BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Feminism. Is she dead?

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Lurid Archive
12:24 / 10.07.02
There have been a few discussions in the conversation recently where lots of strong opinions have been expressed about feminism and I just thought it would be a good fun to see them really fleshed out.

For instance, what doyou all say to the notion that feminism is dead and that all the battles have been won? That the only role left to feminism is a convenient umbrella to console man-hating women?

If thats not the case, what does feminism have to achieve? More importantly, how should the struggle for gender equality be realistically and effectively pursued. Is positive discrimination the answer? Or is that a mere gloss that conceals societal sexism? Has it proven effective in the past?

As an example, what about wage inequality. Is this due to ingrained sexism or due to persistent patterns of behaviour along the lines of gender - ie women rather than men take long maternity leave and raise children. If the latter is the case, then is this itself a sign of sexism or are there institutional barriers that prevent a freer interchange of traditional roles.

Lastly, what about men in all this? Do men have any right to contribute to feminism or are they corrupted by their privileged status? I noticed that in previous discussions many men, including myself, became quite defensive in response to some of the angrier feminism. A predictable response to men being told what they don't want to hear? Or is there a serious distinction to be made between feminism being about equality or about redressing an imbalance of power?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
12:43 / 10.07.02
not sure there's much point in me adding to this thread because i think everything knows what my opinion is here, but i'd love to know who thinks all the battles have been won! they've hardly started.

i would like to say, though, that feminism has been horribly watered down in many quarters. as julie bindel (justice for women) said, "women think that saying that men sometimes piss them off makes them a feminist". it is, of course, rather more than that: understanding the whole power structure, fighting the utter hatred many men have for women.... oh and never mind wage inequality: in a recent study of pocket money, guess which gender (bearing in mind they considered there were only two) received more?
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:38 / 10.07.02
I wouldn't say that all the battles have been won, but I think there is a case for saying that in the UK (and probably the US) there isn't much more to be done on a legislative level. In other words, there are already laws about sex discrimination and the battles to be fought are for attitudes rather than government action. I'd be interested to hear the opposition to that.

Also, I've heard it argued that one of the main reasons for disparity in wages is the fact that lots of women take a break in their career to have kids or work only part-time in order to look after these kids. Now I know that this is often an argument used to justify women getting paid less, but I think that there is also something to it. For instance, as I understand it, paternity leave is practically non existent and employers do not tend to look favourably on men taking time off for children. In that sort of climate, it would be inevitable that women take most of the responsibility for children.

I'm not sure how pocket money would fit into this analysis though. Parents not wanting to waste money on daughters that are bound to go and get pregnant some day?......
 
 
Loomis
14:07 / 10.07.02


... especially now that they have that abortion pill, they have nothing to prevent them realizing their evil female lust for everything that walks ...

paternity leave is practically non existent and employers do not tend to look favourably on men taking time off for children

Is that not then evidence for a huge amount yet to be done? I'd agree that a decent portion of the legal work has been done re anti-discrimination, but it's just these attitudes that need to be addressed. Unfortunately I don't know how. I think now that society has become complacent, (especially my generation having grown up to think of men and women as having equal capacity) and we see women in the army, the priesthood, etc, it's easy to think that it's all been done.

I would say that the "average" person has no problem with the concept of equality. But the assumptions re gender roles (not to mention what gender is), as with homophobia, made by "nice normal people" are extremely hard to address, because people don't realize the problem. ie people who say I'm not sexist, homophobic, etc. I'm nice to everyone. ... then they go and make any number of "innocent" remarks about women liking soft cuddly things and men liking sport. And if you say anything about it, no one can understand why.

And I'm not trying to sound like I'm all that enlightened. I make these assumptions all the time myself. Which underlines the point. Even those who are aware of the problem still contribute to it. So while the basic freedoms have been won, it's the million little things every day in each person's mind that still muddy the waters considerably.
 
 
Fist of Fun
15:58 / 10.07.02
I'm a lawyer and I see how familys are set up financially all the time. I also see how parents leave their estates to their children, structure trusts, etc. etc.

From my own personal experience I have come to a few hesitating and deeply hedged conclusions. Most important is that there is a distinct difference in attitude to women between age groups.

Whilst undoubtedly there are exceptions going both ways, men and women over 40/45 tend to be what might be thought of as 'old fashioned' in their views as to women's role in society. Men more so, but women as well. I suspect in a lot of the cases I see the women (subconsciously?) don't feel they have much choice, as rocking the family boat could be financial suicide.

