'second wave feminism"

[cally]

I've done some reading about this but I'm much more familiar with feminist writings about getting the right to vote and the 70's feminists. I'm fairly knowledgeable about earlier feminists. Ideas change and evolve. I do not support everything the early feminists said or promoted but I honor them and respect them. Some of the posts on the 'bitch' threads implied that the 'new' feminists are better than the old ones. Smarter, more politically astute, and the old issues hurt feminism. I just don't get it or understand. I think you don't understand the context of the previous fights. Does anyone want to explain your animosity and self-righteousness to older feminists?

[The empressof all]

1. Nostalgic

Those other threads actually brought me back to arguments I had during the 70's. I remember having similar ones with men. I sometimes think that as older feminists we haven't always done the best job in passing down the history of what we struggled with. I remember the times when newspapers advertised for Help Wanted Women/Help Wanted Men. I remember the time when all I was expected/could be was a nurse, secretary, mother or nun. I'm not trying to diminish the arguments going on in the other threads at all-they were important then, they are important now. However even if we didn't succeed in passing the ERA-we have come a long way regardless of the language others may choose to call us (Or what we call ourselves)

I have been lurking here for many years and just recently have been making an effort to post more. I would like to let you know that as a group I find the men here far less sexist than the general population and a hell of a lot less sexist than what I had to contend with growing up.

[cally]

3. We've advanced

but we are losing ground rapidly. I don't know if older feminists haven't passed it on or if younger ones take everything for granted. Whichever is correct, women are going to suffer. We all have to understand the history so we can act accordingly.

[slinkerwink]

49. I understand the importance of feminism, and I'm doing my best

to pass it onto my younger sister to be independent, but I'm losing ground with her due to peer pressure and conformist ideals that in order to be liked by the boys, she has to give up any traces of individuality or intelligence.

[baffie]

131. I see no gratitude in younger women, but I think it's ignorance

and you're right, we haven't educated them. They have no idea whatsover what life used to be like for women, and what some of us went through to change things for women.

I myself suffered persecution in high school because I was the first girl after Title IX to join a "boy's" team, since we had no girl's teams for most sports. I broke the ice and emboldened several other young women to join teams. For my efforts, I was ridiculed by the boys and subjected to various humiliations including rumors that they were going to punish me by playing mean pranks on me. My two best "friends" abondoned me and I spent my senior year recesses and lunch times alone. It was lonely, but still worth it. When the US women's soccer team won the world title a few years ago in front of a huge, packed stadium that included many, many men, including, if I remember correctly, President Clinton. I actually cried with joy. I considered their victory my victory.

No, younger women have no idea what we went through or what they've gained because of it. I think they need to be educated.

[curse10]

2. 2nd wave is actually what is most commonly

thought of as feminism. The 1st wave was the suffragettes. The 2nd wave started in the 60s. Gloria Steinem and Germaine Greer are typical 2nd wave feminists. The third wave has its roots in the early 90s. Third wave feminists haven't completely abandoned 2nd wave feminism, however, there is a move to get rid of some of the notions about feminism (like we all find the word "bitch" offensive).

Third wave feminism is often about being feminine. Especially in younger women and girls. It's about reclaiming what makes us women. Reveling in our differences. I would call Eve Ensler a very good example of a second waver moving into the third wave. The Vagina Monologues are primo third wave feminism. All kinds of women are accepted- women who wear high heels, women who love the word "cunt", women who burn their bras, and women who love to wear girdles.

I'm not an expert by any means, but that's my take.

[cally]

5. But why demonize the earlier movements and issues?

I understand the issues of the third wave and somewhat agree. I do think the 70's feminists took the male hatred too far but having lived it much of that was a media fabrication. I just sense a respect for the earlier issues. It's like you are fine with your life and you (generic you) can't be bothered to understand that women did not have the same life options this generation has. Some of what is taken for granted now was fought for by many progressives. And being called a bitch at work everyday I argued by a group of men until a group of women confronted the management has definitely swayed me on that issue.

[curse10]

6. third wave is not an attempt to demonize

anything or anyone. If anything, there are less labels. There are no "good" feminists and "bad" feminists. Most of the 2nd wave issues are still issues, they haven't just gone and disappeared because we've a new wave of feminism. However, problems often occur when people try to speak for all of women. This is what makes third feminism very difficult to describe. There are many facets.

I'm a third wave feminist who says bitch, reads Cosmo, and works extensively on DV issues. My best friend is a third wave feminist who says bitch, reads Newsweek, and works with girls in foster care. We are all different.

That doesn't mean we don't all have common ground. I don't know a feminist out there who doesn't believe in equal pay, but for some it's a bigger issue.

2nd wavers are still around in a big way (I was personally fucking psyched when I met Gloria Steinem last year!). They were ground breaking. We can't forget what they did and what they are still doing. But we also have to realize that there is a new, and in my opinion, incredibly progressive feminism on the horizon.

[cally]

7. Well, I'm glad you are empowered

but I'm saddened. I remember how much I wanted a different feminism from the 60's feminists. I thought I knew it all because I had more opportunities than they did. Guess what, it took a few years and I realized what they had done and continue to do for me and all women. I just don't like the smugness and dissing of other women. I think you completely misunderstand what 70's feminists stood for and fought for. I think we'll have to have the full backlash for folks to wake up.

[curse10]

8. Don't assume I know nothing about 70s feminism

I'm a fucking democrat BECAUSE of Gloria Steinem. I read her in the 9th grade and it changed my life. To assume that young, new, third wave feminists are ignorant of the past, is well, ignorant. Just because we have different methods and different ideas doesn't mean we've abandoned the old guard. I have deep respect for what has gone on in the past. And most active feminists I know feel the same way. But it isn't the 1970s. We have to find new methods to combat sexism and the inequality women face. I'm not protesting or burning bras like many did in the 70s, I'm working to change the laws. Some women and girls are still protesting. We'll see that on the 25th of this month.

We can't go back, nor should we want to go back, to the 1970s. We made great strides then, but we still have a long way to go. We need new voices, new ideas, and if that means new feminism, so be it.

[cally]

12. Why do we have to find new ways?

I just don't get that. Why the need to reject the old feminists? What was wrong with the earlier movements? We made progress until folks started trying to apologize for those crazy feminists. I honestly see no downsides and no need for a new wave. Maybe to evolve and adjust to new realities but not a shift.

I just don't understand. Evolve yes. Move on from our mistakes, yes. New feminism, no. I just find the whole idea offensive. Either we're feminists or not. I reject the whole idea that one is better than the other.

[slinkerwink]

13. that's why I think the third wave feminism is dumb that way

I prefer second wave feminism to third wave feminism.

[curse10]

19. you can't prefer one over the other

it's not like chocolate or vanilla ice cream. This is about the modification and expansion of a movement. If you "prefer" 2nd wave then you've essentially discarded an entire group of women, young and old, who are fighting the good fight.

I don't "prefer" 3rd wave, I'm just astute enough to realize that's what I am.

[curse10]

17. It's not like someone just sat down and said, let's have a new wave

it's the natural progression.

We aren't all new deal democrats are we?

[curse10]

18. and no one is rejecting anything

just because there is a new generation of feminists doesn't mean the ideas haven't been passed down. It just means we've evolved, we have a "new wave."

It's like any other subject. Music, for example. Ska has a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wave. Doesn't mean that they reject the previous "waves." Doesn't mean they don't like and love what came from the 1st wave, they are just building on what's already there and expanding and modifying and rethinking.

[Kanary]

60. Why find "new ways" indeed...?

Somehow, I'm not remembering hearing any of the civil rights groups having different "waves".

They are gaining strength because they have a "permanent wave".

Kanary, cracking herself up...... :)

[slinkerwink]

64. hey, let's do the crowd wave!

:evilgrin:

[Kanary]

68. If women wouldn't allow themselves to get splintered off

We'd have us one fine tsunami! ~~chortle~~

But, since they deleted my post for saying we need to set boundaries, I think we're in for a dry spell.

What a .........

Kanary

[slinkerwink]

69. well, I think that some women give in too easily to societal ideals

and into not challenging sexist language.

[Kanary]

91. Gee, that must mean they're stronger than we are.

:hi:

BTW, just a question... the First Wave fought for the Suffrage ( and suffered mightily!!), and the Second Wave fought for equal rights. What is the Third Wave's goal? I've never heard.

