Posted by lailaweir on 2004-12-10 18:28:22
Post Subject: Journalist seeking crafster feminists in the East Bay Area
Hi all,
I'm a journalist and I was fascinated by Jean's manifesto on the new domesticity, which put into words something I've been noticing and thinking about for a long time.
I'm interested in writing about young women who are embracing traditionally feminine activities -- crafting, cooking, whatever it is -- as part of their own expression of feminism, more than traditionalism. The catch: they need to live in the East Bay of the SF Bay Area.
If you fit this category or know someone who does, please email me to laila.weir@eastbayexpress.com or call me at 510/879-3737.
Posted by Anonymous on 2005-03-02 07:35:31
Post Subject: It's My Party and I'll Knit if I Want
Anybody else read this ? I know eximi has, but I'm not sure if she posts here.
I'd love to get some other opinions.
I read it on Saturday and my general feeling was one of being underwhelmed (although I got overly excited by the mentions of getcrafty.com and the interview with gadgetgirl). I was hoping for something along the lines of Hip Home Ec, but specifically focussed on knitting. The book seemed to be a book about writing the book and learning to knit. It was quite superficial in a lot of ways and I was quite saddened by the author's attitude to the older knitters, the guild members, although I can see why she felt unhappy with them. Nobody likes to have their choice of yarn looked down on (even if it is *gasp* acrylic !)
What I did find interesting was discovering just how much of the media coverage of Aussie "hip young knitters" was part of a PR campaign orchestrated by two women who were commissioned by Australian Country Spinners to keep knitting in the media and to keep sales up.
The Knitting is the New Feminism chapter seemed to have very little to say on feminism and where knitting may fit in with this, and this was probably the biggest let down. I love the fact that so many of use do see reclaiming women's traditional crafts as a feminist act and are so eloquent on the subject. I think I imagined how it could have been based on the women who post here and have written about the subject.
In short, borrow the book from somebody else.
(this is the first book review I've written in 12 years, I feel old now !)
Posted by brdgt on 2006-12-26 10:14:00
Post Subject:
Introductions do go in freestyle, but problems with the site typically go in "community announcements and suggestions." I haven't heard of anyone else having that error problem.
So what brought you here? Crafts, DIY, feminism, Jean's book...?
Posted by brdgt on 2006-01-01 13:14:31
Post Subject: 2005 reviews
I put together a little "best of" what I read this year - I'm curious if other people do this and what they liked and/or hated?
Best Non-Fiction:Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game by Michael Lewis – So readable, so interesting, and so important if you like baseball.
Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy – A few problems but overall one of the best feminist critiques, especially of pornography, that I’ve read recently.
Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks – Perfect little book dispelling all the myths and lies about feminism.
Imperial Bodies: The Physical Experience of the Raj, C.1800-1947 by E. M. Collingham – If you are into colonialism or body politics, this is revolutionary.
The Deadly Truth: A History of Disease in America by Gerald N. Grob – Nothing mind blowing, just a good concise overview of my field.
Best Fiction:Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell – I can’t praise this book enough. It’s the sort of book that requires some work on the part of the reader, but the kind you are rewarded for.
Three Junes by Julia Glass – Surprisingly good and touching.
White Teeth by Zadie Smith – Like three amazing books in one.
The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers – The only Modern Library top 100 book that actually made my favorite list. If you don’t cry by the end of this book, you’re not human.
The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov – I’m so glad I read these, entertaining and "foundational" to modern science fiction.
Best Graphic Novel/Trade Paperback:V for Vendetta – Not only is the story great, but there is some great pacing, structure and concepts in here.
Y the Last Man – I don’t know why you haven’t read this yet. Sure, the concept is amazing, but Brian Vaughn isn’t resting on his laurels and keeps pushing the story.
The Sandman: Preludes and Noctures by Neil Gaiman – Glad I finally got around to reading these, although it is amusing to read it after American Gods and see where all those ideas started.
Channel Zero by Brian Wood – Do yourself a favor and try this out, you won’t be sorry.
Watchmen by Alan Moore – Think Superheroes are played out? Try this.
Best Narration on an audio book:Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell – Somehow he made even the footnotes playful and interesting.
Series of Unfortunate Events – This whole series just has the best narration.
Ender’s Game – Used multiple voice actors (which a book like A Game of Thrones could really use).
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man – There is just something about an Irish accent reading this book.
Honorable Mention:A Game of Thrones
Ender’s Game
American Gods
Close Range
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell
All the Pretty Horses (which gave me my favorite line of the year: "In history there are no control groups.")
Posted by fem21 on 2005-04-20 01:34:54
Post Subject: Looking for contributors!
...if this is not allowed, please let me know and I will delete it. :)
ATTENTION! I need everyone's help. Anyone that is willing to help me out with a project, please please read and reply. Ok. For independent study, I plan to write a book..more of a collaboration I suppose. It's on society's views of women and feminism as a whole. Anyone that would like to help, please contribute any artwork you see relevant (feel free to take this any direction you please), and answer the questions at the bottom of this post. You can contribute any way you would like: create your own postcard and send it on over, create a zine answering the questions and incorporating your artwork and mail it in, etc. I can't express enough how this can be taken any direction your creativity takes you. I plan to gather up many many of these from every age group & incorporate it into a book. It will be so nice because it will be a large collection of women (and men! I'm not leaving anyone out!) being completely honest on their thoughts, in their own words. The drawings and artwork will all be incorporated and displayed to further express what the person is feeling about the questions. You can type or handwrite the answers. I do prefer handwritten simply because it will make every entry more personal, but it is COMPLETELY up to the creator. Please reply here or email me and let me know if you are interested. Also, feel free to print this and pass it around anywhere you see fit! I want as many participants as possible. If you have any questions, either comment or email. I know posting a personal address online is not the smartest, but I want to make it easy for everyone to print this out and have all the information in one place. My information is
laurenrasch@hotmail.com
Lauren Rasch
2206 S. Greenwood Drive
Apt. 2
Johnson City, TN
37604
NOW! The questions:
1. Feminism is....
2. What is being a woman in your eyes?
Be sure to include your age in this also. Oh, and names are not necessary. If you would prefer to be left anonymous, please let me know.
Any help and contributions would be of great help to me. Thanks! :)
Posted by brdgt on 2004-05-28 09:32:13
Post Subject: The Choice Generation
There's a very interesting article on Alternet.org called "the Choice Generation" (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18796)
I think its a very tought provoking piece about what choices are really available to women concerning their careers and families as well as how the word "choice" has become problematic in feminism.
"For many young feminists, "choice" has become the very definition of feminism itself – illustrated by the standard-bearing right to choose abortion and supported by the ever-advertised notion that they have choice in everything else in life as well. The cult of choice consumerism wills us to believe that women can get everything we want out of life, as long as we make the right choices along the way – from the cereal we eat in the morning to the moisturizer we use at night, and the universe of daily decisions, mundane and profound, that confront us in between. But when things fall apart, as they tend to do from time to time, women's individual choices are always to blame. "If only I had purchased that new personal digital assistant, it would somehow have given me the superhuman power to be in two places at once," we're meant to say, and vow to be more compliant consumers next time."
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-05-30 17:35:19
Post Subject:
I'm not sure if people want us to be upset or excited that we've been using "choice" more and more. Frankly, I don't use choice that much, but how important are the semantics when it comes to feminism? And, anyway, shouldn't making choices be a thoroughly human thing?
Are women the only ones using choice as their argument? I'm more fond of saying "I have the right to..." It's a stronger word.
And that does sound quite similar to the Bitch article.
Posted by slowgraffiti220 on 2005-08-11 14:53:26
Post Subject:
i brought that up on the bust magazine thread and completely forgot to post a reply to your query there.
related to the milk and eggs reason for going vegan, all of the new cows that are bred for slaughter come from the females, who are raped pretty frequently by insemination machines to keep this going on. then, to add insult to injury, the baby cows are ripped away from their mothers pretty mcuh directly after birth.
also, there is the language issue. the same sorts of language that have been used to help subjugate women (and minorities) have been used to subjugate animals. there is an excellent book called "the sexual politics of meat: a feminist-vegetarian critical theory" that goes much more in depth than i can here, but consider the word "dehumanized". that is what sexist (or racist) language supposedly does to the slurred individual -- takes away their humanity, denotes them as a peice of meat or an animal, something to be objectified by and subjugated to the needs of the slurrer.
when someone is dehumanized, it takes away the imperitive to treat that person with respect. they become merely an object rather than a living being. i simply ask why is any living thing being treated that way? to me, if feminism hold up logically, then all living beings deserve at least respect...which, in this system of food allocation we have, animals are not getting. even though it is ::normal:: and ::natural:: for humans to eat meat, it is not normal or natural for us to treat them in such a manner in order to do this...breeding them at accelerated rates through mechanized insemination, keeping them locked in cramed pens, cutting off their body parts (beaks, toes) for our convenience. it is not a hard jump of the imagination to see this ideology at work in other arenas of society. there is nothing so wrong about women doing work or making babies...but when women are forced to do these things, when they are kept inside the home, forced to work continually throughout the day with no compensation (or even recognition that what their doing is, indeed, work), made to procreate whether willing or not by husbands and fathers, then it is a crap system. and eerily similar to what we still do to animals.
feminism, in my opinion, would do much better for itself trying to change this androcentric ideology than simply trying to change it for one class of being. just because a group is finally considered human does not mean that they always will be, and as long as this system of disregard and disrespect to non-human beings exists there will always be the threat of further subjugation. for another, minoritiy-centered takes on the subject, read "the dreaded comparison: human and animal slavery" by marjorie spiegel.
and finally, there is the food-supply issue. why some people have an abundance of food and others have none is a complex issue, related in part, at least, to our use of suitable crop farming land for the grazing of animal herds. now, i hear a lot of people argue that, well, do you just want the animals to starve? well, no. the things is, we breed animals at unnatural rates into unnaturally large herds, feed them large amounts of grain and legume crops all of their life, and then kill them for the meat. it probably goes without saying that for every pound of meat that we get off of that cow, we have fed that cow ::at least:: ten pounds of grain. chances are, without us having bred that cow through forced, mechanized insemination, it would not have existed in the first place. because some privledged people want to eat 1 ton of meat, we make an animal through artificial means and then feed that animal 10 tons of grain to get said ton of meat. i also know that much of the grain fed to animals is too low-grade for human-consumption...however, the land that was used to grow said feed was not to low-grade to grow a large abundance of food, which could have been, with a different harvesting technique, been perfectly suitable for human consumption.
how is this a feminist issue? well, firstly and most obviously feminist, it is widely documented by many scholars and orgainzations that when food supply is low, women and children suffer first. secondly, and this ties in with the who gets considered human argument, when world food supplies are low, tellingly is is third world nations that get hit with the burden of this. the ghost of imperialism is strong, and not to be too facetious, much like the ghost of lord voldermort in harry potter, is very possibly not quite really dead. when it is accepted to treat some beings with less respect than others, it hurts feminism.
so yeah, very long-winded, but like i've said, there are a few books on the subject, so i wanted to be sure to cover all of the many salient points. as for people here who eat meat, this is not an attack on you. just as people frequently share their reasons for eating meat with me, i share mine with other people. i am not trying to convert anyone, just share a not oft-heard viewpoint. as for hunting to get around these issues, i know many hunterts and i am not so sure that the way it is done in this country (typically...you, of course, might be the exception) is so very respectful to animals. plus, i hate guns (and really, most weapons).
and, full disclosure... i eat dairy. i'd like not to, but life is not always so cut-amd-dry even though critical theory is ;)
Posted by jean on 2006-05-12 12:37:31
Post Subject: Updates on Spammers etal
After speaking with Demetri yesterday, we have brainstormed the following:
In order to limit spammers, Point of Impact will design a simple tool to delete spammers. currently, the process is terrifically time-consuming.
We will also require registrants from certain IP addresses and servers that are common to spammers to be approved before being let into our community.
Please know we are doing everything we can to protect the boards from yucky spam.
That said, how advertising is handled on getcrafty is now in the hands of point of impact. I trust that they will do their best to design the google ads in such a way that they don't obscure our interactions. of course, i wish we didn't have to have them at all, but the site needs to make money to exist.
As for the post popular topics feature, we are redesigning it so that it actually is helpful. I have provided a list of words that people might want to see related posts of, such as knitting, craftivism, feminism, crafts etc. Instead of words being linked inside posts, the words will be listed at the bottom of the forum topic.
