feminism. I’ll do my best to answer. Have at it.
I’ll think of one. Is my blog working O.K. for you?
From what I’ve read on the issue of feminism, it’s my impression that, today, the word feminism is used in a more general way to represent all forms of class struggle for equality in decision making. Is this assumption right? Can you elaborate with examples?
I have been surfing and reading your blog recently and was fascinated by the discussion.
I am male and have been interested in feminism. (a high school student wanting to study Gender Studies at university.) Do you think can a male person become a feminist (some feminists say men can’t), and if so, what should men be particularly aware of, to live as a feminist? I have been involved with activism, and when my friends tell me stupid notions about feminism (e.g. feminists hate men, etc) every time I argue against them, but what else can I do in my daily life to make a change? Do you think there are roles men particularly can play in achieving gender equity?
This is old stuff to you but, new to me, so i’m sorting it out in my head.
I checked out the two site links you gave. Both were very interesting. One thing i noticed(& it’s obvious but I think worth pointing out) is that some peoples approach to feminism is based on negitive feelings, which makes them defensive, which means they feel as if they are being attacked somehow. My guess that patriarchy teaches us to be supicious of feminism & or despising of women or even afraid of women. I think some major religions are definately to blame for alot of that. Even though all that might be true, some people (mostly men) are downright venomous in their attacks. My feeling is with these people that they are really afraid of women.
My question is: Can patriarchy bring out that kind of hate? or is there more to it?
This is something I struggle with, so I’m going to ask you how you do it. Do you have anti-feminist friends/family members? If so, how do you consolidate between your relationship with them and your beliefs? How do you integrate feminism into your daily life without having that life dissintigrate? If this is a too personal question, I understand – I’m just having a lot of trouble with this so like to find out what other people do.
(To give an example of what I’m talking about, I’d say that I was fairly misogynistic in high school. When I took my first sociology class in my first year of university, however, I realised that my previous line of thinking was f’d. The thing is, that my old friends didn’t change their opinions. They still thought abortion was wrong, except for cases of rape; that feminism is against men; that we should focus more on deconstructing masculinity than femininity; etc. I didn’t know what to do with that and I still don’t – of course you don’t want to give up people you’ve known and loved your entire life, but when they are the very people you’re fighting against..! And what happens when you don’t enjoy the same music and television and films you used to because you realise how oppressive they are?)
wow, this is long – sorry!
Thinking girl, I know these are directed at you, so I hope you don’t mind if I comment on one of the questions that hits home with me.
@pragya – I used to hang out with a bunch of good ol’ boys who relished racist and sexist banter. Then I went to university and my mind was blown wide open. During and afterwards, I stopped finding their “jokes” so funny, so it appeared that I lost my sense of humour. Some of the guys didn’t like that much, and they came to the conclusion that university makes people boring. Just as well. But I still hang out with one guy, a guy who once admitted to all that if he got married, he might let his wife work. He and I still like to argue over music and go hiking. He’s curious that my guy doesn’t mind making less money than I do and sometimes says as much. If he makes a comment I object to, I respond carefully, a little at a time, and never angrily or defensively. I have actually changed some of his views over the years. Most of the time, though, we don’t talk about the big issues, we just enjoy the scenery and discuss things we have in common. It’s similar to the relationship I have with my mom-in-law who’s a christian fundie while I’m an atheist. There’s lots of other things we can talk about.
I never want to write someone off because their views conflict with mine. On the contrary. I want them to stay in my life so I can subtly influence them over the years. I’m just that arrogant!
L>T (#1)
no, your blog isn’t working for me. I don’t know why. stupid Blogger! I encourage all to switch to WordPress!
Visitor said:
I think that in general, the development of feminism has had a lot to do with this. Feminism, in the so-called “first wave”, used to be very much a white upper-class women’s movement that was about political involvement (suffrage). Along came black feminists, who criticized first wave feminism for drawing too broad a picture of “women’s concerns” that completely ignored the precarious position black women occupied in society. Post-colonial feminists have done the same with the way the West views the “third world” and paints third world (I wish there was a better term, sorry to all!) women as ahistorical, apolitical, highly sexualized, savage, trapped by tradition, and always inferior to western women. Marxist and socialist feminists have criticized the way capitalism and class differences have specifically impacted women from working-class and poor backgrounds. Lesbian feminists have challenged heterosexist first wave feminist views of women’s relationships, sex-positive feminists have challenged the (traditional) radical feminist view that women are always objectified in sex and sexuality and cannot autonomously participate in sex work or heterosexual relationships. Disability and trans feminists have criticized the ways in which feminism has left out specific health needs. Ecofeminists have linked female oppression to the depletion of environmental resources.
so, to be a social movement that really does care about “WOMEN”, feminism has had no choice but to incorporate and respond to these critiques. Because women experience many forms of oppression – not only gender oppression – to be fully committed to women’s rights and gender equality/equity, feminism has to be committed to racial equality, sexual equality, third-world development, socialism/class struggles, ecological concerns, etc.
