# what is feminism?



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

I was asking myself this today. I see there are lots of feminists here and I was curious as to what that meant. Not that I don't know what feminism is, but really.. what is it?? sorry if this questions is completely stupid but I am wondering this, I don't know, is it that women are better than men?

please educate me!


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Feminism is a political movement to improve the status of women in society.

Some feminists believe that women are inherently different or better than men, and some believe that women and men are very similar and that differences are socially constructed. Both groups of feminists believe that their position is the key to the social advancement of women.

But really, in my opinion, it doesn't matter which you believe. The idea, for me, is to act in ways that will improve the lot of all women. For example, the movements for woman suffrage in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, for parity in education, and for women's right to make decisions for their children on an equal footing with men--those are all feminist movements.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

I think men are different from women... biologically, I mean. Not better, just different. Is this anti-feminist? I just think men have different strengths that women do. I feel men can do certain things that women can't do and women can do certain things that men can't do (lactate, as an example)


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Feminism is about achieving social, political and economic equality of women.

There are many different theories on how that can best be achieved and many different groups within feminism. For example, Radical Feminist believe that sexism is the root of all our social ills. Eco-feminists believe that equality can only be achieved when we all committ to being good stewards of the Earth. And so on.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I have taken Women's History Classes in the Universities since they were offered thirty years ago.

I used to subscribe to the idea that the differences between men and women were simple social and cultural constructs. However, then reality hit me when I had a daughter and a son! I realized how wrong I was and how very wrong those silly, overeducated professors were who espoused this nonsense. I was very niave' to believe them for a minute. My professors were very wrong to express these silly ideas as "gospel truths". These ideas were simply their educated opinions, nothing more.

I know that all children are different. My three sons are different from each other. However, my daughter is different from her three brothers in ways that society and culture simply cannot dictate.

What is feminism?

Feminism is "woman power" in the world. The most powerful statement one person, especially a woman, can make in this world is to bring into the world a child, raise that child properly so that the world can benefit from this person. This is the best way to change the world. Why let anyone else do it?


----------



## Dov (Nov 21, 2001)

Feminism is about listening to Other and making space for and the empowerment of that Other in a culture (to the status of full partner with the dominant group). "Other" can be defined as whomever is not in control, dominance, or power in a culture. Traditionally feminism has defined other as women/females but it has expanded to include race/ethnicity and gender/sexual differentiation as well.

That's kind of an egalitarian-esque definition paraphrased from my Cultural Anthro text.

Gender is nearly completely cultural and not biological. Beyond specific biological differences, I don't buy that women and men are just different so we don't need feminism. I'm a reconstructionist-social-feminist so I'd love for the genderization of "feminism" to be removed or supplanted by a gender-inclusive or neutral term, but perhaps that's best left for a more evolved era. Stepping off my


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

Feminism is about achieving social, political and economic equality of women.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Quote:

Gender is nearly completely cultural and not biological.
!!YOu mean DH could've gone through the 9 months of barfing and labor and the emergency surgical births instead of me!!! Damn! wish I'd known that 14 years ago.

Gender is both.

Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings too.

"I don't know what a feminist is, but I do know that I am called one every time I express a sentiment that differentiates me from a doormat." Mae West?


----------



## librarymom (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
Feminism is about achieving social, political and economic equality of women.


This does not say anything about achieving biological equality, loving-my-babies. Feminism was begun and continues today to achieve social, political and economic equality of women. To fight against those who would deny us equality and rights and freedoms because of *biological differences* .


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
...The most powerful statement one person, especially a woman, can make in this world is to bring into the world a child, raise that child properly so that the world can benefit from this person. This is the best way to change the world....

I've seen this statement before.

I have a question about it, though: If a woman does nothing else but bring daughters into the world, then her daughters think _their_ mission in life is to have and raise children and they _also_ only have daughters and on and on ad infinitum -- then, when, exactly, are any of these people going to have any effect on the rest of the world outside their family?









---------------------------

As far as a definition of feminism, I can give you this link to a post I made on a thread with a similar theme: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...%2A#post964425 and maybe also this one: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...%2A#post967432

---------------------------

And that quote is _Rebecca_ West, not Mae West. Mae West was also a feminist (of a totally different sort). I suppose you could call her the first Sex-Positive Feminist ... well, Victoria Woodhull probably was that.







But, Mae West had some great quotes, too: Like "Marriage is a fine institution, but I'm not ready for an institution." and "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"

:LOL


----------



## librarymom (May 25, 2004)

Also "Too much of a good thing is wonderful". Mae West


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Feminist here, with another







T Mae West quote--

"I used to be Snow White, until I drifted..."


----------



## fourgrtkidos (Jan 6, 2004)

I thought feminism was trying to get the idea across that we are not better but: just as equal, valuable, smart, creative, important, trustworthy, responsible, dependable, intelligent, knowledgeable, fun, capable and deserving as our male counterparts.


----------



## midnight mom (Feb 4, 2003)

Full quote from Rebecca West in 1913, this is my all-time favorite:
Feminism: I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat!

Another couple of good ones are:
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
Eleanor Roosevelt

"A woman is like a tea bag- you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water."
Eleanor Roosevelt


----------



## Dov (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meiri*
!!YOu mean DH could've gone through the 9 months of barfing and labor and the emergency surgical births instead of me!!! Damn! wish I'd known that 14 years ago.

Gender is both.

Meiri, Don't be silly. Are you familiar with cultural anthropology? Gender is defined as related to but distinguishable from biology/sex. Gender is a cultural construct. Sex is biological. Sex/biology has no spectrum or range (_per se_, there are biological exceptions) but gender has a wide range across many different cultures. Gender being related to biology is not the same as saying gender is biology. There's an enormous amount of ethnographic evidence that proves that gender is related to but not the same as biological sex.

The entire point of feminism is that because gender is a cultural construct related to (but not identical to) biology, a culture would be wise to not base social policy or praxis on biological sex differences. In fact, it's wiser to empower those who are not member of the dominant, culturally constructed--or sex/biological homogenous--group because their voice is indeed of equal important in social discourse.

In other words, ignore those different from yourself at your peril. When Other is equal to self then all become wiser and life is more just and quitable.

Even more radical when Other is seen as--or given the weight of--Self, inequities dissolve regardless of cultural/gender or biology/sex. In such a society differences become celebratory gifts.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dov*
The *entire point of feminism* is that because gender is a cultural construct related to (but not identical to) biology, a culture would be wise to not base social policy or praxis on biological sex differences. In fact, it's wiser to empower those who are not member of the dominant, culturally constructed--or sex/biological homogenous--group because their voice is indeed of equal important in social discourse.

Dov, I don't think you can reasonably make the entire point of feminism a particular analysis of gender. (Even if it's one that I happen to share.) As I wrote, above, there are people who can work in coalition to improve women's lot without agreeing on the nature of woman. This has been true since the beginning of the 20th century.

In my reading of the history of feminism, I see many disagreements, and the nature of women is only one of those.


----------



## Dov (Nov 21, 2001)

Captain, well put. I should have said, "to me [as a biological and culturally defined male] the entire point of feminism..." The "I" statement would then impart a temporal and personal POV rather than a global analysis.

Of course my lengthy input was to point out a common mistake Americans often make, that I felt Meiri was making, and that is to think that gender and sex are identical or somehow one and the same. It was that notion I was obnoxiously trying to defend. (I say "Americans" only because I have not read or participated in anything from other cultures discussing feminism from a cultural anthro POV) Obviously I am doing a poor job of it.







:


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Yes, I see that you are coming from an sociological or anthropological viewpoint. I studied feminism as a historical movement. Here are some of the things that the first wave (19th and early 20th century feminists) disagreed on:

1. Whether women were essentially more like or more different from men
2. Whether the most important thing was for women to participate in political life (the woman suffrage movement) or whether issues around sexuality were more important
3. About sexuality: whether women needed to be liberated sexually (free love, birth control, destigmatization of unwed motherhood) or liberated _from_ sexuality (the movement to abolish prostitution, campaigns for age of consent laws.)
4. About tactics to achieve equality: whether to ally with various other liberation movements, or whether to expediently use society's racism/fear of immigrants to achieve their goals.
5. About goals: sometimes, avowed feminists could not agree about whether a particular feminist goal would really improve women's condition. Feminists in different countries had different priorities. In Germany, it was fairly radical for women to discuss the right to vote, but the rights of mothers was a central issue for women's groups. In the US, any discussion of sexuality was taboo in the mainstream of the women's movement--but the movement for woman suffrage was the largest political coalition ever.

It wasn't only country to country. For example, there was a famous feminist family in New York. One sister, Maud Nathan, became a suffragist. She also campaigned for better conditions for working women. The other sister, Annie Nathan Meyer, the founder of Barnard College, was also a feminist but opposed the campaign for woman suffrage.

Nearly all of these were still at issue with the rise of second-wave feminism, starting in the 1960s, and are still controversial today! I'm sure I didn't hit all of them.

But think about this: feminists do share goals today, even when we don't share views of gender. (I've even met feminists who say that the truly feminist view is that even biological sex is completely constructed! yipes!) We have widespread agreement that women should be free from domestic violence. We have a women's health movement that has made tremendous strides in my lifetime. We have a shared view that women's experiences should be incorporated into school curricula, should be a standard part of history, literature, etc. In fact a lot of people agree with these goals who don't identify as feminists, which is I think a measure of the success of feminism.


----------



## Dov (Nov 21, 2001)

Good stuff, Capn'!

Much of the writing that I've been exposed to through cultural anthro (& sociology) have been derived from those important historical contexts. As a Green activist, I deal with third-wave feminist dis/agreement in addition to older second wavers, and pull it all together in a cultural context in order to propose or oppose public policy or to synthesize political expression into campaign messages. It's always valuable to know where one comes from; history is important too.

Despite historical and contemporary disagreement (more accurately implicit in them), feminism still can be distilled to a core element of empowering Other (or if one is female/feminine, then Self) in order to achieve equality. That too can constitute a broad continuum of definition depending on standpoint.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Dov, my degree is in Anthropology, not that I use it for pay... I wasn't being silly, though perhaps I was reading too much into what I quoted. It just struck me as a silly statement to the effect of gender not being related to biology.

IMO gender is still related to biology in that biology is the starting point. In the online conversations I've had with NA, and in other random readings, I've seen gender defined in some native nations as: male living as male, female living as female, male living as female, female living as male, etc. I've read that some nations defined 6 genders. Even as the varying roles being filled by persons of whatever biological configuration was accepted, celebrated even, the starting point is still that biological form.

I agree that gender ROLES are social constructs, but they start from the biology of the being. Depending on the culture under discussion the expectation that one's role in society match one's biology vary greatly.

Sojh, Thank-you for correcting my citation!!! At least I got her last name correct.

Quote:

(I've even met feminists who say that the truly feminist view is that even biological sex is completely constructed! yipes!)
Yipes is right!!! I'll concede that point the day a man carries a baby to term with no scientific/medical intervention forcing such to happen. I'll waver the day one handles all the breastfeeding without medical intervention. I've read about men nursing, but only as a means of keeping baby content until momma and her milk arrive.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

thanks for all your answers, ladies. I think I am not feminist, but I appreciate your time in explaining to me what feminism is.














's


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

You're not a feminist?









Where does feminism go "wrong" for you? (If you are interested in replying)


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

kay, we meet again (lol)

well, first I think men and women are different. biologically and everything else. I think we are supposed to do different things, we complement each other, we have different strengths and weaknesses and in that way we complement. I don't feel the need to be able to do all my dh does, I am VERY different from men, I am a woman, I have a dd and a ds, and I can see in them such notable differences. Now, I think we should have the same rights. ofcourse we should. we are the same, but we are also very different. I have only thought about this subject for a couple days so bear with me please, I am no expert, just trying to find my thoughts on this.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I just don't see anything that you wrote that would prevent you from being a feminist.

But, then again, I am very vague in my definition of feminist. I assume that is because I grew up viewing feminists as those "crazys" and, until recently, never took the word on for myself.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*







ave

I just don't see anything that you wrote that would prevent you from being a feminist.

But, then again, I am very vague in my definition of feminist. I assume that is because I grew up viewing feminists as those "crazys" and, until recently, never took the word on for myself.











kay, only based on what I have read in this thread, I think feminists think men and women are equal in every way and are the same in every way. I don't think men should lactate, for example. I think it's ok that men have a certain role in life and women a different one. educate me more, if you want to, I am interested in knowing more.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

and I am curious... what is your personal definition of feminism?


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
kay, only based on what I have read in this thread, I think feminists think men and women are equal in every way and are the same in every way. I don't think men should lactate, for example. I think it's ok that men have a certain role in life and women a different one. educate me more, if you want to, I am interested in knowing more.

Why do you think that? I just posted three lovely posts that said the opposite of what you are saying. I said that people who identify as feminists have a variety of opinions on whether men and women are equal or the same or like that. You don't have to think that women should have the same roles as men to think that women should have a better status.

There seems to be a very broad spectrum of opinion among feminists about whether, in order to have equality, we need to be the same as men.

*To identify as a feminist, I believe, you only have to be committed to the idea of changing society in order to make things better for women.*

You might decide that you are not a feminist if:

1. You are afraid that if you change society, you will lose what's positive for women now

2. You think that women as a group have everything we need now

3. You think women as a group are very bad







: or somehow unable to cope with more







and therefore don't deserve to have our lives improve (I don't think this is you!)

4. You don't feel comfortable being part of a movement to benefit you, yourself.


----------



## Dov (Nov 21, 2001)

apologies to the OP because I know my post here is probably useless to your OP to begin with... Meiri, I'm glad you posted again.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meiri*
Dov, my degree is in Anthropology, not that I use it for pay... I wasn't being silly, though perhaps I was reading too much into what I quoted. It just struck me as a silly statement to the effect of gender not being related to biology.

