To the young woman sitting behind me who said feminists were "man-hating Nazis":

[Kimstu]

@Joey Jo Jo

My point is that it is illogical to claim say that catsix owes an allegiance to feminism while ignoring the many other things that have shaped the world in which she lives.

But nobody’s saying that catsix “owes an allegiance” to feminism. They’re just saying that she shouldn’t be dishonestly denying earlier feminists some credit for having made major achievements in women’s rights.

@Joey Jo Jo

Besides, many of the claims of the advancements made by feminists are IMHO greatly overstated. For a start in feminist works there is a narrow focus on the life of the middle class.

This is certainly true in many cases, although many present-day feminists are working to rectify that (and feminists themselves were the first people to notice and complain about it).

@Joey Jo Jo

Poor, low class women have pretty much always been able to work. During the industrial revolution it was common for women to have jobs in factories or other places alongside men.

Generally not for the same wages, though. And even the few positions of advancement and responsibility that were open to working men were closed to working women.

@Joey Jo Jo

Feminism is in of itself it’s own philosophy, and is not the only one that promotes gender equality. Therefore it is possible to have gender equality without feminism.

Not without completely ignoring the historical meaning of the term “feminism”, though. The core of most mainstream feminism has always been a commitment to equal rights for women. For over a century, a commitment to gender equality has been explicitly identified as a “feminist” position. It’s certainly possible to have gender equality without many other feminist ideas or beliefs, but it’s sheer misleading historical revisionism to claim that you can have gender equality without any feminism at all.

@Joey Jo Jo

The increase of women in the workforce increased the number of dual income families, and as such businesses were able to argue that as such the minimum wage need only support one person, since each partner works they should be able to support themselves. […]
Given that it is hard to know whether women were entering the workforce due to the success of feminism, or because employers were taking advantage of a movement to lower wages.

Well, according to what you yourself just said, it can’t have been lower wages that initiated it. Because according to you, the “increase of women in the workforce” started before businesses started arguing for a “one-person” wage.

@Joey Jo Jo

Like many of the so-called advances of the modern feminist movement the admission of women into universities happened before the rise of modern feminism.

Admission into some universities. Most, however, restricted their admissions at that time to men only. Depending on where catsix actually went to college, it’s quite possible that she might not have been able to attend that institution before 1970’s feminism helped make coeducation nearly universal.

[mojave66]

Guinasta, that remark wasn’t aimed at you at all.

@Evil Captor

Well, it was a boneheaded play, politically speaking, just as it would be boneheaded for the Dems to run Barney Frank or an avowed atheist for President. It added credence to right-wing smears of feminism that it was led by lesbians – man-hating lesbians. NOW members have a right to elect whomever they want as president of their organization, of course, but jeebus, THAT was such an obvious dumbass move, politically speaking.

So in order to make sure the right-wing isn’t offended, NOW should restrict their leaders to avowed heterosexuals? Because then O’Reilly could trot out that tired old dog about lesbians being “man-hating” and see if it barks.

Fortunately NOW doesn’t like that bullshit stereotype any more than any human being who isn’t making big bucks scaring little old ladies about Teh Gay, so perhaps they’re willing to refuse to cave in to it? Given that NOW isn’t trying to win PC points with the far-right, this is probably a good idea.

Oh, btw, the current president of NOW is married to a man and has two kids:

http://www.now.org/officers/kg.html
Susie Bright on Andrea Dworkin (who, by the way, has ALWAYS been straight):

"Along with Kate Millet in Sexual Politics, Andrea Dworkin used her considerable intellectual powers to analyze pornography, which was something that no one had done before. No one. The men who made porn didn’t. Porn was like a low culture joke before the feminist revolution kicked its ass. It was beneath discussion. Not so anymore!

"Here’s the irony… every single woman who pioneered the sexual revolution, every erotic-feminist-bad-girl-and-proud-of-it-stiletto-shitkicker, was once a fan of Andrea Dworkin. Until 1984, we all were. She was the one who got us looking at porn with a critical eye, she made you feel like you could just stomp into the adult bookstore and seize everything for inspection and a bonfire.