I’ll leave you with a favourite quote of mine:
great question! Thanks!
Liberallatte said:
thanks so much for your question. I do indeed believe that men can be feminists. I wrote a bit about it here.
I think that for a man to live as a feminist, he must be committed to being mindful and vigilant in terms of his own ingrained masculinity and socially constructed ideas about women and femininity and how that impacts the women he comes into contact with. Letting go of some of the more aggressive and dominating aspects of masculinity, and the ways in which it is damaging to both women and to himself, is very important. I think that also, he must be committed to standing up against sexism as displayed by other men. This might be the toughtest one, but it sounds like you’re doing it now, so good for you. I also think that in personal relationships with women, feminist men must be willing to take on non-traditional household and parenting duties, negotiate sex and sexuality carefully, and be supportive in terms of supporting the female friendships, career and educational opportunities, and social and political activism of girlfriends, wives, and female friends and family members. Politically, supporting reproductive and sexual freedom, female political participation, and harsher punishments for rapists and domestic assailants is important. Learn about feminist theory, and listen to women, even when it is uncomfortable – and try not to make it all about you!
Some of my male readers are feminists. Guys, any suggestions for our young friend?
L>T said
The ironic thing about patriarchy is that it positions men as constructed largely on the basis of masculinity – and makes masculinity into something delicate, fragile, and easily lost. My feeling is that men who attack feminism with the kind of venom you describe are uncomfortable with the idea of losing whatever power they have, either socially or personally, and take a zero-sum view of power, as being only possible to have power when it is power over someone else, so when one person/group gains power, they think it means that another, conversely constructed group loses power. I think that in general, most men don’t FEEL powerful in their own lives, for the simple reason that masculine identity is constructed as being fragile and easily lost, and that for these anti-feminist men, these feelings of powerlessness translate to a desire to keep as much power as they can manage by keeping power away from women, and other groups. So yes, I do think that these men are taught by patriarchy to be afraid of women gaining more social power. Thank god all men don’t feel this way.
great question L>T! Thanks!
pragya said:
Yes, I do have anti-feminist people in my life (and who take traditional views of race relations, disability, religion, and poverty, for example). My parents, while both lovely people in many ways, do not understand most of my political views. They are very conservative, and think I am too extreme in my ideas. Just the other day, my mother said to me, “I don’t know, Thinking Girl, the things you believe….” (I had made a passing comment about humans being descended from apes.) So that’s what I deal with on an ongoing basis. My father is quite a bit more open-minded than my mother, and while he holds onto some ideas I find problematic, he has also renounced some ideas he used to hold through conversations with me – for example, he used to believe in the death penalty, and now he sees it as state-sanctioned murder. All I can do is keep on keeping on. I don’t discuss a whole lot of stuff with my mother, but I send her most of my papers for school. I talk to my dad about stuff all the time. He’s a bit of a softer target. Funny, but when we get discussing politics and things, even if we are agreeing, my mother still thinks we are fighting! I guess we’re both heated discussers!
My friends are MUCH more open-minded and either believe a lot of what I do and support me in my views, or are willing to listen to my ideas and occasional rants with respect and still love me anyway. I have, however, this past year lost a friend, and I think that had a lot to do with her desire to uphold very traditional gender roles in her personal life. Even while I never said anything about her choices and repeatedly told her I wished for her happiness, I think my own choices, which stand in direct and stark contrast to hers, made her uncomfortable with me and our friendship. It’s too bad, but that’s fine.
I don’t have too many friends who are anti-feminist – more so, I have a few friends who just aren’t feminists, and are bound up in traditional feminine roles, and not always through circumstances of choice. I try my best to provide what I can for them in encouragement, but it’s hard out there for a single mom, or for a woman who’s been in an abusive relationship for almost a decade, or for women who have been taught all their lives that their value is relative to their male mate.
On the other hand, a great many of my friends are very supportive of whatever I choose to do. I’m very lucky. They are jewels to me.
Whenever an issue comes up in conversation that has to do with stereotypes of women, or anti-feminism, or outright misogyny, I speak up. It’s my commitment to myself not to ever put up with sexist, racist, or homophobic comments, jokes, or slurs. I do my best to engage in a civil way, or with a bit of humour, or in a non-threatening manner. Sometimes that isn’t possible. The hardest part of my life is my job. I hope that won’t always be the case, but for now, it is. I am constantly biting my tongue.
I don’t enjoy the same sorts of movies and music as I once did. It’s tough, because I LOVE MOVIES AND MUSIC!!!! I have always loved hip-hop and rap music, but I can’t listen to most of it these days because it is so misgynistic, it makes me sick. I don’t watch music videos for the most part. I still watch most movies, but with a critical eye.
and Sage – thanks for your answer too!
I loved your answer.
It is true about some men & their egos.
With most of the the men in my life I think the problem has to do with how they’ve been brought up, for sure.