Point of Impact will also be building a more robust area for the columns and stories portion of the site. I would like an easier way to navigate all the stories and how-tos, and to add more.
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-10-21 16:46:56
Post Subject:
Not to be a pain in the butt, but how is watching a tv movie 'a great way to support the fight' against breast cancer? Wouldn't raising money for care be a good way of doing that? Maybe even inviting people over to watch it (or any other movie, for that matter) and telling them it's a fundraiser for women's breast cancer, with any donations going to your local Women's Center or other charity that helps women with breast cancer?
Watching a tv show is not the same as supporting a fight, in my opinion, any more than wearing a 'Live Strong' bracelet or putting a yellow ribbon on your car is doing anything. If one believes in a cause, becoming aware of the problem is only a tiny first step. The really big step is to raise money or to volunteer to help women. Poor women especially need money and help the most.
I do think the movie is a good idea- young women especially need more breast cancer awareness. However, watching tv is not an action. Going in the bathroom and checking one's breasts for lumps, or writing Congress to keep up Federal funding for women's health clinics (most of which have been shut down because they also provide abortions) is an action. Voting out leaders who don't support women's health care is an action. Educating oneself about feminism and then putting feminism into action by not buying into the idea that one should not be a substantial person regardless of looks is an action.
I'm sorry if you see this as jumping on you. I don't mean it that way. It's just that nowadays many people seem to believe that thinking positive thoughts or identifying with the right causes is equivalent to creating change. It isn't.
Posted by the-kitschen on 2005-08-11 15:08:21
Post Subject:
I was curious about the vegetarian/feminism argument too. I'm a veggie but I hadn't thought of it in terms of feminism at all. Thank you for the thoughtful explanation!
Posted by Fonzarella on 2006-03-23 05:33:22
Post Subject: Article on The Guardian - comments?
Today's ultimate feminists are the chicks in crop tops
Raunch culture is not about liberation gone wrong; it's about rediscovering the joy of being loved for your body
Kate Taylor
Thursday March 23, 2006
The Guardian
Men, you can relax. You are no longer the enemy. Instead, judging by recent events in America, modern feminists have a much shapelier target in their sights - other women. Specifically, scantily clad women who use their sexuality to get ahead. I don't know if this is a PR campaign to get men to finally pay attention to the cause, but it's certainly stirring up trouble.
It all kicked off with the publication of Female Chauvinist Pigs, a rant against "raunch culture" by the New York magazine writer Ariel Levy. In the book, she argues that the recent trend for soft-porn styling in everything from music videos to popular TV is reducing female sexuality to its basest levels. In short: "A tawdry, tarty, cartoon-like version of female sexuality has become so ubiquitous, it no longer seems particular."
Which is all fair enough, until Levy starts to list the ways in which today's women are allowing their sexuality to be sold short. Thongs, for example. Crop tops. Lap-dancing classes. Maxim and FHM. Playboy T-shirts. The word "chick". Levy thinks raunch culture is a feminist movement gone terribly wrong. We are, in her eyes, doing all these things merely to show the men that we are "one of the guys" and "liberated and rebellious". Naturally, she finds this confusing. "Why is labouring to look like Pamela Anderson empowering?"
The answer is, labouring to look like Pamela Anderson is not empowering. We're not trying to be empowered. The twentysomething women I know don't care about old-style feminism. Partly this is because they already see themselves as equal to men: they can work, they can vote, they can bonk on the first date. For younger women, raunch is not about feminism, it's just about fashion.
Another reason for the rise of raunch is that women are rediscovering the joy of being loved for their bodies, not just their minds. Today sexes mix a lot more than they used to, so boys grow up having girls as friends. They tend to listen to what women have to say, and when they marry they don't consider sharing the housework to be castrating. Instead of desperately longing for the right to be seen as human beings, today's girls are playing with the old-fashioned notion of being seen as sex objects.
This is not terrible news. In fact, to me, this is the ultimate feminist ideal, which Levy would realise if she stopped shouting at MTV for a moment and thought about it. She proclaims that boob jobs and crop tops "don't bring us any closer to the fundamental feminist project of allowing every woman to be her own, specific self". But what if a woman's "own, specific self" is a thong-wearing, Playboy-T-shirted specific self who thinks lap-dancing is a laugh and likes getting wolf-whistled at by builders? What if a woman spends hours in the gym to create a body she is proud of? Is that a waste of time, time she should have spent in a university library? No.
Levy is not alone in raging against raunch. The f word, a British feminist website, last month launched a tirade against lads' magazines such as Loaded, Zoo and Nuts; they "relentlessly promote the message that women exist solely for the sexual gratification of men and boys", argued Rachel Bell. "By internalising this one-dimensional male construct of sexuality, both sexes are losing out; but it is girls and women who will pay the heavier price."
I've worked for GQ and the Sun, and in neither place did I see women being exploited. Does Bell have any idea how much money women make when they take their clothes off? How much freedom and independence these girls can earn in an hour? Abi Titmuss and the new breed of totty generally own the copyright to their naughtiest photos, so with each publication they rake it in. Look at lads' mags from a different perspective and you see that what's being exploited are men's sexual responses, to give money to women.
It has always been like this, and it always will be, because men's achilles heel is that they go to pieces when a woman drops her top. Old-style feminists never understood this, but their way is not the only way to achieve equality with men. The world is different now, and we should follow the trends instead of waving the banners of 20 years ago.
That version of feminism will never regain its popularity as long as its proponents insist on lecturing, instead of leading. We should be working together to support women in this country and across the world whose rights are still ignored, instead of squabbling and catfighting. Men are great at working together; they are self-congratulatory and supportive. We are not. That is our true weakness, and feminism exemplifies this flaw - witness the countless factions, all fighting for different things, from sex-positive feminists, who believe nudity is OK, to third-wave feminists, who think eyeliner is misogynistic.
If a thong makes you feel fabulous, wear it. For one thing, men in the office waste whole afternoons staring at your bottom, placing bets on whether you're wearing underwear. Let them. Use that time to take over the company. But even if you wear naughty lingerie for you, for no other reason than it makes you feel good, that is reason enough to keep it on. True feminism should celebrate femininity, and make you feel wonderful to be born a woman. It's a shame some feminists today can't do the same.
· Kate Taylor is the author of A Woman's Guide to Sex and formerly wrote the Sex Life column for GQ
kate@katetaylor.net
Posted by taciturn on 2004-05-20 21:25:52
Post Subject: creating a tattoo- need feminist clip art/ flash
I'm planning on getting a tattoo really soon-like maybe tonight and I still haven't got one designed quite yet. I'd like to be a celebration of 2 things
1. My college gradution last week and 2. My love of feminism.
any Ideas on where I could find some feminist, girl friendly clip art or flash art on the web? Or do you gals have some cool Idea as to how to combine the subjects of Math and Feminism into one uber-rad design?
Posted by grlwndr on 2005-10-31 13:42:32
Post Subject: New Domesticy Gallery Show in the works
I am planning a Gallery show for sometime in the next year that deals with the third wave of feminism and the new domesticy. I am at the very beginning stages and am working on a proposal to send to galleries and to apply for funding. The idea started because of a class of gallery studies I am taking in school this sememset. By the end of the semester I must have my proposal completed...so...what I am looking for from the kind people at getcrafty.com as well as some other crafting/art websites is artists and galleries that all of you think fit this genre. This could be someone who isnpires you and whose art you feel is in direct response to the idea of new domesticity or it could be yourself as well! I am looking for artists that use traditional "crafting" techniques within their fine art peices and galleries that are likely to want to promote this type of art.
I guess this sounds partially vague but for now my ideas are pretty vague...:). Any help is greatly appreciated! thanks!
Posted by brdgt on 2007-07-02 08:30:06
Post Subject: What did you read in June 2007?
Non-Fiction:
Taking on the Big Boys: Why Feminism is Good for Families, Business and the Nation by Ellen Bravo - While Bravo does resort to a "boogeyman" argument (a vague notion of who these "big boys" are) she does an excellent job showing how businesses attempt to maintain the status quo (using arguments that pit groups with common interests against each other, making outlandish claims about the possibility of enacting equitable policies, and belittling problems). She then offers evidence to the contrary with real examples, followed by solutions that have actually worked. She covers everything from sexual harassment to household chores with a great sense of humor and respect for all kinds of work.
Survival of the Sickest: A Medical Maverick Discovers Why We Need Disease by Dr. Sharon Moalem with Jonathan Prince - I liked about 50% of this book; when Moalem kept to his descriptions of diseases and how they may have developed for evolutionary purposes he is engaging and trustworthy, but he starts to speculate too widely, playing fast and loose with science and ignoring timelines and societal factors he becomes so untrustworthy that you question the other stuff. First of all, he argues for the evolutionary origin of some things that are only a few hundred years old. Then he puts forth radical theories without presenting critiques of them (such as a theory that we should let cholera run rampant so that its virulence decreases - yeah, because that worked for centuries beforehand?). He also ignored clearly relevant information, such as supporting an argument that early humans were actually aquatic by noting that women who have water births supposedly don't feel as much pain because they don't use epidurals as much as other women (totally ignoring the type of woman who is likely to choose a water birth and the choice of whether to have an epidural is not always about the amount of pain).
Comics:
100 Bullets Vol. 3: Hang Up on the Hang Low by Brian Azzarello and Eduardo Risso - Adding a bit more information to overarching storyline and dishing up an interesting ending. The artwork was also much better in this volume than the first two.
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-01-22 11:38:01
Post Subject:
Ok - I read part of it, then stopped. Way too depressing. And not just because the author has a clear political agenda, but because some of the things she said hit home for me. I think she is right about some aspects of feminism, and I wish she wasn't.
If anyone else has read it or is willing to read it, I think it would make a good discussion topic.
Posted by jasmineT on 2004-06-15 12:08:32
Post Subject:
Thanks gals. I'm still kind of depressed but am slowly starting to get my groove back. After i wrote that the other night I went to my basement and looked at all the things I had made over the years. It was kind of bittersweet. But then I was, like, hell I've got to do SOMETHING. So i mixed up a bunch of plaster left over from remodeling and tried to cast this huge rusty chain. (It was there and I felt it matched how I was feeling) I wanted to then break it and mount it on wood. It didn't come out but just doing something made me feel a lot better.
The next day I spent 4 hours at the barnes & noble "library" reading about art, crafts, and feminism. Then I went to the beach for a long walk. I had to force my husband to watch the kids (basically I just left with the car and told him I'd see him before dinner) I think if I didn't take that time things would have quickly spiralled downward.
Posted by laurenbevin on 2005-02-18 18:29:13
Post Subject: Tacoma, WA ladies?
Any Tacoma girls out there who knit/bead/craft in general? I've lived here for a while and knit/bead, but don't have any crafty friends here right now. In addition, I'm writing my thesis on "knitting and feminism/New Domesticity" and have few real live people to talk to aobut it. Let me know if you're interested!!!
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-01-22 12:27:31
Post Subject: Victorian Crafts
At the New York Publc Library, I just found a now out of print book called "Whatnot: A Compendium of Victoriian Crafts and Other Matters" by Henderson and Wilkinson. There were patterns for wide variety of useful, semi-useful, and downright ridiculous items that were made mostly by niddle-class women. I loved the book on several different levels. The highest one is that it made me feel grateful that I'm a relatively poor working teacher instead of an undereducated and sheltered Victorian lady. If I had nothing to do but make some of these crafts and read Bulwer-Lytton, I'd go straight out of my mind. No wonder feminism, temperance and other causes became important forces in women's lives- they got them out of those suffocating houses filled with beadwork and faux coral made from wax.
The crafts themselves are taken from a four-volume set of books written by a Mr. Cassel for the edification of Victorian families. The set was a kind of proto-Martha Stewart, right down to the overly complicated meals and dubious craft projects. The best/worst one was the fake Oriental decoupage jar, made by sticking pictures inside of a glass jarr and then painting the inside to make it simulate porcelain. Now, inthe right hands this could be a lot of fun- but I keep imagining ladies of various ages and skills attempting this. Some of those jars must have been the equivalent of those hideous acrylic afghans and toilet-paper covers one finds at rural jumble sales. Since it was considered very bad form for decent young ladies to discuss politics, religion, or art in any detail that would show a deep knowledge of such subjects in mixed company, or to offer any advances towards the men they fancied, women often gave the crafts and whatnots they made as presents- bad luck to the man whose belle had no artistic talent. Nowadays people who do crafts usually have some small aptitude; in the Victorian era, the polite fiction was that all women had natural skills in crafting, singing, and cooking.
