Something my wonderful prof Letitia said this week in class struck me. She asked whether something (OK, I admit, I can’t remember exactly what she was referring to) was a failure of feminism. And I wrote down in my class notes, Has Feminism Failed?
I had a flashback: A couple of months ago in another class, I was doing a presentation and we asked the class how many there would call themselves a feminist. Know how many raised their hands? 4. Including me, and including the professor. The other two students were white women. So we talked about it, why the ones who raised their hands did consider themselves feminist, why the ones who didn’t, didn’t. One girl who did said that it was how she was raised, and that she could see in the world around her that women are still oppressed. I said I was committed to raising women’s status in society and that feminism has provided me with a framework and a vocabulary to defend women’s rights and poke holes in patriarchy.
One woman who didn’t raise her hand said that she didn’t feel, as a woman of colour, that feminism represents her experience, but that she was pro-woman, and in particular, pro-black-woman. Another black woman said she felt better represented as a woman of colour by the “womanist” movement. One (white) woman said she felt that feminism was over, because women had achieved political and formal equality. (This was in a gender and women’s studies class, where we had been studying all the ways in which women all over the world were still subjected to gendered stereotypes that restricted their freedom in various ways!!!!!!!!!) One (white) woman said that she felt like “feminism” was too extreme, that it is too “radical” for her tastes, and she thought feminists spent too much time “man-bashing.” Another white woman said that she associated feminism with lesbianism, and she didn’t want to present herself as a lesbian because she’s straight. (SERIOUSLY!) None of the men in the class even bothered to contribute to the discussion, like feminism is only for the ladies.
I was shocked that, in an upper year gender and women’s studies class, so many misconceptions still pervaded a discussion about feminism. I was disappointed that so few people in a class of more than 30 would consider themselves feminists. I was especially disappointed to hear that so many women of colour felt unrepresented by feminism (not just the two I mentioned, another 4 or 5 also agreed). I was surpised and saddened at the western-centric view of gender equality as formal equality – and especially at the idea that feminism’s job was done!
So, in a world where gender equality is formalized, on the books, in the statutes and in the rules, why has the situation of women on the ground not improved to the point of equality/equity?
Why are reproductive rights still in jeopardy? Why are women still the majority of the world’s poor? Why are women still making unequal pay for equal work? Why are women still largely responsible for unpaid domestic work in their own homes? Why are women still in the majority of underpaid and unskilled jobs? Why does birth control and pregnancy avoidance still rest largely on women’s shoulders? Why are women the number one growth demographic for HIV/AIDS? Why are women still being raped? Why are women still being beaten in their homes? Why is violence so gendered? Why are women still objectified as the recepticles/vehicles of male sexual pleasure? Why are lesbians discriminated against? Why are women starving themselves to be “beautiful”? Why are women so under-represented in business, in science and math careers, in politics, in high-level academic positions? Why are women’s bodies so medicalized? Why are women’s bodies considered public property?
Why are women still so oppressed, after more than 100 years of feminism, and after more than 30 years of second-wave and third-wave feminism?
Has feminism become too academic? Has misogyny become more insidious, squirmier, harder to pin down? Has feminism not changed enough to accomodate its critiques, particularly by women of colour? Is feminism too fractured, too unfocussed – do we need a new definition, a set of common claims about feminism? Has feminism been too radical? Not radical enough?
These are questions I have. I have no answers. I put it out to you, dear readers, for some brainstorming. How can we move forward and actually achieve the aims of feminism – if we can even agree what those are?
*Note: I hesitate to make this a thread only open to certain kinds of commenters, but at the same time, I don’t want this to devolve into a feminism-bashing party. Constructive comments only, no MRAs please.
I don’t consider myself a woman, how could I be a feminist ? I am a female homo sapiens, but “woman” is a (quite rigid) social construction that I don’t feel I belong to.
Yesterday I was listening to a feminist on the radio and she said ‘women are like that’ and ‘men behave this way’ so many times that it was irritating both to me and my boyfriend.
You can almost divide humanity in two groups depending on biological sexual attributes (transsexuals, eunuchs or women who had hysterectomy might be difficult to classify there).
But I do not believe there are two separate social categories in which you can put all people. There are some men with whom I feel I share more than some women. Lots of shades of behaviour in everybody, and even associating some every of behaviour to ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ is reductionist.
I think adhering to these two social categories is a flaw of feminism, because patriarchy rests on the idea that they exist above everything else and define people.
So I think moving forwards would involve breaking these categories. But people tend to like categories (the “pro-black-woman” part even hints that people like more defined categories), so I guess my view is only mine.
This’ll probably get me in trouble, so I hope I word this properly.
Perhaps there is a need for more introspection when it comes to looking at women’s issues. I’m thinking in particular about the “man bashing” idea. Instead of asking, “Why do men treat women this way?” we might ask, “Why do women allow themselves to be treated this way? Why do they treat each other this way?” I’m not saying men are completely innocent (but they’re not always malicious) and I’m not saying women deserve/accept it (but why do they starve themselves?). It takes two to tango, as they say.
Further to the “man bashing” thing, often when someone is being heavily criticized, they (men) are less inclined to work together with the critic (women) to solve the problem at hand. There is sometimes an instinct to retreat from the discussion, or dismiss it outright as silly, when one feels attacked (whether or not the attack is warranted).
Rather than say I’m a feminist, it would be more accurate to call myself an equalist.
i think one part of the answer is actually pretty easy: feminism has “failed” (aka not succeeded yet) in that what people know about it is still mostly what mass media and popular wisdom tell them it is. but the mass media, and our culture in general, are patriarchal, pro-status-quo, sensationalism-embracing, promoting of things as totally black-or-white and lacking in nuance or complexity… so in one way or another, the model for feminists in most people’s minds remains that good old “strawfeminist”: man-hating, hairy-legged, lesbian (i.e. bad and scary), etc. etc.. the comments from the women in your class, thinking girl, and even the two answers above, for instance, seem to me pretty perfect examples of that. especially – the popular understanding of “feminism” as “reverse sexism.” nothing seems more noxious and dangerous to the average person than the idea that not only we’d eradicate sexism as we know it (and which we feel pretty “comfortable” with if only because we know it so well), but that this also means, ipso facto, that we’re moving toward just reversing the social order so that “women are on top.” it doesn’t matter that nothing could be further from any true feminist goals than the latter, that in reality feminism is simply anti-sexism; people have been taught it’s SOMETHING BAD and scary that they don’t agree with. as sophie’s comment above shows, the misconception of feminism-as-sexism can even be taken so far that, mind-bogglingly, feminism starts to be thought of as actually being about reinforcing gender roles (when in fact the complete opposite is true: feminism seeks to break the sex/gender dichotomy that’s imposed upon us from infancy – and of course, the very idea of gender as a social construction is due to feminism)! sophie, it’s super-interesting to me that your discourse is mostly feminist (even radical-feminist, one might say), and yet you blame feminism for the most basic things feminism criticizes the patriarchal order for.
no, feminism is really not “reverse sexism” (even if that kind of term made any kind of sense). other than that, the only generalization that applies to “feminism” is that there are many different types of it (of which, absolutely, many have/have had their blind spots and problems).
