# Motherhood and feminism



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

I was interested in starting a general discussion about motherhood and feminism.

I personally must admit - as dumb as this sounds to me now - that prior to motherhood, I actually bought into the notion that mothering was somehow less important than a career. Or maybe I thought it was an honorable thing to do on a "temporary" basis. Or something stupid like that. My thoughts weren't entirely conscious, and I doubt I would have expressed them like that, but in all honesty, I saw raising, caring for, feeding, educating, disciplining children as somehow less than going off to work every day.

Now I know that there is nothing more important.

Now I feel that work is just a way to support parenthood









I also have started to think about what feminism has meant to parenting. It has gotten women into the workplace, but also out of the home. I don't think that's a bad thing as PART of the process, but I think that this is not the goal or the end of the process. I think the next thing is for everyone to give parenthood, particularly motherhood, all the respect it deserves. Then, women and men should both have choices about work and parenthood, and should be respected regardless of their working and parenting choices.

By getting women into work, we've started the process for people (men and women both) to see women as capable, smart, etc. And I don't want to promote "getting the women back home." I think having choices is the real goal, and we haven't gotten there yet - we've just changed it so most women HAVE to work, as opposed to the past, where most women COULDN'T work.

I don't know how much sense I made, but welcome feedback to the above, or even entirely different perspectives on motherhood and feminism.


----------



## whoamama (Jan 5, 2006)

I think that having a choice is the key here, as well as aknowledging the fact that all choices are valid. Just because I choose to stay at home, raise my kids, care for my home, etc, does that mean that I am not a strong woman?
I actually have gotten to the point of avoiding the word feminist as it seems to be manipulated by different people to mean what they want. I do sometimes worry about my kids, will my dd's grow up to see me as an anachronism or a model? Will my boys cook meals or expect to be served ?


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I think that viewing motherhood and career as either/or is a mistake. I also think believing that most people are able to "have it all" is a mistake. It's all about balance. A mother can have a career and be no less a mother, just as a sister can have a career and be no less a sister, but a person who throws her WHOLE self into her career has nothing left for her loved ones. All this is just as true of men as it is of women.

I think that feminism (with the direction it's taken in the U.S. in the past 25 years or so) has failed us by promoting the idea that traditionally male activities are desirable goals for everyone and traditionally female activities are inherently demeaning.







There are several problems with that:
1. It's kind of sexist, actually, and very disrespectful of the centuries of hard work done by women whose cooking, cleaning, gathering/shopping, nursing, etc. made the achievements of men possible.
2. It makes life harder for modern women because it adds expectations (earn a degree, make lots of money, get promoted) without changing the reality that SOMEBODY has to do the dishes and that's usually women, because why would men want to start doing these tasks that are so demeaning?
3. It means that people of both sexes are competing for the traditionally male positions in society while many of the traditionally female positions go unfilled. Not only is the competition stressful, but the shortage of nurturers makes the stress feel worse.
4. It makes it acceptable for women in high-powered careers to exploit other women in one of the ways men historically have done: expecting them to do the caring work at low pay and treating them as if they are invisible.
5. It does nothing to widen roles for men. BOTH of the traditional gender roles are narrow and can be harmful. Opening the male role to women without opening the female role to men puts us out of balance.
6. It causes children to be seen as an impediment to their mothers' goals, an insidious temptation to neglect the corporate ladder and be suckered into (ew!) taking care of someone.

What I'd like to see is most people feeling that it's economically possible and socially acceptable (even desirable) for people of both sexes and all family configurations to divide their time and energy roughly equally between family, community, and career. I'd like it to be more feasible in every way for both parents to work half-time, rather than having one earner and one parent.

Laohaire, it's great that you now see childcare as an important and honorable thing to do, but when you say, "Now I know that there is nothing more important," I wonder if you are just falling into the same trap on the other side. Childcare is important; so is firefighting. If you used to think firefighters were better than parents and now you think parents are better than firefighters, have you really made any progress? I believe that childcare and firefighting both are very important, that the same person can do both things within the same day, and that each of her roles will be enriched by her experience in the other. I think it's interesting too that you refer to "raising, caring for, feeding, educating, disciplining children" as "mothering" for short. What do you think is "fathering"? You say feminism "has gotten women into the workplace, but also out of the home." Is your home, where you do all that feeding and educating and disciplining, not a workplace? Does somebody have to be at home all the time to make it a good home? I don't mean to pick on you--I know you are starting this discussion to refine your ideas and haven't necessarily worked them all out and worded them perfectly!--but I think a big part of the problem with our current situation is the tendency to see things in black and white, hiding the complexities under layers of unquestioned assumptions. I'm sure I have some assumptions to work out, too, and I hope for new insights from this discussion. Thanks for starting the thread!


----------



## BassaiDai (Apr 24, 2006)

Totally read Ann Crittendon's works.

She rocks!!!


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

I don't have a whole lot to say that hasn't already been said. Having a choice *is* the key, and a goal I think feminists should be working towards, but clearly the movement as a whole is not. I feel very empowered to be able to have a family (and be a sahm) and work outside of the home. I love being able to [help] support my family by supporting and empowering other women and families. But I feel trapped, too. I don't feel like I truly have a choice. I mean, sure, I could choose not to work, but that would literally be choosing not to eat, or not to pay bills, or to live on the street.







: Ok, that's a bit extreme, but not at all far from the truth for me, and many, many other mothers.

This is great to talk about, but what are we doing to actually _change_ this situation? Is there anything that we, as busy mothers *can* do?


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

I believe that what is 'most important' follows Maslowe's hierarchy of needs and that the objective of feminism (or humanism, or that-which-is-unnamed-because-we-don't-like-the-term-'feminism') is to ensure the empowerment of individuals and families to make choices that meet their needs. Without fear of social stigma or financial ruin.

So first off is, families must be able to meet their physical needs for food, shelter, water, clothing, and health insurance.

Secondly, families must be able to be together, and children to be raised by a trusted adult who loves them unconditionally.

Third, every family member should be allowed to pursue his or her own personal fulfillment, whether that be a career, or through artistic expression, developing homemaking skills, gardening, full-time contact with their children, etc. Regardless of whether they are male or female.

To me, parenting is a piece of the puzzle, and it takes varying degrees of energy in relation to the other puzzle pieces, depending on the ages and characteristics of the individuals in the family. It's not static. For example, one may devote the bulk of their time and energy to their children for 10-15 years and then transition to devoting more of their time to other pursuits in addition to parenting their children. Others may devote more energy to their career initially, and then later in life find joy in spending time with their children or grandchildren. It's not either/or. One can enjoy an entire spectrum of activities including but not limited to parenting throughout one's lifetime.

That is why feminism is important. So that we always have options and are able to make choices that feel right for our unique family situations. I also feel strongly that it is important to empower men to play a greater role in the day to day care of children and families; so that they, too, have a choice as to whether to work outside the home or stay inside the home pursuing their own fulfillment.


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
A mother can have a career and be no less a mother, just as a sister can have a career and be no less a sister, but a person who throws her WHOLE self into her career has nothing left for her loved ones. All this is just as true of men as it is of women.

I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, but I will be following along. I think that Becca makes a very good point. I've been realizing lately that it's just as detrimental for me to be throwing my whole self into mothering as it is for another woman to throw her whole self into her career. There's not much left over for anyone else (including myself.) I've kind of fallen into the trap of thinking of mothering as so important that I've been neglecting other areas. I think Becca really hit the nail on the head when she said the important thing is balance.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
2. It makes life harder for modern women because it adds expectations (earn a degree, make lots of money, get promoted) without changing the reality that SOMEBODY has to do the dishes and that's usually women, because why would men want to start doing these tasks that are so demeaning?

I couldn't agree more. I must admit, as a SAHM who works outside the home in the evenings, I am a little bit resentful that I am expected to do so many things. I work for pay, I take care of my child all day, I do the majority of the housework, and I often feel like I'm not doing enough. I feel like women had it good, then went and fucked it up, because now we are expected to do so much MORE. I feel very undervalued and very unappreciated. And I haven't got any idea what I can do to change it.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Well, I am not a feminist, I'm a liberal individualist, and as most academic feminists will be the first to tell you, the philosophies are pretty much mutually incompitable. I could go on and on about the reasons I disagree with the feminist worldview, but as that is not the subject of this thread, I will refrain.







So obviously my perspective on the topic is going to be different from someone who self-identifies as a feminist.

I think that it would be very difficult to be a mother, especially an ap mother, and also a feminist. I'm not saying that people don't, just that to me it would be very difficult. I think looking at every interaction through the lenses of power and hierarchy and oppression and mind control would make it difficult to have a close, attached relationship with a child, especially in combination with the view that childcare is degrading work. Personally I don't think that any work that's not forced is degrading--even cleaning toilets is only as degrading as you choose to make it--but I think there is something especially damaging about the idea that childcare is degrading work, although I know not all feminists agree with this.

I also don't agree with the idea espoused by more "moderate" feminists that all choices regarding childcare and child-rearing are equally valid. Yes, people should have the right to live their lives any way they choose, but when you choose to have children, you surrender your freedom because you have an obligation to them. As unpopular as it is, I do think it's irresponsible to have a young child and also a career. Note I said a career, *not* a job. A job is something you do for a set amount of hours. A career is who you are. I think if you have young children, they should be your first loyalty and your first identity. It isn't about whether you have a job, or how many hours you work, but about whether your loyalty to your children and their well-being exceeds all your other earthly loyalties. I have known lawyers who put their children first and were great mothers, and I have known part-time wahm's who put their work before their children.

I guess I don't really think that mothers of young children have "rights." I mean yes obviously they should have all the same legal rights as anyone else. But in terms of having "rights" separate from their children, I don't agree. Someday your kids will be old enough to stay home alone and shortly thereafter they'll be adults and gone and having their own children. You can have your identity then. But I don't think it's healthy for mothers to look for separate identities while their children are small and dependent on them. And to clarify again, I'm talking about emotional detachment, not physical separation.

Just my opinion... go ahead and







me if you want!


----------



## mamallama (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I think that it would be very difficult to be a mother, especially an ap mother, and also a feminist. I'm not saying that people don't, just that to me it would be very difficult. I think looking at every interaction through the lenses of power and hierarchy and oppression and mind control would make it difficult to have a close, attached relationship with a child, especially in combination with the view that childcare is degrading work.

I think this is a clear illustration of the current and compelling reasons to support feminism. Feminism is not about demonstrating women's capabilities in fields that are dominated by men. We did that in the 80's. The new wave is about supporting and valuing traditional women's work; namely, caretaking.

I'm a SAH-homeschooling mom. I do doula work on the side. The dominant culture does not view any of the things I do as valuable. I know that the roles I fill are actually invaluable--priceless. I'm proud to call myself a feminist.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
I am not going to







you but I completely disagree. I have not given up anything to be a mother. I am still strong and have ideas and have power in my life and relationships. I knew what I was doing becoming a mother. I do not see I am giving up anything or making any sacrifices. The choices I made for myself, for my family, are the best for us all. I am not alone in being a member of my family and the minute I committed to a long term relationship, my needs stopped being my only interest. As we brought pets and now kids into the picture, nothing has changed in terms of my feminism, my power, my strength, or my beliefs. If anything, I have never felt stronger and more of a woman. The two are not mutually exclusive, although I recognize some would disagree. The secret to all of this for me is that my partner, my husband, recognizes and respects my power and my strength more than ever. My options are not limited just because I choose to have children and take care of them. In order to believe that I would have to regret having kids.

I do understand that some women are in a very different position. I am lucky.

I didn't mean that being a mother would take away your strength or abilities, but that I would think, for me, that it would be difficult to form an attached, loving, unconditional relationship with a child while viewing the world from a paradigm that every interaction is a manifestation of power and hierarchy. I'm not criticizing you, just saying that I couldn't do it. I rely very strongly on the assumption that things are what they are, and I don't overanalyze my relationships with my immediate family. Again, I'm not criticizing you, but it seems to me that, in addition to all the more philosophical reasons I disagree with it, having a feminist worldview would be a very stressful way to live, especially with a child. I'm sure it isn't that way for everyone, but just my impression.


----------



## ETW (Feb 18, 2005)

I'm not sure I have very well formed ideas about this but it is something I think about a lot. What I struggle with most is that even though I have equal opportunities in the workplace (pre-child at least) and even though my husband is a completely equal partner, the biological reality of being a mother means that I am not in the same position to pursue my career that my husband is. Between nursing and an infant's needs for his mother, it is just not possible (nor is it desirable) for me to be away from my babies for more than a few hours at a time. So while I am extremely well educated (currently finishing my PhD) and will probably be able to return to interesting work in or related to my field once my children are older, I won't really be able to develop my career the way my husband will because my baby mothering years are also prime career building years. I am happy with the choice I've made but yes, sometimes it feels unfair that my husband gets to have a full career AND be a great dad. On the other hand, many dads have to miss out on a lot of their children's lives in order to support their families in a way that makes it possible for mom to stay home and that is not ideal either.

For me, the problem is not so much a feminist issue as a family issue. In order for women to have a real opportunity to pursue careers and be mothers, men have to have real opportunities to be fathers. DH and I currently have a situation that is close to ideal so a lot of my ideas are based on what we're currently doing -- unfortunately for me, our current arrangment may not be an option when/if we progress further in our careers. Anyway, I think the following changes to our society's status quo would really improve the situation for moms, dads, and kids:
*universal health coverage -- if health insurance were not tied to employment (and often full time employment is required) families would be better able to come up with creative part time solutions that allow both parents to pursue personal (out of the home) acheivements and be present for their kids.
*flexible hours and telecommuting options -- DH and I are lucky in that neither of us have jobs where we have to be there for a certain number of hours or at certain times of day. If DS and I are sick, DH just doesn't go in. If I have a big project to work on DH can take on more of the childcare and housework to allow me to focus. Other times he'll go in a lot and I'll take on more of a WAHM role. I can do a lot of my work from my home computer while DS is sleeping. Obviously some jobs require more physical presence, but many things can be done anywhere, anytime if employers are open to the idea.
*longer maternity/paternity leave
*more part-time opportunities in "career" positions
*more openness to parents re-entering "career" positions after long term absence to stay home with children

All of this can be summarized by a change in priorities. My field is pretty typical in that success is often defined in terms of who works the most hours and is the most single-minded. I would prefer to live in a world where it's possible for people to contribute what they can when they can. It would be a pretty huge paradigm shift for our culture and I don't have many great ideas about how to bring about these changes globablly. Personally, DH and I are forging ahead with our weird family centered lifestyle in a totally workaholic field -- we'll see how long we can make it happen.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamallama*
I think this is a clear illustration of the current and compelling reasons to support feminism. Feminism is not about demonstrating women's capabilities in fields that are dominated by men. We did that in the 80's. The new wave is about supporting and valuing traditional women's work; namely, caretaking.

I'm a SAH-homeschooling mom. I do doula work on the side. The dominant culture does not view any of the things I do as valuable. I know that the roles I fill are actually invaluable--priceless. I'm proud to call myself a feminist.

I agree that the work we sahm's do is invaluble, and that mainstream society is messed up not to recognize that. I would love to see more emphasis on the value of caretaking. I hope most of us can agree on that.


----------



## mykdsmomy (Oct 10, 2004)

I often wonder why feminism has to be such a loaded word-gun (my new word







). It seems that many times when discussing/debating the merits or failings of "feminism", there is so much conflict between women. Obviously the feminist movement is huge and has many sides but if it all boils down to having choices as men do then shouldnt the focus be on that and not on who can juggle more?
As women, we are in constant competition with each other as well as with men. We need to one up everyone around us in order to "prove" that we are worthy of a voice or a choice. I get tired of trying to keep up with the race. I see myself as a woman, wife and mother. I see myself as a vital part of the human race. I have the toughest job as a mother and i'll be darned if I let any person be it man or woman make me feel inferior for choosing to be a mother above all else. (ok, stepping off of my soapbox now







) (not even sure if what i said was relevant to this thread







)


----------



## BassaiDai (Apr 24, 2006)

I think one element of Third Wave Feminism will be the cohesion of these seemingly incompatable elements of women's lives.

I believe one weakness of the Second Wave was the fact those Feminists were very focused on gender equity and abortion rights they didn't take the reality of motherhood in women's lives into consideration. Because not a lot of thought was given to the issue, they just expected women to approach balancing work and family the same way men did.

Well, if you apporach mothering like the typical 1960's man did, no one was present *parenting* children. Most mothers are emotionally vested in their children and feminists are finally coming around to realize that trying to make women into penisless men is not going to fly.

I consider myself feminist, but an Equity Feminist.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BassaiDai*
I believe one weakness of the Second Wave was the fact those Feminists were very focused on gender equity and abortion rights they didn't take the reality of motherhood in women's lives into consideration. Because not a lot of thought was given to the issue, they just expected women to approach balancing work and family the same way men did.

Actually, 2nd Wave feminism fought for mother's rights too. It didn't used to be that women had so many rights in divorce and custodial proceedings and were not favored. There was much talk in second wave feminism of national daycare and respite care and after school programs for children not simply so that women could go back into the workforce, but so that women had some support when they lived far away from family in nuclear lifestyles (how often have I complained that it is unnatural for me to be home all day by myself with my children, but not that I want to go back to work?). Women already made up a huge chunk of workers in this country. The poor could not afford not to work, single mothers could not afford NOT to work and second wave feminism sought not only to provide equal opportunity for all women, but to provide for those who were already in need of assistance.

The first step was to get women on equal footing in the professional world and that was a huge step and a fight that is not all won. Let's not discount or write-off an entire movement because it didn't accomplish ALL of its goals. That's why those women involved in the forefront of second wave feminism never quit. Barbara Ehrenreich said in a speech a couple of years ago that the idea wasn't to force women into men's roles or vice-versa, but to involve men in caregiving because "we felt it was that important". I can't find the speech online, but I swear it was her. It implies that we're all in this together. I did find where she was speaking at Barnard College in 2004 and said:

Quote:

To cite an old - and far from naïve -- feminist saying: "If you think equality is the goal, your standards are too low."
I think that says a lot that's relevant to this discussion.

As far as what can we do - I have always believed that there are ways to be active that don't involve holding a sign, though I've done that too. I know that our own Peggy O'Mara is on at least one counsel dedicated to fighting for mother's rights (The Motherhood Initiative maybe?). I think though too that being a conscious consumer, being a part of your community and the things you want for it, letter writing, being here and talking about it are all ways of being active, of working for the movement. It's small, but by discussing these things we get a clearer picture of what is needed and what we can work towards. Being a birth activist in this country, for example, is extremely relevant to motherhood and feminism. It always shocks me when my punk-rock activist feminist friends go to their OB upon becoming pregnant because they just "love" their OB (I think to myself - ugh! yuck! thbt!!!). We have to take responsibility for ourselves and to help other women do the same. I think it's really part and parcel to forming a women's movement that focuses on women's needs. There's more I think, but I got a poopy diaper to change.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I didn't mean that being a mother would take away your strength or abilities, but that I would think, for me, that it would be difficult to form an attached, loving, unconditional relationship with a child while viewing the world from a paradigm that every interaction is a manifestation of power and hierarchy. I'm not criticizing you, just saying that I couldn't do it. I rely very strongly on the assumption that things are what they are, and I don't overanalyze my relationships with my immediate family. Again, I'm not criticizing you, but it seems to me that, in addition to all the more philosophical reasons I disagree with it, having a feminist worldview would be a very stressful way to live, especially with a child. I'm sure it isn't that way for everyone, but just my impression.

I'm having a really hard time understanding what you mean. How does feminism equal believing that every interaction is a manifestation of power and hierarchy? i dunno. I just think that the world (and myself) is much more complex what you're insinuating. This world is incredibly stressful to live in _especially_ with a child, but that doesn't have anything to do with feminism, but with the crappy state of the world. In fact, I think it has far less to do with feminism than anything - this unjust war, this lying, cheating, disgraceful government, the widening gap between the classes, the lack of health care, the degradation of the poor and the inherent racism, the nuclear problem, the energy problem, the destruction of the environment - where oh where did feminism cause any of that???? Those things are on my brain all the time, _especially_ as a SAHM because I spend half my life buying things due to the fact that 1) I'm the primary "stocker" of the household and 2) the stupid middle-class pressure to do so (and this despite using cloth TP) so pervasive in everything I see and read. So as a full-time consumer (it would seem), I am always thinking about how this stupid dish towel I'm buying is creating a larger hole in the ozone layer and enslaving people in China (and Taiwan and Mexico and the United States for that matter). And all that makes me think is what kind of a crap world did I bring these children into and what could possibly be left for them by the time I'm done? I have little faith that half of my great-great-grand children won't be dying of leukemia in 100 years.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I agree that the definition of "feminism" is not all that clear and that it can encompass many different ideologies. In saying that the direction in the past 25 years has failed us, I didn't mean to disregard any of the earlier accomplishments such as voting and abortion rights, and I'd forgotten about Title 9 (I'm not an athlete) and some of the recent progress in divorce law (I'm not divorced).

I'm very pro-choice, but I think the huge amount of energy devoted to abortion rights has drained attention and resources away from other goals. It's hard to say that because those who oppose reproductive rights are so determined that it's been necessary to fight them constantly; the focus on this issue is hardly the fault of feminists. I'm very sad though that at this point when people of any stripe start talking about women's rights, practically the first right they think of is the right to abortion--it's that "children are a burden" idea again.







A lot of people seem to have the idea that pro-choice means pro-abortion, which is incompatible with respect for mothers.

Boongirl wrote:

Quote:

Women have always worked but lacking the power to have any leading roles, women could not get anywhere. [...] In order to become power players, we had to prove we could what men could do.
I see your point, but I also see here the assumptions that
1. Mother is not a leading role.
2. Raising children is not a way to "get anywhere"; only the places men strive for are worth getting to.
3. The types of power traditionally held by men are the only real power.
While I agree that our society in general tends to hold these beliefs, I think they aren't really true and aren't constructive things to believe. I think they are old-fashioned ideas to work past.

Abac wrote:

Quote:

I must admit, as a SAHM who works outside the home in the evenings, I am a little bit resentful that I am expected to do so many things. I work for pay, I take care of my child all day, I do the majority of the housework, and I often feel like I'm not doing enough. I feel like women had it good, then went and fucked it up, because now we are expected to do so much MORE. I feel very undervalued and very unappreciated. And I haven't got any idea what I can do to change it.
Is there another adult in your family? What happens if you tell him or her, "I feel overwhelmed by all the things I have to do. I need you to take over something. Would you like X, Y, or Z?" I've found that my partner is kind of oblivious to my being overwhelmed unless I tell him about it, and that suggesting a specific change is much more effective than complaining. He's now in charge of EnviroBaby's clothing and daycare lunches, as well as about half the housework.









ETW, I like your list of changes that need to happen. One other thing I'd like to see more of is groups of 2 or more nuclear families choosing to have 1 SAH parent between them; either the other parents would pay the SAH as their daycare provider or the WOH families would provide other services for the group, such as cooking or laundry. You know, like an extended family. I'm working on this myself, but people seem very shy about it. So far all I've got is a weekly shared dinner, alternating houses.


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

//


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

//


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

//


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

//


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
I agree that the definition of "feminism" is not all that clear and that it can encompass many different ideologies. In saying that the direction in the past 25 years has failed us, I didn't mean to disregard any of the earlier accomplishments such as voting and abortion rights, and I'd forgotten about Title 9 (I'm not an athlete) and some of the recent progress in divorce law (I'm not divorced).

I'm very pro-choice, but I think the huge amount of energy devoted to abortion rights has drained attention and resources away from other goals. It's hard to say that because those who oppose reproductive rights are so determined that it's been necessary to fight them constantly; the focus on this issue is hardly the fault of feminists. I'm very sad though that at this point when people of any stripe start talking about women's rights, practically the first right they think of is the right to abortion--it's that "children are a burden" idea again.







A lot of people seem to have the idea that pro-choice means pro-abortion, which is incompatible with respect for mothers.

Boongirl wrote







see your point, but I also see here the assumptions that
1. Mother is not a leading role.
2. Raising children is not a way to "get anywhere"; only the places men strive for are worth getting to.
3. The types of power traditionally held by men are the only real power.
While I agree that our society in general tends to hold these beliefs, I think they aren't really true and aren't constructive things to believe. I think they are old-fashioned ideas to work past.

Abac wrote







s there another adult in your family? What happens if you tell him or her, "I feel overwhelmed by all the things I have to do. I need you to take over something. Would you like X, Y, or Z?" I've found that my partner is kind of oblivious to my being overwhelmed unless I tell him about it, and that suggesting a specific change is much more effective than complaining. He's now in charge of EnviroBaby's clothing and daycare lunches, as well as about half the housework.









ETW, I like your list of changes that need to happen. One other thing I'd like to see more of is groups of 2 or more nuclear families choosing to have 1 SAH parent between them; either the other parents would pay the SAH as their daycare provider or the WOH families would provide other services for the group, such as cooking or laundry. You know, like an extended family. I'm working on this myself, but people seem very shy about it. So far all I've got is a weekly shared dinner, alternating houses.









Becca,








:

Everyone Else,

Sorry, for replying to 4 different posts then putting this //.

Thank you, again.


----------



## polka hop (Dec 23, 2003)

*


----------



## MichelleW (Aug 22, 2005)

Wow! First off, I am so glad to see this thread & discussion!

"What happens if you tell him or her, "I feel overwhelmed by all the things I have to do. I need you to take over something. Would you like X, Y, or Z?" I've found that my partner is kind of oblivious to my being overwhelmed unless I tell him about it, and that suggesting a specific change is much more effective than complaining." -- thanks Becca, I really appreciate this comment

Second, I am not yet a mother, but study queer (lesbian) birthing experiences, and plan to start my PhD within a year of having a baby at a university with the only Feminist Anthropology program in North America. So yes, I identify as a feminist, and recognize that there are others who identify as feminists that I have little (ideologically) in common with. That said, yes, feminism to me is about choice and power. It is about people of ALL genders (not just 2 of them







), and it is about individuals and society/ies in general. For me, in my everyday life, feminism is also about communication and negotiation, and of course, about change. Let me expand.

There have been some wonderful points made in this thread so far, and I want to expand a little on some of them. The kind of feminism I subscribe to believes that it is just as important for girls to know they can be engineers as boys to know that they will be supported in their dance careers (should that be what they want). It also recognizes that everyone is different, makes different choices & has different choices available to them (due to geographic region, race, ethnicity, spirituality, age, ability, parenting-status, sexuality, gender, etc).

I recently have come to appreciate the ideas of 3rd wave feminism even more. I have taken up knitting. When I was a kid, I never thought I would knit cause I saw it as meaningless work. I think it is very odd that I saw it that way. I saw childcare, and still see childcare (in all its forms -- home, daycare, etc) as THE MOST VALUABLE work. Children represent our future and our present. That said, I know that for my family (my partner & our future children) to do the best we can in this world, that I am going to have to do my PhD when my kids are very young. I will still be there for them and bf them as long as we can, but my partner will be with them (physically) more than I will be. We have talked about how this will work -- and I think this is a very important part of feminism, talking to figure out what options exist & what will work best for those involved -- and believe this is the best solution. In our present situation, without kids & me finishing my MA, he (my partner) is supporting me. And that is what work best for now. (My 2 passions in life are kids & anthropology, and I don't see my life being whole without both of them -- now or later. I know I am very luck to be in the situation I am in -- as long as we can conceive!)

Third, I'm not sure if any of you would be interested, but I know that there are a variety of Mothering & feminist groups that have started up (in the academic world). The one I am a member of is located in Toronto, Canada but has members throughout the world. It is the Association for Research on Mothering (ARM) and its website is: www.yorku.ca/crm

There was more I wanted to say, but I can't remember it right now!









Good luck everyone!


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
I don't think all feminists view the world this way.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

[...]

When was in college up to the birth of my child, I ascribed to Postmodern feminism which argues that there is no single cause for a woman's subordination because sociological gender is itself constructed through language. Power is exercised not only through direct coercion, but also through the way in which language shapes and restricts our reality. This makes language a potentially fruitful site of political struggle.

Now that I have a child and see what my biologist hubby has been trying to tell sociologist me all along, I ascribe to Cultural Feminism which states that there are fundamental personality differences between men and women, and that women's differences are special and should be celebrated. Cultural feminism seeks to improve the relationship between the sexes and often the cultures at large by celebrating women's special qualities, ways, and experiences, often believing that the "woman's way" is the better way, or that the culture discussed is overly masculine and requires balance from feminine perspectives.

I do know that there are many sub-types of feminism, and I didn't mean to oversimplify the issue. For my own opinion, it is the concept itself that I disagree with, not the sub-sets or interpretations of it. But I was only talking about a broad idea within most strains of feminist thought that I'm familiar with. Of course I wouldn't say that all feminists believe the same thing, but I think there is a mainstream-academic view that I'm specifically disagreeing with.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
I'm having a really hard time understanding what you mean. How does feminism equal believing that every interaction is a manifestation of power and hierarchy? i dunno. I just think that the world (and myself) is much more complex what you're insinuating. This world is incredibly stressful to live in _especially_ with a child, but that doesn't have anything to do with feminism, but with the crappy state of the world. In fact, I think it has far less to do with feminism than anything - this unjust war, this lying, cheating, disgraceful government, the widening gap between the classes, the lack of health care, the degradation of the poor and the inherent racism, the nuclear problem, the energy problem, the destruction of the environment - where oh where did feminism cause any of that???? Those things are on my brain all the time, _especially_ as a SAHM because I spend half my life buying things due to the fact that 1) I'm the primary "stocker" of the household and 2) the stupid middle-class pressure to do so (and this despite using cloth TP) so pervasive in everything I see and read. So as a full-time consumer (it would seem), I am always thinking about how this stupid dish towel I'm buying is creating a larger hole in the ozone layer and enslaving people in China (and Taiwan and Mexico and the United States for that matter). And all that makes me think is what kind of a crap world did I bring these children into and what could possibly be left for them by the time I'm done? I have little faith that half of my great-great-grand children won't be dying of leukemia in 100 years.

I absolutely agree that the world is complex and stressful. I read about what's going on, and I don't know whether to cry or fly into a rage or both. And I certainly wasn't suggesting that feminism caused these problems (I might argue that it contributed to some of them, but that would be another day's topic). And I am very involved in those issues you mention--I'm certainly not hiding out from them. But, for me, my relationship with my family is a refuge from all that. My husband is the head of our household, but he has given me almost total free reign in child-rearing because that is my "field." That is what we believe in and what works for us. My dh has full trust in me and I have full trust in him.

Please keep in mind that I'm quite sleep-deprived, and that I'm notoriously bad at explaining myself even when I'm wide awake, so please take my word for it that any offense is unintentional. My understanding of most of mainstream-academic feminism is that they consider the private sphere to be an extension of the public sphere. So they not only want to lobby for legal rights (which I 100% agree with, although not always in the same way that they want), but also for treating the family as a social-political institution founded on power and hierarchy rather than love. Now, if I were in a situation where I were forced to get married to someone I didn't love, I would absolutely be very insistent on "you can't tell me what to do," "this is your half and this is my half," etc. And I completely support that as far as legal rights. But I think it does a disservice to family to treat it as an institution with power and hierarchy, or to say that women have a "right" to have their husbands help around the house, etc. And the same thing is true for my children--I don't think of there being a hierarchy or needing regime change at my house, but cooperation founded on love and mutual respect.

And that is what I mean by saying that it would be more stressful as a parent, especially an ap parent. *I am absolutely not saying that you can't be a feminist and a good ap parent.* I know that plenty of people are. But *to me* it seems like there would be a philosophical contradiction. In my own mind, feminism would be more compatible with an Ezzo-type view of child-rearing, that the relationship between parent and child is one of hierarchy and constant power struggles. I couldn't live like that either. I want to save my activism and my lobbying for governments and businesses, and preserve my home as a "harmonious mutual respect zone" without worrying about the personal being political.

I hope this makes sense and isn't too offensive. This isn't the main problem I have with feminism, btw, but it's one of them.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
I agree that the definition of "feminism" is not all that clear and that it can encompass many different ideologies. In saying that the direction in the past 25 years has failed us, I didn't mean to disregard any of the earlier accomplishments such as voting and abortion rights, and I'd forgotten about Title 9 (I'm not an athlete) and some of the recent progress in divorce law (I'm not divorced).