Kanary

[slinkerwink]

94. It's to be proud of one's feminity, I think

[Kanary]

102. By being tough and hard?

That's a bit hard to follow.

Surely there's something....?

I find my femininity in caring about others, and supporting them, and nurturing the best in them. Coming on with putdowns doesn't make me feel "feminine" in the least.

Patriarchy tried to kill my sensitivity and my nurturance and all those other good things... I'll be damned if I'll let it, no matter what name it goes by.

Kanary

[slinkerwink]

114. That's why supporting sexist slurs is so antithetical to the

progress so many women have worked for in combating sexism.

[loyalsister]

122. Still working on Equal Rights

We haven't passed the ERA yet.

http://members.aol.com/ERACampaignWeb/newsletter5.html

Also trying not to lose any ground on reproductive rights, etc. We're fighting hard for thousands of things.
There is more to 3rd wave than being proud of feminity. The 3 wavers I know are interested in the April march, and working on all of the big issues. The are also interested in equalizing the status of women. Most of them are lucky enough to have 2nd wave role models and have organized in a way that promotes the agenda that has been tabled for way too long. I suppose there are going to be group\individual differences in how 3rd wave is defined.

[Kanary]

129. Thanks, loyalsister

I appreciate knowing more about where you stand, and others you know.

I guess I have to keep reminding myself that a lot of what I see here has to do with the innate contentiousness of DU, rather than the particular group per se.

Kanary

[ant]

70. I'm a third waver

I do consider myself a third wave feminist. For the record, I'm 28. I don't reject 2nd wave feminism AT ALL, and I agree with you that a lot of this is about apologizing for those crazy women of yore. I do, however, think that feminism is, like you said, evolving.

I don't want to restart the bitch thread, but I do think the word bitch is a good example of this evolution. Women today enjoy more freedoms than the 2nd wavers did, that much is obvious. With freedom comes power, and women today are more powerful than women in the 60s were. When a woman in the 60s was called a bitch it was a deliberate effort to intimidate her, and given how relatively powerless women were it often worked. You don't stand up to people who can legally beat you, or deny you a bank loan, or a job, or whatever else. Women today aren't as intimidated by the word because we have more power, and that includes the power take the word back and disarm it. If someone calls me a bitch, even if the intent is to insult and intimidate me, it can't work, because that person has no real power over me. If it's my boss, I'm filing a sexual harrassment suit. If it's my husband, I'm filing for divorce and moving out, because I can, because I've got my own job and financial independence and all the freedom and power that brings to an individual in this society. If it's some asshole on the street, fuck him, what do I care? I'm off to my high-paying job and independent life, thank you.

To be fair, I don't believe that many women recognize this dynamic when they use the word bitch. To some extent, something I see a lot of in today's women that does irritate me is the willingness to pacify those who oppose them. While I may be able to shrug off the word bitch, and even proudly declare that I am one because I understand that being aggressive and opinionated is a good thing, that does not mean I'm going to sit quietly by and allow a group of guys I know to toss it around in a sexist way. I'm not going to laugh and play along in order to be accepted, and quite frankly I think that's part of what's happening with younger women today.

They bought into the backlash, basically. In it's most blatant form, it comes from women who say, "I'm not a feminist, but..." But it's also found in women who believe 2nd wave feminism is somehow incompatible with wearing dresses or makeup, or shaving your legs, or simply liking men. A lot of today's impressions of 2nd wave feminism are actually constructs and caricatures that were created by the sexists of the 60s, not the feminists. Those things have a long fucking shelf life.

In any case, the evolution continues. 2nd wave feminist got us into the workplace, and now 3rd wavers are fighting to have the workplace address our needs. Part of that means getting men OUT of the workplace. Not that we want them unemployed, of course, but just as women have taken on a bigger role in the public sphere men need to take on a bigger role in the private sphere. The Family and Medical Leave Act (or Medical and Family, can't remember), which made paternity leave a legal requirement, is an example of that.

So the point of all this rambling is that as we win more rights, we win more freedoms and power and the world changes to both accomodate and resist that, and we have to change in response. The individual issues are different, but the long term goal is still the same.


Edited for spelling.

[slinkerwink]

72. In my opinion, all women should reclaim the word "feminist"

and should not be afraid to call themselves one or to agree with many of the ideals of feminism.

[ant]

73. I completely agree

Many a poor, young woman has had to deal with my wrath when she uttered a rejection of feminism, believe me.

I'm a lot of fun out at the bar. ;)

[slinkerwink]

74. haha, where are you?

I wouldn't mind having a couple of beers with you at all! :toast:

[ant]

76. heh

DC, where there's always a political rumble to be had.

I remember lecturing a poor friend of mine for like 20 minutes once when I found out Georgetown U has some weird health insurance rules about birth control pills and morning after pills.

My friend's a man, and while I certainly believe men can be feminists and the rest, I don't think they have the sense of urgency that some women have when it comes to women's issues. I find it just completely unacceptable that I wouldn't be allowed to get birth control or whatever else because of someone's religious or political views. I would welcome the opportunity to have a doctor tell me that he can't give me a BCP prescription because his hospital doesn't allow it. (This is where being a wicked bitch is useful.) However, my friend certainly wasn't bothered by it - which I can understand, it's not a problem for him, really - but I went to great lengths to explain exactly why it IS a problem for me.

[slinkerwink]

77. and that's why I get pissed off when I hear that CVS lets their

pharmacists deny birth control pills or the morning after pill to women.

[ant]

78. reproductive rights...

...are one of my pet issues. I don't think that fight is anywhere near over.

[loyalsister]

121. It's integartion rather than rejection

This comes from the discovery that women were afraid of the word "feminism." It had to be reframed and understood in a way that would be palatable to the younger generations.
You may notice that the 30 somethings are caught in the middle, because this problem was only recognized and addressed in the 90s when we were on our way out of college.
Now, there is effort to help young women feel comfortable with the word itself. In order to do that, the meaning in now articulated in such a way as to ensure that all women feel included. This doesn't exclude anything. It is a purposful integration of generational qualities added into the concept of "feminism." The mechanism that is used to accomplish that goal is to expand the language.
I don't think that is unreasonable.

[ant]

63. just so you know

I'm not protesting or burning bras like many did in the 70s, I'm working to change the laws.

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa010329b.htm

Much like the spitting on vets thing, the burning bras thing seems to be an urban legend or, at least, based on one or two incidents that were blown out of proportion to define (and, of course, in the process marginalize) 60s activists.

And 60s feminists were also working to change the law.

[slinkerwink]

11. I understand the importance of the 70s feminism

and I support quite a lot of it.

[tishaLA]

14. I don't think that is what third wave means

Second wave was actually more invested in the notion of difference (gender essentialism) with thinkers like Nancy Chodorow, Steinem, Adrienne Rich, Audre Lorde, bell hooks, etc. The motto for second wave feminism was "the personal is political" and it invested lots of energy in consciousness raising, etc.

Third wave feminism builds on second wave, but it also has some of the differences you state. I would only say that it takes a more post-structuralist look at gender dynamics and actively investigates the performativity of gender and thinks about its constructedness differently than second wave. For example, Chodorow famously authored the book The reproduction of Mothering, where she argued that women replicate gender roles by a) providing a positive model for their daughters (i.e., a mimicry) and b) providing the negative model for boys (i.e., they are to reject everything they construe as feminine to achieve a masculine identity). Third wave problematizes that theory quite a bit by insisting on the radical contingency of gender as such; gender is not a model, but a series of ruptures and gender identity lacks any epistemological certainly.

Additionally, third wave feminism tends to place the subject of feminism itself under critique: what is, indeed, the "subject" of feminism. Second wave feminism tended to universalize the category of woman, but third wave feminism views "woman" as a political fiction--it is something that we rely upon for political efficacy, but various vicissitudes, like geography, class, race, sexual orientation, age, etc. intersect to make the category less whole than one might initially imagine. The category is further troubled by scientific knowledge, transvestitism/transgenderism, and what constitutes woman as an iterative identification. This is not to say that second wave feminism did not wrestle with race, class, sexual orientation, etc--in fact, they did. But for second wave feminists, it was a difference that always returned to a kind of ontological purity; in third wave feminism, no such purity remains. The world has fallen apart, as Yeats might say, and the center cannot hold.