Ah. I definitely did not make that clear enough in my original post; I wasn't trying to say it wasn't related just that it isn't identical. I admit I was trying to share a contemporary, very broad definition of feminism. Sorry about not being more precise. aaaaannnnddd you said it much much better later anyway (a credit to your degree







):

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meiri*
IMO gender is still related to biology in that biology is the starting point. In the online conversations I've had with NA, and in other random readings, I've seen gender defined in some native nations as: male living as male, female living as female, male living as female, female living as male, etc. I've read that some nations defined 6 genders. Even as the varying roles being filled by persons of whatever biological configuration was accepted, celebrated even, the starting point is still that biological form.











From that well put analysis, it's much more of my own semi-educated opinion (my degree [will] be in English-Creative Writing; I know, I know, I should stick to fiction,







) that gender, while indeed related to biological from, is still a cultural construct; i.e., more contrived than it is innate. And because it's only my radical opinion, I accept all evisceration resulting from it, and will ultimately just agree to disagree with an established standpoint.


----------



## umbrella (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm apparently not a very good woman, and dh is not a very good man, because aside for the pregnancy/birth and breastfeeding, dh is every bit as good a "mother" as I am.

And I think I must have a freak for a child, which is supposed to be awful, I guess. We all know that without a doubt all little boys and little girls are so clearly different. Yet I have child who is so much more KID than either gender. People are often asking what my child's sex is, as they can't always tell right from steroytpes, because I have a KID, not a person defined by their genitals.

I have a daughter. I hear some people say they KNOW that these strong inherent gender difference exist, because, well, their little boys are tough, and their little girls love to wear their dresses, _despite_ all their parents' best efforts. So...really, does that mean my rough and tumbley little girl is a freak? Should I proudly proclaim that she is "all boy" because her favorite pair of shoes that she picked out at the store, have fire trucks on them? What's wrong with my child that one day she wants to wear her green dress, and the next she wants to wear her plaid baseball shirt? OMG, she's not fitting into any sterotype!! What do we call her? A kid.

You CAN'T tell me that the _majority_ of gender is not cultural. We start infants of in pink or blue rooms for pete's sake. The studies show that even adults who aren't thinking of it, will treat a baby in blue much more firmly, and that same baby in pink much more delicately. When my daughter wears a dress, people stop her on the street to gush over how pretty she is. When she's just wearing jeans and a t-shirt, they point out how active she is.

Golly, I wonder where these kids get it.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Dov, I don't think we're as far apart as you think in this. Maybe our choice of phrasing is getting in the way? I'm not interested in eviscerating anybody







, but I see these factors as intertwined. Rightly or wrongly, the biology starts the cultural expectations. Some feminism sees this as utterly wrong. I personally think that trying to bury the differences between bio-male and bio-female is just as inherently wrong as confining everyone to strict gender roles. How does it honor the feminine to deny the strengths and pitfalls inherent in being female? How does it honor the masculine to deny the strengths and pitfalls inherent in being male? I think we agree that biology should not limit one to defined roles, but it shouldn't be denied either.

I'm facing one such difference between male and female biology right now. My thyroid is enlarged and it's going to take weeks to get the tests done to determine just why and what needs to be done about it. If DH had gotten the same ultrasound results as I did, he'd've been on the operating table the next day (or nearly so). Why is this? It's not some "men get better medical treatment than women" thing (though there is too much of that that does go on.). It's because even if it is cancer, the cure rate for women is nearly 100%, even if we were to do nothing for a year. The cure rate for men is 50-60%...

I think biology should absolutely not determine all social roles, but it should not be ignored either. It does make a difference.

Umbrella, when I look at how women's work is defined in less technological cultures, I see that delicacy has nothing to do with being female (combining concepts from different posters now). The way things are done in the West--pink versus blue--comes from the Victorian Era I think, when the crap about female delicacy really took over. But even in that culture/era, that only applied to the rich. Poor women were expected to farm, haul, do heavy work... One wonders how their biology got to be sooo different.[/sarcasm]

Carmen, don't mistake Equal for Same. They are not synonomous (sp?).


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

don't mistake Equal for Same. They are not synonomous










Carmen---

I think your previous question has already been answered.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

love-my-babies,
You and I seem to have a lot in common.









If being "feminist" means wanting women to be treated as equal human beings with men, wanting women to be treated well by men and society, well then, I might be one.

But, if someone sat down and asked me all my views on the subject, they'd probably call me a Victorian, and laugh at the idea that I might be feminist.







I think that is because I differ from modern feminism on what "equality" actually means, and what "not being chattel" means.
I too believe there are inherant differences between men and women, and that we were created that way. I, too believe that I don't have to do everything or be everything a man is in order to be his equal. I don't have a problem with the traditional societal set up, with different roles for men and women. Even though we follow the NT pattern of leadership/headship in our family, it doesn't make me "chattel" or less of a human being than my husband.







And I think the reason I feel that way is because I have a husband who does his part, and loves me with his life.









In conclusion........

I guess I'm not a feminist by the modern definition of the term.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
...Even though we follow the NT pattern of leadership/headship in our family, it doesn't make me "chattel" or less of a human being than my husband...

New Testament? Or Pauline?








T
I've been noticing a lot of posts lately in several different contexts about mothers who "have trouble with confrontation" in regards to, basically, sticking up for their children.

Women I know in real life who have difficulty with this frequently come from families who stuck by some form of a patriarchal structure: They were told and taught that girls do not answer back and that it is unladylike to have any confrontations. They were told that boys are "active" and girls are "receptive". And they were told that "good" girls don't (1) speak up without being spoken to; (2) ask boys out on date...boys are supposed to do the asking; (3) tell a boy/man that the boy/man is wrong ... women don't know best and they have to let the man take the lead; (4) told to "submit" to male authority -- _which makes me wonder about their ability to protect themselves from rape -- so, to those ladies who might think of teaching their daughters this, be aware that you might be creating a perfect victim!_; (5) and other remarks and lessons in this vein.

At the risk of sounding smug, _all_ the women I know in real life who were girls in a feminist family grew up feeling capable in whatever they tried to do, including sticking up for their children. And so did their brothers.

(However, I do know one woman who grew up to be fairly insecure and had a superficially "feminist" mother and a rather inattentive father. Her sister also seems to have security issues. I put this down to some rather manipulative emotional dynamics in the family related to people just not paying enough attention to each other and their children (and the mother was a SAHM, by the way, so inattention can happen there, too.) rather than to social politics.)

Of course, this was not a scientific study ... just some anecdotes. However, as I was not sheltered and cloistered, my acquaintences range far and wide and my address book is thick. It is a LOT of anecdotes.

Just food for thought.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
...I don't have a problem with the traditional societal set up, with different roles for men and women....

And men and women who do have a problem with it? They are just out of luck?

As an infertile woman who had a son who lived in dresses as a toddler and who is now a ballet dancing pre-teen, all this talk of "traditional" society makes me feel very defensive. I support your right to follow traditional roles, it is so much to ask that you support my right to not try and squeeze myself and my child into such ill fitting roles?

Feminism is about achieving societal, political and economic equality of women with men. It's about women (& men) having the freedom to define themselves, to not be defined by a set of outside rules. I think it's a sad that those ideas are _still_ seen as outside-the-norm. Maybe our great-grandchildren will look back at us all desperatly clinging to these gender sterotypes and laugh. I desperately hope so.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

T HOTTIE







's YOU!







:

ON TOPIC:







:


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

OT

Pugmadmama, have you ever seen Billy Elliot?

What your son is doing is quite traditional IMO. There was a time when no woman was ever allowed on stage, any stage. But I'm sure you know that.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Oh, and probably waaaaay







T but I just wanted to share this here:

Years ago, Bella Abzug (if you don't know who she is, look here: http://womenshistory.about.com/cs/co...ella_abzug.htm) said "Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel."

Weeeell, I musta blinked and missed it, but I think we must have achieved equality somehow....'cause I've been dealing with a MAJOR league schlemiel at my project and she's a she.







And I _can't_ imagine how she got into her position.

Btw, the Divine Bella also said:

"I prefer the word "homemaker" because "housewife" always implies that there may be a wife someplace else." :LOL

and

"All of the men on my staff can type."









and

"Women have been trained to speak softly and carry a lipstick. Those days are over."


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I do not have a source for this:

But, regarding living by the Christian Bible:

The word translated as obey means, "hearken to" or the like. In other words, you should listen to this persons input. It, from what I have heard/understand does not mean obey in the way we think of it. You have the right to reject that input. In that case, I can live with "obey"









That said, I consider botht the Hebrew Testament and the Christian Testament to be very much a product of their time (and from what I know of other Religous writings, I could say the same).


----------



## Missinnyc (Aug 21, 2003)

Tired- May be true, but "submit," as I understand it, is pretty well translated.

I think I am a feminist, but it depends on how we want to define "equality." Do we mean equality of opportunity, or of outcome?

For example, do we think that an institution (let's say the Senate) must be inherently sexist or dominated by a male power structure because it is not 50/50 women?

Or do we think that we should give women and men "equal" educations, opportunities, etc, and then let the chips fall where they may?

I believe in "equality" but not in sameness. I agree with the OP that women are generally intrinsically different than men, psychologically, biologically, spiritually, and emotionally. I believe that men and women (generally) have different roles they play in society or in relationships. No one should be forced into these roles. I believe that it should be and is possible to honor both positions without making a value judgment about them.

Just because I choose to submit to my husband does not mean he is better than me, or does not see me as his "equal" (whatever that means!). He values me, my intelligence, my beauty, my body, my soul, etc. Just like a manager is no better than his employees, and must treat them with respect in order for the company to work correctly.
I believe that women should have equal rights, but not necessarily equal outcomes.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
love-my-babies,
You and I seem to have a lot in common.









If being "feminist" means wanting women to be treated as equal human beings with men, wanting women to be treated well by men and society, well then, I might be one.

But, if someone sat down and asked me all my views on the subject, they'd probably call me a Victorian, and laugh at the idea that I might be feminist.







I think that is because I differ from modern feminism on what "equality" actually means, and what "not being chattel" means.
I too believe there are inherant differences between men and women, and that we were created that way. I, too believe that I don't have to do everything or be everything a man is in order to be his equal. I don't have a problem with the traditional societal set up, with different roles for men and women. Even though we follow the NT pattern of leadership/headship in our family, it doesn't make me "chattel" or less of a human being than my husband.








And I think the reason I feel that way is because I have a husband who does his part, and loves me with his life.









In conclusion........

I guess I'm not a feminist by the modern definition of the term.









this is EXACTLY how I feel. I could not have said it better.

but I have a question for you all.. what do you think needs to change in our society regarding women? I'm actually surprised to hear this from americans, I think this country does a good job at having men and women at an equal status. In Chile, men think they are better than women. women think they are less than men. Men get some jobs that women would not. If you have money and you are a woman, you don't work. we all had maids, and guess what, there is no such thing as a male maid. it's sad, and I do not have that mentality, but when I came here to the US I found that men and women were much more equal, and I liked it a lot. thankfully my dh, even though he is chilean, he is very well "trained" and does respect me as an equal.

Like cappuccino'smom, I feel that I'm ok with the gender/cultural differences, as long as neither is "better" or "worse" than the other. I don't have a problem with men doing certain things and women doing other things.

And this is probably going to sound incredibly anti-feminist (and sorry in advance if I am going against feminist beliefs) but since the beginning of time, IMO, men and women have had different roles. Like if you go back to ancient times, men would go out and hunt for food, while the woman would stay and protect their children. The man provides protection to the woman and their children, in my opinion I have no problem being "protected" by my husband. I like feeling this way. However, this does not mean that one is better than the other. they can both be wonderful at what each one does.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I do not have a source for this:

But, regarding living by the Christian Bible:

The word translated as obey means, "hearken to" or the like. In other words, you should listen to this persons input. It, from what I have heard/understand does not mean obey in the way we think of it. You have the right to reject that input. In that case, I can live with "obey"









That said, I consider botht the Hebrew Testament and the Christian Testament to be very much a product of their time (and from what I know of other Religous writings, I could say the same).

ok this is VERY interesting to me. My mom always quotes the Bible when talking about this. The Bible says us wives should submit ourselves to our husbands, and that they should protect us and respect us and love us like they love themselves. basically, IMO, it means that yes, we should submit to our dh's BUT they should never abuse it. they should never take advantage of it, they should love us more than themselves and never want us to do anything that would not be in our benefit.

as a note, in my household we don't actually go by this (just so ya know) I'm pretty much the boss (lol) but I was just quoting something my mom always brings up when she says I'm a rebel...


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
but I have a question for you all.. what do you think needs to change in our society regarding women? I'm actually surprised to hear this from americans, I think this country does a good job at having men and women at an equal status. In Chile, men think they are better than women. women think they are less than men. Men get some jobs that women would not. If you have money and you are a woman, you don't work. we all had maids, and guess what, there is no such thing as a male maid. it's sad, and I do not have that mentality, but when I came here to the US I found that men and women were much more equal, and I liked it a lot. thankfully my dh, even though he is chilean, he is very well "trained" and does respect me as an equal.

I can't say how the US stacks up to Chile. I think there are quite a few areas where the status of women in the US could be improved.

One area is in the *workplace*. Even though we have laws in place to prevent employers from discriminating against women, they continue to do so. Recently, Walmart, one of the country's largest retail employers, was slapped with a class action suit. According to the plaintiffs, women were denied promotions, paid less for the same work, paid less than men who had less work experience, etc. We have made a lot of progress in this area, but we could make more.

Another area is *violence against women*. We still have high rates of rape, especially acquaintance rape. We still have high rates of domestic violence, including dating violence among teenagers. You can't have equality in marriage or in society if it's acceptable for men to hit and abuse women. This is another area where the feminist movement has made a lot of progress. It used to be a regular thing that police did not respond to domestic violence calls. Due to feminist activism in the last 25 years, police departments around the country have begun to have staff members that specialize in domestic violence. Domestic violence shelters get public dollars. But they are still full.