I'm very pro-choice, but I think the huge amount of energy devoted to abortion rights has drained attention and resources away from other goals. It's hard to say that because those who oppose reproductive rights are so determined that it's been necessary to fight them constantly; the focus on this issue is hardly the fault of feminists. I'm very sad though that at this point when people of any stripe start talking about women's rights, practically the first right they think of is the right to abortion--it's that "children are a burden" idea again.







A lot of people seem to have the idea that pro-choice means pro-abortion, which is incompatible with respect for mothers.

I understand your point, and I agree that there are many issues that affect people's lives, but ironically enough, pro-choice is one of the few areas in which I (being a liberal individualist and all) agree with mainstream feminism. If they truly supported women's individual rights to individual freedom of choice, I would agree with them. Really the only parts of the philosophy that I disagree with are the anti-choice parts (women are brainwashed by the patriarchy and need to be protected from themselves, free will is an illusion, liberation over liberty, we're products of the culture, etc.) Off topic but I thought I'd mention it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riotkrrn*
I think that you are making several incorrect assumptions about feminism/feminists. I've never felt that my being a feminist and an attachment parent were in conflict with one another. Are you stating that the belief that childcare is degrading is a central tenet of feminism, or that self-identified feminists you have known have personally found childcare work to be degrading? Of all the feminist mamas I know - and I know a number of them, because they're my preferred company







- none has ever made the claim that to work in childcare is degrading. I do think that childcare work is undervalued as a profession, which brings us back to feminist issues.

I'm basing it on articles and books written by feminists themselves. Probably the most famous feminist book is "The Feminine Mystique" which clearly suggests that the homemaking life in general is degrading. I'm not suggesting that all feminists feel this way though. It's certainly not a central tenet of the philosophy.

I agree that childcare is undervalued, especially caring for our own children. As a homeschooler, I'm especially aware of the number of people who glorify the teaching (other people's kids) profession but who think that I don't have a "real job."

Quote:

_Do you feel that it's acceptable for fathers to have careers?_

_I'm just not getting this at all. Am I emotionally detaching myself from my children if I attempt to strengthen my identity as a wife/partner? Student? Rape crisis center volunteer? Where do you draw the line? From my own experience, I can tell you that my ability to mother suffers terribly if it's my only focus, week after week and month after month._
I'll try to answer this in the most inoffensive way that I can, and please let me apologize again for being sleep-deprived. I think that when children are young, say from birth to about the pre-teen or teen years, they should have at least one parent whose first identity is to them. That parent can certainly have outside interests and activities, including a job outside the home if needed or desired, but these loyalties should be secondary to the needs of the children. As I say, it's not about the number of hours worked, but about the priority. Because of pregnancy, breastfeeding, and other issues, I think it's best in most cases for the mother to be that primary parent, but if a family prefers it the other way, that's certainly fine too. As long as there is some adult in every child's life for whom that child comes first. Again, that doesn't preclude having an outside job, or being a student or a volunteer, or anything else. But I do think it should preclude making any of those things your primary identity.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Wow, Brigianna, just wow. Um... Hmmm...

The whole public/private sphere thing is a part of the philosophy indeed. But I don't think that you're quite understanding the subtleties of it. Probably what you're referring to is the old slogan, "the personal is political". I can't get around the fact that the personal very much is political at all. It's absolutely one hundred percent true. What happens to me and my family and to other families is what indicates the needs of the citizens of this country.

So, for instance, my birth experience and my ability to have a postive birth experience is a political thing when there are organizations lobbying and setting down protocol about what can and cannot happen to me (hospitals denying VBAC for instance is a political stance that becomes intensely personal).

My ability to have children or to have sovereignty over my own body is both personal and political. How I raise my children, whether or not I have children, whether I choose to get married or to simply exist in a comitted partnership - these are all personal choices with political resonance.

Being AP, being fiercely AP and an AP advocate - this is a personal choice with public/political consequences. There wouldn't be this huge backlash on blogs and in magazines about all those "yuppie AP parents" if it weren't a serious statement about society, about the needs of children and what an appropriate way to address those needs are.

The whole concept of social structure and heirarchy and power struggle even in relationships does not deny a foundation in love at all. Love and power aren't mutually exclusive. Understanding the power dynamic in a relationship does not say that love isn't the basis for that relationship. But power exists everywhere and if you want to let your husband have power over you, then I suppose that's your choice. It's one that _I_ physically and philisophically reject entirely, but I'm not you. That's what I meant when I said that I am more complex than your statement would allow a feminist to be - I can see that there is a power structure between my husband and I and my children and I without it being a problem.

My husband brings in money and gets time out of the house with colleagues where he has more adult, worldly thoughts and spends his time doing far more interesting things than washing the dishes - he has an inherent power due to this. He has an entitlement to having freedom from the family that I don't have because he brings in money at the same time as enjoying that freedom. This is necessary. Just because I may need help around the house or a break, he still maintains a power of being entitled to his time away due to the necessity of money. His being the breadwinner in our family also gives him power. He could easily strip me of my access to the money and would be legally entitled to do so as the paycheck has his name on it. This is inherent power. I may control the money, I may pay all the bills, and balance the checkbook and buy the goods necessary for the household, but he still brings that paycheck in. This is an inherent power that I don't have. Lucky for us, we have an agreement that though he brings in the money, he doesn't exercise that power over me. He doesn't threaten me with cutting it off. He doesn't have entitlement to the control of the money. But that's our agreement, not a fact natural to the situation. Because I control the money in our household, a balance of power exists in this area. I am the one who knows how much money we have and how much we can use and he has to ask me if he wants to buy something. Not because he's not allowed to use the money as he sees fit, but because he doesn't know if there's room in the budget. Anyway, this is just an example of inherent power.

When you have one partner in a relationship who controls most of the decisions of the household AND brings in the money, the power balance becomes unequal, imo. When one partner has their name on the mortgage and the other doesn't, or their name on the bank account and the other doesn't, or their name on the car title and the other doesn't, or all of the above, then the power balance becomes unequal. This personal decision (who knows the reasons why anyone would choose to be the sole owner of these things, but they're personal choices) becomes political power. The partner with the ownership of the money, vehicle, and mortgage, etc. has the ability to strip the other partner of access to these things, which is something that used to happen with some frequency and sometimes still does. The legal protections in place for married couples are necessary to ensure equality for the non-owner partner (who may have been primarily responsible for the upkeep of the property, but did not in fact own it).

I don't know if I'm making any sense here. I'm just pointing out how simple, personal choices prove to be powerful political leverage in a relationship. Now, it is important to note that though my husband and I have different amounts of power in our relationship, we don't walk around thinking of it that way. Our agreement is not a written contract, but an understanding. I'm not even sure we've really discussed it in the manner that I've laid out here. We simply share the responsibilities of the household in accordance with what we're skilled at or what we enjoy, as well as myriad other reasons that have led us to make varying choices. The understanding of the power structure in a relationship is simply one analyzation of an underlying truth, not a matter of imposing that structure upon the relationship. And understanding it or accepting it as true does not deny other truths (like love) or philosophies (like AP).

I think also, that to dedicate myself to my children and to be invested in them in a focused, gentle manner is not to deny my own identity. I am not my children and refuse to be as involved in their lives as they are. I am still a separate entity with different needs. I do admit less freedom and their needs often come before my own, but not always and not exclusively. To say otherwise feels to _me_ like an imposed structure akin to a method of child rearing not in line with AP philosophy. I hold my children and child-raising to be my primary responsibility, but it is not who I am at my core. Identity, to me, is very different than responsibility, but maybe it's all semantics.

Also, I am currently reading "The Feminine Mystique" and does not, imo, degrade the responsibilities in the home, but rather suggests that housework may not be entirely fun or satisfying and it is ludicrous to think that women should be completely fulfilled by simply childrearing and housekeeping. Again, as I said before, the idea is not that we want to never do those things, just that we'd like the opportunity to do other things as well and that perhaps the responsiblity to the household could be shared by the other members of the family since they also make messes and enjoy the home.

I'm sure there's more I want to say...


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MichelleW*
Wow! First off, I am so glad to see this thread & discussion!

"What happens if you tell him or her, "I feel overwhelmed by all the things I have to do. I need you to take over something. Would you like X, Y, or Z?" I've found that my partner is kind of oblivious to my being overwhelmed unless I tell him about it, and that suggesting a specific change is much more effective than complaining." -- thanks Becca, I really appreciate this comment

Second, I am not yet a mother, but study queer (lesbian) birthing experiences. So yes, I identify as a feminist, and recognize that there are others who identify as feminists that I have little (ideologically) in common with. That said, yes, feminism to me is about choice and power. It is about people of ALL genders (not just 2 of them







), and it is about individuals and society/ies in general. For me, in my everyday life, feminism is also about communication and negotiation, and of course, about change. Let me expand.

There have been some wonderful points made in this thread so far, and I want to expand a little on some of them. The kind of feminism I subscribe to believes that it is just as important for girls to know they can be engineers as boys to know that they will be supported in their dance careers (should that be what they want). It also recognizes that everyone is different, makes different choices & has different choices available to them (due to geographic region, race, ethnicity, spirituality, age, ability, parenting-status, sexuality, gender, etc).

I recently have come to appreciate the ideas of 3rd wave feminism even more. I saw childcare, and still see childcare (in all its forms -- home, daycare, etc) as THE MOST VALUABLE work. Children represent our future and our present. That said, I know that for my family (my partner & our future children) to do the best we can in this world, that I am going to have to do my PhD when my kids are very young. I will still be there for them and bf them as long as we can, but my partner will be with them (physically) more than I will be. We have talked about how this will work -- and I think this is a very important part of feminism, talking to figure out what options exist & what will work best for those involved -- and believe this is the best solution. In our present situation, without kids & me finishing my MA, he (my partner) is supporting me. And that is what work best for now. (My 2 passions in life are kids & anthropology, and I don't see my life being whole without both of them -- now or later. I know I am very luck to be in the situation I am in -- as long as we can conceive!)

There was more I wanted to say, but I can't remember it right now!









Good luck everyone!

Michelle,

















:

I'm with you on most your reply. Don't know if I will go back to school for my BA, MA, PhD later in life because after high school, I tried couple of schools and they didn't work because of the mental problems that I suffered. Also, I was born with a speech/learning disabilty.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Brigiana - let me try to say this in as inoffensive a way possible: I think it's completely detrimental to children to have a single person whose identity is entirely focus on them. Although I have major problems with the book, I completely subscribe to The Continuum Concept's idea that what a child needs is to be close to a person (usually the mother) _who is her own person, living her own life_. Only in that way can they learn what it is to BE a person, with a unique identity. I really, _really_ don't want any children I may have learn that their life should revolve around anyone else - coexist in a complicated and intricate dance of beautiful interdependencies, absolutely. But I want them to learn to be their own, unique, self-fulfilled person, and they can't learn that if their sun (that would be me) tries to revolve around little old them (a tiny, if important and growing) planet.

Which is not a philosophy incompatable with SAHMing, and certainly not with being a "homemaker", that is, chef, cleaner, dishwasher, laundress, child development specialist, educator, etc... I hope to be a midwife, and have, yes, a career. My children will be most important to me, more important than life itself, but that doesn't mean I should lay down my "life" (my career, my passions, my _self_) for them, but rather that I should pursue all of those in such a way that they learn how to live their passions while being completely nurtured and cared for.

And one of the things left off the list of feminism's current goals (forgot who posted it) that I think is very important is making work places baby and child compatable - I really think most jobs could be easily performed while having a baby strapped to her mama's back, where s/he belongs. There need not be a conflict between attachment and work - babies belong with their mothers/parents, but that doesn't mean their mothers _necessarily_ belong at home.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Wow, well said anna...

I just wanted to add that I don't, in any way think that raising children and staying home are demeaning, but this is:

Quote:

My husband is the head of our household, but he has given me almost total free reign in child-rearing because that is my "field."








But, like so many have said, that's your choice. I just hope you're making an informed one.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
Wow, Brigianna, just wow. Um... Hmmm...

The whole public/private sphere thing is a part of the philosophy indeed. But I don't think that you're quite understanding the subtleties of it. Probably what you're referring to is the old slogan, "the personal is political". I can't get around the fact that the personal very much is political at all. It's absolutely one hundred percent true. What happens to me and my family and to other families is what indicates the needs of the citizens of this country.

Maybe I am missing some subtleties, but I have read about the issue and I am familiar with some of the assertions being made about the power structure in the home. I understand what they're talking about, but I disagree with the entire line of thinking that would take the structure of institutions like governments and businesses and seek to apply that to the family. I do agree with you that your family's and other families' needs reflect the needs of the citizenry as a whole, but I think that can be addressed without addressing the nature of the family itself.

Quote:

_So, for instance, my birth experience and my ability to have a postive birth experience is a political thing when there are organizations lobbying and setting down protocol about what can and cannot happen to me (hospitals denying VBAC for instance is a political stance that becomes intensely personal)._

_My ability to have children or to have sovereignty over my own body is both personal and political. How I raise my children, whether or not I have children, whether I choose to get married or to simply exist in a comitted partnership - these are all personal choices with political resonance._

_Being AP, being fiercely AP and an AP advocate - this is a personal choice with public/political consequences. There wouldn't be this huge backlash on blogs and in magazines about all those "yuppie AP parents" if it weren't a serious statement about society, about the needs of children and what an appropriate way to address those needs are_.
I totally agree with you on all of this. I am a strong advocate for medical freedom of all kinds. But I don't think this is the same as "the personal is political." As I see it, the right to sovereignty of your own body is a natural right that no institution (hospital, government, church, whatever) should have the authority to interfere with. Other people can give advice and opinions, but not override your choice. That, to me, is what the right to privacy is all about--these personal matters like what you do with your body and whether you accept or refuse medical treatment are beyond the sphere of what can be regulated. They are personal, not political. The fact that some political groups would like to strip us of these rights does not change that, in my opinion. To me there is a big difference between asserting legal rights (like medical freedom or equal pay for equal work) and trying to superimpose a power-based framework on the family.

And I agree that ap child-rearing is a political act, because we are radically redefining the way society looks at children. Also, for me, unschooling is a political act because I'm teaching my kids to think for themselves and question authority. In fact, where children are concerned, I agree in many cases that the personal is political. The difference, to me, is that children have almost no legal rights. They do not choose their parents or how they're raised. They can't be independent if they want to be, they can't vote, and they can't file for divorce if they're being mistreated. Because of this, they need activists like us to assert that, although kids are small and fragile and can't work and can't vote, that doesn't mean it's okay to hit them or lock them up or anything else. We assert this for them because they are incapable of asserting it for themselves. This is different, to me, from saying what a relationship should be between two legally equal consenting adults.

Quote:

_The whole concept of social structure and heirarchy and power struggle even in relationships does not deny a foundation in love at all. Love and power aren't mutually exclusive. Understanding the power dynamic in a relationship does not say that love isn't the basis for that relationship. But power exists everywhere and if you want to let your husband have power over you, then I suppose that's your choice. It's one that I physically and philisophically reject entirely, but I'm not you. That's what I meant when I said that I am more complex than your statement would allow a feminist to be - I can see that there is a power structure between my husband and I and my children and I without it being a problem._

_My husband brings in money and gets time out of the house with colleagues where he has more adult, worldly thoughts and spends his time doing far more interesting things than washing the dishes - he has an inherent power due to this. He has an entitlement to having freedom from the family that I don't have because he brings in money at the same time as enjoying that freedom. This is necessary. Just because I may need help around the house or a break, he still maintains a power of being entitled to his time away due to the necessity of money. His being the breadwinner in our family also gives him power. He could easily strip me of my access to the money and would be legally entitled to do so as the paycheck has his name on it. This is inherent power. I may control the money, I may pay all the bills, and balance the checkbook and buy the goods necessary for the household, but he still brings that paycheck in. This is an inherent power that I don't have. Lucky for us, we have an agreement that though he brings in the money, he doesn't exercise that power over me. He doesn't threaten me with cutting it off. He doesn't have entitlement to the control of the money. But that's our agreement, not a fact natural to the situation. Because I control the money in our household, a balance of power exists in this area. I am the one who knows how much money we have and how much we can use and he has to ask me if he wants to buy something. Not because he's not allowed to use the money as he sees fit, but because he doesn't know if there's room in the budget. Anyway, this is just an example of inherent power._

_When you have one partner in a relationship who controls most of the decisions of the household AND brings in the money, the power balance becomes unequal, imo. When one partner has their name on the mortgage and the other doesn't, or their name on the bank account and the other doesn't, or their name on the car title and the other doesn't, or all of the above, then the power balance becomes unequal. This personal decision (who knows the reasons why anyone would choose to be the sole owner of these things, but they're personal choices) becomes political power. The partner with the ownership of the money, vehicle, and mortgage, etc. has the ability to strip the other partner of access to these things, which is something that used to happen with some frequency and sometimes still does. The legal protections in place for married couples are necessary to ensure equality for the non-owner partner (who may have been primarily responsible for the upkeep of the property, but did not in fact own it)._

_I don't know if I'm making any sense here. I'm just pointing out how simple, personal choices prove to be powerful political leverage in a relationship. Now, it is important to note that though my husband and I have different amounts of power in our relationship, we don't walk around thinking of it that way. Our agreement is not a written contract, but an understanding. I'm not even sure we've really discussed it in the manner that I've laid out here. We simply share the responsibilities of the household in accordance with what we're skilled at or what we enjoy, as well as myriad other reasons that have led us to make varying choices. The understanding of the power structure in a relationship is simply one analyzation of an underlying truth, not a matter of imposing that structure upon the relationship. And understanding it or accepting it as true does not deny other truths (like love) or philosophies (like AP)._
Maybe it's a semantic difference, but I wouldn't say that my husband has power over me in any of the ways that you mention. I would say that he has authority over me, which is authority that I have chosen to give him. Saying that he had power over me would suggest, to me anyway, that I was powerless, that I had no choice in the matter, that I just found myself in a situation with someone else controlling my finances and everything else. And that is I think the way many feminists (not all) look at traditionalist relationships. But I don't see it as a matter of his having power over me, but of the fact that I love him and trust him and respect him enough to give him this authority and know that he will not abuse it. And he doesn't--he doesn't order me to do things or limit my freedom; we work out mutually agreeable solutions. Similarly, he gives me authority over child-rearing matters, although the kids are legally half his, because he trusts me and respects my judgment and knows that I will make good decisions, even if he doesn't necessarily agree with all of them.

I do think that my husband has considerable power over me emotionally. He knows me better than anyone else, he knows what sets me off and what calms me down, he knows exactly how I will respond to some things without asking me. Actually, he is very well-positioned to manipulate me. But this is a function of love. I think that looking at it as an issue of power rather than love or mutual trust is misguided, and not a recipe for good relationships.

Quote:

_I think also, that to dedicate myself to my children and to be invested in them in a focused, gentle manner is not to deny my own identity. I am not my children and refuse to be as involved in their lives as they are. I am still a separate entity with different needs. I do admit less freedom and their needs often come before my own, but not always and not exclusively. To say otherwise feels to me like an imposed structure akin to a method of child rearing not in line with AP philosophy. I hold my children and child-raising to be my primary responsibility, but it is not who I am at my core. Identity, to me, is very different than responsibility, but maybe it's all semantics._
Maybe identity is the wrong word. What I meant was I think that when your children are young, your first loyalty should be to them and their needs. Not to a job or an interest or a hobby or anything else. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have these things, but that as a priority, I think your children should come first.

Quote:

_Also, I am currently reading "The Feminine Mystique" and does not, imo, degrade the responsibilities in the home, but rather suggests that housework may not be entirely fun or satisfying and it is ludicrous to think that women should be completely fulfilled by simply childrearing and housekeeping. Again, as I said before, the idea is not that we want to never do those things, just that we'd like the opportunity to do other things as well and that perhaps the responsiblity to the household could be shared by the other members of the family since they also make messes and enjoy the home._
I confess it's been a while since I've read it, but I did get the impression that she considered homemaking work to be less than "real" work. I also don't agree with the idea that we should try to be "fulfilled" but that's a separate topic... Yes, other people use the house and make messes, but it's okay to delegate as long as it's mutually agreeable, I think.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
Brigiana - let me try to say this in as inoffensive a way possible: I think it's completely detrimental to children to have a single person whose identity is entirely focus on them. Although I have major problems with the book, I completely subscribe to The Continuum Concept's idea that what a child needs is to be close to a person (usually the mother) _who is her own person, living her own life_. Only in that way can they learn what it is to BE a person, with a unique identity. I really, _really_ don't want any children I may have learn that their life should revolve around anyone else - coexist in a complicated and intricate dance of beautiful interdependencies, absolutely. But I want them to learn to be their own, unique, self-fulfilled person, and they can't learn that if their sun (that would be me) tries to revolve around little old them (a tiny, if important and growing) planet.

Which is not a philosophy incompatable with SAHMing, and certainly not with being a "homemaker", that is, chef, cleaner, dishwasher, laundress, child development specialist, educator, etc... I hope to be a midwife, and have, yes, a career. My children will be most important to me, more important than life itself, but that doesn't mean I should lay down my "life" (my career, my passions, my _self_) for them, but rather that I should pursue all of those in such a way that they learn how to live their passions while being completely nurtured and cared for.

I agreed with some parts of "The Contiuum Concept" and disagreed with other parts. I certainly don't think that a mother shouldn't have her own interests or anything else, but I don't think it's healthy for them to be her primary identity. I am a volunteer, an activist, and a writer in addition to being a mother, but if there is an conflict, my children come first. I don't think this is necessarily the same thing as having a child-centered life or home. I do play with my children, and read to them and interact with them, but I do other, more Continuum-Concept-compatible things too. My kids know that I am my own person and I do my own things, but they know that I put them first. I consider myself a mother who also does other things, not some other identity who is also a mother.

Quote:

_And one of the things left off the list of feminism's current goals (forgot who posted it) that I think is very important is making work places baby and child compatable - I really think most jobs could be easily performed while having a baby strapped to her mama's back, where s/he belongs. There need not be a conflict between attachment and work - babies belong with their mothers/parents, but that doesn't mean their mothers necessarily belong at home._
This is a good idea. I've done volunteer work with a tot in a sling; there's no reason some people couldn't do paid work that way too. Of course it wouldn't work for all jobs, but neither would anything else.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lunar forest*
Wow, well said anna...

I just wanted to add that I don't, in any way think that raising children and staying home are demeaning, but this is:

Quote:

My husband is the head of our household, but he has given me almost total free reign in child-rearing because that is my "field."








But, like so many have said, that's your choice. I just hope you're making an informed one.

How is it demeaning? I'm glad you respect it as my choice--a lot of feminists wouldn't. And I promise I'm not picking on you or trying to be hostile, but I think it's interesting that you would assume that a choice different from one you would make was probably not an informed choice. What would I need to be informed of? It isn't a choice that I would make based on information or statistics or data, but based on what I personally believe in.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Well I suppose you can make your own choices based on whatever you see fit. That's one wonderful right we have, thanks to feminism! And I would never assume that any choices is demeaning, or lesser in anyway, based solely on it being different from my own. I only mean that I hope anyone giving over their authorty would understand every implication, and all the downfalls that intails.

I can't see how putting one person in authority over another person could not be demeaning. Where is the empowerment? To me, the beauty of a healthy relationship is the equality; the balance of helping eachother and meeting each other's needs. That would have to be suppressed if one held a higher position over another, making decision for that person.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. It is possible that the word "authority" is being used in a different way. I, for one, don't see anything healthy for a women, her children, or her relationship in being submissive.

I just feel very strongly that women are not a lesser sex, that APing children is important and world altering, and that to do this women must stand up for themselves, and not allow themselves to be governed by men.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lunar forest*
Well I suppose you can make your own choices based on whatever you see fit. That's one wonderful right we have, thanks to feminism! And I would never assume that any choices is demeaning, or lesser in anyway, based solely on it being different from my own. I only mean that I hope anyone giving over their authorty would understand every implication, and all the downfalls that intails.

I can't see how putting one person in authority over another person could not be demeaning. Where is the empowerment? To me, the beauty of a healthy relationship is the equality; the balance of helping eachother and meeting each other's needs. That would have to be suppressed if one held a higher position over another, making decision for that person.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. It is possible that the word "authority" is being used in a different way. I, for one, don't see anything healthy for a women, her children, or her relationship in being submissive.

I just feel very strongly that women are not a lesser sex, that APing children is important and world altering, and that to do this women must stand up for themselves, and not allow themselves to be governed by men.

Okay. I would gladly stand up for your right to live any way you see fit. I just want the right to live as I see fit, too. I don't think having authority means that we don't help each other or meet each other's needs; I think it enhances that. We are free to help each other and meet each other's needs fully and unconditionally because we aren't constantly locked in a power struggle.

I certainly don't think women are a lesser sex or that we should be governed by men. There is a big difference between choosing to surrender your authority and being governed by someone. And men can be ap parents and children's advocates too.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

I think annakiss put it really well with her illustration of power in relationships. It's not at all a power struggle, as you put it, it is the simple fact that we each have power (and strengths) in different places, and in different ways. No one truly has greater power than the other, in my eyes, but I do agree that money is a big issue, and certainly making it brings with it a lot of power. But again, it evens out. Nobody's king in my house, and there's no power struggle, either.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lunar forest*
I think annakiss put it really well with her illustration of power in relationships. It's not at all a power struggle, as you put it, it is the simple fact that we each have power (and strengths) in different places, and in different ways. No one truly has greater power than the other, in my eyes, but I do agree that money is a big issue, and certainly making it brings with it a lot of power. But again, it evens out. Nobody's king in my house, and there's no power struggle, either.

I agree that there is power in money, but I think there's a difference between that and voluntarily choosing to forgo participating in the money-making world. A person who is deprived of the option of financial independence is lacking power, but not a person who chooses to abstain from earning money.

Also, having money comes with financial obligations. Because he's the financial provider, my husband knows that he has to work and pay the bills. He doesn't have the option of quitting his job when he doesn't feel like doing it anymore. So that is part of his freedom that he's surrendered, the same as I've surrendered some of my freedom to have children. I think that regardless of whether you contribute financially or what your role in the home is, you have to surrender some of your freedom and authority in order to have a family.

My husband isn't the king in our house. We try to live consensually for everyone. He has authority, but he's also accountable to us.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

There's a pretty big difference between not having more power (say, by earning money, having more status in society, and having a greater likelihood of being favored in divorce court), and benevolently choosing not to use that power.

My partner is much like yours (except in no way would I consider him having anything other than perhaps _fully reciprocal_ "authority"), in that he earns the money, he would never consider leaving me to flounder, and we have a relationship built on mutual trust and, most of all, love.

But he still has more economic power than I do, and arguably more social power. Much of this is negated by the fact that the money he earns is directly deposited into an account with both our names on it, but he has the legal right to change that at any time, without my imput. He would never do it, but _he has the power_.

I'd expand on this further, but I'm sick, and I desperately need to get to bed.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

What Arwyn pointed out is really what my example was about. Though my husband does not use or misuse this power, in making money that I do not make, he has inherent social and economic power that I do not. He has no authority in our household in this regard as per our agreement, but there is power.

I do not at all choose to give my husband authority over me at all and the power that is inherent in his economic status is not exercised, so I don't think it really is a semantic difference. I am not completely powerless since I chose this situation and would likely be able to transition into single motherhood and working should my husband decide to leave me, however, the transition for me would be much more difficult (since I have little to no economic power as a SAHM) than for my husband. I would have to rely on the assistance of family in all likelihood to afford a lawyer or exhaust what little savings I have just to get a retainer (nevermind having to find a place to live and paying bills), whereas my husband would not. Now, I have all confidence that my husband will not leave me and if we were to decide on divorce that he would assist me with a transition for the sake of his children, but that doesn't negate that he has inherent power in this situation.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Thank's annakiss - you and I seem to be on the same wavelength, which is kinda nice.









I wanted to add further that although both he and I are aware of the power dynamics that are externally imposed (that is, exist only because of outside, that is, _political_ and social forces, _in spite of_ our dislike of and work against them), they in no way diminish our relationship, that is, he and I trust each other and love each other no bit less because of our awareness of this difference in power. In fact, we have to trust each other more, I that he won't use his power and he that I will trust him to not use his power.

It's still not neutral power, however. Although, with our awareness of it and our conscious, deliberate effort, we have minimized its negative impact on _our_ relationship, it is still true that there are thousands if not millions of relationships out there that are tainted by the power differential, and way too many millions of cases where the power _did_ eventually get used (abused) by the (usually male) party who had the economic ability to leave the partnership/marriage. It happens - just because it doesn't happen to us because our partners have sworn either to work to rectify and eliminate the power differential or to use it benevolently doesn't mean it doesn't adversely affect millions of women.

And that's just here in the US, where we _do_ have rights as human beings, rights to vote, and own property, and live our lives without a male relative/husband/keeper ruling over us - all of that in the last century or so, _and all thanks to feminism_, the radical notion that women are people too, and deserve to be treated like it.

Once again, there's so much more I want to say, but I'm tired, and I'm sick, and I'm going to bed.

(I hate strep - just for the record.)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
I see examples all around me of how far feminism has come. I see the mothers as strong examples of all that women can become. My closest mother friends and I are all well-educated, world-travelling women, all of whom chose to have our children after age 30. *We have all accomplished a lot and now stay at home with children* as a right and a choice.

Interesting wording. I'm not a "well-educated, world-travelling" woman, but I feel I've accomplished a lot, too...as a mother. I suspect you didn't mean it this way, but this has a lot to do with why I've always avoided identifying myself as a feminist. I'm _me_ - I'm not interested in labelling my belief structure, so that other people can think they know what I'm all about. I'm certainly not interested in applying a label to myself that will cause people to think that I wanted to accomplish things _before_ I became a mother. I'm guessing from the rest of this thread that feminism has changed a lot, but that's still what most people seem to mean by it, and your post indicates that you're one of those people.

Quote:

We are not demeaned by our husbands because we married strong, respectful men, men who see themselves and what they do as equal intellectually to our activities. We all do various different degrees of child rearing and household chores depending on what works for our families. Our husbands value us because they respect us. I see women in my MOMS club who work part and full time and who have husbands who do the same and who share the work load. I see men and women working hard all around me to raise children and have families and have good lives, complete with many opportunities.
I married a man who was fine with me being in charge of the finances. I married a man who believed when we were younger that I could - physically - kick his butt, and who freely admitted that I was smarter than he was. I was the primary breadwinner (the one with the "power", apparently). It was a nightmare, and he ended up being an emotionally abusive jerk. Now, I'm married to a much more traditional sort of man, and he's the breadwinner (I was for the first couple of years - before we had dd). Right now, he has more "power" in some senses...but I could go get a new job tomorrow, if the occasion warranted it.

I left my ex when I realized he no longer had respect for me. (I also had no respect for him by that point.) I'd leave dh if he had no respect for me. My husband doesn't demean me, because I won't allow it. I have a friend who is a staunch feminist, who has hooked up with one abusive jerk after another, and never even seems to realize she's being abused until it reaches ridiculous extremes (death threats, stalking, etc.). So...her feminism doesn't seem to mean much with respect to power in her life.

I have no interest in "accomplishing" things, if that means getting an education (I couldn't wait to get out of school, and university has never really interested me) or having a career outside the home. I may become a doula - I haven't decided if that's really something I'm cut out for. If I do, it's going to wait until my children are a little older. But, I don't, after WOH for years, see the bs involved in office politics, corporate culture, etc. as having "power". I have far more control over my day than my dh does...even with two small children at home. I wouldn't trade this for anything. This is my choice, and I'm grateful that dh is willing to give up his time with his children, in order to let me have my lifelong dream.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

To clarify, I didn't mean that my dh doesn't have power over me because he doesn't use it. I meant that he doesn't have power over me because I have the same amount of power that he does, but I choose not to use it. If I wanted to, I could get a job, hoard all my money, and leave dh in the dust. I have the capability, i.e. the power, to be a breadwinner; I just choose not to do it.

If my dh were to suddenly leave me (not that he would, but for the sake of hypothetical) I would not be financially ruined. I would be unhappy, but I would get a job. I would be a little bit disadvantaged by having been out of the workforce, but again, that's because of my choice. He doesn't have any type of *inherent* power over me.