on the other hand, criticizing feminism for being sexist while basically arguing that oppression doesn’t exist as such seems particularly wrong. and yet it’s very common. there’s a LOT that needs to be said about “categories” and the idea that perhaps different people “like” to place themselves in them and that’s where the problem lies (so not with the system, but with each individual)?… about oppression vs. privilege, about what “personal choice” can mean in the context of oppression, about what can be said about people’s complicity in their own oppression (whether that means, as matthew argues above, that perhaps they “deserve” to be oppressed, if they do sometimes “accept” it?)… and so on, and so forth…
in my opinion, actually, what needs to happen is for these things – the real issues for feminism as “movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” (quoting bell hooks) – to get discussed and addressed by masses of people. for people in general to actually read feminist writers in order to know what “feminists” really say and to form an opinion. for bell hooks’ “feminist theory from margin to center” to be required reading, perhaps: i think it should, and i honestly believe that anyone who has ever read that book with an open mind and heart cannot not be feminist, or ever again think that the strawfeminist stereotype applies. ’cause, you know, it just doesn’t.
one last comment i wanted to make, though, is that i don’t think people need to necessarily call themselves “feminists.” that’s not the important part. as hooks says, it’s the calling yourself a “feminist” in a membership-to-some-club, exclusivist and elitist sense that both puts people off (if they feel this particular “club” doesn’t care about them) and diverts attention from the issues. rather, people need to simply be “supportive of feminist movement” aka interested in ending sexism, and do something real about that.
My partner is: Female, Black, Lesbian identified Bisexual and large bodied, as well as assertive/outspoken. Though she is partnered with me a White fairly Hetero Man – she will emphatically state that her being Black is the most significant of the parts of her identity.
Various things she looks at as being: “upper-middle class White privilige” including Women (often) can seem problematic to her. I have a (male) friend whose long-term partner (female) has chosen to not get married nor have children. Her decision is based upon the premise that it would be next to impossible to raise children with her love in a non-sexist way because of how the world is (not her partner). To my partner – this is “White Privilige”.
I think that Some Feminists have stayed in “safe” White, Upper-Middle Class worlds in some cases Het Only and perhaps in other cases Lesbian identified.
Many of the noteworthy feminist achievements of the past 20-30+ years have come from Women of Color – both within Communities of Color as well as individuals who have influenced many who may not be of Color.
Recognizing and Honoring the achievements of these women is important.
Often in our world(s) there is much emphasis upon material success and certainly television, movies and other media build upon a life where Feminism is trivialized and commercialized.
Your peers look at a world where they want to “get ahead” in careers and probably marriages. Being “different” as you are may be threatening to many of them.
Some of the most noted Black (Male) Scholars are strongly supportive of Feminism. Finding ways to build coalitions among Feminists, Progressive People of Color whose primary focus may relate to Race, Anti-Militarist – Pro-Peace Forces and other progressive causes is important.
Obviously as you well know, Men are a strong force who often get in the way related to Feminism. Blaming Feminists or Women for this is short-sighted and generally wrong.
Until many more Men see how we are self-destructive and working against what could be a better life – Pro-Feminist, Peace Loving etc. – it will be hard for Feminism to be more than incrementally successful in many areas.
Even if Young Women avoid being drunk or drugged or out alone or out with “bad men” or whatever – rape won’t end – men will still rape.
Blaming Men – labeling Men – is, of course, often not helpful. At the same time talking as if “a few bad apples” are the problem, rather than exploring and confronting basic parts of “masculinity” is ridiculous.
There is much that we all can do! While it is easy to get discouraged, it is important to celebrate small victories, support each other and do our best in a world which is difficult for many.
Thanks and Good Luck!
I can see why the black women in your group made the comments they stated. They have no knowledge of the major impact that black American women made on feminism, the constant struggle we have had with feminism ever since its earliest days, all the way up to the present.
Here is MY take on “feminism”:
http://kathmanduk2.wordpress.com/2007/01/02/the-origins-of-black-feminism/
I don’t think feminism has ‘failed’. It has achieved some progress, but just hasn’t achieved the goals yet. Not so many people around me seem to have an image of feminism as ‘men-hating’ or ‘reverse sexism’, but the issue is that most people thought that feminism HAS achieved its goals in the West. When I held a debating event at my school for a human rights event, with the topic ‘Feminism has achieved its goals’, the negation team (all women) spent all their time arguing about the oppression of women in the non-Western world, admitting their opponent’s point that feminism has achieved its goals in the West, which is obviously wrong.
I think one reason for this is that subtle discrimination/power hierarchy is far more difficult to acknowledge than explicit, legal discrimination. If women were legally prohibited to stand for the Parliament, everyone can easily see the discrimination. But when the system apparently seems to be equal, it is harder to acknowledge the problem hidden deep in the society.
And sometimes, the successes of a few women, such as Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, Angela Merkel and Helen Clark, are widely reported so it can distort the extent of feminism’s success. We hear the news that Harvard got its first female President; but we don’t hear that ‘Yale has new male President’ or ‘Princeton appoints male as its President’. If we hear ‘new President/PM/CEO is male’ more often, probably more people would take note of the fact that no country in the world ever achieved 50% representation of women in Parliament. (it applies to race and other categories as well; I hear the media referring to Obama’s blackness all the time; how many times have you heard people mentioning that Bush is white?)
I’m in no way whatsoever arguing the media shouldn’t report the successful women’s gender
or they should emphasise gender of male candidates/Presidents/PMs/CEOs. They should report successful women’s stories to inspire women. But feminism has a crucial role to play until the femaleness of a prominent person ceases to be novelty.
Thanks for the comments, folks!
Sophie – Hi there, and welcome.
I hear what you’re saying about the strict dichotomy of gender roles that is so pervasive in society. I can even relate to not feeling like you belong to the category of “woman” as it is defined right now. But it is a mistake, as Ruxandra pointed out, to think that feminism has either created or purposely reinforces these roles. Feminism is largely about refusing those roles, and trying to break them apart and recognize the vast diversity of identity each person holds.
However, that is not to say that we don’t talk about “women” and “men”. To say something is socially constructed isn’t the same as saying something doesn’t exist. “women” and “men” exist alright – these constructions have real effects in the lives of people everyday, whether they identify with these roles or not.
I too believe that there is much more diversity, both biological and social, that the simply narrow categories of “woman” and “man” (“heterosexual” and “homosexual”, “able-bodied” and “disabled”, “white” and “people of colour”) would imply. However, I think that it’s still important to fight for equal rights for these groups as they’re currently defined. That is how these definitions will change. Simply ignoring these categories isn’t enough – others will still define you according to their restricted views, right or wrong.
Matthew – thanks for your comment. Here’s where I think you’ve gone astray:
The answer to all the questions you pose in your comment is “Patriarchy.” Patriarchy is the reason why men treat women particular ways, why women treat each other particular ways, and why women “allow themselves” to be treated/treat themselves particular ways.
And the mistake is to conflate “patriarchy” with “men.” Some people do this, feminist and non-feminist alike. But in my experience, the ones who most commonly conflate the two are men. Saying that “men hold power in society” doesn’t ring true for many men, who feel the pressures that patriarchy also inflicts on them to act in particular ways that are detrimental to health, mental health, personal relationships, etc. So when many men hear “patriarchy”, they read “men”, and don’t identify, so reject what’s being said by feminists.