People under the age of 40/45 tend to be much more open minded about women's position in the family / home / society / workplace. Again, I suspect a lot of this is entirely pragmatic in that single income families are becoming less of a possibility for most people (and, yes, richer clients do tend to have a much higher proportion of the women in the family not working).

OK - the 40/45 cut off stage is a bit arbitrary (I am 29 by the way) and in reality it's a sliding scale right from 18 to 88. There are also differences between social groups - and before anyone asks the most often sexist group I tend to see are the extremely upper class and the lower working class (but not what might be described as the underclass), so both ends of the social spectrum.

But overall, the position is undoubtedly improving. I am not sure that SFD is right that the battles have only just started. The legislative ones are pretty far along the way, and the social ones are already beginning to pay dividends.
 
 
Tom Coates
16:22 / 10.07.02
Actually this really feeds into another issue that I read Peter Tatchell talking about recently - which was that the actually radical aspects of early queer theory and feminism have been completely watered down while liberal feminism/queer theory assert themselves. Whether or not you believe in the ends of the two philosophies - the fact that reality has completely failed to match up to them. Gay couples are now getting married and adopting children, women are working while their husbands look after the children. This is great, of course, but I can't help feeling every so often a really profound feeling of 'is this it?' Is this the brand new world we've forged? It's a bit... well.... boring. And it's still actually oppressive, albeit in a way that's far from the stick em in prison, beat em and feed em hormones kind of way... I don't quite know what I was expecting....

Thankfully we've got the whole crisis of masculinity thing to keep ourselves occupied with in the short-term...
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:22 / 10.07.02
Right, Tom. Partly, I wanted to find out what women actually expect from feminism now. The parallel with gay rights is a good one. So......
can you articulate any more what it is you do expect? Or did the expectations build to such a level that only a celestial event, with a chorus of angels proclaiming "true equality", would do?

Wasn't the goal always for things to be "boring"? When its boring to see gay fathers, women in politics and black scientists then we know we are there, right?

BTW - crisis of masculinity? isnt that all just media hype?...
 
 
SMS
18:15 / 10.07.02
I don't think that there's much chance the feminist battles can all be won. This is not because they are hopeless, but because there will always be those who wish to move in the opposing direction of feminism (and feminists who disagree with each other). The classifications of men and women are too plain to go away.

As a non-feminist, I think there must be a need for feminism. I see societal gender roles as a means of dividing labor. I recognize that they ought to be very flexible and that anyone who chooses to reject them ought to be supported in doing so. I think the suggestion that women like soft cuddly things and men liking sport is innocent, so long as it isn't a suggestion that they don't mean that women should like soft cuddly things and women should like sport. I think that getting angry about it causes harm. My point is this: If I'm wrong about any one of these things (or many other things), then there is still a need for feminism.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:43 / 11.07.02
Im not sure that I agree in that diversity of opinion and differences between the sexes support some form of "sexism". I don't see why feminist battles cannot be won....

Also, I don't think I understand the need to divide labour along gender lines and this approach would seem to be in direct opposition to flexibility that you describe.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:48 / 11.07.02
Far too many men, not enough women in this topic. Why is that?

sfd: they've hardly started

There are older feminists, of whom my mother is unquestionably one, who would take a dim view of that idea. She definitely feels they fought the toughest bit back around the middle of the last century. Even if that's a naturally biased position because she was there, I think it might be fairer to say there was still a long way to go than that there hasn't been a long road travelled.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:15 / 11.07.02
Maybe the women feel wear same at having the same discussions and potentially inviting the same abuse, over and over again?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:41 / 11.07.02
Which demands the question, given that this topic cannot meaningfully be discussed without input from women, why you felt the need to start it up again?
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:52 / 11.07.02
Because I think that, on the board, the topic comes up a lot but tends not to be concentrated on. Of course I want women to contribute, and I didn't really consider that they wouldn't, though of course they have no obligation to. I'm trying to understand why a woman wouldnt want to say something. Perhaps a better question is, why should she?
 