[cally]

15. So, it intellectualizes the issue?

The personal is the political is a political issue. Your post does not inform a political movement. We're debating people's lives. And yes, I go back to my saddened post. In third wave feminism, no such purity remains. The world has fallen apart, as Yeats might say, and the center cannot hold. It may make intellectual sense but it has lost it's political movement. What are the goals of 'third wave feminism'? What do they do? Is it all personal and everyone for themselves?

[tishaLA]

16. Nope. It's inherently political

and damn I paraphrased Yeats badly. It's "Things fall apart / the center cannot hold." But anyhow...

It remains political, as I think I said, but it recognizes the limits of politics, too, in the same way the coalitional politics of groups like ACT UP did: they come together for a political purpose, but the coalition can dissolve and re-form differently for different purposes. That's part of the notion of the contingent foundations for third wave feminism--if it has an essence, and I don't think it does, its essence is the concept of the radical discontinuity of the category of woman and figuring out new manners of political practice.

Let me offer an example. In the 70s in France, leftist intellectuals, who are the spirits haunting much of this thought, came together for prison reform. They were of many different stripes, from Maoists to anarchists, but they made a contingent coalition to work on behalf of prisoner's rights. Many, but not all, of them worked together again for Palestinian autonomy. Many, but not all, worked for gay liberation. They were a kind of monad that always re-formed to fight specifici problems in whichever configuration was most opportune at a given time. Here in the US, Queer Nation and ACT UP did this kind of work, too. With ACT UP, it was a necessity, really, to reform the dyynamics of the group to create ever more effective modes of resistence as the death tolls mounted and as members died away. Most chapters of ACT UP have now disbanded because, for some, the threat AIDS once posed is no longer the same and/or it affects a different population that fights the disease differently. The chapters that remain, notably the Philadelphia and SF chapters, have changed the population and issues they are trying to address.

I think these are practical ways third wave feminism has responded to challenges, too. Look at groups like Refuse and Resist, which coalesces at given times to fight for reporductive rights. And of course third wave builds on many of the traditional principles of second wave feminism--there is not a radical, absolute break between the two camps (I have always participated in traditional political movements AND coalitional, post-identitarian ones, too). Nobody believes the personal is no longer political, but I think third wave asks "political HOW?"

[ant]

75. quick question

I'm really enjoying your posts, by the way, but some of it may be over my head. Having said that, here's my question:

Is the change you're describing simply a matter of tactics, then, or is there something more fundamental that I'm not getting?

[cally]

79. Thanks

I second that.

[tishaLA]

80. I think it's both

What is called third wave feminism uses different tactics than second wave did, but it also includes many of the same tactics. Second wave worked a lot with consciousness raising, communes, iterating a specifically female identification, etc. The political tactics of "third wave" are, to my mind, more akin to those of queer political activism (and by that I don't mean lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender activism); they are more aggressive, more designed for maximum impact, for media friendliness, etc. Think of the "die ins" from ACT UP or the "kiss ins" of Queer Nation.

The foundational elements, I think, recognize how fractured we are and reject the universalizing claims sometimes made in the second wave. For example, about 8 years ago, the Michigan Womyn's Festival (I hope that's the right name; if it's not, I apologize in advance) refused to permit transgendered women to enter the festival because they believed only biological women should be permitted at the event and that biological women share a bond tg women cannot understand and that tg women cannot fully understand the oppression linked to biological being a biological woman.

While I appreciate both sides of this argument, and I don't think that second vs. third wave feminisms can be defined by it, it is illustrative for this reason: second wave feminism already KNOWS its subject (and it continually refines its definition), but third wave believes that the subject of feminism is unknowable and endlessly shifting. The foundational questions about second wave feminism concern the contingency of the category "woman." I realize I am not saying this as well as I want to, so let me quote someone else:

"For the most part, feminist theory has taken the category of women to be foundational to any further political claims without realizing that the category effects a political closure on the kinds of experiences articulable as part of a feminist discourse. When the category is understood as representing a set of values or dispositions, it becomes normative in character and, hence, exclusionary in principle. This move has created a problem both theoretical and political, namely, that a variety of women from various cultural positions have refused to recognize themselves as "women" in the terms articulated in feminist theory with the result that these women fall outside the category and are left to conclude that (1) either they are not women as they have previously assumed or (2) the category reflects the restricted location of the theoreticians and, hence, fails to recognize the intersection of gender with race, class, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and other currents which contribute to the formation of cultural (non) identity. In response to the radical exclusion of the category of women from hegemonic cultural formations on the one hand and the internal critique of of the exclusionary effects of the category from within feminist discourse on the other, feminist theorists are now confronted with the problem of either redefining and expanding the category of women itself to become more inclusive ...or to challenge the place of the category as part of feminist normative discourse..."

--Judith Butler, "Gender Trouble, Feminist Theory, and Psychoanalytic Discourse" in Feminism/Postmodernism (Linda J. Nicholson, ed.)

I realize now I could have said it more clearly, but it was probably easier to let a professor at Berkeley say it for me. :+

[cally]

82. I like Judith Butler

and her point supports what I've been saying. Feminists have evolved and changed. One of the worse underlying current in American feminism is emphasis on the experience of white, mostly priviledged, women. Feminism had to change to accept all and understand different cultures and approaches to feminism. That's evolution because many of us talked, wrote about, this endlessly. It was a large theme for the early feminists who gave us the right to vote. We don't have to reject earlier movements, but we should celebrate the evolution.

After reading this thread and some other sites, I reject the idea of third wave. Evolution, yes. New ideas, yes. But it can't be different than before unless we also reject past accomplishments and efforts of previous women.

[tishaLA]

111. I do too, Cally

but she is a third waver herself. And the so called third wave is about an evolution, just as the second wave was an evolution of the first wave. I really believe that the "third wave" builds upon, instead of demonizing, earlier feminist principles; they are not in opposition to one another, but complimentary to one another.

[slinkerwink]

113. I also heard that third wave feminism also supports challenging

sexist slurs like "bitch."

[tishaLA]

116. You may have heard that

I tend to think what is called third wave feminism takes a critical stance toward texts generally and language specifically. To my mind, it tends to embrace irony and it's far less dogmatic about pornography, for example, and is far less doctrinaire about creating binary relationships like good speech (or words) vs. bad speech (or words); it tends to see speech as an event whose consequences cannot be predicted.

If you'd like to read what Prof. Butler has to say about this--about "hate speech" generally and her "defense" (for lack of a better word) of it--check out her book "Excitable Speech: The Politics of the Performative." It's not a great book, as some of her books are, but it offers a very good feminist/queer examination about the pitfalls of "hate speech" codification. She's one of the great feminist scholars of this or any generation and I think her works are worth the headaches they cause.

[slinkerwink]

117. so, basically, it's "nonconfrontational feminism?"

[tishaLA]

118. Nope

[slinkerwink]

119. sounds like it to me in not challenging sexist language

:shrug:

[tishaLA]

120. Well, as I wrote above

Prof. Butler has written a whole, if short, book on the subject. She, like many contemporary feminists, wants to look at the idea of the event of speech, and the subsequent citation of that speech act, rather than the codification of words as such. I appreciate that some, like Nancy Frasier and Mary Matsuda, to name two of the more prominent opponents of this position, find Butler's ideas anathema. More than that, I appreciate that they seriously engage with Butler's concepts and seek their limits, if any.

[ant]

85. a collision of isms, it seems

Whose rights are we fighting for, in other words? What is a "woman's issue?"

Reproductive rights, pay equity, sexual harrasment, child care - those seem obvious.

The rights of transgendered women? Lesbians? Poor women whose problems reflect not just sexism but classism? Black or hispanic women who also deal with racism?

As an aside, I learned recently that the first explicit mention of the world "male" or "man" in the constitution actually comes from the amendment granting black MEN the right to vote. It had to be specific to exclude black women. I found that rather interesting.

Anyway, that's an interesting evolution of the problem, I think, almost like the initial attempts to deal with individual -isms opened the floodgates for people who confront many -isms all at once. I mean, when I think about the first two big fights I think of black men (civil rights) and white women (feminism), and in both cases it seems there's a common bond with those in power. Black men are still men, and white women are still white. There's only ONE trait that distinguishes them from those in control. Today, we're dealing with the rights of people with more complex identities. Black gay men, for instance, or poor white women.