Feminism is not about man-bashing. It is about getting women out of oppression. That’s a huge difference. And of course, to write about feminism means bringing up the unequal distribution of power between genders in society, and in particular to point out ways that men are simply oblivious to women’s oppression because of male privilege. Male privilege blinds men – purposely – to women’s oppression. And in many cases, men do wilfully continue to oppress women through gendered violence, economic oppression, sexual objectification and abuse, etc. For example, porn is a multi-billion dollar a year business, and it rests largely on degrading women to the point of being a form of hate speech. But it doesn’t stop there – it pervades society by co-opting women’s sexuality in ways that women who have not participated in making porn end up feeling its effects. For example, dumb-ass college kids can publish “satirical” pieces in their school papers about how rape is a magical experience, with the full backing of their editors. For example, plastic surgery has come up with even more ways to torture women into believing they aren’t ever going to be good enough by providing and promoting labiaplasty, the west’s version of FGC. Misogyny is everywhere I look.
So the mistake made on both parts is conflating men with patriarchy. Men do it, feminists do it. I understand the experience of some feminists who do it, who make a push for separatism, and I understand why some men feel attacked by feminism when they *think* they’re not contributing to women’s oppression. (whether they really aren’t is another matter.) The best I can do is say that “men” does not equal “patriarchy.”
The reason why I’m not an equalist is quite simply because men don’t need my help in promoting their “rights”. Men already have the patriarchy behind them to promote their “rights”, which largely translate into “rights over women.” I don’t care to increase men’s rights, as men. I do, of course, care about promoting sexual equality, racial equality, disability rights, and human rights, all of which affect certain kinds of men. But mostly, I care about increasing the rights of women, who have been oppressed by patriarchy for, oh, 6000 years or so.
Ruxandra – yeah, the good old strawfeminist. People just love to argue with that one. Assign views to it, make it into a homogenous thing, and tear it down. Good point.
And yes, it does seem like a scary prospect to simply move women to the top of the hierarchy – considering that the patriarchy spends so much time making women into psychotic unstable irrational nymphomaniac lazy bitches!
But of course, this is not the goal of feminism. We’re looking for equality and equity.
You would have liked one of the courses I took last year, R, on Relational Autonomy. We talked a lot about autonomy within oppression, and the whole thing is based on a feminist critique of traditional epistemology. I wrote a bit of a post about it, and I’ve got lots of references if you like, just email me.
I agree, feminism should be required reading – and I can’t think of anyone better than bell hooks for that. So should critical race theory, queer theory, and disability rights theory. And a nice diversity of religious texts would be great too. And, I also agree that folks don’t need to call themselves feminists – so long as they support gender equality and don’t contribute to patriarchal oppression, fine by me, they can call themselves whatever they want.
Geo – thank you. what a beautiful comment. I really don’t have much to add, just my total agreement.
You bring up a good point – blaming men is not helpful, but talking about misogyny like it’s a few isolated incidents is absolutely wrong. Folks, it is literally everywhere I look. If not for feminism, I might believe that this was simply the way things are, and the way they’re supposed to be. Feminism gives me tools for the analysis of patriarchy.
For men out there who don’t believe that women have it so tough, go and read I Blame the Patriarchy. Twisty and her readers do a great job of pointing out the misogyny that pervades this world. While she is definitely radical, and says things like “in case you forgot how much men hate women…” – the whole title of her blog says it all.
Remember, Men does not equal Patriarchy. Make it your new slogan.
Ann – I have to admit, I was particularly disheartened by the women of colour who felt feminism didn’t represent them. I thought of all the black feminists who have been so integral to the feminist movement, and the way feminism has been controlled by white women in so many ways, and it felt so true what they were saying, and it made me sad.
Thank you for the link to your post – very powerful. I encourage everyone to go and read it.
Liberallatte – I don’t think feminism has failed either. I think it is still a work in progress.
I know what you mean about subtle discrimination. At the same time, the world is full of misogyny! Can’t walk down the street and not see it somewhere. I think what’s happened is that there is this discourse of “choice” going on – that women are “choosing” to “comply” with patriarchy, and dammit, it makes them feel empowered to do so! We’ve got this kind of Sex and the City “empowerfulness” going on with women today, where anything women choose is embued with empowerment simply because they’ve chosen it! It’s ridiculous!
Great point about media coverage. I expect to see lots more of this kind of talk over at your new blog!!!
I refuse to say that feminism has failed. It’s definitely a work in progress, but to call women’s status today a failure does not give first-wave feminists their due credit. That being said, a good portion of today’s feminism does seem to be in shit shape.
All of the inter-camp bickering may have something to do with it. There’s so much shit-flinging between the “pro-pornies” and the “anti-pornies,” the “radfems” and the “post-modfems (or whatever the fuck),” the misandrists and “those MRA douche bags who make the preposterous assertion that men may actually have problems too.” No one wants to help each other. Instead, they just want to gather into little circles and bitch about shit.
Feminism isn’t failing, but a good deal of *feminists* are. They insist on taking rigid stands on certain issues and saying “fuck everyone who disagrees,” where it would be more productive to work together to fight certain issues like say, rape, workplace discrimination, abortion rights, yadda yadda yadda. I would venture to say pretty much all feminists, as well as vast numbers of non-feminists feel the same about these issues, yet we all seem to hold our less relevant disagreements as more important.
It really doesn’t matter what you call yourself; what matters is how you work to end the ills of society, and the people who do not recognize this (feminist and non-feminist alike), are the ones who are failing.
My very brief take on this complex subject is that at its core feminism means “changing the rules,” and that the patriarchal paradyme has largely conflated this with “letting women play the game.” As an example, feminism means less reliance on using arms and weapons to solve our disputes, NOT just letting women join the military. JMO —Doug
Matthew:Further to the “man bashing” thing, often when someone is being heavily criticized, they (men) are less inclined to work together with the critic (women) to solve the problem at hand.
The problem with this if you are an equalist is that some problems aren’t equal. Rape is highly gendered. Because this is so, in most reports of rape, the rapist is male and the rape victim is female.
What does it say about non-rapist men when they respond to feminists work against rape by refusing to join the fight, and looking the other way when girls and women are raped, simply because they feel criticized? What does it say if they demand some sort of equal attention for men as a condition to joining the fight against rape?
It’s a little too easy for some to blame feminists for not being nice enough to men as a group instead of blaming violent and/or exploitive males for the fallout of their abusive treatment of women.
Kyassett – I’m of two minds with the intercamp bickering. On the one hand, I hear you – it’s tiring, it’s distracting, and it prevents us from getting shit done. On the other hand, I think there is something important about what’s going on there – it’s important for people’s voices to be heard, and for diversity to be recognized and respected. Otherwise, feminism isn’t for everyone – it’s for a particular group with narrow ideals and enough nerve to think they speak for us all. Which is what we kind of had going until the 60s or so when black feminists stood up and said, “hey, wanna take a look at what we’ve been doing over here and stop playing like you white women are god’s green?” And then again when lesbian feminists made a move to separate. And when post-colonial feminists made their critique of western feminism. And then when transgender/transsexual women and men joined their voices of dissent and criticism of feminism.
I think these critiques are important to the progress of feminism, so that feminism can expand and change and become more representative and speak to more people and gain more support. And feminism has been relatively good in responding. Because women are not homogenous, and they need a movement that speaks to all women and for all women.
But yeah, the nastiness that sometimes occurs between feminist “camps” is really unproductive. Remember a couple months ago the horrid anti-trans business over at Twisty’s? That got ugly, really ugly, even caused one of my favourite bloggers to completely change her website and screen name and everything. In the end, did anyone learn anything? I’m not sure, but I sure hope so.