I’m not trying to be funny here but, they see themselves as always on top.
Thanks TG for your answer.
Thanks Thinking Girl for your answer!!
taking a swing:
Feminism is an ideology advocating the equality of the sexes.
The defeat of the Equal Rights Ammendment wrecked feminism as a serious threat to the status quo in the USA.
Consequently, Mainstream schemas of feminists are negative
i.e, from ‘urban dictionary (a great way to sample ideologically determined schemas):
here’s a negative stereotype:
Feminism: A movement to promote women’s interests at the expense of men.
Despite claims by some moderate (and misled) feminists to the contrary, feminism is not a movement for the betterment of men and women. If it was, it would be called humanism.
Feminists are not concerned, for example, about the fact that four times as many men commit suicide as women or that fewer and fewer boys attend college or graduate from high school.
Feminists demand that we treat men and women as exactly equal unless it suits women to differentiate between the sexes.
For example, a typical feminist will see no irony in arguing on one hand that women need more protection from domestic violence, rape and sexual harassment but on the other hand that women are just as good as men at construction and fighting crime, fires and wars.
Question: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: That’s not funny, you sexist pig. I will report your hate speech and ensure that your career and reputation is destroyed. We need a speech code to regulate people such as yourself. And you need to attend sensitivity training so that you can be re-educated on the benefits of feminism.”
TG, Why is the negative stereotype I listed BS?
.
clampett
I’ll give you an excerpt from my horoscope today. It said,
I smiled when I read that, because it captured so well my initial puzzlement at your question! Are you asking me to defend feminism against the comments you listed?
I’ll do my best to respond to the claims you list about feminism.
Not exactly. Feminism is predicated on the claim that the state of society is and has been favourable to men and disadvantageous to women, and that this state of affairs is unfair and requires correction. That doesn’t necessarily mean that men’s interests will be lost, ignored, silenced, made to disappear, etc. It just means that feminism wishes for a more equitable social arrangement, and since women’s concerns have been lost, ignored, silenced, made to disappear, etc. for so long, it is time that women’s concerns are given at least as much consideration as men’s concerns.
It’s true that feminists do make a necessary distinction from humanism. Humanism is too broad for feminists; most feminists feel that by referring to a humanist discourse, the correction of gender inequities are not possible. Humanism aims to place an even emphasis on both men and women; feminists feel that since women have been disadvantaged for so long and so systematically, action more akin to affirmative action is necessary in order to make up lost ground or even the playing field, if you will. Simply dropping women into a game that is already well underway on an uneven field doesn’t address specific issues of gender inequity. However, since feminism often argues for the deconstruction of gender roles and calls for masculinity to be revised and reconceptualized, benefits exist for men as well, since masculinity is damaging to men.
I don’t know that I would say feminists are unconcerned with these stats. But they are not the chief concern of feminism.
Well, some feminists have demanded that men and women be treated exactly the same – equality feminists – and some feminists have claimed that women need special treatment because of their disadvantaged social position, resulting from systematic institutionalized oppression. I can see where this can be confusing; but critics of feminism should be aware that feminism as a movement has evolved and changed to better encompass a more specific set of concerns raised by black women, lesbians, disabled women, third world women, poor women, and many others. Equality feminism is more characteristic of second-wave feminism, and had much to do with economic and political participation. While feminists still want formal equality for all women, there has been a shift to equity as a focus – and equity demands more careful attention be paid to specifics.
Well, women largely DO need more protection from domestic violence, rape and sexual harrassment, because women are the statistical majority of victims of these crimes. (Not saying men can’t also be victims of these crimes, and that their voices shouldn’t be heard on this – space needs to be made so men can speak out more freely about these problems rather than suffer in silence.) And, women are jsut as good as men at construction, crime and fire-fighting, and warfare. This is a classic case of mistaking equality and equity. Equality is about sameness of opportunity – men and women should be able to access the same types of positions in society. Equity is about sameness of outcome – men and women should be equally able to pursue those opportunities. For example, if a man and a woman are both free to apply for the same kind of job because the employer does not discriminate based on gender, that is equality. But if a man has a better chance of getting that job because he has more experience than a competing woman because while they both got married and had children, he was free to continue working while she was encouraged to stay at home with her children and leave the workforce or reduce her work schedule due to social expectations about motherhood, that is a problem of equity.
Ah, the classic confusion of conflating feminism with misandry. Combined with the picture of the overly sensitive, humourless feminist who takes everything the “wrong way” and relies on policies and procedures to defend her rights. Combined with the old “it’s just a joke,” boys-will-be-boys picture of masculinity that does its best to force women to join in the “fun” of laughing at women’s oppression and objectification. Good one.
does that answer your question Clampett? thanks for asking.
TG,
moi spent about 2 hours reading trhough your blog and the links provided and totally loved it. I am a strong feminist too and could relate to all the things you have written in this blog. lovely answers… I was myself planning to do something like this from sometime but was not able to give it a shape.
keep the good work going… i am sure i’ll keep coming back here now
thank you Monika – I appreciate the support!