I can see how the sort of tactics you've described would evolve in response to all that. A given individual faces a more complex and varied set of injustices that another individual might not completely identify with, so they work together where they can and break apart where they must. The need for coalitions and "rapid, flexible response," so to speak, makes sense.

[tishaLA]

112. I'd also add, only half-jokingly

that I think men are a feminist issue too. We sometimes forget that...at our peril.

[ant]

132. oh, I agree

I mentioned in another post that Family Leave Act and paternity leave were things I considered to be feminist issues today.

I don't want to limit women's issues to homelife and childcare, but I do think general family issues for both men and women are something the feminist movement has picked up.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slinkerwink]

22. exactly...I'm already learning what the boundaries are

[Kanary]

65. I got deleted for talking about setting boundaries!

Yet, they can use "bitch" over and over again, and that's just fine. Or, any other sneering put down.

What a hoot!

Kanary, putting on her Uppity Woman button, and going for full banning... :)

[sweetheart]

90. You got deleted for a broad slight

to the membership of DU, when, if at all, your comment applies to
a tiny percentage of the DU membership.

You are free to speak english and to apply the first amendment as
you see fit. Methinks that is a gift... and I am grateful to have
this virtual community of perceptive people as part of my life.

Your comment seemed to have forgotten your own respect and
reverence for this virtual community... and it
was deleted.

I responded in kind and was deleted as well. Hmmm... that
makes both of us hotheads, but, on reflection, both of us are
taking advantage of a great gift.

Good luck to you vitriolic feminist! Don't get banned!

[Kanary]

96. I meant everything I said, so they can delete this as well.

I've swallowed so many "slights" and downright viscious attacks, and yet... where were they? Nowhere.

I have a stalker following me around, yet,.... where are they?

I've learned here that I'm on my own, and if I don't wish to swallow garbage, it's up to me to spit it out. I can't depend on a mod.

As for banning......... I grew up a goody-two shoes, and thought that if I played by the rules, and was kind to everyone, that it would come back. Wel, maybe there was a time that was true. But, not anymore. It's the popular thing, especially with the younger crowd, to attack first, and ask questions later, if at all. I can tell you that everyone I know is very tired of living in a world of that kind of action. I have many elderly friends and I've heard them all say that they are glad they're going to die soon, because they don't want to be around when the current crop of citizens takes over because the attitude is just plain toxic. So, when you want to lash out at someone, rather than first trying to understand them, you might give a thought to all the people who just want to get off the planet because of all the harshness and unkindness. You all may think it's power, or that somehow it protects you, but it's making the world even harsher for you.

So, my goody-two shoes went out the window, as with many other people. I will respond in kind, and if that means banning, so be it. At least I'm not gagging on all the junk I'm swallowing.

And, to be clear, the "YOU" is collective for all the ones who like to come here to vent their spleen. I don't know you, and don't know if that's where you are or not. If you are, you may want to give this some thought.

Or not.

Kanary

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kanary]

35. Thank you for all your concern...

"sweetheart"

When *you're* on the receiving end, maybe you'll remember your own harsh words.

bye...

Kanary

[sweetheart]

39. Welcome to public discussion

As it stands, you've levelled charges of inequity at the membership
of DU, a bit of a broad slight as you're pitching wide.

Having a thin skin really makes life hard, we all know, and one
would hope, that given an anonymous moniker and the safety of
anonymity, that you'd be able to step beyond your self and not
take things personally.

Keep your spurious charges in the box. I have done you no harm,
and when i've been on the recieving end, you'll not been there.

That is harsh, i agree... so is your broad slight to people who've done you no harm.

[Kanary]

48. My sensitivity

beats the heck out of the insensitivity in evidence here.

Maybe you've mistaken "public discussion" for license to criticise and attack.

There is a difference.

Oh, yeah, "harsh is good".

Noted.


Kanary

[sweetheart]

86. hold on a minute

You accuse all DU of calling you a *, and then get huffy
when i suggest you've a bit mispoken given the audience.
I have not called you a *. Rather, i simply voted "no problemo"
on a poll where 80% of DU voted "no problemo".

I'm sorry for poorly phrasing my replies. Seriously. Please
accept my apologies for being insensitive and overly personal
by suggesting you should grow up.

I mean you no ill regard. I would never be harsh with someone
on DU, and over 4000 posts have been pretty even...
by my standards. I reserve "harsh" for nasty people... and you are
certainly not that. I simply called you on mis-applying your
upset to people here on DU.

I am a left liberal and have spent my life's work 20+ adult years
on womens liberations issues... and take it rather personally, when
someone gets nasty calling people who support feminism inappropriate
things. I believe very strongly in women's liberation, and
by that, support career equality, the ERA and positive
discrimination that all branches of the government come towards
the population demographic of women. Silly words, frankly, play
very little part, in this work.. and seriously, it has been a long
tough lifetime of work... i find your responses towards myself to
be rude.

Methinks you need to re-discover "harsh". Go to a freeper board
for a while. Discuss womens liberations issues on pravda.ru or
americaforum.net... but really, i bear no weapons on this
hallowed ground. By the contrast of what "harsh" really is, this
is childs play. I hope you, in re-reading the actual posts, can
see that certainly "I" bear you no ill will.

Peace to you kanary. Pick a fight with an enemy.

Namaste,
-sweetheart

[Kanary]

98. Ah, good

Telling me what to think, how to feel, and what *should* be my priorities.

Oh yeah, and where to go.

Now *that's* what I call feminism.

Thank you, too, for the marching orders.

Good one.

Kanary

[curse10]

32. Not being called names!

jeesh people!

reclaim the words. make them our own and change their vernacular meaning.

[Kanary]

61. I started to reply to your other response

But it will do here just fine....

You say you don't reject anything from previous "waves"...

Yet, you jump on an opportunity to dance all over me because I take issue with insults.

In my book, curse (apt!), that's a rejection.

Clear and plain and simple.

Our values are very different from yours, and you sneer.

Kanary

[slinkerwink]

66. that's an important distinction you made, Kanary

[sweetheart]

29. first wave might be the american indians

and the original cultures of the celts and egyptian matriarchies.

Then with a puff of war, men have usurped patriarchy from the
truth of the mother bearing the future of the society... and we've
been having many lost centuries. British sufferegettes lead the
american sufferegettes with voting rights, and it would be
historically sound to say this crossed the atlantic, not originating
in the US as the enthnocentric history might portray.

The issue of feminism is not of waves, but of a global guerilla war
in opposition to a repressive opponent who gives no ground. It is
nice that american people have created second and third waves, but
get real and accept the larger history. 3 billion women are on the
earth making a new generation today as we speak. The american voice
is quite mute in the global sense of things, however loud the
screaming.

[ant]

62. question

Third wave feminism is often about being feminine.

What does that mean? What are you when you are feminine?

All kinds of women are accepted- women who wear high heels, women who love the word "cunt", women who burn their bras, and women who love to wear girdles.

So are all these women "feminine," or does being feminine now mean being a human being, with individual tastes and preferences not restricted by or comforming to any externally imposed standard?

I have a negative reaction to the word feminine because it makes me think of pink frilly things and unicorns, and it seems to me that it's freeing women of that stereotype that 2nd wavers were all about. Since you seem to acknowledge that individuality is a sign of progress - and I agree that it is - it strikes me as contradictory to then try and fit all these different types of people back into the "feminine" box. How can third wave feminism be about being feminine on the one hand but also about diversity and individuality on the other?

To be clear, I do believe there are fundamental differences between men and women, and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying so. Sexism is about values, after all, not statements of fact. So, if you are using "feminine" to refer to things like how we think and communicate, for instance, then I understand, but it's not clear to me from your post.

[SharonAnn]

67. Hmm, sounds like something my fiance said in 1971. He said,

"That's not feminine!" I said "I'm female, anything I do is feminine by definition!"

Anyway, that really woke me up as to how he expected me to behave now that we were "engaged". So, I tried talking to him about it but he couldn't see that if I changed to what he said he wanted, then I would retain none of the characteristics that attracted him to me.