Doug – interesting point. Yes, feminism is absolutely a program of social change. And patriarchy doesn’t wanna change, so they find ways to include some women – the ones who can play by patriarchy’s rules and are willing to do so – without changing the rules. Tokenism.
The problem of course being that “women” does not equal “feminism” – just as “men” doesn’t equal “patriarchy.” So the mere presence of women does not mean feminism’t aims are being achieved. In fact, women who are willing to play by patriarchy’s rules are just as much the problem as men who do. Because the problem is patriarchy.
And further, when the rules do get changed, like say when a country accepts legislation that forbids discriminating against women, it all gets worded in such a way that men can also claim discrimination. Like affirmative action: when these kinds of measures were implemented to get people of colour better representation in the workforce, white men, who were the ones most affected, said that affirmative action was discriminatory – against them. (Because after all, this is a man’s world, so they need all the help they can get.) And even went so far as to claim that the people being helped by a.a. were not as well-qualified for jobs as they were – a condition that if it was true, was true because of racism and sexism! Gah!
Abyss2Hope – Thanks for your comment – excellent point. Don’t blame the feminists – blame the assholes who give good men a bad name, the rapists, the abusers, the wifebeaters, the child molestors, the harrassers, the misogynists, the pornographers. BLAME THEM – that’s where the blame should go, not to feminists for pointing out the problem in the first place.
Thinking Girl here is my take
Q: Why are reproductive rights still in jeopardy?
A: They aren’t (as a whole) some are, some are not. If you mean contraception it never has in an absolute sense. If you mean abortion It never will be universally available on a no question demand. Abortion access is as a trend becoming available to the same sense that driving privileges are. In some countries you can’t afford a car so driving is moot. In others rhetoric is flowery and empowering while reality is oppressive. But the trend is moving towards more empowerment over ones own bodies. Think of it similar to involuntary castration of slaves and the selected powerless. It was universally accepted for many millenia even in the west until just recently.
Q: Why are women still the majority of the world’s poor?
A: First: Tradition (gender role identification)
Second: Physical strength in agrarian or hunter gatherer societies,
Third: Culture of relative passivity across gender lines.
Fourth Education (must include Academic, personality & cultural education)
Fifth: Religion (some not so bad, some awful)
Sixth: Individual family cultural conditioning.
Seventh: (yes 7th) Institutional gender bias of the economy and powerful individuals.
Eight: womens general distaste for those areas that pay more, Engineering etc..
Q: Why are women still making unequal pay for equal work?
A: see Third, Sixth, Seventh above.
Q: Why are women still largely responsible for unpaid domestic work in their own homes?
A: Because they don’t make this issue a deal breaker. You do X or I am gone. Or fight hard enough to get it. Or demand that it be done with no exceptions. Whichever of the above three works.
Q: Why does birth control and pregnancy avoidance still rest largely on women’s shoulders?
A: because the immediate cost to men is not as high. Raise the cost to full parity. Allow the indvidual women ( not the state) have more immediate control over the lives (not just money) of men who impregnate them.
Q: Why are women the number one growth demographic for HIV/AIDS?
A: Don’t Know… Is this accurate?
Q: Why are women still being raped?
A: Because they can. Sounds flippant but it’s not. Someone will get raped somewhere the greater the power imbalance the greater the likleyhood of getting assaulted form those ” PreDisposed ” to assault. Also be more aggressive, if you happen to knee an innocent guy in the balls for miscommunication little harm is done compared to not and getting raped. Even busting the balls of a good male friend for the wrong reason is infinitly better than even the lowest level assault. Give him 10 minutes (or an hour) to get over it and it will be OK. On the other hand rape leaves a lasting mental scar.
Q: Why are women still being beaten in their homes? Why is violence so gendered? Why are women still objectified as the recepticles/vehicles of male sexual pleasure?
A: Men are as a gender Heiarchical. Look at traditionally male dominated proffessions. Military, police etc… there is a strict heiarchy. Who’s on top who’s on bottom. A man does not have to be on top but he has to know where he stands. Equality will drive a man nuts. Who is in charge. The old Lead, follow or get out of the way thing. Men don’t mind following but they don’t walk beside easily. For women make the choice which is better Leading or Following, walking beside is NOT an option. If you don’t lead you will be dominated. You may be in a gilded cage but it will still be a cage. You may be loved but you may feel as if you are the highest of pets rather than an equal. So be the leader and lead in a way that makes you feel you are doing right. If you try to be equal you will find yourself slipping down and having to constantly correct. And then you will feel put upon for having to constantly restate your case and position and fighting for equality. Assign equality from the dominant postion. Asking for it will do no good.
I’ll get to the rest later
that’s an awesome post, ann! you’re so right, there wouldn’t even be “feminism” without what women of color have always contributed (and feminism can’t be a social justice movement at all if/when it’s focused on rights for “woman” – meaning “white, middle class, able bodied, heterosexual, etc.”). personally, when i say i “support feminism” i’m certainly not referring to white women fighting to be equal with men so they can have full access to patriarchal privilege… but to the bell hooks definition! and it’s the responsibility of white feminists to have as much of a problem with white privilege as they do with male privilege – otherwise they’re just propping up, not opposing, patriarchy. and of course this isn’t just a rhetorical point.
thinking girl, as you say in the post you linked to, it’s all about people in oppressive situations developing autonomy, but one essential point is to recognize that the oppressive system is predicated on people mostly not being able to do so! that’s why it’s a system. and oppression. and there’s no way that systemic oppression can be overcome by simply expecting those oppressed to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps – by placing the responsibility for change there. (btw, i really like that post. maybe you can even post those references from your class? i think they would be useful to everyone…)
i also second what you said about “intercamp bickering” [let's call it "arguing," though]: while it’s definitely unfortunate that the feminist movement is so divided (those who oppose it try very hard to keep it so) and there’s so much unproductive and non-constructive intra-feminist fighting, the thing about feminists and women is that there just isn’t – and there shouldn’t be – only one type of either… the expectation that all women should automatically understand and get along with each other is pretty essentialist. feminists are people, and different people disagree and don’t communicate well, and don’t treat each other fairly. not that we shouldn’t work at all of that, of course! on the other hand, i really don’t think there’s another movement that’s as introspective and constantly reshaping itself based on both outside and inside criticism, including more and more viewpoints, than feminism… so we should just keep at it.
in regards to “equalism,” along the lines of abyss2hope’s comment, i think that equalism doesn’t make sense because we haven’t reached gender utopia yet. as soon as we do, sure, it’ll be good for all people to maintain it by being equalists. but what i really don’t understand is why people would never think to say that they’re “equalist” with regards to environmental issues, for instance – that they’re for justice and thus support all of creation equally, and not the environment in particular (?) – but in regards to feminist issues it’s a pretty common thought… hmmm.
oh, i just remembered that in an old post i included some good quotes about the feminist infighting debacle: i think it‘s worth a read – and it’s pretty relevant to whether/why feminism has failed, in general, and what’s to do. (“This reframing of the [civil rights] debate, to cripple the very power of a movement by shaking it down from masses in search of a universal right to individuals with private decisions to take, was a masterstroke by the Right, because if you pit the little guy against an institution the institution will always win.”… etc.)
And here is a little something to make you all warm and fuzzy….Not
North Korean women enslaved in China?