Would I try any of these crafts? Yes. I'm probably going to attempt the faux lace projects and the buttonwork teacozy/egg basket combo. I wish there had been more information on cooking, crochet and knotwork, but one can't have everything. The book, which was published in 1977, can be found used on Amazon.com.
Posted by aspiring on 2005-04-14 11:02:10
Post Subject:
I've read a few of her books and All About Love is my favourite! It's like a self-help book for educated folk, does that sounds weird? It's about love and relationships in the context of feminism-racism-capitalism etc. I read it twice, and I think her book, Communion, is similar.
Posted by brdgt on 2007-02-08 08:24:56
Post Subject:
Welcome!
I think that the general consensus has always been that fewer folders is better because we have the search function. I think once you stick around for a while you'll notice that there really isn't enough information produced on a daily basis to support separate folders for all of those topics.
Personally, I feel that the more folders we have, the less sense of community there is. We really aren't a "how to" craft site, but a community of people interested in crafts, DIY, domesticity, feminism, etc. I think more folders works for a site like Craftster, but I like to think we're different :)
Posted by meexie on 2005-04-21 18:21:00
Post Subject: Re: If he isn't a feminist (long)
One example is a discussion of the ratio of men and women in the science departments at universities. He supports a 50-50 ratio, one reason being that the social scene suffers when it is heavily male.
Perhaps the social scene suffers because the men think they have to have dateable women imported to their department. Doesn't say much for the men; kind of implies that only a fellow science-geek would find the men attractive enough to date, or that the men in the science department are one-trick ponies incapable of having a conversation about anything that isn't directly related to their field.
It's possible that the man you are talking to just never thought about it any other way - I'd call that more ignorant than sexist. By having a thoughtful conversation, you may have done more to raise his awareness than by blasting him for being a sexist pig and storming off, never to speak to him again. Even if you don't wind up dating him, you've done something for feminism: you've given him an example of an intelligent, reasonable woman who can have a calm and rational disagreement.
Posted by quixotic on 2004-10-23 16:02:14
Post Subject: the rat race: is it possible to circumvent?
for years i've been saying lots of sentences that start with 'i want/need/should to do this...' and while i always want to do them, i always censor and stop myself.
now, i've just finished my MA in sociology and may have the chance to further the research i've done over the past year on knitting, communities, feminism, punk rock and sociology.
i feel like it's time now to either 'shit or get off the pot,' i.e., start writing more and sending stuff out more instead of just living in some alternate scarlet o'hara-esque reality where i'll always do it 'tomorrow.'
but i find myself unsure of being able to make a living off of it, atleast partially. the lure of a secure job is there, taunting me, but there's also the temptation to put myself out there a bit and see if i have what it takes to escape the 9 to 5 rat race.
sorry i know i'm babbling. anyone else going through this, been through this, or have any advice? i'm just tired of always going for the safe option, hiding my creativity, and not thinking what i have to say is good enough. suddenly, it just doesn't seem good enough anymore.
Posted by amygdala on 2005-04-21 20:46:22
Post Subject:
(Woman in science here)
The 50-50 thing is just weird. Speaking as a grad student who is suffering a bit of a crush on one of the male grad students, having a 50-50 ratio isn't going to make things less tense. Frankly, it may make them more tense: we're all (as in, those of us grad students who actually do go out) always hanging out together, we pretty much have to interact, and there are these weird tense feelings lingering in the air. Plus, it is a small program so everything will get around. How on earth is 50-50 and importing "hotter" female scientists going to help that situation? Forget the weirdly sexist nature of those comments, it isn't even logical. And it isn't like the males in science are all Johnny Depp, either. And using it to what advantage? Arrrggghhhhh.
But as for dating him, if it comes to that...it is entirely possible he never thought that stuff through before. If he is polite and actually listens to your points rather than dismissing them out of hand, I'd lean towards giving him a shot. College is a time to learn from people anyway and to re-shape your ideas about things like feminism and academia. If he keeps making outlandish statements and is resistant to examining why he says/thinks them, let him go.
Posted by artemis.sun on 2005-10-05 19:07:17
Post Subject:
I'd been a little uncomfortable with the whole "sex as feminism" bit, like louisa, but I couldn't put my finger on it so I figured it was some subconscious manifestation of prudishness or not being fully confident. Seems that I'd bought into all of it, without even noticing.
This book should be interesting, thanks for bringing it up.
Posted by xuli on 2005-03-04 12:51:06
Post Subject:
Thanks for posting that review! It's been a few years since I've read Manifesta!, and I'm not about to claim that it was the be-all, end-all of feminist reading material (I excitedly bought the book, and ended up selling it on Amazon.com). At the same time, I think the author of the review has an axe to grind with feminism (well, that's pretty explicit with the sentence "I tend not to like feminist writing as a whole", isn't it?). I mean, I don't understand the point of having someone hostile to feminism do a review of a feminist book, you know? Usually, with non-fiction book reviews, you have someone equipped to assess the book's contribution to its field -- someone who understands the field and is capable of understanding the critical debates within it. I don't find that to be the case with this review writer (I mean, she claims to know a lot about feminist writing/history, and then claims that a big problem with feminism is "man-hating" -- the most simplistic characterization of feminism imaginable!)
She raises a few good points: Manifesta! is gimmicky, it claims to offer a comprehensive view of feminism but it isn't particularly well-researched, comprehensive or scholarly. OK -- so what? I would not use Manifesta! to teach an Introduction to Women's Studies in a university setting, nor would I cite it in a scholarly paper or article on feminism. But I would totally give it to a young woman I'm mentoring, use it to introduce my little sister or young cousin to feminism, something like that. It seems to me like the author of this review is asking the book to be something it's not, and that isn't fair. The book should be assessed on its own terms.
And accusing the authors of man-hating? I'm sorry. That's a tactic that's been used to bait feminists since Susan B. Anthony, and it's boring. The anti-feminists just need to think of something new. There's a big difference between hating patriarchy, or hating the social construction of gender in our culture which puts women into certain narrow roles and puts men in to certain other narrow roles, and hating men. It's just not the same thing. If anything, feminism benefits men: How many men in the world don't fit into the narrow, socially-constructed category of ideal masculinity? They need feminism too, even if they stand to lose some level of unearned privilege from it.
With that said, I think the author of the review brings up two valid points:
* Inga Muscio. I'm sorry, I do have an axe to grind with Inga Muscio. I think her ideas are often dangerous to the feminist movement. She has an essentialist conception of gender, and her writings on abortion are dangerously close to anti-choice. It did annoy me that the writers of Manifesta! chose to give her so much credibility, because her writings are not the best example of feminist writing. At all.
* Racism. I agree that feminism needs to really take a long, hard look at itself on this question. Some kinds of feminism have been very good on race; many have not. Many feminist movements/groups/waves have incorporated token lip service to the concerns of women of color and working-class women without fully incorporating their perspectives, and that is a real problem that feminism needs to address. (Of course, it's a real problem in society in general.) Just as one example: I was shocked, reading recent threads here and on Glitter about the so-called Fourth Wave of feminism, to find that commonly-accepted understanding of feminism's waves is that the First Wave was the suffragists, the Second Wave was the women of the 1970's who made so many strides in ending employment discrimmination, passing Roe v. Wade, etc., and that the Third Wave is thought to be Riot Grrrl and other 1990's young/punk feminism. I've always thought of the Third Wave of feminism being launched when women of color like Barbara Smith, Cherrie Moraga, Gloria Anzaldua and the Combahee River Collective published their critiques of the racism of the Second Wave in the early 1980s. They wrote some amazing books (This Bridge Called My Back and All the Blacks Are Men, All the Women Are White, But Some of us Are Brave are the two big ones), and really took the first step in having race, class and sexuality incorporated into feminist perspectives in a sustained and substantive way. While Riot Grrrl was important to me personally as a teenager, I think that the work of these women was much more important to the sustained power of the movement as a whole, and it does upset me that their work continues to be given token lip service within the movement as a whole. Their work enriched the movement in a very important, powerful way. It does bother me that Riot Grrrl is presented as more important than this important turn in Manifesta!
So that's my two cents on the whole thing. Man, I can't be concise about anything! Sorry.
Posted by brdgt on 2004-07-07 16:26:27
Post Subject:
I have to respectfully disagree with you about politics on these boards - that is part of the reason I come here and "Freestyle" is subtitled "chat about feminism, lipstick, love, yarn, wallpaper, or hannah arendt. you get the picture." If I just wanted to talk crafts I wouldn't post on freestyle, just the craft sections, but I want to talk to other people who have opinions about feminism, who should be president, their favorite tv show, and what they are reading right now.
Posted by lizzymahoney on 2004-05-21 05:52:17
Post Subject:
It's been years since I've read every word on the old/new glitter. Maybe I'm too old. It's not the pop culture references or the feminism or the fluff. I'm one who can wax sentimental of the days when many of us used our own first names as usernames. I like new things, I like shaking things up, I like outrageous acts of extraordinary creativity. I did not read some of the nastiness over there, just saw snippets here and there. But when I read someone blasting siobhan for contacting tsia, I thought "This is not my glitter, no one knows who anyone else is anymore." I don't care for siobhan, just old messages coming to haunt me, but shit... that was just uncalled for. It's the lack of thinking before you write to bash someone, the lack of considering that there might be a reason. We have folks capable of that here, but the calmness of the boards and the creative flow keep us cohesive.
Eh.
I do miss wisheveled and B. Baltimore here, though. Lots of other inspiring folk are here and I am more than pleased to see all of you.
Posted by quixotic on 2004-12-20 19:09:33
Post Subject:
lately i'm just not sure what i want to write. or who i want to write for.
i'm really wanting to continue on with knitting/craft research i was doing for my MA, with dealth with issues of feminism, oral tradition, the history of knitting and domesticity.
i'm looking for grants in regards to research/educational funding, but it's making my headspin at the moment..
Posted by brdgt on 2005-10-05 08:09:07
Post Subject:
I read a review of that book in the New York Times and but it on my "to read" list, but I haven't gotten to it yet.
The first paragraph of the review:
Reading "Female Chauvinist Pigs," Ariel Levy's lively polemic, gave me an epiphany of sorts. Finally, a coherent interpretation of an array of phenomena I'd puzzled over in recent years: the way Paris Hilton's leaked sex tapes seemed only to enhance her career; the horrifying popularity of vaginoplasty, a surgical procedure designed to make female genitalia more sightly; and a spate of mainstream books about stripping and other sex work, some reviewed in these pages. Levy has a theory that makes sense of all this. Our popular culture, she argues, has embraced a model of female sexuality that comes straight from pornography and strip clubs, in which the woman's job is to excite and titillate - to perform for men. According to Levy, women have bought into this by altering their bodies surgically and cosmetically, and - more insidiously - by confusing sexual power with power, so that embracing this caricaturish form of sexuality becomes, in their minds, a perverse kind of feminism.
Posted by louisa on 2005-10-05 21:03:06
Post Subject: nucular - good points
You made some good points nucular... please read the book and then tell me... from the reviews--everyone seemed to like it she isn't blaming women at all... She is just pointing out that all the sexuality--is coming from a paid sex industry...where women's sexual "power" is just being the object of the male gaze...where are the chipendale dancers for example... I have to say that I think it is just so pervasive... and it is great that sexuality isn't taboo...but somehow "lad" culture has become the only model..that feminism has been co-opted.. And slut power is being confused with a real power.. I really want to see the new Charlize Theron movie where she fights discrimination... I think that movie has something to say.
What you say is true...to be beautiful and sexual--is a good career move.. Look at Pamela Anderson.. The danger is that there is so little respect for the unbeautiful.. For example the pretty ones make so much more money..
So yah if you are a model and breast implants are going to put money in your pocket..well that's one thing.. but when you feel out of place.. because you don't have. them.. It's all about lines..where do you draw it?
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-02-07 09:21:28
Post Subject:
I'm a bit of a revisionist, perhaps because I was there to see part of the Revolution, and to be directly affected by it. I have similar problems with Andrea Dworkin (see that thread)- actually more, since I see Dworkin as the Ayatollah Khomeni of feminism. I actually read The Feminine Mystique. Let me tell you something- my grandmother would have given her left boob to be poor, suffering Betty Friedan. It would have been a considerable leg up.
