Actually, the “Fight for Her” poster shows a picture of Whistler’s Mother, a painting of an elderly woman in a rocking chair, presumably intended to remind enlistees of their beloved old mums and grannies who wouldn’t be in the draftable age range anyway.
In the other posters that I think you’re referring to, most of the adult female characters being menaced by evil enemies are actually symbolic representations of abstract qualities rather than real women: e.g., the bare-breasted Liberty in the grip of the German gorilla (!), or “Prosperity” in a Minerva helmet being throttled by the ape-demon of “Socialism”.
As a matter of fact, your links show far more examples of ads to recruit women into the auxiliary military services than they show protect-our-wimmins themes used to recruit men. Of course, that’s not the same thing as recruiting women for actual combat, but it’s not as though women serving in the Army Nurse Corps (or even handling explosives in munitions factories at home) weren’t exposed to genuine danger.
You seem to have gained a lot of knowledge about me, surprisingly quickly. But what I’m curious about is you: specifically whether you, yourself, think the woman on NPR is a nut-job? (Her name, FWIW, appears to be Barbara Meal Hobson, a professor at the University of Chicago, and the author of “Uneasy Virtue”.)
I’m wondering if you recognize any of these as the type species/Species typica of feminism, if any. If it’s none, could you please tell me what feminism is?
You kinda have to differentiate US feminism by its generations. For example, First Wave feminism fought for women’s rights, abortion on demand, the sexual revolution, etc. None of these things necessarily required a sacrifice on the part of men; they were more a question of legal status.
Second and Third Wave feminism, OTOH, are more of a zero-sum game (IMO). Third Wave feminism is the brand currently big in US colleges, and it basically puts the onus on men to give up rights, freedoms, etc. in order to make the world safer and friendlier for women. It includes doctrines such a women’s right–after consenting to sex–to decide at some later date that she was raped if she decides there was a lack of good faith on the man’s part, etc.
I think when the average non-feminist thinks positively of feminism, he’s thinking about first-wave feminism. By comparison, Third Wave Feminism can be kind of a scary thing. It’s kind of a new politically correct puritanism, especially about sexual matters and mores. (Again, IMO.)
Even some First Wave Feminists deplore Third Wave Feminism. For example, Camille Paglia is a world-famous feminist and lesbian, and she fought in the 1960s and 70s for women’s rights, abortion on demand, and the sexual revolution. She currently has a 12-year-old son. She looks at what the world will be for her son, and she is critical of the political correctness of modern feminism.
For example in this essay, Camille Paglia says:
Another article describes Ms. Paglia’s views of modern academia and its views of feminism:
Naturally, people will respond to this post and say, “Well Camille Paglia is just one commentator. I can find a dozen others who will disagree with her.”
Mainly I’m just pointing out that one has to differentiate between the various “waves” of feminism. The current brand, hot in US academia, is Third Wave Feminism. And it’s pretty touchy, potent stuff. Not your grandfather’s feminism. Critics of feminism mostly focus on Third Wave feminism, and indeed there’s much that’s legitimately debatable about it.
The criticism I hear against “current” feminism is identical to the criticism I heard against feminism in the 1960s. You are still acting as though feminism is a monolithic bloc marching in lock step. It is not. There are still as many different varieties of feminism as there ever were, (probably more).
Yeah, some universities have gone overboard on the “consent” thing, (possibly as it becomes more obvious that earlier efforts were doing little to reduce the number of rapes and date rapes on campus), but even those efforts are not some universal proclamation that defines feminism. There are other voices: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/20/feminists-want-us-to-define-these-ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them/
“Feminists” is a concept as meaningful as “Republicans” or “Democrats” or “Socialists” or any other label. None of them are “a monolithic bloc marching in lock step.” But they are still a “thing.” Look at the first word in the title of the article you linked. Presumably the author knows whom she is talking about. And in the articles that I linked, Camille Paglia is clear in defining whom she is talking about. She herself is a feminist and a leading figure in academia; those are her colleagues she’s discussing.
I agree that each feminist wave has had its backlash in its time. But the backlash is defined by the wave. In this case, the common complaint is that third-wave feminism is “infantilizing” women by turning them into eternal victims of the world and more specifically men. The author of your article raises this very argument.