Two Parts
1).
Why do so many ( though not all) feminists tie their feminism with Marxism?
2).
Is Female supremacy:
-Part of Feminism,
-an ally to feminism,
-Unrelated to feminism, or
-destructive to the aims of feminism?
Why I ask, is that, this seems to be a growing stealth trend in our society.
thanks for your questions Steve.
Feminism and Marxism have had an unhappy marriage. It never really worked out all that well, seeing as Marx felt that capitalism was to blame for patriarchy, and that once capitalism was removed, then women would be allowed to participate fully in the economic aspects of society, and patriarchy would fall away. This has not been the case: in communist countries patriarchy still exists. So not all of the inequalities between women and men are the result of capitalism.
However, feminists do find Marxist theory to be useful, because Marx has presented really comprehensive theories about class struggles, and class struggles have an impact on women. Women’s labour has been devalued and was not considered valuable for the functioning of the capitalist market, despite the fact that women’s labour has been a huge contributing factor to the success of men in the public sphere since women take on many of the time-consuming, energy-draining, and very necessary labour in the domestic sphere so that men don’t have to do it and can devote more time to public-sphere pursuits. Therefore, feminists have seen the spread of capitalism to be a major problem for women as more people rely on the domestic labouring of primarily women to secure material wealth.
Feminists also have found Marxist theory useful in terms of the commodification of women for the purposes of advancing male-dominated economic power, and feel that capitalism and patriarchy work hand-in-hand to keep women out of the public sphere and in traditionally private sphere positions. The commodification of women has not been only women’s labour in the domestic sphere, but also women’s sexuality and bodies through such industry as the beauty, fashion, medical, and pornography industries. Capitalism feeds patriarchy by ensuring that women spend money on products that work to secure and reinforce their own subordination.
Socialist feminism has kind of taken up where Marxist feminists left off/gave up. Socialist feminists don’t rely solely on Marxist theory, but do advocate the liberation of women from capitalist structures that continue to subjugate them and a more equitable distribution of social wealth through welfare and other social justice programs.
PART 2:
“Female supremacy”? can you be more specific? What do you mean by this term? Do you mean the advancement of women into positions of power over men? Do you mean favouring of femininity and female-ness over masculinity and male-ness, as might be indicated by the comment “If women were in charge, there would be no wars”? Do you mean the establishment of a matriarchy to replace the patriarchy as a system of social rule?
I think I’ll reserve comment until I get clarification on what you mean by “female supremacy.”
Female Supremacy started as a sexual thing but is starting to grow beyond that.
What has been happening is that starting at the personal level in a relationship one women successfully tips the gender balance in her favour and it keeps going. After it has been established in the home personal relationship the man can see the value of it and is trained or accepting of feminine power and is so comftorble with it that he encourages women over men in positions of power (with competance being a given). It is almost like a stealth form of gender affimative action on steroids. But the starting point is the opposite of public political discourse. As I said this is a stealth trend because of the sexual nature of its starting point and the need for corporate men to present a patriarchial on the job image.
The question is:
Does this help or hurt traditional feminist goals. I feel some feminists may be unable to accept a behaviour that was arrived through sexual behavour in the public sphere no matter how sanitized a result they may benefit from. Is this true? Or will the goal gladly be accepted as long as the source is removed and only the result remains.
I think this will most likely be seen in men who seem to be strong supporters of women without sharing the usual side perspectives common to feminism. Or men whose profile would seem to put them strongly in the camp of the patriarchy but strongly support strong willed women out of character with the rest of their political and social beliefs.
If that was not clear I will provide more.
Thanks Steve – that was perfectly clear.
What you are describing is the most typical contemporary debate within feminism: radical feminist vs. sex-positive feminist. My latest post, Solidarity, talks about this in the comments section. Briefly, the classical radical feminist position is that heterosexual sex, in truth, any relationship a woman has with a man, is unequal based on patriarchy. And so various sex acts between a man and a woman are patriarchal signs of male domination. And because patriarchy is unchanging (at least, as of yet), this is always the case, no matter what. One member of the hetero coupling has more social power than the other. Period. This is why in the 1970s, separationism was such a big deal: the slogan at the time was “feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.”
Along come sex-positive feminist, who say that this is a bunch of bullshit, and that of course women can have sex with men and still have agency and be autonomous and all those good things, and women can take control of their sex lives and enjoy sexual pleasure, and the patriarchal control of female sexuality can be undermined in heterosexual couplings and is so everyday when women break free of traditional sexual scripts in their own bedrooms with men and get off in whatever way they want, and that politicizing sexual desire is a really tricky thing. One commenter here, Renegade Evolution, posted something on her sex-pos site that stuck with me.