Liberation is not liberation if it only gives middle-class white women privileges. That is mostly what it did. Black women were for the most part not liberated by the feminist movement- they were liberated by the Civil Rights movement, which emphasized their humanity. I do not see most modern-day feminists talking about the rights of poor women, or about how programs like 'Take Your Daughter to Work Day' only work for women who have offices, not for women who work as waitresses or on factory floors. The assumption behind such ideas is that all women moved up the ladder and want to show off where they work. That's palin old bullshit. It's also plain old bullshit that all women feel the same about being sexually objectified (as a woman who has DD boobs and has been harassed on the street but who has also been called sexy by nice men, I can see two sides to that issue in a world where women who don't look like pale sticks are often thought of as ugly), about sexual pleasure (most 'modern' books act like anal sex is nasty and 'kinky' sex is too disturbing- which may explain why so many men look at porn and go to whores), physical display (if most women have a choice between the asexual soccer mom look and looking like a genuine woman or butch, I know which one most would choose), and class (not all of us want to move up, since movement often means becoming deracinated, or being exposed to liberal patronization and racism on a daily basis- personally, some of us would rather deal with a Klansman than liberal do-goody types who will send our children to their schools in exchange for our gratitude).
This does not mean that women who are queer, non-white, and/or poor cannot be feminists. It's justthat our brands of feminism might not be a one size fits most kind.
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-02-10 07:22:32
Post Subject:
Anthrogirl, I respect what you're saying, but I honestly don't feel that mainstream feminism necessarily reflects Ms. magazine and Betty Friedan. In fact, I'd argue that it reflects Third Wave feminism, which is chock full of its own problems. I'd say that the people who are getting attention as feminists are women like Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner, who wrote Manifesta which allows for more people to be 1.) accepting of feminism and 2.) lax in how they approach feminism.
I'd say I 70% agree. The other 30% remembers that the fixation on sex started before the Third Wavers. The truth is, for most feminists, Friedan was irrelevant- many younger women had never even heard of her. But I would argue that hearing about her was less important than the fact that her work influenced Third Wavers, for both good and ill.
I think a lot of this is also a time factor. A lot of people suffered from battle fatigue after the 70s. This made it easier for those opposed to feminism to marsal their forces, and for many women to either become lax or not teach their children about feminism.
But one of the reasons I'm bringing up these earlier women is because when the Right talks about 'mainstream' feminism, these are some of the people on their minds- not Naomi Wolf.
In fact, I'd argue that most current feminist scholars agree with you on issues of looking at class, race, sexuality, gender, and NOT valorizing women over men-- that's an essentialist viewpoint, on that I disagree with vehemently. I think some mainstream feminists do it, but mostly not. Mostly I hear my fairly feminist (I use "fairly" as they won't identify as feminist, often) peers saying, "But it's bad for men, too." Of course, sexism is bad for men, but they are not oppressed by their own gender. They're oppressed by other factors. They just benefit negatively, as well.
Um- men are oppressed by their own gender. There's a very narrow definition of how to be a man, and that definition is often enforced by fathers and male peers. While the definition has enlarged somewhat, it's still very much there. For most men it might not be overly oppressive- but if you're an effeminitite man or just a bit outside the norm, it certainly is.
Most feminist scholars would agree with me- and then they write a few more books that only feminists read, instead of calling for action or forming alliances with others. But this is not just a feminist issue- most groups are polarized and insular right now. I remeber when gay men and lesbians had more of an alliance- an uneasy one to be sure, but it was there. While there is somewhat of an alliance on gay marriage and gays in uniform, you don't find very many gay men talking about women's uterine and breast cancer, which is particularly devastating for lesbians since many of them will not go to prejudiced doctors, and often suffer from lower income than their male counterparts.
I've read Naomi Wolf and some others. Some of what she says is true- ditto for others. But I don't think it goes far enough. I still think we need to ask prominent women how much they pay their housekeepers, and whether they think all women deserve health care and a living wage, and what they are actually going to DO to help women get it, which will benefit all women and their families, if they have families. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I just feel that to try to compare women activists is not a good idea, as we all bring something different to the table, both good and bad. Betty Friedan did some pretty awesome things, and as she had her own prejudices and her own agenda, as she was a product of her times, I'm not surprised (though I am disappointed) that she was exclusive and at times bigoted. I don't think, though, that there's a whole movement of Betty Friedan followers. I'd say mainstream feminists have fled from the Second Wave to embrace the Third Wave, which includes being young, sex-positive, and embracing sexuality in all of its forms. It, too, can be exclusive in many different ways, and that's why feminism needs to be more all-encompassing than that.
We do all bring something different to the table. But if some are bringing fresh fruit and some are bringing spoiled fruit, and some are bringing lots of fruit but not sharing it, why can't we judge that? Because they're women? Because they're activists? Which one gets then the pass?
I don't see women 'embracing sexuality in all its forms'. Maybe I'm in a different place than you. I see a bit more polymorphous behavior than before- but it was hidden before. I don't really know if there's more of it, and I don't think anyone can tell, since most older women are not going to talk about having slept with women or engaging in threesomes. Yes, there are groups like Cake and Suicide Girls- and most women are not participating in that. There aren't tons of young women in the fetish shop. I don't see casual articles in Cosmo on how to properly perform a fisting, or why lesbian/bisexual sex is fun. When I go on craigslist in New York and LA, I see a lot of shame from women looking for female partners- most of them want to do it on the Q-T. And most of this 'freedom' is something I see among (surprise) white non-immigrant women. When the party for everyone else heats up, please send me an invite, because I'd like to go. Meanwhile, save for Tristan Taormino, I don't see lots of sexpositive young women putting their names out there and discussing some of the amazing variations in sexuality that are extant. Most of the books I've read by younger women seem to still be stuck on whether anal sex is ok or yucky. Fisting, roleplay, foodplay, threesomes, and all that don't get covered very much, or they get labeled as way kinky. You don't have to take my word for it, but those aren't even near 'way kinky'.
But I think Marina-Trilobyte is right, about how people approach activism. We're in a lull, we'll see.
I think we are. And I really hate to criticize. But we won't get out of this lull (which is there because it benefits a lot of people on both sides of the aisle) unless wee do more than write books and clever articles. I teach at two schools that are fairly ordinary, and most of my students wouldn't know who Naomi Wolf is, or what a Third Waver believes, if Maureen Dowd's book dropped from the sky and hit them in the head. They are working class kids- the spiritual grandchildren of all those maids I was talking about. They don't even know Betty Friedan is dead, orthat she ever lived. They're not taking part in these arguments. I think that's part of the problem- they're ignored, because for all intents, they're expected to be the next servant class by pretty much everyone above them, and for servats, it's dangerous to have a raised consciousness.
Posted by soapandwater on 2005-02-28 12:14:45
Post Subject:
I think you make a good point, mrbubbles, but then, I think women have been victim to the "divide and conquer" tactics, and I think abortion is a huge one.
By polarizing an issue instead of fighting for some semblance of common ground, not much can get done, and the solidarity, the sisterhood, that women seem to strive for cannot be accomplished.
Like, how am I supposed to promote feminism if there are a whole hell of a lot of women out there who won't be feminists themselves? It's that sort of thing.
So, while I'm hardcore pro-choice, I also see where the two opposing groups can merge and at least provide more options to a wider range of people.
I think we can tackle issues like, "If a poor woman cannot afford to raise a baby, so she gets an abortion, how is that a choice?" Things like that.
I think that's something both sides of the debate should agree on-- how do we help people? And how do we provide more options? How do we make long-term solutions to bigger problems?
My comments are incredibly idealistic, I know, but still.
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-02-10 07:28:11
Post Subject:
I actually think these discussions often get bogged down in stereotypes.
I think that's a really, really good observation.
The feminists I know, for instance, were really really upset about the passing of Mrs. King, more so than the passing of Betty Friedan, as was I.* So I was really surprised to learn from this thread that a lot of feminists weren't speaking out about it. But then I realized that it also has to do with who the press -- even the non-mainstream press -- is going to go to. I think it was a natural choice for every major news outlet to get quotes from high-profile feminists following the death of Betty Friedan, and not as natural a choice for them to get quotes from feminists following the death of Coretta Scott King. And it's probably true as well, unfortunately, that those same feminists who weren't contacted by the press probably didn't go out of their way to get into the news.
So I think stereotypes have a lot of complicated origins, and tend to propagate themselves too.
And I'm not denying that feminism in its early days involved a lot of racism and classism. And certainly there are still some people who subscribe to feminist beliefs that descend from those very, very flawed feminisms. But since I don't find those forms of feminism to be liberatory or interesting or helpful or, well, feminist, I wouldn't use those forms of feminism to characterize all feminist thought.
* And Soapandwater, I take your point about not comparing activists. But I never read The Feminine Mystique, and despite pursuing an advanced degree in feminist scholarship I don't tend to use work that cites Friedan or even locates the origins of feminism in her work. But I have lived for a long time in Atlanta, a city that really has been affected in profound ways by the life's work of the Rev. and Mrs. King, and spent a lot of time at the King Center, so their work has had more meaning in my life.The truth is, we don't know what Naomi Wolf thinks of King's death, because so far as I can tell, she hasn't been asked. But at the same time I have a funny feeling that she may not have bothered to say, either. That's what concerns me.
xuli, I think women who are there working in the vineyards may be very upset. But when I told my students about her, they just sort of shrugged. A few less shrugged over Betty Friedan, but there was not much reaction about her either. What's disturbing about King is that even the little liberal press that is left didn't connect the dots, as far as I can tell here in New York, which is a major media center.
But as for 'in the early days'- I'm sorry, but I don't see many shoutouts to poor women now, either. I don't see class being adressed in any appreciable way. I haven't seen proominent Third Wavers write about racism and race with the view that some people don't have the same needs as others. Again, if I was some cranky crunchy feminist spinster, I might say, 'hmm, maybe I don't know fuck-all about the modern world'. But I'm seeing students on a daily basis who aren't interested in feminism, don't know anything about modern feminism, don't feel liberated, and aren't posing for Girls Gone Wild or the Suicide Girls Calendar. And I still say that an objective glance shows that most of the women doing the writing, photographing, and all of that are white and come from middle class families, and have the attitudes that go along with that profile for the most part. That's not a stereotype. That's a walk through the bookstore. Do I think it might change? Yeah, eventually. But I'm not holding my breath right now.
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-12-23 16:55:11
Post Subject:
i've been looking at some of those mags, but i'm just concerned (probably overly so) that i'll just be rehashing the same ideas and won't have anything new to add!
Well, actually, I haven't seen a lot of pieces on how crafting DOES relate to activism. In fact, I'm struggling with that right now because I'm scared that people don't see it that way. There's been a lot of focus on how crafting is a liberating, third wave feminism sort of thing, but I haven't actually seen many things on subjects like "bake back the white house" and fundraising through crafts, etc.
So, is that something to consider, maybe? Siiince you've got the website down and all?
Posted by soapandwater on 2006-02-09 09:36:15
Post Subject:
Anthrogirl, I respect what you're saying, but I honestly don't feel that mainstream feminism necessarily reflects Ms. magazine and Betty Friedan. In fact, I'd argue that it reflects Third Wave feminism, which is chock full of its own problems. I'd say that the people who are getting attention as feminists are women like Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner, who wrote Manifesta which allows for more people to be 1.) accepting of feminism and 2.) lax in how they approach feminism.
In fact, I'd argue that most current feminist scholars agree with you on issues of looking at class, race, sexuality, gender, and NOT valorizing women over men-- that's an essentialist viewpoint, on that I disagree with vehemently. I think some mainstream feminists do it, but mostly not. Mostly I hear my fairly feminist (I use "fairly" as they won't identify as feminist, often) peers saying, "But it's bad for men, too." Of course, sexism is bad for men, but they are not oppressed by their own gender. They're oppressed by other factors. They just benefit negatively, as well.
I just feel that to try to compare women activists is not a good idea, as we all bring something different to the table, both good and bad. Betty Friedan did some pretty awesome things, and as she had her own prejudices and her own agenda, as she was a product of her times, I'm not surprised (though I am disappointed) that she was exclusive and at times bigoted. I don't think, though, that there's a whole movement of Betty Friedan followers. I'd say mainstream feminists have fled from the Second Wave to embrace the Third Wave, which includes being young, sex-positive, and embracing sexuality in all of its forms. It, too, can be exclusive in many different ways, and that's why feminism needs to be more all-encompassing than that.