 
Tom Coates
14:08 / 11.07.02
I don't know - I guess I figured that some of the greater ambitions of gay politics might be not to ape the behaviour of heterosexual norms and feel neurotic and different and weird if they didn't feel right. Say - for example - that you feel strange and uncomfortable in a monogamous long-term relationship, but feel under pressure to be in one. Isn't that the same in a way as feeling uncomfortable being exposed as gay in the first place? Has gay politics and queer theory really undermined sexual categories? Or has it just made nice gay people easy to deal with. Why is almost every poof on TV sexless and emasculated? Why are all the dykes confused and beautiful? Someone needs to bring the fucking into public consciousness - the Homosexual Eunuch is not a bad name for a book...

I just kind of assumed that it would be bigger and better than this - that people would experience radical diferent relationship structures, that sexuality itself would gradually stop being an issue and turn into something else.

I suppose the big question now is did we dismantle the hetero-orthodox patriarchy that deviants and women were locked out of, or are we now simply all living in it...? And I don't want to do that. I want a weirder world than that...
 
 
Tom Coates
14:12 / 11.07.02
I think there's something really profoundly different about being the generation that fights for rights and the generations that fight for minds. And in a weird way, while I'd like say that I mean the women of the 60s inthe first category and women of the 90s/00s in the second, I think what I'm probably talking about is women of the suffragette movement in the former and women of the 60s in the latter. That still leaves something to come afterwards, I think... But I think people are too scared of it... it's the bit that breaks so many of the conventions of life that it's almost unthinkable, and maybe even unnecessary... What is a woman anyway? What is a man? What is a poof?
 
 
suds
13:30 / 12.07.02
no, feminism isn't dead.
people have been asking if it's dead since the fuckin 1900s.
it's not dead.
it's changed, like tom coates said, as there are different priorites now.
i think that if feminism was doing just what they were doing back in the 60s, then i'd say fuck yeah it's dead. but it's evolving and it's exciting and thats how shit stays alive.
the end.
 
 
Mystery Gypt
15:57 / 12.07.02
that sexuality itself would gradually stop being an issue and turn into something else.

i can't really imagine that will ever happen. you mean a global, crosscultural removal of the neurosis sexuality causes in human societies? due to the fact that urban europeans homosexuals are allowed to marry? no... it seems that no matter how advanced our theories and laws get, human beings, in their conflicting duality of animal nature vs self-aware philosophical abstraction will always be personally and socially neurotic about sex.

i suppose that striving for utopia is part of what maintains a fight for equality and safetly in mundane aspects, though, so it's ok to keep pushing for a brand new worldwide sexuality. just remember that it's generally that sense of disappointment that erodes all revolutions and drags down the utopian impulse.
 
 
Ierne
19:15 / 12.07.02
Feminism is definitely not dead.

It may not get as much attention as it used to, and people are certainly can get complacent about the gains that feminism made during the last century. But it's still alive and kicking ass, peoples.

It's gone a bit underground, though. Slightly under the radar, but still here.

What does feminism have to do? And how should it be done? – topic abstract

Big questions, my Archival friend. And every feminist will have hir own answer. The important thing is not so much that there is one answer to these questions that everyone agrees to, but that each feminist does hir bit as s/he sees fit, to the best of hir ability, while letting hir fellow feminists do their bits. Each different bit completes a different part of the puzzle of equality.

Neither easy, quick nor glamorous...but we're doing it (I think).
 
 
Lurid Archive
23:18 / 12.07.02
My idea for the discussion was that people would express views about gender equality, both in the mode of its expression and the road to its realisation. (Feel free to express views on gay issues, though. I think Tom's contributions are pretty insightful.)

Anyway. So far people have mostly made "meta comments" and, like Ierne, said that these are big issues. My idea for the thread is that we share and discuss our (tentative) ideas for what direction feminism should take. To get the ball rolling:

My feeling is that to be really successful, feminism has to be about gender equality rather than "equal rights for women". The crisis in masculinity, in my opinion, is about an incomplete erosion of traditional gender roles. I read lots of surveys that seem to confirm an ingrained attitude about the position of both women and men in mainstream society. I get irritated with "angry feminism" - the blaming of present men for history - because I think it is counter-productive to the cause of genuine equality.

(Being angry about gender discrimination is something I will totally share in.)

Perhaps it is defensiveness, but I don't feel particularly blessed by this patriarchal society and when I read about white feathers in WWI, I find it hard to think of it as purely male oppresssion. I am horrified by "female circumcision" but no more so when I read that it is also carried out by women. Men are no better than women. Women are no better than men. Its a mantra of mine, if you will. Equality.