So, for some feminists, female supremacy as you have defined it for me would be against and very unhelpful to feminism and the goals of feminism, because it reinforces the very thing that binds women – the idea that female sexuality is dangerous. (I did a bit of looking on the net after you asked your question, and found a lot of sites relating to female supremacy were about S/M female domination, dominatrixes, celebrating “pussy power,” stuff like that. Definitely playing on the notion that female sexuality holds much for men to be afraid of.) It’s true that for some feminists, they would be unable to accept using a patriarchal device – hetero sex – to undermine or overthrow patriarchy itself.
Other feminists, however, would and do see no problem with this mode of subverting patriarchy. Particularly since it helps shake off the patriarchal controls of female sexuality and allows hetero feminists to actually have sex with the people they are attracted to, do the kind of work that they want to do (including sex work), and get off in whatever way, you know, gets them off.
so in answer to your question, it depends on who you ask.
Now, since you’re asking me, I’ll tell you what I think. I think that whatever works to end patriarchy and male domination, works, and as feminists, we need to stop all the fighting and moralizing. Replacing male-dominated morality with female-dominated morality isn’t my cup of tea. That said, I absolutely do not agree with any essentializing of either masculinity or femininity, male/female, man/woman. I think it’s dangerously loaded, and it has led to all sorts of problems. Replacing male-dominated essentialized power with female-dominated essentialized power isn’t my cup of tea either. I am concerned with a society that recognizes and values everyone as equal – not with merely toppling one power structure and sticking another one in its place.
thanks for your questions, Steve, I enjoyed answering them. If you have anything further, please feel free to engage me, anytime.
Thank you for your answers. I feel your brief research may have returned less than profesional sites. Please view this link for your own understanding. It is well run and much more professional.
http://www.elisesutton.homestead.com/October.html
thanks for the link Steve – I’ll be sure to check it out!
keep ‘em coming, folks!
“Briefly, the classical radical feminist position is that heterosexual sex, in truth, any relationship a woman has with a man, is unequal based on patriarchy.”
i dunno, i personally have a problem with this definition of radical feminism – i think the “radical,” as in other contexts, really refers to “going to the roots” – and that only some incarnations of radical feminism make the point about heterosexual sex being inherently patriarchal and therefore non-”feminist.” there’s some merit to aspects of that assertion, but i think it always needs to be made in a very nuanced way. and i wanted to say that plenty of queer and/or very radical feminists are sex-positive, too.
yeah, I get you. I wasn’t meaning to define radical feminism in that way, just the typical – and classic, by which I meant, not necessarily contemporary but still in vogue with some – radical position on hetero sex. Which, you’re right, isn’t representative of all radicals – like me, for example, I consider myself radical in that I want a solution that goes to the root of oppressive social structures, but I’m also sex positive in that I think sexuality should never be repressed for any reason and female sexuality has been given a bad rap by not only patriarchy, but also by feminists in some cases. It is possible to hold both positions, dammit!
thanks for calling me on that one.
A question about feminist aims for equality. Do you believe that women should be able to follow any career path they choose, OR, do you believe in quotas for females eg equal numbers of males and females in the armed forces for example?
hi Barry
thanks for your question.
I actually don’t think the two possibilities you pose are in such opposition. I absolutely believe that women should be able to follow any career path they choose, no question. And I support quotas for females in various positions as well. I think that in order for society to change, and for women to gain full access to positions that are not currently equitable for women (meaning they are not as easy to access for women as for men, not meaning that they are formally excluded from these positions), quotas could be helpful.
I think I see your worry as being the possible return of conscription if quotas for equal numbers of men and women were not being met, am I right? That if there weren’t enough women, there could potentially be a draft and women might be forced into jobs they don’t particularly want?
I don’t support forcing people to take jobs they don’t want to take, particularly ones that require a high degree of personal risk, as in the military. So while I do have some support for quotas, I don’t think they should be filled by force. I agree with the idea of setting aside a certain number of positions for women to fill – I don’t support filling those positions by any means necessary.
The possible return of subscription is not my concern regarding quotas. My worry is that the integrity of the service provided may be compromised if rigid guidelines are set. In a recent television programme, a female doctor was asked if the National Health Service would be able to cope if a flu pandemic broke out. Her answer was, that unlike the 60′s when male doctors had to work high levels of overtime to cope with huge numbers of patients, today we have around 50% female doctors in the NHS who are not prepared to work extra hours because of family committments. Although I agree with opportunity for all, a degree of commonsense is needed that legislation cannot provide for.
Barry
Barry
hi again. Thanks for explaining your concern with more clarity.
The problem I have with what this doctor said is twofold. First, there seems to be a blanket assumption that all women will have/do have children. Second, the comment assumes/reinforces the idea of a familial division of labour along traditional public/private lines.
Firstly, not all women will have, want to have, or do have children (or other family members that they assume care-giving responsibilities for). The association of women with motherhood is tired and no longer all that applicable. Society, however, keeps on assuming/pressuring women into motherhood – even when the women in question don’t have or want children. Not to mention that the picture of motherhood enforced by society is one of self- and professional sacrifice – it is certainly possible to have a family and still keep up with the demands of professional life: men do it all the time.