But I think Marina-Trilobyte is right, about how people approach activism. We're in a lull, we'll see.
Posted by xuli on 2006-02-09 10:09:18
Post Subject:
I actually think these discussions often get bogged down in stereotypes.
I think that's a really, really good observation.
The feminists I know, for instance, were really really upset about the passing of Mrs. King, more so than the passing of Betty Friedan, as was I.* So I was really surprised to learn from this thread that a lot of feminists weren't speaking out about it. But then I realized that it also has to do with who the press -- even the non-mainstream press -- is going to go to. I think it was a natural choice for every major news outlet to get quotes from high-profile feminists following the death of Betty Friedan, and not as natural a choice for them to get quotes from feminists following the death of Coretta Scott King. And it's probably true as well, unfortunately, that those same feminists who weren't contacted by the press probably didn't go out of their way to get into the news.
So I think stereotypes have a lot of complicated origins, and tend to propagate themselves too.
And I'm not denying that feminism in its early days involved a lot of racism and classism. And certainly there are still some people who subscribe to feminist beliefs that descend from those very, very flawed feminisms. But since I don't find those forms of feminism to be liberatory or interesting or helpful or, well, feminist, I wouldn't use those forms of feminism to characterize all feminist thought.
* And Soapandwater, I take your point about not comparing activists. But I never read The Feminine Mystique, and despite pursuing an advanced degree in feminist scholarship I don't tend to use work that cites Friedan or even locates the origins of feminism in her work. But I have lived for a long time in Atlanta, a city that really has been affected in profound ways by the life's work of the Rev. and Mrs. King, and spent a lot of time at the King Center, so their work has had more meaning in my life.
Posted by moon_lemming on 2005-01-28 09:35:43
Post Subject:
I haven't read much on feminism (having the same problem you do with not knowing what to read), but I recommend The BUST Guide to the New Girl Order as sort of a fluffy feminism book. It was the book that launched me into identifying myself as a feminist.
I really want to read some bell hooks, but am afraid I'll never actually read the books if I buy them. She's generally rec'd whenever I look into feminist literature. Jennifer (I want to say "Garner," but I know that's not right, hee) -- I can't remember her last name -- something's Manifesta is supposed to be a really fun read re: third wave feminism.
(Her name is Jennifer Baumgardner, I looked it up on Amazon. They rec'd Iron Jawed Angels as a related interest, and I have to say, I loved that movie. I had no idea what women went through to get the right to vote in this country before I saw it.)
Anyway, sorry for rambling, I'm interested to see recommendations, too!
Posted by pinkO on 2005-07-07 14:35:56
Post Subject: sampler swap
I got my first sampler today, and as exciting as it is to get many cool things in the mail, I concur with modforpretend that many of the items were personally irrelevant due to the necessary randomness of the packaging. This is not to diss on the items, which were all cool, but I can't use earrings, say, since my ears aren't pierced. So in case anyone got one and wants to swap, I am open to anything!
Here are items I have and would swap, pics are available at the link:
50+ items ( http://www.homeofthesampler.com/peeks/050650.html ):
1. Paws for Effect dog bone toy www.pawsforeffect.ca
2. Mellifluous Couture fabric flower necklace (exactly as pictured) www.mellifluouscouture.com
3. Sugar Hand Grenade Clothing felt cell phone cozy like the leopard skin one pictured www.sugarhandgrenade.com
4. Expresso Noir vintage ribbon pins like the cream patterned one pictured
www.expressonoir.com
75+ items ( http://www.homeofthesampler.com/peeks/050675.html ):
1. Lanak Crafts purple beaded toe ring www.lanakcrafts.com
2. Wrong Number Distro blank ladybug mini journal (in the black pink style of the one left of the whale) www.wrong-number.net
3. Chebang! one yellow, one green pom-pom sample
200+ items ( http://www.homeofthesampler.com/peeks/0506200.html ):
1. Midnightsky Fibers 2 small skeins (1 pink and yellow, 1 purple-blue) of hand-spun and hand-painted yarns
2. Feed Your Head Books feminism sticker pack
3. Amy Peters' Studio "devotion" bronze keyring
Posted by soapandwater on 2006-02-08 22:37:42
Post Subject:
Anthrogirl, I'm not really sure what mainstream feminism is-- if it's ignoring issues of race and class, then I suspect it's probably not the best feminism it could be. You know?
I think it's important to note all of the women who have shaped history, for better and for worse. For different.
But I think if mainstream feminism (which I don't really understand) is ignoring a huge issue such as racial inequalities, or the intersectionality of social stratification, then it's just not doing what it's supposed to be doing.
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-02-08 22:19:06
Post Subject:
By the way- I do think Betty Friedan and Andrea Dworkin matter. I've spoken my feelings about them on other threads. But I do not necessarily see them as having been good for everyone, or even most women, perhaps because my leftist pro-sex queer politics make them seem different to me than they might to others. However, Mrs. King brought most people together, and where she did not appear was as telling as where she did. While her politics might not have made big splashes, I think they created a great deal of positive change in the world- and I think it's important to not just look at what a person means to us, but the effect that they had and have on others. I find it telling and a bit sad that feminists are not publically talking about what they owe people like Martin and Coretta Scott King, who probably had a more lasting effect on feminism than many mainstream and radical feminists, by dint of supporting all people who want good in the world regardless of class or sex. I am actually curious as to why this is, and why the color line still seems to be very much there in mainstream feminism. Overcoming that color line, which I think can be done, will be where the future of feminism lies. The question is, how to do it?
Posted by xuli on 2006-02-10 09:44:58
Post Subject:
But as for 'in the early days'- I'm sorry, but I don't see many shoutouts to poor women now, either. I don't see class being adressed in any appreciable way. I haven't seen proominent Third Wavers write about racism and race with the view that some people don't have the same needs as others. ... And I still say that an objective glance shows that most of the women doing the writing, photographing, and all of that are white and come from middle class families, and have the attitudes that go along with that profile for the most part. That's not a stereotype. That's a walk through the bookstore.
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you. My point was that all this is true, but that I just am not interested in pseudo-feminism that doesn't address all of these issues simultaneously. And that I think that in many ways, characterizing someone like Naomi Wolf as the face of feminism today contributes to the invisibility of woman of color feminists, queer feminists and working class feminists who are producing amazing work and aren't getting recognized.
I don't know though. I have to say I don't find the Third Wave all that interesting, and I don't read a lot of Third Wave writers or pay attention to a lot of what the Third Wave is doing. And conversations that end up stuck on the Third Wave, like it's the only possible feminism out there, make me cranky! Because the Third Wave does have all the characteristics you cited -- white, middle class, and extremely limited in focus.
Posted by Fonzarella on 2007-02-06 08:50:09
Post Subject: Readable Feminist Theory
hi all,
i know some of you gals are very knowledgeable about the topic of feminism and feminist theory. i am really interested in getting a general understanding of the developments of feminist thinking over the past 50 years (i don't really care about the latest idea, i need to get a historical perspective). is there any book out there that is readable by non experts?
many thanks for any suggestions you may have.
p.
Posted by siouxsie_homemaker on 2004-08-20 19:52:04
Post Subject:
1. how did you learn to knit? how old were you then and old are you now?
I learned to knit about 9 months ago. I am 24, and neither my mother or my grandmother are knitters or even into any kinds of crafts.
2. knitting = nesting? is your knitting a way of getting back to simpler times?
Sort of. I am really into learning how to do basic things for myself instead of having to depend on our consumer culture to feed and clothe me. I also think that because of this heavy consumerism, traditional women's crafts are dying out. I think this is terrible, and that women need to reclaim them and keep them going for future generations.
I also think knitting is a wonderful outlet for artistic expression, for rejecting cookie-cutter pre-made clothes, and as a fun way to pass the time.
It's sad that unless you're very resourceful, that it can actually be more expensive to make things for yourself than it is to buy all your clothes at chain stores. The fact that these companies employ children and adults for pennies an hour to make their clothing and products is sickening, and our finacial dependence on it is put upon us and is also self-created. I would rather scrape-up some yarn and needles to make myself my own blankets and sweaters and hats so I don't have to buy sweat-shop made products.
3. in regards to the current resurgence in knitting, when do you think it started and why?
I think part of it is the idealic "new domesticity", and part of it is sort of the post-riot grrrl DIY movement. Third wave feminism sort of open the gates for girls to get into makeing things for themselves and let them do "girlie" things and let them know that it was okay.
4. do you have a crafty group that you meet with? how often? why do you dig it?
I go to a knitting group at a local bar twice a month, and I helped organize a ladies social group that meets once a motnh and we do crafts and have a feminist book club. I love love love it. Not only is it fun, but it gives me a great feeling of community and a wonderful place to teach others and learn new skills.
5. where do you go online to discuss/learn/share your craftiness? how do these sites inspire you in ways that real life conversations don't?
I go on this site, and the craftster site. I find that there's a bigger world wide community that's on the net. it's neat. I love real life groups and on-line groups.
6. is there a subversive element to knitting? a punk rock element? or simply a DIY smugness?
For me, doing crafts felt very subversive in a way. My mother is a total tomboy, and growing up I never learned to sew or cook. I had to teach myself everything when I got older. I feel like I kind of missed out a bit because of this.
I also feel that durring the heyday of 2nd wave feminism (60's-80's) that women were focused on breaking out of traditional women's gender roles in order to assert their idependence and gain more civil rights for themselves. They did wonders for women, and I don't want to trash on them in the least, ebcause I highly repect those women, but I don't totally agree with how they went about things. Unfortunately, in this quest of breaking out of their bonds, I think it went a bit too far in rejecting everything classically "feminine".
I am all for re-claiming femininity and finding power in it, not just opression. Make-up, heels, knitting, sewing, baking, can all be wonderfully empowering and fun for women.
I think there's been more of a focus in modern feminism is accepting a variety of women and lifestyles.
In rejecting baking and sewing and going for ready made items, we've becomes horribly dependent on consumerism to take care of us. It's in no way liberating to me.
7. why do you knit?
It's sort of meditative, it gets my creative juices flowing, and it's wonderfully useful.
8. what other crafty things do you do besides knitting?
I make rugs and quilts out of recycled and new fabric.
I want to learn to make toys, improve my knitting and sewing skills, and learn to spin yarn.
I also can't wait to have some land in order to grow my own produce.
9. the future of knitting- is there one or are we just kidding ourselves?
I think their absolutely is a furture to knitting. We can't rely on our country to forever be the rich super power that it is. Once day Americans will need to be more self-sufficient and rescourceful.
Also, I think that knitting is univerally appealing to all generations.
10. do you prefer to knit alone or with other people? why?
Either is wonderful.
11. true or false: can craft save us all? (elaboration here would be nice, but not necessary.)
Certainly. Because crafts aren't just silly instructions on how to decoupage everything, or make decorative items alone. Crafts are making things that our the foundations of our daily lives.
Posted by xuli on 2006-01-04 16:29:21
Post Subject:
Her most famous/controversial book is called Intercourse. I haven't read it, but have read a lot of things where it is discussed.
Mostly I'm just bumping this thread because I'm interested in what people have to say. My view of Dworkin has always been that she was a great feminist thinker with a few misguided ideas. But I wonder, too, if she's been vilified precisely because she was a famous feminist activist. For instance, I'm deeply skeptical of her anti-porn and anti-sex-work activism -- but I think it's as dangerous to uncritically affirm the sex industry. And I worry about some of the more uncritical versions of "pro-sex feminism" that are out there.
It's all very complicated. And I think Dworkin made some really important contributions. And I wish that people had done more serious engagement with her ideas -- the positive and the negative -- rather than dismissing them out of hand,
Posted by jean on 2005-09-13 11:06:45
Post Subject:
wow. i just got all teary reading these posts. how amazing that we struggled with this together. i so appreciate what alteredtome, soapandwater and delcq have to say on this. and getting through it and thinking about it. this right here is politics. this is the stuff of life and feminism and figuring it all out. it's uncomfortable. it should be. if it were easy it wouldn't be called the "struggle." feminism is only easy in theory. in practice it's yucky and hard and messy and we do things and say things we regret. but really who cares? it's better than playing it safe and just accepting the status quo. you rock.
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-05-22 22:55:13
Post Subject:
I've had some serious mixed feelings on this one, too. I guess it's a matter of how much you trust them not to be tempted to "sell out" or whatever.