Topic: Violence Against Women
Source: WorldNetDaily
An entire industry of trafficking women from North Korea into China, where they are sold to “husbands” who hold them with physical and sexual assaults as well as demands they perform backbreaking labor, has been documented by Radio Free Asia. [Ed.: a result of a 'woman shortage' which in turn results from the one-child policy that has encouraged sex-selection for decades and skewed the gender ratio heavily toward male children?] (02/17/07)
— Saturday 17 February 2007 – 06:47:33
If feminism is defined in such a way as to disparage, minimize, or ignore the way gender oppresses men, I think this is an understandable reaction. While there are feminists who do not do this, they are not, unfortunately, predominant in the movement.
steve, i dunno about some of your analysis… i’ll zoom in just on this: “Eight: womens general distaste for those areas that pay more, Engineering etc..” really?! i’d say this actually falls completely within “Institutional gender bias of the economy and powerful individuals;” it’s not that women happen to have a distaste for certain areas that happen to be masculine – the problem is systemic, and it’s not a coincidence at all that those areas that pay more are the traditionally masculine and viceversa. so i’d say it makes much more sense to call it a “historical exclusion from” rather than a “distaste for.” and… i think when thinking girl asked these questions she didn’t mean “why” as in “how come” and “is it fair?” (the answers are “we live under patriarchy” and… “no”) – it’s more of a “why” as in “why should it be so”… in my opinion.
Steve – yeah, I’m with Ruxandra, I dunno about some of these answers you’ve presented. I don’t think pat answers are helpful here – and like Ruxandra said, there really is one answer, and that’s “patriarchy.” Each of the answers to your question leaves another “why?” in its wake, and that can really only be answered with an analysis of patriarchy. You speak as if these things affect women and men on an individual level, and that the response must come from that same level. While feminism is certainly about empowering individuals, it’s also about societal change and group empowerment in tandem with individual empowerment.
Ruxandra – you wrote,
yes, exactly! the whole system has to do with relations of power between groups, and individual empowerment within a system of oppression is not enough. An individual can only be so empowered within a system that is unequal and oppressive. And the ridiculous notion of individual liberalism is simply not sufficient – we can’t simply run along in this world thinking that all an individual has to do is try harder and they will be rewarded. Try harder than what? Some people are breaking their backs everyday, doing and doing and doing, and the system of oppression they live under prevents those efforts from being rewarded. That’s the reality.
Glad you liked that post. The two books we used for that class were: 1. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self, 2000, Natalie Stoljar and Catriona MacKenzie (eds), Oxford University Press. and 2. Being Yourself: Essays on Identity, Action, and Social Life, 2005, Diana T. Meyers, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. We also read a couple of articles: Personal Autonomy by Sarah Buss and Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy by John Christman. We also read a bit of the book The Politics of Women’s Health, by Susan Sherwin.
I agree, feminism is introspective in many ways, and has tried to respond to reasonable critiques by becoming more and more inclusive and standing up for more and more things – if a woman is oppressed as a result of her race, religion, level of (dis)ability, class, sexuality, she is still a WOMAN oppressed by these things. We want equality for all women, no matter how she is particularly oppressed by other “isms.” Feminism isn’t just concerned with gender equality, it is concerned with full-out equality, so that no woman will be oppressed by any system.
Mmmm, interesting point, about equalism and the environment. One class I’m taking now is Environmental Justice, and we’ve been talking a lot about environmental racism, and the privileging of “nature” over people in environmental protection work. It’s basically what my best friend Angel has been talking about these last few years: no sense saving “the environment” if we can’t help the people who live in it. But yes, R, you’re bringing up a good point about privileging the environment over others who live in it, animals. And where is the understanding that one of the best things we can do for the environment – ask David Suzuki! – is to eat less (or even better, no) meat? Save the animals, save the world!
Thanks, that was a good post.
Steve – interesting snippet you posted. The same sort of sex-selection goes on in India, leaving a shortage of women of a particular class (who can afford the technology). I wondered what would happen eventually, if women might actually gain some more power in terms of choosing their mates, since women would be in short supply. Silly me, I confused “short supply” with “demand.”
Ballgame – men aren’t encouraged to examine patriarchy, and the ways patriarchy is damaging to men. Perhaps if more men did this, they would also want to see an end to patriarchy. It’s sad that that’s what is needed for men to clue in to what feminists are talking about: self-interest. It’s not enough for some men that women aren’t treated fairly under patriarchy. It takes some men seeing that patriarchy kind of sucks for men too in order for them to want to see a change to the system. Unfortunately, for a lot of men, an examination of the damage to men actually neglects examining (and thus recognizing the existence of) patriarchy, and simply turns into “blame feminism” and MRA bullshit about how men have it so much worse thanks to feminism. Wanting an end to feminism, not patriarchy. After all patriarchy has been installed by men, for men.
Which is why, in my opinion and certainly in my case, some feminists don’t care to talk much about how men are hurt by patriarchy. It’s not that I don’t care, but, I don’t care. You know? I’m for the women. The women need the help more than the men – the men have all of patriarchy behind them to give them social power. And it all comes down to my old claim that you hate, men aren’t oppressed by patriarchy.
I agree with your response to my comment, and I know you know me personally and, generally, how I feel about the way women are treated. Something is bothering me, though, about part of what you said regarding equalism:
… but just before this you said:
I agree completely with the latter quote, in that EVERYONE suffers (who suffers more is another matter) from the patriarchy (or any oppression, really). Which is why I’d prefer to be an equalist. Is it enough to “just look out for the women”?
Intersting Post. (I’m new to your blog!)
Even though I have heard the word feminist, I have little idea what is it’s definition(s). I was shocked to see the word ‘womanist’, completely clueless as to what it may mean.
Regarding the fact that feminism is not close to the heart of coloured women, I wasn’t very surprised.
Hi again Matthew – great to have you in the discussion, thanks for contributing, because it gives me an opportunity to both talk to you, my friend who I know cares a lot about issues affecting women and genuinely wants to see the status of women improved to equality, about something that is important and needs clarification/elucidation: Men, Patriarchy, and Feminism.
Yes, patriarchy affects men and women (and transgendered/transsexual people). Patriarchy dictates gender roles, set up in a dichotomy, and inscribes behaviours that are masculine or feminine, accordingly. Patriarchy also imbues masculine behaviours and the gender role “man” with privilege that it denies femininity and “woman.” To behave masculinely is to gain privilege, socially. But to behave femininely is to be oppressed. Femininity is meant to be oppressive. Everything about femininity is all about inscribing on the bodies of women, and expressing through the behaviours of women, their inferior status in society. There is no inherent privilege attached to femininity, and being female, the way there is privilege attached to being masculine, and male. (that’s not to say that some women aren’t rewarded for being feminine (Pamela Anderson is my favourite example), but these are rewards like you’d give a pet for doing a trick. pandering to patriarchy is a successful way for women to make their career, but it certainly doesn’t give them more social power in terms of gender.)
Under patriarchy, privilege and harm live side-by-side. Social privilege for men is often accompanied with problematic stuff like trouble expressing emotions, communication problems, and a lot of pressure to achieve professional success. But that doesn’t mean that inherently, patriarchy is for the men who adhere to its dictates.