We also have a very high rate of unplanned teen pregnancy in the United States, one of the highest in the industrialized world. Girls in the US are sexually active at a young age.

Another issue is that women are more likely to be poor than men. The phrase someone coined for this in the 1980s was "the feminization of poverty." Basically, we don't provide adequate resources for mothers with children. In a society with a lot of domestic violence and a high incidence of young parenthood, women and children bear the brunt of policies that punish the poor. We don't provide childcare and we do require that single parents who receive temporary aid for needy families (TANF, also known as welfare) work outside the home.

Then we can talk about discrimination against women in medicine. But I don't have to detail that, you can read about it all over this board. Of course it's a _feminist_ issue if women can't control their own pregnancy and birth experiences.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.

Yes, you are.

Oh, and just for the record... men CAN lactate.


----------



## blondemama (May 3, 2004)

I completely agree with Captain optimisms last post. I've heard the quote several times that women are trained to be poor. Crimes against women are very tolerated. And I really hope those plaintiffs win against Walmart. If they win it will open a floodgate for equality in the workfield.

Women are not encouraged to work in male-dominated fields enough. Not once while growing up was I told to pursue the paleontology field. The fact that I was always making playdough dinasaurs and gobbling up pictures and books about them was overlooked. I never touched the dolls that were given to me. I was told my job would be wife and mother.

I agree with the poster that said that a patriarticle upbringing would hurt the child. It describes me to a t. I'm scared to death of confrontation. Nice girls don't compete. My math skills were never helped out like my brothers were. I was never given opportunities like my brothers. I'm working on this because I don't want my daughters to end up like me.

I'm curious about what you ladies mean by submitting to your husband? What exactly, are you doing when you do that? In my opinion, it gives men way too much power and when people think they have a supposed power they immediatley abuse it. It is human nature. I'm not at all saying that this is the case with you. I'm just wondering what it means to you.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kama'aina mama*
Oh, and just for the record... men CAN lactate.


I know, but I would not want my dh to lactate or any other male, for that matter. Call me anti-feminist but lactating is something, IMO, so wonderful, that should be reserved for women. why do we all have to be so *equal*?
Men don't give birth, and I would absolutely NOT support research or intents to have men carry a pregnancy and give birth. It's not natural to me, lactating is a woman's thing and even though men could lactate it is unnatural to me and I have no desire or will not feel any pleasure in seeing a man giving birth or lactating. Just my opinion...


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blondemama*

I'm curious about what you ladies mean by submitting to your husband? What exactly, are you doing when you do that? In my opinion, it gives men way too much power and when people think they have a supposed power they immediatley abuse it. It is human nature. I'm not at all saying that this is the case with you. I'm just wondering what it means to you.


to be honest with you, I have no idea. I read in the Bible what God says about submitting to your dh, but we don't do it at home. my dh is too smart and he would easily believe he's the king of the world, here!

so long for submitting... unless ofcourse in the bedroom (lol) sorry, had to say it...







:


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Okay... equal means... well equal. Not the same. But given the same level of consideration, reward, regard, etc. Not the same... equal. On the subject of lactation... I don't really see any big need for it either... but do you hear what you are saying... "To me it's not natural." But my friend... it IS natural. They have all the same glands, ducts and hormones as we do. They are there.. naturally. Or put there by God, depending on how you look at things. And it does provide an intersting look at the question of why childcare falls to women historically. Clearly men are just as capable... and in some species the men do the lions share or at least share equally... even in breastfeeding. Which certainly lends credence to the idea that many of the things we consider biological differences may really simply be social and cultural.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

I'm all for celebrating differences, but I don't understand the "we're different, so men are better at this and women at that" attitude. Even IF most men are better mechanics than MOST women, would that be grounds to deny ALL women the right to be a mechanic? Even if YOU don't have a problem with traditional roles, does that mean that others can't really either?

Feminism is not about switching the roles. It's about eliminating them.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

i'm all for being equal, but I don't agree with men lactating. I mean, at least, in my religious beliefs, it has no part. Men may have the hormones but I don't think they were ever meant to lactate.

if I am wrong, can someone provide literature on this? I'm interested in this. thanks!


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I just don't see the need for it. Some men may be able to lactate, but it is rare to get a full suppy and what would that do for the woman's supply? I don't even see it as a point of contention though--- whatever floats your boat!


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

I'm not saying men _should_ lactate. I am simply saying that the fact that they were clearly designed capable of lactating raises some interesting questions in a discussion of the traditional roles of men and women. As to the issue of supply... if two people, regardless of their gender, were nursing the same baby I expect that they would each produce as much as their portion of the nursing required.


----------



## Kiki Runs (Oct 7, 2002)

HOW have I missed this thread???? (Note to self: spend more time in activism)....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
but I have a question for you all.. what do you think needs to change in our society regarding women? I'm actually surprised to hear this from americans, I think this country does a good job at having men and women at an equal status. In Chile, men think they are better than women. women think they are less than men. Men get some jobs that women would not. If you have money and you are a woman, you don't work. we all had maids, and guess what, there is no such thing as a male maid. it's sad, and I do not have that mentality, but when I came here to the US I found that men and women were much more equal, and I liked it a lot. thankfully my dh, even though he is chilean, he is very well "trained" and does respect me as an equal.

I think others have answered this pretty well (workplace, violence, etc), so I'll not repeat....except to say that there IS room for improvement. I realize that the US is perhaps more "advanced" in this area than other countries, but there is still room for improvement...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
Like cappuccino'smom, I feel that I'm ok with the gender/cultural differences, as long as neither is "better" or "worse" than the other. I don't have a problem with men doing certain things and women doing other things.

Now, see, to me, this IS feminism (sort of). Like others have said, "equal" does NOT = "same". I can be equal to a man in many ways without physically being the same. I will love my sons and daughters equally, and they will obviously not be the same. To me, feminism is NOT about raising women up and stomping men down, it's about raising women up to the same level of men (NOT saying that anyone here "stomps men down"). Saying that women should have equivalent pay to men is NOT lowering the man's value, it's making the woman's what it SHOULD be.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
And this is probably going to sound incredibly anti-feminist (and sorry in advance if I am going against feminist beliefs) but since the beginning of time, IMO, men and women have had different roles. Like if you go back to ancient times, men would go out and hunt for food, while the woman would stay and protect their children. The man provides protection to the woman and their children, in my opinion I have no problem being "protected" by my husband. I like feeling this way. However, this does not mean that one is better than the other. they can both be wonderful at what each one does.

Okay, here is what I really wanted to address.... ITA that men and women can have different roles, and that one is not better than the other. For me, where feminism comes in is making sure that both men AND women recieve equal credit/respect for their work. In my house, I SAH with DS and DH goes to work everyday. I am appreciative of him going out to work to provide for our family. However, he does NOT show the same respect for my work (this is something we're working on). To him, what I do is "women's work", and as such, doesn't require thanks or accolades. I don't get equal respect....THAT'S what I work to change as a feminist.

Physically, yes, men and women are different. We have different strengths and different weaknesses. Part of what *I* see as my feminist duty is to work to ensure that BOTH sides are appreciated/accepted.

I have been interrupted too many times to continue my (derailed) train of thought. I'm sorry, I'll just go ahead and toss this out there....

Kinsey


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

T

Quote:

if two people, regardless of their gender, were nursing the same baby I expect that they would each produce as much as their portion of the nursing required.
It seems though, that with limited nursing in the earlier weeks your supply would be weak. The same problem w/introducing formula early--- your supply just would taper off to nothing.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Quote:

Oh, and just for the record... men CAN lactate.
I've yet to hear of one taking over for the mom, which is what I meant when I specified unaided by medical science.

I was responding the idea of a branch of feminism that there are NO differences between male and female. Maybe I should have stayed with the pregnancy and birth, or just suggested we all line up naked and check out the sameness?







:LOL

Not being the SAME doesn't mean that one is better than the other or that either should be confined to set roles.

I think most of us are saying the same thing in different ways at this point.


----------



## umbrella (Jul 25, 2002)

Go Captain Optimism!

I guess in general, I have a problem with people focusing on what the "average" woman is better at, or the "average" man is more suited for. Frankly, I'm not average.

The fact remains that _there are more difference among one sex, than there are between the two sexes_. Let's say that _on average_, boys are better than girls at math. People honestly take that information, and think that when you take any random boy and any random girl, the boy is probably going to be better than the girl at math. NO. A mathematical average is adding all the "scores" up, and dividing by the number of scorers. That doesn't tell you ANYTHING about INDIVIDUALS.

You can say the the average income in Wellsburg is higher than the average income in Richmond. But in no way could you take a random person from Wellsburg and figure they make more than the random Richmond citizen. What you may not know is that the figures in Wellsburg are higher because of ONE millionaire family. Or what you may not know is that in Richmond, nearly every citizen makes eactly $40000, while those in Wellsburg cover the spectrum from $2 to $2million. The _average_ tells you hardly anything.

But when we talk about average differences between boys/girls and men/women, that kind of common sense often goes out the window. We tend to think that that little girl right there is probably more verbal than that little boy right there. That man is probably not as emphathetic as that woman. Well, look at these two prospective employees, well, this is a technical position, and requires long hours...or well, that job does require a caring disposition...


----------



## umbrella (Jul 25, 2002)

Quote:

I've yet to hear of one taking over for the mom, which is what I meant when I specified unaided by medical science.
fwiw, there was a man in Africa I think who was in the new for lactating and feeding his infant after the mother died. I'm pretty sure the nipple stimulation was all it took.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

I read somewhere a long while ago an account of man who was a homesteader in the middle of the 19th century and his wife died in childbirth or soon after while they were totally snowed in for months. He nursed the baby well enough that it lived until the thaw and he was able to get help/supplies.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kinsey43*
I realize that the US is perhaps more "advanced" in this area than other countries, but there is still room for improvement...

Yes, I think that americans, since a lot of them have not seen the sad reality of other developing countries, don't realize that you are pretty lucky! I'm not saying there shouldn't be improvement.. just that in other countries like my own (chile) for example, infidelity is something almost *expected* from men. for example my mother ( 100% american) divorced my father (100% chilean) because he cheated over and over again, and guess what her chilean friends told her... to stand by him, because that is what a wife in chile is supposed to do, and they also (ALL of them) adviced her to stay with him in chile because all men cheat and it's something you have to accept because it won't change. ofcourse, she divorced him, had dignity and moved back here to her country, where as if she were chilean, she would be stuck at home, cooking or knitting or whatever...*unable* to work, (my chilean father was absolutely opposed to my mother working or gaining *any* ounce of independence) so, ya see? I can see how all countries need improvement, I just want to give this example so you guys know that I think this country is getting so much better.

Quote:

Now, see, to me, this IS feminism (sort of). Like others have said, "equal" does NOT = "same". I can be equal to a man in many ways without physically being the same. I will love my sons and daughters equally, and they will obviously not be the same. To me, feminism is NOT about raising women up and stomping men down, it's about raising women up to the same level of men (NOT saying that anyone here "stomps men down"). Saying that women should have equivalent pay to men is NOT lowering the man's value, it's making the woman's what it SHOULD be.
maybe I am blind.. but I have never seen such limitations, I have never felt limited because I am a woman, I feel I can be what I wish to be. period. I don't need to look beside me, check out what the guy next door is doing and try to do the same just so I can feel *just as good* as him.

Quote:

Okay, here is what I really wanted to address.... ITA that men and women can have different roles, and that one is not better than the other. For me, where feminism comes in is making sure that both men AND women recieve equal credit/respect for their work. In my house, I SAH with DS and DH goes to work everyday. I am appreciative of him going out to work to provide for our family. However, he does NOT show the same respect for my work (this is something we're working on). To him, what I do is "women's work", and as such, doesn't require thanks or accolades. I don't get equal respect....THAT'S what I work to change as a feminist.

Physically, yes, men and women are different. We have different strengths and different weaknesses. Part of what *I* see as my feminist duty is to work to ensure that BOTH sides are appreciated/accepted.

I have been interrupted too many times to continue my (derailed) train of thought. I'm sorry, I'll just go ahead and toss this out there....

Kinsey
oh, and about your dh, I also have this problem with dh. I think even though he is a great dh (being chilean he is so not like chilean men) but I have to accept that since he was raised in a very old-fashioned, men-are-better way, the "training" will take time. my husband never did laundry until he married me, his mom used to make his bed every morning after serving him breakfast in bed, for goodness sakes! now, at least he does a lot of things that he never did before.. and he's a great dad, so that's a plus.
oh well...


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

I stand corrected on the fathers breastfeeding issue.









If we should ever have another, I'll tell DH he can take the occasional turn.







:

In any case...


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dov*
Feminism is about listening to Other and making space for and the empowerment of that Other in a culture (to the status of full partner with the dominant group). "Other" can be defined as whomever is not in control, dominance, or power in a culture. Traditionally feminism has defined other as women/females but it has expanded to include race/ethnicity and gender/sexual differentiation as well.

That's kind of an egalitarian-esque definition paraphrased from my Cultural Anthro text.

Gender is nearly completely cultural and not biological. Beyond specific biological differences, I don't buy that women and men are just different so we don't need feminism. I'm a reconstructionist-social-feminist so I'd love for the genderization of "feminism" to be removed or supplanted by a gender-inclusive or neutral term, but perhaps that's best left for a more evolved era. Stepping off my










that's a great explanation. im a big butler fan.


----------



## jennie s (Jul 3, 2004)

Some of you need to see this again:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *umbrella*
You CAN'T tell me that the _majority_ of gender is not cultural. We start infants of in pink or blue rooms for pete's sake. The studies show that even adults who aren't thinking of it, will treat a baby in blue much more firmly, and that same baby in pink much more delicately. When my daughter wears a dress, people stop her on the street to gush over how pretty she is. When she's just wearing jeans and a t-shirt, they point out how active she is.

Golly, I wonder where these kids get it.