I remember Mirah once said that if she had more money/sold more records, she'd use the money so she could have an orchestra to go with her songs. Maybe Le Tigre has that same kind of, "If we have more money, we can do more things with our music, as well as more money to promote it."
My sister would have never heard of Le Tigre, but she goes clubbing and heard my playing it in my room and thought it had a good beat.
The thing is people who listen to Le Tigre as "mainstream", most of them won't be converted to feminism or queer-friendly or anything like that. That's a lofty goal to have because so few people change their minds just because of music. If someone likes Le Tigre, it's another case of "preaching to the choir," which is unavoidable.
But Kathleen Hanna has always wanted to be political in her music, so that's her thing. I just don't see how going mainstream will work. But I'll still listen. It can't hurt. Not yet.
ETA: I don't mean that art can't change the minds of people, but it really is rare for pop music to make people see the error of their ways, especially in such a conservative time right now. This is all assuming Le Tigre could become somewhat more mainstream.
Posted by audreypillow on 2005-10-12 16:53:27
Post Subject: "CRAFTY CULTURE" Chicago panel discussion on "
Hi craftistas! What follows is a press release for an event I am putting together at work (Columbia College Chicago) that may finally give us crafters some serious cred as culture-makers and agents of social change. Transcripts of the discussion will be available in January for out-of-towners, but if you're in Chicago -- be there! --XOXO, Audrey Michelle, amast@colum.edu
For Immediate Release October 7, 2005
Media Contact: Micki Leventhal 312-344-7383
or Elizabeth Burke-Dain 312-344-8695
A HANDMADE REVOLUTION
Institute for the Study of Women and Gender in the Arts and Media Presents Panel Discussion at Columbia College Chicago
That Explores Political Implications and Possibilities of “Craftivism”
WHAT: Crafty Culture: Feminism, Activism, and the DIY Ethic
A panel discussion with local women active in the Chicago DIY (do it yourself) arts community: graphics professional and “craftivist” Cinnamon Cooper; Time Out Chicago magazine “Check Out” editor Annie Tomlin; and painter and poet Alejandra Velera. Moderated by Annette Ferrara, cultural content provider and managing editor of Flavorpill.net. Q & A follows.
Jane M. Saks and Audrey M. Mast of the Institute for the Study of Women and Gender in the Arts and Media are available for interviews.
Crafting – knitting, needlepoint, beading, scrapbooking, sewing and more – can be a hobby, a way to unwind and a creative outlet. It can also be a way to reclaim traditional women’s work with a modern spin, start one’s own business, save money, reject prepackaged/sweatshop-produced merchandise, recycle, raise funds or donate goods for charitable causes, and mobilize for political action. Columbia’s Institute for the Study of Women and Gender in the Arts and Media presents a panel discussion that will explore the possibilities of “craftivism.”
While crafting is often a solitary activity, the popularity of such groups as Stitch ’n’ Bitch, indie art/crafts fairs, magazines like ReadyMade and Web sites such as craftster.org has helped likeminded women (and men) to network, exchange ideas and market their products. While these communities and media outlets mostly exist outside the mainstream media, there has been a less political, yet no less pervasive DIY lifestyle trend in mainstream media as espoused by Martha Stewart, Home Depot and the glut of domestic-themed cable TV offerings.
Crafty culture is part of a centuries-old history of women connecting, organizing and effecting change through handicrafts. It has been suggested that during the Civil War era, African American women’s quilt designs were coded maps of the Underground Railroad. But as domestic prowess has become less of a requirement and more of a choice, modern women can approach it with a healthy dose of irreverence. Today’s indie crafters are grounded in postmodern self-awareness.
Crafting can be examined as a new phase in the DIY phenomenon, with its ideals of empowerment, accessibility and community, which began with the self-publishing of the Beats and Situationists, mail art, pirate radio in the ’60s, the anti-consumerist politics of punk rock, the rise of independent record labels, zine culture, and the ’90s Riot Grrrl movement. Yet crafty culture may present a reverse rebellion: instead of the sharp critique of domesticity offered by second-wave feminists, contemporary crafters are embracing and celebrating the domestic arts as relevant, viable and creative work.
What does crafty culture mean for a post-third wave generation of feminists? Why is this trend happening now – might crafts be more popular in times of war, economic downturn and political conflict? How can we channel our creative passions into activism? In an aesthetic environment obsessed with high design, what place do our handcrafted objects have – and are they truly valued in our economic system? Do they have any cultural capital? Does crafty culture attract a wide range of participants in terms of race, class and gender?
WHEN: Thursday, November 3, 6 – 8 pm
WHERE: Film Row Cinema theatre, 1104 S. Wabash, 8th Floor
HOW MUCH: Free and open to the public
MORE INFO:
Institute for the Study of Women and Gender in the Arts and Media, 312-344-8829 or amast@colum.edu
WHO:
The Institute for the Study of Women and Gender in the Arts and Media is a new entity at Columbia College Chicago and the first and only institute of its kind in the US. Our mission is to research, debate, archive and investigate significant societal and cultural issues related to women and gender in the arts and media.
Posted by laurenbevin on 2005-02-09 03:00:19
Post Subject:
Thanks for responding everyone! It's really helpful for my thesis. I'll keep posting as I continue my research and let you all know how it's going. Feel free to keep posting on the topic, you don't have to answer the questions if you don't want to. I liked this quote from stella: "for me, knitting isn't any more about feminism than anything else i do. i knit because i love to, not because i think it's making a statement or it's trendy. in a sense, because i AM a feminist, everything i do is about feminism, but i guess that's a little philosophical." Yay for knitting and feminism!
Posted by Athos on 2005-02-01 02:04:18
Post Subject:
great thread!
i would also suggest "listen up: voices from the next generation of feminism" - it's an easy read - essays by women, but the narrative structure is a great entry point into third wave feminism and feminist history.
Posted by pudding on 2005-01-28 09:19:32
Post Subject: Feminism
I'm sorry if this sounds a bit twee, but I want to read a bit about feminism but I don't know where to start, short of going to the book shop and launching myself towards the "feminism" shelf.
I tried researching on the Internet, but didn't seem to have much success (although I did manage to find a little gem of a site called Rightgrrls.com - yes, I'm joking).
I'd like some recommendations about "essential texts", good reads etc. and so on.
Posted by KittenHasAWhip on 2005-01-28 12:05:37
Post Subject:
Some older books you might want to read are The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan and pretty much any psychology books by Carol Gilligan. I've never read the entire books but I did read excerpts from them for my methods in women's studies class last semester. While some things are a bit outdated, I found the older books and articles really interesting because it really shows you how much as changed and how much hasn't.
I don't remember this necessarily being a feminist book, but Talk Dirty To Me was an interesting read about sexuality, and not too long, it was a very small hardback that my community library had actually, and for some reason I always associate sexuality with feminism.
And there's a website, but I've lost the link, that has the full text of SCUM. I think that's it. My memory of it is a little fuzzy, Manifesto for the Cutting up of Men or something like that? But that doesn't sound quite right *shrugs* But it's out there. Society for the Cutting Up of Men. Society is what the first S stands for. I remember now.
And Signs is an academic journal that focuses on feminism. They've run articles on a variety of topics. My college carries the paper copy and has internet access to it as well. I believe it's printed by the University of Chicago Press.
Good luck with your reading :) I hope you find some good books!
Posted by xuli on 2006-03-25 13:11:43
Post Subject: Re: Article on The Guardian - comments?
The whole premise of her argument seems to be that feminism is outdated:
Today sexes mix a lot more than they used to, so boys grow up having girls as friends. They tend to listen to what women have to say, and when they marry they don't consider sharing the housework to be castrating. Instead of desperately longing for the right to be seen as human beings, today's girls are playing with the old-fashioned notion of being seen as sex objects.
But then she turns around and says this:
For one thing, men in the office waste whole afternoons staring at your bottom, placing bets on whether you're wearing underwear.
If my male colleagues are staring at my butt and placing bets on whether I'm wearing underwear, I hardly believe that, in fact, those same men "tend to listen to what women have to say." Especially since, as it turns out, they still make a whole dollar for every seventy-five cents I make -- despite all those afternoons they're wasting on my ass.
And that major internal contradiction is only the first major flaw I found with that article!
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-01-12 13:25:31
Post Subject:
Her most famous/controversial book is called Intercourse. I haven't read it, but have read a lot of things where it is discussed.
Mostly I'm just bumping this thread because I'm interested in what people have to say. My view of Dworkin has always been that she was a great feminist thinker with a few misguided ideas. But I wonder, too, if she's been vilified precisely because she was a famous feminist activist. For instance, I'm deeply skeptical of her anti-porn and anti-sex-work activism -- but I think it's as dangerous to uncritically affirm the sex industry. And I worry about some of the more uncritical versions of "pro-sex feminism" that are out there.
It's all very complicated. And I think Dworkin made some really important contributions. And I wish that people had done more serious engagement with her ideas -- the positive and the negative -- rather than dismissing them out of hand,
Dworkin made very important contributions. Her work was used by the Canadian censorship people to block gay and lesbian porn from Canada, and to seize books on anal health a from small gay bookstore. Her work in the US has been good too- she was one of the people who promoted tolerance against differently-pleasured women (swingers, SMers) in the feminist movement, so that many of us are afraid to publically join our other feminist sisters for fear of being humiliated again. She promoted dialogue between men and women by making and insisting upon the unprovable assertion that at least 1/2 of all women have been raped, and by saying that all men are potential rapists. She claimed that all porn was evil and damaging, regardless of audience, purpose, or content; in other words, what you might do in your bedroom with a videocamera is equivalent to a snuff film or Devil in Miss Jones. She also said that all consensual sex between a man and a woman was rape because of the power differential.
Whatever I may think of the porn industry or some male sex fantasies, I don't think Ms. Dworkin was simply slightly misguided. I think she was a very sad, emotionally disturbed woman whose horrifying sexual experiences drove her to the brink- and I say that because I've read Intercourse and some of her other work. She horrifies me. She and Katherine McKinnon are the fundamentalist lunatic fringe of the feminist movement, and their works are filled with hypocrisy and willful myopia about real women and their lives. Women, in fact, do read porn all the time- they call it 'romance novels'. They watch porn- they call it 'Desperate Housewives', or reading up on what Brad and Angelina are doing. Porn isn't always about men dominating women, or about men at all.
I must say that I am not in favor of groups like Cake and Suicide Girls. I don't think Britney Spears and Jenna Jamison are good role models. I dislike mainstream porn because it's almost always insulting to both men and women, and refuses to see women's sexuality as fluid and not necessarily male-centered. However, the truth is most people watch porn because they think sex is dirty, not because they see it as life-affirming or beautiful. Many of my dominatrix friends try to get their clients to see that an exchange of power isn't role reversal- it means both people have something to bring to the table, and it doesn't have to be about pain or degradation.
Posted by april again on 2006-03-29 17:51:10
Post Subject: Re: Article on The Guardian - comments?
Today's ultimate feminists are the chicks in crop tops
True feminism should celebrate femininity, and make you feel wonderful to be born a woman.
The things that make me glad to be a woman have nothing to do with showing clevage...and I am sure the feminist leaders weren't thinking, we will disrupt our lives and put ourselves forward so that we can all wear belly shirts with mudflap girls on them proudly.
I hesitated to say much about this as I am hardly a women's studies scholar, but what the heck does dressing a certain way have to do with being a feminist? Am I less a feminist because I keep my boobs covered?
And I was just talking to some of the younger women at my college, they were going over some pictures of them kissing and such at a party, I said "oh I had no idea that you two were involved , how nice". They let me know they are not involved and they were sexually exploring each other "cause there were hot guys at the party"...what is feminist and empowering about that???
Flame me if you want, but I dont find being a person who exploits their sexuality for money empowering, it seems to me ( though correct me if I am wrong) a lot of the people doing so , do it because they have no marketable job skills otherwise.
Posted by delqc on 2005-11-01 11:16:24
Post Subject:
Hey there craftistas - I'm still trying to put together an instant messaging discussion about feminism and craftiness ... is there anyone else who would like to partipate?
I think I'm going to x-post to glitter - maybe I'll get some more responses there.
Posted by quaisior on 2007-05-02 23:01:04
Post Subject:
Ally by Karen Traviss: This is one of my very favorite series and I can't believe there's only one book left because it seems like there's so much more that needs to be resolved. I love Traviss' characters, her aliens, and her totally unbiased way of writing.