Think about these fast-track business types who drop out of the rat race and go live in a cabin in the woods. Are they powerless? I don't think so, just the opposite. They're *choosing* to sacrifice wealth for personal happiness. A person who was raised in the woods and had no marketable skills, who also lived in a cabin in the woods, might indeed be powerless, because he has no other options. So to me, it isn't about whether you make money, but about whether you have options. My dh and I have the same number of options, so we have the same amount of power. At least that is how I see it.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
But, I don't, after WOH for years, see the bs involved in office politics, corporate culture, etc. as having "power". I have far more control over my day than my dh does...even with two small children at home. I wouldn't trade this for anything. This is my choice, and I'm grateful that dh is willing to give up his time with his children, in order to let me have my lifelong dream.

That is a good point. Yes, you get financial power from being in the "rat race," but at what cost to your personal freedom? My dh can buy himself whatever he wants, but I can take a nap during the day. I think I got the better half of the deal.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

You do _not_ have the same amount of power as your DH because you _don't_ have a job. And this isn't power in your relationship, per se, but it's social power, economic power, which if abused could be used as power in your relationship. In fact, if you tried to go out to get a job tomorrow and couldn't find one and your DH started having anger problems and became abusive and your family didn't have the resources to support you or you didn't speak to them or they lived really far away, well then all his social and economic power would start translating into real power over you. It isn't power _over_ you at this point, but it is power that he has and you don't. This is not to say that someone without a job is _powerless_, just that someone with an income has economic power.

There are of course entirely valuable and important reasons for people to choose to not have a job or to opt out of the rat race, which may not make them powerless at all, but without an income in a capitalistic society you will not have much power socially or politically. When primarily low income women were in the workforce and middle and upper class women depended on their husbands, women had very little power. And before first wave feminism we couldn't even own property or vote. Talk about being powerless! The opposite of having a job is not powerless, but having an income brings with it certain status and inherent power, ecnonmically and socially.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
That is a good point. Yes, you get financial power from being in the "rat race," but at what cost to your personal freedom? My dh can buy himself whatever he wants, but I can take a nap during the day. I think I got the better half of the deal.

Because he supports you, of course.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Brigianna, I think you misunderstand; we're not saying that we want the power, or that it's even desirable in any way. It is a fact of life, living, like annakiss said, in a capitalistic society. It would be lovely to have both parents home, able to do whatever they want, whenever they want to, without having to worry about money. Unfortunately, that is not possible.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

I'm also a little irked (not that I think it's being done deliberately) that "economic power" and "power/status in society" are being confused for ALL kinds of power.

There are many, many different kinds of power - in an aggresively capitalistic society like the US, monetary/economic power has disproportional clout compared to some of the others, which is part of the problem, and why feminism in the 70s and 80s focused largely on getting women into the workplace and earning money, not because they thought economic power SHOULD be more important, but because, in this royally screwed up society, it, in many ways, IS more "important".

I certainly don't think I'm powerless - I have the power of equality and status within my relationship with my partner, I have the power of potential (the _potential_ of getting a good job, which I do think some here are taking far too lightly - go talk to a couple SAHM-turned-unexpectedly-bereft-and-single moms and see how "simple" and "easy" it is to actually start earning enough money to keep the family afloat, and how "little" employers care about having taken a couple years off), I have the power of status as a white, middleclass, able-to-pass-for-straight person, I have the power of being a childbearing, nurturing, breastfeeding woman (and least I hope I do), I have the power of my vote... I have all kinds of power, including some economic (again, in large part because my partner chooses to grant it to me). The problem is, that in a patriarchal and capitalistic society, most of that don't mean squat compared to economic power. I don't have a paying job, so I'm not earning social security to help support me when I'm older. I have no one paying for my health insurance, or putting money into my retirement account. The work that I do, and that most SAHMs do, is neither recognised nor supported by our government and society in real, tangible ways. (Like providing us healthcare or retirement benefits.)

I'm getting lost in my own damn argument.







I think I was trying to say: money is power, it's not the only power, it's not the most important power, or at least it shouldn't be, but it's the primary counter of power in our society.

I do feel like we've gotten completely sidetracked off the original purpose of this thread. Not that this isn't an interesting conversation, but I thought I would point that out.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

just wanted to interject a point brought up a few posts up- it's true- there seems to be an elitism that goes along with *some* upper middle class women who say things like, "I graduated college, had a professional career, and then at 35 chose to stay home and have kids- BUT it's okay because I did so much/accomplished so much/am so much more varied than being JUST a SAHM".
someone like me, who graduated high school, did bits and pieces of college (including a summer session in Sociology of Families at Brandeis that interestingly focused on these exact arguments!) but only worked for a few years as an exec assistant before marrying relatively young (22) and having my baby immediately, is sort of the anti-poster child for the 3rd wave feminist movement. I plan to further my career when my dd is older, which many consider "doing things backwards".
So to many, at a certain point it's like, "Now it's ok to give up the career and turn the power over to the husband, because I'm educated and could get back into a job easily & support myself and children." So it seems as long as the woman has a great looking resume and the *potential* to be a breadwinner it's ok for them to not actually be making money, but a lack of that dormant power is considered weak and irresponsible and risky.
In other words, "yes, we should all have the CHOICE, but the choice to stay home needs to be backed up with a solid education or it's not acceptable." I totally disagree with this and think this mindset can often lead people to *never* be able to stay home with their kids even if they want to, because once they have the established career and the house and the multiple cars and the credit card debt and spent years attaining a great education (often with a hefty chunk of student loans), their life is just not set up to choose to stay home anymore.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
You do _not_ have the same amount of power as your DH because you _don't_ have a job. And this isn't power in your relationship, per se, but it's social power, economic power, which if abused could be used as power in your relationship. In fact, if you tried to go out to get a job tomorrow and couldn't find one and your DH started having anger problems and became abusive and your family didn't have the resources to support you or you didn't speak to them or they lived really far away, well then all his social and economic power would start translating into real power over you. It isn't power _over_ you at this point, but it is power that he has and you don't. This is not to say that someone without a job is _powerless_, just that someone with an income has economic power.

There are of course entirely valuable and important reasons for people to choose to not have a job or to opt out of the rat race, which may not make them powerless at all, but without an income in a capitalistic society you will not have much power socially or politically. When primarily low income women were in the workforce and middle and upper class women depended on their husbands, women had very little power. And before first wave feminism we couldn't even own property or vote. Talk about being powerless! The opposite of having a job is not powerless, but having an income brings with it certain status and inherent power, ecnonmically and socially.

Yes, he has more economic power than I do, but that doesn't mean that there is a power imbalance in our relationship, because I have other things that are as valuable or more so. My dh does not trust anyone but me to raise his children. If we separated, I would have many options for replacing his income, but he would have no options for replacing my childcare. The scenario you describe could happen, but it could also happen that dh could lose his job and I would need to get one, and then I would certainly have more power than he did. But I mean any number of things could happen, but we have the same legal rights and not much different income-earning potential, so I don't think one of us can really have power over the other in any meaningful sense. More power in one area maybe, but not overall.

And I do have power politically and economically, because we consider my dh's income to be our joint family income. We don't think of it in terms of, he earns this much, and I earn nothing, and then he pays me as he sees fit, but as we, as a family, have this much money per month that we all contributed to and is used to meet all of our needs. I think this is how most families do it, whether they have one or two or more income-earning adults--not his income and her income, but the joint family income. And of course, our kids aren't contributing to this at all, but their needs take up most of the family income. Now my dh, as the income-earner, could, if he so chose, take the money and hoard it and not share it with us, but if he did that, I would have recourse, so I wouldn't consider it a power situation, but more like a consequence situation.

I don't think that he could have that kind of power over me, because if he did there would be consequences. Just like in theory, it could be said that I am mooching off his money and could just neglect the kids and spend it all on new shoes for me. But while I could, I suppose, do this if I wanted to, there would be consequences. There are always consequences when people don't live up to their responsibilities.

My dh and I do have a lot of privilege, which I don't deny. We are college-educated, white, Christian, comfortably middle-class, relatively socially accepted, adult, native-born citizens who can pass for mainstream when it counts. All of these things make us benificiaries of unjust social privilege. But I don't think there is power and privilege *within* our relationship. We are a unit, a collective. And if one of us isn't fulfilling our responsibility to the unit--like if dh were hoarding the money, or I were neglecting the kids, both of which would be within our legal rights--there would be consequences.

Quote:

_Because he supports you, of course._
Sure, but I support him too. We both have responsibilities and contributions to make.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lunar forest*
Brigianna, I think you misunderstand; we're not saying that we want the power, or that it's even desirable in any way. It is a fact of life, living, like annakiss said, in a capitalistic society. It would be lovely to have both parents home, able to do whatever they want, whenever they want to, without having to worry about money. Unfortunately, that is not possible.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the income-earner has power over the non-income-earner. I'm not denying the power of money in a capitalistic society, but only that the power dynamic extends into a mutual relationship.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
I'm also a little irked (not that I think it's being done deliberately) that "economic power" and "power/status in society" are being confused for ALL kinds of power.

Right, there is more than one kind of power. So someone with more economic power does not necessarily have more power or influence in a mutual relationship.

Quote:

_There are many, many different kinds of power - in an aggresively capitalistic society like the US, monetary/economic power has disproportional clout compared to some of the others, which is part of the problem, and why feminism in the 70s and 80s focused largely on getting women into the workplace and earning money, not because they thought economic power SHOULD be more important, but because, in this royally screwed up society, it, in many ways, IS more "important".

I certainly don't think I'm powerless - I have the power of equality and status within my relationship with my partner, I have the power of potential (the potential of getting a good job, which I do think some here are taking far too lightly - go talk to a couple SAHM-turned-unexpectedly-bereft-and-single moms and see how "simple" and "easy" it is to actually start earning enough money to keep the family afloat, and how "little" employers care about having taken a couple years off), I have the power of status as a white, middleclass, able-to-pass-for-straight person, I have the power of being a childbearing, nurturing, breastfeeding woman (and least I hope I do), I have the power of my vote... I have all kinds of power, including some economic (again, in large part because my partner chooses to grant it to me). The problem is, that in a patriarchal and capitalistic society, most of that don't mean squat compared to economic power. I don't have a paying job, so I'm not earning social security to help support me when I'm older. I have no one paying for my health insurance, or putting money into my retirement account. The work that I do, and that most SAHMs do, is neither recognised nor supported by our government and society in real, tangible ways. (Like providing us healthcare or retirement benefits.)

I'm getting lost in my own damn argument.







I think I was trying to say: money is power, it's not the only power, it's not the most important power, or at least it shouldn't be, but it's the primary counter of power in our society._
Yes, we live in a materialistic capitalist society that values economic power disproportionately. But that doesn't mean that as individuals we have to accept society's standards as our own. I have *chosen* to forgo social status and wealth in order to take care of my children. I'm not a socialist; I don't believe that all people are entitled to economic equality regardless of the choices they make. I *do* believe that all people should have the same access to opportunity and resources so that they can make a meaningful choice about how to sustain themselves. I am privileged enough to have a meaningful choice--I have a college degree and marketable skills. I think those choices should be availible to anyone who wants to go that direction. But I don't think it's unfair that someone who chooses a high-status, high-paying job earns more money than someone who doesn't, as long as it was a meaningful choice for them both. There are plenty of people who choose to give up their high-income careers to do the work that they love or feel called to, whether it's sah childrearing or volunteer work or whatever. I don't think they give up power in doing so. To me, power is the ability and freedom to make a meaningful choice, not necessarily which choice you make.

Quote:

_I do feel like we've gotten completely sidetracked off the original purpose of this thread. Not that this isn't an interesting conversation, but I thought I would point that out._
We're within the general theme I think.







I could go really off-topic and list all the problems I have with the feminist worldview, but I will refrain.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
I certainly don't think I'm powerless - I have the power of equality and status within my relationship with my partner, I have the power of potential (the _potential_ of getting a good job, which I do think some here are taking far too lightly - go talk to a couple SAHM-turned-unexpectedly-bereft-and-single moms and see how "simple" and "easy" it is to actually start earning enough money to keep the family afloat, and how "little" employers care about having taken a couple years off),

With the kind of work I do, that doesn't matter. I don't have a career, and I'm not climbing the ladder. I work in "pink collar" and/or semi-professional work at a low level, and nobody gives a damn whether I took a few years off or not. At that level, it's not about how "dedicated" you are to your career or any of that bs. It's simply about whether or not you have the skills. It doesn't pay a whole lot, but I managed to keep my family fed until I went on mat leave three years ago.

I do understand what you're saying, but having spent a lot of time on the "working outside the home" side of the fence, I think the freedom and power are exaggerated. There are only so many high power, good paying jobs available. Most people I know...male or female...SAH or WOH, are working damned hard just to stay afloat. Yeah - if dh and I split up (which I don't see coming), I'd take a hit in terms of buying power. But, the same thing would happen to dh if I died or something, and he knows it. Sure, most of the _really_ powerful - in the economic & political sense - people in our society are male, not female. But, I'm not one of them, and neither is dh...and I wouldn't want to be.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276*
just wanted to interject a point brought up a few posts up- it's true- there seems to be an elitism that goes along with *some* upper middle class women who say things like, "I graduated college, had a professional career, and then at 35 chose to stay home and have kids- BUT it's okay because I did so much/accomplished so much/am so much more varied than being JUST a SAHM".
someone like me, who graduated high school, did bits and pieces of college (including a summer session in Sociology of Families at Brandeis that interestingly focused on these exact arguments!) but only worked for a few years as an exec assistant before marrying relatively young (22) and having my baby immediately, is sort of the anti-poster child for the 3rd wave feminist movement. I plan to further my career when my dd is older, which many consider "doing things backwards".
So to many, at a certain point it's like, "Now it's ok to give up the career and turn the power over to the husband, because I'm educated and could get back into a job easily & support myself and children." So it seems as long as the woman has a great looking resume and the *potential* to be a breadwinner it's ok for them to not actually be making money, but a lack of that dormant power is considered weak and irresponsible and risky.
In other words, "yes, we should all have the CHOICE, but the choice to stay home needs to be backed up with a solid education or it's not acceptable." I totally disagree with this and think this mindset can often lead people to *never* be able to stay home with their kids even if they want to, because once they have the established career and the house and the multiple cars and the credit card debt and spent years attaining a great education (often with a hefty chunk of student loans), their life is just not set up to choose to stay home anymore.

That is a really good point. Personally I did the go-to-college-and-have-a-career-before-becoming-a-sahm thing, but not by conscious design, just the way my life worked out. I do think that our lives have stages, and the mother-of-young-children stage is all too fleeting. My kids will not need mama around all the time forever. But I think it's ridiculous to say, it's okay to take time off to raise your kids as long as you do your real accomplishments first. Raising kids *is* a real accomplishment! I don't look at being a sahm as taking a break from my career, but of my career time as something to do while I was waiting to have children. I didn't exactly think of it that way at the time, but I certainly do now.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
I have no idea what you mean by stating I "am one of those people."

I didn't say you were "one of those people". I said that your post indicated that you were. I'll admit I probably worded it badly. Your comment about "accomplishing a lot, then becoming a mother" absolutely reeked, _to me_, of the same "women's work doesn't count" atttitude that turns my stomach. I did mention that you probably didn't mean it that way (I can't imagine anyone posting here who _would_ mean it that way). I quoted you because those words gave structure to one of the issues I've always had with most feminists I've met.

Quote:

I judge not you and I am not sure why you are judging me. If you do not want to label yourself, that is your choice. But don't judge me when you do not know me and are not sure what I am stating. Stand up for who and what you are. Don't let anything I say put you on the defensive, particularly when it is not even about you.
I'm not on the defensive. As I said, your post read to me as the elitist brand of feminism that I can't stand, and have run into all too often in my life. And, of course I was judging you (badly) from your post - you're doing the same, by suggesting that I'm defensive. We all do that online...it's the major flaw of internet communication.

Quote:

That being said, if it were not for feminism, you would not even be able to entertain the idea that being "accomplished" meant anything other than financial and political power, in the male sense of the words.
Of course I would. I may, or may not, believe that it meant less than male accomplishments, but women have always felt that they were "accomplished" in various things, be they embroidery, sewing, quilt-making, music (as you mentioned above), cooking, etc. As I'm a complete write-off at most of the domestic arts, I'm far more impressed by a good seamstress than I am by a college degree or a high-paying job.

Quote:

Once again, I bring up the book America's Women: 400 years of dolls, drudges, helpmates, and heroines by Gail Collins. Seriously, anyone, particularly any woman, who casts any doubts on the impotance feminism has played in your life needs to do some reading. There is absolutely no way that there does not exist a woman today who's life has not been made better by feminism. We are all in better places today than our greatgrandmothers and we have feminists to thank for that.
Actually...my great-grandmother couldn't have cared less about leaving her home to work, and today she'd probably have had to, as her husband wasn't well educated, and probably couldn't have supported them in a modern economy. She was a _very_ accomplished woman - a great mother, an unbelievably good cook, talented seamstress, etc. I doubt she'd have found a lot of improvements.

However, that aside, I agree that things are better than they were in many ways because of feminism. I also feel that it's a mixed blessing (there are many women now who _have_ to WOH, instead of having to SAH, because one income won't cut it), and that a lot of it would have happened because of technological improvements, anyway.

I hope dd knows that she can be whatever she wants when she grows up. I hope both my boys know the same thing. That doesn't mean dd won't choose to be a homemaker (I did, and I always knew I could do whatever I wanted). I don't think feminism is incompatible with motherhood, but I do think some forms of it are.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
I never stated this nor implied it nor does it come close to stating anything about my life. It is very sad that you think this poorly of women who have made different choices than you.

I don't. I simply misunderstood what you wrote. I have had multiple women who call themselves feminists get on my case about "wasting my brain" because I didn't choose a post-secondary education. I had a woman I worked with go to my boss and and ask her to talk me out of getting married the first time, because I was "too young and too smart to waste my life like that". (She was right that it was a mistake, but not because I was young. It was a mistake, because he was an irresponsible, deceptive jerk, who ended up a drug addict.) As you say, we all base our reactions on our experiences. If you don't think the same way as the women I'm referring to above, I'm very happy to hear it. I've simply had _very_ bad experiences with feminists who think they have the right to tell me how to live, simply because I'm intelligent.

I'm glad that men in our culture don't have the same power to dictate to women that they used to have. But, that doesn't mean that I think other women should have that power, and I've certainly met a fair number who think otherwise.

I also see the issue as being a lot more complicated than "women had no power then, and have some now". My dh doesn't have the power to choose to stay home, and if we didn't need money, that's exactly what he'd be doing. Yes - he has more economic power than me, but he'd have been _very_ happy to stay home with the kids while I went to work.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Arwyn wrote:

Quote:

I'm also a little irked (not that I think it's being done deliberately) that "economic power" and "power/status in society" are being confused for ALL kinds of power.








Disciplining your children, whether you do it gently or harshly, is power; it has a huge effect on how they conduct their lives and how they feel about themselves and others and power in general. That's just one example of the power of parents in shaping children's lives.

A few years ago I was having dinner with friends, one of whom was looking for a job, and people started talking about their minimum salary requirements in terms of how much they are "worth". After hearing that phrasing used repeatedly in connection with numbers nearly double my income, I said, "You know, I've never made more than X, but I don't think I am WORTH less than you. I am priceless! I get paid in order to be able to have the things I need to keep doing my work--not to prove my worth as a person." I've been thinking about that ever since. It made me so sad that they were seeing it that way.

Lest you think that I can afford to hold the above view because I'm being supported by a man: No, I pay my share of the bills, save for my retirement, and give to charity. The only financial privelege in my lifestyle is that I graduated from college debt-free (thanks to parents, grandparents, and scholarships) and thus have been able to accept relatively low salaries (for work I really enjoy) while still being financially solvent.

Interesting points about some people thinking it's "okay" to take time off to SAH only if one has already reached certain academic and career milestones. I'm certainly familiar with that attitude from my parents. I think it can be very problematic, though, esp. for women whose goals take so many years to reach that they've passed peak fertility by the time they're "ready". It's important to feel ready for parenthood, whatever that means to you, but I'd like to see more people (including myself







) open-minded to women choosing to become mothers soon after high school and do the college and WOH when their children are older. It does seem "backward" to me because of the way I was raised, but biologically it makes a lot of sense.

Storm Bride wrote:

Quote:

I agree that things are better than they were in many ways because of feminism. I also feel that it's a mixed blessing (there are many women now who have to WOH, instead of having to SAH, because one income won't cut it).
Please don't blame feminism for that! Blame greedy corporations for paying their workers too small a share of the profits and offshoring entire departments, blame them and/or the government for failing to provide adequate affordable health care, blame advertisers who make people think they need more stuff than they can afford on one paycheck, blame technologies that automate jobs formerly done by people, but please don't buy the "women took all the good jobs so a man can't feed his family" argument. Or did you have something else in mind?







: (Maybe I'm just inferring a connection between those two sentences where you didn't mean one.)

Boongirl wrote:

Quote:

It is all well and good to say that women were most likely proud of their accomplishments but those accomplishments were severely limited.
Well, similarly, it is all well and good to say that men historically have been allowed to accomplish things, but embroidery and quilt-making are areas STILL pretty closed to them, and there's STILL a widespread perception that men aren't good at caring for young children and perhaps shouldn't even be allowed to care for children other than their own. This cuts them off from an enormous and valuable realm of human accomplishment. So I'd say that historically the accomplishments of BOTH sexes have been severely limited, and things have opened up for women much more than for men so far.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
Storm Bride wrotelease don't blame feminism for that! Blame greedy corporations for paying their workers too small a share of the profits and offshoring entire departments, blame them and/or the government for failing to provide adequate affordable health care, blame advertisers who make people think they need more stuff than they can afford on one paycheck, blame technologies that automate jobs formerly done by people, but please don't buy the "women took all the good jobs so a man can't feed his family" argument. Or did you have something else in mind?







: (Maybe I'm just inferring a connection between those two sentences where you didn't mean one.)

I think all the things you mentioned are factors in the problem. But, I also believe that, as more and more families moved from single incomes to double incomes, more and more aspects of our lives began to reflect that. I'll use a house as an example: A double income couple could/would buy a house they couldn't have afforded if they were living on one salary. Or, they'd simply buy a house they could have afforded, but wouldn't have to make as many sacrifices in other areas as they otherwise would have had to make. I think this sort of thing "raises the bar"...and houses creep up to where a single income family can't afford to buy one...or even live in it. I don't think feminism is the only factor that causes/caused this kind of thing. But, I do think that the societal framework has come to assume that families have two incomes, and price things accordingly. IMO, that puts a serious squeeze on those women (and men!) who would rather stay home with their kids.

That doesn't mean I think women should be forced back out of the workplace. I'd really like to see more part-time and telecommuting jobs. It would be great if we could make it with dh and I both working part-time (when ds2 is older), but _good_ part-time jobs are hard to find...

I'm afraid I'm not saying any of this very well...


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
I am just not going to feel sorry for men. They've had a millenia to work things out their way. It was their choice to limit themselves. We never had that choice.

What does this mean? How was it "their choice to limit themselves"? Most men have had to do what they had to do because of economic necessity. I don't think they've ever had any more personal choice than women. If you're talking about being confined by social pressure, that has affected men equally as much as women, and it isn't binding.

Why is there this assumption that women are and have been slaves to social pressure but men are not?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Wow, interesting discussion. You know, I have a bumper sticker which says "feminism is the radical notion that women are people." That is pretty much how I feel about the issue.

I have followed this discussion with interest and I have to say I am somewhat dissapointed that the treatment of girls and women in general on a world scale has not been discussed in depth yet.

I am a staunch feminist, for many of the reasons mentioned in the thread, but mainly because women and girls are still treated on a world scale, as property, less than human, less than boys and men... just, _less than_.

I will be a feminist until orphanages in China, Russia and other countries are not filled to the brim with primarily unwanted girls, because they are not as valued as boys.

I will be a feminist until little girls in Africa and Asia (and elsewhere) are not forcibly held down and forced screaming and writhing and begging to have thier clitorises cut off with blunt, unsanitary knives -- -or dragged kicking and screaming and crying at 9 and 10 years old to a wedding to a stranger twice or three times their age...and left to give birth alone to stillborn infants -- and left with fistulas where they can't control their bodily functions so they are treated as pariahs.

I will be a feminist until young girls and women are not held responsible for being sexually assaulted because they wore a short skirt, or couldn't fight back.

I will be a feminist until girls and women are not "honor" killed because they were raped or were found to not have been virgins when married.

I will be a feminist until women are no longer stoned to death for adultery (even accused adultery with no proof).

I will be a feminist until all girls of the world are afforded the opportunity to an education and not denied because of their gender.

I will be a feminist until the statistics for girls being sexually assaulted before they are 16 drops BELOW one in four (and those are just the cases reported.)

I will be a feminist until the thought of a woman president in the United States (and elsewhere) is seen as an actual probability and not just a part Geena Davis plays on TV for entertainment purposes.

I will be a feminist until women are paid equally for equal work -- and not just $.75 to every man's dollar which is still the case....lower in other countries.

I will be a feminist until hospitals and doctors treat childbirth as a beautiful, natural occurance and not as a medical treatment where a woman has to be practically strapped to a bed on her back, and drugged in order to give birth.

I will be a feminist until breastfeeding in public (and in general) is seen as the beautiful, natural, normal thing to do instead of as some dirty thing that forces men to see breasts as nurtuing, life-giving nourishment instead of how most men WANT to see breasts --- which are big and perky, serving them hot wings from behind a tight, white tank top.

I will be a feminist until toy vacums, ovens, kitchens, and dolls are not (almost) all draped in pink with a little girl on the box -- suggesting that these are things which are only acceptable for girls to play with.

I will be a feminist when boys aren't told they throw "like a girl" or are crying "like a girl" or other demeaning comments which not only shame boys, but shame boys _because_ they are taught that anything resembling "female traits" are weaker, and lesser.

Sure, men and boys have their own struggles, societal pressures, and so on -- I don't dispute that. Pound for pound though, women and girls are still the greatest victims on a global scale of inequality. Even by people who have been opressed, historically speaking, the wives and daughters of the opressed had it worse than them.

I don't hate men, I love men, I love people in general. Until women and girls are on an equal playing field as their penised counterparts though, I will always be a feminist.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Because men had all the power. And, if the attitude you convey had held, then men would still be in power. Your statement makes it seem like men had no choice at all. They had and have a conscience and moral values. They know the difference between right and wrong. Your argument could be made to defend slave owners in early America, that they were victims of economic necessity. BS! They made choices to enslave people, to write laws that limited them being viewed as fully capable humans, to limit their rights, to view them as having less intelligence than white men. They did the same thing to women. And, since not all men have done this and not all cultures, then the argument that they were slaves to social pressure is bunk. They were selfishly taking care of themselves and perpetuating their own power. Seriously, Brigianna, when you have done more reading and research into this topic, you will understand. Don't try to make an argument you know nothing about.

I am quite familiar with this argument; however I don't agree with it. No, most men did not have "the power." And I don't agree with your comparison with slavery. The slaveowning classes were the elite who did in fact have the power. The majority of commoners did not own slaves. I did not mean that immoral acts were justified by economic necessity; of course they aren't. I meant that the majority of men throughout history did not have the power. They were not oppressing anyone. They were struggling to survive, whether as peasant farmers or factory workers or other similar things. They were not making any choices to enslave people. They were not selfishly perpetuating their own power, because they did not have any power to perpetuate. What "power" did men outside of the wealthy aristocratic classes have, even after the advent of democracy, let alone before? What "power" was some poor farmer trying to perpetuate. Honestly this is one of the things about feminism that I just can not agree with, this notion that the average man has historically had "power." The fact that the majority of those in power were men does not mean that the majority of men had power.

And I was not arguing that they were slaves to social pressure. I was saying that they were as affected by social pressure as women. So if you're going to say that women were "oppressed" by social pressure and expectations, then you would have to say that men were too, because there was equal pressure on both sexes. The pressure on women to be homemakers was no stronger than the pressure on men to be breadwinners. Personally, I believe that social pressure is overrated--we all have free will and can choose whether to conform or not, and plenty of people choose and have chosen not to conform. But it is false to say that social pressure on women was "oppression" but social pressure on men was "self-imposed."


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Wow, interesting discussion. You know, I have a bumper sticker which says "feminism is the radical notion that women are people." That is pretty much how I feel about the issue.

I have followed this discussion with interest and I have to say I am somewhat dissapointed that the treatment of girls and women in general on a world scale has not been discussed in depth yet.

_I will be a feminist until orphanages in China, Russia and other countries are not filled to the brim with primarily unwanted girls, because they are not as valued as boys._

_I will be a feminist until little girls in Africa and Asia (and elsewhere) are not forcibly held down and forced screaming and writhing and begging to have thier clitorises cut off with blunt, unsanitary knives -- -or dragged kicking and screaming and crying at 9 and 10 years old to a wedding to a stranger twice or three times their age...and left to give birth alone to stillborn infants -- and left with fistulas where they can't control their bodily functions so they are treated as pariahs._

_I will be a feminist until young girls and women are not held responsible for being sexually assaulted because they wore a short skirt, or couldn't fight back_.

_I will be a feminist until girls and women are not "honor" killed because they were raped or were found to not have been virgins when married._

_I will be a feminist until women are no longer stoned to death for adultery (even accused adultery with no proof)._

_I will be a feminist until all girls of the world are afforded the opportunity to an education and not denied because of their gender._

I will be a feminist until the statistics for girls being sexually assaulted before they are 16 drops BELOW one in four (and those are just the cases reported.)

I will be a feminist until the thought of a woman president in the United States (and elsewhere) is seen as an actual probability and not just a part Geena Davis plays on TV for entertainment purposes.

I will be a feminist until women are paid equally for equal work -- and not just $.75 to every man's dollar which is still the case....lower in other countries.

I will be a feminist until hospitals and doctors treat childbirth as a beautiful, natural occurance and not as a medical treatment where a woman has to be practically strapped to a bed on her back, and drugged in order to give birth.

I will be a feminist until breastfeeding in public (and in general) is seen as the beautiful, natural, normal thing to do instead of as some dirty thing that forces men to see breasts as nurtuing, life-giving nourishment instead of how most men WANT to see breasts --- which are big and perky, serving them hot wings from behind a tight, white tank top.

I will be a feminist until toy vacums, ovens, kitchens, and dolls are not (almost) all draped in pink with a little girl on the box -- suggesting that these are things which are only acceptable for girls to play with.

I will be a feminist when boys aren't told they throw "like a girl" or are crying "like a girl" or other demeaning comments which not only shame boys, but shame boys _because_ they are taught that anything resembling "female traits" are weaker, and lesser.

Sure, men and boys have their own struggles, societal pressures, and so on -- I don't dispute that. Pound for pound though, women and girls are still the greatest victims on a global scale of inequality. Even by people who have been opressed, historically speaking, the wives and daughters of the opressed had it worse than them.

I don't hate men, I love men, I love people in general. Until women and girls are on an equal playing field as their penised counterparts though, I will always be a feminist.

This was a very well-articulated explanation for why you hold these views, and I appreciate that. And in fact, I agree with all your goals that you list here. I don't think that makes me a feminist. Actually I think what you advocate is very consistent with liberal individualism. There are several key distinctions between that and feminism though. If you don't mind, here are a few of my views on the subject:

-I will be a liberal individualist until women and men have the right to undergo any procedures they choose, including taking whatever drugs or medicines they choose, and including the right to refuse any unwanted treatment, without anyone having the right to override their choice.

-I will be a liberal individualist until feminists, theocrats, socialists, psychologists, and all others stop trying to use governmental power to protect us from ourselves.

-I will be a liberal individualist until the romantic/domestic/sexual lives and practices of consenting adults are recognized as a matter of personal choice and nobody else's business, even if you don't personally agree.

-I will be a liberal individualist until feminists recognize that reproductive freedom is a two-way street and stop whitewashing the evils of "population control."

-I will be a liberal individualist until a drunk man who has consensual sex with an equally drunk woman is not considered a rapist. Until women are recognized as having the same amount of free will as men, and the same responsibility for their choices.

-I will be a liberal individualist until consensual practices are not conflated with acts of violence, and when all people's capacity for free will is acknowledged.

-I will be a liberal individualist until "education" is no longer synonymous with "formal schooling."

-I will be a liberal individualist until survivors of abuse and captivity are not excluded from the public square or labelled as mentally ill.