"The funny thing that happened on the way to the X-Rated Sex Palace was that some of us came to different conclusions than Ms. Dworkin. We saw the sexism of the porn business… but we also saw some intriguing possibilities and amazing maverick spirit. We said, ‘What if we made something that reflected our politics and values, but was just as sexually bold?’ "

And agree with her or not (and I don’t for the most part), it would behoove everyone who demonizes her to read about THE PERSON herself in her own words:

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html

[Der_Trihs]

@eleanorigby

I am trying to tone down the anger here, but I find this to be gravely insulting --was it deliberate? Are you seriously saying that the occurrence of insanity and/or mental retardation is more prevalent in females? I really need to see a cite for something that ridiculous.

:dubious: Errr. No. I was sayin men are more prone to those problems.

@eleanorigby

Wow-project much? Who is the victim in your scenario? Why the need to victimize either side? How big are those rats?

I didn’t say there was a victim, just that poverty statistics that say women are so much poorer are deceptive. “Lies, damned lies and statistics” and all that.

[Lissa]

@catsix

Unless you were circumcised as an adult, there is no way you can possibly know what degree of sensation you lost because of the circumcision.

Also, I find it funny that male feminists in this thread don’t want me speaking for them with respect to circumcision but they have no fucking problem speaking for me about the adversities that women face.

Cat, what you are failing to understand is that it is the cultural motivation behind genital mutilation and the effect that matters more than the act. Let me explain.

You see, male foeskin circumcision has two primary motives: Religious and alleged hygiene. Furthermore, it is also important to note that there are not serious long term ramifications to the action.

However, studies on female genital mutilation have found that the primary cultural motivations are: 1) To promote virginity, 2) To control sexual behavior in women, and 3) To control female emotions. In addition, many of the acts result in serious permanent damage or extreme pain and suffering.

You see, by conducting symbolic analysis, Sociologists have learned that the real reason behind FGM is rooted in an overall attempt to subjugate and oppress women. It is indicative of a culture that does not espouse equality between the sexes, and is many time linked into a fundamental beelif that women are property that derive their value solely from their ability to be used sexually by men. (Henceforth the idea that a non-virgin is worthless)

I could go on and on, but I hope this will help you understand this issue a little more and realize that the comparisons you make overgeneralize and trivialize a very complex social analysis that is necessary to understand the fundamental social forces that result in this particular social reality.

You may have other valid points about feminism and I am not trying to sway your from those, but you are simply wrong about this one.

[HazelNutCoffee]

@Joey Jo Jo

The specific claim was made that catsix wouldn’t have been able to go to university without the effort of modern feminists. That claim is clearly false, since many of the modern feminists were themselves university educated, and in more than one case were even allowed to teach in unversities as well. Like many of the so-called advances of the modern feminist movement the admission of women into universities happened before the rise of modern feminism.

You are missing my point, which was that even if some schools accepted women (and as Kimtsu pointed out, not all of them did), that didn’t automatically mean that all women were free to attend them. If you were living in an environment that discouraged women from getting an education, then such schools wouldn’t do you much good - your family would not let you attend, or maybe you wouldn’t even see the need to attend. So although it may not be true to say that it would have been impossible for catsix to attend university if she had been born in those times, it is safe to say that it would have been harder for her to do so. Not all women can be brave enough to defy society’s or even their family’s expectations of them. Feminist scholars like Beauvoir helped change the way people - men and women - think about the education of women. They helped to make it be considered the norm and not the exception. I’m not saying that what they did was more important than what (you say) Christianity did for the higher education of women - simply that they should be given their due.

[Lissa]

@catsix

No, DianaG, I wasn’t born on third base. You don’t know a god damn thing about how I grew up and what it took for me to get where I am, but your smug fucking attitude about how wonderful feminists are won’t let you admit that.

You have absolutely no basis beyond a self-applied label to say that I would be incapable of doing something that others did. Maybe you know you couldn’t have, but being that defeatist doesn’t do me any good.

Just because you’d back down from that kind of a fight, and couldn’t accomplish anything without someone to smooth the road for you, doesn’t mean that I’m like you.