Thank you, umbrella! And this kind of stuff happens from day one, especially with "traditionalists," like you, Carmen, but also with feminist parents. I can't tell you how many times i've heard people go on and on about how, despite their best parenting efforts, their boys act like boys and their girls like girls, never considering that they dressed their baby girls in frilly dresses (that make it difficult to manuever, climb, explore, etc.), taped bows in their hair, etc., and dressed boys for rough and tumble play... You can't tell me this doesn't gender them... Combine that with the books we read them, the tv shows they watch, all the messages that our culture sends in myriad ways about what it means to be a "boy" or "girl"... My head spins.

I am reminded of a study where adults were shown videos of infants crying. When they were told it was a male child, they remarked at how angry he was. When told the same child was female, they said she looked sad and helpless - like she needed her mommy.







Likewise, another study showed that women, especially (although men, too, to a lesser degree), were more likely to give children they perceived as female, dolls and those they percieved as male, trucks (when given the choice of three toys: a doll, a truck, and a book) by a huge percentage.

I also wanted to mention that those feminists who think that even biological sex is socially constructed (i guess i should out myself at this point!) are looking at data that show that a significant number of births are of children that are in some way ambiguously sexed, i.e., they have ambiguous genitallia, or chromosomes that don't match with their genitallia, or something like that. And, guess what our culture - where gender/sex is dichotomously defined - does to such children?! And you thought circumcision was bad? I could go on and on about this, but for now i'll say good night.

jennie


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jennie s*
I also wanted to mention that those feminists who think that even biological sex is socially constructed (i guess i should out myself at this point!) are looking at data that show that a significant number of births are of children that are in some way ambiguously sexed, i.e., they have ambiguous genitallia, or chromosomes that don't match with their genitallia, or something like that. And, guess what our culture - where gender/sex is dichotomously defined - does to such children?! And you thought circumcision was bad? I could go on and on about this, but for now i'll say good night.

jennie

no, please, go on! I seriously thought you made a good point here, can you explain why you think this is like it is? what is the harm is having a "girly" girl and a "macho" man? (couldn't find other word!) isn't it realistic to expect that my children grow up to be individuals involved in society? I can do whatever I can to keep them "different" but that will only exclude them from their peers, get teased in school, and pretty much excluded.
I am not feminist. I realized that through this thread. I'm happy with my home, a man, a woman, and their children, who are one man and one woman.
we love them and treat them just the same. we do buy my dd lovely dresses and she picks them out herself. she loves to play dress-up with mommy's clothes. my son, he is still a baby. but we buy him the cutest little clothes that he looks like a little man (check out my pics)


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I wanted to add that I think the modern feminist movement has hurt women in a lot of ways. In the name of making it easier to go to work, they've made it so that society now almost looks down on a mother who chooses to stay home with her kids, looking at it as not a "real job." Before feminism, you wouldn't have heard that a homemaker with a college degree was wasting her education. I think that groups like NOW hurt women when they put their focus totally on women who work and not on stuff like getting absent dads to pay child support or getting social security credits for years that moms are home with their kids.

Modern feminists seem to only be advocating for women who want to fill the so-called "traditional" male role. I've never seen the headline "NOW fights to get breastfeeding moms out of jury duty." And I don't think I ever will.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
I wanted to add that I think the modern feminist movement has hurt women in a lot of ways. In the name of making it easier to go to work, they've made it so that society now almost looks down on a mother who chooses to stay home with her kids, looking at it as not a "real job." Before feminism, you wouldn't have heard that a homemaker with a college degree was wasting her education. I think that groups like NOW hurt women when they put their focus totally on women who work and not on stuff like getting absent dads to pay child support or getting social security credits for years that moms are home with their kids.

Modern feminists seem to only be advocating for women who want to fill the so-called "traditional" male role. I've never seen the headline "NOW fights to get breastfeeding moms out of jury duty." And I don't think I ever will.

exactly.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
...I've never seen the headline "NOW fights to get breastfeeding moms out of jury duty." And I don't think I ever will.

Well, you've never seen that headline because it isn't published in the big media and you probably don't read some of the smaller magazines or alternative press in general.

A few years ago, a male and queer friend of mine, who is fairly active in Act-Up in Albany, NY, was one of the non-breastfeeding people who helped to organize a nurse-in at a place that had tried to prevent mothers from nursing in public. Aside from Act-Up, there was also a contingent from a NOW chapter. And there were a bunch of nursing mothers. Peter was thrilled that the nurse-in happened. He feels that it is part and parcel of many of the same issues (gender, personal freedom, health, social control by demonizing something natural, etc.) that he deals with through his gay activism.

It would be nice if this kind of event was covered more widely.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

loving-my-babies: what jeannie s is talking about is the fact that the physical-biological aspect of "male" and "female" is based on the ENDS, not the middle of a spectrum of sex. "Maleness" is at one end of the line and fades into "femaleness" as one goes to the other end of the line. People in the middle are hermaphrodites.

Most people are not on one extreme or another. Most actually fall along the line between the ends. I can use myself as an example: If you were to see me in person, you would definately think of me as female.

I display many physical signs of femaleness. I'm curvey. I have large breasts (and not just from nursing). I have a vagina. I have very little heavy facial hair. The hair on my arms and legs is very light. I carried a pregnancy to term and gave birth through the vagina.

I also display many signs of "feminity" -- a socially constructed idea. I have long hair (in some cultures, this is for women, others, it is for men), for example.

HOWEVER, if you were to see the numbers from hormone tests and look more closely at some of those physical indicators, it turns out I am further towards "male" than one would think just by looking at me. I have a "high" testosterone level. I also have a "larger" cliterus than "normal". [I put the words "high", "larger", and "normal" in quotations because those are words that some others use; but, I disagree as I think it is ALL normal. We are all individuals.]

Now, you are probably wondering what this has to do with feminism or, indeed, anything else discussed on this thread.

Well, considering that there are plenty of people who use _physical_ attributes for creating _socially_ constructed roles, it is important.

There are people who say
>that since a woman has a vagina which "receives" the penis for procreation,
>that means a woman is meant to be passive and
>that means a woman who is NOT passive is "unnatural".

Ergo, if a woman is "unnatural", she must be either
>made to conform (possibly causing great personal mental anguish),
>changed physically in order to conform (by operations, frequently done on babies who display "incorrect" sex characteristics....but who makes the decision as to which is the "right" sex? Hmmm?) which may cause great trouble later due to mental and physical health problems, or
>be shunned by the society. (This can take many forms. In our society, we tell people to keep it hidden or suffer. In other cultures the shunning is more overt such as in India, for example, where hermaphrodites are called "eunichs" and cast out of their families as soon as it is known -- sometimes as babies. That's right, babies get abandoned to the "eunich families", ad hoc groups of people who have been cast out for not fitting into a social gender construct around physical attributes.)

Does this make it clearer?


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

yes, very ineteresting!

but then why can't men have babies? I think nature itself separates roles here. why do they have a penis and women have a vagina? to me, that is clearly saying that both are meant to be and do different things.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

A womb is needed for carrying a pregnancy to term, among other things. Maybe somewhere on this board is someone who can go into all the details.

Some hermaphrodites actually have wombs. I seem to recall reading a medical journal article years and years ago of a case of a hermaphrodite who had a penis AND a vagina and an assumed-to-be-non-functioning womb.

Now, why some of the humans have penises and some have vaginas is because of variety in genetics. If we were all aemoebas and just reproduced by dividing, we would create duplicates of ourselves and there would be no genetic diversity. Because we have sexual intercourse in order to reproduce, the human animal can _adapt_, that is "change", to make the human race stronger by having more variety. This is done by SHARING the genetic material of the two people having intercourse.

I have a question for you -- Why do you think that having a penis means that one should be able to, umm, be a hockey player, for instance? Or be the one to drive a car? (Both things that I've been told by some very sexist people that should just be "men's" things.)

Now, you might consider why it is the MALE of the seahorses who gets pregnant. NOT the female.

Also, loving-my-babies, you haven't addressed at all the points brought up by many of the inherent _unfairness_ of the _artificially_ constructed roles. Yes, obviously, only one displaying a sufficient number of female physical characteristics can carry a pregnancy and give birth and nurse. But why does that mean she has to be the primary caregiver, for example? Why does that mean that she shouldn't also run a jackhammer? Or drive a truck? Or be a great chef?

Apropros of that last one -- the chef -- in one of the links in my first post on this thread I mentioned that most of the "great chefs" have been male, but cooking is a woman's job. So, my point here is that so-called "women's work" only gets valued by society-at-large once a man does it. And this is a feminist viewpoint, I'll have you know. It is NOT a feminist idea to only value a woman once she does "man's work", it is that all work done by women should be valued just as highly. I guarantee you that women doing those "masculine" jobs are NOT valued as much as men doing them. And women doing "women's work" are not valued as much as men doing "men's work". THIS is the problem.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sohj*

I have a question for you -- Why do you think that having a penis means that one should be able to, umm, be a hockey player, for instance? Or be the one to drive a car? (Both things that I've been told by some very sexist people that should just be "men's" things.)

Now, you might consider why it is the MALE of the seahorses who gets pregnant. NOT the female.

Also, loving-my-babies, you haven't addressed at all the points brought up by many of the inherent _unfairness_ of the _artificially_ constructed roles. Yes, obviously, only one displaying a sufficient number of female physical characteristics can carry a pregnancy and give birth and nurse. But why does that mean she has to be the primary caregiver, for example? Why does that mean that she shouldn't also run a jackhammer? Or drive a truck? Or be a great chef?

Apropros of that last one -- the chef -- in one of the links in my first post on this thread I mentioned that most of the "great chefs" have been male, but cooking is a woman's job. So, my point here is that so-called "women's work" only gets valued by society-at-large once a man does it. And this is a feminist viewpoint, I'll have you know. It is NOT a feminist idea to only value a woman once she does "man's work", it is that all work done by women should be valued just as highly. I guarantee you that women doing those "masculine" jobs are NOT valued as much as men doing them. And women doing "women's work" are not valued as much as men doing "men's work". THIS is the problem.

very interesting. I don't think men should play hockey because they have a penis and we don't. but my dh usually drives the car when we're together.. don't know why, it's always been this way.

I TOTALLY agree with what you said about women having to do men's work in order to be valued. but I think we should both be valued the same, but it'as ok IMO to have different roles, do different things.

will post more later, gotta go do


----------



## daricsmami (May 18, 2004)

I think what everyone is trying to say (in one sentence







) is that *EVERYONE* should be allowed to be whomever they want to be, *EVERYONE* should be allowed to act how they want to act, and *NO ONE* should be thrust into a certain catergory because of their sex.

No one is denying they are biological difference in the sexes. And that part of how we act is biological. However, no one is entirely feminine or entirely masculine. If you take a spectrum or number line (as one of the above posters mentioned) and place female on one end and masculine on the opposite, NO ONE will be at either end. But that's how society sees gender. If you aren't feminine, you must be masculine. That's simply not true.

If a woman wants to stay at home and fill the traditional woman role, more power to her! If a man wants to be the breadwinner and be the head of the household, right on! But just because I'm a female, doesn't mean I should act a certain way to be considered a complete woman. For some women, following traditional roles is completely foreign to them and they feel out of place. But they are still women...right?

But back to the original topic







,
I'm a feminist. I do believe that males and females are different. I can honestly say that my family (at least my mother's side) doesn't treat men and women any different, and I still notice slight differences between men and women. And I don't think anything is wrong with that. That belief doesn't undermine the feminist cause, as some people tend to believe.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Quote:

but then why can't men have babies? I think nature itself separates roles here. why do they have a penis and women have a vagina? to me, that is clearly saying that both are meant to be and do different things.
Both are meant to different BIOLOGICAL things when it comes to creating the next generation. Everything else is cultural, NOT biological.

However this caught my eye:

Quote:

I can't tell you how many times i've heard people go on and on about how, despite their best parenting efforts, their boys act like boys and their girls like girls, never considering that they dressed their baby girls in frilly dresses (that make it difficult to manuever, climb, explore, etc.), taped bows in their hair, etc., and dressed boys for rough and tumble play... You can't tell me this doesn't gender them...
We didn't have a blue room for DS and/or a pink one for DD. Both slept in our room, DD still does. We dressed DS in clothes he could play in. We dressed DD in clothes she can play in too, and in blue as a baby! Heck I wear blue, can't stand pink. As she got older, she CHOSE to wear more pink. She CHOSES to wear dresses frequently. She still does, though she's now choosing jeans occasionally too.

Both kids got toys that encouraged nurturing as well as creative building. Both kids have chosen differently what they play with and how. When DD had 3 trucks one time, she told me about the one being the Daddy, one being the Mommy and the third and smallest being the baby. OTOH, DS is the only one of the two to spontaneously nurse a toy. DD always brought them to me to nurse. Both play soldier, toss balls in the house no matter how often I say "no throwing!"......

I think no matter how we try to keep the play neutral, their personalities win out. As they should.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I used to think that the role of the sexes was cultural until I had children, one of each.

Modern Feminism has let women down.

The only way women can get ahead in this world is to become a man or act like one.

That is not equality.

That is sexism.

ETA I NEVER let my children "play" soldier...and my DS is in the military.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Quote:

Modern Feminism has let women down.

The only way women can get ahead in this world is to become a man or act like one.

That is not equality.

That is sexism.
























Quote:

ETA I NEVER let my children "play" soldier...and my DS is in the military.








I don't dictate to mine what they will play. We also teach just what war is, the occasional necessity, the ugliness even if it was necessary, the unnecessariness of the current one.... M*A*S*H has been a wonderful education tool for DS. He still plays soldier, go figure...


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
...The only way women can get ahead in this world is to become a man or act like one...

I have heard this statement (or ones very much like it) time and time again.

What is meant by it? Exactly?

At no time in my life as a feminist and when I am around avowed feminists have I heard this proposed as a "feminist" ideal. Or even a "feminist idea".