-I will be a liberal individualist until the disproven theory of "mind control" has no place in law or public debate.

-I will be a liberal individualist until children are regarded as people with human rights of their own, not property of their parents.

-I will be a liberal individualist until forced vaccinations, forced contraception, forced abortion, forced breastfeeding, and forced health-food-eating are not advocated as public policy by feminists and so-called progressives.

-I will be a liberal individualist until people's right to practice their religion, no matter how "fringe," is respected.

As I understand it, mainstream-academic feminists would disagree with all of these points. I recognize that there are some feminists who would agree. But until the feminists who support individual freedom of choice stop allowing the zpg, drunk-sex-banning, body-modification-banning, mind-control-believing, anti-religious-freedom, censorship-supporting, Big Sister wing to be the mainstream of the movement, I don't see how I can in good conscience apply that term to my own views. To me, "choice feminism," as it is called, makes about as much sense as "pro-free-market communism." It just doesn't work.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

What, what an interesting discussion! Thank you all for your insights.

I wish I had the time to respond to most posts, but the baby is due to wake up for a nap soon







So, I'll just respond to one of the early ones:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
Laohaire, it's great that you now see childcare as an important and honorable thing to do, but when you say, "Now I know that there is nothing more important," I wonder if you are just falling into the same trap on the other side. Childcare is important; so is firefighting. If you used to think firefighters were better than parents and now you think parents are better than firefighters, have you really made any progress? I believe that childcare and firefighting both are very important, that the same person can do both things within the same day, and that each of her roles will be enriched by her experience in the other.

Very good point. My feeling that parenthood is the most important thing is, of course, just an opinion. I do think firefighters enrich society enormously (and I say this as the wife of a former firefighter) but I honestly believe that parenthood is more fundamental. We were parents long before we had firefighters (or nurses, or teachers or...) and we will be parents right up until we are extinct. That goes for the other species too.

Then again, I'm speaking as the mother of a baby. My whole mindset is radically different than it was 1 year ago. That's one of the reasons I started this thread - to muse on how my mindset has changed. Anyway, it's very likely that I have this extreme opinion (that parenthood is the most important thing in the world) just because I am at this particular stage in my life.

I had a career and devoted much energy to it. Now my career just seems like a way to support my family, and not much more than that. Right now I see all our energies just going into supporting our family - my DH working his butt off earning as much as he can as well as sharing the childcare, us trying to pay off our mortgage ASAP, even fixing up our house just seems to be all part of building our family.

Darn! I was going to respond to more, but the baby woke up. See y'all later


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I meant that the majority of men throughout history did not have the power. They were not oppressing anyone
Woah, with all due respect, I have to strongly disagree with that statement. History proves, that when even "commoners" didn't have enough money to oppress anyone in the form of slaves, it is a safe bet that they were oppressing their wives and daughters...well, children in general, but daughters especially.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Wait and I have to disagree with you on some points too. Who here who claims to be a feminist doesn't recognize that reproductive rights are a two way street??? I am for a woman's choice to have 3 abortions or 13 kids. I just don't want my tax dollars to go fpr the abortions or the kids. I guess I am a leftist libertarian in that slant.

I think a lot of the things you mentioned sound as out there as you think the things I mentioned are. On one hand I see you saying that you want everyone's free will and capacity of choice to be recognised and respected... then on the other you use a lot of words like "force". I respectfully ask, which side of the fence are you on here? Your stance in which everyone has free will and the capacity of choice and should be held accountable for the choice's they make and not blame society -- or the side where the evil feminist agenda is the root of every problem we have







I jest somewhat, but it seems like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth in that respect as it relates to whether people have free will to choose their fates, or whether evil feminism is to blame for xyz...

I don't know why you think feminists are not for free will or choice? I certainly am. I respect the right of people to live as they choose and do as they choose as long as they are CONSENTING ADULTS...and as long as they recognize that their right to live consensually ends at my right to live consensually as well. We practice it in our home, with our daughter... she has as much of a say in our decisions as we do with the exception of issues of immediate and dire safety.

I can't get on board with the notion of "whatever works for your family" when there are children involved who are not choosing their situations. So when you bring up things like "fringe religious groups" I can only assume you mean true fringe like the mormon sects who believe in polygamy and such. Hey, marry 10 people if that's your thing, whatever, it doesn't mean much to me. When you are marrying your wife's 12 year old sister when she is 13, yeah, that is a feminist issue to me -- that is not much more than human trafficking...but you may not have been talking about that.

When one only worries about the individual, what happens to the people who are being victimized, taken advantage of, hurt, what happens to them? Are we just to shrug our shoulders and say, well, that's their bag, we aren't going to get involved? I mean, where does the honor of the individual end and the blind egocentrism begin? I think it is a fine line. I believe strongly in the right of the individual, which is why we practice consensual living -- however, we hone and honor our individuality in the spirit of collectivism (if that makes sense).

I mean, maybe it's utopic, but I just can't buy into an "every man for himself" mentality.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

wow. this thread is dense and i'm still getting through it. but some things are striking me as i go, so i'm gonna post them as i go.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
If we separated, I would have many options for replacing his income, but he would have no options for replacing my childcare....More power in one area maybe, but not overall.


actually, if you separated, you would have to find a job AND find childcare as well, since you'd be working. he'd only have to find the latter.

and this whole idea of power, who has it, what kind of power, i have this kind, he has that kind, etc...power is not a mathematics problem. you don't just add up a couple different kinds of power and end up with more power. power is merely a symbol for a social construct that is far more complex than i think you're treating it. but...like i said before, i have not finished the thread. so maybe you elaborate.

i think that you're sort of conflating the academic reaches of feminism (i.e. emancipatory action in all forms, hierarchical models of social institutions, etc) and the rights of *women* specifically. feminism has a lot to do with "power", but not in the way that i've seen you define it in this thread. it seems, at least to me, that things are getting a little muddied between the two strands of feminist ideology.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
As I understand it, mainstream-academic feminists would disagree with all of these points. I recognize that there are some feminists who would agree. But until the feminists who support individual freedom of choice stop allowing the zpg, drunk-sex-banning, body-modification-banning, mind-control-believing, anti-religious-freedom, censorship-supporting, Big Sister wing to be the mainstream of the movement, I don't see how I can in good conscience apply that term to my own views. To me, "choice feminism," as it is called, makes about as much sense as "pro-free-market communism." It just doesn't work.

um...i think that i need to step back a bit here. i *truly* think that you are misunderstanding and therefore misrepresenting the main tenets of the feminist ideology. academic feminism has very little to do with females. and i think that you're combining your understanding of pop-culture feminism with some discussion of social injustice and kind of getting everything all twisted.

re: your belief that man has not had all the power. given your ideas about marital power relations, i am guessing that you think that power is very significantly related to choice. the choice to exert power, the choice not to exert it. that power is a conscious thing that one can regulate for oneself. but historically speaking, this is really not the case. power is often completely unrelated to choice. power is a social construct that is not regulated to any significant extent by individuals. you talk about racial inequality, and link man vs. woman to white vs. non-white. i think that you start down an appropriate analogy but then get derailed a bit when you talk about the fact that "common men" didn't have power, only white elites. firstly, we have to redefine what you are describing as "common men" and make sure to not conflate race and gender again.

common men did not have power in relation to elite men. this a historically represented truth. but this does not mean that common men did not have power in relation to common women.

black men did not have power in relation to white men. but this does not mean that black men did not have power in relation to black women.

there is no doubt that in our nation's history race has been one of the greatest dividers. but it does not negate nor diminish the very *real* existence of gender inequities between and within all racial groups. being at the top of one totem pole doesn't mean you're not on the bottom of another, and vice versa.

but, again, i want to stress that the notion of power relations between men and women is NOT the focus of "academic feminism" as you have been stating.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

re: the notion that husbands should have authority over their wives.

i agree that this goes against the feminist ideology as it relates to female empowerment, gender relations, etc. but this is where "academic feminism" makes things muddy. one of the most important components of academic feminism is the notion of emancipatory action. within this construct is the notion that one must not exert emancipatory action on individuals or groups who do not want to be emancipated. this goes along with democratic ideology as well, cultural relativism, and the distinction between the personal and public sector. the latter is what makes this such a tricky area among feminists, imo.

"the personal is political" - but feminism also does not agree with forced emancipation. therefore, as an academic feminist i would say that you can choose to have your husband hold authority over you. that is your right as an individual. and in keeping with my democratic ideals and the idea that emancipation is never obligation, i would support this choice of yours.

BUT - as someone who feels burdened by society's belief that women are sub-par, that men hold innate authority over them, and that we should defer to our husbands simply because they hold the Y chromosome, i would scream to the rooftops that you do NOT have to allow this dynamic in your relationship.

so. it's more complex than i think you're suggesting.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Woah, with all due respect, I have to strongly disagree with that statement. History proves, that when even "commoners" didn't have enough money to oppress anyone in the form of slaves, it is a safe bet that they were oppressing their wives and daughters...well, children in general, but daughters especially.

In what sense? Obviously there were some men who oppressed their families, but it certainly wasn't universal. And most of these men were just struggling to survive, not oppress anyone. Most of the gender oppression only affected the upper classes anyway.

Quote:

_Wait and I have to disagree with you on some points too. Who here who claims to be a feminist doesn't recognize that reproductive rights are a two way street??? I am for a woman's choice to have 3 abortions or 13 kids. I just don't want my tax dollars to go fpr the abortions or the kids. I guess I am a leftist libertarian in that slant._
Well, not all feminists feel the same way, but several of them have argued that "population control is a feminist issue" and have seemed to suggest that reproductive rights means only the right to avoid having children. Putting all girls on hormonal birth control that they don't have the right to stop until they turn 18 has been a serious policy suggestion. But mostly it's a matter of emphasis--most feminists clearly emphasize the right to avoid children over the right to have them. And for myself, I would rather my tax dollars went to that than to most of what they go towards now, but I can certainly understand your view.

Quote:

_On one hand I see you saying that you want everyone's free will and capacity of choice to be recognised and respected... then on the other you use a lot of words like "force". I respectfully ask, which side of the fence are you on here? Your stance in which everyone has free will and the capacity of choice and should be held accountable for the choice's they make and not blame society -- or the side where the evil feminist agenda is the root of every problem we have







I jest somewhat, but it seems like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth in that respect as it relates to whether people have free will to choose their fates, or whether evil feminism is to blame for xyz..._
I don't blame the feminist movement for every problem we have. They didn't even invent the ideas I'm objecting to. But I do disagree with the feminist philosophy. I believe that every person of either sex should have the right to freedom of choice as long as he/she isn't violating anyone else's rights (if you're a libertarian you should be on board with this). However the feminist movement is systematically trying to take away people's choice. That is my problem with it. If they just limited themselves to expressing opinions, saying "we personally think it's wrong for a woman to be under her husband's authority; we personally think it's wrong to undergo body modification; we personally think it's wrong to sell your body," etc., I would agree with some points and disagree with some points but it wouldn't really bother me. But when they are passing laws taking away people's right to choose, that is where they cross the line. That and their assertion that no woman can make a different choice, or if we do it's because we're "brainwashed." That idea truly frightens me.

Quote:

_I don't know why you think feminists are not for free will or choice? I certainly am. I respect the right of people to live as they choose and do as they choose as long as they are CONSENTING ADULTS...and as long as they recognize that their right to live consensually ends at my right to live consensually as well. We practice it in our home, with our daughter... she has as much of a say in our decisions as we do with the exception of issues of immediate and dire safety._
I don't doubt that you are for free will and choice, but this is not the mainstream feminist view. From what I have read, "real" feminists have nothing but scorn for "choice feminists" and liberal individualists. According to them, we should have "liberation over liberty," meaning that people should be restricted from making personal choices that would seem to go against "liberation." Furthermore they will say that free will is an illusion, because we're all the products of our culture and economics. Therefore they need to protect us from ourselves.

Incidentally, while I try to be as non-coercive as possible with my kids, I'm not at the point of full-scale consensual living, which I realize is because I view young children in much the same way that feminists view adult women--they don't really know what's going on and can't quite make an informed choice. I do recognize that there's some irony there...

Quote:

_I can't get on board with the notion of "whatever works for your family" when there are children involved who are not choosing their situations._
I agree.

Quote:

_So when you bring up things like "fringe religious groups" I can only assume you mean true fringe like the mormon sects who believe in polygamy and such. Hey, marry 10 people if that's your thing, whatever, it doesn't mean much to me. When you are marrying your wife's 12 year old sister when she is 13, yeah, that is a feminist issue to me -- that is not much more than human trafficking...but you may not have been talking about that._
I was actually thinking more of things like French women's right to wear religious symbols in public, but polygamy (of consenting adults) too. I agree with you that people should not have the right to enter sexual relationships with 12 yr old girls; that is statutory rape and rightly so. But if you don't mind I think we should look at why we hold this view. It is because we recognize that at 12, the girl probably does not have the maturity or the knowlege about the world to make a meaningful choice. Therefore we (as a society) curb her freedom in the name of her own best interests. Now I agree with this, because I agree that a 12 yr old is still a child and still needs that. The mainstream feminist view makes no distinction between adults and children. To them, we are all little children who need to be protected from ourselves. This view is not unique to feminists of course, but it is a mainstream feminist view.

Speaking of polygamy, I read a good illustration of what I'm talking about recently in an article by William Saletan (why I still read him I have no idea, given that I disagree with him 90% of the time) about how the laws criminalizing loving relationships among more than two consenting adults are actually a good thing, because people in plural relationships get jealous. Now, never mind that there are plenty of people in perfectly happy plural relationships, and there are plenty of monogomous people who get insanely jealous, but even if you assume that his assumption is true, so what? Is it the government's job to protect us from jealousy now? Oh, and I was too outraged to look it up, but if he supported Lawrence vs. Texas I'm going to pull my hair out. In my view, the sexual and domestic lives of consenting adults are none of the state's business, period. To me it is so simple. Why would you trust anyone but the individuals involved to make that choice? This is where I usually hit a brick wall when talking to mainstream feminists. It just goes round and round. But what it comes down to is whether you believe in free will or whether you believe in mind control. The rest is peripheral.

Quote:

_When one only worries about the individual, what happens to the people who are being victimized, taken advantage of, hurt, what happens to them? Are we just to shrug our shoulders and say, well, that's their bag, we aren't going to get involved? I mean, where does the honor of the individual end and the blind egocentrism begin? I think it is a fine line. I believe strongly in the right of the individual, which is why we practice consensual living -- however, we hone and honor our individuality in the spirit of collectivism (if that makes sense)._

_I mean, maybe it's utopic, but I just can't buy into an "every man for himself" mentality_.
I agree with you. I am a strong believer in the social compact. I'm certainly not meaning liberal individualism as "every man for himself" or blind egocentrism. And I agree with honoring individuality in the spirit of collectivism. Of course we should intervene to protect people who are being victimized, taken advantage of, etc. To me, that is a part of being a liberal individualist, which includes helping those in need, etc. Where I disagree is that I don't believe we should be protected *from ourselves.* If I want to eat nothing but cheetos and pop-tarts, yes that is bad for me, but I don't want anyone to have the right to stop me. I think we have a right to harm ourselves (if we can even agree on what harm is) as long as we don't harm other people nonconsensually.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *michelemiller*
actually, if you separated, you would have to find a job AND find childcare as well, since you'd be working. he'd only have to find the latter.

Maybe, but I would hope I could find a source of income that didn't require institutional childcare.

Quote:

_and this whole idea of power, who has it, what kind of power, i have this kind, he has that kind, etc...power is not a mathematics problem. you don't just add up a couple different kinds of power and end up with more power. power is merely a symbol for a social construct that is far more complex than i think you're treating it. but...like i said before, i have not finished the thread. so maybe you elaborate._
Yes, power is a social construct, but it's only power if there's something to back it up. If someone gives me an order, he doesn't have power over me unless he has some kind of ability to coerce me to obey. Voluntary authority is different.

Quote:

_i think that you're sort of conflating the academic reaches of feminism (i.e. emancipatory action in all forms, hierarchical models of social institutions, etc) and the rights of *women* specifically. feminism has a lot to do with "power", but not in the way that i've seen you define it in this thread. it seems, at least to me, that things are getting a little muddied between the two strands of feminist ideology._

_um...i think that i need to step back a bit here. i *truly* think that you are misunderstanding and therefore misrepresenting the main tenets of the feminist ideology. academic feminism has very little to do with females. and i think that you're combining your understanding of pop-culture feminism with some discussion of social injustice and kind of getting everything all twisted._
Well, I am conflating them a little, but to me it's the same idea. I don't think taking away people's right to live as they choose is "emancipatory action," and I don't agree with the feminist definition of power. But I am basing this on the writings of feminists themselves. It is a core tenet of mainstream feminist philosophy that women do not have free will because they are brainwashed by the patriarchy. As to the other things, I don't know, but I firmly disagree with this core tenet.

Quote:

_re: your belief that man has not had all the power. given your ideas about marital power relations, i am guessing that you think that power is very significantly related to choice. the choice to exert power, the choice not to exert it. that power is a conscious thing that one can regulate for oneself. but historically speaking, this is really not the case. power is often completely unrelated to choice. power is a social construct that is not regulated to any significant extent by individuals._
Yes, I think power is related to choice. Having power over oneself is having freedom of choice; having power over someone else is having the ability to restrict their choice. But it is very much a conscious thing. I don't know what you mean that historically this was not the case--when a king ordered someone to be beheaded, he was choosing to exert his power and he knew it. When a factory owner locked up his employees, he was choosing to exert power and he knew it. Most of history is about people trying to exert power over one another. I don't see how this was anything other than a conscious choice.

Quote:

_you talk about racial inequality, and link man vs. woman to white vs. non-white. i think that you start down an appropriate analogy but then get derailed a bit when you talk about the fact that "common men" didn't have power, only white elites. firstly, we have to redefine what you are describing as "common men" and make sure to not conflate race and gender again._
I wasn't talking about racial inequality. I was responding to the idea that ordinary men throughout history have had "power" and that my claiming that they did not, but were in fact limited by economic necessity, was comparable to justifying slavery because of economic necessity. I said that they were not comparable because the slaveowning class was composed of rich elites, not common people. But actually I don't think the racial analogy is appropriate at all. Race is a purely social construct with no basis in biology or nature. Male and female uniting to create children is a biological phenomenon necessary to perpetuation of the species. If this involves power, than it is evolutionary, not man-made.

Quote:

_common men did not have power in relation to elite men. this a historically represented truth. but this does not mean that common men did not have power in relation to common women.

black men did not have power in relation to white men. but this does not mean that black men did not have power in relation to black women.

there is no doubt that in our nation's history race has been one of the greatest dividers. but it does not negate nor diminish the very *real* existence of gender inequities between and within all racial groups. being at the top of one totem pole doesn't mean you're not on the bottom of another, and vice versa_.
How did they have power in relation to women? It seems to me that gender oppression was almost entirely by elite men against elite women. Yes, women could not own property, but if you were a poor sharecropper, owning property was not an issue. Arranged marriages were almost exclusively done by the upper classes--if you weren't titled and didn't own property, no one cared whom you married. People even having enough power that would be worth denying to women was limited to the elites. What I mean is, you certainly would have been better off as a prince than as a princess, but I don't think you would have been much better off as a male tenant farmer than as a female one.

Quote:

_re: the notion that husbands should have authority over their wives.

i agree that this goes against the feminist ideology as it relates to female empowerment, gender relations, etc. but this is where "academic feminism" makes things muddy. one of the most important components of academic feminism is the notion of emancipatory action. within this construct is the notion that one must not exert emancipatory action on individuals or groups who do not want to be emancipated. this goes along with democratic ideology as well, cultural relativism, and the distinction between the personal and public sector. the latter is what makes this such a tricky area among feminists, imo.

"the personal is political" - but feminism also does not agree with forced emancipation. therefore, as an academic feminist i would say that you can choose to have your husband hold authority over you. that is your right as an individual. and in keeping with my democratic ideals and the idea that emancipation is never obligation, i would support this choice of yours._
First of all, "forced emancipation" has got to be one of the most Orwellian phrases I've ever heard. Secondly, while some feminists do not agree with what you call "forced emancipation," there are many who do. And they are working to pass laws to "emancipate" us all by the sword if necessary.

And I do not agree with cultural relativism either; I believe in universal human rights. But those are rights to have freedom of choice, not to make some particular choice.

But in any case, regardless of whether you believe I should be forcibly "emancipated," I don't think I have anything to be emancipated from, at least regarding my family life. If you want to talk about emancipating me from intrusive state action, that is another matter. But my family is not an institution; my husband does not have power over me. I consciously choose this way of life because I believe in it. I could leave anytime I wanted to. There would be consequences of course, but I knew that going in.

Quote:

_BUT - as someone who feels burdened by society's belief that women are sub-par, that men hold innate authority over them, and that we should defer to our husbands simply because they hold the Y chromosome, i would scream to the rooftops that you do NOT have to allow this dynamic in your relationship._
Well, of course I don't have to; I choose to. That is the whole point. I certainly don't believe that women are sub-par; I think that is very sad. And really, the only people I see in mainstream society advocating that view are feminists arguing that women are too feeble-minded or hormonal to make their own choices or be held accountable for their actions.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

ok, reading your responses to my post i think that the construct "power" is messing us up, and keeping us from actually talking about the same thing. i'm defining it a bit more broadly, rather than individually. you keep mentioning power as something that someone exerts over another, but that is not the only kind of power. power also exists in what Bourdieu termed social capital (other forms of capital as well). i think i've seen this mentioned in the thread (not sure by whom). this is the value that society gives an individual or group of individuals, regardless of whether the individual/group is even aware of it or desires it. so yes, in your examples of the factory owner and the king, you are talking about overt power structures that are questions of choice. and there are certainly gendered situations in which those would apply as well. BUT, i would argue that the bigger issue (at least in our society) is the implicit power structure. it's the social capital that is granted to men and not women, adults and not children, etc. it's not about direct exertion of power over another.

Quote:

Race is a purely social construct with no basis in biology or nature. Male and female uniting to create children is a biological phenomenon necessary to perpetuation of the species. If this involves power, than it is evolutionary, not man-made.
but by this definition, it should be women with the power. i can't remember who wrote about this, but i read a treatment on the comparison of human society to other species (ants, other insects, birds) in which the male has very little "power". crap i'm not doing this argument justice - i'll have to go back to my office to find this book again. anyway, my point is that evolution would dictate that the men are dispensible and not the obvious choice for "power". it does go back to economics in this sense, as the male "worker bee" (who would normally be at the bottom of the totem pole) is granted more economic substance than the "queen", despite her obviously stronger evolutionary assets.

Quote:

How did they have power in relation to women? It seems to me that gender oppression was almost entirely by elite men against elite women. Yes, women could not own property, but if you were a poor sharecropper, owning property was not an issue. Arranged marriages were almost exclusively done by the upper classes--if you weren't titled and didn't own property, no one cared whom you married. People even having enough power that would be worth denying to women was limited to the elites. What I mean is, *you certainly would have been better off as a prince than as a princess, but I don't think you would have been much better off as a male tenant farmer than as a female one*.
i agree with you that the economic disparities were more overtly oppressive than the gender inequities during the time you're talking about. but i disagree with the bolded statement. it's been several years since i've delved into this literature, so i'll have to get back to you on specific examples. BUT i will say that the knowledge that the prince is more powerful than the princess is damaging in and of itself. we talk all the time about socialization, how important it is for women to have positive role models, how important it is for them not to feel the oppression of the "glass ceiling". and while i agree that poor males also felt the power of the glass ceiling, i would argue that it *WAS* more oppressive for females, if only for the simple fact that even with money, women were "less' than men. there is much more to say on this subject, as i *truly* feel that your impression of the gender inequities in the lower classes is inaccurate. but since i don't have the facts in front of me to back it up, i'll wait until i do. i won't get to my office until next week at the earliest, so it'll have to wait until then.









Quote:

And I do not agree with cultural relativism either; I believe in universal human rights. But those are rights to have freedom of choice, not to make some particular choice.
can you explain how this is different from cultural relativism in function?

Quote:

But in any case, regardless of whether you believe I should be forcibly "emancipated," I don't think I have anything to be emancipated from, at least regarding my family life.
i think you misunderstood me. i was advocating both sides in theory...when i said "I would..." i meant that an academic feminist would...., not *me* personally. just to clarify.

Quote:

my husband does not have power over me. I consciously choose this way of life because I believe in it. I could leave anytime I wanted to. There would be consequences of course, but I knew that going in.
again, i think we're talking around each other here. he may not have power *over* you, but he is granted more social capital than you. regardless of what he or you choose to do with it.

Quote:

I certainly don't believe that women are sub-par; I think that is very sad. And really, the only people I see in mainstream society advocating that view...
i don't believe they are either, nor did i mean to suggest that you did. and i'd argue that our nation's history is filled with non-feminists who believed this and who wrote it into various legally binding documents and policies. the fact that feminists are now operating within that system does not mean that they would have chosen it for themselves, had they had the opportunity to do so when these "social contracts" were being formed.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I have followed this discussion with interest and I have to say I am somewhat dissapointed that the treatment of girls and women in general on a world scale has not been discussed in depth yet.

YES! to everything you said.

Siobhan


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I have not finished reading this thread, but so far this is fascinating. What a bunch of intellegent, articulate, thoughtful women! I am loving this.

Brigianna, thank you for your list. So far, I have not really understood what you stood for, but your list is very illuminating, and most of which I agree with - and the rest I respect.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
-I will be a liberal individualist until feminists recognize that reproductive freedom is a two-way street and stop whitewashing the evils of "population control."

Espeically this point. I work in international development, with a background in child survival. I believe ferverntly in the right for a child to not die of preventable illnesses like diarrhea. I believe that every woman should have access to healthcare to protect herself and her family. I believe fervently in reproductive freedoms (though abortion I find personally disturbing but would never want to legislate against it).

But I also am fervently against population control programs because the vast majority of time it is a case of rich, powerful people telling poor, powerless people how many children they can have. And unfortunately, many population control programs (even those dressed up as reproductive freedom programs) are coercive and maniupulative in nature.

My 2 cents

Siobhan


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I have still not gotten to the end of the thread...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *michelemiller*
black men did not have power in relation to white men. but this does not mean that black men did not have power in relation to black women.

But white women had more power than black men - even to this day, most white women have more power than black men.

We cannot divorce class from issues of race or gender. When I was in Senegal (an incredibly hierarchical society where women are definitely NOT equal to men, at least legally or politically - and young people are also treated as subordinates - I was 23), I was treated and viewed as having much more power than the average man - because I am a white american who was living in Senegal. And they were right - I could get on a plane at any time and live in America (seen as a mecca for many) or get a visa to live in Europe more easily than they could. I had access to money and income potential most could only dream about.

It was fascinating (and occasionally irritating) dealing with high status African men, actually (I did some work with UNESCO, based in Dakar). They are so used to seeing women and younger folks as naturally subordinate but also used to seeing white Americas as superiors that I confused the hell out of them. They didn't know how to treat me - and most of our conversations were spent with them trying to convince me that I was subordinate to them.

It was a real lesson in how authority is negotiated between two people, based on key markers of class, race, age and gender.

Siobhan


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*

But white women had more power than black men - even to this day, most white women have more power than black men.

We cannot divorce class from issues of race or gender.

i agree with the second part, but obviously come to a different conclusion than you. we cannot and should not divorce these issues from each other. they do not exist in isolation, nor will they ever. but that doesn't mean that the fact that there are significant interactions across these lines diminishes or eliminates the very real inequities that exist *within* categories. yes, race sometimes holds more sway than gender. but sometimes, it doesn't. i hope i haven't made it seem that i view this issue as a simple linear equation. i think that your experiences in Senegal are significant and obviously very illuminating for you. i have had similar experiences in my family's native country, Peru. I am "gringa" to them and hold more power than my peasant uncles. I am an American outsider, I have more money, I have more status as a fairer skinned woman who speaks English. But this doesn't close my eyes to the very *real* plight of my Peruvian aunts, grandmother, female cousins, etc. My own status as an American among Peruvians makes my "cultural capital" (to again use Bourdieu) a more significant relational marker. But it in no way negates the gender inequities that exist in the country as a whole.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I have been thinking a lot about this topic and i think fundamentally we are misusing the word power.

Power can mean one person's ability to make someone else do something, but that is only one, and rather small, definition.

Power, in my view, is about ability of an individual to make choices - to have agency over their lives. A key way to measure power is risk susceptibility - i.e. what power do you have to mitigate against risk, such as a partner dying or becoming gravely ill, a husband becoming abusive, etc.

Power may not be a zero-sum game, but many many many people (especially those in power) behave as though it is. This means that a pretty normal response to others increasing in power is to feel like your power is diminishing and to do something about it, usually by trying to reduce someone else's power.

There are multiple factors that constitute power - financial/economic (i.e. the ability to generate income to pay for basic needs), social (i.e. the ability to gain social acceptance and support - and to call on resources from family, community), emotional (i.e. the ability to influence other people, negotiation of roles, authority, initimate relations), etc.

Some of these are not socially based at all. If I were confined to a wheelchair, I wouldn't have the power to walk and therefore am unable to hold jobs that require walking ability. It isn't anyones "fault" - it is what it is.

And some challenges facing women are similar - women have babies - pregnancy does prevent women from engaging in certain activities (tightrope walking, for example). The tricky part is in seperating societal assumptions from biological facts.

For example, it is absolutely possible to breastfeed and work full time outside the home away from your baby. HOWEVER, there are many factors that hinder women's full agency in breastfeeding - societal lack of recognition of the value of breastfeeding, the economic necessity of not taking unpaid leave which requires many women to return to work after 6 weeks before breastfeeding is fully established, the logistics of her job (as well as the assumption that a woman can just find a more suitable job either before the baby is born or right afterwards), her biological supply (i.e. if she has low supply or had difficulties pumping), her baby's inate temperment and physiology, etc etc.

Now, a woman may have no power over her biological supply (though there are lots of tricks and tips to maximize it), nor her baby's inate temperment and physiology (though she may come up with ways to respond to it).

She may also have limited power over her job requirements - for example, most women I know in office jobs are able to successfully negotiate time off for pumping and working from home one day a week - they are considered the lucky ones.

Unfortunately, for many women, even this "win" is still insufficient to allow them to easily combine breastfeeding and work (and those who persevere are deeply committed to breastfeeding). And for women who don't have office jobs, scheduling pumpings can be very very challenging.

So when we say women have a "choice" to breastfeed for 6 months or longer, this is really a lie, because many women have the deck stacked against them to begin with.

Anyway, my point is that we need to STOP looking at power as "that man over there is trying to tell me what to do" and rather as a societal system that routinely devalues some activities and rewards others. We are all part of the system, and we all help or hinder the statis quo.

Siobhan
- boy i really need to get back to work...


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *michelemiller*
i have had similar experiences in my family's native country, Peru. I am "gringa" to them and hold more power than my peasant uncles. I am an American outsider, I have more money, I have more status as a fairer skinned woman who speaks English. But this doesn't close my eyes to the very *real* plight of my Peruvian aunts, grandmother, female cousins, etc. My own status as an American among Peruvians makes my "cultural capital" (to again use Bourdieu) a more significant relational marker. But it in no way negates the gender inequities that exist in the country as a whole.

Oh, I totally agree 100%!! I find it fascinating to see what markers trump others. For example, historically race trumps gender, but in some circumstances, class (and income) trumps gender and race. Look at Oprah - one of the richest and most powerful women in the world - or Condi Rice.

But as you point out, the fact that I can cite two powerful black women does NOT mean that black women on average have anywhere near the same amount of agency over their lives as white women, black men, white men, Latino women, etc etc.

A great quote about the OJ Simpson trial - someone said that it proves that in America that if you are rich enough, you trump institutionalized racism. I don't know if I entirely believe that, but it is a very interesting thought.

Siobhan


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *michelemiller*
ok, reading your responses to my post i think that the construct "power" is messing us up, and keeping us from actually talking about the same thing. i'm defining it a bit more broadly, rather than individually. you keep mentioning power as something that someone exerts over another, but that is not the only kind of power. power also exists in what Bourdieu termed social capital (other forms of capital as well). i think i've seen this mentioned in the thread (not sure by whom). this is the value that society gives an individual or group of individuals, regardless of whether the individual/group is even aware of it or desires it. so yes, in your examples of the factory owner and the king, you are talking about overt power structures that are questions of choice. and there are certainly gendered situations in which those would apply as well. BUT, i would argue that the bigger issue (at least in our society) is the implicit power structure. it's the social capital that is granted to men and not women, adults and not children, etc. it's not about direct exertion of power over another.