I definetely don’t want to enrage you anymore, as I can see you are being put to the test here. But, people in the past, who forged paths for all people who were discriinated against (unions, civil rights etc…) did make it easier for those who came next. Can you at least admit that some feminists in the last hundred years gave you a lead off first?

[Der_Trihs]

@Lissa

However, studies on female genital mutilation have found that the primary cultural motivations are: 1) To promote virginity, 2) To control sexual behavior in women, and 3) To control female emotions. In addition, many of the acts result in serious permanent damage or extreme pain and suffering.

You see, by conducting symbolic analysis, Sociologists have learned that the real reason behind FGM is rooted in an overall attempt to subjugate and oppress women. It is indicative of a culture that does not espouse equality between the sexes, and is many time linked into a fundamental beelif that women are property that derive their value solely from their ability to be used sexually by men. (Henceforth the idea that a non-virgin is worthless).

Some may say that ( and what the hell’s “symbolic analysis”, and why should I trust it ? ). Other’s point out that FGM is primarily performed by older women on girls, and by destroying the female ability to enjoy sex, make women less willing to offer it. It’s the profit motive; decrease supply, maintain the demand and you can profit more. IMHO this is also the reason for the constant hostility towards prostitution in many countries.

[calm_kiwi]

@Lissa

I definetely don’t want to enrage you anymore, as I can see you are being put to the test here. But, people in the past, who forged paths for all people who were discriinated against (unions, civil rights etc…) did make it easier for those who came next. Can you at least admit that some feminists in the last hundred years gave you a lead off first?

She is a cranky individual. Do you think the suffrage movement would hold any sway?

Catsix I’m sure that you are a very worthy, hardworking, intelligent, talented human being but you do realise you “I could have done anything without the help of anyone else” tripe is exactly that.

Once upon a time women couldn’t vote, all women, even fiesty women like you. Sadly without the vote they could do bugger all but stay home and wash dishes, clean clothes and dust. Then oneday a woman called Kate Sheppard (only she wasn’t alone she had female helpers!) decided she had had enough of men boozing in the pubs then coming home expecting clean clothes. “DAMN CHEEK” she said, “if they can booze then I can try and stop them”. So feisty Kate Sheppard to try and decide all women in the land that the only way to make their silly boozing hubbies come home was to get women the vote and then make the bastards stay home. Luckily for you, me and much of the western world Kate got the first part of her wish.

http://www.ksmidwifery.co.nz/biography.shtml

"With Kate Sheppard at its head the WCTU campaigned vigorously for the right of women to vote. This was achieved by a combination of lobbying politicians, raising public awareness by newspapers and political meetings and organizing petitions which were presented to parliament.

This eventually culminated in the passage of the Electoral Act of 1893-granting universal suffrage to all New Zealanders.
This victory for New Zealand women would precede similar success in Britain (1918) and the US (1920) by decades.

Having succeeded in obtaining the right of women to exercise their right to vote the next step was mobilizing NZ women for the election which occurred 8 weeks later. At the 1893 election it is estimated that 65% of all eligible women voted.

Kate Sheppard, as a result of her success in NZ became a world figure for the international womens’ movement and toured America and Britain speaking to women to inspire their own suffrage movements."

Now you may be a modern day hero Catsix but without women like that you wouldn’t even have the vote.

[Siege]

@Der Trihs

Let me add # 3 : Taste. Simply put, men and women tend to like different things. That may or may not apply to this specific imbalance, but it does apply to others, like the lack of women in ( for example ) engineering/computers. There are simply aren’t all that many women who like those careers. Various well meaning colleges try to “fix” this, but it doesn’t work no matter how many incentives they hold out. I do find amusing the underlying assumption that women can only be equal to men by being identical copies of us.

Let me give you another perspective on this. My father and brother are both born engineers, and I take after my father. I’m also pretty much an engineer by nature. I’ve got the same love of logic, tinkering, seeing how things work, and finding ways to make inefficient things run better. When I graduated from high school back in the early 1980’s, however, there was still an perception that girls didn’t like or go into engineering, which is one reason I didn’t even consider it. (There were several other reasons.) Instead, I went into a completely different field, translation.

I was talking about this thread with the gentleman I’m seeing (also an engineer) and he points out that things have changed and women are now being encouraged to go into engineering, rather than discouraged. Still, it’s a shame that women with the skill and the mindset who could have made good engineers, however rare they are, were once discouraged from doing that because it was something that women simply didn’t do. The same, by the way, does apply to nursing, teaching, and secretarial work, traditionally female professions.

CJ

[eleanorigby]

@Der Trihs

:dubious: Errr. No. I was sayin men are more prone to those problems.

Thanks for the clarification–I misread that.

[Lissa]

@Der Trihs

Some may say that ( and what the hell’s “symbolic analysis”, and why should I trust it ? ). Other’s point out that FGM is primarily performed by older women on girls, and by destroying the female ability to enjoy sex, make women less willing to offer it. It’s the profit motive; decrease supply, maintain the demand and you can profit more. IMHO this is also the reason for the constant hostility towards prostitution in many countries.

Symbolic analysis is a basic form of Sociological endeavour. Based upon the fact that society is constructed by human interaction and that human beings think and communicate by using symbols, any exploration of a society must include an analysis of the meaning and use of the symbols in the society/culture. It is not a matter of trusting, it is a matter of understanding the fundamental attitudes and beliefs that the members of a culture use to live.

As for the other part of your statement, that is correct. As I said, to inhibit sexual behavior. Women, as members of a culture, are just as important in the creation and promulgation of gender roles and identities. Your statement proves my point. Your use of the supply and demand comparison underscores the notion of property and ownership which is the fundamental point behind the objectification of women and their subjugated status in the culture.

[Evil_Captor]

@mojave66

So in order to make sure the right-wing isn’t offended, NOW should restrict their leaders to avowed heterosexuals?

No. More like, “To ensure that the lies and distortions that the right wing is sure to engage in don’t get any traction with the mainstream, NOW should restrict their leaders (for the time being) to avowed heterosexuals.”

Because then O’Reilly could trot out that tired old dog about lesbians being “man-hating” and see if it barks.

He’ll try it so long as feminists don’t actually OPPOSE gays, we all know that, but at least he won’t have the same traction he would if the President of NOW were gay. Not allowing the right to play on mainstream homophobia is a GOOD thing.

Susie Bright on Andrea Dworkin (who, by the way, has ALWAYS been straight):

"Along with Kate Millet in Sexual Politics, Andrea Dworkin used her considerable intellectual powers to analyze pornography, which was something that no one had done before. No one. The men who made porn didn’t. Porn was like a low culture joke before the feminist revolution kicked its ass. It was beneath discussion. Not so anymore!

No one had every subjected porn to a FEMINIST critique before. Porn has LOOOOONG been critiqued and censored at every turn by social conservatives. I suspect feminists didn’t consider porn for so long because most feminists were more concerned with issues like putting an end to marital rape, to rape in general, getting equal employment opportunities and then equal pay for equal work … something a little bit more central to most women’s lives.

"Here’s the irony… every single woman who pioneered the sexual revolution, every erotic-feminist-bad-girl-and-proud-of-it-stiletto-shitkicker, was once a fan of Andrea Dworkin. Until 1984, we all were. She was the one who got us looking at porn with a critical eye, she made you feel like you could just stomp into the adult bookstore and seize everything for inspection and a bonfire.

Yeah, and that’s right about the point where I and a lot of other guys who were generally pro-feminist out of a liberal sense of fairness broke with the feminist movement. The feminists who followed this line – and as Bright says, there were a lot of them – didn’t look any different to regular guys from the stick-up-the-ass social conservatives who hated porn because it was sexy. Same deal. That’s how they got labelled the anti-sex feminists, not by right wing pundits, but by other feminists who didn’t agree with them. Including yours truly.

"The funny thing that happened on the way to the X-Rated Sex Palace was that some of us came to different conclusions than Ms. Dworkin. We saw the sexism of the porn business… but we also saw some intriguing possibilities and amazing maverick spirit. We said, ‘What if we made something that reflected our politics and values, but was just as sexually bold?’ "

Agreed, some feminists like Bright and Nadine Strossner saw the lights, others headed right into the darkness with Dworkin.

[Tracy_Lord]

I haven’t been back to this thread because some posters started throwing Crazy Snowballs, but I would like to clarify a point in my OP:

I have no problem (and in fact encourage and participate in!) women and young women dressing sexy if it makes themselves feel good.

I have a huge problem with women and especially young women dressing sexy for no reason than trying to impress or gain the approval of men.

Stiletto heels (below maybe 4", those things are murder), comfortable push-up bras, clothing that’s revealing but fits well, styled hair, make-up, “This is great, I feel so sexy!”? YEAHBABY!

Skirts and shoes you can’t walk in, clothes that’s two sizes too small, bras that strap your breasts around your neck, “I wish I could wear something else, but I have to look hot!”? Please go home and change.

When young women (and everybody, but I think it’s more of a problem with my peers) stop dressing for themselves and start dressing for other people, that’s what I was griping about in my OP.

Er, carry on.

[Der_Trihs]

@Lissa

As for the other part of your statement, that is correct. As I said, to inhibit sexual behavior. Women, as members of a culture, are just as important in the creation and promulgation of gender roles and identities. Your statement proves my point. Your use of the supply and demand comparison underscores the notion of property and ownership which is the fundamental point behind the objectification of women and their subjugated status in the culture.

I could just as easily say it’s due to the relegation of men by women to the status of resources and/or tools.

[Guinastasia]

Betty Friedan, dies at 85.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Evil Captor

No. More like, “To ensure that the lies and distortions that the right wing is sure to engage in don’t get any traction with the mainstream, NOW should restrict their leaders (for the time being) to avowed heterosexuals.”

Honestly, I think that’s a terrible idea. One should not hand victories to bigots; and if the mainstream realizes that even NOW won’t allow lesbians to have leadership positions, that’ll solidify mainstream bigotry against queerfolk even more.

I recently read a book on the big 1968 March on Washington, the one where a certain guy talked about A Dream that he Had. Didja know that the guy who organized the march was homosexual, that this was an open secret? If the 1960s civil rights movement can consider a fellow’s sexual preference to be irrelevant despite the fact that the movement was largely supported through churches, how cowardly would NOW have to be not to show the same respect to its own leaders?

Daniel

[Icerigger]

Check out Kate O’beirne’s new book. It seems feminists are much worse than we thought, destroying families, the military, sports, schools and the entire world !! Wow.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1595230092?v=glance

[AHunter3]

Damn, she’s onto us!

[Evil_Captor]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Honestly, I think that’s a terrible idea. One should not hand victories to bigots;

You’re right, one should not hand victory to bigots. And that’s exactly what electing a lesbian as president of NOW did, politically speaking. There’s a lot of homophobia still in the mainstream, not as much as there once was, but still, plenty of it. Adn there was undoubtedly eve more of it back in the 90s .I mean, every fucking state that had an anti-gay marriage resolution on the ballot in the last election saw it passed with an 80%+ majority. This oughtta tell you that gays still need to do a lot of education at the grassroots level. Ignorance is worth fighting, but fighting it is not necessarily gonna be easy, just because you want it to be.

[Guinastasia]

@Evil Captor

You’re right, one should not hand victory to bigots. And that’s exactly what electing a lesbian as president of NOW did, politically speaking. There’s a lot of homophobia still in the mainstream, not as much as there once was, but still, plenty of it. Adn there was undoubtedly eve more of it back in the 90s .I mean, every fucking state that had an anti-gay marriage resolution on the ballot in the last election saw it passed with an 80%+ majority. This oughtta tell you that gays still need to do a lot of education at the grassroots level. Ignorance is worth fighting, but fighting it is not necessarily gonna be easy, just because you want it to be.

This is like telling gays not to flaunt their “gayness” or they shouldn’t be advocates, or get angry, because then people won’t grant them their rights.

“If you’re a good widdle gay, we’ll give you a treat!” Bullshit.