It is an accident that I am male rather than female and I feel that I have had as little say on what has gone before as you do.
 
 
bitchiekittie
00:49 / 13.07.02
for me, I think the (rest of the) changes need to start with the small daily stuff - letting go of sexual roles and labels, dropping sexual stereotype expectations without fighting against them for the simple sake of not being a stereotype. I dont feel that feminism is so much about the anti, but more about pro - pro everything, everyone. diminishing seemingly unquestioned societal roles (ex: woman as good, nurturing mother figure - desirous of children).

its difficult to have an understanding relationship of any kind when people honestly believe that every mood swing is due to menstruation. or that any woman who is eager for sex but not a relationship is a whore. or doesnt want to fuck you is an ice princess. or puts her effort into a career rather than having kids is a cold and selfish hag. and any woman who wants to just hang out is "one of the guys"

and painting men as animalistic sex addicts, inherently insufficient parents, helpless children, doesnt help matters either. its not about raising one and pressing down the other to gain even ground - its about true and honest equality
 
 
Gibreel
05:55 / 13.07.02
bitchiekittie>"for me, I think the (rest of the) changes need to start with the small daily stuff"

I think this is actually the hardest stuff to change. The 'big' stuff: votes for women, access to birth control and abortion can be acheived thru lobbying to, and legislation by, a central authority (i.e. the state). The daily stuff you described is much more decentralised, and embedded in implicit beliefs, cultural practices,and defuse power structures. So how do you get at these? Thru more state lobbying? e.g. for better gender awareness thru the education system or 'carrot and stick' approaches for rewarding 'good' behaviour (e.g. tax breaks for companies with anti-discrimination policies). Or thru personal action/example? Or both? Or what?

It's important to note that changing cultural patterns like this takes time (a decade minimum). Altho we've had over a century of women's activism so far.

The references to gay rights also hints that you looking at feminism in isolation to other movements is counterproductive. For instance ananarchist feminism would be extremely distrustful of mainstream feminism's reliance on the state apparatus of power to enforce reform. Likewise queer theory, socialism and multiracial politics also come into play when you think a bit harder. Any comments on this?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
10:15 / 13.07.02
i am an angry feminist. is there any point in me adding to this thread?

while legislation has equalised a lot of things (although the equal pay act appears to mean squat, quite frankly) it's, as others have said, at grassroots level where things are still hard going. feminism has been watered down by the media to mean the power to go shopping when a woman wants to, dammit, and no man's going to stop her. or girl power - the watered down riot grrl that gave girls the power to run around in skimpy tops. the spice girls got rich - which was great for them - but who managed them? who wrote their songs?

at grassroots level i have to battle against daily hatred and patronisation. the conversations on the bus about 'giving your bitch a slap if she doesn't respect you'. even the men who seem 'sorted' tolerate me being a dyke as long as i act like other women - sit and listen while they hold court. men who never ask me anything, just talk. my boss - incredibly supportive when i came out and when i had a breakdown - sends misogynist jokes to me by email. my pal in berlin talks of a female police officer who was held back from promotion until - she went through gender reassignment. he now earns shitloads more money, and is himself appalled at the sudden change in treatment. more stuff - going out with a more feminine girlfriend of mine, she pays for something in a shop or cafe, i've been mistaken for a male so *i* get the change. women who kill violent male partners, often after years of horrific abuse, get mandatory life sentences. men who kill their partners - often after years of abusing them - usually get a couple of years. i could go on and on and on.

it's not like this with all men. my oldest friend is a straight man, i've met other allies - who see how shitty the situation still is, without feeling threatened when i get mad about it - and that includes some of the men on barbelith. i'm really upset, for instance, that rothkoid, who lived down my road, has left the country. he gets it and he's not the only one.

so if you're irritated by my being angry, lurid archive, then i'm not going to apologise. because my gender is still being stomped on left, right and centre. and i mean that in every way - some of the most sexist males i've come across were anarchists.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
10:24 / 13.07.02
i should add that in relation to something nick said earlier in this thread, i have a huge amount of respect and appreciation for the women who've worked to make the changes we do have. i don't mean to dismiss what they've done at all.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:06 / 13.07.02
i am an angry feminist. is there any point in me adding to this thread? - sfd

yes, absolutely. I suppose I was talking about misdirected anger, but all the points you raise are things to get angry about.