I'm confused.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

If a woman wants to stay at home and fill the traditional woman role, more power to her! If a man wants to be the breadwinner and be the head of the household, right on! But just because I'm a female, doesn't mean I should act a certain way to be considered a complete woman. For some women, following traditional roles is completely foreign to them and they feel out of place. But they are still women...right?


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

then I'm weird.. am I the only one that actually *loves* to dress my dd in beautiful dresses, she goes everywhere dressed in a dress because she LOVES dresses. maybe my fault, but what can I say, she looks just darling. and my son, I dress him in little jeans and polo shirt and a golf vest.. yes, I know, how corny, but what is wrong with that? I agree with the statement that modern feminism has hurt women.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

LMB, my daughter loved dresses when she was little, and it was laa she wore. She would put a pair of shorts on underneath her dress and go on the monkey bars, and jungle gym.

She also loved dolls, and my boys have tonka trucks (but have played with dolls also).

But because my daughter loves lipgloss does not limit her potential, to be and do whatever her hearts desire. Brain surgeon? no problem. Jackhammer operator, fine. sahm, ok with me. as long as its what she wants, and not what society imposes on her, or limits her, than so be it.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetbaby3*
...But because my daughter loves lipgloss does not limit her potential, to be and do whatever her hearts desire. Brain surgeon? no problem. Jackhammer operator, fine. sahm, ok with me. as long as its what she wants, and not what society imposes on her, or limits her, than so be it.











And, for what it is worth,







I am a "raging" feminist who loves wearing dresses. Slinky dresses. Sexy dresses. _Extravagantly_ sexy dresses. Dresses that if I turned up in your living room at a party would probably have you glaring daggers at me if you didn't run for the hills. I throw shade big-time. :nana:

My favorite women role models when I was little were Amelia Erhardt and Mae West.

And, I think a kilt is the sexiest attire on the face of the earth for men. Scottish kilts, Irish kilts, Greek kilts, etc., etc. Those are SKIRTS!!







Does that make the wearer a "girl"? Hmm?

And would somebody please answer my question about what exactly is "becoming a man"?


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

And would somebody please answer my question about what exactly is "becoming a man"?

I'd like the answer to that as well.


----------



## librarymom (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
I used to think that the role of the sexes was cultural until I had children, one of each.


Is this all you had (one of each)?

I will proceed as if the answer is yes, and if not, I will edit.

I think that lots of people think this, but if you had had three daughters, you would see that the point made in an earlier post (by umbrella) about more differences *within* a gender than *between* genders is definitely a valid one. There are personality differences betwen a son and a daughter that some people attribute to "being a boy" or "being a girl". But if they had two daughters, they would just be "different as night and day".

Does this make any sense?


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *librarymom*
I think that lots of people think this, but if you had had three daughters, you would see that the point made in an earlier post (by umbrella) about more differences *within* a gender than *between* genders is definitely a valid one. There are personality differences betwen a son and a daughter that some people attribute to "being a boy" or "being a girl". But if they had two daughters, they would just be "different as night and day".

Does this make any sense?

Very clear to me! I never heard it put quite that way before. Thank you!


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sohj*
I have heard this statement (or ones very much like it) time and time again.

What is meant by it? Exactly?

At no time in my life as a feminist and when I am around avowed feminists have I heard this proposed as a "feminist" ideal. Or even a "feminist idea".

I'm confused.









MMM, well, sohj, have you ever had a woman for a boss?

A woman for a doctor?

A woman for an OB/GYN?

A woman for a "MEDwife"?

A woman for a professor?

I have and I avoided most like the plague. There is no reasoning with them. It is their way or no way. I have had women's studies courses, and believe me, I know what the early feminist movement was. The current feminist movement is about soaking up testosterone.

If you still do not know what I mean, then you just are hiding under a rock.







Women are still discriminated against and will continue to be unless they decide they are men since this is a man's world. Modern Feminism has not and will not change that.


----------



## librarymom (May 25, 2004)

But applejuice--have you never had a bad male boss? doctor? professor?? Hard to believe. Have you written off *all* male bosses, doctors and professors along with the females? Who's left?

I again would say that surely there are bad apples among both groups, regardless of gender.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
MMM, well, sohj, have you ever had a woman for a boss?

Yes. One bad. Several very good. I've had several very good male bosses, too. I'm fairly aware of people's characters and I am VERY aware of mine and can usually tell if I can get along with someone for the long haul. I've turned jobs down.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
A woman for a doctor?

Yes. And I have had nearly universally HORRIBLE experiences with ALL doctors, male or female. Except one (and a totally odd clinic who I only happened on recently, but they aren't universally perfect, either). And he is, actually a male doctor. But, I don't think he is OK because he is male, but because he is intelligent and well-rounded and fairly open-minded.

Anyhow, I've blamed my horrible experiences with the medical profession on medical training and philosophy. Maybe I'm just sticking my head in the sand on that one, but, hey, the men were just as bad as the women.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
A woman for an OB/GYN?

Yes. See answer above.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
A woman for a "MEDwife"?

There are male midwives?









Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
A woman for a professor?

Yes, as a matter of fact. And many of them were terrific. I had a slew of great female teachers at my very expensive high school. They could pay enough to get university level teachers. Everyone had a PhD. Many, when they left my high school, went to university posts. Two of my latin teachers, my russian history teacher, one of my music teachers, my french teacher, my algebra teachers and so on. (We had decent male teachers, too.....although my overall least favorite teacher was a male...he taught Chemistry very poorly.)

THEN, when I was in university, I had several great professors. Some of them were female. I didn't have a _bad_ female professor. Lin Ferrand taught me Fluid Mechanics. Claire McKnight taught a transportation class. Most of the professors in my classes were male. My least favorite professor was another transportation person and he was male.

I also got to sit in on bell hooks' (the lower case is on purpose, that is how she writes her name) class. I never could actually fit one of her literature classes into my engineering schedule, but I did sneak in occasionally. Of course, we didn't exactly have a close relationship.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
I have and I avoided most like the plague. There is no reasoning with them. It is their way or no way. I have had women's studies courses, and believe me, I know what the early feminist movement was. The current feminist movement is about soaking up testosterone.

If you still do not know what I mean, then you just are hiding under a rock.







Women are still discriminated against and will continue to be unless they decide they are men since this is a man's world. Modern Feminism has not and will not change that.

I guess I'm hiding under a rock somewhere. Since I am a geotechnical engineer working on a hard-rock tunnel project, that is appropriate.







It is probably Manhattan Schist.

Women _are_ discriminated against. We agree.









I'm just confused by what you wrote. You seem to be either blaming feminists for this, or claiming that feminists are living in a dream world to think that they could ever get equal pay for equal work.

Or, it is a "man's world" and we just have to all accept it.

Or, we all have to LITERALLY become men -- ie: have a sex change operation -- to get equal pay for equal work.

Which early feminist movement are you considering "the early feminist movement"? Which time period?

And modern feminism is certainly NOT about "soaking up testosterone".

It is _still_ about fundamental things like being treated fairly in a court of law during a divorce trial, or getting equal pay for equal work, or not being blamed for being a victim of violence.

We did get the vote, but since then, the movement has been about basically the same stuff as above.









And, please, what exactly is "becoming a man"? Could I have specific examples of this?


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

I am still







over "becoming a man" and, please, I'm totally serious, would someone describe this? With examples?


----------



## the sunshine (Jul 31, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
Before feminism, you wouldn't have heard that a homemaker with a college degree was wasting her education. I think that groups like NOW hurt women when they put their focus totally on women who work and not on stuff like getting absent dads to pay child support or getting social security credits for years that moms are home with their kids.


I seem to remember the attitude that women shouldn't even
_bother_ going to college, since they were just going to get married, stay home and have kids. So yes, you would have heard that " a homemaker with a college degree was wasting her education."

Groups like NOW _are_ working on stuff like getting absent dads to pay support, and are very concerned about women's financial situation after retirement. It was probably NOW or a similar group who first brought the idea of ss credits for mothers to the forefront.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

you know what, I was thinking about this today (and telling my dh about this thread) and he said that we don't realize what men miss out on.
they are looked down upon for wanting to be by their children, they are not allowed to be sensitive, or they are called weird or homosexual. I think it's true, i remember my brother, when he was in school, he has always been very sensitive and they bullied him calling him a homosexual, until today, it has truly traumatized him. it's hard for men too, because society expects so much of them, and they can't cry when they feel like crying, they are tought they must be tough and leave feelings aside, and use their head and not their heart. men are supposed to be the bread-winner in this society, and people still think it's weird to see a SAHD. my dh would LOVE to be a SAHD, (except I want to be a SAHM) he's that kind of guy, but they have to face many obstacles every day, because society expects so much of them. anything outside of that is weird and strange.

I just feel modern feminism is quite selfish and it seems rather bitter, to me.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

loving-my-babies: I feel for your husband. He IS indeed just as trapped by society into the "masculine" role as so many many women are into the "feminine" role.

I'd like to point out that in my post on the first page of this thread, I linked to two posts I had made about feminism on a thread some months back. The second one addressed this EXACT issue.

To save you the time of going back, here is it cut-and-pasted from the other thread:

Quote:

On the topic of sexism (or feminism or humanism), I have always felt that the so-called traditional male and female roles in the family are just as discriminatory against men as against women. .......

Why am I going on about this in this thread? Because I have spent much of my life around men and have listened to them. (I am the only female tunneling engineer I know of. I spend hours every day in the company of men doing very, very dangerous jobs. Most of them do not try and date me. I am the ball-busting, quality-assuring, pain in the a$$ who does not sign their paychecks.) I have met countless numbers of men who are miserable in their (very traditionally masculine) jobs. They often do hard and boring work for abusive bosses who, in my very personal opinion, deserve to be run over by a freight train. I have seen the typical man put up with far more than I have seen the typical woman in a similar position put up with. I have formed a theory that women are actually better risk-takers than men because they are quicker to cut their losses and RUN...at least in the workplace. (I have, also, volunteered on a Crisis Line for victims of domestic abuse, so I know what can happen in that situation as well.)

I have seen men who work themselves into an early grave running a business, working in an office, working a construction job, a factory job, in a mine JUST TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR FAMILIES GOING AND LIVE UP TO THIS OUTRAGEOUSLY SEXIST IDEA THAT THEY HAVE TO BE THE PROVIDER NO MATTER WHAT OR THEY ARE LESS THAN A MAN!

If I took part in society's dictum that the man must be the provider to the exclusion of his own hopes and dreams, just like if I followed the female version of this dictum and surpressed my own talents and hopes and dreams forever, I would hate myself. I cannot force my husband to do this for me. It is bad enough when he volunteers to do something like that for a short period to make something work out. It breaks my heart.

And it hurts when I see it in other men. There is my friend "X", who when he was in high school wanted to be a mechanical engineer. He also, unfortunately, was, like many teenagers, horney and, also like many, many teenagers, woefully ignorant of birth control. His girfriend got pregnant. He felt (sensibly) responsible. They got married before out of high school. She dropped out (she was a junior). He graduated (he was already a senior and close to graduating) and got a job as a carpenter. He was the sole support of the family. This is 20 years ago. He is a good carpenter. I loved working with him. He is intelligent and imaginative and precise. They are no longer together. He still regrets not having gone to university and studying engineering. He is unlikely to take that leap now to go and study. It is intimidating to go when you are so much older than the rest of the class. She left him about six years into the marriage and moved away. They were, I think, too young to have learned how to talk to each other and to understand themselves and each other.

For me, feminism is humanism and is about understanding the whole picture of that story. It is not just about a bad choice made by two people. It is also about the way we raise our children, how we teach them to value themselves and TO KNOW THEMSELVES. How we teach them to strive to understand their friends. How society shapes our expectations of ourselves and of others. I try to see everyone as an individual.
...
For me, feminism is about liberation of everyone.

Just food for thought. You may want to reconsider the last line of your post.

_Edited to add: l.m.b., I don't know what your husband's employement circumstances are, but have you considered rearranging things so that both of you can each have time being the stay-at-home parent? I think it is wonderful that both of you are so devoted to your children and I think it would be great for the little ones to get as much time as possible with both of you.







_


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

sohj.. but I DO think many posts here reflect bitterness. i loved your post.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Thanks, loving-my-babies.

We cross-posted when I was editing. Check out the last bit, in italics, of my post.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

LMB---

I totally agree that our society is just as damaging towards men as towards women (albiet in different ways). I feel, though, my fight for "feminism" does my DS just as much good as my DD.

I'm confused about your "bitter" comment, though--- after all, couldn't your DH be termed "bitter"?


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

tiredx2: no, I don't think dh is bitter, because he is not going over and over on how the world is so unfair, how we are mistreated. he said it once, it's reality. period.

and sohj... dh is an engineer, he loves his job, actually, that's what he went to college for (civil industrial engineering) he sometimes feels like it's unfair that women get to have such a stronger bond with our children. but he doesn't dwell on it, I mean, it's how it is. yk?


----------



## the sunshine (Jul 31, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
tiredx2: no, I don't think dh is bitter, because he is not going over and over on how the world is so unfair, how we are mistreated. he said it once, it's reality. period.



And women say it more than once to try to enact change, and it's *bitter??* No fair.

You know, men are the ones who set up this system. Men can sure help to change it.

I'm not bitter. I'm frustrated. Once your eyes are opened, you can't go back to where you were, where you were blissfully ignorant of it all.

I think a lot of people here dont' understand feminism. They must be getting their definition from rush or dr. laura.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the sunshine*
I'm not bitter. I'm frustrated. Once your eyes are opened, you can't go back to where you were, where you were blissfully ignorant of it all.


I agree with this. i guess it all seems rather bitter, but the word i mean is really frustrated. i have experienced that feeling of opening my eyes and then not wanting to go back to ignorance. yk?

but not all men creating the "system" my dh is certainly not one of them why does HE have to hear it? yk? not all men are guilty here...