Second, what really needs to be re-thought here is the traditional roles of men and women in society and in the home/family. It needs to be pointed out that in the 60s when male doctors were working overtime, if they had families they were only able to work overtime because their wives were doing the majority share of childrearing/house-keeping. Perhaps if society shifted its nuts and bolts around a little bit, and men were encouraged/expected to participate more in these tasks, and women were not expected to sacrifice their careers in order to be “good” mothers, and perhaps women were paid equally to men so that when it came time to have a family if that’s what she chose she would have equal footing from which to maintain her career, women would be more free to work more hours. Now that would be TRUE opportunity for all. Increasing women’s burden by maintaining expectations of carrying the majority of familial responsibility AND expecting women to work the same number of hours as men who do not carry the burden of majority – or even EQUAL – familial responsibility will, of course, lead to failure. And of course, these options are presented as “choices” for women – either choose not to have a family, or choose not to have a career, or choose to be a “bad” mother by working all the time and hiring a nanny or worse emasculating your male partner by forcing him to participate in an equal or majority share of child-rearing and home-keeping.
Society has women in a choke-hold, and you want to use that position as a “common-sense” argument against legislating gender-based quotas? can you see how that’s not exactly fair, nor is it “opportunity for all”?
Quotas will not work unless society shifts to allow women to take advantage of equal opportunity. Just piling on more burdens to women’s life and expecting women to stretch their time further and further will only lead to failure, which of course will then be blamed on women for not being able to meet all the demands placed on them.
Thanks for your reply. You said, “there seems to be a blanket assumption that all women will have/do have children,” and then followed by, ” Not all women will have, want to have or do have children.” This implies that the driving force to bear children comes from somewhere other than the mother herself. In actual fact, I work with many female scientist who have no interest in children and are happy in their careers. However, after completing 60 orbits around the sun, two marriages and four children later, my observation is that the female scientists I work with are not representative of the general population. What tends to happen in my experience, is that many working girls say they definitely do not want to have children. Fine. Years later, at some indeterminate point in time, their bio clock kicks in with a vengeance. Almost every girl I have courted has had an overwhelming desire to have children, and I have had to make my escape when my gut instincts told me it wasn’t for me. I accept that we all have different experiences, but those are mine. When I met my second wife, I felt it was right, and we started a family. I did more than my fair share of child rearing and my wife returned to work when the children were 2 & 3 years old. That was when it all went down hill. On the day I was expected in work for an emergency breakdown, my wife also had obligations in work that she could not get out of. Murphys law says that will be the day your child is sick and that is what happened. There was no tossing of a coin or any negotiation. She was going to work and that was that. Years later, my son now suffers from Oppositional Defiant Disorder. As the poem says, “when a child lives in conflict, he learns how to fight” Children may put a womans career on hold temporarily, but isn’t that a small price to pay for a well adjusted boy or girl. When you realise you got it wrong with kids, you can’t rewind and play it again
Barry,
I do indeed believe that for many women, the “desire” to have children is not a matter of “biological clocks” but a matter of social pressures. You don’t seem to realize how heavy these pressures are on women, and how society is structured so that women’s best chances to improve their economies is to marry. One of the fundamental measures of a woman’s success in our society is whether she is married and whether she has children. These things have for so long defined what “woman” is that it is terribly hard to shake. Even when women do have successful careers, as you display in your comments about your second wife (it sounds like you’re blaming her for your son’s disorder, I’m not sure if that’s how you meant it to come across, but that is indeed how it sounds, even after several re-reads), she is still expected to be the primary care-giver to her children – she is the one who is expected to sacrifice her career, and it’s a “small price to pay.” Sorry, but I happen to think that’s a pretty steep price to pay for women who love their careers, particularly when men have no such expectations placed upon them. If it is such a small price to pay, why is it that the majority of men are unwilling to pay it? And it isn’t a “temporary” thing, as you stated – raising children is something you do until they are 18 (longer these days). That doesn’t sound very temporary to me. The expectation is that even mothers who have returned to the workforce are to be the primary caregivers for their children. Women who have successful careers have overcome a lot of obstacles to get there. I don’t blame a single one of them for wanting to maintain and improve upon their professional success, whether or not they have children.
Sounds like your blaming the creator for making us the way we are. Men and women are different. Biologically different. Sure there are cultural pressures which need to be addressed, but they are nowhere near as great as the urge to reproduce. Children are the way a community constantly renews itself and many of todays children are being brought up in an atmosphere of unresolved conflict caused mainly by discontented wives (they initiate most divorces) who have been indoctrinated to believe they get a bad deal. In fact the reason western women have the luxury of being able to complain, is because millions of men have died in the cause of protecting family and country. An example of the politically correct feminist inspired madness is shown in this very sad story: A 10-year-old boy was suspended from school after asking his teacher for a hug and calling her “sexy.”