So, I broke off the engagement and never regretted it. It was very difficult and very sad for a while but I knew I was doing the right thing.

[ant]

71. wow

Men were still thinking like that in 1971? ;)

I said "I'm female, anything I do is feminine by definition!"

Exactly, which is why I don't understand what there is to reclaim.

[slinkerwink]

104. it's a good thing that you dumped him

:toast:

[tishaLA]

110. I'm reminded of a Roseanne Barr quotation

from early in her career...

"My husband always says to me, 'Roseanne, hows come you can't be more feminine?'"

And I says to him, "suck my dick!"

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ToTellTheTruth]

10. Ahhh... that's a mature and thoughtful post.

[Kanary]

23. Great illustration

Being portrayed as a female is about the worst thing that can happen to a man.

That ought to give thoughtful people something to consider.

Kanary

[seemslikeadream]

28. Thanks

I've had it for awhile and actually did give it some thought, it's very funny too!

[Kanary]

30. I didn't think it was particularly funny

Just what I said... it illustrates that the worst putdown for a man is to be thought of as "feminine"

Kinda like the attitude towards women on DU.

Kanary

[seemslikeadream]

33. I'm sorry I didn't mean anything by it.

[ant]

81. hard to articulate this, but here goes

I missed the original post, so I don't know what you're talking about, but I think this is one of those "good opportunities for discussion" that people kept mentioning in the Great Debate threads. There was a lot of talk there about disarming insults, but not a lot of talk about what that actually means. I can't speak for others, obviously, but I think maybe a better word than disarm is distance?

For me, personally, there seems to be a disconnect sometimes between actual people and the phrases or jokes they use, phrases or jokes that in the past were considered offensive (even if only by those fighting for equality).

For instance, I can refer to a male friend of mine as a "pussy" - and yes, I do mean it as in, "you're such a weak girlie girl." I think the reason that's not offensive to either of us, though, is because we're using a definition and stereotype of "girl" that no longer applies in our world. (I mean our personal world, not the world at large, more on that in a moment.) I know being a woman doesn't mean I'm weak, and he knows that my being a woman doesn't make me weak, and we both know that women, like people, can be weak or strong. It's a personal characteristic people have, not an inherent-to-sex one.

Part of the humor in that sort of teasing, though, for me, is not so much that I'm calling him weak (though that is funny) but that I'm also making fun of what people used to consider weak. "Weak girlie girl" is, by itself, funny, because it's so absurd and antiquated in our eyes. That, I think, is progress.

Is it irony? Sarcasm? I don't know how to describe this. I mean, if my friend teases me about misbalancing my checkbook by saying, "just like a woman to suck at math!" I think that's funny, but it's funny in part because it's absurd, and it's absurd because it's so clearly sexist. I'm not sure I can explain it anymore than that. Maybe the other people who talk about disarming or who find this stuff funny can explain in more detail why they do.

Having said all that, I wouldn't in a million years make that sort of joke with a stranger or at a dinner party. The teasing only works because you know each other well and you both "get it." Out in the "real world" it's not alwasy understood that sexism is inherently absurd and therefore really fucking funny.

Sometimes. ;)

[cally]

84. None of us should tell someone the language or ways of behavior

in intimate and personal relationships. (Consenting adults, yada, yada) Use what works for you. Please let's not go into the bitch threads once again, but what words you use here are different. This is not a personal forum, everyone sees this. We should all try to use language that does not offend and instead helps our arguments.

[ant]

89. a missed opportunity?

There seems to be somewhat of a divide between the women who find certain words offensive and those who don't. This isn't about a particular word, either, but about two different generations of feminists trying to understand each other. Isn't that what this entire thread is about?

I'm trying to explain why I see things the way I do. I respect the views and opinions of those who disagree with me, though. I understand where they're coming from. It is because of the other threads that I have come to understand the views of those who disagree with me, but it's not clear to me that those who disagree with them have taken the time to actually explain what it is they believe in very clear and specific and respectful terms. Terms and phrases like "disarm" are tossed around with no explanation, and I'm trying to give an explanation. I want to explain where I'm coming from, and I want others to explain where they're coming from.

It is possible to have this discussion, but I don't think it's possible to have the discussion if we're not able to mention what it is we're talking about. I also don't think it's possible to have this discussion in the context of some greater debate over board rules. We are no longer in that context, though maybe I'm being naive in thinking thoughtful discussion is possible on this issue in any context. I certainly hope not.

I think it's obvious from my post that I meant no disrespect, and if someone feels that I have been offensive I welcome the opportunity to explain myself - that's the whole point, after all. The original post was deleted, and it was clear from the exchange that followed that these were two women who didn't really understand each other. There was no real effort, that I saw, to resolve that. Isn't this the great opporunity for discussion that people were talking about before?

I can handle it without getting emotional and reactionary. I welcome those who can do the same to join in.

And if I'm the only one who can do that then I'll continue talking to myself, no biggie.

[cally]

93. I think I insulted you and that was not my intent

I'm sorry. I'm learning much from your posts and gaining an understanding of your points. My previous post was not meant as an insult. I actually meant it as agreement. I'm re-reading it and I don't quite understand how I offended you but I am sorry. You know your friend and whatever works for you is fine. I truly mean that. I would never use the word pussy but it's all about context. I have bigger issues as do you.

I am very interested in the generational issues. I have two female teens who see feminism differently than I do. It's fine but more input is always welcome. Again, sorry.

[ant]

97. I wasn't offended

I read your post as a request to not discuss The Issue, not a personal insult. I can understand the request, given the raw nerves that must still be present, but I guess it's my (and others') lack of personal sensitivity to these issues that's kind of the point. I really want understanding on this because I think it does us no good at all to be divided.

I'm not expecting or demanding that others use the language I use in private in their own private lives or even in public. In fact, I supported and voted in favor of "the ban" for a variety of reasons I won't get into here. However, I think it's important for those who wouldn't use the language in any context at all to understand how or why those who would, would. It's a difficult thing to articulate, though, wrapped up, I think, in broader generational differences that are hard to pin down. I'm not even sure those who make the anti-ban arguments they make really understand what they're arguing, or at least, I suspect they can't articulate them all that clearly. The disarm thing is a perfect example. What does that actually mean? I think it's wrapped up in power and a distance of sorts from the sexism of the words they're disarming, but that's as far as I've gotten.

And, like I said in my other post, that's probably as far as I'll get on this lack of sleep, so now I'm really going to bed.

[Kanary]

87. And your friend straightens up and flies right

because you call him a "pussy"?

He must be very malleable.

Here's where it is for me..... R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

You don't tell me what to do, or how I'm wrong, or call me names.

And I'll do the same for you.

Who knows........it could be the start of something good.... :)

Kanary

[ant]

92. heh

Surely you can respect someone and still tease them, though - don't you think?

Ah, well, perhaps Cally is right, which is unfortunate, because if the personal is political but the personal can't be discussed in a public forum about the political then I'm not sure how we can be anything but paralyzed in a sort of false civility where we all hide our disagreement and agree to disagree, as if that ever means or accomplishes anything more than small talk.

Is idealism a third wave thing or just a young thing? Maybe it's just a lack of sleep thing. I should get to bed.

[Kanary]

99. "teasing"

Yes, we all know the attacks that are cloaked in "humor".

"Wassamadda, lady, ain't you got no sense of humor"?

I don't know about your idealism.... that hasn't been mentioned. Maybe you would like to talk about that, instead of telling others what's wrong with them, and how they should be? Maybe that would be a bit more productive.

Of course, you seem to hint that we old fogies wouldn't know idealism if it bit us.

I *do* know that life wouldn't be nearly as difficult if we were safe to actually be ourselves, instead of having to put on armor in order to be around others.

Kanary

[ant]

103. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear

So I lied, I was going to go to bed but I didn't want to leave this.

Yes, we all know the attacks that are cloaked in "humor".

"Wassamadda, lady, ain't you got no sense of humor"?

I completely agree with you, but that's not really what I'm talking about. The "humor" you're referring to tends to appear AFTER the sexism. A bigot has revealed himself, and he's trying to justify or excuse his behavior by blaming you and your sensitivity. This is, quite frankly, something I saw a lot of in the Big Debate threads, and I spoke up against it.