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Sohj, two thumbs up. I love your posts on this thread.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
...he said that we don't realize what men miss out on...they are looked down upon for wanting to be by their children, they are not allowed to be sensitive, or they are called weird or homosexual....I just feel modern feminism is quite selfish and it seems rather bitter, to me.

Well, women are frequently called "selfish" and "bitter" where a man would be called "assertive" and "frustrated."

But who do you think is working to change the things that frustrate your husband? Is the patriachy (or, in otherwords, the powers that are in charge now) is working to change this? I think not. Have you ever heard the term "PHMT"? It's a feminist term that means "Patriachy Hurts Men Too." Feminists are aware that they way things are now is damaging to _all_ of us.

It's _feminism_ that spurred many countries to give fathers paid paternity leave. It's _feminism_ that is fighting for women to be able to work full time, for full pay, so that their parenter (male or female) can choose to stay home with children full time. It's _feminism_ that is fighting for both women and men to brake out of their traditional, too often ill-fitting roles and to be what each individual wants to be. It's _feminism_ that taught me that my son being sensitive, or even gay, is okay.

Feminism is fighting each of those fights and yet all you see is "bitter" and "selfish" women??? How is that possible?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
...but not all men creating the "system" my dh is certainly not one of them why does HE have to hear it? yk? not all men are guilty here...

So who should hear it? Shall we dig up the dead and yell at them?

And, yes, all men are guilty to a certain degree. Just as all whites are guilty and all Americans are gulity and everyone who can eat is guilty when others are starving. Virtually no one's hands are completely clean. It's that knowledge that can inspire each of us to pitch in to clean up the mess left before us by the previous generations.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
...Have you ever heard the term "PHMT"? It's a feminist term that means "Patriarchy Hurts Men Too."...

Just wanted to emphasize this.


----------



## girlndocs (Mar 12, 2004)

loving~my~babies --

(nak here)

you describe your dh feeling trapped, overwhelmed, sometimes bitter about the demanding, often burdensome role society casts on him as a man. i imagine at times carrying so much responsibility to "be a man" must feel like terrible pressure on him. i don't believe it's right for us to place that pressure on men just because of their sex.

earlier you spoke of dressing your children. i remember you specifically said how cute your son was, that he looked "just like a little man". but l~m~b, he's not a little man. he's a *child*. (a toddler? I don't remember.)

i'm asking you now, gently, not critically, do you not see the connection here? do you not see how when we already start talking about small children being "little men" that we're starting them on the road to the kind of pressure your dh feels, to live up to that superman role? can you not look at the way adults describe children, dress them and expect different things of them, and realize that they shape the way those children see themselves -- their responsibilities, their capabilities?

as a feminist, one of my most burning desires is to remove the stereotyping so that my son and yours can choose to be equal partners in parenting their future children. so they can choose to be stay-at-home dads. so they can insist on & take paid leave when their babies are born without having it be career suicide. so they can be passionately in love with their babies without being ridiculed for it or thought less than "real" men.

hand in hand with this goes the equally burning desire to remove the stereotyping so that my daughter and yours never have to feel like less of a woman or mother if they work outside the home. so they never, ever doubt their ability to conquer whatever field of learning they desire, so they are never discriminated against in the job market. so they can find a life partner who deserves them with dignity and confidence, so they can build a family where all types of work are equally valued, so they can choose when & how to birth their babies. then and only then will they be able to *share* parenting and generating income with their future partners. one cannot happen without the other.


----------



## snugglemama (Nov 29, 2001)

Going back a bit loving my babies......

Quote:

maybe I am blind.. but I have never seen such limitations, I have never felt limited because I am a woman, I feel I can be what I wish to be. period.
So you're saying that you feel comfortable and safe walking in any neighborhood you wish, alone, at night? Or walking alone at night in your own neighborhood, for that matter? You don't feel on extra guard while walking through a dark parking garage, and hurry up to get into your car?


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *girlndocs*
loving~my~babies --

(nak here)

you describe your dh feeling trapped, overwhelmed, sometimes bitter about the demanding, often burdensome role society casts on him as a man. i imagine at times carrying so much responsibility to "be a man" must feel like terrible pressure on him. i don't believe it's right for us to place that pressure on men just because of their sex.

earlier you spoke of dressing your children. i remember you specifically said how cute your son was, that he looked "just like a little man". but l~m~b, he's not a little man. he's a *child*. (a toddler? I don't remember.)

i'm asking you now, gently, not critically, do you not see the connection here? do you not see how when we already start talking about small children being "little men" that we're starting them on the road to the kind of pressure your dh feels, to live up to that superman role? can you not look at the way adults describe children, dress them and expect different things of them, and realize that they shape the way those children see themselves -- their responsibilities, their capabilities?

as a feminist, one of my most burning desires is to remove the stereotyping so that my son and yours can choose to be equal partners in parenting their future children. so they can choose to be stay-at-home dads. so they can insist on & take paid leave when their babies are born without having it be career suicide. so they can be passionately in love with their babies without being ridiculed for it or thought less than "real" men.

hand in hand with this goes the equally burning desire to remove the stereotyping so that my daughter and yours never have to feel like less of a woman or mother if they work outside the home. so they never, ever doubt their ability to conquer whatever field of learning they desire, so they are never discriminated against in the job market. so they can find a life partner who deserves them with dignity and confidence, so they can build a family where all types of work are equally valued, so they can choose when & how to birth their babies. then and only then will they be able to *share* parenting and generating income with their future partners. one cannot happen without the other.

I agree with you. I can't elaborate now, because I have to change ds's diaper, but I'll be back in a little bit and elaborate..








's


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:

earlier you spoke of dressing your children. i remember you specifically said how cute your son was, that he looked "just like a little man". but l~m~b, he's not a little man. he's a *child*. (a toddler? I don't remember.)
ok. Vincent (my son) is 5 months old. I admit I'm not a feminist, I dress my boy like a "man", big deal. My dd loves her dresses, big deal. I don't see the problem.. I said myself I don't think both men and women should be the same.

Quote:

i'm asking you now, gently, not critically, do you not see the connection here? do you not see how when we already start talking about small children being "little men" that we're starting them on the road to the kind of pressure your dh feels, to live up to that superman role? can you not look at the way adults describe children, dress them and expect different things of them, and realize that they shape the way those children see themselves -- their responsibilities, their capabilities?
I agree. but how can you shut yourself OUT of society? I agree with what you are saying. but at least in our case, we are part of society and I want my want my children to be well adjusted, to avoid THEM problems in the future.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

and.. please look at our pictures! you're gonna tell me he doesn't look ADORABLE AND SO, SO DARN CUTE in his little man vest?? c'mon!


----------



## girlndocs (Mar 12, 2004)

sigh.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
MMM, well, sohj, have you ever had a woman for a boss?

A woman for a doctor?

A woman for an OB/GYN?

A woman for a "MEDwife"?

A woman for a professor?

I have and I avoided most like the plague. There is no reasoning with them. It is their way or no way. I have had women's studies courses, and believe me, I know what the early feminist movement was. The current feminist movement is about soaking up testosterone.

If you still do not know what I mean, then you just are hiding under a rock.







Women are still discriminated against and will continue to be unless they decide they are men since this is a man's world. Modern Feminism has not and will not change that.

By the way, this didn't answer my question.

I answered this post; however, I would still like an answer to BOTH questions I asked on this thread:
(1) What is "becoming a man"?
and
(2) If a woman does nothing else but bring daughters into the world, then her daughters think their mission in life is to have and raise children and they also only have daughters and on and on ad infinitum -- then, when, exactly, are any of these people going to have any effect on the rest of the world outside their family? _[This I asked on the first page in answer to your first post on the thread.]_

Thanks.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

lol


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sohj*
...If a woman does nothing else but bring daughters into the world, then her daughters think their mission in life is to have and raise children and they also only have daughters and on and on ad infinitum -- then, when, exactly, are any of these people going to have any effect on the rest of the world outside their family? ...

I don't agree with this premise at all. It's the patriarchy that has taught us that women raising their children only benefits that family. It's as if thoughtful, compassionate, loving adults spring forth fully formed from the Earth. Raising children is hard, vital, important _work_ that benefits us _all_. I'm not interested in a feminism that only measures women's success by how far they (& their daughters) get away from home and children.

The acknowledgement that child-raising is valuable work that has tangible benefits for all of society will, as a happy by-product, help enact the oft voiced feminist ideal of "men doing more work around the home." That's has remained nothing more than a distant dream for most women. Instead, now women are expected to do paid and un-paid work. My years as at home mother counted for $0 as far as benefits like social security are concerned. I endured years of "So, when are you going back to work?" while I was working harder than I ever had at a paid job. Is it any wonder men are not rushing in to get on that "good deal?"

Of course, and I hate that I even have to say this, it was worth it. Raising children is worth it. But men are not raised to be as self-sacraficing as women. I don't think we can call a movement successful that has only convinced men to settle for the bad lot women have been given. Let's raise women and what has traditionally been known as "women's work" up. Let's make it something that girls _and boys_ will be proud to aspire too, and that they will not financially punished for pursuing.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
I don't agree with this premise at all. It's the patriarchy that has taught us that women raising their children only benefits that family. It's as if thoughtful, compassionate, loving adults spring forth fully formed from the Earth. Raising children is hard, vital, important _work_ that benefits us _all_. I'm not interested in a feminism that only measures women's success by how far they (& their daughters) get away from home and children.

The acknowledgement that child-raising is valuable work that has tangible benefits for all of society will, as a happy by-product, help enact the oft voiced feminist ideal of "men doing more work around the home." That's has remained nothing more than a distant dream for most women. Instead, now women are expected to do paid and un-paid work. My years as at home mother counted for $0 as far as benefits like social security are concerned. I endured years of "So, when are you going back to work?" while I was working harder than I ever had at a paid job. Is it any wonder men are not rushing in to get on that "good deal?"

Of course, and I hate that I even have to say this, it was worth it. Raising children is worth it. But men are not raised to be as self-sacraficing as women. I don't think we can call a movement successful that has only convinced men to settle for the bad lot women have been given. Let's raise women and what has traditionally been known as "women's work" up. Let's make it something that girls _and boys_ will be proud to aspire too, and that they will not financially punished for pursuing.

Just a clarification. I think what was being argued against was that childrearing is the best/only job for women. Not that it is not a real job, but that you can be a good parent and have a job. Or you can be a great, fulfilled person and "only" be a parent. BUT, if you believe a woman's place is in the home and you teach your (exclusively female) children the same thing... see what I mean?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Just a clarification. I think what was being argued against was that childrearing is the best/only job for women. Not that it is not a real job, but that you can be a good parent and have a job. Or you can be a great, fulfilled person and "only" be a parent. BUT, if you believe a woman's place is in the home and you teach your (exclusively female) children the same thing... see what I mean?

I agree with that. What I was responding to was this:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sohj*
...then, when, exactly, are any of these people going to have any effect on the rest of the world outside their family? ...

As if mothering (or fathering) only impacts the people within a family. How absurd! Good parents have a lot more of a positive effect on the "rest of the world" than a lot of the people I know who have paying-careers. It is, in part, this myth that mothers only effect their children that is used to keep mothers from obtaining any kind of finanical compensation or recognition.

But I completely agree that it must be freely chosen. Forcing women into motherhood has not been good for women. Excluding men from fully caring for their children has not been good for men. And neither of those things has been good for children.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Thanks for the clarification. I totally see what you are saying now.

Families can definately influence the world around them. That just doesn't have to be your "only" contribution, so to speak.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

from LMB

Quote:

I agree with what you are saying. but at least in our case, we are part of society and I want my want my children to be well adjusted, to avoid THEM problems in the future.
Here we are discussing how this current society harms men and women Both, but your definition of "well adjusted" is that they fit themselves INTO the mold that has proven harmful.









That doesn't sound well adjusted to me. To me well adjusted adults recognize the harm done by the stereotypes and limitations and work AROUND them, and also work to END them. Being a good little cog no matter how bad it hurts is not My idea of well adjusted. Masochism is no one's ideal that I've ever heard of.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Thank you Meiri

I certainly don't consider myself to be doing my children long-term harm by co-sleeping, extended nursing, etc... Arguing that those "extreme" behaviors will end w/poorly adjusted problem children in the future is disturbing, to me, on this board.


----------



## girlndocs (Mar 12, 2004)

thank you, meiri, tiredx2, for articulating what i was unable to pinpoint!

what is that saying? "it is no indication of health to be well-adjusted in a profoundly sick society"? something like that.

now i just have to figure out how raising nonstereotyped kids is "shutting them out of society". could you clarify, l-m-b?

ETA: and will someone *please* explain the "becoming men" thing? it's driving me batty too!!!


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I just want to add to my post about women in power...

a REAL LIFE SITUATION

...that I have had a problem with SSA for nearly a year now. The problem originated with a very cruel woman worker who took full advantage of my vulnerablility. I have contacted my U. S. Senators who are women, Boxer and Feinstein. I have made no headway with their office. I have spoken with their offices ad nauseum. WOMEN workers in their offices have told me, "to go tell someone who cares."

I think women in power is turning out to be a bad thing. I am certainly getting no satisfaction. Extremely frustrating to be told to go away when you know you are correct.


----------



## the sunshine (Jul 31, 2003)

Oh please. How many men in power are going out of their way to help you?

Sheesh. You take whatever men dish out, but the first time it's a woman that means women suck? How many women say "I would never want a woman boss. I had one once and she was meeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaan."

Everyone in government has to play the game. Maybe what others here are saying is, we don't WANT to play that game anymore, but we have to get women there in enough numbers, and women who WANT to change it there in enough numbers, to actually effect that change.

Five women in a congress of 300 or however many it is, isn't enough to do anything.

And frankly, a lot of women in politics today are pretty conservative republican for some reason. ( I have my theories but won't go into it now)


----------



## girlndocs (Mar 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the sunshine*
Everyone in government has to play the game. Maybe what others here are saying is, we don't WANT to play that game anymore, but we have to get women there in enough numbers, and women who WANT to change it there in enough numbers, to actually effect that change.)