Lots of men won’t agree, that patriarchy is inherently there because of and for male power. They don’t experience that in their own lives, for whatever reason. Perhaps they have chosen to live in an egalitarian relationship, work for an equal opportunity employer, were raised by working women and in homes where dads participated equally in household work and child rearing. Perhaps they experience the weight of the negative aspects of patriarchy in their lives, because they don’t want to/cannot adhere to its dictates. Perhaps they do adhere to patriarchy, but feel put upon by the negatives that go along with it. But, male privilege comes along no matter the rest and blinds its subjects in ways that make it difficult to see how patriarchy does benefit men and oppress women. Whether or not saying “men hold power in society” rings true for men or not, does not negate that men DO hold power in society. When I say that some men don’t feel they hold power in society, I mean that they may feel this, but it is not true. And when men use the individual-based argument that “I don’t hold power in society, so it must not be true,” to dismiss feminism, they are making a mistake. Men as a group hold power in society. Not all individual men will experience this, but it does not make it less true.
So for me, patriarchy is already doing the work to promote men, support men, and keep men in positions of power. Men aren’t oppressed as a result of their gender. Men’s gender is a boon to them under patriarchy. They don’t need my help. Which is why I cannot be an equalist. I need to be a feminist, to promote women, support women, and get women into positions of power and equality.
I think you’ve probably read this old post of mine before, but in case you have a minute to refresh your memory, here it is again.
Manas – thanks for your comment, and for stopping by. Check out womanist at Wikipedia for more information. And while there is no one definition for feminism that all feminists would happily agree to endorse, and it’s probably more sensible to talk of “feminismS” than of feminism in the singular, I can only speak for myself as to what feminism means to me. You can find this here.
Guess we just think differently
Steve – this is what makes the world go ’round, yes?
really, keep on pushing deeper. when you think you’ve analysed something as deep as it can go, think about whether you are able to go deeper; if not, why not? something might be in your way that prevents you from going any further. Then find out from someone who does have a different perspective, what theirs is and why they have it.
I say this because it’s been my own experience. I’ve learned recently that I can’t just think my way through everything. somethings I simply can’t understand from a different perspective, because I can’t get outside myself enough to do it. And that has pushed me to a deeper understanding of certain things, from my own perspective. Just tryin’ to break out of the Matrix, you know?
Thanks, TG (I hope you don’t mind the abbreviation). I skimmed those.
I agree that unnaturally low proportion of women in certain jobs is a consequence of social conditioning/partiarchy, rather than women’s ‘distaste’. Partiarchy imposes femininity to a group of people who happen to belong to the female gender, and masculinity to the male gender. And it places higher value on masculinity. Engineering is considered ‘masculine’ by Patriarchy, that is why it pays more.Certain jobs pay more than others, but it doesn’t mean they are WORTH more. For example, traders in the Wall Street earn millions a year while pay for childcare staff is low; but would you say that sitting in front of a computer and buying and selling shares all day is worth more than caring, nuturing and teaching children who will create the future? Certainly not. I think it is a failure of patriarchal capitalism.
It is important to deconstruct gender roles Patriarchy created, (engineering is not a ‘masculine ‘ job and childcare is not a ‘feminine’ job) while valuing qualities that are considered ‘feminine’ at the moment more, because they are undervalued.
By the way I found an interesting article in the BBC about objectification of young girls. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6376421.stm
Another failure of the patriarchal capitalism.
As a woman, my gender is part of my identity. But I like many other black women think that being black is central to how I see myself. I have read on the womanist movement in America but again the problem with feminism (black and white) is most of it is from a Western point of view. What about African feminists? What about the black African women who are trying to bring feminism into the heartland of Africa to prove that Female Genital Mutilation is wrong? I don’t think they get enough shine and the reason for this I believe is because feminism as a philosophy has fallen into the trap of being seen through an American kaleidoscope. It should be global in order to encompass MORE women of various ethnicities.
I consider myself a black feminist but not from an Afro-American viewpoint but a wholly black viewpoint that incorporates my African heritage and current life in Europe.
Aulelia.
For a raucous discussion on FGM, please go to this link:
http://think.dumblaws.com/2006/11/braces-female-circumcsion-whats-the-difference/
Everyone who wrote came away with their own conclusion on the babarity of FGM.
Many of us black American women work to eradicate the practice of FGM, most notably, Alice Walker, author of “The Temple of My Familiar”.
Ms.Walker was the one who coined the term “womanist”.
But, please go over to this link and check it out.
Manas – no problem, everyone calls me TG eventually.
Liberallatte – thanks for the very thoughtful and intelligent comment. I get so many of those here, from so many wonderful people, what a blessing! Thanks everyone!
good point bringing up the value of gendered work. It isn’t just work that is gendered, but salaries too, as women continue to make less money than men in the same positions for the same work. Why should this be? Because women are considered unreliable workers, in a Perpetual State of Possible Pregnancy. It’s simply assumed that women will have children and leave their jobs, at least for a while. And since we have a meritocracy on our hands here, all that really matters is the number of hours you clock and the “strength of your work”, or whatever. But, the kicker that makes it a true vicious circle, is that many heterosexual couples who have children decide that the woman should stay at home because she makes less money than he does. And there we have it – institutional sexism in action.
Thanks for that link, that was a good piece, very interesting and very true.
Aulelia – thank you for the comment. IT’s so true, feminism has been hijacked by western women. We hear next to nothing about feminist organizations in developing countries, but my friends, these groups are alive and well, and making real progress to help women on the ground – to make more money, to gain reproductive freedom, to feed their children, to become better educated, to stop harmful practices like FGC, to gain clean environments for their families, to break out of traditional roles and gain more independence and empowerment.
I’m with you, I think feminism needs to be seen as a global movement. I believe we have a responsibility to our sisters all across this globe, to act in concert with them to eliminate the particular oppressions they experience. I might not know what it is to experience FGC, but I sure as hell can add my voice to the global chorus of those who oppose it. I might not know what it is to experience racism, but I can sure as hell do what I can to name it when I see it, to call people out on it, and to rid my own life of it as much as is possible. I might not know what it is to be sold into prostitution, but I sure as hell can support those who are and condemn those who profit from it. It’s not enough to ‘think globally, act locally’ when it comes to women’s human rights.
Thanks for bringing this important topic up.
Ann – wow, that is certainly an interesting link you posted.
I spent most of the summer researching and writing about FGC. It was a difficult time, as I find the topic very challenging emotionally. I’ve read these arguments that say FGC is nothing more than another, different, kind of cultural practice that holds importance for those who practice it, and as such we westerners should leave our judgments at the door and stop interfering. They always fall short with me, because the bottom line is that FGC hurts women and girls. The numbers show it, in infant and maternal mortality rates, in infection rates, in stats on shock, hemorrhaging, sepsis, and all kinds of medical complications. FGC hurts women and girls, and it is a form of gendered violence.
I read a lot of critiques about Alice Walker’s work with FGC from African women who found her treatment of them and the practice very insulting. I haven’t read her work on FGC, or seen the documentary she made about FGC, but I always did love her poems and her fiction. I’m sure she would bring a powerful voice to FGC abandonment work.
Aulelia.
After reading your comment, I asked myself the following question:
“How can I take action against Female Genital Mutilation?”
Living here in America may put me geographically far away from black women all across the continent of Africa. But, it does not mean that I don’t care (not saying that you are saying this.) But, I do ask myself concerning many issues, “What can “I” do?” Once I figure out what I can do, how I can help, how I can alleviate and improve the situation, then half the battle has not only begun, but, half the battle is recogzined and acted upon.
Suggestions for action against FGM often focus on the role of other countries and international organizations in ending FGM. I can, and will support these actions by encouraging my government to take a stance on these issues.
Below are some links I will follow through on over the weeks. If I can just help in some small way, if I can help just ONE African woman or girl, then I feel that I will have given validity to my existence of life on this planet.