I would suggest that the impression you give are a little one sided and might be counter-productive. As I've suggested about, wage inequality is a complex issue in a country where it is illegal to overtly discriminate. For instance, I think paternity rights is a issue that affects women.

Similarly, the justice system displays some curious decisions. Some are harder on women, but I'm not sure that all are - I realise that I'll need to back that up.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:17 / 13.07.02
It is an accident that I am male rather than female and I feel that I have had as little say on what has gone before as you do.

It is an accident that my ancestors smuggled a lot of confiscated gold out of Nazi Germany when they negotiated safe passage from the Vatican. I certainly don't intend to let a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies make me feel bad about living off the interest of my Swiss Bank account.

I think Lurid's position is credible, if you assume that all the work that needed to be done to ensure equality between the genders (howsoever many there are) has already been done, and that our generation started from a position of total parity. If this is the case, then it is not only unfair but irresponsible for angry feminists to accuse men of benefitting from the historical constructs that have advanced and do advance men.

To put it another way, I think Lurid's position is that those angry feminists we hear so much about are saying, "Look! You are personally responsible for the drop in the working class woman's drop in living standards as a result of the Industrial Revolution! You man, you!" To which, "Well, you are personally responsible for the practice of handing out white feathers to men who were not in the Army during World War One!" is a perfectly logical response. If, on the other hand, the position is, "the industrial revolution, and many other events driven by the legally enfranchised men who had the power to set the agenda in a way women did not throughout a lengthy span of years has led to inequalities both legal and social which you are currently benefitting from", then the white feather becomes a less useful argument, as it says, "yes, but look at the complicity of women, whose entire understanding of what was going on was filtered through a series of newspapers that were all owned, edited and almost exclusively written by men, and a parliament made up almost entirely of men, in perpetuating the idea that men should be at the Front fighting".

Just pointing to moments in history and going "Men nasty to women!" or "Women nasty to men!" is pointless, but I don't think that's an approach to history expressed in its purest form by even the most irascible feminist.

Now, one thing that I am finding interesting here is that, albeit with the proviso "in the UK and the US" stated earlier, we are completely ignoring pretty much the entire population of the world, and assuming that the remit of feminism, if it still lives, is to police secular democracies with high standards of living.

THis perhaps brings us to one of the great clashes of the liberal conscience; on the one hand, the desire to create societies in a way considered just and fair, and in the other the fear of cultural imperialism imposed from above by dominant powers. And the first person to misquote Voltaire here is going to own personal ticket to Planet Arsekick.

However, before we even get to the Darker Nations (tm), there are reports of good ol' clitoral cauterisation, institutionalised spousal abuse, suttee, and so on and so forth and so on and so forth. These are legislatively proscribed. However, the context in which they occur frequently also involves closed communities in which women are denied a voice, much less the independence to appeal to the rule of law or organise within their own communities. For example, it is at present pretty much legal to prevent your wife from learning English, give her no money with which to learn English or travel to find a bilingual support group, deny her access to any means of transport...at which point the legislative equalities fought for and won become rather less relevant. Which is fair enough, because these women were not around at the time that the Suffragettes were chaining themselves to railings and as such should not expect to benefit from their sacrifices, any more than they should be held responsible for the cruelty and witchcraft of Black Annis.

Thoughts?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
16:29 / 13.07.02
Lurid Archive: what doyou all say to the notion that feminism is dead and that all the battles have been won? That the only role left to feminism is a convenient umbrella to console man-hating women?

I say: "Codswallop". You can bring in all the legislation you want, but you can't necessarily get people to abide by it. The old attitudes are still in place in a lot of people's minds, and it can be damned hard to prove that an action or inaction is motivated by prejudice.

In my day-to-day life, I experience many small acts of sexism. These range from cat-calling and insults in the street to having trouble getting served in some pubs and shops, where I'm assumed to be "with" a man rather than a customer in my own right. Correspondance relating to my discipline, electronics, is almost always addressed to "Mr--". Sometimes I'm even given a male name. None of these things are terrible, of course, but they do speak of certain ingrained attitudes towards women.

Sometimes the effects of these attitudes are more damaging. A few years ago I contacted a small computer manufacturer about a vacancy they were advertising. The job was well within my capabilities and I had appropriate qualifications and experience. Yet I was told that they couldn't interview me for the job because-- and here I quote-- "Well, I can't tell you that you can't have the job because you're a woman, because that's illegal, isn't it? And I'd like to give you the job, to tell the truth. But it's a man's environment, if you see what I'm saying." The guy actually seemed genuinely regretful. I could tell that he really, really wanted to give me a try, because my background meshed so well with the job requirements; however, he also felt that my gender made it impossible for him to recruit me because the other employees would not have accepted me.