And when there's, as you said, 5 women in a congress of 300 or however many it is, how "safe" do you think it is for them to risk their positions going against the grain? Women in government have a LOT more to lose by challenging the status quo than men do -- men have some leeway where women become "loose cannons" (and their careers become very brief







: )

Goes for other careers too. Women in business have to be *more* ruthless than men or it's proof that women can't succeed at business because they're too featherheaded. Women in medicine have to be *more* clinical & detached or it's proof that women don't make good doctors because they're too illogical & emotional. Women in literature, art, education have to stay within parameters developed by men through the ages, or they're bitter man-haters.

Another interesting theory is that women in high positions today *got* there by working their way up within a sexist system. They may have a lot emotionally invested in defending that system because whatever success they have, they achieved within it, so to invalidate the system may seem to them like invalidating their achievements. Don't remember where I came across that theory but it makes sense to me. The author pointed out that this might often account for the hostility of many "older" women towards the feminist movement as well.

Applejuice -- come on! You encountered a handful of women who happen to be jerks, and happen to also be in positions of power, so therefore it's bad for women (& the world, it sounds like) for women to be equally empowered? Yeah, must be the fact that women aren't fit for power. Couldn't POSSIBLY be that the system they're assimilated into just sucks


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Thank you Meiri

I certainly don't consider myself to be doing my children long-term harm by co-sleeping, extended nursing, etc... Arguing that those "extreme" behaviors will end w/poorly adjusted problem children in the future is disturbing, to me, on this board.


I don't either. I do all these things, and think the lack of these things, cosleeping, extended breastfeeding, is what creates poorly adjusted children. because this is where attachment begins. in the family bed, at the breast, in mother's arms when baby cries. I agree with you, tiredx2! and I have been thinking about having my children adjust to society, and to some extent, you are right. I was debating with some mamas the topic of homeschooling and I was saying how I will maybe homeschool my children and they were telling me my kids would not be adjusted and normal, well, what's so good about being normal in this society? I am already making my children different by not mutilating my son's genitals or abandoning them in their crib to cry, so I guess I am part of this group. I don't think doing what everyone else does just because will lead you anywhere. so I guess I changed my mind on that. unfortunately it's hard sometimes to go against the flow.


----------



## girlndocs (Mar 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
it's hard sometimes to go against the flow.

Amen!


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I don't either. I do all these things, and think the lack of these things, cosleeping, extended breastfeeding, is what creates poorly adjusted children. because this is where attachment begins. in the family bed, at the breast, in mother's arms when baby cries. I agree with you, tiredx2! and I have been thinking about having my children adjust to society, and to some extent, you are right. I was debating with some mamas the topic of homeschooling and I was saying how I will maybe homeschool my children and they were telling me my kids would not be adjusted and normal, well, what's so good about being normal in this society? I am already making my children different by not mutilating my son's genitals or abandoning them in their crib to cry, so I guess I am part of this group. I don't think doing what everyone else does just because will lead you anywhere. so I guess I changed my mind on that. unfortunately it's hard sometimes to go against the flow.
Thanks for clarifying that. I understand where you are coming from (did that change over the course of this thread, or do you mean it has changed in the scheme of things?).


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

tiredx: i have always coslept and everything else, I just never realized it was related to this subject as well. I have learned a lot from you guys too


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

LMB---

You must feel loved! I don't think I've ever seen someone w/2 DDDCs at once!


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

i do!


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Quote:

I have had women's studies courses, and believe me, I know what the early feminist movement was. The current feminist movement is about soaking up testosterone.

If you still do not know what I mean, then you just are hiding under a rock. Women are still discriminated against and will continue to be unless they decide they are men since this is a man's world. Modern Feminism has not and will not change that.
Huh? If you broaden your horizons beyond liberal feminism (which, very broadly speaking, seeks legal equality for women and, IMO, does little to change the underpinnings of our present society, thus leading to the criticism that it requires women to "become like men," so to speak), then I think you'll find a rich discourse on the underpinnings of gender, on so-called "women's work," on so-called "gendered" values, and on the transformation of society. Not endorsing any particular view, check out works written over the past 30 years or so by Judy Butler, Allison Jaggar, Shulamith Firestone, Nancy Hartsock, Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich, Nancy Chodorow, and Luce Irigaray, among many, many others, for a broader view on what constitutes "feminism" and "feminist thought."


----------



## leavesarebrown (Apr 22, 2003)

New q for this thread...

Did any of you break from the faith of your upbringing BECAUSE OF your feminist ideals?


----------



## ErikaDP (Jan 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
I was asking myself this today. I see there are lots of feminists here and I was curious as to what that meant. Not that I don't know what feminism is, but really.. what is it?? sorry if this questions is completely stupid but I am wondering this, I don't know, is it that women are better than men?
please educate me!

Hello LMB,
I always find discussions about Feminism interesting.
I come from a family of many generations of working mothers. Most out of necessity and for a very few, just for the joy it brought to their lives. I have belonged to both groups at different times in my marriage.
To me, Feminism is not about working vs. staying at home, rather it is about being able to be supported and supportive in whatever you decide to do with your life as a woman. And it is about making sure that the female perspective is heard and honored(sometimes, I think this is the hardest part of being a feminist!).
I am also a unschooling mother of a son, very aware of how my life with him is going to affect how he sees the women in his life. And I still proudly call myself a feminist.
Here is my story.
For many years in my marriage, I worked outside the home. And for some of those years I was the primary bread winner. I enjoyed working and my family greatly benefited from my contributions to our household. In the years that we were both working full time, my husband and I sought to provide a good balance between being parents and being providers. The choices that we made fit our family very well for a long time.
Then, about ten years ago, things began to change.
We found that it was getting harder to find the balance that had come so easily in the past. We were finding it harder to be a family in a way that was comfortable and enjoyable.
We both started working less and that seems to help for a while. But there was still a feeling on my part that I wanted something different.
I wanted to take some time to see what I could do to make our lives better. So I gave myself the opportunity to stop working all together.(It was a choice I could make-I was the owner/boss of a small business). And my immediate family was supportive of my plans.
At first, there were many adjustments we had to make to our lifestyle. It was very odd getting use to having the time to do what needed to be done. Financially, much to my surprise, the change wasn't as drastic as I thought it would be.
However, the biggest adjustment(and surprise) came in dealing with a lot of negative comments early on from extended family and friends who thought that I was taking a great risk by being at home (especially the women in my life).
But now, years later, it just feels right and I am able to support other women friends in finding the balance that is going to work for them.
The same thing happened when I started unschooling. I had to make another adjustment. But this one was different. Because I was unschooling, I began for the first time making a conscious effort to present to my children my life choices as just that - choices I made as a individual woman. I let them see everyday that as feminist, there is more than one way to live your life as a woman.
They always knew where I stood on the issues, but now they were seeing a daily example of how different one woman's life can be. And they also get to see me as a role model for some one who is living their best life regardless of stereotypes.
Unschooling also has given us the gift of time together as a family, to seek and explore what we all want out of our lives.
For me, that is what being a feminist is, knowing that you can do what works for you and find support in your choice.
I don't expect total agreement among all women, just the opportunity and the challenge to live our best lives as women.
Understanding that your life can and probably will take many different paths and having the equal chance to live your dreams, what ever they are, to me is the best definition of feminism. and of unschooling.
I think that is why I am proud to call myself a feminist. Thanks for a great topic.


----------



## yeah yeah yeah (Aug 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
Before feminism, you wouldn't have heard that a homemaker with a college degree was wasting her education.


I'd suggest reading some magazines from the 50's before making untrue blanket statements. That kind of thing was said all the time--and used as an arguement against educating women at all.


----------



## AahRee (Jan 23, 2003)

What feminism has become is a different thing, but what it *is* to me (or, what it should be) is a recognition of the unique, precious and inheritantly worthy role of women and girls in families and in society in general. It's also a recognition that women are equal in every way to men, but also different, by design, with different strengths, talents, wisdom, instincts, etc.

I think the principle failing of feminism (referring to where it has gone, not what I see it as) is that it has failed to appreciate and celebrate the differences between men and women. Different has been construed to mean better or worse, instead of equal, but different. I think it's terribly sad that women today feel (in a lot of instances) that they have to be just like men to be successful.


----------



## yeah yeah yeah (Aug 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AahRee*
What feminism has become is a different thing, but what it *is* to me (or, what it should be) is a recognition of the unique, precious and inheritantly worthy role of women and girls in families and in society in general. It's also a recognition that women are equal in every way to men, but also different, by design, with different strengths, talents, wisdom, instincts, etc.

I think the principle failing of feminism (referring to where it has gone, not what I see it as) is that it has failed to appreciate and celebrate the differences between men and women. Different has been construed to mean better or worse, instead of equal, but different. I think it's terribly sad that women today feel (in a lot of instances) that they have to be just like men to be successful.


I think it's sadder that professional women are labled "cut throat Bitches" (all apologies for language) and sahm's are labled "lazy bon bon eaters."

I think it's sad that I have friends that aspire to be porn stars.

I think it's sad that we've never had a woman president.

And, I think that all of those things are an excellent reason to continue to raise the torch for feminism. While it may not be perfect, I can't think of an acceptable alternative.


----------



## ErikaDP (Jan 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yeah yeah yeah*
I think it's sadder that professional women are labled "cut throat Bitches" (all apologies for language) and sahm's are labled "lazy bon bon eaters."

I think it's sad that I have friends that aspire to be porn stars.

I think it's sad that we've never had a woman president.

And, I think that all of those things are an excellent reason to continue to raise the torch for feminism. While it may not be perfect, I can't think of an acceptable alternative.









Very well said!


----------



## Persephone (Apr 8, 2004)

Before I say anything, I haven't even looked at this thread. I like to reply before I read other's responses, because then I don't get all confused. But I have been thinking lately about what a feminist is, what MY definition of feminist is, and whether I care to define myself as one. I don't really like the idea of saying "I am ___." because people have all different ideas of what that means (as evidenced by the fact that this thread is 5 pages long).

But I think I will most likely have a different take on feminism, and I think it's something that needs to be said.

Most people think of feminism as the feminazi, man-hating type of feminism. I think most of us would agree that that's not really feminism, that's an extreme backlash to the years of oppression women have had. And I think in the beginning of the Women's Movement, that that extreme was needed to get the ball rolling. I think it was valuable. But nowadays, I think it does more harm than good. When I say I am a feminist, I mean that I think that women can do anything men can do. I mean that men and women are equal. I advocate for just treatment of women. I'm all for busting stereotypes. But when I say I'm a feminist, it also means I'm for WOMAN. I'm for what being feminine means. What does being feminine mean? Well, I have no clue really. I know what it means for me. Women and men are different. And that's ok. I would not want to be treated like a man. I want to be acknowledged and treated as a woman. Because it's pretty special to be a woman. Women have stronger lower bodies, more flexibility. They bleed once a month, if everything is healthy. They give birth. They think differently than men. We relate differently than men. Tons of books have been written on that subject. And that's totally ok.

I see a lot of gender bending, and boundary pushing, and I think that to some extent, that's good. I would like to see more men in traditional women's roles, and vice versa. But I also think that there should be a balance. Women can do some things so much better than men. And men can do some things so much better than women. (I know there will always be exceptions, but for simplicity's sake, I'm generalizing.) I think that men and women complement one another really well. And that should be acknowledged and celebrated.

And that is what I think being a feminist is about for me. Celebrating me in all my womanness. I love being a female, and I think it's pretty special.

Incindentally, I am also a masculinist. I celebrate the maleness of men. I think it's pretty special to be a man too. Though I'm quite glad I'm a female. But being female, I don't know too much about the male experience, so I stick to feminism for the most part.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Persephone*
... Women and men are different. And that's ok. I would not want to be treated like a man. I want to be acknowledged and treated as a woman. Because it's pretty special to be a woman. Women have stronger lower bodies, more flexibility. They bleed once a month, if everything is healthy. They give birth. They think differently than men. We relate differently than men. Tons of books have been written on that subject. And that's totally ok.... Women can do some things so much better than men. And men can do some things so much better than women....

If we removed the uterus and the penis from the equation for the moment, what can women do "so much better" than men? And what can men do "so much better" than women? I'm sincerely curious. In what way would you not want to be "treated like a man?" What does that mean?

From my pov, I don't think it does women (or men) a whole lot of good when we put a lot of time and effort into trying to decide what is "feminine" and what is "masculine." Who decides what is "feminine" and what is "gender bending"/"boundary pushing?" I think feminism is about saying, "I don't recognize our societies boundaries because they are inherently sexist so I'm going to define myself." And then supporting women (& men) when they do just that.


----------



## steff (Apr 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yeah yeah yeah*
I think it's sadder that professional women are labled "cut throat Bitches" (all apologies for language) and sahm's are labled "lazy bon bon eaters."

I think it's sad that I have friends that aspire to be porn stars.

I think it's sad that we've never had a woman president.

And, I think that all of those things are an excellent reason to continue to raise the torch for feminism. While it may not be perfect, I can't think of an acceptable alternative.

Just out of curiousity, The first example you gave. Is it really a feminist issue. If a man stays home and doesn't work he is called no good for nothing , lazy ect.. Certain jobs label you period.

The second example I don't get because men are porn stars just the same.

And the whole president issue, I would base that on the fact that women are made differently in every way. men are logical thinkers for the most part and women are more emotional for the most part. i think that is an advantage in some areas of life for us women that we think that way. Now if I had a women president that worked mostly on emotions and not logic than I would be scared for the country. Not saying that is the way it would be.

Now are women not allowed to run for president. Or do women just not want to.

Steff


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *steff*
And the whole president issue, I would base that on the fact that women are made differently in every way. men are logical thinkers for the most part and women are more emotional for the most part.Steff

Pardon? Can you please back this up with some scientific data?


----------



## steff (Apr 7, 2004)

Okay that was a major stereo type I did there. I figured I would get someone saying something.