The humor I'm talking about isn't the same thing because there's no sexism there. There's a reference to sexism, yes, but neither of us actually supports sexist views and we know that. The same sort of understanding applies with my black and hispanic friends. We all know each other well enough to know the respect is a given, and that context makes it possible for us to joke around with each other in ways an outsider would totally judge as racist.

I don't know about your idealism.... that hasn't been mentioned. Maybe you would like to talk about that, instead of telling others what's wrong with them, and how they should be?

I never meant to tell others what's wrong with them. So far I see no reason to think there's anything wrong with anyone here. I also didn't intend to tell others how they should be. I was simply explaining how I am in the hopes that others could understand how and why a new generation of women sees the world as it does.

Of course, you seem to hint that we old fogies wouldn't know idealism if it bit us.

Actually, that's funny, because I think it illustrates how these sorts of misunderstandings come about. When I made the joke about idealism and youth and I was making fun of the stereotype about young activists who see a world of great possibility but haven't yet been hit in the face with the harsh realities of fighting for equality. In the context of the current thread, it's similar to the way many of the older feminists feel younger feminists take their rights for granted. I grew up being told I could be anything I wanted, do anything I wanted. I didn't have to get married or have kids. The world was mine. It wasn't until I got out into that world that I realized things weren't as picture perfect as I'd been told. It turns out people are still sexist!

Funny story: I remember being in my 6th or 7th grade social studies class. We were studying feminism and women getting the right to vote and go to college and hold jobs, and I very clearly remember thinking, as I sat there in the back of Sister Copeland's class, "well thank god that's been taken care of!" Right there, naive youth.

So I was actually making fun of myself, and the way young people live somewhat sheltered lives where they read about past injustice but don't see it as applying to their world, until they get out into the real world.

If anything I meant respect for the "old fogies" who sort of politely nod and wink at each other in the face of this sort of naivete.

I *do* know that life wouldn't be nearly as difficult if we were safe to actually be ourselves, instead of having to put on armor in order to be around others.

I agree with you, and I think part of successful personal relationships is understanding personal boundaries. I know what friends I can tease and which ones I can't, and I certainly wouldn't fault the latter for anything. They are who they are, and variety is the spice of life, after all.

It's not knowing the personal boundaries of strangers or even aquaintances that I think justifies, in part, things like regulating the use of language on the forum. However, I still think that it's important for women to talk about this so that we don't have these situations where we're all sort of quietly judging each other without really understanding each other. I mean, you can judge me all you want, just make sure you get me first. ;)

And this isn't for the sake of the board, either, it's for the sake of feminism.

[cally]

100. Umm, I don't think I ever said that the personal can't be discussed

in a public forum. Before you do a search, I may have. My previous post was about not turning this thread into thread 10 on the bitch issue. I think I was wrong to post what I said, I was enjoying the thread without rehashing the old arguments. Nothing more than that.

I think the personal is very political. How you act in your personal life defines you. I don't want false civility. I appreciate the debate.

[ant]

105. as long as I'm still around...

I don't think I ever said that the personal can't be discussed in a public forum.

I was thinking of your comments in that other post, not somewhere else on the board. Since I did understand your post to be a request to not rehash the Big Debate threads, it seemed you were asking that I just avoid all discussion of personal behavior on the matter in order to avoid re-sparking the fight.

I posted that before reading your other response to me, though, so I get it now.

[slinkerwink]

47. that's why the word "Bitch" is a sexist slur

[curse10]

51. yet you bandy the term about like it's nothing

http://www.livejournal.com/users/slackerwink/

and I quote:

"< mood | bitchy >"

"I kept on sneezing long boogers out of my nose, laid in bed, and whined like a miserable sick bitch."


"I need to be a beer-guzzling bitch who desecrates trees by carving hearts in them, and leave trash all over the damn place"

"There's always someone having her period. Which means you're bound to run into a bitchy Smithie."



Now THOSE are appropriate uses of the word "bitch."

[tishaLA]

53. Oh. My. Goodness.

[slinkerwink]

55. none of those words were used as a sexist slur to put women down

there's a difference in using the word "bitch" as a verb and as an adjective.

[curse10]

57. "bitchy" is an adjective

as in "bitchy smithie" or that smithie is a bitch.

[slinkerwink]

58. it is not used as a sexist slur to say "oh my god, what a FUCKING bitch!"

[curse10]

59. man, I've gotta stop debating this with you

you make my head hurt with the wierd fucking explanations that aren't explanations.



I'm going back to where I can't see your explanations. Bye! :hi:

[rumguy]

9. everything changes

[Book Lover]

21. Further reading

Gerda Lerner's "The Creation of Patriarchy" and "The Creation of Feminist Consciousness" may shed some light on this chat, and I recommend them to those who are interested. The basic thrust of her argument in both volumes is that those women who have advanced the position of women as a class in western societies have never been able to pass their work on to the next generation; that is, feminism has to re-create itself over and over again, with breaks of time in between. I think what we are discussing here is a result of that link finally being forged. The people vocal and active in the movement now have been shaped by a different world, one that for a change includes the effects of first and second wave feminism.

[Kanary]

24. And when those people discover that much is illusion

they will be rediscovering what we in previous generations already went through.

Too bad about that, but it STILL doesn't mean that I have to accept insulting terms.

Kanary

[Book Lover]

25. No you don't

and, being from the second-wave myself, I agree with you regarding the language issue. I was just stating my observation and, like any good bookworm, backing up by the appeal to the authority of the printed word. I think every thinking female should read Lerner.

[noiretextatique]

34. i don't have anything else to add except:

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[bobbieinok]

26. I find this discussion very interesting

As a grad student in the 60s, I would be part of the second wave.

In some ways, I don't 'get' the third wave.

To the extent I remember/understood the discussion of the time, this discussion sounds a lot like the discussion between the activists (Marxists?) and the structuralists-poststructuralists.

The activists (second wave) said that structuralists-poststructuralists (third wave) are so theoretical that they may/do forget that real events are happening to real people in real places where real action for real change must take place.

I do NOT want to fight. This is the first time I've seen the terms second and third wave feminism, and I'm making my first attempt to try to figure out what you who identify yourselves as third wave are talking about and why it makes me somewhat uneasy.

[tishaLA]

37. I don't think you are wrong in your comparison

but I'm not sure I'd agree with your description wholsale, either. For example, Marxists ARE structuralistsn (i.e., Marxism's foundation is the base/superstructure model), and every "poststructuralist" understands that structuralism is the figurative parent of poststructuralism. I also believe that both models are political, but they approach and think about politics in different ways. Marxism's approach to politics is pretty transparent while third wave approaches are perhaps less so.

I think some of the characterizations of third wave feminism are not the way I understand third wave; it might be a difference between those who "buy" the concept and those who do not, or it might be something else entirely. Suffice it to say, whether we are discussing second or third wave feminism, it is always POLITICAL because it is always feminist.

[eridani]

27. Third wavers have different personal experiences

They have no experience of living in a world in which there was no recourse for battered women, abortion was illegal, no school sports were available for girls, and you'd be laughed out of the reception room if you dared to apply for a job appearing in the 'Help Wanted--Male' section of the paper.

[Kanary]

36. Correct! They also have no concept of what the term "sisterhood"

actually meant.

The day will come when they will find out that's to their disadvantage.

In the meantime, they'll rake us over the coals, as their generation loves to do.

Then talk about "peace".

Kanary

[tishaLA]

38. I haven't seen the raking over the coals

maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Most people of my generation have different ideas about feminism--and, in fact, want to eschew this whole talk of generationalism--but they want active engagements, not cloistered communities.

[Kanary]

40. If you haven't seen it

maybe it's because, again a generational difference, younger people now consider it just fine to use harsh words and terms, and be confrontational. What the "third wave" would consider "raking over the coals", or "unacceptable", heaven only knows. Seems like anything goes, and to heck with how it affects others.

For you, personally, I don't know. I don't know you.

But for the generation as a whole, TOUGH is held in esteem. EMPATHY is sneered at.

Kanary

[cally]

42. Do you understand that you dished many of us

Do you really believe for one second that we were/are into activism? Have any of us here, ever, advocated cloistered communities. I think you greatly misunderstand.