Not all discrimination is so blatant. Some firms are more subtle, simply telling "undesirable" applicants that the position has been filled or that they don't quite fit the requirements. They may not even be conscious of the discrimination: recently, my temp agency almost failed to offer me a booking, because I was female and I might be required to undertake minor repairs (I got the booking, but only because I kept on bothering them for work). I could go on.

I would also like to point out that the further down the social pecking order you go, the more sexism you experience and the more it tends to affect your life. In general, working-class women have to cope with more direct and more dangerous misogyny than middle- and upper-class women. I think part of the rationale for the "feminism is over" mentality is that the kind of people thinking and writing about the issue tend not to be at the sharp end of sexism. They also tend to have the resources to deal with the problems created by discrimination. You don't have to worry so much about inadequate childcare provision if you can spring for a nanny.

sfd: some of the most sexist males i've come across were anarchists.

True-- and not actually that surprising. Feminism is often presented as a fait accompli and part of the reigning Liberal Orthodoxy which, of course, controls society. It is portrayed as oppressive and threatening. Which, I suppose, it is-- if you're a selfish git who doesn't want to have to engage Brain before operating Mouth. (Or indeed operating Fist.) I don't quite see how the Glorious Revolution is going to come about if half the participants are expected to be flat on their backs or locked in the kitchen, but that's probably because I'm ovulating.

Lurid Archive: I get irritated with "angry feminism" - the blaming of present men for history

I'd cautiously agree with that statement, but I think it needs to be qualified somewhat. I find some of the very extreme, all-men-are-rapists type of thinking deeply offensive and also disempowering. I get depressed, for instance, when I hear a mother referring to her infant son as a "typical man".

I am an angry feminist, bloody angry, but I'm not angry with men as a gender. I'm not neccesarily even angry with the individuals who perpetrate mildly sexist behaviour, as long as it's not immediately injurious. I'm angry with the forces behind the attitudes behind the actions, I'm angry with the whole hideous grinding machine that is sexism. I feel that in the final analysis we're all victims together, male and female alike. I'd say that women suffer the most, but we're all lessened and degraded by a mindset that wants to put half of us in chains.

(Disclaimer: This post should be assumed to refer to attitudes in the west. Don't even get me started on the rest of the world.)
 
 
alas
19:03 / 13.07.02
SMS: As a non-feminist,

Why?

As an example, what about wage inequality. Is this due to ingrained sexism or due to persistent patterns of behaviour along the lines of gender - ie women rather than men take long maternity leave and raise children. If the latter is the case, then is this itself a sign of sexism or are there institutional barriers that prevent a freer interchange of traditional roles.

Clearly, the fact that raising children, caring for ill/aged parents, etc. are seen as not worthy of being paid well is a problem. Feminism, at its best, is about deep systemic changes to the way we see and value human beings, as is the best of Queer Theory, and it is deeply threatening to capitalism as it is currently constructed. Bear with me as I try, as an experiment, to explain my view of the US using the admittedly flawed analogy of a family group living in a house. Better yet, I'll make it a (slightly angry?) fairy tale:

Once upon a time there was a big fancy house on lovely large piece of property in a very safe neighborhood. The realtor was thrilled to point out that, after they got rid of some pesky squatters on the property and dug the foundation, what you had was perhaps the primest of prime real estate in the world, with beach front on 2 ½ sides. Some modestly wealthy and modestly sane people lived in modestly comfortable homes behind, to the north. Large bodies of water on the 2 ½ sides conveniently functioned like a moat. And, although there was a "bad neighborhood" southwest of the home, the perimeter was well protected by barbed wire and friendly rentacops who liked the money the fancyhomeowner (we'll call him, George) paid them to guard his property. And although he really hated those people south of the barbed war, George liked the fact that they would come up and do his gardening, care for his children, even construct his favorite consumer item (of which more later), for very low wages.