I am currently instilling into a young black lady I work with the knowledge of her black people’s history in America. I have given her books, etc., to learn of her history.
Just as she is woefully ignorant of her history and how to learn and appreciate it, so am I woefully ignorant of your history.
I aim to change that.
But, anyway, I am going to educate myself more on FGM via these links below.
And maybe, perhaps, I will be strong enough in knowledge to be a beacon of hope for all of my black sisters in Africa, for beautiful, also, ARE the souls of my black sisters.
Peace.
Calls for government action:
Amnesty International’s Strategies for Change
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm8.htm
World Health Organization’s Actions for Elimination
http://www.who.int/frh-whd/FGM/infopack/English/
fgm_infopack.htm#ACTIONS FOR ITS ELIMINATION
Organizations that fight FGM:
Rising Daughters Aware
http://www.fgm.org/
RAINBO
http://www.rainbo.org/
News, Education, and Ideas:
FGM Education and Networking Project.
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.html
Feminist News Stories on Female Genital Mutilation.
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/fgm.html
Gerry Mackie. A Way to End Female Genital Cutting.
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/articles/mackie1998.html
Sorry.
The correct title of the Alice Walker book I meant to name is:
“Possessing the Secret of Joy”.
TG.
I sent another comment through, and once again, it is not going through.
My comment is in response to Aulelia.
Thanks.
Thanks Ann for posting that link. I am so ashamed to think that FGM still happens in Tanzania or Kenya. Tradition is like an old monarch, still holding on to its’ sceptres.
–A
Ann – thanks for letting me know, your comment got trapped in the spamulator because of all the links. I too will follow up on these links.
TG.
Thanks.
Part of my comment was left out of my post to Aulelia.
The sentence should have read as follows:
“Just as she is woefully ignorant of her history and how to learn and appreciate it, so am I woefully ignorant of your history. Now, by ignorant, I do not mean book learning ignorance, where I am knowledgeable of the life-threatening conditions (septicemia, psychological scars, physical injuries, etc.), of FGM, but, unknowledgeable of the many traditions of Wolof, Fulani, Ibo, Yoruba, etc., women of Africa of whose history I am still learning.”
Interesting discussion.
Liberallatte, like you as soon as I read Steve’s explanation “Eight: womens general distaste for those areas that pay more, Engineering etc..” the first thing I thought was: the value we place on work is highly patriarchal! Is an engineer doing work that is more valuable to society than early childhood education? Encouraging more women to work in fields like engineering is helpful. Even more so is changing the assumptions that underly our valuation of work.
What about the billions of dollars women’s unpaid work is worth?
Interestingly without all of that free labour (mostly women’s) supporting workers capitalism could never have survived. I think capitalism and patriarchy are codependent.
Ann – sorry, I’m not sure what happened there, I only allowed the comment you had posted that had gotten trapped in the spamulator to be recovered – I didn’t edit out any of your comment, or anything like that. Glad you could recover it and make it more complete.
Red Jenny – thanks for stopping in! Yes, you are right – patriarchy and capitalism are definitely intertwined. Capitalism has taken full advantage of the inferior position and status of women in society to make women among the most exploited groups in society in terms of labour and economic strength.
And I’m definitely with you on changing up the way we attach value to work. The old saying, behind every successful man is a supportive woman, certainly is true. Did you know, married men live longer than single men, but single women live longer than married women? Marriage extends men’s lives, but shortens women’s lives. Might have something to do with all the work women do within marriages and families that men are not traditionally responsible for to the same degree, like household work and caretaking work. In a class I started this term but ended up not taking, I learned that women spend on average 14 years of their lives alone as seniors, and that women over 80 are the vast majority of people over the age of 65 – like, 70%!!!
There’s just so much we could go into here, but I’ll leave it there for now.
TG.
Sorry. Allow me to clarify.
Not your fault part of my comment was left out.
I left it out, and while doing my write-up, forgot to put it in.
(That happens when I am composing a written response, and see where a portion of my comment should be at the end (or begininng), and in the end, I inadvertently, leave out that which explains my comment more.
Nothing wrong done on your end.
Thanks for your patience.
Ann – no problem! glad I didn’t goof anything up unintentionally.
Katie at Liberal Debutante posted about this post of mine, and a thoughtful post it was. You can read her take on whether feminism has failed here.
@matthew: sorry, i know you weren’t asking me and thinking girl already gave her answer, but here’s my answer, too, anyway. (and i’m going only by what you’ve said here, since i don’t know you.) of course it’s not enough to “just look out for women,” but then the question becomes “enough for what?” because it depends on what immediate as well as long-term goals you have in mind: if you’re for equality theoretically but against rocking the boat too hard, it seems to me that it’s “enough” to be an equalist (which, as far as i understand from the link you gave and what you’ve commented, basically means making a point of letting “who suffers more” be a secondary issue, if not one to be completely ignored). but if you want to change the status quo, you can be different things depending on the kind of change you want – and it doesn’t have to be “enough,” it can just be something – only lots of people working together towards the same goals, but with different approaches, is what can be enough in the end.
the feminism i support seeks to improve the lives of both men and women, with the ultimate goal of ending all oppression, AND in the meantime taking into consideration who suffers more, because of course it does count: in fact, it’s at the heart of the matter. working to minimize suffering is the most important part of doing social justice in general; if you want to bring about change and alleviate suffering, it’s essential – both practically and theoretically – that the issues of those who suffer more be given priority! in other words, this prioritizing is simply a tool to use against existing levels of privilege and power. and by the way, if you know all this about other social justice issues (as many progressives do – though the bit about “affirmative action” in that definition of equalism worries me quite a bit), and yet you can’t see how it applies to feminist issues… well, that’s part of the problem here.
i wanted to mention – i actually disagree with thinking girl about phrasing the point as “not caring” about those who suffer less, just because most people hear that in a way that’s not really what it means. what it means is recognizing and taking a stand that oppressive systems and “who suffers more” must be addressed first and foremost, for the benefit of all – which is really not such a radical notion! (although it is “radical” in the positive sense of the word.) so it’s not “not caring” in the least – and that’s the other problem with using the phrase: you have to then explain… and it’s all the more frustrating, when this explanation is actually the whole point and should be clear in the first place. etc.
besides, since we talked about the whole issue of people’s complicity in their own oppression, there’s also the important point that women have always been kept in their place (supporting the patriarchy) very much with the help of the notion that we are never to put ourselves first, and not care! which, again, is not to say that we should stop caring, but rather that caring should no longer be seen exclusively as women’s lot – that the responsibility to care and to do something towards change should be distributed more equally. but this means directly addressing the gender role hierarchy, and as such is probably yet another point that’s too radical for “equalism”…
thinking girl, thanks for those references! and, ann, for those links.
@aulelia: you’re so right about most feminism tending to be from a western and/or u.s.-related point of view. it’s something i never know how to bring up in a discussion like this, and find incredibly hard to address in real life… but even the differences between europe and the u.s., or eastern europe and western europe, are so big sometimes – i always seem to be running into the problem that what’s relevant in one place isn’t in the other, and often there’s no way to draw parallels or directly exchange ideas and experiences. i’ve lived in north america but i’m from v. eastern europe and now i do most of my feminist activism there, and the kinds of issues that come up when i discuss feminism, what it’s accomplished, how it’s failed, whether and in what form it’s still needed, are quite different depending on the place. the only common denominator, really, is that the patriarchal order permeates everything – and that only a small percentage of people struggle against it (but they do, everywhere). what’s interesting, comparing the u.s. and western europe to eastern europe for instance, is that in some ways it feels that the u.s. is many steps ahead in terms of feminist accomplishments, and yet in some others the opposite is true… as i said, it’s too difficult to sort out. i think the “solution” is to keep trying to exchange information, and experiences, and points of view, between all parts of the world… to make that part of feminism, and necessarily see feminism as feminisms, or “feminist movement” (without the article, as bell hooks uses it).