Okay, I think I get what you're saying here--are you talking about social privilege? Because I certainly agree that social privilege is part of the structure regardless of whether any given individual chooses to do with it. But I don't think that's the same thing as having power *over* someone. I have a lot more social privilege than someone earning minimum wage no matter how I as an individual choose to treat that person. But I wouldn't say that I have power over that person.

Quote:

_but by this definition, it should be women with the power. i can't remember who wrote about this, but i read a treatment on the comparison of human society to other species (ants, other insects, birds) in which the male has very little "power". crap i'm not doing this argument justice - i'll have to go back to my office to find this book again. anyway, my point is that evolution would dictate that the men are dispensible and not the obvious choice for "power". it does go back to economics in this sense, as the male "worker bee" (who would normally be at the bottom of the totem pole) is granted more economic substance than the "queen", despite her obviously stronger evolutionary assets._
I think from an evolutionary standpoint they're equally powerful. Yes, women are more directly involved in the reproductive processes, and one man can impregnate multiple women, so in theory fewer of them would be necessary, but the man's evolutionary asset is that he is not hindered by pregnancy or breastfeeding, so he can go out and hunt or whatever. Even in our modern society it is very difficult to raise a child by yourself; in primitive times it would have been almost impossible. The man is needed to go out and bring food back to mother and baby. And of course, humans have a natural inclination to want to mate and form unions beyond basic reproduction. So anyway, I don't think one has more evolutionary assets than the other. You need both to conceive a child and most of us need both to raise a child.

Quote:

_i agree with you that the economic disparities were more overtly oppressive than the gender inequities during the time you're talking about. but i disagree with the bolded statement. it's been several years since i've delved into this literature, so i'll have to get back to you on specific examples. BUT i will say that the knowledge that the prince is more powerful than the princess is damaging in and of itself. we talk all the time about socialization, how important it is for women to have positive role models, how important it is for them not to feel the oppression of the "glass ceiling". and while i agree that poor males also felt the power of the glass ceiling, i would argue that it *WAS* more oppressive for females, if only for the simple fact that even with money, women were "less' than men. there is much more to say on this subject, as i *truly* feel that your impression of the gender inequities in the lower classes is inaccurate. but since i don't have the facts in front of me to back it up, i'll wait until i do. i won't get to my office until next week at the earliest, so it'll have to wait until then._








Well if it were me, I would rather have money but no power than no money and also no power, but that's neither here nor there. I wasn't meaning, though, that class difference was greater than gender difference, but that gender difference (as in difference of power), with a few exceptions, existed only for the elites. Neither the poor men nor the poor women had any real power. So the peasant man couldn't deprive the peasant woman of power because he didn't have any himself.

Also, and I hope I can articulate this right, I think there is a difference between mistreatment and oppression. Anyone can mistreat anyone, but you can only oppress someone you have power over or the ability to coerce. So I don't doubt that there were men who mistreated their wives, and women who mistreated their husbands, but I wouldn't call it oppression.

Quote:

_can you explain how this is different from cultural relativism in function?_
I'll try, but this is not my field so I'm not sure I have the right concepts matched up with the right terms. But as I understand it, cultural relativism is the idea that there are no absolute standards, only standards by culture. For example, to stay within the feminist theme, disenfranchising women in Saudi Arabia--the cultural relativist view would be that their rights are not being violated by the standards of that culture, and that we Americans should not impose our ideas of what people's rights should be on other cultures. I disagree with that. I think all people are entitled to certain inalienable rights regardless of their culture, including the right to participate in government.

Quote:

_i think you misunderstood me. i was advocating both sides in theory...when i said "I would..." i meant that an academic feminist would...., not *me* personally. just to clarify_.
Okay. But there are a lot of feminists who take the other side.

Quote:

_again, i think we're talking around each other here. he may not have power *over* you, but he is granted more social capital than you. regardless of what he or you choose to do with it._
He probably has a little more social capital, but I think the difference is negligible.

Quote:

_i don't believe they are either, nor did i mean to suggest that you did. and i'd argue that our nation's history is filled with non-feminists who believed this and who wrote it into various legally binding documents and policies. the fact that feminists are now operating within that system does not mean that they would have chosen it for themselves, had they had the opportunity to do so when these "social contracts" were being formed._
There are a few discrimanatory laws and policies, which I agree are wrong. I am an ERA supporter btw. But I think that legal injustices should be addressed within the legal and political processes. I don't think we need to apply political standards to our family relationships.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*
I have not finished reading this thread, but so far this is fascinating. What a bunch of intellegent, articulate, thoughtful women! I am loving this.

Brigianna, thank you for your list. So far, I have not really understood what you stood for, but your list is very illuminating, and most of which I agree with - and the rest I respect.

Espeically this point. I work in international development, with a background in child survival. I believe ferverntly in the right for a child to not die of preventable illnesses like diarrhea. I believe that every woman should have access to healthcare to protect herself and her family. I believe fervently in reproductive freedoms (though abortion I find personally disturbing but would never want to legislate against it).

But I also am fervently against population control programs because the vast majority of time it is a case of rich, powerful people telling poor, powerless people how many children they can have. And unfortunately, many population control programs (even those dressed up as reproductive freedom programs) are coercive and maniupulative in nature.

My 2 cents

Siobhan

Thanks for sharing this. I really believe that the population control movement is one of the most whitewashed agendas out there (along with vaccines and institutional schooling).

Quote:

_We cannot divorce class from issues of race or gender. When I was in Senegal (an incredibly hierarchical society where women are definitely NOT equal to men, at least legally or politically - and young people are also treated as subordinates - I was 23), I was treated and viewed as having much more power than the average man - because I am a white american who was living in Senegal. And they were right - I could get on a plane at any time and live in America (seen as a mecca for many) or get a visa to live in Europe more easily than they could. I had access to money and income potential most could only dream about.

It was fascinating (and occasionally irritating) dealing with high status African men, actually (I did some work with UNESCO, based in Dakar). They are so used to seeing women and younger folks as naturally subordinate but also used to seeing white Americas as superiors that I confused the hell out of them. They didn't know how to treat me - and most of our conversations were spent with them trying to convince me that I was subordinate to them.

It was a real lesson in how authority is negotiated between two people, based on key markers of class, race, age and gender._
I used to do work in other countries and while I was not generally well-treated, I was treated as privileged by virtue of being American. There was one experience in particular in which I truly think if my passport had said anything else, I would not be alive today. So anyway that was a very concrete lesson in social privilege. I do agree that it's complex though.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*
I have been thinking a lot about this topic and i think fundamentally we are misusing the word power.

Power can mean one person's ability to make someone else do something, but that is only one, and rather small, definition.

Power, in my view, is about ability of an individual to make choices - to have agency over their lives. A key way to measure power is risk susceptibility - i.e. what power do you have to mitigate against risk, such as a partner dying or becoming gravely ill, a husband becoming abusive, etc.

I agree with this. I think having power means having freedom to do what you want. Having power *over* someone means having the ability to make them do what you want, or to prevent them from doing what they want.

Quote:

_Power may not be a zero-sum game, but many many many people (especially those in power) behave as though it is. This means that a pretty normal response to others increasing in power is to feel like your power is diminishing and to do something about it, usually by trying to reduce someone else's power._

_There are multiple factors that constitute power - financial/economic (i.e. the ability to generate income to pay for basic needs), social (i.e. the ability to gain social acceptance and support - and to call on resources from family, community), emotional (i.e. the ability to influence other people, negotiation of roles, authority, initimate relations), etc._

_Some of these are not socially based at all. If I were confined to a wheelchair, I wouldn't have the power to walk and therefore am unable to hold jobs that require walking ability. It isn't anyones "fault" - it is what it is._

_And some challenges facing women are similar - women have babies - pregnancy does prevent women from engaging in certain activities (tightrope walking, for example). The tricky part is in seperating societal assumptions from biological facts._
I agree with this too, but I don't think you really can separate societal expectations from biological facts. There are some things that are biologically possible but that are not in line with the natural order.

Quote:

_For example, it is absolutely possible to breastfeed and work full time outside the home away from your baby. HOWEVER, there are many factors that hinder women's full agency in breastfeeding - societal lack of recognition of the value of breastfeeding, the economic necessity of not taking unpaid leave which requires many women to return to work after 6 weeks before breastfeeding is fully established, the logistics of her job (as well as the assumption that a woman can just find a more suitable job either before the baby is born or right afterwards), her biological supply (i.e. if she has low supply or had difficulties pumping), her baby's inate temperment and physiology, etc etc._

_Now, a woman may have no power over her biological supply (though there are lots of tricks and tips to maximize it), nor her baby's inate temperment and physiology (though she may come up with ways to respond to it)._

_She may also have limited power over her job requirements - for example, most women I know in office jobs are able to successfully negotiate time off for pumping and working from home one day a week - they are considered the lucky ones._

_Unfortunately, for many women, even this "win" is still insufficient to allow them to easily combine breastfeeding and work (and those who persevere are deeply committed to breastfeeding). And for women who don't have office jobs, scheduling pumpings can be very very challenging._

_So when we say women have a "choice" to breastfeed for 6 months or longer, this is really a lie, because many women have the deck stacked against them to begin with._
This is something that I think falls under the category of biologically possible but not in line with the natural order. I believe that babies should be with their mothers, and that this is the natural order. Now with our modern social structure and technology, a mother doesn't have to be with her baby in the early years, because we have daycare and pumps and bottles and formula, all of which are man-made. So I wouldn't look at that as an issue of society preventing women from breastfeeding, but of society promoting an unnatural situation (mother separated from baby during the nursing period) and then being surprised that there are problems. And while expressed milk is heathier than formula, it is still not as healthy for the baby as the natural way, nursing directly from mother.

Quote:

_Anyway, my point is that we need to STOP looking at power as "that man over there is trying to tell me what to do" and rather as a societal system that routinely devalues some activities and rewards others. We are all part of the system, and we all help or hinder the statis quo._

_Siobhan_
Well, some of us are still hung up on the "people trying to tell us what to do" side of things because people are in fact trying to tell us what to do, and more importantly, trying to take away our legal rights to live differently. But I agree that the social systems are also important. I think we need to work on building a true social compact and protecting those who need help. But not at the expense of our individual rights. And I think we should also have realistic expectations--circumventing nature isn't always going to work.

Quote:

_Oh, I totally agree 100%!! I find it fascinating to see what markers trump others. For example, historically race trumps gender, but in some circumstances, class (and income) trumps gender and race. Look at Oprah - one of the richest and most powerful women in the world - or Condi Rice._

_But as you point out, the fact that I can cite two powerful black women does NOT mean that black women on average have anywhere near the same amount of agency over their lives as white women, black men, white men, Latino women, etc etc._

_A great quote about the OJ Simpson trial - someone said that it proves that in America that if you are rich enough, you trump institutionalized racism. I don't know if I entirely believe that, but it is a very interesting thought_.
That is a valid point I guess, but I would categorize all those people first as "rich people." So I wouldn't consider Oprah's power an exception to black women not having power, but a confirmation of rich people having power. There are a few exceptions, but generally I think if you have money, you have power.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I suppose I am still not understanding the whole "there is no need for feminism" arguement, though I know those weren't your exact words. It is just how it is reading to me.

How is it that one can claim there is no power dynamic in favor of men when it has been as recently as in my lifetime (less than 30 years) where a woman was not eligible for a bank account or a credit card without her husband's signature? As recently too, a woman who made an income comparable to her male counterpart could not buy a home if she was unmarried? Similarly, it has been just as recently that women were allowed to wear pants to work in lieu of a skirt -- we are not talking 19th century people, we are talking the 1980's and into the early 90's. More recently, women have been fired from being airline attendents who didn't meet a weight requirement (these were not obese people who could not fit down the isle and do their job, these were people who were for instance, 145 lbs when the cut off was 135). Have you heard of a man being fired from his job because of his weight? -- barring personal trainers who become obese and other such obvious and convenient arguements.

Quote:

Now with our modern social structure and technology, a mother doesn't have to be with her baby in the early years, because we have daycare and pumps and bottles and formula, all of which are man-made
Mothers not being with their babies in the early years is far from a modern structure. The elite almost exclusively used wet nurses, and those wet nurses were almost exclusively poor women, who, if they were spending nearly all their time with the elite family, couldn't have had time to bond much or nurse her own infant much -- so the power trickles down and affects the poor family. Similarly, the use of a wet nurse was almost always at the request of the head of the family (the man) because the act of an elite woman feeding her baby herself was seen as in poor taste, and something only the common people do. I doubt many women challenged their husbands, seeing as in those days, you could be killed for that....so was that a true choice they were making? Or, if the choice is comply or be killed (or beaten, or thrown out onto the street)... you would choose the latter? Then, if you were thrown on the street with your infant and completely poor and pennyless, you may have to take up wet nursing someone else's infant to get *any* income, so your child would suffer anyway. Vicious cycle.

Quote:

I think there is a difference between mistreatment and oppression. Anyone can mistreat anyone, but you can only oppress someone you have power over or the ability to coerce. So I don't doubt that there were men who mistreated their wives, and women who mistreated their husbands, but I wouldn't call it oppression.
Yes, there is a difference between mistreatment and oppression, we agree on that. However, mistreatment is an individual thing, whereas oppression is on a much larger societal scale. The fact that (again, in my lifetime and still happening in some states and cities) it is perfectly acceptable for a man to beat his wife, that is oppression because it is a belief widely held (still) among one gender against another. Yes, there are men who don't beat their wives and who are against it I realize that, but as a broad social belief, laws show us that no one thinks there is no big harm in beating your wife if she isn't "sumbitting". That is clear by the fact that people spend more time in jail for smoking a joint than they do for beating their wife to a pulp. Oppression is when an act on an individual scale, is widely accepted by society as a whole, perpetrated by one group of people (mostly males) against another group of people (mostly females).

Speaking of biological advantage, it is clear that males have that over women in the ways of mass and physical strength. Before the tomatoes come, I realize that there are short skinny men and women body builders who could kick their asses. I am speaking purely biological, if all factors were the same, men *usually* outweigh women and *usually* possess more physical strength, which automatically (biologically speaking) gives them more "power". Think of it in animal terms, a lion walks up to a cat and wants it's meal. Sure the cat can "choose" not to give it to him, at what price, but the cat sees the imbalance of power, by biology alone.

...and when you have the Bible on your side (Eve ate the apple, gave it to Adam, she must suffer thing) as men have had for centuries... that coupled with people's fear of God's wrath (God being a male too by the way)... well, it is no suprise who was winning that power struggle.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

*applause* very well stated, CC!


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

CC, I really liked your earlier post "I'll be a feminist until..." (Actually, I like all of your posts, but especially that one.)

I think the promotion of "choice" above all else is distracting. All of my female friends who have gotten married had "choice" about their last names - all of them had the "ability to choose" to hypenate, blend, keep their previous name, encourage their fiance to take their name, etc. _Every single one_ "chose" to take her husband's last name. When everyone's "choice" just happens to coincide with societal expectations and pressures, I think it's pretty obvious that the right to choose is being adversely affected, and is even a bit of a chimera. They have the specter of choice, but, because of societal pressures, have no real choice.

I am in favor of real choice, which can only exist when we minimize societal pressures that promote conformity over all else. Of course, we _do live in society_ and we always will - there will always be societal pressures and expectations. We are social creatures - we like to "go along" with what everyone else is doing. But until the social pressures aren't promoting the idea that men are stronger than women, that they are more deserving of good paying jobs, that mothers are less cabable of participating in society, that parenting is unimportant, that children should be neither seen nor heard, not to mention all the other things CC mentioned, then _our choices are being restricted_.

The interesting thing here is that some women _do_ manage to go against the grain and make their own, unique choices. Some women manage to breastfeed for three years, in spite of social pressures to formula feed from birth. Some women became doctors even back in the 1800s, when they didn't even have the right to vote - my mother became a doctor in the 1970s, when less than a quarter of medical students were women (and thus the female med students had to use the nurses' locker rooms, because the doctors' locker rooms were only for men). So, one could argue, women of that time did have a "choice" to become doctors. I would argue, with good evidence on my side, I believe, that their choices were being constrained, that although every individual had "choice" the women of that time didn't have real, unconstrained freedom.

So while "choice" is all well and good, and no one who chooses to formula feed or take their husband's name is going to point to "societal pressures" for why they made the choice they did (each of my friends had a "very good reason" or three for taking their husband's name - and apparently none of their husbands had a "very good reason" for wanting to take their wife's?), that doesn't mean that their ability to choose _wasn't_ being impacted, just that those forces may have been invisible to them.

I don't think that in a world with more real ability to choose that all women would work outside the home with their babies on their backs or keep their own names or breastfeed for three years or weigh 130 pounds. But as long as those are the exceptions and not the rule, I'm going to be blaming sex discrimination and formula companies and advertising and and a culture that promotes instant gratification, in addition to working to help women (and men) feel freer to make choices that are actually right _for them_.

On another note, I read a really really good book recently, called _The Mother's Voice_ by Kathy Weingarten. Doesn't really address much of what I talked about above, but does discuss how oppression and gender shaping can occur within a loving family, and how a mother can reclaim her right to her "voice" and her "story", which is what I think much of feminism is, or should be, about.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I suppose I am still not understanding the whole "there is no need for feminism" arguement, though I know those weren't your exact words. It is just how it is reading to me.

How is it that one can claim there is no power dynamic in favor of men when it has been as recently as in my lifetime (less than 30 years) where a woman was not eligible for a bank account or a credit card without her husband's signature? As recently too, a woman who made an income comparable to her male counterpart could not buy a home if she was unmarried? Similarly, it has been just as recently that women were allowed to wear pants to work in lieu of a skirt -- we are not talking 19th century people, we are talking the 1980's and into the early 90's. More recently, women have been fired from being airline attendents who didn't meet a weight requirement (these were not obese people who could not fit down the isle and do their job, these were people who were for instance, 145 lbs when the cut off was 135). Have you heard of a man being fired from his job because of his weight? -- barring personal trainers who become obese and other such obvious and convenient arguements.

I agree that those things are unjust. And to the extent that feminists have worked to correct those injustices, I agree with them. That doesn't mean I have to agree with their underlying philosophy. I support equal rights and equal opportunities for all people. You can support women's rights without supporting feminism.

Quote:

_Mothers not being with their babies in the early years is far from a modern structure. The elite almost exclusively used wet nurses, and those wet nurses were almost exclusively poor women, who, if they were spending nearly all their time with the elite family, couldn't have had time to bond much or nurse her own infant much -- so the power trickles down and affects the poor family. Similarly, the use of a wet nurse was almost always at the request of the head of the family (the man) because the act of an elite woman feeding her baby herself was seen as in poor taste, and something only the common people do. I doubt many women challenged their husbands, seeing as in those days, you could be killed for that....so was that a true choice they were making? Or, if the choice is comply or be killed (or beaten, or thrown out onto the street)... you would choose the latter? Then, if you were thrown on the street with your infant and completely poor and pennyless, you may have to take up wet nursing someone else's infant to get *any* income, so your child would suffer anyway. Vicious cycle._
Yes, the elite used wet nurses. That doesn't change the fact that the *most natural* way for a baby to be fed is to be nursed by his mother. And I'm wondering why you think that wet-nursing was forced by the men? As I understand it, women who could afford to do so used wet nurses for the same reasons that many modern women choose to use formula. And as you say, nursing your own was looked down upon. I doubt there were many cases of the men forcing their wives to use wet nurses, or throwing them out for not doing so.

Quote:

_Yes, there is a difference between mistreatment and oppression, we agree on that. However, mistreatment is an individual thing, whereas oppression is on a much larger societal scale. The fact that (again, in my lifetime and still happening in some states and cities) it is perfectly acceptable for a man to beat his wife, that is oppression because it is a belief widely held (still) among one gender against another. Yes, there are men who don't beat their wives and who are against it I realize that, but as a broad social belief, laws show us that no one thinks there is no big harm in beating your wife if she isn't "sumbitting". That is clear by the fact that people spend more time in jail for smoking a joint than they do for beating their wife to a pulp. Oppression is when an act on an individual scale, is widely accepted by society as a whole, perpetrated by one group of people (mostly males) against another group of people (mostly females)._
Where in the U.S., or anywhere in the so-called western world, is it legal to beat your wife? The laws may not be enforced the way some people think they should be, but it's still illegal. In fact men have been arrested for "beating" their wives even when it was completely consensual, thanks to the feminist idea that women are incapable of giving consent and need to be protected from themselves. I know a man who was put in jail for "domestic violence" after defending himself from his live-in girlfriend's drunken attack on him. Sadly, you will get more jail time for smoking a joint than for many violent crimes against people of either sex. But do you think that beating up your wife is worse than beating up some guy in a bar? Because most laws treat domestic assault more harshly than regular assault, which I don't agree with.

Quote:

_Speaking of biological advantage, it is clear that males have that over women in the ways of mass and physical strength. Before the tomatoes come, I realize that there are short skinny men and women body builders who could kick their asses. I am speaking purely biological, if all factors were the same, men *usually* outweigh women and *usually* possess more physical strength, which automatically (biologically speaking) gives them more "power". Think of it in animal terms, a lion walks up to a cat and wants it's meal. Sure the cat can "choose" not to give it to him, at what price, but the cat sees the imbalance of power, by biology alone._
Yes, but men could not survive without women and women could not survive without men (collectively I mean). We are still the same species. So I don't think there's any net advantage of one over the other in nature. Where the imbalance comes in is when social power structures create an imbalance.

Quote:

_...and when you have the Bible on your side (Eve ate the apple, gave it to Adam, she must suffer thing) as men have had for centuries... that coupled with people's fear of God's wrath (God being a male too by the way)... well, it is no suprise who was winning that power struggle._
Not to get further derailed with a theology discussion, but men do not have the Bible on their side. Some people may choose to interpret it that way, but they are very much outside the mainstream of Christian theology. And it is true that men and women are given different roles, but that doesn't mean that one is better than the other. Personally, for myself, I agree with those Biblical roles, not only as an act of faith but also because I think they make the most sense as a method of organization. *However* I absolutely do not think anyone should be forced into those roles; it should be a personal choice. And I'm not going to criticize anyone else's choice in that regard if it's working for them. But I do believe there are benefits to the Biblical roles, which do not detract from anyone's equality or freedom. Also, at least in the Christian traditions that I am familiar with, God is not a male--we say "our Heavenly Father," but that is a metaphor, not an actual belief that God is male.

Of course, I believe in religious freedom. If you want to believe that God is male or female or whatever, and live your life accordingly, more power to you. But that is not a justification for coercing others.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
I think the promotion of "choice" above all else is distracting. All of my female friends who have gotten married had "choice" about their last names - all of them had the "ability to choose" to hypenate, blend, keep their previous name, encourage their fiance to take their name, etc. _Every single one_ "chose" to take her husband's last name. When everyone's "choice" just happens to coincide with societal expectations and pressures, I think it's pretty obvious that the right to choose is being adversely affected, and is even a bit of a chimera. They have the specter of choice, but, because of societal pressures, have no real choice.

I am in favor of real choice, which can only exist when we minimize societal pressures that promote conformity over all else. Of course, we _do live in society_ and we always will - there will always be societal pressures and expectations. We are social creatures - we like to "go along" with what everyone else is doing. But until the social pressures aren't promoting the idea that men are stronger than women, that they are more deserving of good paying jobs, that mothers are less cabable of participating in society, that parenting is unimportant, that children should be neither seen nor heard, not to mention all the other things CC mentioned, then _our choices are being restricted_.

I'm not really sure what to say except that I completely and totally disagree. Choosing to conform to societal expectations is a choice. If you choose to surrender your individuality to conformity to obtain some social benefit, that is a choice. Now I'm not talking about where there is actual coercion, like violence or economic coercion. Obviously if someone can commit violence against you or deprive you of your livelihood for your choice, then it is not a real choice. But "social pressure" is not coercion. And I think that the assumption that it is is an insult to women. Actually this kind of reminds me of that other thread about TV commercials. Seeing an advertisement does not force you to go out and buy that product; you choose to. And social expectations do not force you to conform; you choose to. Or you choose not to. Incidentally, I kept my own name when I got married, which some people thought was a bit odd, but I didn't face any "pressure" to do otherwise.

I don't mean this to be as hostile as it sounds, so please forgive my inability to say this better, but I really and truly do believe that what you are saying, which is what most feminists would say, is grossly insulting to women in the suggestion that we are so weak-minded and sheep-like that a little social pressure can sweep away our ability to choose, and also insulting to people who have endured real coercion to compare someone worried about the neighbors thinking she's odd to what they have gone through.

Quote:

_The interesting thing here is that some women do manage to go against the grain and make their own, unique choices. Some women manage to breastfeed for three years, in spite of social pressures to formula feed from birth. Some women became doctors even back in the 1800s, when they didn't even have the right to vote - my mother became a doctor in the 1970s, when less than a quarter of medical students were women (and thus the female med students had to use the nurses' locker rooms, because the doctors' locker rooms were only for men). So, one could argue, women of that time did have a "choice" to become doctors. I would argue, with good evidence on my side, I believe, that their choices were being constrained, that although every individual had "choice" the women of that time didn't have real, unconstrained freedom._

_So while "choice" is all well and good, and no one who chooses to formula feed or take their husband's name is going to point to "societal pressures" for why they made the choice they did (each of my friends had a "very good reason" or three for taking their husband's name - and apparently none of their husbands had a "very good reason" for wanting to take their wife's?), that doesn't mean that their ability to choose wasn't being impacted, just that those forces may have been invisible to them._

_I don't think that in a world with more real ability to choose that all women would work outside the home with their babies on their backs or keep their own names or breastfeed for three years or weigh 130 pounds. But as long as those are the exceptions and not the rule, I'm going to be blaming sex discrimination and formula companies and advertising and and a culture that promotes instant gratification, in addition to working to help women (and men) feel freer to make choices that are actually right for them._
But no one has ever had unconstrained freedom. And, as you say, there will always be social pressure of one kind or another. Freedom is two-sided--people have the right to make their own choices, and other people have the right to disagree with those choices. I think it would be arrogant to demand that society or advertisers or anyone else agree with your choices or refrain from promoting different choices. I don't care if mainstreamers promote different choices from mine--it's a little annoying, but it's not restricting my freedom at all.

Furthermore, feminists have succeeded in making social pressure work for their side. I am asked to justify my choice to be a sahm and for rejecting the instant gratification culture. They disagree with me, which I don't mind, and question my mental health and capacity for free will, which I do. And I would love to see social pressure used for our side, to have breastfeeding and ap and homeschooling and treating children respectfully become the norm that is represented in the major institutions. But I absolutely disagree with restricting people's freedom. I know I am a bit of a heretic on this site, because I don't support banning formula samples or anything like that. Let people make their own choices as long as they're not hurting anyone but themselves, and if they choose to cave to social conformity, so be it.

Quote:

_On another note, I read a really really good book recently, called The Mother's Voice by Kathy Weingarten. Doesn't really address much of what I talked about above, but does discuss how oppression and gender shaping can occur within a loving family, and how a mother can reclaim her right to her "voice" and her "story", which is what I think much of feminism is, or should be, about_.
I agree that people should have the right to their own voices and stories. But I don't see how feminism helps that. Feminism attempts to silence and discredit those with different views, which is why I think there's such a focus on psychology. I don't think it's a force for people's rights at all.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Boongirl asked for recommended reading earlier. I recommend _The Way We Never Were_ by Stephanie Coontz, which is an excellent debunking of many common assumptions about what American families were like in the past. While it is not about feminism primarily, it does a lot to sort out which economic and social changes actually are the result of feminism, which ones have other causes, and which ones are in fact returns to patterns that were established before or during World War II and temporarily suspended during the 1950s.

Also, I'm currently reading for the first time _Male and Female_ by Margaret Mead, a very interesting analysis of how gender roles work across cultures and what aspects of gender are truly universal. I don't agree with her on every point, but she had some very interesting ideas and explained them extremely clearly. (This book was written in 1948, and the edition I have includes new forewords by the author in 1962 and 1967 commenting on changes in American gender roles. Makes me wonder what she would say now!)

Boongirl, I am not asking you to "feel sorry for men" but to acknowledge that restrictive gender roles have been bad for EVERYBODY and therefore that BOTH sexes can and should have more freedom to use our individual strengths and fill our individual needs. I think that viewing this as a struggle between women as imprisoned victims and men as omnipotent oppressors encourages hostility between the sexes, which does not help to resolve anything.

Boongirl wrote:

Quote:

since not all men have done this and not all cultures, then the argument that they were slaves to social pressure is bunk.
Riiiiight, social pressure is a single force consistent across all societies.







I guess that means anorexia nervosa has nothing to do with social pressure--because not all women starve themselves and the people of Tonga believe that morbid obesity is beautiful.

Captain Crunchy wrote:

Quote:

Sure, men and boys have their own struggles, societal pressures, and so on -- I don't dispute that. Pound for pound though, women and girls are still the greatest victims on a global scale of inequality.
That's true. I don't discount that at all. Mostly I have been talking about mainstream American society because I know enough about it to feel qualified in making judgments about how it really works and what should change. Other cultures are very different, both for females and for males, and most generalizations do not hold across all cultures. Suffering in other places affects us all, and we should do what we can to help. But the fact that women are victimized in Afghanistan doesn't mean that women in the United States can claim the same level of victimhood.

The two main reasons I keep bringing up male role narrowness are:
1. I believe that we will accomplish more change by working on this problem together than by being divisive.
2. All types of work need to be done by somebody; therefore, to make room for women to do "men's work" we must make room for men to do "women's work".

Quote:

Who here who claims to be a feminist doesn't recognize that reproductive rights are a two way street???
I don't know about people here, but I have talked with many self-proclaimed feminists who believe that any information that makes abortion or birth control sound bad should be suppressed. I dropped my membership in both NARAL and Feminist Majority and my subscription to Glamour magazine because of their stance on emergency contraception, which was to trumpet that it's "not a form of abortion" and attack as a liar anyone who said anything about EC possibly flushing a fertilized egg. It's true that EC doesn't work if the zygote has implanted and thus can't end a "pregnancy" defined as beginning at implantation, but many ordinary people think that the moment when egg and sperm meet is important and would think twice about taking action after that point. ***SOME*** people believe that because the knowledge that EC can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting would cause some women to decide not to use it, we'd better make sure they don't have that information!







: Certainly not all people who call themselves "feminist" or "pro-choice" are in that camp, but many are, including several prominent organizations.

I'm aware that there are bad population-control programs, but there is also a huge demand for contraception that is not getting filled in the majority of the world. I think it is very important to make contraceptives available and affordable to those who want them and to provide information about them to those who don't know. This can be done without being coercive.

Brigianna wrote:

Quote:

But when they are passing laws taking away people's right to choose, that is where they cross the line. That and their assertion that no woman can make a different choice, or if we do it's because we're "brainwashed."
Well, see, what you're missing is that the phrase "right to choose" has been co-opted to mean one specific thing: The right to have an abortion under any circumstances. That's a right I support. However, I also support the right to enjoy porn, the right to be a prostitute, the right to call oneself "Mrs. John Smith", and the right to state publicly that women who wear pants are going to hell. None of these are choices that fall under the term "right to choose" as feminists have been using it.

Captain Crunchy wrote:

Quote:

Similarly, it has been just as recently that women were allowed to wear pants to work in lieu of a skirt -- we are not talking 19th century people, we are talking the 1980's and into the early 90's.
Right now, nearly all men in the United States are not allowed to wear a skirt to work in lieu of pants. While there may not be a written rule forbidding it, in most workplaces a man who shows up in a skirt will attract so much attention that his supervisor will tell him to dress differently. This is sexist and wrong.

You made many good points in that paragraph about genuine discrimination against women that still exists, but that sentence jumped out at me as an example of something that's called discrimination when it happens to women but not when it happens to men.

Arwyn wrote:

Quote:

They have the specter of choice, but, because of societal pressures, have no real choice.