Although 8 people live in this house . . . well, actually there are lots of other people, but a lot of them distrusted the people George hired to count them and they've decided George's house is so crazy the only thing that makes sense is to hide out in the corners-the attic, the basement, a brambly patch in the corner of the garden. Anyway, although there are at least 8 people living in this house, George alone makes all the important decisions (see the percentages of the legislators in this country) and in his monthly budget he decides that one of the five children must starve (approximately 20% of all US children live in poverty), and two of them will not get an adequate education, in order for him to afford a curious habit, his need to fill the house with guns-n-ammo and top-flight security systems. (George gave his parents a permanent holiday looking out the southeast window at the moat, and has them convinced they're living the high life since they get a 20% discount on their rooms.)

Now many of his neighbors consider George to be completely paranoid. People call from across the sea to tell him: don't worry so much! You've got two big bodies of water and those quiet northern people to protect you-not to mention that your house is filled to bursting with weapons! But George has a hearing disability, or it may just be a listening disability, and moreover he believes you can never be too careful. Besides, its his money, he believes, despite the fact that it's all sucked in to his home by a pneumatic tube system he helped install that he calls "free enterprise."

So, every month George buys a new, better security system. Thus, pretty much all he does is read the latest books and articles about the latest systems to produce better security. (When he does have time for some entertainment, its usually movies about ways that people find to use these weapons and future weapons to more effectively kill the invisible people and control women. George loves to see people killed.) Especially after some crazy guy broke two of his windows last month and the expensive systems he'd already paid for completely failed to detect it! Meanwhile, one of the two women adult women living in the house (okay, women are not 66% of the adult US population, but they are more than 50%, and to support someone like George it generally takes two women earning only about $.70 for his dollar . . . and they're both being fucked by George). . . .

One of the two women, as I started to say, is a recent immigrant from the Southwest, we'll call her Maria (and that's what George calls her, no matter what her name is, because, although there have been six different women in her position during the last 3 years he can't be bothered to learn her name). She is making all the clothing and doing all the childcare, but gets barely enough food to eat, sometimes has to sleep in the hallway, and if she gets sick, they can't afford the doctor.

The other woman seems to be well-fed, but, alas, she has a particularly tragic problem: she is invisible to most people, most of the time. She talks and walks around but most people really can't see her. It's no one's fault, really. Of course, this is very frustrating for her, but people warn her that if she gets angry it makes George uncomfortable, and, worse still, when this happens she immediately becomes invisible again. Recently, however, she's discovered that she seems to be least invisible when she's saying things that sound like things George would say. Then she's almost completely visible to almost everyone.

George doesn't like Maria and the Invisible Woman to get together and talk. So, when he thinks about them at all, it is only to tell both of them that the other woman is not to be trusted. Sometimes they both tend to believe him, alas. After all, things are so noisy and crazy in this house, what with troops passing through periodically, and people being locked up everywhere, particularly if they don't look like George. Everyone in the house gets confused sometimes. And Maria will lose her job if she talks up. Besides, she has to spend a great deal of time caring for the children and looking for crumbs off George's table. She doesn't really have time to complain about having to sleep in the hallway.

Meanwhile, of course, the man keeps buying guns. Truth be told, George is not so powerful as he appears. He himself seems to be controlled by some men who, rumor has it, live somewhere on the property, but who are carefully concealed behind a gated fence and protected by a large number of George's rentacops. These shadowy figures sell all these guns to George, not to mention his collection of cars. Now these guys are really powerful. He will get very angry if poor "head of the house" George doesn't keep buying more and more guns. In fact, last month George had to kick one of his children, the starving one, of course, out of her room because he needed that space to stockpile his armaments. Thank goodness she's skinny so she can sleep in the hallway with Maria . . .


That's my flawed analogy for why the fucked up world of the US needs feminism more than ever.

Why aren't you a feminist, SMS?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
21:47 / 13.07.02
"while legislation has equalised a lot of things"

oh god i wrote that! what a terrible oversight. what i should have said was legislation in the uk. there is legislation that might be passed in northern malaysia that will make it impossible for a woman to accuse a man of rape unless there are four male witnesses. there is also a woman in nigeria who is fighting to have her conviction for adultery overturned. she had a baby more than nine months after she broke up with her husband. proof enough for a conviction. a man can only be convicted of adultery if he confesses directly to a court, or if the act is witnesses by four men. the woman's sentence?

death by stoning.

that is the law in nigeria.

now, please point me to anyone who thinks the battles have been won.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:59 / 13.07.02
Umm... the last bit rather threw me. I'm going to use myself as an example in this thread. My mum was a radical feminist in the '70s and '80s. She went to all the women's groups and held meetings about female empowerment. She decided, unusually for even a feminist, that on getting married she would not take my dad's surname. When she had kids she gave us her name, partly as an experiment to see how people would react, the results have been interesting. When I explain to people that I have my mum's surname I have to tell them the whole story behind it, I get confused looks, people seem almost shocked to find that I know who my dad is and that my parents have been married for twenty five years.