Aaron Perez received the suspension last week after hoping for just a hug from his Putnam Valley Middle School teacher. He had been reprimanded in September for the “sexy” remark and his parents say he meant nothing inappropriate and that “sexy” is a term of endearment used around the house and heard all over television. “I got scared when I got suspended and the reason I asked my teacher for a hug was to hope she had a good weekend,” Aaron told CBS 2 News. Perez’s teacher, however, disagreed and complained the boy was acting in an inappropriate manner. Today the Perez family sat down with Superintendent Gary Tutty and is hoping to clear the air as well as Aaron’s school record. Aaron’s parents say they’re upset they weren’t able to talk to the offended teacher directly, but today Tutty agreed to set up a phone conference with all of the parties involved.
End of Story. I doubt if that loving little boy will ever forget that experience. Certainly it would never have happened 20 or 30 years ago before feminism destroyed commonsense.
OK, Barry, this post was meant for people who actually had questions about feminism – not for people who have misogynistic pre-conceptions about feminism and women that they are unwilling to let go of.
First of all, I don’t believe in any creator that made humans in any particular way.
Second, biological essentialism is a very old, very outdated pseudo theory that has been disproved time and time again. The differences between males and females of the human species are not drastic enough to warrant widespread oppressive and exclusionary practices that affect half the human race. The ONLY reason that traditional gender roles are set up they way they are is to benefit those in power – men. Period, end of story. Differences between men and women are ROLE-BASED – not biologically based. For further information, see any feminist literature currently on the web or on the bookshelves.
As for the urge to reproduce – please. That doesn’t explain the reasons why women are subjugated in this patriarchal society – men have just as strong an urge to reproduce as women, and once children are born, both parents love and want to care for those children. Certainly you don’t mean to imply that men don’t love or care for their children as much as women do? Seriously, think about the implications of your arguments.
interesting how you think women have been indoctrinated (i.e., conditioned by society) to believe they have gotten a raw deal – sounds like plain old common sense to me – but you don’t think there are any other ways that men and women have been indoctrinated to think about gender roles by our society?
As for the story about the “loving” little boy – if I were a teacher, I would be concerned about that behaviour as well. Children who are overly affectionate and use sexual language at the age of TEN are often sexually abused. I don’t know any families where “sexy” is thrown around as a general term of endearment to children. The whole things sounds suspicious to me, quite frankly, and I think the teacher absolutely did the right thing in reporting it. There is no way I would put up with being called sexy at my place of work by a 10 year old boy – even if the boy was perfectly fine, he needs to learn that reducing women to their sexuality is unacceptablem, and the sooner the better, otherwise he might be arguing about the naturality of gender roles on a blog with a feminist someday. I for one HOPE that little boy never forgets that experience – it’s too bad that everyone is jumping to his defense and affirming his unacceptable behaviour.
let me tell you something, Barry. For many women, feminism IS common sense. Living within the constraints of a patriarchal society is not much fun, especially when those in power talk about equality but women’s lived experiences tell a different story. It’s unfortunate – but quite telling – that you feel so threatened by feminism, but I can tell you, it’s not going anywhere, so you’d do well to try and see the other side of the equation, cause what you’re spouting doesn’t add up.
Now, if you really are interested in learning about feminism with an open mind, then we can continue this discussion. Otherwise, consider this your last interaction with me. Any further misogynist or anti-feminist remarks on this post or this blog will be disapproved.
Hi,
i’ve recently read about second-wave feminism being heterosexist but have been unable to determine in what ways, could you shed some light on how and why this was the case?
I’d also like to say i think you’re doing a fantastic job here, thank you for providing much needed enlightenment.
Hi Saph
thanks for your question.
I think the general problem with second-wave feminism is that it painted too monolithic a picture of “women” as a homogenous group. This really began the debates about second-wave feminism being racist, and classist, and too western, and ablist, and heterosexist. The concerns undertaken by second-wave feminism mostly had to do with legal equality and economic welfare. It neglected to engage with issues of group identity, and the ways in which “women” were different from one another. Many women – lesbians included – felt that second-wave feminism was not inclusive enough to speak to their experiences and needs. This is when the movement really began to splinter into its various segments that focussed on analysing the interaction between gender and other marginalized identities. Thank god this happened – feminism would be quite useless if not for the brilliant critiques provided by black women, lesbians, third-world and non-western women, disabled women, poor women, jewish women, muslim women, and I’m sure others I have forgotten to mention. So, it wasn’t JUST a heterosexist time during the movement – it was essentially a movement for white middle-upper class able-bodied heterosexual christian women. You can see how that would be a problem in terms of a movement that claimed to speak for ALL women.
Interestingly, I was part of a class recently that was very culturally diverse, and during discussions one day, I asked who in the room would consider themselves to be a feminist. None of the women of colour raised their hands, and many of the other women didn’t either. I think in a class of about 35, there were 4 who were comfortable calling themselves “Feminist”. I was deeply disappointed by this, to be very honest – I knew the history of feminism, and the critiques of second-wave feminism, and that feminism has responded to these criticisms and moved to a more localized idea of what “women” are. But all the women of colour spoke about how they felt that their experiences were not included in the concerns of feminism, and many chose to identify themselves as “womanist” or “pro-woman” or “pro-black woman” instead of as “feminist.” Some of the other women in the class didn’t consider themselves to be feminists because they thought feminism was too identified with lesbianism (!), and also that feminism was about being negative toward men and that identifying as “feminist” would mean the end of heterosexual dating for them, and also that the goals of feminism had been achieved and there was no need to call oneself “feminist” anymore. I must stress that this was a GENDER & WOMEN’S STUDIES class. I think a lot of people think that these courses are about the HISTORY of feminism and gender studies – not the ongoing social conditions that contribute to women’s oppression. YIKES!
thanks for visiting – and for your question (and compliment – a thinking girl could use one right about now!). I hope this answers it!
Hi Thinking Girl
Thank you for answering my question, it clarified a lot, i realise second-wave feinism wasn’t purely heterosexist and they’re were many other factors to account for, but do you have any examples in the ways in which it was heterosexist, just how were lesbians excluded? Was it in the issues being covered, or were they purposefully left out of groups and protests, banned from attending meetings etc… The answers are probably really obvious but in everything i’ve read i’ve been unable to determine just what type of action was taken to exclude lesbians, was it intentional or just happenstance?
Thank you again for taking the time to answer, it is very much appreciated. And i think you deserve all the compliments you get.
Saph
No, I don’t think there was anything overt about the heterosexism necessarily, like excluding lesbians – although that could have been the case. I think more it was the former, just a neglectfulness in terms of including lesbian concerns and issues. A negation of lesbian identity in the representation of “women” that was advanced at the time. The exclusion was not necessarily purposeful and outright discrimination, but rather an unspoken but insidiously systematic exclusion in terms of the lived experiences of lesbian women, a lack of recognition for the ways lesbian women were discriminated against that differed from “just women”, an idea that gender was the most important issue to deal with, and that maybe once equality for women was achieved, the “rest” would either fall away on its own because it was rooted in gender oppression or that only one form of oppression could be dealt with at a time.
Is that more clear? If anyone else has something to add or clarify, please pitch in!
Thank you so much for your answers Thinking Girl, you’ve been a great help.
I have a question or two.
1) how do feminists in general feel about women being excluded from positions of power (priest, bishop, etc…) in the Catholic church? (I only stated that one because I don’t think any other religions exclude women, not that I can think of anyway). Being Catholic, I guess I don’t see really what the big deal is, considering it’s been this way forever. If women are upset about not being involved is it simply because they can’t and won’t be happy ’til they have equal footing?
And, I totally just forgot my second question, but I’m sure I’ll think of it again. Thanks!
Saph – no problem!
Gina
Hi there! thanks for your question.
I think that in general feminists don’t think that women should be excluded from positions of power in religion. Other religions – most in fact – have a history of excluding women, and many still do exclude women from positions of power. My parents’ version of bapist christianty does not permit women to preach, serve communion, or even take the offering.
Most religions have been around a long time, but not quite as long as patriarchy. So most religions rose up from a climate of male domination and female subordination; this system was embedded directly into religions from the start. Stories and legends reinforce male power, and religious symbols of womanhood have centred around virginity and motherhood (hello Mary!). So, as women have begun to gain more social power, we have worked to change what has “been this way forever”, as you put it so well. It is an issue of fairness; men have used religion as a means for and an excuse for treating women poorly and unequally for a very long time – they have even pictured god as a man! This has indeed excluded women from full participation, since women are seen as never being capable of being like god. I think some of the feminists who actually participate in female-excluding religions just want to chance to participate as fully as men; if they feel their calling is to serve the church, and they are not permitted to do so because of longstanding traditions that have to do with patriarchy, it is logical that these women would be upset and unhappy.
it is hypocritical of religions not to allow women to participate equally, since they preach equality and respect for all human life. They clearly do not respect women equally; I think in catholicism this comes out most pungently of all, in everything from not even allowing priests to marry women for fear of the priests’ defilement at the hands of wretched and sinful women (made in the image of Eve, the original sinner) – to its stance on birth control and abortion(of course, this last part goes for most christian sects) . For all the Mary-worshipping that takes place, it doesn’t make up for Eve – every woman is one or the other.
anyway, I hope that answers your question. Have you heard about the order of nuns who decided to ordain themselves? here’s a link I found: Roman Catholic Womenpriests
let me know when you remember your other question!
Thanks for your answer! And no, I haven’t remembered my other question yet.
Well, I know that once upon a time, that Catholic priests were allowed to marry, and that in some areas of the world, I believe that they still are allowed. My husband thinks that sometime in the future that they will allow women priests since about twelve years ago (give or a take a couple of years), they allowed girls to become altar servers, which had previously been a boys only thing.
I will check out that link, thanks