I think this holds true in many many areas of modern life. Often it's not that the "real choice" isn't available at all but that the expectation that one will choose from a huge array of "options" that are actually very similar prevents one from even noticing the real alternatives. For example, it's supposedly so wonderful that we have the freedom to choose from such an array of diet sodas in various flavors with various sweeteners...but it might be a better choice, for many reasons, to drink tap water with a wedge of lemon instead. That sounds trivial, but think of the impact: the billions of dollars spent on diet sodas, the additional spending on artificially-sweetened food by people accustomed to sweetness by the sodas, the dental problems caused by acidic soda (and possibly by the sweeteners), the trash, the people who think they NEED diet soda to maintain a healthy weight...


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
Riiiiight, social pressure is a single force consistent across all societies.







I guess that means anorexia nervosa has nothing to do with social pressure--because not all women starve themselves and the people of Tonga believe that morbid obesity is beautiful.

I don't think most people diagnosed with anorexia (which I don't think is an actual illness but that's another day's topic) are acting based on social pressure. Most so-called anorexics aren't trying to lose weight; they're trying to assert control over their environment.

Quote:

_Mostly I have been talking about mainstream American society because I know enough about it to feel qualified in making judgments about how it really works and what should change. Other cultures are very different, both for females and for males, and most generalizations do not hold across all cultures. Suffering in other places affects us all, and we should do what we can to help. But the fact that women are victimized in Afghanistan doesn't mean that women in the United States can claim the same level of victimhood_.
Exactly. Also, women in Afghanistan are victimized by the warlords and leaders of that country, not by Afghan men as a whole.

Quote:

_I don't know about people here, but I have talked with many self-proclaimed feminists who believe that any information that makes abortion or birth control sound bad should be suppressed. I dropped my membership in both NARAL and Feminist Majority and my subscription to Glamour magazine because of their stance on emergency contraception, which was to trumpet that it's "not a form of abortion" and attack as a liar anyone who said anything about EC possibly flushing a fertilized egg. It's true that EC doesn't work if the zygote has implanted and thus can't end a "pregnancy" defined as beginning at implantation, but many ordinary people think that the moment when egg and sperm meet is important and would think twice about taking action after that point. ***SOME*** people believe that because the knowledge that EC can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting would cause some women to decide not to use it, we'd better make sure they don't have that information!







: Certainly not all people who call themselves "feminist" or "pro-choice" are in that camp, but many are, including several prominent organizations._
Well, I can see where they're coming from on Plan B, because some people are trying to classify it as an abortificant, which it isn't--if Plan B is abortion, then the regular pill is also abortion. So is breastfeeding, for that matter. So it's about defining the terms.

But I absolutely agree with you on the other points. Another example is the way so many feminists criticize cpc's for offering non-abortion options to pregnant women in need. I consider cpc's to be pro-choice, because they provide another option for women who, because of economic necessity, would otherwise have no choice other than abortion.

Quote:

_I'm aware that there are bad population-control programs, but there is also a huge demand for contraception that is not getting filled in the majority of the world. I think it is very important to make contraceptives available and affordable to those who want them and to provide information about them to those who don't know. This can be done without being coercive_.
I agree with that, but I think they should give all the information, including the risks of hormonal birth control. And if people don't believe in contraception for religious reasons, they should respect that instead of trying to convert them.

Quote:

_Well, see, what you're missing is that the phrase "right to choose" has been co-opted to mean one specific thing: The right to have an abortion under any circumstances. That's a right I support. However, I also support the right to enjoy porn, the right to be a prostitute, the right to call oneself "Mrs. John Smith", and the right to state publicly that women who wear pants are going to hell. None of these are choices that fall under the term "right to choose" as feminists have been using it._
I was meaning "right to choose" in the broad sense that you mean, which most feminists don't support. For them, "choice" really is just a code word for abortion and birth control. They are actively anti-choice about the things that you mention and others.

Quote:

_Right now, nearly all men in the United States are not allowed to wear a skirt to work in lieu of pants. While there may not be a written rule forbidding it, in most workplaces a man who shows up in a skirt will attract so much attention that his supervisor will tell him to dress differently. This is sexist and wrong._
That is a good point. Why should women have more clothing freedom than men?

Quote:

_I think this holds true in many many areas of modern life. Often it's not that the "real choice" isn't available at all but that the expectation that one will choose from a huge array of "options" that are actually very similar prevents one from even noticing the real alternatives. For example, it's supposedly so wonderful that we have the freedom to choose from such an array of diet sodas in various flavors with various sweeteners...but it might be a better choice, for many reasons, to drink tap water with a wedge of lemon instead. That sounds trivial, but think of the impact: the billions of dollars spent on diet sodas, the additional spending on artificially-sweetened food by people accustomed to sweetness by the sodas, the dental problems caused by acidic soda (and possibly by the sweeteners), the trash, the people who think they NEED diet soda to maintain a healthy weight..._
But I *like* my diet soda. I know it's bad for me, but I don't care (not enough to stop drinking it anyway). I know that there are other options, but I prefer diet soda. Shouldn't that be respected as a real choice even if you disagree with it? I don't think anybody is forced to drink diet soda, or doesn't know about other drink options, but people spend money on diet soda because we prefer it.

Now if you wanted to say "diet soda is disgusting and gross, drinking it is a mortal sin, and anyone who drinks diet soda is a vile, sinful person," I would support your right to say that. If you wanted to run an ad campaign about the harmful side effects of artificial sweetners, I would support your right to do that. What I would disagree with would be trying to ban it or otherwise restrict our access to it, or saying that it isn't a real choice because we're somehow brainwashed by the diet soda industry.

I think you can disagree with a mainstream cultural assumption and encourage people to question it without denying that it's a real choice.

About books--one of my favorite books that touches on this subject is the novel "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. It is about a futuristic society where women's sexuality and fertility is controlled by the state after a theocratic coup. She wrote this partially as a criticism of mainstream feminists who supported the theocrats' attempt to criminalize sexuality.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Ladies,

Thank you for an intelligent thread -- what a courteous debate!

Brigianna -- thank you for taking the time to write out your views. I agree with you 100%, on every word you've typed.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Everyone has full freedom and personal choice and free will, all the time, and no one is coerced into anything (ever - there is _always_ a choice, even if the choice is to die rather than do what their oppressors want). That is completely true.

It is also true that everything everyone does and every choice anyone ever makes is influenced and often restricted profoundly by the society they live in and the assumptions and beliefs (often contradictory) of that society, and that what each person does and the "choices" each person makes is almost always predictable by knowing the social and psychological forces they live with.

Both are true.

I'm not trying to be annoyingly zen here or anything - _both are completely true_. To acknowledge one of the above statements and think the other is wrong is to deny something fundamental about what it is to be human and alive in this world. We have full freedom of choice in each moment, _and_ we live our lives in largely predictable ways based on the pressures of the society we live in.

One of the strong points of feminism, although (as with every strength) it is sometimes made a weakness by going too far, is the acknowledgment and exploration of the second idea. I am heavily influenced here by my familial history with Al-Alon and buddhist-influenced psychotherapy, and their belief that power and personal autonomy exist only when one admits one's powerlessness in the face of disease/social pressure. I come from a background where _admitting and acknowledging one's powerlessness is the only path to power_. So no, I don't think it's insulting to women to say that every choice a woman makes (and a man - I don't exempt them, so I guess I'm insulting them and calling them weak also?) is influenced, and often restricted, by the society she lives in - I think it's empowering.

By acknowledging that every choice _I_ make is being influenced and often restricted by the world I live in, I can examine those influences and restrictions and assumptions and _choose_ to accept them or reject them. I am made more powerful, and my choices are made more free, by that knowledge. That, in my view, is the power and the gift of feminism - it helps me to be on the look out for, to see, to acknowledge, to deconstruct, and finally to accept or reject the patriarchal and misogynistic influences that surround me, and _I am freer for it_.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I like your philosophy, Arwyn.










Brigianna wrote:

Quote:

Well, I can see where they're coming from on Plan B, because some people are trying to classify it as an abortificant, which it isn't--if Plan B is abortion, then the regular pill is also abortion. So is breastfeeding, for that matter. So it's about defining the terms.
It's "defining the terms" that is at the root of that debate: Whose definition is the "real" one? Rather than let either side "win" and have their definition be the only one allowed in patient info leaflets or the media, I think the details should be spelled out to allow for informed choice. The woman considering EC or the Pill or breastfeeding should know that it may prevent a fertlized egg from implanting, and she should know that this is more likely with EC (because it doesn't prevent ovulation) than with the Pill taken daily. She also should be informed of the side effects of artificial hormones, particularly in the large and sudden dose of EC, and also the side effects of pregnancy and childbirth.

Quote:

I consider cpc's to be pro-choice, because they provide another option for women who, because of economic necessity, would otherwise have no choice other than abortion.
I assume "cpc" means "crisis pregnancy center". Like population control programs, I think these run a wide spectrum from helpful to coercive. Some of them talk women out of abortion using shame and horror stories rather than promises of help, and some that promise to help do not follow through. Also, at least here, some of them advertise in the yellow pages under "abortion" even though they not only don't provide abortions but won't refer people to abortion providers. That's very dishonest and doesn't promote informed choice.

Quote:

I know that there are other options, but I prefer diet soda. Shouldn't that be respected as a real choice even if you disagree with it?
Sure. I didn't say it shouldn't. I said the real choice is between diet soda and other non-caloric beverages, not between varieties of diet soda.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
Everyone has full freedom and personal choice and free will, all the time, and no one is coerced into anything (ever - there is _always_ a choice, even if the choice is to die rather than do what their oppressors want). That is completely true.

It is also true that everything everyone does and every choice anyone ever makes is influenced and often restricted profoundly by the society they live in and the assumptions and beliefs (often contradictory) of that society, and that what each person does and the "choices" each person makes is almost always predictable by knowing the social and psychological forces they live with.

Both are true.

I'm not trying to be annoyingly zen here or anything - _both are completely true_. To acknowledge one of the above statements and think the other is wrong is to deny something fundamental about what it is to be human and alive in this world. We have full freedom of choice in each moment, _and_ we live our lives in largely predictable ways based on the pressures of the society we live in.

One of the strong points of feminism, although (as with every strength) it is sometimes made a weakness by going too far, is the acknowledgment and exploration of the second idea. I am heavily influenced here by my familial history with Al-Alon and buddhist-influenced psychotherapy, and their belief that power and personal autonomy exist only when one admits one's powerlessness in the face of disease/social pressure. I come from a background where _admitting and acknowledging one's powerlessness is the only path to power_. So no, I don't think it's insulting to women to say that every choice a woman makes (and a man - I don't exempt them, so I guess I'm insulting them and calling them weak also?) is influenced, and often restricted, by the society she lives in - I think it's empowering.

By acknowledging that every choice _I_ make is being influenced and often restricted by the world I live in, I can examine those influences and restrictions and assumptions and _choose_ to accept them or reject them. I am made more powerful, and my choices are made more free, by that knowledge. That, in my view, is the power and the gift of feminism - it helps me to be on the look out for, to see, to acknowledge, to deconstruct, and finally to accept or reject the patriarchal and misogynistic influences that surround me, and _I am freer for it_.

There are degrees of coercion. Being in danger of being killed is more coercive than being in danger of losing you job, which is more coercive than being in danger of losing the respect of strangers. Of course people exert pressure and influence over each other all the time, but we are supposed to have the capability to resist social pressure short of coercion, and some of us are supposed to resist actual coercion too.

There are many things I do for no reason other than social convention and conformity. I don't want the hassle of non-conformity on those matters. But I only do that for things that are not very important to me. Everyone has to make a decision and strike a balance of what issues are worth going against what amounts of social pressure. There is mild social pressure to wear coordinating clothes, which I do for the most part, and very strong social pressure to put my kids in school, which I refuse to do. Because homeschooling is very important to me, and wearing mismatched clothes matters not one bit to me, I willingly choose to conform in one case but not the other. But it is still a choice.

People can be coerced to change their behavior, but not to change their thinking or beliefs. A woman may choose go along with certain social conventions because it isn't important enough to her for her to do otherwise, or she may even actually be coerced into conformity by physical or economic threats, but if she actually believes or buys into those standards and conventions, it is by her own choice. It is not insulting to say that people may be influenced by society; it is insulting to say that people may be influenced by society *against their will.*

Also there is the matter of other people's freedom. People do not have the right to coerce each other into conformity or restrict other people's choices, but they do have the right to disagree with other people's choices and exert social pressure on them. If you redefine coercion and restriction to include disagreement and social pressure, and suggest that meaningful choice can only take place in the absense of disagreement and pressure, you are infringing on other people's right to express disagreement.

I also think that when it comes to social influences, people tend to find what they're looking for. So if you start out with the assumption that society is full of patriarchal and misogynistic influences, you will probably see many influences as being patriarchal and misogynistic. Because I have chosen to live in an openly patriarchal relationship, I am more sensitive to all the contempt that mainstream society seems to have for our kind of family. Because of certain experiences that I have had, I am very sensitive to feminists' and others' ideas about free will and mind control. So I think that what you choose to be concerned about influences your view of social forces more than social forces influence your views, if that makes any sense.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
It's "defining the terms" that is at the root of that debate: Whose definition is the "real" one? Rather than let either side "win" and have their definition be the only one allowed in patient info leaflets or the media, I think the details should be spelled out to allow for informed choice. The woman considering EC or the Pill or breastfeeding should know that it may prevent a fertlized egg from implanting, and she should know that this is more likely with EC (because it doesn't prevent ovulation) than with the Pill taken daily. She also should be informed of the side effects of artificial hormones, particularly in the large and sudden dose of EC, and also the side effects of pregnancy and childbirth.

I agree, except I was under the impression that Plan B does prevent ovulation. I'll have to look that up...

Quote:

_I assume "cpc" means "crisis pregnancy center". Like population control programs, I think these run a wide spectrum from helpful to coercive. Some of them talk women out of abortion using shame and horror stories rather than promises of help, and some that promise to help do not follow through. Also, at least here, some of them advertise in the yellow pages under "abortion" even though they not only don't provide abortions but won't refer people to abortion providers. That's very dishonest and doesn't promote informed choice_.
Sure, there are good and bad cpc's. I volunteered for Birthright, which I think is one of the better ones--they're open about what they do and they're very helpful in providing services, including helping women apply for Medicaid and things like that. The dishonest ones are harmful, but I think that to the extent that a cpc offers another choice to a woman who doesn't want to have an abortion but is feeling constrained by economic pressure, they are facilitating choice.

Quote:

_Sure. I didn't say it shouldn't. I said the real choice is between diet soda and other non-caloric beverages, not between varieties of diet soda._
Okay. I think that's true of a lot of products--people get so caught up in "which one? what kind?" that they forget to ask "why do we need this in the first place?" Schools are another example of this that I've vented about a lot on this site--the real choice is between school and no school, not between different schools.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Brigianna, I appreciate that you (and everyone else) has kept this discussion and debate civil and respectful. I do agree with you on *some* points, however, I strongly disagree with you on others but I was thinking about this topic and I think the issue that I disagree with the most is my perception that you are rejecting feminism as a whole because of the actions of a few groups or subsets.

I mean, to me it is the same thing as people completely rejecting Christianity and *christians* because *some* so-called christians bomb abortion clinics and hold signs like "aids kills ****". It is like thinking all gay people are evil and promiscuous because *some* go to bath houses and have unprotected sex with random people. It is like hating black people because *some* african americans have commited crimes.

I mean, yes, I will agree that some so-called feminists hide behind that label they put on themselves in order to push agenda that gives people fewer rights over thier bodies and choices -- but I still maintain that most feminists (well, me anyway) are not like that. I just caution against using terms like "the feminists" the same way I would caution against anyone using terms like "those blacks" or "those christians" or "those gays" when beginning a sentence regarding what you do and don't agree with and why.

My only "feminist agenda" is to see that women and girls get the same rights, considerations, opportunities, and respect as their male counterparts. I feel the same way about different races etc...but there is no real word for that...humanist maybe? However, the plight of girls and women is dear to me because I can't identify with being a slave, or black, or hispanic, or even part of the impoverished (though I have been very poor). I have been a girl, and I am a woman. Of course I do care about those other issues, but it makes sense that I am a feminist...to me anyway.

That having been said though, being a feminist is not *all* I am. Just part....a pretty awesome part too.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Brigianna, I appreciate that you (and everyone else) has kept this discussion and debate civil and respectful. I do agree with you on *some* points, however, I strongly disagree with you on others but I was thinking about this topic and I think the issue that I disagree with the most is my perception that you are rejecting feminism as a whole because of the actions of a few groups or subsets.

I mean, to me it is the same thing as people completely rejecting Christianity and *christians* because *some* so-called christians bomb abortion clinics and hold signs like "aids kills ****". It is like thinking all gay people are evil and promiscuous because *some* go to bath houses and have unprotected sex with random people. It is like hating black people because *some* african americans have commited crimes.

I mean, yes, I will agree that some so-called feminists hide behind that label they put on themselves in order to push agenda that gives people fewer rights over thier bodies and choices -- but I still maintain that most feminists (well, me anyway) are not like that. I just caution against using terms like "the feminists" the same way I would caution against anyone using terms like "those blacks" or "those christians" or "those gays" when beginning a sentence regarding what you do and don't agree with and why.

My only "feminist agenda" is to see that women and girls get the same rights, considerations, opportunities, and respect as their male counterparts. I feel the same way about different races etc...but there is no real word for that...humanist maybe? However, the plight of girls and women is dear to me because I can't identify with being a slave, or black, or hispanic, or even part of the impoverished (though I have been very poor). I have been a girl, and I am a woman. Of course I do care about those other issues, but it makes sense that I am a feminist...to me anyway.

That having been said though, being a feminist is not *all* I am. Just part....a pretty awesome part too.

I do understand what you're saying, and I try to be careful not to dismiss an idea because of some of its advocates. But in the case of feminism, it isn't that I'm judging the entire movement by the actions of a few, but that I disagree with the fundamental philosophical premise. I disagree with any idea, whether it's feminism or socialism or religious theocracy, that is based on the premise of people lacking free will or needing to be protected from themselves, or advocating collectivist "liberation" over individual liberty. Liberation and equality and collectivism are good; they have their place, but they should not be used as justification to override our most fundamental rights.

I agree with wanting women and girls to have rights, opportunities, and respect, but (forgive me for starting a really bad analogy here) have you ever read the book "Siblings Without Rivalry"? I found most of it pretty useless, but one thing that I did agree with was the criticism of "equality." The writer asserted that parents do their kids a disservice by focusing so much on treating the kids equally. Each child should be valued as an individual, and a rigid application of "equality" makes each child's value dependent on the value of the other children. The emphasis should be on loving each child and treating each child lovingly, not "equally." I think it is the same thing with women's rights. To me, it is not about women having equal rights, opportunities, and respect with men, but about all people, regardless of gender, nationality, religion, economic status, ethnicity, etc. having the rights, opportunities, and respect that I believe all people deserve.

And that includes people's right to make their own choices, even choices that I vehemently disagree with, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. I think it's arrogant for anyone, regardless of motivation, to presume to know my mind or what's best for me better than I do.

I do of course support equality under the law, equal rights, equal protection, etc. And I will support the ERA until someone can give me a good reason why gender discrimination doesn't deserve to be subjected to strict scrutiny. But I don't think that's the same thing as supporting artifically-enforced equality at all levels of society including within the home.

Here is an article, written from the feminist perspective, about the fundamental difference and incompatibility of feminism and liberal individualism: http://www.feminista.com/archives/v3n4/hill.html Of course, I don't think it's a fair article, because he equates consensual acts with slavery, child rape, and economic exploitation, which are fundamentally non-consensual, but of course from his perspective it doesn't make much difference.

So anyway, I don't think it's a matter of what some feminists do, but of what the ideology fundamentally is.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Brigianna, you don't seem to be listening to me very well, so I'm going to say this one time explicitly:

You have your experience. _You_ experience social coercion as mild, and feel free to ignore it when you wish. _You_ have particular sensitivities because of your relationship. _You_ think, therefore, that to say that women's status in society is adversely affected by social forces is insulting because they have full freedom of choice.

I have my experience. I talked about it previously, and made the point that _I am more powerful and have more freedom because of feminism_. Are you going to deny my reality?

Other women have their own experience, where they _are_ less powerful, less free because of the economic disparity between them and their husbands, where they are oppressed (yes, here in the US) by the subtle yet powerful social pressures they live under, and feminism has helped them and can help them more.

Are you the only one like you? No, probably not. But _not everyone else is like you_. I am not the only woman like me, either. _Some_ women are aware of sexist forces in their lives, and _some_ women do find feminism useful (the only thing useful) in countering those forces _and reclaiming their power_.

_You_ may not like feminism in _your_ life, but there are LOTS of women who have benefited from it, who do embrace it, and who have used its ideas to create better lives for millions of American women.

_I'm_ not trying to say that your philosophy has no place, is ineffectual or unhelpful and you shouldn't have it (although I find it to be of lesser importance in my life and my politics than feminism, for the time being, and I've seen feminism's historic usefulness, so I am going to continue to support and promote it), so stop saying my philosophy is damaging and insulting and belittling. _You_ may experience it that way, but _you're_ not the only woman out there.

And on the point of coercion, either people are free, have free will and full freedom of choice, or they are subject to others' limiting influences. Where each person draws the line between "I can ignore that pressure/accept those consequences" is unique - some will choose to die for their beliefs, others will not even be able to do what they belief right for their baby (cosleep, say, or homeschool) because they are paralyzed by their fear of the consequences of going against social pressure. Just because _you_ know that the consequences aren't that big of a deal in your life and thus are free to make a choice to ignore social pressures doesn't mean that that is the way anyone else experiences it - they may or may not feel free to make any choice other than to conform. (And I agree that empowering women - and everyone - to know their choices and their freedom to make the choices right for them is very important. I just find that feminism _works_, for myself and others, as one way to foster that empowerment.) Don't deny another person's reality just because you experience it another way.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
To me, it is not about women having equal rights, opportunities, and respect with men, but about all people, regardless of gender, nationality, religion, economic status, ethnicity, etc. having the rights, opportunities, and respect that I believe all people deserve.

aaaaaaand you've just described the most basic belief of academic feminism.

ETA: your link doesn't work.

E(again)TA: you seem to think that feminism revolves around the belief that men are less valuable and that given the opportunity, we'd throw them under the bus before we would women. the suggestion that your desire for "_all people, regardless of gender, nationality, religion, economic status, ethnicity, etc. having the rights, opportunities, and respect that I believe all people deserve_" is somehow NOT desired by feminists is pretty insulting, not to mention inaccurate.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *michelemiller*
aaaaaaand you've just described the most basic belief of academic feminism.

True dat.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
Brigianna, you don't seem to be listening to me very well, so I'm going to say this one time explicitly:

You have your experience. _You_ experience social coercion as mild, and feel free to ignore it when you wish. _You_ have particular sensitivities because of your relationship. _You_ think, therefore, that to say that women's status in society is adversely affected by social forces is insulting because they have full freedom of choice.

I have my experience. I talked about it previously, and made the point that _I am more powerful and have more freedom because of feminism_. Are you going to deny my reality?

Other women have their own experience, where they _are_ less powerful, less free because of the economic disparity between them and their husbands, where they are oppressed (yes, here in the US) by the subtle yet powerful social pressures they live under, and feminism has helped them and can help them more.

Are you the only one like you? No, probably not. But _not everyone else is like you_. I am not the only woman like me, either. _Some_ women are aware of sexist forces in their lives, and _some_ women do find feminism useful (the only thing useful) in countering those forces _and reclaiming their power_.

_You_ may not like feminism in _your_ life, but there are LOTS of women who have benefited from it, who do embrace it, and who have used its ideas to create better lives for millions of American women.

_I'm_ not trying to say that your philosophy has no place, is ineffectual or unhelpful and you shouldn't have it (although I find it to be of lesser importance in my life and my politics than feminism, for the time being, and I've seen feminism's historic usefulness, so I am going to continue to support and promote it), so stop saying my philosophy is damaging and insulting and belittling. _You_ may experience it that way, but _you're_ not the only woman out there.

And on the point of coercion, either people are free, have free will and full freedom of choice, or they are subject to others' limiting influences. Where each person draws the line between "I can ignore that pressure/accept those consequences" is unique - some will choose to die for their beliefs, others will not even be able to do what they belief right for their baby (cosleep, say, or homeschool) because they are paralyzed by their fear of the consequences of going against social pressure. Just because _you_ know that the consequences aren't that big of a deal in your life and thus are free to make a choice to ignore social pressures doesn't mean that that is the way anyone else experiences it - they may or may not feel free to make any choice other than to conform. (And I agree that empowering women - and everyone - to know their choices and their freedom to make the choices right for them is very important. I just find that feminism _works_, for myself and others, as one way to foster that empowerment.) Don't deny another person's reality just because you experience it another way.














































I completely agree. Besides, I am beginning to see that talking feminism with people who willingly submit to patriarchal rule in their family is kind of futile. Sure, I accept that choice and if it makes someone happy, who am I to say it is wrong for them? However, in my humble opinion, the fact that people do sumbit to patriarchal rule in their families, for no other reason than the simple fact that their partners are men, and they are women, completely solidifies part of the reason I am a feminist in the first place.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Quote:

I am beginning to see that talking feminism with people who willingly submit to patriarchal rule in their family is kind of futile.
Is there somebody in addition to Brigianna who gave you that impression? I am just wondering who are these plural "people" in this thread.







:


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I didn't want to single anyone out, but yeah, that. Sorry.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

i interpreted CC's "people" to mean that this thread has illuminated a grander point to her. that in life, in general, *people* who do as she described are often unwilling to concede any points re: feminism. fwiw.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Yeah that too lol


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
Brigianna, you don't seem to be listening to me very well, so I'm going to say this one time explicitly:

You have your experience. _You_ experience social coercion as mild, and feel free to ignore it when you wish. _You_ have particular sensitivities because of your relationship. _You_ think, therefore, that to say that women's status in society is adversely affected by social forces is insulting because they have full freedom of choice.

I have my experience. I talked about it previously, and made the point that _I am more powerful and have more freedom because of feminism_. Are you going to deny my reality?

Other women have their own experience, where they _are_ less powerful, less free because of the economic disparity between them and their husbands, where they are oppressed (yes, here in the US) by the subtle yet powerful social pressures they live under, and feminism has helped them and can help them more.

Are you the only one like you? No, probably not. But _not everyone else is like you_. I am not the only woman like me, either. _Some_ women are aware of sexist forces in their lives, and _some_ women do find feminism useful (the only thing useful) in countering those forces _and reclaiming their power_.

_You_ may not like feminism in _your_ life, but there are LOTS of women who have benefited from it, who do embrace it, and who have used its ideas to create better lives for millions of American women.

_I'm_ not trying to say that your philosophy has no place, is ineffectual or unhelpful and you shouldn't have it (although I find it to be of lesser importance in my life and my politics than feminism, for the time being, and I've seen feminism's historic usefulness, so I am going to continue to support and promote it), so stop saying my philosophy is damaging and insulting and belittling. _You_ may experience it that way, but _you're_ not the only woman out there.

And on the point of coercion, either people are free, have free will and full freedom of choice, or they are subject to others' limiting influences. Where each person draws the line between "I can ignore that pressure/accept those consequences" is unique - some will choose to die for their beliefs, others will not even be able to do what they belief right for their baby (cosleep, say, or homeschool) because they are paralyzed by their fear of the consequences of going against social pressure. Just because _you_ know that the consequences aren't that big of a deal in your life and thus are free to make a choice to ignore social pressures doesn't mean that that is the way anyone else experiences it - they may or may not feel free to make any choice other than to conform. (And I agree that empowering women - and everyone - to know their choices and their freedom to make the choices right for them is very important. I just find that feminism _works_, for myself and others, as one way to foster that empowerment.) Don't deny another person's reality just because you experience it another way.

I understand that, and I'm not trying to deny anyone's reality. I have no problem with anyone who wants to adopt a feminist philosophy for herself. I only have a problem with it if it translates into policy that deprives other people of their freedom. I am not trying to make policy or laws to force other people to live the way I do or to silence dissent. I only ask that feminists do the same. I understand that some people have a hard time resisting social pressure. So did I at one time. But social pressure is dissent--it is a majority of society disagreeing with you. They should not have the right to impose their will on you, but neither should you have the right to silence their dissent. Or, as we used to say, the solution to free speech is more speech.

And I agree with you that people have their own individual standards of how much social pressure they are willing to endure. But that is a choice. A woman who chooses not to cosleep with her baby because of social pressure is making a choice, even if she doesn't feel like she is. Oppression does not necessarily exist in every case where someone feels oppressed. In the end, you are the only one who can decide for yourself.

Of course I'm not the only person, and I'm not claiming to speak for anyone but myself. I'm not trying to make anyone agree with me or make the same choices I do. I just want everyone to have the right to make those choices for themselves. And to the extent that feminists facilitate that, I agree with them, and to the extent that they oppose that, I disagree with them.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Brigianna, I am curious to your stance on whether you think prostitution should be legalized, just out of curiosity. I wonder how your individualist views and your (I'm assuming here) religious views make peace with eachother in that respect.


----------



## Arwyn (Sep 9, 2004)

If a person doesn't _know_ they have a choice, doesn't _feel free_ to make a different choice, and doesn't _recognize_ that they're making a choice, how is that a choice? How is that freedom? How is that power?

I maintain that is isn't. Choice needs to be conscious, it needs to be deliberate, it needs to be informed, and when it's not those things, it's not really a choice, and it's not really freedom.

A person who doesn't "know" they're a slave can still be a slave.

So I guess I'm not willing to fight for what you deem to be "choice" because to me, that's no choice at all. It's not freedom.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *michelemiller*
aaaaaaand you've just described the most basic belief of academic feminism.

ETA: your link doesn't work.

E(again)TA: you seem to think that feminism revolves around the belief that men are less valuable and that given the opportunity, we'd throw them under the bus before we would women. the suggestion that your desire for "_all people, regardless of gender, nationality, religion, economic status, ethnicity, etc. having the rights, opportunities, and respect that I believe all people deserve_" is somehow NOT desired by feminists is pretty insulting, not to mention inaccurate.

I think I fixed the link.

I don't think that feminists consider men less valuable, or disagree in theory with people having the rights they deserve, etc. But they have a very different idea than I do about what those rights are. That's what I meant by saying that it isn't about equal rights, but about everyone having certain rights. I believe that all humans have an inalienable natural right to personal autonomy, to self-expression, and generally the right to live as they choose without infringing on the rights of anyone else. Mainstream feminists have an entirely different conception of what rights people should have and what rights are false rights.

My view, as I've tried to articulate, is that if you don't like patriarchal relationships, don't enter into one; if you don't like porn, don't be a porn star; if you don't like elective surgery, don't have any; if you don't agree with a religious doctrine, don't join that religion; if you don't like motherhood, don't have children. But no one should have the right to deprive anyone else of these choices. Mainstream feminists clearly see it differently. That doesn't mean that they don't care about people's rights. But their view of liberation is quite different from mine.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Besides, I am beginning to see that talking feminism with people who willingly submit to patriarchal rule in their family is kind of futile. Sure, I accept that choice and if it makes someone happy, who am I to say it is wrong for them? However, in my humble opinion, the fact that people do sumbit to patriarchal rule in their families, for no other reason than the simple fact that their partners are men, and they are women, completely solidifies part of the reason I am a feminist in the first place.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense to me--you say that you accept my choice and won't say that it's wrong for me, but then say that the fact that I would make this choice solidifies your reason for being a feminist. So if you don't support depriving me of my right to choose, what do you think should be done with me? In a more perfect (in your opinion) feminist world, how would the problem of people like me be addressed?

I'm not trying to be hostile; this really doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Brigianna, I am curious to your stance on whether you think prostitution should be legalized, just out of curiosity. I wonder how your individualist views and your (I'm assuming here) religious views make peace with eachother in that respect.

I think prostitution, drugs, and everything else the government has taken upon itself to morally shelter us from should be legalized. This reconciles with my religious views because even though I, personally, do not agree with the morality of prostitution, or many other things, I don't think it's the state's place to enforce religious morality. Your religious beliefs are a personal choice. As long as you're not violating anyone else's rights, I don't think anyone else, especially the state, should interfere. Besides, I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy of some other religion, so I think I should at least give the same respect to people with different beliefs than mine.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arwyn*
If a person doesn't _know_ they have a choice, doesn't _feel free_ to make a different choice, and doesn't _recognize_ that they're making a choice, how is that a choice? How is that freedom? How is that power?