Fortune's Fool by Mercedes Lackey: This was a big let-down after I enjoyed the first two books in the series so much. I love Lackey's older books and I wish she hadn't decided to sell out by making her books more romance-reader friendly because she seems to have thrown her feminism out the window and she writes god-awful love scenes.
Regarding the Bathrooms: A Privy to the Past by Kate Klise: This was a cute book, but the writing style nearly drove me insane because the whole story is told through letters and articles, which is extremely hard for me to concentrate on.
Fifth Quarter by Tanya Huff: I'm kicking myself for not reading Huff sooner because her books have literally everything I'm looking for in speculative fiction.
Posted by kohuether on 2005-02-10 12:29:23
Post Subject:
I don't knit, I crochet. Though, I think I am going to purchase some knitting needles today. But, I am going to answer these questions anyway.
I am going to answer the question about "my definition of being a feminist."
I am not a feminist. What I am, is a woman who takes pride in being a woman. I celebrate each season of the year as if it is another season of my life. I believe that it is a beautiful thing staying in touch with a rich history and tradition of culinary, nurturing, and herbal knowledge. I am an herbalist. I crochet. I cook. I own my own business, Persuasive Words creative copywriting. I do all these things and try to find balance between them. If the popular, accepted definition of feminism is "embracing life and the rich tradition of women who nurture and take pride in doing so" then I suppose I can start calling myself a feminist because that is what I believe.
I think people try too hard to define feminism when really, I think all we need to do is be true to ourselves.
Posted by stella on 2005-01-31 23:58:05
Post Subject:
Stitch & Bitch isn't really my style, but i like that it's getting more people into knitting. i'm not a fan of all the size-35-needle-novelty-yarn stuff out there, but it's just not "me". if it makes people happy, that's great. i wish there were more men out there knitting. my dad is a knitter (he learned recently) but he's the only male knitter i know.
for me, knitting isn't any more about feminism than anything else i do. i knit because i love to, not because i think it's making a statement or it's trendy. in a sense, because i AM a feminist, everything i do is about feminism, but i guess that's a little philosophical.
here are your questions, answered:
If you knit, why did you start?
my grandma taught me to knit when i was 8, but i started again when i was 14 because i started spinning and i wanted to do something with the yarn.
Do you identify as a feminist?
yes.
What does knitting do for you? Why do you like it?
knitting is intuitive and meditative for me. i like knitted objects and i like knitting them. i like to connection to the women (and men) in the past who have knitted, and the connection to women's history.
How do you communicate with other knitters (knitting group, online forums like this, etc)?
my mom, dad, and sister knit. we have some knitting friends, but none are near my age. knitting isn't a social activity for me.
Why do you choose to connect in this way?
because i like to talk about knitting, but like i said, the act of knitting is not something i do socially.
Do you think knitting today is different than it was several generations ago? Does it serve a different function?
yes, it is different. mechanically, most of today's knitting is done at a larger gauge with thicker yarns. most people learn to knit because they want to, not because they have to to keep warm or make money. most people (at least in mainstream america) knit as a hobby. in the past, people *had* to knit sweaters and stockings, because they needed them to wear or it was part of their local economy. most knitters i see these days are more into making fun scarves than socks for daily wear.
Posted by Katrin on 2005-02-14 20:54:47
Post Subject:
How do women define 'feminist?'
I'll use the dictionary definition of "feminism": The theory fact of political, economic and social equality of the sexes.
What role does knitting play in a woman's life? What does it do for her?
Where "a woman" = "me", it plays the role of a creative outlet, one of many. I enjoy designing and making artistic objects that challenge my skills, express my personality, and are also practical.
Do most girls and women who take up knitting today do it with a "Stitch & Bitch" mentality (meaning associate it with girl power and feminism)?
No idea. Most of the people I know who have recently taken up knitting have done so because it's a creative pursuit that interests them. Its current resurgence in popularity has made it accessible to people who would enjoy and excel at it, but might never have thought to take it up otherwise.
Why does knitting suddenly have the cult following that it does? Or has it always been like this and I just didnt realize it until the past few years?
It goes in and out of fashion. I think it was out of style for an unusually long time (more than a generation) until recently, so fewer people remember the last time it was popular.
If you knit, why did you start?
My mother tried teaching me as a child, but I was too young - I grew up believing I was incapable of learning to knit. Still I wanted to do something like knitting and was searching for some substitute technique to produce similar results. Finally someone asked me, "Why don't you just learn to knit?" and so I asked my mother to teach me again.
Do you identify as a feminist?
Of course.
What does knitting do for you? Why do you like it?
See above - it's yet another creative outlet, a way to keep learning new skills and making unique objects that are both artistic and functional. I also like that it's portable and can be done almost anywhere
How do you communicate with other knitters (knitting group, online forums like this, etc)?
I've recently joined a knitting group. I've tried to start another group with some neighbors; we talk about it, but it's never gotten off the ground. I read knitting and craft forums regularly but am not as involved in them as some members are. Friends and coworkers have expressed interest in learning to knit also, and I look forward to the opportunity to help them.
Why do you choose to connect in this way?
Those are the ways I would connect with people for any activity or subject.
Do you think knitting today is different than it was several generations ago? Does it serve a different function?
The biggest difference is that now we don't need to knit. It's easier, faster and often cheaper to buy clothing than make our own, and so that makes knitting (and sewing, etc.) something of a status symbol. Knitters have not only a special skill, but also the time and money necessary to engage in it. It's fortunate that we have the choice to create our own clothing; if it were still a necessity, it would (paradoxically) probably be devalued as unimportant work, and the emphasis would be on producing more volume (drudgery) rather than on innovation and creativity.
Posted by fishfeet on 2005-02-01 13:28:43
Post Subject: Feminist knitters
Great topic for discussion. I myself am a relatively new knitter, but have crocheted for years. I think it is interesting that you bring up the relationship between knitting (and crafting in general) and feminism. Many of the "younger generation" knitting books address this phenomenom and refer to reclaiming knitting from being considered an anti feminist activity. I think it is also important to reclaim the word feminist, because I know many women (and men) who feel it has a negative conotation. Personally I define feminism as equality between the sexes, both economically and socially. To answer the rest of your questions:
What role does knitting play in a women's life?
- I think that knitting plays the role that any other hobby plays in peoples lives. It is something that interests them, gives them joy, it is a outlet of creativity and allows them to connect with others who enjoy the same activity.
Do most girls today take up knitting with the SnB mentality?
-I don't necessarily believe that girls take up knitting with the idea that it is a feminist thing to do, however I can't speak for most girls so I don't know what their motives are. For myself, as a relatively new knitter and a feminist, I did not take up knitting in order to reclaim the knitting as a feminist activity, I just like to do it.
Why does knitting have such a cult following?
- I definately think that the number of knitters has increased recently. There are many new yarn stores popping up, new books and magazines about the subject, etc. I don't know the exact reason, but I think that our societies wants and needs are cyclical. For example, after years of pre-packaged, preservative laden foods, people are starting to shift back to fresh, organic ingredients, and making their own food from scratch. I think the same is true with hobbies and crafts, people are knitting in order to find a way to cope with the rush rush lifestyle that everyone has grown accustomed to. I don't really know if this answers the question, but it is the only way I know how to explain it.
Why did I start knitting?
I actually learned to knit during a year I spent in a program called Americorps. For 10 months I was working with a group of other people on different volunteer projects. We traveled around the country and our accommodations were sparse. We didn't usually have a tv, and we didn't have access to a vehicle all of the time. In order to pass what little down time we did have many of the people in the program learned to knit and crochet. At the time it was a relatively inexpensive and portable hobby. During that time, I spent more time crocheting, mainly because it was easier for me (my mom had taught me years ago) but I just recently started knitting because of the versatility of the items you can create.
Do I identify as a feminist?
-yes
What does knitting do for me?
-I just really enjoy working with yarn and fibers, as well as the rhythmic motions of knitting and crocheting. It is relaxing as well as a way to do or make something. As a business student, I have very little opportunity throughout my day to actually make something with my hands, knitting gives me an outlet to do this.
Thanks for the discussion, and good luck on your thesis. I hope you get some valuable information that will assist in writing it.
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-12-26 13:12:35
Post Subject:
I guess "feminism" as a word still works because women still make up half (a little over half, I think) of the population. At the very least, you know, there should be equality in that. That's why, I THINK, "feminism" still does its job.
Whether or not feminists choose to take on other things (like racism, classism, etc) is up to them, but by confronting all the various forms of oppression, you are able to free women more and more.
I mean, if there's a lower class person of color being told by the government that if she gets married to some abusive asshole, she'll get more money, well-- maybe that's when more than one thing needs to be evaluated to further accomplish the goals of feminism.
The feminist movement had for a long time neglected to include gays, trans, etc, and for that, I think the movement suffered.
I do think there are certain things that define feminism, despite what some people might argue. I think you can definitely say a lot of feminism is about choice, but a lot of people have manipulated that into, "Oh, I CHOOSE to believe that getting a facelift and being skinny is my way of expressing feminism. I CHOOSE to barter sex for power with my husband."
If THAT'S feminism nowadays, then maybe a new word needs to be created because I'm not buying that (and a lot of women do, probably some reading this thread and getting highly irritated.)
I think it's a good question. And I was relieved when I saw it because I was like, "OH NO. Mindshare can't POSSIBLY be asking for definitions of feminism." And you weren't.
Posted by mindshare on 2004-12-26 10:57:16
Post Subject: the feminism question
This has been on my mind for quite a while, and the 'feminism and domesticity' thread has got me excited about you all and I'd love some insight on this...
My partner has been questioning feminism a lot lately -- not the concept, but the word. Don't get me wrong; he's not one of those assholes who says "I'm not a feminist because I'm for the equality of EVERYONE" or something ridiculous like that. He knows that's what feminism IS. But he was asking me if I thought it was still a valuable word, since feminism (in the 3rd wave anyway) is so broad and there's so much emphasis on class, ethnicity, etc., and not just gender. And that there's a lot of feminist study now that's more like gender study, and we're looking at masculinities more... and basically that what feminists seek to do is to get rid of oppression -- all kinds.
I said that even though yeah, that's true, the word feminism is still important because it acknowledges just WHO has been historically oppressed: women.
But I don't know. There's so much feminist writing now questioning the way we categorise people into male/female and nothing else. How the basis of oppression is us putting male and female in binary opposition to each other. So I'm wondering: even though 'feminism' acknowledges that it's women have been and are oppressed because they're women... does the term do us a disservice by keeping the focus on difference? I mean... where do trans people fit in? Or people who don't identify as any gender?
Hopefully that makes sense... maybe a lot of writing has been done on this already -- if so, please point me in the right direction.
Posted by ambelina on 2004-12-29 15:04:35
Post Subject:
In many ways, I think "third wave feminism" is a bit of a tricky concept, because giving it a name implies that there's a cohesive movement of "third-wave feminists," just like there's NOW and other groups that are about getting certain agendas across.
But I think "third wave feminism" is sort of a generic way of describing any number of individuals and groups who have not forgotten that people are treated differently, still, according to gender. Some 3rd-w-fems are claiming feminist power by making use and making claim to their sexual powers. Some 3rd-wavers are claiming feminist power by tearing open the gates of male-only institutions, like West Point or various gentlemen's clubs. Some 3rd-wavers are claiming feminist power by demanding respect for the work they do as wives and mothers, work that has traditionally assigned to them and devalued, but that they are now choosing and embracing and valuing. There are some 3rd-wavers who are trying to deal with gender issues by making things better for women AND men, to improve society by getting us past some of our gender hang-ups (not only can women be power execs, men can also make throw pillows, and men can marry men and women can marry women). Or fighting to get better birth control or a national daycare system or to get women to vote or run for office or study science.
So, I think it's easy to say "3rd-wave feminism" doesn't really mean ANYTHING if it means ALL those things, or that there's no such thing as a "(3rd-wave) feminist" anymore, because that's just one person or one small group that doesn't belong to a movement.
BUT I think the fact that there ARE so many people doing things or even thinking things with the basic premise that there's something unequal about genders means yes - there really are feminists. And maybe the term "3rd-wave feminism" isn't really a description of a particular, specific political or social or economic agenda, but it does indicate that there are people, and lots of them, who think that something should be done about gender inequality.
