Thanks much, I stand corrected.
Would you mind giving us with an example of what these opportunities were, and where women had them?
I cannot think of any society where women had superior status to men. I can think of many where women were denied equivalent recognition and protection under the law.
Here is an interesting website that gives examples of women’s legal status in ancient societies. It contains fun tidbits like how Roman women were required to have legal guardians, like children, due to their “lightness of mind”.
etc.
Oh you silly goose, apparently you don’t know how to read. I clearly wrote “In days of old when knights were bold,” not “on the beaches of Normandy in 1944.” Rather, think of the Normans on the beach of Hastings, on this date, October 14, 1066.
My point was that the outmoded assumptions of earlier warfare continued as patriotic military propaganda even after modern warfare rendered them inoperable. The antiwar poems “Dulce et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen and “The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner” by Randall Jarrell exposed the falsehood in this propaganda by graphically describing ghastly and gruesome violence in modern warfare. In language far more eloquently ghastly and gruesome than your examples. I will not link to the poems here because I cannot stomach reading them again, but I’m glad they were written.
“But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
together at the latter day and cry all ‘We died at
such a place;’ some swearing, some crying for a
surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind
them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their
children rawly left.” - Henry V
Sonds like a barrel of laughs to me.
You’re right. Every claim of idyllic, prehistoric matriarchal societies that I’ve ever come across has led back to Robert Graves and his White Goddess nonsense.
If anyone knows of a feminist thinker who makes claims of such a “matriarchy,” please cite. I haven’t seen any. The matriarchy thesis was originated in the 1860s by Johann Jakob Bachofen, a Swiss jurist with an interest in classical studies. His “Mutterrecht” hypothesis was used by Friedrich Engels. Both were men, neither a feminist. Bachofen based his hypothesis on classical sources and lacked the data of modern archaeology. He thought that the “primitive” matriarchy was destined to be replaced by the “superior” patriarchy. This is no feminist idea. Really, the concept has been obsolete among serious thinkers for about 100 years.
What feminists do claim about prehistory is the gender-equal society you mentioned. One of my Gallae colleagues, Cathryn Platine, wrote, “Were the [prehistoric] ancient Anatolian civilizations matriarchal? The plain fact of the matter is we may never know. My own guess is that they were equalitarian in nature, but to a western world that only recently started to grant equal rights to women in the past hundred years, I suppose an equalitarian society could look downright matriarchal.”
The feminist thinkers whose ideas I respect on this, Riane Eisler and Marija Gimbutas, do not claim a “matriarchy,” but an egalitarian society spiritually centered on the maternal aspects of the divine. Eisler’s very cogent point is that the “-archy” in “patriarchy” is a dominator concept which is inapplicable to the partnership society she advocates. She coined the term “gylanic” from the words for “woman” and “man” in combination. I find these feminists’ ideas to be consistent with their principle of equality between the sexes.
Do not call me a silly goose nor mock my reading comprehension again. It’s poor manners and does not advance either your argument or my opinion of you.
Instead, refer back to your own post that mentioned “in days of old” and read the next few sentences, talking about a feminist’s controversial stance on modern warfare; and then you might possibly get the point I was making. Post #27 made a point about ancient warfare and a somewhat unconnected point about modern warfare. The second point was the one I was referring to.
You’re at liberty to go ahead and make your above point now; all I’m asking is that you don’t call me a silly goose for “failing” to realize that this was what your earlier post meant all along. :rolleyes:
So does that mean that a femminist doesn’t want higher pay for a woman than for a man?
Yes, if the woman and the man are doing the same job.
But I don’t agree with your take on those issues - as pointed out by other posters, you and Blake are introducing topics that aren’t relevant to the OP, and aren’t representing them accurately anyway. If I see any posters slagging off men or belittling their experiences or the difficulties they’ve faced in history, sure. But no-one’s done that. You’re acting all wounded because you saw the word “feminist”, and assumed that meant you were under attack.
How can I be backing out already when this is the first reply? I can only speak for the bunch of women I know, but yeah, we’re pretty sick of being told by (mostly male) politicians what we can and can’t do with our bodies, by the media (again, male dominated) what the proper way to be a woman is, and so on. Do you really think that a patriachal system that’s been in place for thousands of years just disappeared in 1975? Women have made great progress, but we still get lectured on a regular basis by men who think they have the authority to do so, and until we stop accepting it they’ll continue with it. You came into this thread, not to answer the question “what do you think a feminist is”, but to complain about how feminists don’t realise how bad men have it. And then you act all surprised when people don’t feel as sorry for you as you do yourself, and don’t think your opinions are relevant.
For someone who is so annoyed by feminists, you certainly go out of your way to encounter them and their opinions. No-one forced you to click and read.
It does concern me. Which is why I was following this discussion. I feel that minority groups of feminists capture all the media attention (and I can see why, they’re very sensational) at the expense of more reasoned views. I try to give good answers to people who ask me why I’m a feminist, and if I hear someone putting about a really restrictive definition (can’t be a housewife, can’t shave their pits, can’t be pro-life), then I try to inform them of their mistake. But sometimes showing is better than telling, so living a normal life while identifying as a feminist does more good than ranting about it. And if someone is determined to think badly of feminists then there’s not a lot I can do about it.
I’ve known a lot of women who were made to feel that they weren’t feminist enough because of the choices they made, and there’s a few in this thread, and probably more lurking. And that pisses me off, because the whole point of feminism was to give women choices, to let us decide how our lives are run. The feminists who disappeared up their own bums with their zeal to convert have ruined the word. Maybe it can be taken back, or maybe a new word is needed, I don’t know.
Repeated not only because I admire the whole of that intelligent post, but because I think the importance of that link gets lost in this thread. It seems that there are a fairly wide variety of groups that are vieing for the right to self-identify as feminists, but who mean diffferrent things when they use the term. No surprise that those who are most militant in their use the term, who most identify themselves by that term (as opposed those who are identifying themselves as “scientist” or “doctor” or “CEO” or “mother” or “working stiff trying to make ends meet with a mortagage bills two kids and a husband who doesn’t do as much as I want him to” or what-have-you first and feminist as just a small assumed part of their idenity until others tried to kick them out of the club for not being militant enough) are the ones who get the press.
:rolleyes:
Or, likewise, the women who were forced to watch their men, their brothers, their fathers, their husbands and their sons go off to fight, knowing that they most likely would not return, and could do nothing about it. They had to sit helplessly by and watch, and even if they wanted to fight along side their men, they were forbidden. (There are many women in history who have disguised themselves as men to go to battle). Some were allowed as nurses, but most were stuck at home, not knowing what was going on, waiting for the horrible news that a loved one had been killed. Trying to keep a brave front for her children. Living with the specter of the enemy, who might descend upon them. Rape, murder, kidnapping, looting, burning their houses-all of these were very real to the women on the homefront.
And constantly having to keep a “stiff upper lip”, to be brave for their children, for their men at the battle front. All the while feeling helpless, wanting to go and help those in need.
War touches different people in different ways, and unless we wish to play an unwinnable game of “More Oppressed Than Thou”, it’s useless to figure out “who has it worse.”
:rolleyes: backatcha, child. I don’t score your “reading for context” very high on this one, Guin. What I wrote, and you quoted, was in response to a silly piece of verbiage moaning about men being brutalised by the violence of war and handing it on to their loved ones when they came home, which I rated pretty low as an evil of war next to the ways to die horribly that I listed. At this point I wasn’t especially playing “More Oppressed Than Thou”… just feeling pissed off at the ability of a feminist writer to find some way, however far-fetched, to argue a silly case over who the true victims of war were.
However…
Without wishing to demean the fear and suffering and mental strain experienced by the women on the home front, I’m afraid I do rate it pretty small beer next to the experiences of those actually up at the sharp end. They got the fear and suffering and the mental strain, all the time having to tough it out for the benefit of their fellow-combatants, and in addition had not just the spectre of the enemy but his very real attentions, day in, day out. And while I’m sure I’d be the first to commiserate with the women who couldn’t go to fight even if they wanted to, you’ll understand if my primary sympathies lie with those for whom it wasn’t a matter of wanting, but of being coerced by their liege-lord, by the unbearable shame of being thought a coward, or, as the case may be, by the press-gang, conscription or the draft.
“Many” as in “as much as one ten thousandth of any given army”? :dubious: …and even then, you’re only looking at those who really, really wanted to go, not who were given no choice as stated above.
{was quoting my cite of Cindy Tittle Moore’s soc.feminism FAQ on types of feminism)
Actually — and this is probably surprising if you’re not “in the field” — radical feminists are not the ones who generally get the big press. Socialist feminists do, and cultural feminists do, and mayflies like Camille Paglia do. And sexy feminists like Germaine Greer and Annie Sprinkle do.
And the handful of fringey nutcases amongst the radical feminists (and even for them, mostly their nuttiest and least coherent / least digestible pronouncements) get press. Like Andrea Dworkin saying all sex with men oppresses women, or Jill Johnston saying ‘feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice’.
Probably 97% of radical feminist theory would be palatable and digestible to 80% of the people on this board. Most of the folks who wrote it were fundamentally and explicitly fair and even-handed (and in no way condemning of men as a sex or favoring female supremacy or denying men’s suffering under patriarchy or any of the other things alleged to have been put out there by “the radicals”).
The other branch of feminst thought that I think of as authentic and undervalued is liberal feminism, which is the mainstream stuff that never got and never gets the press it deserves. This is the “let’s just treat women and men as equals” simple common-sense stuff that doesn’t seem to have much of an agenda beyond stopping sexist inequality.
Thanks for that link, it was very good. I’d be part of what you call liberal feminism, and prefer a broad definition of the F-word, but it’s good to get solid info on the other types. The terminologies have given me some things to look up and find out more about.
Do you have an opinion on what could be done to help the image of feminism for people who aren’t “in the field” with access to lots of the theories of feminism?
Heh, yeah. Word. Some 20 years ago, when I first glanced into The Dialectic of Sex by Shulamith Firestone, I thought it was the most fiery radical extreme feminism I’d ever seen, you’d need asbestos gloves and a welder’s mask to read it.
Then this year I finally bought my own copy, and reading it, was impressed with how reasonable and common-sensical it all seems now. Shulamith was just a few decades ahead of her time.
In my opinion, most of the “image problem” is akin to the image problem that atheists and atheism has: its existence pisses off a wide range of people whose worldview is threatened by such a way of thought, and so they disparage it loudly and distort it, and many people first hear of the existence of that way of thought only through the descriptions given by the detractors.
Yeah, especially her chapter on love and marriage.
So your claim is that it isn’t hypocrisy, but rather feminism consciously excludes people in order to make a bold statement about the generic “he”?
I’m not sure I can buy that rationalization, nor support it were it true.
It is interesting that you compare “feminism” to “children’s rights.” One would think that “women’s rights” and “children’s rights” were the correct comparison.
Indeed, your arguments fall flat for this very reason. The word “feminism” does not enlighten. It is not honest or clear, as “women’s rights” and “children’s rights” are.
However, you have been more honest in this post. As you say, feminism always implies that the “problem area” of inequality is women. So a more accurate and honest definition of a feminist would be “one who believes that women are the ones who uniformly have less, and therefore that the pursuit of equality is precisely the pursuit of rights and empowerment for women.”
Now you see the problem with your definition. You seek to hide your contention that “women uniformly have less, and therefore the pursuit of equality is precisely the pursuit of rights and empowerment for women” by just defining “feminism” as “equality for all.” Of course, people see through that ruse, and you can’t really complain about that.
No I don’t.