I don't see why women give up their names, their identities, thinking about it I find that there's no logical reason behind it. Why (in this country) should they not keep them and give them to their children. I have never ever met a man who took his wife's name. It's such a given in our society that (from my point of view) it's utterly ridiculous. Laughable actually. This is what feminism should focus on, drawing attention to a norm with no logic behind it, why the hell does a whole section of our society give up part of what they have always been for absolutely no reason?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:04 / 13.07.02
Well, fuck yeah. But I would suggest that it's still valid to have a discussion in the terms above-- provided we make it clear that we're talking about the affluent West rather than a generality.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:05 / 13.07.02
(Sorry-- that last post was in reply to sfd, not Janina.
 
 
Lurid Archive
23:20 / 14.07.02
Yes, my comments about "angry feminism" were a bit naive, perhaps insensitive and sfd is probably right to be piqued. As always, Mordant puts me to shame with her eloquence, and Haus does a good job of pointing out the problems with my post. Although I do think that the Swiss bank analogy is a little inadequate as patriarchal benefits can be somewhat diffuse for any given individual.

Also, I think that Haus' defence of female complicity in maintaining some elements of male dominated society is entirely correct. Am I being naive again to think that the same sort of argument applies to men? To do otherwise is to accredit women with a degree of passivity that I would need to work harder to justify.

But what I didn't make nearly clear enough is that I don't see that there is a position of parity between the genders. Moreover, I would be keen to see the balance redressed. My idea behind the thread is to ask people's opinions about how this can be acheived in our Western democracies. My earlier post was a crude outline of my own opinions - I don't think they are really watertight and were supposed to be mostly tentative.

BTW - I realise that this thread has focused on our own corner(s) of the world, but then feminism has radically different short term objectives in the UK and, to borrow sfd's example, Nigeria. This makes the discussion of one of a different kind to the other.
 
 
SMS
23:39 / 14.07.02
Why aren't you a feminist, SMS?

I can’t say that I’m opposed to all feminist principles, but I think that it would be unfair to call myself a feminist given a number of my beliefs. I mentioned some of them in my first post. I also tend to think that a marriage is a way of giving up your identity, and I still support marriage. Even though I think of giving up your identity as something to be done by both men and women, it seems to conflict considerably with the kinds of things feminism seems to promote.
 
 
Gibreel
06:06 / 15.07.02
Haus> The international angle is very important - but to ber fair that's because it's largely outside most people's experience here.

Altho perhaps it shouldn't be.

My own experiences amongst activists for women's rights in India has been that you can't peel feminist activities of as a separate strand. Patriarchy is embedded in systems of education, healthcare, economic activity, social order and political representation. And all these need to be tackled.

E.g. At one school in Northern India, with about 40 children aged 9-14, three of the girls were already married. All of them would have an arranged marriage before the age of 20, social pressures would compel them to have large numbers of children (they mostly came from families of 6 children plus), and they would not only have to support their children, they would also have to obtain income for the family as well. If their husbands were abusive, they would have no socially-sanctioned opportunity to leave.

What can you do?

What you can do is support them with better access to education, improve healthcare for them and their families (including access to contraception), encourage their involvement in local politics and women's rights groups, and give them access to collective savings programmes and microcredit.

Anybody interested?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:20 / 15.07.02
But I didn't *say* international. I was talking about the experience of other cultures within the West...

Hooever, in a bit of a rush, so just quickly:

Also, I think that Haus' defence of female complicity in maintaining some elements of male dominated society is entirely correct. Am I being naive again to think that the same sort of argument applies to men? To do otherwise is to accredit women with a degree of passivity that I would need to work harder to justify.

I agree entirely. One of the things I keep coming back to is that everybody is being victimised by the current power structures, which serves nobody very well. Which is one reason why feminism remains important; it 's not (or perhaps it shouldn't be) about getting "the best possible deal for women", but about examining, critiquing and dismantling the gender power structures which oppress both men and women.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply