[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. ~Pat Robertson
secretly, you can't see it because it's been put their subliminally with magic fading ink, the back of my feminist shirt says, "JOIN A COVEN!" just thought that everyone should know.
Posted by Mendon at November 20, 2004 4:07 PMHi, Mensch!
Mara once explained to me that my very bad experiences at the hands of some nasty feminists did not mean that all feminists were nasty. By the same token, it's probably true that not all feminists are nice.
There definitely are some folks who, under the umbrella of feminism, encourage women to leave their husbands (Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon), destroy capitalism (Holly Sklar) and become lesbians (Ali G).
Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon and Holly Sklar are about as nasty pieces of work as you'll ever come across.
There are some practicing feminists who are also practicing witches, and witchcraft does have a female diety (The Goddess) instead of a masculinized one.
The last feminist to encourage infanticide was Goethe, although he wasn't as forceful as Euripides. In any event, the practice is no longer en vogue - Pat is probably referring to abortion. If you accept that a fetus is an unborn child, he wins the point. The Baha'i Faith agrees with him.
The conclusion is that Pat Robertson is correct in the above statement: feminism does everything he says. Again, Mara has pointed out that feminism has a very broad umbrella and a lot of people stand under it, including some truly evil people.
This is not to say that feminism doesn't have it's good points. I wish I had access to my old computer, because there is a rich and engaging exchange between Mara and me that explores this area in which we found a good deal of common ground.
I'm a far bigger fan of egalitarianism than I am of feminism. Feminism will always be sexist in its stance because it cannot distinguish between downtrodden and oppressed men and men who are neither oppressed nor oppressors and oppressive men. Men are all equally responsible when viewed through the lense that terms men patriarchy.
By the same token, it wrestles inconclusively with the cognitive dissonance evoked by comparing the plight of women faced by the glass ceiling with the plight of women who have no ceiling. Bank VPs who will never be President are as much of an issue under the feminist critique as the homeless.
This is why I'm not a subscriber. I'm more indifferent - although I've been roused to more assertive stances by the asinine postures of the more radical amongst that lot.
In any event, The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are far more informative about the current working environment in any given country than The Feminine Mystique or Backlash.
Posted by: Nathan Dornbrook at November 20, 2004 5:24 PMI think it's the misconceptions of feminism...or perhaps the lack of definitive leadership and cohesiveness that is truly problematic. I used to think being a femenist meant I shouldn't like pink because it's a girlie color and that I should be a scientist or mathematician instead of a teacher simply because teacher and nurse used to be the only options...well I suppose prostitution and seamstress and maid etc....but you know...I'm not talking about the underclassed here...that would be too involved...
okay so my point is that there really is no cohesion in this group that call themselves femenists...but Nae, your issue is that you were around during a time and place that men weren't included and you're bitter/angry. And rightly so. From my corner of the world femenism is standing up for equality - or egalitarianism as you might say. And what it really means to me is leading the life I want to live, that leads to self fulfilment and happiness without worrying so damn much about what other people expect or want...unless I want to, which sometimes I do:)
Nae, great, beautiful. The flaw with egalitarianism: 1, uh, who is actively advocating this across the globe? and making this a reality?
2: Any time women agree that another issue other than their equal rights in the world are the priority they gettting royally SCREWED over by the men in the movement. Look at the civil rights movement...men said, yeah, great, we all need this - go make us dinner while we fight for freedom....
Politely, Nae, that would seriously make me one rockin-pissed woman if I was done over like that.
Posted by: Mara at November 21, 2004 8:32 AMYou do know the history of how women were included in the Civil Rights Act of 63 (or was it 64?), don't you? There was a Senator from the south who said, 'I know how we will sink this bill. We'll include WOMEN, and then NO ONE will vote for it.'
Otherwise, we wouldn't even have that. Talk about unintended consequences.
hmmmm... I'm intrigued that such a short post of mine should evoke such dialogue. As for Nathan, I suspect that what Pat Robertson meant to say , in a manner that is less accusatory, is that "feminism is anti-status quo." He further forgot to add on the next emotive statement, "and that really scares me." The reverend Fallwell has harder words to say about feminism that are so ridiculous that they're almost funny, if they weren't so scary. However, I chose to post this as an insight into what some people think when they see me wearing the shirt. I feel that Robertson has more credit for being remotely thoughtful than Fallwell.
And, Nathan, before you attempt to state that which other people believe but you do not, with any sense of authority, you might want to do more research and be able to cite them, as well as your other sources.
Posted by: Mendon at November 21, 2004 10:55 AMI'm going to take a moment to make a distinction between two flavours of feminism because it's been lost over the years. There used to be a distinction between liberal feminism and radical feminism. It fell out of fashion to distinguish between the two; folks like Susan Faludi and Gloria Steinem borrowed from both to make simultaneous and contradictory arguments (go read Backlash). I suspect that academia still takes the time to invoke this kind of rigour, but it's not found in the popular press.
Radical feminism is a repackaged fascism, with different scapegoats. I think Holly Sklar, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon, Molly Yard, Barbara Ehrenrich & Patricia Ireland fall into this category. The irony is that nearly all of the critical analysis is Marxist.
Liberal feminism is based in the idea that women and men are equal. I have found very little to criticize in this corner, with the possible exception that, as a philosophy, it is not sufficiently broad. The suffragette campaign for the vote is an example of liberal feminism in action. I think Naomi Wolf & Wendy Kaminer are good examples of this stream of thinking.
All of the quotes below are from people claiming the feminist title. Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon are often quoted by both feminists and traditionalists. They are provocative enough to be quotable and very influential. Based on their work, Canada passed a law that outlawed erotica, but only if it had women in it (as in romance novels) and heavily influenced the Communications Decency Act and the Violence Against Women Act in this country. Thankfully, the most egregious portions of both laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
I waited before posting these references for three reasons.
The first is that I'm conscious of the fact that Mara and I have had some pretty nasty spats over this topic in the past. We're both older and more mature, and have also mapped out a fairly large space in which we agree, but I don't want to fan the flames of further conflict. Mara: I love you, and this is not meant to start a flame war. I'm just answering a gauntlet thrown down by our brother.
The second is that there are some social critics who call themselves feminists that I like so much I'd happily march around with a shirt with that label - if only people followed their lead. I'm a particular fan of Wendy Kaminer, who just about hits every nail right on the head in the essays in True Love Waits, for example. I'm also a big fan of Camille Paglia, who is an amazing and powerful personality. She's also an excellent mind; she was brilliant on Crossfire - I'd love to see her there again.
Third, I wasn't sure how to respond to your "do your research, show me your sources" post. Unless you've discovered time travel and popped back in to post after a decade of careful study and reading, your challenge is a bizarre food chain mismatch. I'll take that challenge, but only if you have specific criticisms. It is utterly out of order to breezily challenge someone to post quotes and sources. It's fine to ask for sources if you want to do research of your own. It's fine to disagree over a specific point. (i.e. "I don't think Ali G is a feminist! Where'd you get that idea? Show me your sources." or "I don't think the Baha'i Faith opposes abortion! Where does it say that?") To be fair, this is your blog, but if the rules you want to play by include questioning sources and challenging assumptions back to first principles, I must respectfully decline to discuss this topic with you - go read a bit more and come back when you have a sufficiently well grounded approach to the topic that we can start somewhere that's interesting for both of us. The direction you were taking us in before ends in vitriolic invective and not much else.
That Pat Robertson quote gets a lot of air time from both traditionalists and feminists of all stripes. That's a shame, because it serves to marginalize those who hold the middle ground. It's a polarizer.
It can be made trivially 100% accurate by stating that Pat Robertson means Radical Feminism, not Liberal Feminism. You might be one of the only people drawing such a distinction, but these things can sometimes be vitally important.
In any event, here are some quotes, since you asked.
A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.
Andrea Dworkin
By the time we are women, fear is as familiar to us as air. It is our element. We live in it, we inhale it, we exhale it, and most of the time we do not even notice it. Instead of "I am afraid," we say, "I don't want to," or "I don't know how," or "I can't."
Andrea Dworkin
Erotica is simply high-class pornography; better produced, better conceived, better executed, better packaged, designed for a better class of consumer.
Andrea Dworkin
Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.
Andrea Dworkin
Men have defined the parameters of every subject. All feminist arguments, however radical in intent or consequence, are with or against assertions or premises implicit in the male system, which is made credible or authentic by the power of men to name.
Andrea Dworkin
Men know everything - all of them - all the time - no matter how stupid or inexperienced or arrogant or ignorant they are.
Andrea Dworkin
Men renounce whatever they have in common with women so as to experience no commonality with women; and what is left, according to men, is one piece of flesh a few inches long, the penis. The penis is sensate; the penis is the man; the man is human; the penis signifies humanity.
Andrea Dworkin
Money speaks, but it speaks with a male voice.
Andrea Dworkin
Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.
Andrea Dworkin
Poetry, the genre of purest beauty, was born of a truncated woman: her head severed from her body with a sword, a symbolic penis.
Andrea Dworkin
Sexism is the foundation on which all tyranny is built. Every social form of hierarchy and abuse is modeled on male-over-female domination.
Andrea Dworkin
The fact that we are all trained to be mothers from infancy on means that we are all trained to devote our lives to men, whether they are our sons or not; that we are all trained to force other women to exemplify the lack of qualities which characterizes the cultural construct of femininity.
Andrea Dworkin
While gossip among women is universally ridiculed as low and trivial, gossip among men, especially if it is about women, is called theory, or idea, or fact.
Andrea Dworkin
Wild intelligence abhors any narrow world; and the world of women must stay narrow, or the woman is an outlaw. No woman could be Nietzsche or Rimbaud without ending up in a whorehouse or lobotomized.
Andrea Dworkin
Women, for centuries not having access to pornography and now unable to bear looking at the muck on the supermarket shelves, are astonished. Women do not believe that men believe what pornography says about women. But they do. From the worst to the best of them, they do.
Andrea Dworkin
"Women's fashion" is a euphemism for fashion created by men for women.
Andrea Dworkin
Barbara Ehrenreich, as quoted by Stephen Chapman, from Time:
"Only with the occasional celebrity crime do we allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable: that the family may not be the ideal and perfect living arrangement after all -- that it can be a nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence," she writes. "Even in the ostensibly 'functional,' nonviolent family, where no one is killed or maimed, feelings are routinely bruised and often twisted out of shape. There is the slap or the put-down that violates a child's shaky sense of self, the cold, distracted stare that drives a spouse to tears, the little digs and rivalries."
From Sisterhood Is Powerful, Morgan (ed), 1970 p. 537.
"The Feminists -v- The Marriage License Bureau of the State of New York...All the discriminatory practices against women are patterned and rationalized by this slavery-like practice. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ...
"Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their 'true' role. ... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her speical responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all."
Catherine McKinnon: "Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage and sexual harassment."
Gloria Steinem: [About Geraldine Ferraro's candidacy:] "What has the women's movement learned from her candidacy for vice president? Never get married."
A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.
Gloria Steinem
Any woman who chooses to behave like a full human being should be warned that the armies of the status quo will treat her as something of a dirty joke. That's their natural and first weapon. She will need her sisterhood.
Gloria Steinem
Someone asked me why women don't gamble as much as men do, and I gave the commonsensical reply that we don't have as much money. That was a true and incomplete answer. In fact, women's total instinct for gambling is satisfied by marriage.
Gloria Steinem
"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." (National NOW Times, Jan.1988).
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."
Sheila Cronan
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November 1971).
"Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole [expletives deleted] patriarchy!"
Gloria Steinem. As a side note, I used to have this quote on tape, because it's from a great speech that BJ and I used on our radio show (the speech starts off: "This is no simple reform. This really is a revolution." What irks me is that I can't find the expletives, and I know I used to have them. I don't think she used the f word. I think it was "God damned," but the f word just seems to fit so well.
"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power--but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers." -- Robin Morgan
"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French, in "The Women's Room"
"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Author, "The Women's Room"
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." -- Sheila Jeffrys
As a side note, not only is abortion prohibited by the Faith, so is the birth control pill, which causes a fertilized egg to be shed rather than acting as a prophylactic.
"Abortion and surgical operations for the purpose of preventing the birth of unwanted children are forbidden in the Cause unless there are circumstances which justify such actions on medical grounds, in which case the decision, at present, is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in light of the general guidance given in the Teachings. Beyond this nothing has been found in the Writings concerning specific methods or procedures to be used in family planning. It should be pointed out however, that the Teachings state that the soul appears at conception, and that therefore it would be improper to use such a method, the effect of which would be to produce an abortion after conception has taken place."
-Lights of Guidance, page 1155.
1. Gloria Steinem uses hyperbole to make a point. Andrea Dworkin is nuts.
2. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." (National NOW Times, Jan.1988).
In context: yes, I am fully aware that I must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be a feminist. I have been identified as such numerous times. Both before and after my wedding.
3. Robin Morgan sounded good until she said "kill your father" - wha?
4. Marilyn French: shame on you, shame on you, shame on you. You are a knowledgeable woman. I have respect for you that I just can't let go of. These quotes demean your intelligence and the viable work you've done. I quoted you in my thesis damnit. And it was a good quote.
5. Marriage: why can't these women get a grip? Why can't they use those higher degrees they have? Yes, marriage has been really, really bad for women in the past. So have a lot of things - both for men and women. You don't chuck it because it needs an overhaul. You overhaul. Drrr. Learn good marriage. Live good marriage.
6. Naomi Wolf - I don't consider her a liberal feminist. I consider her a "pop feminist". She says what she thinks Middle American woman want to hear. Puke.
7. I think that quote from Lights of Guidance (which frequently gives us quotes a bit out of context) makes the case that abortion is a complex issue. It is not forbidden. It is forbidden to use it as a rather irresponsible version of birth control. One can easily enough be responsible about sex. If not, then be willing to take responsibility for your actions. I support that. Something interesting from the Universal House of Justice (on abortion & some other similar issues):
In studying these principles, it should be noted that in most areas of human behaviour there are acts which are clearly contrary to the law of God and others which are clearly approved or permissible; between these there is often a grey area where it is not immediately apparent what should be done. It has been a human tendency to wish to eliminate these grey areas so that every aspect of life is clearly prescribed. A result of this tendency has been the tremendous accretion of interpretation and subsidiary legislation which has smothered the spirit of certain of the older religions. In the Bahá'í Faith moderation, which is so strongly upheld by Bahá'u'lláh, is applied here also. Provision is made for supplementary legislation by the Universal House of Justice -- legislation which it can itself abrogate and amend as conditions change. There is also a clear pattern already established in the Sacred Scriptures, in the interpretations made by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, and in the decisions so far made by the Universal House of Justice, whereby an area of the application of the laws is intentionally left to the conscience of each individual believer. This is the age in which mankind must attain maturity, and one aspect of this is the assumption by individuals of the responsibility for deciding, with the assistance of consultation, their own course of action in areas which are left open by the law of God.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1988 Jun 05, Detailed Legislation on Moral Issues)
Posted by: Mara at November 29, 2004 2:48 AMBy the way, Nae, Marilyn French is the only author, from the above-cited, that I've ever read for my gender studies classes. And I still stand by the fact that her professional research is sound. She clearly has issues on a personal level, but then, I could cite plenty of educated, productive men who had majorly messed up personal issues. Her professional work - that I've seen anyway - is sound.
Posted by: Mara at November 29, 2004 3:03 AMHey, Mara!
I love what you've said here, and deeply appreciate it. Thank you for weighing in; in my mind, at least, your words are authoritative on the feminist creed. I might disagree with individual points of approach or conclusion, but I'm not qualified to do much more than that.
I thought I'd read Marilyn French somewhere else! Now I remember: it was in your thesis!
In any event, nearly everyone I've quoted above is an actor in the public stage rather than a serious academic (Marilyn French and Catherine McKinnon excepted). I quoted them for two reasons:
1. I have been unable to keep my eyes from crossing when reading the dense, deliberately obfuscate academic papers of the social sciences outside of semiotics/linguistics and economics. This is why Mara's thesis got a read and Holly Sklar got a read but Cixous or Irigaray or Kristeva or Gilbert or Gubar get a miss. I'd sure love to be informed about how women's sexuality informs their word choice, but I'll be damned if I can stay awake through an Irigaray paper. I've already rejected most of the Lacan/Derrida school of deconstructionism anyway, so it's just too much of a struggle.
2. 95% of the US feels the same as I do in 1. or even lazier. This means that they are more likely to pay attention to people who address them directly rather than obliquely, through the academic press.
Okay, to add, amplify or respond to your statements, in order:
1. I've been guilty of hyperbole in the past. I regret it now; it's in my nature a bit to exaggerate, and I wish it wasn't. I struggle with it every day. Using hyperbole to make a point is often a lousy rhetorical strategy because it can be attacked directly on a factual basis and indirectly provides fuel for ad hominem attacks. It also polarizes: ennergizes the faithful but alienates the opposition. It is not a unifying strategy. Gloria Steinem has had an enormous impact on the U.S. political playing field and has used hyperbolic rhetoric to do so. I'm disappointed in her.