I find many of the posts by younger 'feminists' on the bitch threads very condescending and lacking in respect for others opinions. It saddens me because one thing we did have is sisterhood. I started a job where there were only 5 women and 100 men. We were the first females hired and faced intense scrutiny and some bias. We immediately started a female only book club so we could help each other maintain our sanity against the attacks. That wasn't a cloistered community it was a way to handle what we were facing.

[tishaLA]

44. "Cloistered" was figurative

not literal.

On edit: and re-reading my post now, the terms was simply to set up a negative parallel to "active engagement"; there was never an indication that I believed any feminists were "cloistered." Ever.

[Kanary]

50. Glad to hear you also remember fondly "sisterhood"

It sure made life a lot more liveable.

But, putting on armor and going after others is now derigeur.

Kanary

[slinkerwink]

52. oh my goodness, how dare we speak up against the use of sexist

slurs, and other incidents of sexism in here? <end sarcasm> We're just "uppity-loudmouthed-bitches" in here.

[Kanary]

54. Gonna hafta get out my "Uppity Woman" button

Beautiful, enameled copper, got it in Berkeley, Vietnam era.

Yup, dirtyhippiecommiepinkobum here....

Oh yeah, and uppity....

Kanary, quickly getting to "don't give a damn"

[slinkerwink]

56. I'm proud to be an uppity woman!

[ant]

106. sounds like you're reclaiming

Couldn't resist. ;) (Or maybe you're being sarcastic and I misunderstood, in which case, apologies.)

All this talk about sisterhood...you know, I was in an all-girl Catholic school (but a pretty progressive one) from k through 12, and after a year and a half at a coed university I ended up transferring to a women's college. Not because it was a women's college, mind you - I actually hated the fact that is was - but because it was the best option available to me.

In hindsight I'm very grateful for all those years I got to spend surrounded by mostly women. I remember a girlfriend of mine spent a semester at a coed school, and when we went up to visit her, when the weekend was over the first thing we all talked about was how the social life there revolved around men. Girls tended to be friends with each other not because of any real personal relationship but because their boyfriends were friends. As you switched boyfriends, you switched social groups. Everything was very male-centered.

I've noticed it in my life now, too. I could be sitting at the bar talking with a group of girlfriends and the minute the boys show up, attention turns to them. I swear, I've had women actually turn away from me, while I was mid-sentence, to talk to male friends who sat down at our table. I guarantee you my friends from college wouldn't dare pull that shit.

So yeah, sisterhood...not a big thing these days, in my experience, and I do think that's unfortunate.

[slinkerwink]

108. what a coincidence---I'm at a women's college too

;-) It's a veritable paradise here, with a large queer community, and a lot of the girls here are feminists. I can't tell you how big a relief it was to come here to Smith from Texas.

[ant]

134. a Smithie AND a Texan?

I was born in Houston, lived there until I was 11 and then we moved to Florida.

I went to Smith, too - Wilder House, class of '97.

:toast:

[Kanary]

109. As for "reclaiming"......

Remember the concept of "CHOICE"?

If you will scroll back, and look at the way we were condescendingly (actually, it was stronger than that) TOLD , or ORDERED to "RECLAIM", and really think about it, you might understand just how insulting that was.

First of all, I don't take orders from *anyone*. As Colonel Potter said on M.A.S.H., "When they made me a bird colonel, they took that bone out of my head that made me take orders from anyone not above me in rank"... or words to that effect.

But, especially to take that from someone 30 or more years younger than me..... nope, not into that kind of being ordered around. Went through it with an ex, that was enough for a lifetime.

If you were to actually *ask* why it was so important to us, maybe there would have been a valuable exchange, rather than the drawing of lines in the sand.

Just something to consider for the future.

Kanary, who will "reclaim" in her own terms, even if not a bird colonel, thankyouverymuch :)

[ant]

133. I meant no offense

If you will scroll back, and look at the way we were condescendingly (actually, it was stronger than that) TOLD , or ORDERED to "RECLAIM", and really think about it, you might understand just how insulting that was.

I understand how insulting that is. Again, I witnessed the condescending mockery that went on, and I didn't approve of it, and I said as much.

I guess I misunderstood earlier because I thought people didn't approve of reclaiming at all, so it was interesting to see that there is some mutual understanding on the issue, just disagreement over the specific when and wheres.

But, especially to take that from someone 30 or more years younger than me..... nope, not into that kind of being ordered around. Went through it with an ex, that was enough for a lifetime.

I don't think anyone should take orders from anyone, believe me.

If you were to actually *ask* why it was so important to us, maybe there would have been a valuable exchange, rather than the drawing of lines in the sand.

As I've said a few times now, I did ask, and I did have some valuable exchanges, and I did learn, and in the end I voted in favor of "the ban."

I feel like you keep treating me like an enemy, though. Like you're just reacting to me as "one of them" (who?) rather than actually reading my posts and trying to understand what I'm saying to you.

You've talked a lot about body armor on here, and I agree with the points you've made, and perhaps it's the past treatment you've gotten on here that makes you so defensive with me, but I would hope you can see past whatever others have said and judge me as an individual rather than as part of some loosely defined enemy.

[slinkerwink]

46. and defend the use of sexist slurs all they want while ignoring

how language was an important obstacle to overcome for second-wave feminists.

[alarcojon]

41. Great thread!

I'm certainly no expert on this, but I'd like to contribute a thought or two.

It was easy for the culture at large to dismiss second-wave feminism as too "politically correct". People could seize on a writer like Andrea Dworkin and unfairly paint the entire movement as hostile to men and intolerant in general.

I am not sure how much this played into the development of third-wave feminism, but I suspect it played a significant part. Now, I think the culture at large sees third-wave feminism as a kind of "anything goes" feminism. I have seen it referred to as "do-me feminism". I find this curious. My impression of the second-wave is of openness to sex, love for one's body, etc. Unfortunately, however, the stereotype is that second-wave feminists think that all men are all rapists. Now we're back to the open attitude again, but with a change - it's now "okay" to wear make-up, get plastic surgery, etc.

Any political movement will change over time as new generations come of age. The "new" feminists should perform a balancing act of respecting the accomplishments of those who came before them while honestly evaluating their mistakes and excesses.

[tishaLA]

43. Love your last paragraph

I believe that's what third wavers have done--and really what responsible second wavers have done too.

There are frankly some people who consider themselves third wavers who I don't believe are feminist at all (I don't want to name names, but some of them are quite hostile to some things I consider basic axioms of feminism). Like anything, one has to separate the wheat from the chaff and find feminist voices that resonate, whether they are from Seneca Falls, Sojourner Truth, Virgina Woolf, Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, or Judith Butler.

[alarcojon]

45. and I love both your paragraphs!

and agree wholeheartedly :thumbsup:

I was going to get started on the whole faux-feminist thing, but held back......

[NMDemDist2]

83. Oh good grief

here we are hashing out this and women all over the world are being sold into slavery, getting clitorectomies from their mothers, being raped as part of insurrections to induce terror into the general populace. They are dying of AIDS and malnutrition.

The young women today are being taught to be "Brittany girls" and 12 year olds wear t-shirts that say "Porn Star" while we watch Roe vs Wade get chipped away one little bit at a time and most young women don't even know or care (yet)

I personally don't care who calls who what! I just know that I stand up to be counted when RvW is the issue, when AIDS in Africa is the issue, when birth control information in the 3rd world is under gag order by our government I speak out!

Let's try and get some perspective here on what feminism is all about. It was about women's health in 1900 and it's about women's health in 2004, here and all around the world.

[Kanary]

88. Thank you for giving us our marching orders n/t

[NMDemDist2]

95. no thank you K

and i love your avatar and signature. How true it is. something to ponder while we debate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1366543&mesg_id=1366543

I employ a couple young gals (one is 19 and one 24) and they both think abortion is "baby killing"

edit spelling

[apnu]

101. Feminism is cool no matter what.

I married a feminist and I'm proud of it!

In what ever form feminism takes, it's all good in the end. Women have been shat on by men and cultures going back to pre-history. What bugs me is when people have the gall to stand up and shout down women (no matter how loony they may sound to the listener). Women should be bitching! Loudly and constantly, imagine if men (and I'm male BTW) had to suffer 1/10th of the indignities that women suffer today. You bet your bippy shit would change, but if it's a "woman's issue" then its something to toss on the back burner in American culture. Now THAT is bull shit.