A lot of the dissident voices are clearly liberated women who have become so disgusted with the excesses of third-wave feminism that they decline the title of feminist and bash the feminists themselves. A fun example: Below, the first link is a feminist video. (It’s NSFW; the feminists use some shock tactics in the name of a good cause.) The second is a dissident female satirizing that same video. She trashes feminists even though she clearly is liberated in any sense of the word.
So yeah. I see your point but feel that it’s a nitpick in order to keep your side from being pinned down. But the dissident voices are clear on whom they’re talking about. There are lots of dissident voices, and many of them are backlash against the excesses of third-wave feminism. And in a sense the backlash proves the existence of the wave itself, monolithic or not.
It seems to me that everyone tends to form little “mafias” based on common interests and experiences, particularly when those common interests and experiences make them feel like outsiders. Human nature.
For a non-gender-non-race-based example, imagine, say, a small cadre of Scots in a London business office. Or a small group of Southerners in the office of some company in New York. Mightn’t they tend to bond, and to look out for one another, based on a shared sense of being “outsiders”?
I think it is just basic human nature, and it is no different for women. So it shouldn’t be surprising that women who may feel themselves disadvantaged in a business setting might tend to form their own little “mafias.”
Now that doesn’t mean these mafias can’t wind up being exclusionary and discriminatory in their own rights. What if my hypothetical group of Scots tends to prefer fellow Scots in hiring over better-qualified Londoners?
I’m not the one you asked about this, but why don’t we take a look at what this nutjob actually has to say, rather than your paraphrase of it, and maybe we’ll learn something about feminist nutjobs at large?
Crazy insane, right?! What is she even trying to communicate?!
Paglia is fun and I like reading her, but you should know she’s a persona non grata in modern feminism, often rejected as an anti-feminist. Nowadays she’s mostly seen as an icon for MRAs. One of her most famous quotes:
My main problem with modern feminism is that it seeks to deny the inherent biological differences between men and women. It is a quest for a holy grail that stands against the realities of life (and the neuroscientific evidence that the male and female brain simply operate differently).
Beyond that, the simple hypocrisy that if you hold the door for a woman, she will either…
Praise you for being a gentleman
Lambast you for reinforcing oppressive, sexist societal traditions…
And I, as a man, cannot know which behavior is to be recognized as “proper.”
Just the notion that feminism “speaks for women” and yet most (in my experience) women don’t actually believe in that contrived nonsense.
Modern feminism seems to speak for an increasingly marginal group of undersexed women who project their petty insecurities onto men. My Facebook feed is full of twenty-somethings who share videos and blog posts on the Great Oppression of women in modern society.
To which I discourteously respond:
“Oh, you’re single you say? Color me shocked madam…”
Well, no. I haven’t given it a lot of thought, but my explanation is that despite being extremely liberal on some issues, I’m not a “perfect” liberal, and feminism is one of the issues where I don’t walk in lockstep with other liberals.
I suppose the other possibility is that I’m wrong about feminism. I’ve certainly been wrong about things before, so it’s a possibility.
But I think it’s unlikely. Feminism - whatever it is - seems to involve too much man-hating, too much hypocrisy, too little consistency, and it seems too puritanical. And the attempt to redefine rape is ridiculous, nonsensical, (Really? Are you’re going to lock up a woman for having sex with a drunk man? I don’t think so.) and self-defeating. It also, as someone else said, infantilizes women. Grown-ups take responsibility for their decisions, even if they regret them later.
You haven’t been right about any of your assertions. You have, in fact, been laughably, demonstrably wrong. But you think it’s “unlikely” that you are wrong about feminism. Well, I’m convinced! Somehow, despite being wrong in everything you are saying, I’m sure you’re right about your conclusion.
I was writing about the interview, not about everything she’s ever said. I realize the ten minute interview (or whatever it was) does not comprise everything she’s said in her life.
Tomndebb said she (or it) was an “extreme example as the type species/Species typica of [feminism].”
In any event, that’s one vote for the NPR woman not being a nut job. Any more votes?
I’m curious about what you think about Daly, Dworkin, Jordan, and the others.