I maintain that is isn't. Choice needs to be conscious, it needs to be deliberate, it needs to be informed, and when it's not those things, it's not really a choice, and it's not really freedom.

A person who doesn't "know" they're a slave can still be a slave.

So I guess I'm not willing to fight for what you deem to be "choice" because to me, that's no choice at all. It's not freedom.

I agree with you on people needing to know they have a choice. I absolutely believe that real, meaningful choice has to be informed and has to come with real, meaningful alternatives. I'm not talking about laissez-faire. The American so-called free choice system is pathetic. Choose to conform to your minimum-wage job or choose to live on the street--that's not a choice.

But I don't agree that real choice has to be "deliberate." Sometimes when we fail to make a deliberate choice, the choice is made for us. But we choose to fail to act that led to that situation. It's like the people I used to work with who don't bother to vote but then they complain about the government. They made their choice by default, or rather surrendered their choice. And if people choose to be uninformed even when information is available to them, or they choose to conform to society because the benefits of conformity outweigh in their minds the benefits of the alternative, that is, again, still a choice.

And it's true that a person who doesn't know he's a slave can still be a slave, but if he is aware of his situation, and he does have real, meaningful alternatives, and he still consciously chooses to live in servitude, then I would say that he isn't a slave at all.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense to me--you say that you accept my choice and won't say that it's wrong for me, but then say that the fact that I would make this choice solidifies your reason for being a feminist. So if you don't support depriving me of my right to choose, what do you think should be done with me? In a more perfect (in your opinion) feminist world, how would the problem of people like me be addressed?

I'm not trying to be hostile; this really doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think anything should be "done" with you. If you feel that living in an environment where you are submissive to a patriarch, even by choice, makes you a happier person, more power to you. Please though, don't suggest that because you are choosing to live that way, it makes it a situation of equality. You are choosing to live as a lesser part of your marriage. Lesser in the sense that you willingly submit to the will of your husband. The fact that you chose it could be construed as feminist act I suppose -- a woman choosing her lifestyle based on what she believes will make her happy -- but the ACT being the sumbissive part of a situation of chosen inequality to a man is not something I would consider a feminist act.

I said it solidifies part of the reason I am a feminist because to a feminist, that shouldn't be a choice that someone should have to make. Granted, you didn't *have* to make it, but given the choice between marrying someone you love and being submissive to him, or choosing not to submit and not be with him -- it implies (to me anyway) that marrying him and choosing not to submit wouldn't have been an option.... or it wouldn't have been a very pleasant option... and whenever your options are limited because of being a woman, that doesn't seem very feminist to me. You reject the whole notion of feminism though, so it is a moot point with you I suppose.

I can't and don't want to legislate your choice to be sumbissive to your husband in your relationship. I do pose the question though, do you feel your daughters (real or hypothetical) are going to get all the information they need to make an informed choice on their *role* as partners if the biggest influences in their lives believe as you do -- that a woman is to be submissive to a man? Sure you will argue, they have a *choice*, but given what they will be indoctrinated with in the formative years, I wonder if the choice is pure.

Don't get me wrong, everything we teach our children is an indoctrination of some kind, by simple reason that they watch and observe how we live and learn from that. However , if I am helping to shape my daughter's view of life, I err on the side of showing her chosen equality in a relationship rather than chosen inequality.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I don't think anything should be "done" with you. If you feel that living in an environment where you are submissive to a patriarch, even by choice, makes you a happier person, more power to you. Please though, don't suggest that because you are choosing to live that way, it makes it a situation of equality. You are choosing to live as a lesser part of your marriage. Lesser in the sense that you willingly submit to the will of your husband. The fact that you chose it could be construed as feminist I suppose -- a woman choosing her lifestyle based on what she believes will make her happy -- but the ACT being the sumbissive part of a situation of chosen inequality to a man is not something I would consider a feminist act.

I said it solidifies part of the reason I am a feminist because to a feminist, that shouldn't be a choice that someone should have to make. Granted, you didn't *have* to make it, but given the choice between marrying someone you love and being submissive to him, or choosing not to submit and not be with him -- it implies (to me anyway) that marrying him and choosing not to submit wouldn't have been an option.... or it wouldn't have been a very pleasant option... and whenever your options are limited because of being a woman, that doesn't seem very feminist to me. You reject the whole notion of feminism though, so it is a moot point with you I suppose.

Well, household authority is more my belief than my dh's. I didn't have to choose between submitting to him and not marrying him; if anything, he had to choose that. When I told him that I wanted that kind of relationship, he didn't really get it--his exact words were "Why would you want that? You're so smart!" which I thought was kind of funny. So it really was my own choice. He does hold me to it though.

However, I would say, in my very humble opinion, to me personally, any man who would require that his wife submit to him or else refuse to marry her is, I think, probably a jerk not worth marrying anyway. But of course that's not my choice to make.

Quote:

_I can't and don't want to legislate your choice to be sumbissive to your husband in your relationship. I do pose the question though, do you feel your daughters (real or hypothetical) are going to get all the information they need to make an informed choice on their *role* as partners if the biggest influences in their lives believe as you do -- that a woman is to be submissive to a man? Sure you will argue, they have a *choice*, but given what they will be indoctrinated with in the formative years, I wonder if the choice is pure._

_Don't get me wrong, everything we teach our children is an indoctrination of some kind, by simple reason that they watch and observe how we live and learn from that. However , if I am helping to shape my daughter's view of life, I err on the side of showing her chosen equality in a relationship rather than chosen inequality_.
What I hope that my children observe in my relationship with my husband is mutual respect, love, cooperation, compromise, harmony, and faith. Now, we don't practice this perfectly. But I think that those characteristics are more important in our daily interactions than the authority is. But I do think that having my dh's authority is beneficial for this. I don't want the message to be "you have to live this way," but I do want to set a good example. Authority is not very much emphasized in our house, whether dh's authority over me or our nominal authority over our kids. I think that they will get their ideas of relationships not only from how dh and I treat each other, but perhaps even more so how we treat them. So we try to treat them as respectfully as we can, letting them make their own choices and not restricting their freedom except when absolutely necessary.

In a way, I don't really like the word "submissive" as a description of our relationship, although that is the common term for it. I am *not* a submissive person, at all. But if I am setting an example of what women should do, I would like to think of it as showing that even a non-submissive, opinionated person like me can surrender authority, can live with sometimes not getting her way, can put someone else before herself. And I'm not saying that people in other kinds of relationships that are more equal can't do that, but just that for me, surrendering authority is helpful.

And in a way I think we are equal, because we both have equal amounts of authority, I just choose to surrender mine to him.

Sorry if I'm rambling a bit and not really answering your question. I think most people have some things from their childhood that they want to repeat in their adult lives and some things that they emphatically decide they never want to do. And as parents we can't really predict which will be which. My parents were most definitely not in our kind of relationship when I was growing up. My mom is a wonderful person, but she can't deal with not being in control of every situation all the time. And watching her, I consciously decided that I didn't want to be like that. But that was because it wasn't working for her and it wasn't working for those around her.

I just try to set the best example I can for my kids, and let them know that I will support whatever choice they make.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I have no problem with anyone who wants to adopt a feminist philosophy for herself. I only have a problem with it if it translates into policy that deprives other people of their freedom.

I've seen you make this point several times over the course of this discussion, Brigianna, and I'm pretty kerflummoxed by it. I've been a feminist since before I knew there was a word for it, and I simply don't understand why you believe that feminism and the policy it has inspired is about depriving people of freedom. What people are you referring to? Which freedoms?


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
I've seen you make this point several times over the course of this discussion, Brigianna, and I'm pretty kerflummoxed by it. I've been a feminist since before I knew there was a word for it, and I simply don't understand why you believe that feminism and the policy it has inspired is about depriving people of freedom. What people are you referring to? Which freedoms?

This is a somewhat difficult question to answer, because most of the things that really concern me aren't policies that they have implemented, but policies that they have advocated or that would be the natural conclusion of their philosophy. American feminists have not been very successful at codifying their agenda here, so I would look at Europe as a place where their agenda is more fully enacted. For example, in France people are not allowed to wear religious symbols in public schools or hospitals. This was done partially in the name of "religious neutrality" but also because women who wore religious symbols, specifically Islamic clothing are allegedly being "oppressed," and many French feminists have called for a total ban. Also in France, I don't know if this was only a proposed law or if it was actually enacted, but it was proposed that women should be banned from requesting female doctors and from refusing treatment from a male doctor. I'm disgusted by the entire concept of needing a pre-approved reason to not have some stranger touch you, never mind the gender element.

They have had some success here in America though. I posted on another thread about how a couple of years ago, the state legislature here (Georgia) passed a ban on female circumcision for consenting adult women. Because of the way the bill was worded, it also banned body piercing. The press got hold of the piercing ban and ran with it, and the legislators were pretty embarrassed. But what was funny to me was that a law specifically intended to ban an elective procedure for consenting adults only became controversial when it interfered with a major industry! Also, feminists have been trying to ban breast implants at the federal level on the premise that the procedure has no benefits. They were unsuccessful, but again, because of the industry. Not because our so-called leaders have any belief in personal autonomy.

Another issue on which they've had some success is plural relationships, or polygamous cohabitation. I'm not talking about giving them marriage licences, which I agree would be problematic, but just three or more adults living together in a romantic relationship. Feminists have made war on these kinds of families and have taken many of their children away. They got a Utah judge fired for being in violation of that state's blatantly unconstitutional anti-plural-cohabitation law. Also, there is prostitution. Not forced prostitution, which I think we all agree should be banned, but consensual prostitution. Who is anyone else to tell a woman that she can't sell access to her own body?

Many feminists have advocated shutting down churches and religious institutions that don't support their agenda. There was a case several years ago, I don't remember the details because it's too early in the morning, but there was a case where a couple of men were expelled from college because for religious reasons they refused to room with women.

But mostly it's just the underlying assumption that women somehow have less free will than men or are less accountable for their actions. To me the primary example of this is the drunken sex issue. If a drunk man has sex with an equally drunk woman, mainstream feminists would classify the man as a rapist. If they want to claim that a drunk person can't consent to sex, than why don't they say that the drunk woman was raping the drunk man instead of the other way around? Being drunk lowers your inhibitions, and drunk people often do stupid things that they regret as soon as they sober up. Everyone knows that drunk people do stupid things, so when they choose to get drunk, they should keep in mind that they may choose to do something while under the influence that they would not do sober. That is a risk you take when you choose to get drunk. It isn't anyone else's responsibility.

And then there is sexual harassment. I think we would all agree that if you have a case where an employer is saying "sleep with me or you're fired," that is not appropriate. But feminists have redefined sexual harassment so that any relationship between people at the same workplace is "harassment" even if it's totally consensual.

There are other examples, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head right now. Of course, if you read the writings of mainstream academic feminists, they are completely open about promoting collectivist "liberation" over individual rights.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
They [feminists] have had some success here in America though. I posted on another thread about how a couple of years ago, the state legislature here (Georgia) passed a ban on female circumcision for consenting adult women.

I have to get the kids to school so I only have time to address this one point. If you live there you know best, but I am really surprised to hear that the state legislature of Georgia is comprised of a bunch of feminists!

So, is there also state-sponsored, high quality childcare for working families in Georgia? Mandated, paid, year-long maternity leaves? (Paternity leaves, too). Does everyone have access to affordable healthcare? Do the hospitals treat birth as a natural process, and is college education available for all? If so, this feminist knows where she's moving!

Ok, you can see I'm being a bit snarky here. But my point is, I think you are blaming "feminists" for policy you don't like, when I would very much doubt that "feminists" as a group push this stuff. You say that "feminists" advocate shutting down churches that don't support their agendas, when what you probably mean is a specific group of people who have a specific gripe against a particular church. At least, that's what I'm assuming, because I've never heard of any feminists wanting to shut down, say the Catholic church or the Orthodox Jews or the conservative Muslims - groups which certainly don't support the feminist "agenda".

I have a real problem with the way you use such generalities in referring to feminists. As someone said awhile back: It's like claiming that you aren't comfortable with the idea of Christianity because after all, Christians did kill those doctors at the abortion clinics - and how could you support that sort of thinking?


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
But mostly it's just the underlying assumption that women somehow have less free will than men or are less accountable for their actions.

"Mainstream feminists" don't believe this. There may be some people in the world who call themselves feminists who believe this, but that does not mean it is a basic tenant of feminist philosophy or part of the women's movement. You're mixing that up all over the place.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
To me the primary example of this is the drunken sex issue. If a drunk man has sex with an equally drunk woman, mainstream feminists would classify the man as a rapist. If they want to claim that a drunk person can't consent to sex, than why don't they say that the drunk woman was raping the drunk man instead of the other way around?

Generally speaking, it comes down to anatomy. It is very difficult for a woman to rape a man. Not that I agree that women doing something stupid automatically equals rape. But rape is a major grey area that most people don't realize, especially not men. And clearly not you.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Annakiss, I am curious about your opinion on this situation that occurred at my college: A man passed out drunk in a lounge of the fraternity house where he lived. He awoke to find a woman he didn't like performing oral sex on him. He told her to stop. She refused and got two female friends to sit on him while she continued for a long time until he finally ejaculated. He attempted to press disciplinary charges against her, but campus police just laughed at him. She claimed that because he responded physically to the stimulation, he must have wanted it. He said that was equivalent to sticking your finger down someone's throat and then saying, "You must have wanted to throw up." What do you think?

I very much agree that rape and sexual assault can be hard to define because of all the gray areas. Of course there ARE cases that are blatantly obvious, but many are not. It isn't even as simple as "it comes down to anatomy": It may be more difficult for the average woman to physically restrain the average man than vice versa, but in most states physical restraint is not required for an act to be considered rape or sexual assault. It's true that intercourse is difficult if a man doesn't have an erection, but that's not the only form of sexual contact, and it's possible for a man to have an erection when he doesn't want to, just as it is possible for a woman to lubricate when she doesn't want to. So it's all very complicated. While it is true that the vast majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by men against women, I agree with Brigianna that there has been a trend toward placing blame on the man in some situations where both parties are culpable.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
I have to get the kids to school so I only have time to address this one point. If you live there you know best, but I am really surprised to hear that the state legislature of Georgia is comprised of a bunch of feminists!

So, is there also state-sponsored, high quality childcare for working families in Georgia? Mandated, paid, year-long maternity leaves? (Paternity leaves, too). Does everyone have access to affordable healthcare? Do the hospitals treat birth as a natural process, and is college education available for all? If so, this feminist knows where she's moving!

Well, no, the legislature isn't controlled by feminists. But this particular bill was supported by feminists as well as others. We don't have universal healthcare or maternatity leave, and there's a wide diversity of hospitals, but we actually do have free college education. Anyone who is a state resident and maintains a B average can go to any public college and have the tuition fully paid plus a book allowance. Of course our Republican governor now wants to end it.







: But anyway, it's not totally *******-land over here.

And we do have government-sponsered child care, as I think all states do, only it's called the public school system. Quality is of course another matter, but while I strongly dispute the quality of the school system as a provider of education, I think it is of fairly good quality as child care.

Quote:

_Ok, you can see I'm being a bit snarky here. But my point is, I think you are blaming "feminists" for policy you don't like, when I would very much doubt that "feminists" as a group push this stuff_.
Well, feminists aren't doing it by themselves. Earlier I mentioned the novel "The Handmaid's Tale," which I think is a pretty realistic description of how such a regime would be formed--by a combination of feminists with other illiberal interests. The Georgia female circ/piercing bill was sponsored by a coalition of feminists and theocrats who consider body modification a sin. Feminists have also joined forces with Christian theocrats on porn, prostitution, and various other sexual issues. Feminists have united with big pharma and the medical-industrial complex on things like forced medical treatment and mental health. They've formed common cause with xenophobes on the demonization of religious minorities and immigrants, especially in Europe.

They've united with liberal individualists on plenty of issues too, of course, and I'm glad they have, but I certainly don't have to endorse their philosophy as a whole.

Quote:

_You say that "feminists" advocate shutting down churches that don't support their agendas, when what you probably mean is a specific group of people who have a specific gripe against a particular church. At least, that's what I'm assuming, because I've never heard of any feminists wanting to shut down, say the Catholic church or the Orthodox Jews or the conservative Muslims - groups which certainly don't support the feminist "agenda"._
I probably shouldn't have used the word "agenda." But yes some feminists have advocated shutting down the Catholic church, and already in Europe they're trying to prevent the Muslims from practicing their faith. But even if it were a specific gripe against a specific church, why would they have to oppose it? If you don't agree with a specific religious doctrine, don't join that religion. Why the desire to control what other people believe?

Quote:

_I have a real problem with the way you use such generalities in referring to feminists. As someone said awhile back: It's like claiming that you aren't comfortable with the idea of Christianity because after all, Christians did kill those doctors at the abortion clinics - and how could you support that sort of thinking?_
Well, you asked for specific examples of feminist-supported policies that I believe infringe on people's freedom. But I do know that not all feminists support those policies; it's a very diverse movement. However, my main problem with feminism is not this or that particular issue or this or that specific policy, it's with the general underlying philosophy. I would think that it was unreasonable for someone to reject Christianity because of some Christians bombing abortion clinics, but I think it's quite reasonable to reject Christianity because you don't agree with the New Testament.

And I don't agree with any of what might be called the feminist orthodoxy. I don't believe that we (Americans in 2006) live in a fundamentally patriarchal and misogynistic society. I also don't think there's anything wrong with patriarchy in relationships as long as it's freely chosen. I don't think that a woman who chooses to "degrade" herself is doing so because of "internalized sexism," in fact I don't believe that "internalized sexism" exists at all. I don't believe that in order for free choice to be meaningful, it must be made in the absense of social pressure or influence. I don't believe that women (or men) need to be protected from themselves. I don't believe that there's anything wrong with traditional gender roles as long as they're voluntary and not forced. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to call myself a feminist, just as it would be intellectually dishonest for me to say, "I'm a communist but I believe in the free market" or "I'm a Republican but I believe in higher taxes" or "I believe in ap but I believe in spanking babies." It just doesn't work. There are real philosophical differences out there, and one of them is the difference between liberation over liberty or liberty over liberation. I choose the latter.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
Annakiss, I am curious about your opinion on this situation that occurred at my college: A man passed out drunk in a lounge of the fraternity house where he lived. He awoke to find a woman he didn't like performing oral sex on him. He told her to stop. She refused and got two female friends to sit on him while she continued for a long time until he finally ejaculated. He attempted to press disciplinary charges against her, but campus police just laughed at him. She claimed that because he responded physically to the stimulation, he must have wanted it. He said that was equivalent to sticking your finger down someone's throat and then saying, "You must have wanted to throw up." What do you think?

It sounds like that man was assaulted. Just because I think that men have more power in their anatomy and that rape has been used for thousands of years as a tool of war does not mean that in every single case a woman is not responsible or does not have power or does not act in an assaultive manner. Generally speaking though, women have less power and have been the victims of sexual assault for as long as there have been women and men. I believe the figure is 3 out of every 4 women in this country have been raped. That speaks volumes about power. Period.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
"Mainstream feminists" don't believe this. There may be some people in the world who call themselves feminists who believe this, but that does not mean it is a basic tenant of feminist philosophy or part of the women's movement. You're mixing that up all over the place.

Well, they might not say it, but I would argue that it comes through in their writing and what they advocate. For example, if you remember during the Andrea Yeates case, many feminists argued that her husband should be prosecuted for "making her have another child" (she chose to have another child), "making her stay home and homeschool" (again, she chose that), "making her have a natural birth" (again, her choice, and since when is natural birth oppressive?), and failing to have her institutionalized against her will (what is pro-women's-liberation about men institutionalizing women against their will?). The only way this makes sense is if you believe that men are somehow more responsible for their actions than women. And it is the same with the drunken sex issue--they're both drunk, they're both consenting, why is only one responsible?

Quote:

_Generally speaking, it comes down to anatomy. It is very difficult for a woman to rape a man. Not that I agree that women doing something stupid automatically equals rape. But rape is a major grey area that most people don't realize, especially not men. And clearly not you_.
Yes, I realize that rape can be a grey area. And your anatomy point is valid if you narrowly define rape as holding someone down and having sex with them against their will. But if you define it as including consensual sex with someone not in a position to give meaningful consent, such as a drunk person, and both parties are equally drunk, then why is it classified as him raping her and not the other way around? What if it were a drunk man and a sober woman? What about a drunk woman and a sober man? There is a clear double standard.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
It sounds like that man was assaulted. Just because I think that men have more power in their anatomy and that rape has been used for thousands of years as a tool of war does not mean that in every single case a woman is not responsible or does not have power or does not act in an assaultive manner. Generally speaking though, women have less power and have been the victims of sexual assault for as long as there have been women and men. I believe the figure is 3 out of every 4 women in this country have been raped. That speaks volumes about power. Period.

Yes, the vast majority of rapes are committed by men against women. But if you're going to redefine rape to include consensual drunken sex, than that should be equally applied.

Sexual assault is a huge problem, and I think that anyone who commits it should be severely punished. But I think we should also look at the issue of why so many men think that it's okay to sexually assault women, or think that they can get away with it. That's part of the problem too.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Brigianna Well said:


> Wait a minute - you're saying that you read the dystopia of "The Handmaid's Tale" as being a portrayal of a regime brought about by _feminism_? Even in part? Seriously?
> 
> I don't know how anyone could possibly interpret Atwood's book that way. It utterly boggles my mind. AHT was so obviously depicting a situation in which an extreme version of right wing Christianity takes power. One of the first things they do in the novel is to deprive _all women_ of access to their bank accounts. The only women in the entire book who have any sort of power within that regime have it by virtue of who they are married to - but certainly not in relation to their husbands.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
Wait a minute - you're saying that you read the dystopia of "The Handmaid's Tale" as being a portrayal of a regime brought about by _feminism_? Even in part? Seriously?

I don't know how anyone could possibly interpret Atwood's book that way. It utterly boggles my mind. AHT was so obviously depicting a situation in which an extreme version of right wing Christianity takes power. One of the first things they do in the novel is to deprive _all women_ of access to their bank accounts. The only women in the entire book who have any sort of power within that regime have it by virtue of who they are married to - but certainly not in relation to their husbands.

And you see Atwood saying _feminists_ brought this about?

If this is how you interpret a book which is so stark in its portrayal of a society in which feminism has been almost completely crushed, I'm starting to see why I find your other thoughts on feminism so puzzling.

I don't have any articles or anything on hand, although I'll try to find some, but I do know that while Atwood was primarily criticizing Christian theocrats, she was also criticizing feminists who joined the theocrats in trying to ban porn and suppress sexuality. And I think that's a realistic vison of how such a regime would probably come about.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I don't have any articles or anything on hand, although I'll try to find some, but I do know that while Atwood was primarily criticizing Christian theocrats, she was also criticizing feminists who joined the theocrats in trying to ban porn and suppress sexuality. And I think that's a realistic vison of how such a regime would probably come about.

I'm sorry, I believe you are utterly mistaken. There are undoubtably fundamentalist Christians who would like to ban pornography. And there may be a subset of feminism which would like to ban pornography. But to suggest that these feminists - or any others - would therefore ally themselves with the entire fundamentalist agenda, which is by nature _anti-feminist_ is simply ludicrous. In fiction or reality. It's like saying that those same anti-pornography fundies would take note of the writings of Andrea Dworkin and suddenly decide to embrace feminism. Not gonna happen.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

From http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/handmaid/themes.html

Quote:

Although _The Handmaid's Tale_ offers a specifically feminist critique of the reactionary attitudes toward women that hold sway in Gilead, Atwood occasionally draws similarities between the architects of Gilead and radical feminists such as Offred's mother. Both groups claim to protect women from sexual violence, and both show themselves willing to restrict free speech in order to accomplish this goal. Offred recalls a scene in which her mother and other feminists burn porn magazines. Like the founders of Gilead, these feminists ban some expressions of sexuality. Gilead also uses the feminist rhetoric of female solidarity and "sisterhood" to its own advantage. These points of similarity imply the existence of a dark side of feminist rhetoric. Despite Atwood's gentle criticism of the feminist left, her real target is the religious right.
I agree with this analysis.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama*
I'm sorry, I believe you are utterly mistaken. There are undoubtably fundamentalist Christians who would like to ban pornography. And there may be a subset of feminism which would like to ban pornography. But to suggest that these feminists - or any others - would therefore ally themselves with the entire fundamentalist agenda, which is by nature _anti-feminist_ is simply ludicrous. In fiction or reality. It's like saying that those same anti-pornography fundies would take note of the writings of Andrea Dworkin and suddenly decide to embrace feminism. Not gonna happen.

Most feminists probably wouldn't deliberately enable anti-feminists theocrats, but I think that Atwood's point, which I agree with, is that once you go down the road of justifying censorship, protecting people from themselves, etc., even with the best intentions, you can never know how that's going to be used or what it's going to lead to.


----------



## ETW (Feb 18, 2005)

I just received an email inviting me to sign up for an organization called MomsRising -- from a quick scan of their web page it looks like they are trying to address many of the issues we were discussing earlier in this thread -- I thought some of you might be interested in joining their mailing list:

http://www.momsrising.org/keepmeposted

Quote:

MomsRising is working to promote common sense family-friendly policies. You can sign online petitions and pledges that will be shared with political, community, and business leaders, as well as receive email alerts on timely issues, and read The Motherhood Manifesto book all for free.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:

Patriarchy means men having authority over women so you are saying that this is ok as long as women have a choice? But, if men have authority over women then women do not have a choice in the matter, do they? I do not have any authority over my boss. My husband is not my boss and neither do we live in a patriarchal household. You say you prefer liberty over liberation. Liberty means being free from restriction or control. But, if you live in a patriarchal household, then your husband or father is in control and you do not have liberty. What you need, then, is liberation from the patriarchal control under which you exist in your household. *That is feminism!* My goodness, your argument just made a circle. This is why it is not making sense to many of us.










Sorry to jump in, but I have been lurking on this thread and I was waiting for someone to make this point. If someone has authority over you but you can revoke it at any time, um, they *don't* have authority over you. So if my husband had authority over me, if I wanted to change the rules for any reason, if he beat me and I wanted to leave, I'd be SOL. I would *have* to submit - THAT is authority in action! Conversely, if my husband was said to have authority over me but never exercised it (never said that something had to be a certain way although I disagreed) - if we always found mutually agreeable solutions to our problems - then he could not be said to have authority over me in any meaningful way. Authority is something that is exercised.

Brigianna, it does not sound at all like your DH has any type of authority over you and from what I can tell, anyone would be hard-pressed to exercise true authority over you!







Which is as it should be IMO. I just don't understand why you insist on turning these concepts inside out. It seems to me that you clearly do agree with many traditionally feminist ideals, but you are determined to only see the atypical, radical or only tangentially feminist points of view as being representative of 'feminism' and that you are determined not to see how the power you have to make choices in your own life is directly linked to the feminist project. Voluntary submission as a lifestyle choice is only possible when *involuntary* submission is against the law and when those laws are enforced...laws which have come into effect through...you guessed it...FEMINISM!

Sorry for barging in rudely to this thread...I will now bow out. I just wanted to comment after seeing boongirl's post.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Well, take a few days off from a thread and it really gets interesting.

Brigianna - you just don't give up, do you? Gotta give you some brownie points for tenacity, that is for sure. But, I am sorry to say, you still are seriously lacking in historical perspective and general knowledge.

First of all, Margaret Atwood's, The Handmaid's Tale (which I just reread a few months back) is the story of conservative christian men taking over society and taking all freedoms away from women who are fertile (in an era when many women are infertile) in at attempt to control propegation of the human species. That the architects of Gilead are compared to the feminists, like Offred's mother, does imply that there are some problems with some feminists aligning themselves with conservatives of the radically opposite agenda. But, this is a small, fringe element. To take what a few do and use it to malign feminism is akin to taking what a few radicals called terrorists do and use that to malign an entire religion. Shortsighted does not even begin to accurately describe what it means. You cannot take this book and use it to malign feminism.

I wasn't trying to malign feminism, which I agree was not the author's point. But I do think that in any context, not just feminism, when you argue for limiting people's individual rights in the name of "the greater good," you open the door to that argument being used against you.

Quote:

_So, if we do not live in a fundamentally patriarchal society then why are women's wages falling and why do women, particularly working mother's, still have so many hardships in the workplace, most particularly lower wages compared to men, even men who are fathers?_
Well, I think that wages and benefits as a whole have been declining, especially in the service industries disproportionately held by women. But specifically with regards to mothers, I think that some of the decline is caused by what we are practicing and advocating on this site--attachment parenting. More and more mothers are converting to the importance of the bond between mothers and young children. They are more likely to take time off work and use flex time, and less willing to travel or work overtime. Of course, you can certainly be an attached mother as well as a good employee, but I think that a mother who takes a longer maternity leave, refuses to work overtime, misses work when her kids are sick, etc. is not as efficient a worker bee as one who is more willing to leave her kids in daycare for longer amounts of time.

And this relates, I think, to the fact that our society is fundamentally anti-child. They should be seen and not heard, institutionalized from a young age, and not disrupt the economy with their pesky needs. Just drop them in a crib and let them cry; they'll be okay. Don't bother nursing them, your breasts are needed to sell beer. Etc. I think that as long as this is the mainstream perception of children, women will be economically penalized for being mothers and especially for being ap mothers.

The only real solution, I think, is to have a permanent revolution in treatment of children. Strengthening unions and the labor movement and enacting universal single-payer health care would also help I think.

Quote:

_Let me see if I understand the words you are using and the meaning you are trying to convey. Patriarchy means men having authority over women so you are saying that this is ok as long as women have a choice? But, if men have authority over women then women do not have a choice in the matter, do they? I do not have any authority over my boss. My husband is not my boss and neither do we live in a patriarchal household. You say you prefer liberty over liberation. Liberty means being free from restriction or control. But, if you live in a patriarchal household, then your husband or father is in control and you do not have liberty. What you need, then, is liberation from the patriarchal control under which you exist in your household. *That is feminism!* My goodness, your argument just made a circle. This is why it is not making sense to many of us._
But you can choose to surrender your authority to someone else without losing your liberty. It's basically government by the consent of the governed. And I can revoke that consent at any time. So it isn't that he deprives me of my liberty or forces me to do anything, but that I choose to do what he wants. Most people defer to someone else's authority or judgment sometimes, and it doesn't involve giving up their rights or needing to be liberated.

Quote:

_Atwood's point, made in 1985, is an old one, based on a movement within American feminism that has all but passed. Today's modern feminists are not aligning themselves with the religious right in an attempt to make pornography illegal. On the contrary, third wave feminists are pretty much doing the exact opposite._
The specific point about pornography is mostly outdated, yes, but while in 1985 the main hot-button issue uniting feminists and theocrats was anti-porn, today, I believe it is medical freedom and the rights of religious minorities. Feminists have changed in the past 20 years, but so have theocrats. It isn't about "bad immoral sinful sinful you're going straight to hell you heathen" anymore--there's some of that, of course, but it isn't the face of the movement. Modern theocrats sound exactly like feminists. Instead of advocating the criminalization of things they don't like based on religious doctrine, they argue that lifestyles they disagree with are "exploitative" and "unfulfilling." They claim that patriarchy and sexual restraint liberate women and that non-conformists are not sinners to be chastised but victims of mind control to be pitied. They exploit the ambiguities of meaningful consent and are quick to play the "mind control" card. Instead of a self-proclaimed holy man ranting about sin and vice and public immorality, the face of the American Christian theocratic movement in 2006 is that of a bright-eyed female representative of Consistent Life sincerely explaining how sexual and reproductive freedom put too much stress on women's little minds.

So I don't think it's a hypothetical that the theocratic movement could co-opt feminist ideas and rhetoric to advance an anti-feminist agenda and drag us towards the Republic of Gilead, I think it's already happening. Once you start saying that women who choose a traditionalist lifestyle are brainwashed and need to be protected from themselves, what prevents others from using that same argument to say that women who choose a feminist lifestyle are brainwashed and need to be protected from themselves? Especially if you have set a precedent that consensual behavior deemed degrading to women may be banned.