2. I had interpreted this statement differently. Your interpretation fits more coherently with the NOW statements I've read elsewhere and I prefer it to my own. As a side note, I don't think assumptions should be made about anyone's sexuality; there is little to be gained by it, but everyone becomes cheapened.
3. Robin Morgan may not be saying anything invalid, but she's also not really saying anything to me. She has written marginalizing sexist jingoism, followed by an incitement to violence that I assume is intended as hyperbole. I fail to see how statements such as these add to humanity's collective wellbeing.
4. Marilyn French hates men. Hates them. She's twisted up inside in a particularly obnoxious way.
5. If something is a bad idea, but it works, then it's not a bad idea. Marriage works for many people for a long time in their lives.
6. You don't consider Naomi Wolf a liberal feminist? Gosh, I'd probably give her the benefit of the doubt. I really liked The Beauty Myth. Sure, she's pop, but all of the above are pop. So's Morissey and the Bee Gees and Michael Jackson and Barbie and baseball and cookbooks and just about anything that 90% of America know about. The other word I sometimes use is "relevant." Naomi Wolf may be pop, but she's important because everyone knows who she is. I don't think she tells people what they want to hear so much as she uses a critical approach to something they care about, in the same way that Noam Chomsky does.
7. I agree completely with your assessment of the Lights of Guidance quote - it wasn't my intention to make it seem any other way. Compare this stance with the stance of Margaret Sanger and I suggest that you'd find the Lights of Guidance to be vastly closer to the stance put forward by Pat Robertson than the one put forward by Margaret Sanger. But the Baha'i position is very attractive and far more mature than Pat Robertson's. And that's a great quote from the Universal House of Justice, by the way, and damn good advice.
I've felt for a long time that there's a long, deep history of cooperation between the sexes that never made it into the historical record, one that would swamp any other type of behaviour. Under this theory, people acted rationally by defining gender roles, but did so in a way that is slower than society was moving. Furthermore, the gap between the "time to market" of new ideas about gender and the "time to market" of the forces that caused the rethink was widening. This would take too long to explain here in detail, but you get the general idea.
Are there circumstances in which it's a good idea to have a woman stay home and take care of the children and perform light housework and do nothing else? Damn straight there are. Are there such situations in the western world after 1800? Not so much. How long after 1800 did we begin to redefine gender roles? Well, it was a while. Both processes have accelerated rapidly, but gender redefinition has been stymied in the states and I blame feminists and traditionalists for this.
The group of teenage girls that I hang out with here don't have problems that a feminist critique can address. I suspect that this will eventually leak over into the States. I also think that Europe is ripe for an egalitarian movement, ironically just as the French are ready to move away from egalitarianism and towards race-based quota systems.
In any event, the anti-thesis I was putting forward was that feminist authors, at one time or another, said or did all of the things that Pat Robertson suggests. He is factually correct.
Posted by: Nathan Dornbrook at November 29, 2004 1:46 PMAs a side note, a lot of marriage law is very, very strangely derived. Almost all of it is derived from the church. It is a modern construction that marriage is state sanctioned.
In largely pagan Iceland, marriage is an oddity and very few people get married.
It's not that common here in the U.K., either, to be honest, and the U.K. is probably the world's first atheist nation.
Posted by: Nathan Dornbrook at November 29, 2004 1:58 PMHey, check out this cool site!
You'll see that only ~30% of Iceland's births are within marriages, although there is such a thing as a "registered consensual union" that has nothing to do with God. Fascinating. The below link will take you to the UK portion.
http://www.coe.int/t/e/social%5Fcohesion/population/demographic%5Fyear%5Fbook/2001%5FEdition/UK%202001.asp#P7_1631
Posted by: Nathan Dornbrook at November 29, 2004 2:03 PMMara, Nathan, et. al.,
I've been thinking about the second wave of feminism. The women of this wave needed to unify under that w-word (woman), give it power, and work to improve their lives. They wanted a revolution. They felt that had to get ugly to do it, so they said a few crazy things…. And they started their revolution. But... I get frustrated with it. It's not complete. They identified their evils, double standards, glass ceilings, etc. But I really feel that in spite of all of their passion and potential, they didn't go as far as they should and could have. And Nathan’s frustrated with the reason: the fact that homelessness is just as important to this movement as is a bank VP who can't move up to President. These feminists had problems embracing all of their diversity and all of the diverse concerns and issues that they all brought to the table. Rather than take on the impossible and embrace and address them all, the cause fizzled and what remains are a few vociferous man-haters. Thus, round two of feminism got frustrated, got bored, got married (Even Steinem!), and left some of their potential to remain just that.
Now, we watch the third wave of feminism develop. Naomi Wolf speaks for some of it. The internet has opened up for younger girls, too; it’s a mode of communication and exploration. The third wave has less of a push towards reform. Rather, women/feminists are taught to love themselves, to appreciate their bodies, their orgasms, their gender… Ha, ha, and their imperfections (see all previously listed… *eye roll*). They are allowed to embrace motherhood, marriage. Mara and Nathan are both right about Wolf, too. She's addressing issues pertinent to middle-everything women. She does so critically, but not in a way that encourages change in anyone save the feminist that embraces her thoughts (hence, “pop”). Most of her memorable quotes (that I found online… sorry, I’ve yet to get to Wolf) have to do with BEAUTY. Again, Puke. And, the internet sites for other young feminists spend just as much of their efforts teaching them how to be better kissers and prettier. Is this it? Are we, as humans, that disheartened by not being able to reform thousands of years of habits in such a short time? We need to be inspired, encouraged by the second wave of feminism: we need to learn from it. Instead, I find myself living with women that cry over their addiction to make-up. (truly, I wouldn't lie about that).
I suppose my rant should have a point... :) Contemporary feminism is moving farther and farther from many of the quotes that have been cited. Even the one that Mendon posted. Wolf is the strongest spokeswoman of it, and, I certainly don’t feel like she’s speaking for me. So, in order to not ruin Mendon’s post and all who are writing on it: Where do you think feminism is going? Where will gurl.com take us? Egalitarianism? He he he… Dictionary.com/ says: “Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.” It also says, “Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.” Hm…. : )
Posted by: Kristen at November 30, 2004 2:39 AMThe day I got pissed w/ Wolf was the day she wrote an article about how Kerry's wife should shut up, stop having opinions, not use a hyphenated name, and dress more demurely.
WHAT!? Can I slap this woman?
Maybe, just maybe, that would have gotten Kerry elected. Maybe. I don't care. A woman, who is seen as a major feminist authority (gag) is telling another woman - with a potential to influence many other women - to sit down, shut up and be demure? I don't think I would have minded it from anyone else ... but Naomi Wolf? She's dead to me.
Posted by: Mara at November 30, 2004 5:11 AMHey, guys!
Thanks to Kristen for possessing the clarity and concision to say what I wish I'd said. Thanks, Kristen.
Second, I'd like to thank Mendon for bringing this topic up, because this conversation is a good one and I think we're getting somewhere.
Third, I'd like to thank Mara for bringing some authority and gravitas to the debate.
Finally, I want to apologize to my mother. Maman, I'm sorry we didn't follow down the historicity of the '64 Civil Rights Act; we can clean that up later.
Okay, in defense of Naomi Wolf. I think the article in question is the one below, from the NY Metro.
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/columns/thesexes/9911/
In it, she doesn't really say "sit down, shut up, be demure." She points out that Karen Hughes, Michael Deaver and Karl Rove have hit upon a way of presenting their candidate that resonates far more cleanly with women voters than the Democrat camp.
Another thing she said was that we ought to pay more attention to the candidate for president than the spouse, and I think this applies to either sex.
We have yet to see a female candidate for president, regrettably, but I'm going to hold to the same idea when it occurs: the spouse is less important in the campaign. Presidential spouses don't have to suppress their own ambitions, but shouldn't expect to be in the limelight. Also, if the person in question wants their wife or husband to win the nomination and the presidency (or any high office, really), then he ought to support his wife and vice versa or expect to be beaten by a better team.
Posted by: Nathan Dornbrook at December 1, 2004 6:19 PMI would like to come from a practical point of view. I am a little lost with the theoretical, political etc, but I work in the trenches. There was a case in this morning's paper that demonstrates an attitude towards women that I find unequal. There is a couple who went on a coke binge after Thanksgiving. They woke up to find their baby dead. The mother is in jail, the father is not. The thinking is that the mother is responsible for the welfare of the baby, therefore she is held accountable. Doesn't seem to fit in with all the theory that you guys were bandying about, but sure isn't very fair.
I'm sorry if I sound sort of yokelish and un-educated. I just know that I see public policy that works against women and often their children too.
That's disgusting. Thanks, Ma.
Posted by: Mara Fojas at December 11, 2004 6:15 AM