Ruxandra – yes. so much more eloquently put. I couldn’t agree more.
Matthew – what Ruxandra said.
Has feminism failed? In many ways “yes,” and in someways “no.” I strongly believe that if the feminist movement in America continues down it’s current path, it will doom itself to failure! As a future father, if I have a daughter, then I want her to have the same opportunities that I have had in the workplace as a male. I also think women should be on equal footing when it comes to being paid in the workplace. Equal pay for equal work, depending upon your qualifications, such as your education and your work experience. I am against quotas of any kind in the workplace. I think an employee should be hired strictly by their qualifications for the job, not by their sex, their color, religion, or their sexuality! I think the feminist movement doomed itself to failure when they started to demonize all men as predators, and view all men as somehow being evil. Many ardent feminists have started to view men as repressing women in every aspect of life, and that is simply not true! Even though I don’t agree with a conservative like Rush Limbaugh on many issues, I agree with him in saying that some feminists have turned into feminazis! The feminist movement has also caused huge double standards in our society that are very unfair to men! As long as the feminist movement continues to villanize men in general, it will be doomed to failure, and many conservative women will turn against the movement.
Chris – I am completely for quotas in the workplace, because I believe that a diversity of viewpoints other than that of the hegemonic white hetero male christian. Also, I recognize that certain groups are prevented from gaining full access to social resources. But the thing is, what you’re saying makes it sound like the people who get jobs via quotas like this aren’t qualified at all for the position, which is ridiculous.
as for feminism villainizing men, that is a pretty damn shallow analysis of feminism. just as you complain that feminists are making ALL MEN into demons that oppress them (which is not true about feminism), YOU are making the very same mistake you claim to be so offended by. Feminists are not a monolithic homogenous group – we have major cleaves and differences within feminism, so painting us all with the same brush is committing the very same logical error you wrongly claim feminists are making.
as for FEMINISTS OPPRESSING MEN – god, that is a really tired and pathetic argument. Get serious, dude. Men as a group hold social power; women cannot, therefore, oppress men.
I’m sorry, I’ve been hearing way too much of this whining lately and I can’t really be bothered to lay it all out for you. Normally I probably would but right now I’m not feeling up to it. I’ve been oppressed all day.
Unfortunately I, along with everyone else on this blog, will probably not come up with a single new idea or argument. I believe that politically feminism has stagnated in the United States, it has failed in an Equality Amendment, but socially feminism succeeded in making people believe women are equal to men.
Of course the promotion of an Equality Amendment would not really be feminist. It would be humanist. Any variation of the four simple words “All People Are Equal” would inherently support humanity as a whole.
The grand majority of people in the United States apparently believe that women are equal enough. If this is so, feminists have a lot of work to do showing them that this conception is wrong. Perhaps it is time to halt the feminist cause and pick another worthy cause to work on for a while. It is not that the feminist cause is wrong or bad; the progress that is yet to be made is just currently ill timed. We need a new cause that will, in time, show that that the progress the feminists did not make towards equality needs to be made. It has worked in the past “which given the human condition, will recur in the future, either in the same fashion or nearly so.” (Thucydides).
Every cause worth fighting for is like a loaded gun, and every person fighting for the cause is like a child. If men did anything correctly to halt feminism and female progress it was to give the feminists everything they really wanted. If you give a bunch of children loaded guns do not be surprised when those children shoot themselves. It is akin to giving someone just enough rope to hang themselves. But then again “it has always been held that the weak are held down by the stronger.” (Thucydides).
So we must ask ourselves “where do we go from here?” How do we go about proving that women are not weak?
Oh, and don’t post that “education” is the key. Education did not stop AIDS. Why should it stop something that has been in place for thousands of years?
HI Tre – thanks for your comment. I agree with some, not with other, parts.
You said, “Of course the promotion of an Equality Amendment would not really be feminist. It would be humanist. Any variation of the four simple words “All People Are Equal” would inherently support humanity as a whole.”
so, what wouldn’t be feminist about an EA? What do you think feminism is or is not that it wouldn’t be served by an EA?
See, for me, feminism is a form of humanism – a form that recognizes that women are less equal than men socially, and that this situation is immoral and requires correction. I’m a feminist because I’m a humanist, in a way.
You said, “The grand majority of people in the United States apparently believe that women are equal enough. If this is so, feminists have a lot of work to do showing them that this conception is wrong.
This, I completely agree with. But then you went on to say “Perhaps it is time to halt the feminist cause and pick another worthy cause to work on for a while.”
Huh? No way! If feminists have a lot of work to do, we’d better get to work! I’d say, feminists need to get better organized around some of the key issues affecting women (like gendered violence, the sex trade, HIV, and poverty) and return to a grassroots model of consciousness-raising and high visibility, move feminism out of academia and into the streets.
You said, “If men did anything correctly to halt feminism and female progress it was to give the feminists everything they really wanted. If you give a bunch of children loaded guns do not be surprised when those children shoot themselves.”
First of all, you make it sound like the gains women have made in the name of equality have been gifts from men instead of hard-won fights for rights we deserve. The problem is that men have never given up their privilege – they have superficially supported women’s rights to equality, just so long as male privilege remains unchallenged and in effect.
But I’m curious to know what you think feminists have “shot themselves” over? What we have been “given” that we either didn’t deserve or didn’t use properly?
You said, “How do we go about proving that women are not weak?”
but that’s the thing – women aren’t weak. They just have less social power. And whose definition of “weak” or “strong” counts? Those with more social power, who get to do the defining.
Well, I do think that education is part of what needs to happen for feminism to move forward. I think we need to educate more people about women’s inequality. because if people just don’t know, how can they be persuaded to do something about it?
[...] 2007 sisterhood-solidarity , Feminism Friday , feminism What with the continually alleged “death of feminism” in this “post-feminist” age, how are young women finding their way into feminism going [...]
[...] Thinking girl blog / Blogger on a cast iron balcony / Moxie.nu [...]
“The problem is that men have never given up their privilege – they have superficially supported women’s rights to equality, just so long as male privilege remains unchallenged and in effect. ”
This is why I’ve never really been able to get on board with the idea of men being feminists.
If so many women still don’t get it, how is it that we’re so willing to believe a male might get it?
It’s crap, it’s all about how we still pander to the patriarchy.
The current generation have learned nothing from us; they’re lining up to self-mutilate and vomit their way to male approval.
Gendered violence still exists and is still accepted by the mainstream community.
Teenage girls still don’t get that tottering on high heels is disempowering.
The porn industry still exists.
Pedophile rings are still under-reported by the mainstream media.
Here in Australia we had a prime ministerial candidate state that he was too drunk to know what happened at a third world strip club, and then be elected prime minister.
Yes it has failed!
We need to do more. But I don’t think that this site is the place to start; it’s way too soft, way too ” oh but we don’t want to alienate the men cos after all we still need their approval.”
Pah