Of course, as a traditionalist Christian in a happily patriarchal relationship, I agree that the lifestyle of drugs and anonymous sex is not particularly fulfilling, and that the traditionalist lifestyle is a better choice. I also agree with feminists that the sexualization of women is degrading, and that modesty is a better choice. *But it has to be freely chosen.* And women (and men) deserve the benefit of the doubt that their choices are real choices, not products of social mind control.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Sorry to jump in, but I have been lurking on this thread and I was waiting for someone to make this point. If someone has authority over you but you can revoke it at any time, um, they *don't* have authority over you. So if my husband had authority over me, if I wanted to change the rules for any reason, if he beat me and I wanted to leave, I'd be SOL. I would *have* to submit - THAT is authority in action! Conversely, if my husband was said to have authority over me but never exercised it (never said that something had to be a certain way although I disagreed) - if we always found mutually agreeable solutions to our problems - then he could not be said to have authority over me in any meaningful way. Authority is something that is exercised.

Brigianna, it does not sound at all like your DH has any type of authority over you and from what I can tell, anyone would be hard-pressed to exercise true authority over you!







Which is as it should be IMO.

Well, authority can be based on power and control, or it can be based on voluntary trust. Kind of like the relationship I have with my kids. As their mother I have authority over them, but it's an authority based on respect and trust, not control. We are very minimally coercive at our house. I have never punished my kids, and I've hardly ever required them to do something they didn't want to do, especially since they've been old enough to carry on a conversation. So when I ask dd to do something for me, she generally does it, not because I make her or because I'll punish her if she doesn't, but because she trusts and respects me. I think if I were to treat her less respectfully, that would change, and she would revoke the respect and trust that she's chosen to give me. Similarly, when I tell my ds, in my serious mama voice, that he *has to* hold my hand in the parking lot, or ride in his carseat, because it is *very important,* he mostly goes along with it, because he knows that I've never deliberately hurt him. They're not always cooperative, of course, but I think they're more so because of our mutually respectful relationship.

It's the same thing with my relationship with my dh. I do what he wants not because he has the power to force me to, which he doesn't, but because I trust him and respect him and know that he has never deliberately hurt me. You're right that I would make it very difficult for anyone to force me to do anything. Most children grow out of the "oh yeah? you can't make me! you're not the boss of me!" stage, but I never quite made it.







And I am kind of proud of that. But I think there is a big difference between letting yourself be bossed around just because, and placing your respect and trust in someone you love.

Quote:

_I just don't understand why you insist on turning these concepts inside out. It seems to me that you clearly do agree with many traditionally feminist ideals, but you are determined to only see the atypical, radical or only tangentially feminist points of view as being representative of 'feminism' and that you are determined not to see how the power you have to make choices in your own life is directly linked to the feminist project. Voluntary submission as a lifestyle choice is only possible when *involuntary* submission is against the law and when those laws are enforced...laws which have come into effect through...you guessed it...FEMINISM!_
Well, sure. Feminism has done a lot of really great things. Without the feminists, we wouldn't have women's sufferage or property rights, reproductive freedom, equal pay for equal work, or the right not to be raped even if we are wearing a miniskirt. I am definitely not disputing any of that. But just because I accept that a movement has accomplished some good things and is right about some things, doesn't mean I have to except the entire philosophy it's based on.

It's a little bit ironic that I'm sitting here arguing against the merits of feminism, because most people who know me irl think that I'm a rabid bra-burning feminist, because I support Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, and I support the ERA, and I kept my name when I got married, and I dispute the "fact" that letting boys play with dolls will "turn them gay," and I have nothing against people who actually are gay, and I don't wear makeup, and I don't hate Hillary Clinton. So given all the grief I get for being a "radical commie pinko feminist," this thread seems kind of funny to me. Garrison Keillor said that he likes going to Ann Arbor because everyone should have the opportunity to feel conservative once in a while; I come to MDC for the same purpose.









Quote:

_Sorry for barging in rudely to this thread...I will now bow out. I just wanted to comment after seeing boongirl's post._
You weren't rude at all.







You made your point very politely.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Annakiss, I have never anywhere seen anyone (using actual data) claim that the number of American women who have been raped is any higher than ONE in four. Not that that's a low number. Not that it doesn't still make your point. It's just a much lower number than what you cited, so please check up on that. I'm glad you agree that the college guy I mentioned was a victim of sexual assualt. A vocal group on campus at the time held the opinion that if his body cooperated, that meant he wanted it.









ITA that _The Handmaid's Tale_ includes a caution to feminists about banning things they don't like but is NOT a story of "what would happen if feminists took over."


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
A vocal group on campus at the time held the opinion that if his body cooperated, that meant he wanted it.









Would they also have said that a woman who was flirting with a man "must have wanted it"? Or that someone who was robbed at gunpoint must have wanted to give the robber his money, because he cooperated? That is some twisted logic.

Quote:

_ITA that The Handmaid's Tale includes a caution to feminists about banning things they don't like but is NOT a story of "what would happen if feminists took over."_
Right. I didn't mean to suggest that it was.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Well, the last part of this is a good point but the first part makes me want to scream in anger. That is no reason to justify paying women less money or offering less opportunities. And, who do you think is on the forefront of working towards improved wages and work experiences for women? And who has been for decades? Feminists!

Well, I wouldn't say that it's a reason to *justify* paying anyone less money, but think about it--if you're a business owner and you have two employees, Employee A who has no family responsibilities, shows up early and leaves late every day, is always free to travel, and works a lot of overtime, and Employee B who is the mother of young children, has to come late and leave early to pick up her kids from daycare, never works overtime, can't travel, and has to take frequent days off, isn't it only logical for you to promote Employee A over Employee B? It might not be the moral thing to do, but it would be the sound business practice.

Look, I support equal pay for equal work. But it is only logical that a person with fewer family responsibilities is going to be, ceteris paribus, a better worker, and therefore better paid, than someone with more family responsibilities. If a business is actually discriminating against women or mothers, that is another matter. But I don't think you have to go to that to explain why mothers might, as a whole, earn less money. That is the nature of business and capitalism, not patriarchy.

That is why I think a better solution would be to make it less necessary for mothers to work apart from their young children. There should be more options for working from home or bringing young kids to work. And there should be a true social safety net so that losing your job isn't the end of the world. And there should be more high-paying union jobs so that fewer families will need to rely on two incomes if they would prefer not to. I think these are better solutions than setting up a bunch of government-run daycare centers.

Quote:

_No, you cannot. Not according to the literal definitions of the words authority and liberty. You can choose to let your husband make the decisions in the family but unless you can choose to participate when you want to, you have neither authority nor liberty. You are very wrong on this point_.
Well of course I can participate when I want to, and I often do. Where on earth did you get the idea that I am prevented from participating in decision-making in my family? And freely-given authority that can be revoked at any time is certainly consistent with liberty. Haven't you ever been in a group situation where someone else was the group leader who made the final decisions? But no one forces you to participate. You're not losing your freedom if you willingly choose to go along with someone else's authority.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
If they have the same job and are both working the same 8 hours per day, their pay should be the same. And, I am not writing about employee B taking frequent days off and time off. I am writing about B working 8 hours per day and working hard and still not getting equal pay because she is a mother. If employee A wants to work overtime and travel and employee B cannot, then employee A should be eligible for a promotion or overtime pay or whatever compensation the boss deems appropriate. But, their baseline pay should be the same for the beginning 8 hours per day of work. The reality is that this baseline pay is often very different for working mothers and that is not fair. It is good business to pay people fairly for the work that they do. The difference is not between a working mother who takes a lot of time off and a worker who never does. It is between two workers who work equally hard and works equal hours but the working mother still gets paid less.

Yes, people working the same job for the same amount of hours should get the same pay. Equal pay for equal work. I only meant to point out that just because mothers on average earn less money, that does not necessarily indicate that they are being unfairly discriminated against. I do think that in general, as a whole, mothers and people with family obligations probably really are not as productive workers as those without family obligations. I'm not saying it's fair or right, but businesses don't usually operate based on what's fair or right.

Obviously, paying a mother less than a non-mother when they are equally productive working equal hours is unjust discrimination. However, I don't actually think that happens very often.

Quote:

_You have to realize that you are beginning to make statements that sound very much like they are coming from the 1950s_
Well, there is clearly a difference between the 1950's and today. In the 1950's there were more high-paying (relatively) union jobs, especially in manufacturing, and it was generally less necessary for a family to be supported by two adults working full-time. Of course there were all kinds of problems, too, but that one particular issue was better.

Quote:

_If this is lifestyle you live, that is your choice. But, women are not making less money because of attachment parenting. Woman have always made less money than men and the situation has not gotten better, even though it should be, and FEMINISTS are working to change that._
Yes, women have always made less money on average than men, but this does not necessarily indicate gender discrimination. There is some gender discrimination, and that is of course wrong and should be fixed and changed, but the majority of the wage gap is due to differences in qualifications, differences in jobs performed, and differences in time off.

One of the main problems, as I see it, is that our system relies far too heavily on employers to provide things. Health care and a secure retirement should be basic social services provided to everyone, not tied to employment. If these things alone were changed, more mothers would be free to quit their jobs, switch to part-time, or open their own businesses. Putting even more on employers (paid leave and child care) would make the situation even worse. The big corporations could deal with it but small family businesses would suffer. The other main problem is that children exist, and children need to be taken care of by adults. Obviously as a homeschooler and a homeschool advocate, I would like to see less institutionalization of children, not more. I don't think it is reactionary to say that I think children are better off being cared for by a parent or other relative or even a nanny or babysitter than by a government-run daycare center. And if we were to make the radical social change of looking at what's best for children as well as for adults, I think that most people would support making it easier for parents and other family members and community members to take care of children than to provide more institutional daycares.

Quote:

_I think what is happening here is that you are confusing authority and leadership. From dictionary.com;

authority: The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

leader: a person who rules or guides or inspires others

I have been in group where there is a leader who helps the group make decisions but is not in a position of authority. I do not have to do what that person says but as a group member it is in my interest to work cooperatively, as the leader should. As one cannot freely give authority to a person only to demand it back at a later time, this is the type of leadership where you have a leader but still your own personal liberty.

I have also been in situations where I have a boss who is the leader and who may try to lead democratically but the buck stops with her in the end. In that situation, I am free to quit my job if I don't like it but I have to do what she says if I want to keep my job. I have choices with a leader but not with the person of authority. Another example is the police. They have authority over me but I do not have a say in it. If I am breaking the law, they can arrest me. I cannot choose which laws to follow and which to break._
There is more than one kind of authority. There is of course the kind of authority which has the power to coerce compliance, but there is also authority which is derived from respect. For example someone who is an expert on something might be said to be an authority on that subject, not because he has power over others, but because he is respected in that area. But anyway, it's a semantic issue. What I meant was that he is the decision-maker, by mutual agreement. He isn't infringing on my freedom or exerting power over me or anything like that.


----------



## mommytolittlelilly (Jul 7, 2004)

Brigianna said:


> Well, I wouldn't say that it's a reason to *justify* paying anyone less money, but think about it--if you're a business owner and you have two employees, Employee A who has no family responsibilities, shows up early and leaves late every day, is always free to travel, and works a lot of overtime, and Employee B who is the mother of young children, has to come late and leave early to pick up her kids from daycare, never works overtime, can't travel, and has to take frequent days off, isn't it only logical for you to promote Employee A over Employee B? It might not be the moral thing to do, but it would be the sound business practice.
> 
> Look, I support equal pay for equal work. But it is only logical that a person with fewer family responsibilities is going to be, ceteris paribus, a better worker, and therefore better paid, than someone with more family responsibilities. If a business is actually discriminating against women or mothers, that is another matter. But I don't think you have to go to that to explain why mothers might, as a whole, earn less money. That is the nature of business and capitalism, not patriarchy.
> 
> ...


----------



## mommytolittlelilly (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
Annakiss, I am curious about your opinion on this situation that occurred at my college: A man passed out drunk in a lounge of the fraternity house where he lived. He awoke to find a woman he didn't like performing oral sex on him. He told her to stop. She refused and got two female friends to sit on him while she continued for a long time until he finally ejaculated. He attempted to press disciplinary charges against her, but campus police just laughed at him. She claimed that because he responded physically to the stimulation, he must have wanted it. He said that was equivalent to sticking your finger down someone's throat and then saying, "You must have wanted to throw up." What do you think?

I very much agree that rape and sexual assault can be hard to define because of all the gray areas. Of course there ARE cases that are blatantly obvious, but many are not. It isn't even as simple as "it comes down to anatomy": It may be more difficult for the average woman to physically restrain the average man than vice versa, but in most states physical restraint is not required for an act to be considered rape or sexual assault. It's true that intercourse is difficult if a man doesn't have an erection, but that's not the only form of sexual contact, and it's possible for a man to have an erection when he doesn't want to, just as it is possible for a woman to lubricate when she doesn't want to. So it's all very complicated. While it is true that the vast majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by men against women, I agree with Brigianna that there has been a trend toward placing blame on the man in some situations where both parties are culpable.

Okay, for me this is the "Men are Raped To, Ya' Know" argument. If you want to assert this argument, I think it's really important to remember that most rapes of men are committed by other MEN.

If this is a true story, and for the sake of argument let's say it is, I totally agree that this constitutes rape/sexual assault. What a lot of people don't understand about rape and sexual assault is that it about power, domination and humiliation of the victim, albeit with a sex dynamic. A good source of information about the history of rape can be found in the classic feminist book, Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller. Please set aside any biasis you might have toward second wave feminism and come to it with an open mind. I encourage anyone who's interested in the subject to read this book.

I really have to say, it's a slippery slope when we start talking about "culpability" by the person raped/sexual assaulted. That leads to those age-old series of questions: was she wearing provacative clothing? what's her sexual history? why was she drunk?
I believe that any combination of poor judgment, low self esteem, and overall vulnerability NEVER mean that a person is culpable in being raped/sexually assaulted.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommytolittlelilly*
Allow me to blow your little theory out of the water.

In my particular profession, I am accountable for deadlines, a billing quota, and low rate of errors. I had a male co-worker who was hired about 2 years after me, with about the same level of work experience and expertise, for the same job. By his own admission, he *floundered* at this job - he missed deadlines, his billing quota was routinely under goal, and he worked less hours due to family obligations. I, on the other hand, was the reverse of all this, had greater seniority, was also very well-respected by everyone I worked with and for, and I was single and CHILDLESS! Despite all of this, WE MADE THE EXACT SAME SALARY and he even had more time off with pay than me. There is no economic reasoning for this scenario. THIS CAN BE EXPLAINED BY THE SIMPLE FACT THAT HE IS A MAN AND I AM A WOMAN.

I have observed PLENTY of unfair and preferential treatment, such as the above, in the white collar world which I work, BASED SOLELY ON GENDER. What I have found is that while many employer decisions are made on the basis of economics, many decisions are actually very contrary to good economics. That's a big reason why I try to view things from not only a class/economic standpoint, but also gender and racial standpoints.

I have nothing but admiration and gratitude for second wave feminism and the strides these women have made for the benefit of my generation and others. For me, it's a continuum to be built upon, not to pick apart and complain about.

From your description it sounds like you had an unfair boss. I know there are plenty of unfair bosses out there; I have had my own experiences with a few. But I don't think it's accurate to say that as a whole, as a matter of policy, most businesses discriminate against women. I'm not naive about unethical practices, but I don't think most of them are being unethical for the sake of being unethical. It is not in any business's best interest to keep someone on the payroll who is not doing a good job. Of course there are unfair employers, but most of them will not be very successful if they are not using good economic practices. I'm not denying that there are unfair employers and businessmen out there. But I really doubt it's some kind of systemic patriarchal conspiracy.

Quote:

_Okay, for me this is the "Men are Raped To, Ya' Know" argument. If you want to assert this argument, I think it's really important to remember that most rapes of men are committed by other MEN_.
But how is this relevant? The man has still had his rights violated, whether by a man or a woman.

Quote:

_If this is a true story, and for the sake of argument let's say it is, I totally agree that this constitutes rape/sexual assault. What a lot of people don't understand about rape and sexual assault is that it about power, domination and humiliation of the victim, albeit with a sex dynamic. A good source of information about the history of rape can be found in the classic feminist book, Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller. Please set aside any biasis you might have toward second wave feminism and come to it with an open mind. I encourage anyone who's interested in the subject to read this book._
This is true most of the time, but not always. People are prosecuted for things that have nothing to do with power, domination, and humiliation of a victim.

Quote:

_I really have to say, it's a slippery slope when we start talking about "culpability" by the person raped/sexual assaulted. That leads to those age-old series of questions: was she wearing provacative clothing? what's her sexual history? why was she drunk?
I believe that any combination of poor judgment, low self esteem, and overall vulnerability NEVER mean that a person is culpable in being raped/sexually assaulted_.
Yes, of course if a person was assaulted, it is unfair to say that he or she was culpable. But the issue is what constitutes assault. If the person consents to the act, I don't consider it assault. People do stupid things while drunk. This is a well-known risk that people choose to take when they choose to drink to excess. And there is still the double standard of why a drunk man is culpable but a drunk woman is not.


----------



## la mamita (Apr 10, 2005)

***


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *la mamita*
jumping in:
a drunk man or woman is culpable if the other party does not give consent to sexual activity. period. where is the double standard? i'm confused by your last sentence.

i think you are confusing the fact that if a drunk woman says NO and still gets sexually assaulted, many people dismiss the assault saying "why did you get so drunk?? if you hadn't been drunk, you could have fought him/her off" putting blame on the woman for drinking. when the real blame should be on the person who committed the assault.

if i go out for some drinks in my mini-skirt, i'm not asking for it nor am i giving non-verbal consent with my clothing or my drinking.

Right, I agree, if anything non-consensual happens, that is assault, regardless of whatever the victim was doing beforehand (drinking or anything else). What I am talking about is this common situation: a woman goes out to a party or bar and drinks to excess. While under the influence, she consensually has sex with a man. Some laws and most university policies regard that man as a rapist, even though the act was entirely consensual, because they assert that a drunk person cannot give meaningful consent. The double standard is that in most of these cases, he was as drunk as she was. So if she couldn't give meaningful consent, than neither could he. By their own logic, the drunk woman could be accused of raping the drunk man. But that isn't what happens.

But I totally agree with you that if someone was actually assaulted, i.e. actually had something done to them that they didn't consent to, then it is never the victim's fault at all, even if some people think that she could have done a better job of protecting herself. It is ridiculous that in a supposedly free society an individuals are held responsible for her own protection--why even have laws then?


----------



## la mamita (Apr 10, 2005)

***


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Okay, passed out drunk is another matter. If you're unconscious you can't give consent, whether you're unconscious from drinking or anything else.

In a case where he said it was consensual but she was to drunk to remember, I would still give him the benefit of the doubt, though, because of considered innocent until proven guilty. If her memory is foggy that's a reasonable doubt.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I'd like to move this thread back to the topic of motherhood and feminism and away from what is feminism, if all possible. ; )

I find that my own personal views on feminism have changed profoundly since having children. I think very differently about abortion, about supporting women's right to be with her kids, about childcare, and loads of other things. I do believe that mainstream feminism did focus on the rights of middle class professional women to break through the glass ceiling, and not on the daily realities of women who couldn't care less about being in managment.

Has anyone read Spin Sisters? The author is irritating at times, but she makes some interesting points about how women's magazines, targeted at middle class moms are all written and managed by upper class women from NYC. The politics in many of these magazines reflects their sensibilities. In addition, she makes the point that we are all told over and over again how tired we are, how oppressed we are, how taken for granted we are - basically the cult of mother as victim that I do take serious issue with.

Thoughts, comments, arguments?

Siobhan


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

People told me that I would not be so pro-choice once I had a child. It's true that when I was TTC for a year and a half and when I was finally pregnant, the idea of some other woman throwing away an embryo because it was inconvenient to her was more upsetting to me. It's true that when two magazines I read ran articles about intact D&X while I was pregnant, I found them upsetting to read because they made me think about someone sticking a scalpel into my little Thumper. BUT my opinion of what the LAW should say about abortion is exactly the same! My pregnancy was a debilitating ordeal that was worthwhile because I deeply desired a child. I could never make anyone go through that against her will. If anything, I feel more strongly about that now that I know what it's like to be pregnant.

One way in which my views on gender roles HAVE changed since my young adulthood--in a process that began before I became a mother but has continued because of it--is that I no longer believe that the direct care of a newborn should be split exactly 50/50 between the parents. I won't say that's "not realistic" because I can imagine a family in which it would work, but in most families each parent has some tasks which he/she does better and/or enjoys more, and also the biological tie between mother and baby makes many of the baby-care tasks easier for the mother. Thus, my new belief is that a child adds to the total tasks to be done by the family, and the TOTAL tasks should be split 50/50 between the parents, with the father doing more of the non-baby tasks because the mother is doing most of the baby tasks, but there should be at least one baby task that is primarily the father's responsibility from the very beginning. As the child grows out of some needs and develops some new ones (for example, nursing less and eating more solids), the parents should adjust their responsibilities; which specific tasks are done by whom is less important than finding an overall balance that works for the individual family.

I have not read Spin Sisters, but this point resonates with me:

Quote:

we are all told over and over again how tired we are, how oppressed we are, how taken for granted we are - basically the cult of mother as victim that I do take serious issue with.








Yet those magazines rarely even hint that we might ask our men for help! And right next to the tips on how to de-stress are new things to stress about!







Basically, the editorial content is arranged to keep the readers "needing" the products advertised. The mom magazines particularly upset me because they plug all these "time-saving" products that cost so much that you have to keep working in order to afford to neglect your child (I know that's putting it a bit too strongly, but I am ranting here!







) and disposable products that you "need" because you're so pressed for time that you can't think about the world of garbage you're creating for your children!


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

huh. just lost my post. must try again!


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
Well, I wouldn't say that it's a reason to *justify* paying anyone less money, but think about it--if you're a business owner and you have two employees, Employee A who has no family responsibilities, shows up early and leaves late every day, is always free to travel, and works a lot of overtime, and Employee B who is the mother of young children, has to come late and leave early to pick up her kids from daycare, never works overtime, can't travel, and has to take frequent days off, isn't it only logical for you to promote Employee A over Employee B?

Nope! Completely disagree. Producivity is not equal to activity. What if instead of a mother, you had 2 employees and one was going to school at night, and was thus unavailable to work overtime or travel? But they brought new ideas into the organization, had empathy and inspired loyalty in their co-workers? Now who would you promote?

The issue is that the mother is penalized BECAUSE she is a mother, but the student, who may have the same restrictions is rewarded. Why are men informally penalized for taking paternity leave at work, but not for taking military leave? It isn't the being gone from work, it's our attitudes toward children and parenting.

More doesn't equal better. As long as the job requires 40 hours a week on average and both employees are working 40 hours a week on average, it is not necessarily true that the 50 hour a week employee is bringing more to the job. Maybe they are too disorganized, inefficient, unmotivated, depressed or unskilled to get their work done in 40 hours. Maybe they create their own problems through perfectionism.

I happen to think that mothers, students and other employees "with lives" bring a LOT MORE TO THE JOB than employees whose only interest is work. I completely disagree with the notion that the 50 hour a week employee is more worthy of promotion simply by putting in more face time. That's a baby-boomer mentality and we Gen-X-ers and younger aren't gonna take it anymore....

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion on motherhood and feminism.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*
Has anyone read Spin Sisters? The author is irritating at times, but she makes some interesting points about how women's magazines, targeted at middle class moms are all written and managed by upper class women from NYC. The politics in many of these magazines reflects their sensibilities. In addition, she makes the point that we are all told over and over again how tired we are, how oppressed we are, how taken for granted we are - basically the cult of mother as victim that I do take serious issue with.

Thoughts, comments, arguments?

Siobhan

Well I haven't read the book, but I am tired, I am overworked and I am taken for granted. However, I might not have realized it if no one else ever mentioned it. I might have just assumed that this is how it is. But does questioning the situation and realizing that there may be ways to make it better mean that I'm manipulating myself (or being manipulated) into a place of frustration and that I would have been better off leaving well enough alone? I'll agree that magazines do us a disservice in their constant barrage of an oversimplification of our problems. I looked at a mag the other day that told me that all I needed was to change my dining room into a play room and life woud be simpler, my children would be happier. As if their bedroom wasn't enough space for all their crap.









I don't really see myself as a victim at all. I don't think my friends see themselves as victims, even when we're all dishing about how much we have to do. I do think that the race for equality in the home is really only half won. I know that there are a lot of men out there who do a lot, and my husband is one of them, but I get very frustrated by the fact that still the majority of the care for the household falls to me. I don't think that my husband can appreciate the full scope of housekeeping I do - the mental energy devoted into organizing and supporting everyone and our physical space. I would like very much for more time to sit and think. I get the feeling that regardless of how much time my husband puts in at home, or perhaps because of the time he puts in, there is a sense of entitlement to benefits that I just don't have.

Maybe it's not my husband making me not have a sense of entitlement, maybe it's something else. I know he doesn't intend for me to lack it, I just do. I don't know where that comes from. Maybe from women's magazines, actually. The ones that say we need to emulate the upper-middle-class (despite the fact that they often hire people to do the work) in the way their homes are designed and the way their clothes look and their food and cars and whatever else.

The sense of entitlement, btw, is to things like a shower everyday, the ability to poop whenever the mood strikes, the ability to consider only one's own stomach when deciding when dinner is (okay, maybe that one is a fault of my DH), the ability to relax, take a nap, enjoy music, or be online even when children are awake, because after all, there is someone else in the house to keep an eye out. The sense of entitlement is about not feeling guilt for not doing something. I think maybe the guilt comes from my mother though, now that I think about it, which probably comes from her mother and so on... Either way, it's a manifestation of one gender carrying the weight of the household. And, fwiw, I think that doing so is a much bigger job than what DH does outside of the home, AND it's something that he can participate in without neglecting his woh job and anyway his woh job provides him with adult contact, intellectual stimulation and time away from the home, which my sah job most certainly does not, so it's only fair, I feel to split it up a bit.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
Either way, it's a manifestation of one gender carrying the weight of the household. And, fwiw, I think that doing so is a much bigger job than what DH does outside of the home, AND it's something that he can participate in without neglecting his woh job and anyway his woh job provides him with adult contact, intellectual stimulation and time away from the home, which my sah job most certainly does not, so it's only fair, I feel to split it up a bit.

I carry the weight of the household, because I chose to be a SAHM. DH does things around the house, too. And, I really don't think that what I do is a "bigger job" than what dh does. We can't survive without dh's income. I may not be able to go to the bathroom without company, but I can wear whatever I want. I can decide to go to the store, go for a walk, go to the farm or whatever anytime I want to (except when dd is napping). DH has no control over his day at all.

I don't have much adult contact, but I generally don't miss it. Intellectual stimulation can be found online or in a book, but I certainly never found much of it in the asinine office politics that went on around me. Time away from home...well, as I said, I can have that at any time. I just need to get the kids dressed and go. DH gets tons of time away from home, but it's all at the office - not a big improvement.

I used to be a WOHM. Admittedly, that was with a completely worthless spouse, who did nothing at home. But, that was the only time in my life that I felt ripped off. I didn't see ds1's first steps. I often wasn't there when he fell down and needed someone to kiss his knee better. Someone else fed him and took him for walks. Yeah - I had adult contact, but that was in lieu of contact with my son. I rushed to work in the morning, rushed home at night, and never, ever had enough hours in the day to get anything done, or to relax. Now...I'm NAK. When ds2 falls asleep, I'll get dd an orange, and do some cleaning, and take something out of the freezer for supper, and play with dd. Somewhere in there, ds2 will wake back up and I'll go upstairs and play with them for a while. Maybe they'll play outside and get mucky, and I'll have to give them both early baths. Maybe we'll go up to my mom's (who WAH) and visit for a bit, so they can run around in her HUGE yard. It's up to me...not my boss, not a customer...me. I have so much more control over my life than dh does that it's not even funny.

I chose this. DH is working all day, and missing out on a lot of much-wanted time with his children, for my sake, because he knew how desperately I wanted to be a SAHM. Now, he's the one who will probably miss ds2's first steps. He's the one doesn't get to kiss dd's "owies" better. He's the one who spends his days interacting with adults that he doesn't know very well, and aren't people he'd have chosen to spend time with. I'm the one who is spending my days _exactly_ the way I want to.

Sometimes, I'm overtired, overworked, and feel taken for granted...but dh is also overtired, overworked, and sometimes taken for granted. When the kids are napping, I get a break (I usually use it to clean or cook, but I don't _have[/] to. DH doesn't get a break...not at all.

Now, I don't know about other WOHMs. My ex did nothing. I'd have to pick ds1 up from childcare, even if dh had been home before school got out, because he was "too tired" to go get him from school (I had bronchitis). I wasn't doing "a lot" - I was doing everything. His paycheque disappeared without more than a fraction being applied to household expenses, and he didn't make as much as I did or work as many hours. I did all the childcare (if I wasn't there, ds1 didn't eat), all the cooking, all the bill payments, all the school stuff, all the housework, all the shopping (even though I didn't drive, and he did) and looking after the cat that he brought home that ds1 fell in love with. And, eventually, I left. Because, the reality is...I chose all that, too. Nobody made me stay with a drug-addicted, lazy bum with a "feel sorry for me" complex. I chose that, too.

I have a great life. I chose to have the lion's share of the housework and childcare, so I'm not about to complain when there's another load of laundry (or six) ready to go, or I can't use the bathroom by myself. This job has more perks than any other kind of work I can imagine, and the drawbacks are really pretty minor in comparison._


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
Now, I don't know about other WOHMs. My ex did _nothing_.

Your ex was a bum! Domestic duties are split much more equally in my house and I frequently see both mothers and fathers picking up children at day care, discussing grocery shopping or planning what to make for dinner. My DH does most of the laundry, all of the grocery shopping and half of the cooking. I think this is HUGE progress from when I was a child and my mother was employed. My father cooked breakfast and once took me to the doctor - and he was "enlightened" then! My mother did all of the shopping, all of the dinners and all of the cleaning. And picked me up and dropped me off.

I think I've become much more of a feminist since becoming a mother. I can see how marginalized we ALL are. I can see how difficult things are. I have a LOT of support - social, financial, etc. I'm comfortable with my decision to work outside the home, as is my DH. We make enough money together to get the roof fixed, save for retirement, and go on a modest vacation once in awhile. Our daughter is delightful and thriving. I get positive feedback about her from strangers on the street and from my family. And sometimes - I'm a freakin' wreck!!!

My god - what's it like for women who don't want to work outside the home, don't have social support, can't afford alternatives, and have high needs kids?! This has GOT to change. We can't keep living like this.

What was the original topic?
Women's magazines ONLY exist to sell products to women. My mother subscribed to none and I can't stand them! A friend of mine got me a subscription to Fit Pregnancy and it was awful! Like how to minimize your make-up routine because of the morning sickness- like I need THAT?! I don't think they are helpful in any way.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C*
Your ex was a bum!

No argument here. He's actually been living on the street intermittently for about three years now, and in jail six times.

When dh moved in with me, I had two days off work, then had to go back. I walked in the door after work, and the living room was spotless, dinner was on the stove (dh had _never_ cooked before - he has a form of colourblindness that makes it very hard for him to tell if meat is cooked, so he'd avoided cooking), ds1 was finished his homework and was playing outside. I honestly thought I'd died and gone to heaven...


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C*
My god - what's it like for women who don't want to work outside the home, don't have social support, can't afford alternatives, and have high needs kids?! This has GOT to change. We can't keep living like this.

Pretty hellish, really. I wouldn't want to go back.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Being a SAHM is certainly a privilege, and there is a lot I get to do because of it. But my husband isn't trapped in an office all day. He's a PhD student and he does something he absolutely loves. His colleagues are people he would choose to spend time with, his hours are flexible, and his work is very much intellectual stimulation that he is deeply passionate about and much better than what I get online or from a book.

My work on the other hand, though I enjoy it, is limited. My children, who I love, also grate on my nerves very very easily. I'm certain that DH doesn't enjoy every moment with his colleagues, but they don't whine at him all day long either. The point really isn't which is better. The point is that this household, to which we are both devoted, deserves attention somewhat more equally from both of us. At least a 60/40 split maybe...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C*
My god - what's it like for women who don't want to work outside the home, don't have social support, can't afford alternatives, and have high needs kids?! This has GOT to change. We can't keep living like this.

This is absolutely a good point.


----------