Another analogy that my wife uses, and I'll quote: "If men had to suffer a menstrual cycle, they would have figured out years ago how to stop it with science."

I think all concepts in feminism is cool, but there are specific feminists I don't care for. I don't like the porn haters (the whole concept of porn being the root of all evil doesn't wash with me, I'm a fan of Pally if you haven't noticed), but I DO like the gender benders. A genderless society is the way to go, because then its truly equal. And isn't that what America is supposed to be about?

[Dover]

107. Maybe one mistake of the women's movement was to think women

had to measure themselves against men and prove themselves in a man's world in order to establish their value. Rather than elevating their existing role within the family and home, they rejected it, thus accepting the devaluation of these roles. In other words they assigned greater value to the masculine world by buying into it.
"Power" was defined in terms established by the masculine...which is how the world is set up.

Much good came from it too as women became educated and developed in so many ways. But now many women feel they lost something essential to themselves as women in that movement and have recently been redefining or perhaps reclaiming their more feminine virtues of nurturer and mother and "goddess".

Actually, the established masculine standards and values is a terrible disservice to men as well in terms of defining what a "man" really is.

[corporatewhore]

115. YES YES YES i sick of feminists telling me that society will be alright

when more women are in posistions of power corporations and are participating in a hierarchial system that profits off the exploitation of the working class
We have forgotten the archetype of the Goddess in all of Her manifestations

[slinkerwink]

125. kick

[Nobody]

123. I'm just a feminist

And I have read up on the earliest days of the femiist movement when women were being told to wait until the "important" issues were resolved.

And even today we're still being told to wait until the more important issues are resolved.

Apparently considering women's rights to be human rights isn't important.

Apparently assuming women are people with minds and bodies of their own isn't important.

Apparently the atrocities committed against women worldwide aren't important.

Apparently changing people's perceptions so we CAN resolve all the former issues more easily is trivial beyond belief.

I'm tired of waiting my turn. My turn is NOW!

[slinkerwink]

124. I so totally hear you!

:yourock:

[NMDemDist2]

127. but your name is "Nobody" take a stand there woman! n/t

[Nobody]

135. But...

I'm the "Nobody" that does all the work that "Everybody" is responsible for and that "Somebody" should have done and "Anybody" could learn how to do. :evilgrin:

[skippysmom]

126. I guess I'm a third wave person

mostly because of my age (32). But I have nothing but respect for the waves that came before. I think that comes from being a historian, and having done work in women's history.

(It also comes, I think, from being a women's college alum -- Mount Holyoke '93 -- so nice to see other women's college grads here! From my experience, feminism was certainly alive and well on our campus.)

I think part of the problem is a lot of ignorance on the part of my generation. Americans are incredibly ahistorical, and the history they do learn is a very traditional one. So I think many women -- or men for that matter -- aren't even aware of women's history. They don't know how long women struggled for the vote, and often take it for granted. They aren't aware of the fight for birth control or abortion rights that went on for most of the 20th century, and are willing to blithely give it away. I have met so many intelligent women who possess so many misconceptions about feminism and its history, which is pretty discouraging.

On a political level, I get very angry when I hear that there is no difference between political parties. Perhaps on issues of corporate welfare, etc. there is no difference. But on women's issues, there is a very definite difference. If Bush is elected in 2004, we will be looking at the overturn of Roe V Wade. We will see more cases like the woman in Texas who was denied BCPs at CVS. It's scary. Yet it's something that many of our colleagues (male and female) here on the left don't seem to see.

[cap]

128. we need to widen feminism to make a broader appeal...

economic issues are still paramount. Women are only making 70% of what a man makes. 40-50 year old men do not realize that something is fundamentally wrong when they do not have any women peers at their level of the organization. They just don't realize that they are not training young women for senior jobs within the organization. Young women do not understand enough of career tracks to see that they are being tracked out of career development -- they think that just because they have the same job title as a man, that equality has arrived. They do not look at the levels above them and realize that almost no women are there unless they are in support/administrative units of the organization (yes, there are women managers in training, personnel, administration and sometimes marketing) -- but these are in organizations where these functions are not line management responsibilities where the power and larger salaries lie. 40+ year old men and 20 something women are totally clueless. People don't realize something is wrong when they walk into a retail store or bank and most of the cashiers are women and their managers are men. People don't realize something is wrong when most of these women are kept at a part-time status and not given full time work. Most importantly, people don't realize that something is wrong when the real work week is 60 hours/week (either on the unpaid overtime of the professional level or the economics of stringing together low paid jobs). Until the work week is restructured back to the 8 hour day where an 8 hour day provided a living wage and the opportunity for advancement, women will be on the short end of the stick.

People don't realize that women are being laid off at higher rates then men. There is a quiet PR movement about how women in their 40s are dropping out of the workplace as though it were a good thing -- and not that women are being forced out either through layoffs or intolerable work hours (see below) that preclude them from meeting family responsibilities or a realization that they are going nowhere in their field. In fairness to men, these days, many men who want to share family responsibilities can not do so under the threat of being laid off. People can't take time off without risking their jobs these days -- think how many sick co-workers who've dragged themselves into the office. There is a quiet PR movement talking about how young women don't want to enter the workplace as though it were a good thing. Given the structure of the workplace (see below), no wonder. Women are being presented with false choices. In a cynical moment, I wonder if women are allowed into the workplace because men are not earning enough in real terms to start a family and get a down payment together for a house. After women have fulfilled that function, there is no real reason for them to be working. In fact, you want them out of the workplace to decrease the competion for senior posiitons.

We need to bring back the ERA. How about real EEOC enforcement?

Women need to get away from the idea of "pin jobs" -- somehow, women seem to flow into careers that do not pay the bills.

This also means a revolution in child care and the management of the home. The Atlantic magazine recently had a funny but painfully true article on child care. Many nannies/housekeepers aren't paid a living wage and are not having social security taken out of their retirement. Such wages would price child care/housework out of the reach of many middle class people who need child care in order to hold a job with a second income.

On aging, people have not come to grips that taking care of the elderly in terms of properly funding retirement, health care benefits, pensions, social security and Medicare/Medicaid means taking care of a majority female population. The American public needs to be asked the question not of how we are going to take care of seniors but how are you going to take care of your mother or father? Talking about elder care makes senior issues a wedge issue that divides one generation from another. Talking about parental care and your responsibilities as children (as well as your responsibilities to fund retirement properly both on a personal and state level) recasts the debate.


On abortion: we need to recognize that in many cases being pro-choice is not yet a meaningful choice. Because of the above mentioned economics, a women, married or single, have a very difficult time keeping her baby if she so chooses. The current, underfunded system of foster care (look at foster care in NJ) is a system of flagrant child abuse. Having a child, even a healthy white child, and giving it up to the system is no guarantee of safety. We also need a system that takes care of the health care of childeren -- CHIPS is a start. But, what about home visits by nurses until the kid is old enough to start school that help ensure that the child and mother through the different stages of child development?

Being pro-choice must come to mean more than having an abortion or not. It must mean offering women real alternatives. Many women would want to have a baby if they could. On the other hand, women should not be obligated to carry that child to term based on a third party's idea of morality. Abortion needs to be safe, legal and rare.

We haven't yet found a way to connect the emotional aspects of sex along with taking care of your contraceptive needs and safe sex practices. When was the last time you saw a Hollywood movie where people where checking their contraception?


Discussions about language are important. Yet, we need to tie theoretical feminism into bread and butter issues.

We still have a long way to go, baby.

[outinforce]

130. Wow.

I am a male, so I'm not sure if I am welcome in this thread or not.

But I just wanted to comment on something you said, cap.

What you said is this: "Being pro-choice must come to mean more than having an abortion or not. It must mean offering women real alternatives. Many women would want to have a baby if they could. On the other hand, women should not be obligated to carry that child to term based on a third party's idea of morality. Abortion needs to be safe, legal and rare."

Exactly.

I would only make one relatively minor change to this paragraph which you have written, and it is this:

Many women would want to have a baby if they could. On the other hand, women should not be obligated to carry that child to term based on a third party's idea of morality. And no women should ever feel compelled to abort her pre-born child because of the lack of adequate financial support for her and her child, or because of fear that society might make her feel shame, if she chooses to carry her child to term. Abortion needs to be rare, legal, and safe.