I have read a few articles on how this stereotype is used.
Where there might not be a scietific difference in the actual logical vs emotional in eachother, articles tend to say a few things about it I can give you the link to a couple if you tell me how to do it. But scientifically our brains are different but what the difference affects is not determined.

Anyway my point wasn't that, it was there is no law against a women running for president. Why hasn't a women ran for president we are not being stopped to do so.

steff


----------



## alliwenk (Nov 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *steff*
I have read a few articles on how this stereotype is used. Where there might not be a scietific difference in the actual logical vs emotional in eachother, articles tend to say a few things about it I can give you the link to a couple if you tell me how to do it. But scientifically our brains are different but what the difference affects is not determined.

If you think of yourself as a nurturer, that's fine. But you can't, logically extrapolate that onto women per se. Fwiw my dh is definitely the "nurturer" in our marriage and I am far more "logical."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *steff*
Anyway my point wasn't that, it was there is no law against a women running for president. Why hasn't a women ran for president we are not being stopped to do so.

Do you *really* believe this??? Really? Wow.

Allison


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *steff*
Just out of curiousity, The first example you gave. Is it really a feminist issue. If a man stays home and doesn't work he is called no good for nothing , lazy ect.. Certain jobs label you period...

A woman staying home _to do the_ work of raising her children is not the same as a "man stays home and _doesn't work_."

And, yes, it's a feminist issue that being "agressive" is seen as a good thing for men in the business world where as the exact same trait is seen as being "b*tch" in women.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *steff*
...And the whole president issue, I would base that on the fact that women are made differently in every way. men are logical thinkers for the most part and women are more emotional for the most part. i think that is an advantage in some areas of life for us women that we think that way. Now if I had a women president that worked mostly on emotions and not logic than I would be scared for the country. ...

A few examples from around the world:
-Golda Meïr (Prime Minister of Israel 1969-1974)

-Farokhroo Parsa (Iran's Minister of Education from 1971-1979 when she was executed for her feminist beliefs)

-Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 1979-1990)

-Corazon Aquino (President of the Philippines 1986-1992)

From the United States:
-Senators Olympia J. Snowe, Elizabeth Dole, & Diane Feinstein

-Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, Barbara Jordan, Nancy Pelosi & Loretta Sanchez

It's misogyny that keeps women out of office. The belief that women are too weak, too emotional and/or too "different" from the traditional male leaders is sexist.

When I hear things like this from a man, it makes me so angry. When I hear it from a woman, it breaks my heart.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

Why hasn't a woman run for president? Shirley Chisholm

She was african american, no less!







What a woman! I have no way of knowing this, but it might be that every year hundreds of women that we never hear about run for president. Their campaigns just never get off the ground.

But I see your point. Why don't more women run? They don't want to. They are happy doing whatever else.

That is not to say that there aren't women being held back in politics because of equality issues. That is undeniable.

ETA, Shirley Chisholm said, "I stand before you today as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States. I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud. I am not the candidate of the women's movement of this country, although I am a woman, and I am equally proud of that. I am not the candidate of any political bosses or special interests. I am the candidate of the people."


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *journeymom*
...But I see your point. Why don't more women run? They don't want to. They are happy doing whatever else...

I can't tell if you are quoting something or if this is your personal belief? Do you personally believe that women are not running for president because they are "happy doing whatever else?"


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

No, not quoting anyone else. Just an observation. I should also be more specific, not so general. I should not have said "they" (women in entirety) don't want to. I might have said "many women".

Because most people, male and female equally, don't particularly care to run for president. I would bet a dollar that more men than women genuinely want to run for president, though.

More women run for office now than did in the past. More little girls are interested in being office holders than in the past. Someday we'll have a woman president. I'm just saying that it isn't all because of patriarchy or misogyny that is to blame for the dearth of women in office. There would be more women in office if more women were genuinely interested in it.

I am partly playing devil's advocate here. Just stating another point of view.


----------



## steff (Apr 7, 2004)

Quote:

Do you really believe this??? Really? Wow.
I'm sorry is there a law against women running for president.

What do you mean do i believe this?

steff


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *journeymom*
...Someday we'll have a woman president. I'm just saying that it isn't all because of patriarchy or misogyny that is to blame for the dearth of women in office. There would be more women in office if more women were genuinely interested in it...

Do you think there hasn't been an African American President (or Vice President) because African Americans are "happy doing whatever else?" Do you believe that there would be more African Americans in office if they were "genuinely interested in it?"


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:

Do you think there hasn't been an African American President (or Vice President) because African Americans are "happy doing whatever else?" Do you believe that there would be more African Americans in office if they were "genuinely interested in it?"
Do you think that's what I think? Especially in light of the link to Shirley Chisholm's bio I made?

Tell me if I'm wrong here. Are you thinking I have a "blame the victim" philosophy? I don't know how else to describe it. I am simply stating a fact. Out of 100,000 women, how many are sincerely interested in running for office? I don't know, really. And is that a bad thing? By what I said previously, have you surmised that I think women _should not_ run for office? That would not be correct.

I'll say it again, in case you missed it, "That is not to say that there aren't women being held back in politics because of equality issues. That is undeniable."


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *journeymom*
...I'll say it again, in case you missed it, "That is not to say that there aren't women being held back in politics because of equality issues. That is undeniable."

Here's what you also said:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *journeymom*
...But I see your point. Why don't more women run? They don't want to. They are happy doing whatever else...


Quote:


Originally Posted by *journeymom*
...I'm just saying that it isn't all because of patriarchy or misogyny that is to blame for the dearth of women in office. There would be more women in office if more women were genuinely interested in it...

That's why I'm confused about what it is you are trying to say.

And, yes, it seems to me you are blaming the victim. "More women would be in office if more women were _genuinely_ interested in it...." That sounds to me like you are saying that women, as a group, are not genuinely interested in being office and so that explains, at least in part, why they are not in office. So, it that were true, it would logically follow that the same is true of other vastly under-represented groups, like African Americans and gays and lesbians. And I just don't believe that.

The fact that little girls, and all children of color, grow up in a country where all 40+ Presidents and Vice Presidents have been caucasian, heterosexual, men is important. That this is still a patriachial, hetero-centric, caucasian-centric society explains, in my opinion, the absence of minorities in public office a lot more plausably than "lack of interest" ever could.

That's my opinion, and as far as I can tell, ideas like "They are happy doing whatever else" and "There would be more women in office if more women were genuinely interested in it" do not mesh with my opinion.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *steff*
Okay that was a major stereo type I did there. I figured I would get someone saying something.

I have read a few articles on how this stereotype is used.
Where there might not be a scietific difference in the actual logical vs emotional in eachother, articles tend to say a few things about it I can give you the link to a couple if you tell me how to do it. But scientifically our brains are different but what the difference affects is not determined.

Anyway my point wasn't that, it was there is no law against a women running for president. Why hasn't a women ran for president we are not being stopped to do so.

steff

So that means, then, that you weren't able to uncover any halfway-rigorous support for your original comment? A simply "yes" will suffice.

Oy vey.


----------



## ErikaDP (Jan 24, 2003)

Quote:
Originally Posted by steff
...And the whole president issue, I would base that on the fact that women are made differently in every way. men are logical thinkers for the most part and women are more emotional for the most part. i think that is an advantage in some areas of life for us women that we think that way. Now if I had a women president that worked mostly on emotions and not logic than I would be scared for the country. ...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
It's misogyny that keeps women out of office. The belief that women are too weak, too emotional and/or too "different" from the traditional male leaders is sexist.
When I hear things like this from a man, it makes me so angry. When I hear it from a woman, it breaks my heart.

It breaks my heart too







.
This is a very interesting thread. Thank you to the OP.


----------



## steff (Apr 7, 2004)

NO Marlena I said tell me how to link and I will give you the articles that I read. But that wasn't my main point.

The article say while it may not be a chemical difference, not know yet even tho the brains are made differently, they just don't know how it affects us differently. It goes on to say that, ex. you won't catch most men talking about how they cried desperatly the night before and they really don't know why? Or how they are feeling very emotional lately ect.. thatthey usually talk about more logical thing blah blah blah,

Anyway, pugmadmama, ErikaDP, I am sorry for breaking your hearts that I don't feel inferior to men just because there hasn't been a female president. Big freaking deal!!!

So my statement is a little harsh in regards to a women running the country. This is probly going to really snap your heart in two. I think that if a women has children she shouldn't run for president. Her focus should be on her children. Can she balance it out. Probly but what women would want to divide thier attention from the beautiful children she had just to run the damn country. I would have more satisfaction in raising my children to make the world a better place for them. What we do in life is much more meaningful and more satisfying and it deserves huge recongnition.
If feminist put more energy in glorifying what we do, do rather than what we don't do I think it would be a huge benefit in how people look at feminists in general. maybe at that point femenist can be more productive.

Steff


----------



## the sunshine (Jul 31, 2003)

Good lord. Is this 2004 or 1804?


----------



## the sunshine (Jul 31, 2003)

You know, it's a wonder any children make it to adulthood. Their mothers are so darned emotional and illogical. Makes for utter chaos in the household.


----------



## ErikaDP (Jan 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *steff*
Anyway, pugmadmama, ErikaDP, I am sorry for breaking your hearts that I don't feel inferior to men just because there hasn't been a female president. Big freaking deal!!!

Steff,
I think you missed the point. I don't feel inferior to men because there hasn't been a female president. What breaks my heart is to hear a woman say that all women are un-suited for a/any job solely based on their gender.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *steff*
So my statement is a little harsh in regards to a women running the country. This is probly going to really snap your heart in two. I think that if a women has children she shouldn't run for president. Her focus should be on her children. Can she balance it out. Probly but what women would want to divide thier attention from the beautiful children she had just to run the damn country. I would have more satisfaction in raising my children to make the world a better place for them. What we do in life is much more meaningful and more satisfying and it deserves huge recongnition.

Well I believe that your decision to be the primary care-giver of your children is the best one for you. But I also believe that true feminism comes into play when you are the one making that choice for yourself, not having that choice dictated to you because you are female. I also think that not all women have to be so singularly focused on either motherhood or career, just like many men that I know who have great careers, are excellent providers and nurturers(my husband happens to be one of them). I like knowing that when I see a SAHM she is there by thought and choice, not out of gender limitations.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *steff*
If feminists put more energy in glorifying what we do, do rather than what we don't do I think it would be a huge benefit in how people look at feminists in general. maybe at that point femenists can be more productive.
Steff

For me, it does not have to be an either/or thing. We can glorify motherhood and ask for women to be able to fulfill whatever their choices determine that they want for their lives. I believe we can have the best of both worlds.
Also, I think that it is very important to note here that not all women want to be mothers and that they are no less female because of that choice. I have many childless friends who are very supportive of me in my role as a mother, not only personally but professionally and we all call and support ourselves as feminists.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

Good lord. Is this 2004 or 1804?
I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ErikaDP*
...For me, it does not have to be an either/or thing. We can glorify motherhood and ask for women to be able to fulfill whatever their choices determine that they want for their lives. I believe we can have the best of both worlds.
Also, I think that it is very important to note here that not all women want to be mothers and that they are no less female because of that choice. I have many childless friends who are very supportive of me in my role as a mother, not only personally but professionally and we all call and support ourselves as feminists.









Thank you!!! Thank you so much for saying this so well.

Let me go a little further with this as well...the only people I know who are pushing to get at-home mothers _real_ benefits are feminists. I'll take a social security credit for my years as an at-home mother over platitudes from the so-called "family values" politicians anyday.

It's not a coincidence that the organization MOTHERS (*M*others *O*ught *T*o *H*ave *E*qual *R*ights) was co-founded by two feminists, Ann Crittenden and Naomi Wolf.

That's why I'm a feminist, because I think women should be supported in their choices, be that full-time Motherhood or moving into the Oval Office with small children in tow or choosing to not have any children at all.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Steff: go to the address at the top of your browser that you want to link. Select the whole link. Copy it (either via control+c or whatever your computer recognizes. Then paste it into the message window here in your reply.


----------



## ladyshah (Apr 5, 2004)

If feminism is about choice and mutual respect of choices, along with equal treatment under the law/employer, then I suppose I'm a feminist.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
As if mothering (or fathering) only impacts the people within a family. How absurd! Good parents have a lot more of a positive effect on the "rest of the world" than a lot of the people I know who have paying-careers. It is, in part, this myth that mothers only effect their children that is used to keep mothers from obtaining any kind of finanical compensation or recognition...

But I completely agree that it must be freely chosen. Forcing women into motherhood has not been good for women. Excluding men from fully caring for their children has not been good for men. And neither of those things has been good for children.

I know that this part of the thread is really old, but I've been a.w.o.l. for a few weeks and am finally getting around to returning to threads I was on.

pugmadmama: My post was perhaps a too pithy response to applejuice's

Quote:

The most powerful statement one person, especially a woman, can make in this world is to bring into the world a child, raise that child properly so that the world can benefit from this person. This is the best way to change the world. Why let anyone else do it?
My point was that, if taken to what is an extreme in this country, that line of resoning falls apart if one doesn't have much of a life outside one's family. I know people who were raised in enviroments where the women led _purely_ "women's lives" and had contact with men ONLY who they were related to by blood or marriage. And only the men had dealings "in the world"...financial, educational, political.

And I know people who were raised in enviroments less restictive than this, but who still grew up in a place where wives were divorced for not voting as their husbands told them to, or killed for giving birth to only girls, or lots of other stories in that vein.

I do not deny the importance of raising a family.

I question the idea of it being the "most important". In fact, I question the idea of ranking by importance anything anyone does in the world.

This is also belittling to women who do not have children.

My statement was a way of asking: "How's about not making any sweeping generalizations based on my anatomy and hormone count and instead treat everyone as an individual?"

Don't know if I've made it any clearer.









Anyhow, glad to see the discussion continuing. Good posts here, everyone.


----------



## girlndocs (Mar 12, 2004)

Glad you're back, sohj


----------