An "environmentalist" is someone who cares about the environment, but could also describe a lot of different agendas. Some environmentalists think that nuclear power is better than fossil fuel, some think that nuclear power is mankind's greatest horror. Same with many environmental issues like whether the forest service should allow some timber harvest or none at all, whether having windmills in an otherwise uninhabited area is good for the environment because it's a clean, renewable power source, or is bad, because it ruins the natural surroundings.
Still, I think "environmentalist" is a useful term - it describes people who are concerned with issues of our interaction with the natural world.
In the same way, I think "feminist" is still a useful term. I suppose you could argue that if it's issues of gender, you could argue that we should be called "genderists," though that sounds more like "gender-biased" or "racist." Maybe some of us ARE gender biased, but "feminism" includes, by its history, people who are also gender-conscious or gender-concerned. And, to be honest, most of the people who would identify as gender-conscious or gender-concerned ARE women or tran/bi/gay/other non-traditional gender. And for the numbers, I think it's safe to say, more women than anyone else.
Lots of men are involved, and women's studies has made some motion towards becoming "gender studies." Even Susan Faludi, who wrote Backlash, that great feminist tome, has now written Stiffed, about how men are being screwed by the gender roles we assign them and also by our society in general.
And I say, as a final, feminist, thought, that when enough men are interested in equal gender rights and gender issues, they'll come up with their own damned term to describe their struggles. All the guys who say "I'm not feminist because I want equal rights for everybody" are really saying "I'm not feminist because I don't care about gender issues" OR "I'm not feminist because I really do care about gender issues as a whole, and I'm part of a movement called _________ (gay pride? gender rights? gender equality?)" When enough have them have said it, they'll have a name for it.
In the meantime, I'm a feminist, and if it makes it easier for someone to analyze or write about in the newspaper, you can call me a "3rd-wave" feminist.
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-12-30 15:31:59
Post Subject:
Parel, you made some awesome points!
But!
ignoring previous mother/worker argument because, as a high school student, I have absolutely no experience in such
Just remember, that is something to keep in mind because one day you might find yourself a mother and a worker! Ha.
I'm only a college student, and I still think about these things. Granted, it usually goes hand-in-hand with an assigned reading in my textbook, but still.
Then again, I think it's true that a feminist might have, say,a beauty myth focus. I'm not even sure how I would classify my Feminist Focus. It seems like I'll be spreading myself too thin if I don't sort of follow some sort of thing. I guess I'm more concerned about the minutae of gender roles.
Like, I really really really really want to write about the fad in young women to embrace vulnerability and adopt it as part of their image. And I'm pretty sure that's pretty freaking socialized, so I think it could work.
Obviously, these divisions in feminism don't necessarily mean that feminist can't be united or that we need a new title for feminism or anything. Like I've said before, I do think there are some RULES to follow to be a feminist, or it does lose meaning.
Then again, it leads to the problem of how inclusive one might want the word to be. I really don't care about including people who don't support the goals of feminism, and if someone is scared of self-labeling herself (or himself) with such a strong word, there's nothing I can do about it. Still, I do try to find a way of explaining feminism so that people become acutely aware of it's importance in society.
Posted by kazoogrrl on 2004-12-30 18:13:20
Post Subject:
boheme-anne:
"I sometimes find it hard to follow feminism-and so I rarely classify myself as a feminist.
Personally I think it has to do with the fact that I do a lot of things and most young women don't do anymore because they are busy doing all the things feminist fight for. I enjoy being "the woman". I'm glad I'm the one that cooks in our house most of the time, I love to sew, I knit, I am artistic, "
Um, what? Because you're not a feminist, you have free time to knit, sew, cook and be artistic? I must have missed something, because I knit, sew, cook, am artistic, have a full time job, have an active social life, volunteer, do performances and I am a feminist fighting for feminist causes! This is pretty much the standard for the women I know - all of the feminist I am friends with (male and female) are active and productive people. They work, play, create, and fight for feminism and other caused they believe in.
"I long for the moment that I will be a mother-and a lot of times I get annoyed with the "I can be a single mother, a company CEO, and fix my car too!" kind of women I come in contact with."
Why? Because they are stating right out that they are going to succeed? Because they are not letting anyone tell them they can't do what they want? What about a single guy who said "I can be a single father, a company CEP and fix my car too!"? Do they annoy you? Are you saying women who refuse to play the traditional family game want children less than people who are fine with settling that kind of life?
" I don't want to say that I don't think it's possible or that I don't respect these women that fight for the kind of lives that give them genderless freedom. "
I wouldn't say we're fighting for a genderless freedom. I'd say where we're fighting for a world where your gender or sex does not matter - you are appreciated for who you are.
"I'm saying that a lot of times that same woman throws her children in daycare, feeds them McDonald's food, and barely has any social life. "
Uh, source? Facts? Back up? What about the stay at home mom's with partners who do all those things? What about the stay at home dad's who may or may not do that?
"I purposely want to do things the old fashioned way becuase I think some of these extreme changes in women's lives are causeing problems they don't always see. Once again, I don't want anyone to say I am against feminist, I just don't always agree with them. "
I'm sorry, what part of better pay, right to choose, right to vote, right to own property, ability to divorce, access to decent and affordable health care, access to decent and affordable education, stricter laws against sexual harrassment, domestic abuse and rape would would you say fall under"extreme changes in women's lives (that) are causing problems they don't always see." What exactly are these problems?
"Another example of how I feel is what my boss said to me the over day. He was talking about his son turning 18 and how he has to register for social service (I think that's what it's called, excuse me if it's not) within 3 days of his birthday. My boss wants to know why women don't have to do this. Why women want equal work/pay/lifestyle when they still don't have to register once they are 18. I didn't say anything, because I understand his point but deep down I don't think women should have to."
Actually, some feminists want the selective service to be for everyone, men and women. Some think selective service should be abolished (me!). Women are not drafted for the same reason that women are not at the frontlines in battle or why women cadets at military schools are still harassed - because people feel they are not fit for the rigeur and hardships and stress of the miltitary and army. Which is bullshit.
"Again, my torrid feelings about equality. But it's just my opinion! I have friends that are really into feminism though-my favorite point by my one friend has always been "when I get married the guy is taking my name!!!" I respect her feelings but I'm still glad to be Mrs. Hydro."
There is a lot more to feminism then taking or not taking someone's name.
________________
Posted by alterego on 2004-07-22 19:30:46
Post Subject:
That Nation article IS great. And incredibly depressing. I avoided writing in on the "feminism" thread because it seemed sort of like beating a dead horse--I mean, at this point, haven't we all agreed that feminism takes all kinds? That if you're a stay-at-home mom, you can still be a feminist. If you're a working girl, you can still be a feminist. If you choose to keep your name, feminist. If you'd never even consider buying into the whole marriage racket, feminist. And if you choose not only to get married but also to take your husband's name AND be a stay at home mom, guess what? You can still be a feminist.
But this article reminds me that I can't take it for granted that we're all on board with feminism. Pollitt's line about leaving the real world for "Mediaville, where it's always 1955" is really powerful and sickening. I'm sure this realization was sickening to the Deans, as well.
I guess I'm surrounded by too many like-minded people. It's always shocking to be confronted with just how many people hold views that are so different from mine, and how much power these people have.
And speaking of the role that potential first ladies have in their husband's campaign, have you guys seen this?
www.wketchup.com
Seems really lame, right? But you'd better believe that if the Heinz company was a Bush asset I'd be boycotting Heinz. Not that I buy Heinz products anyway, but still.
Posted by aubrigail on 2005-01-07 14:08:10
Post Subject:
Wow this thread puts so many thoughts in my head that I don't know where to start...
first of all, I think Feminism is still a useful word, but as it's grown to emcompass more issues and viewpoints, it's getting harder to define and view as a group. It's hard to say "Feminists want...." beyond equal rights because there are so many different issues (some of us want it to be easier to work outside of the home, some of us want to feel valued by society even if we decide that staying at home is what we want to do) which brings me to the other things I've been thinking about...
Just the other day I was remembering an Oprah show where working mothers and stay at home mothers were AT EACH OTHER'S THROATS...attacking each other (verbally/emotionally) and making generalizations...It was awful...and it got me thinking why in the HELL do we do this? and it seems to happen a lot (even seems to be happening here to some degree)
It's like either way you lose...if you stay at home, you're undervalued for the work you do, some people will assume that you're stupid (I have a very intelligent friend who battles this) and some people will generalize that you're lazy or rolling back the feminist movement...
and then if you work, you don't get to see your kids as much as you'd like, you may get attacked for being "selfish" or not being a good enough mother, some people may try to make you feel guilty...
and then after we've all been sufficiently beaten up over our choices (or circumstances) then all that societal crap spills out and we turn it on each other. I don't know what we can do about it other than put ourselves in other people's shoes...yeah its not right to assume the working mothers feed their kids only junk food, but how much crap has Boheme-Anne gotten for choosing to stay at home? Is she reluctant to call herself a feminist because she's had feminists tell her that she's made the wrong decision? Or that she feels like feminism doesn't really include her because she enjoys taking on a more "traditional" role?
I just think there's someting wrong when women don't feel like they can call themselves feminists, because as women we should all feel comforatble using that term to describe ourselves because for me at least, Feminism means believeing in the equality to live the life I choose and do what I want (bake cakes or play football or run a huge company)
Really, equal pay and all are important issues, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere until women stop cutting each other down (whether or not it's happening here, it is DEFINITELY happening in the real world) and start valuing each other and recognizing the challenges that we share regardless of whether we're working or staying at home or having children or not having children or cooking wonderful meals or living on Ramen....
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-07-07 16:50:37
Post Subject:
The reason politics and feminism and all things in between are discussed at this site is because I think we're trying to dispel the notion that only certain kind of women craft. You can love your husband, be a stay-at-home Mom, volunteer for Planned Parenthood, and knit scarves. All in one. And discussing the politics behind that is important.
Also, the craft forum gets a lot of traffic, and it's very insighftul, as each forum is, IMO. I just like feeling like I'm not alone in my desire to, say, vote for Kerry as well as knit a scarf because I'm going to be living in a colder place come fall. I've never been of the opinion that I can't get along with someone who votes differently than me, as long as we can do that whole business of "agreeing to disagree".
Posted by Snufkin on 2004-07-07 17:54:24
Post Subject:
I really don't think it is "politics" that is to blame, but shutting down and a lack of willingness to *really* listen to/respond to what other people are saying.
Right on Xuli! I'm happy to intelligently and respectfully discuss politics. But I've had a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum accuse me of being mean/eltist or flaming them when I disagree with them. Rather than just coming back and saying "You're entitled to your opinion but I don't agree and here's why." Which has less to do with politics and more to do with lacking the conviction of their beliefs to articulate them and feel comfortable with other people not sharing them.
And maize, brgt's right - the freestyle board is all about non-craft related topics, such as feminism and politics. If you're not comfortable here, there's plenty of other sites like Craftster which don't veer from the topics of crafts.
Posted by xuli on 2005-03-01 14:10:56
Post Subject:
i sort of see the 4th wave (if it happens) as being a rejection of the anything goes angle of the third wave while incorporating the concept that anyone can be a feminist and judging less on appearnaces, bringing back the legal issues from the second wave, and adding in some new ideas as well.
Like Soapandwater, I love this.
I guess something I was thinking about with this whole discussion is -- when does feminism lose it's "about"-ness? Feminism, to me, has always been a movement grounded in combatting the oppression of women. So if women are gathering to oppose the war, or gathering to knit, or gathering for any other purpose I agree with, I don't necessarily think that by definition it's feminist just because they're women doing something I (as a feminist) approve of. Does that make sense? It's feminist if it's about combatting women's oppression -- whether men do it, whether women do it, whether transgendered or nongendered people do it. And conversely, something isn't inherently feminist just because women do it and its leftist or cool or interesting.
Moreover, I worry a bit about representations of feminism (like, perhaps, the Utne article? though I haven't read it so I don't know) that depict feminism as being in "crisis" and needing some "new ideas" to liven it up. I've been a feminist all my life. My partner is a feminist. Many of the people I feel closest to are feminists. Everything I do on a daily basis, the choices I make, are grounded in my feminist ideals, in that I try always to make choices that will not put me, a white bisexual Anglo North American educated woman, in the position of oppressing other women (whether that be on the basis of nationality, class, language, race, sexuality or even gender). So, you know, I don't see a crisis happening in feminism. I see feminism as something that has suffered from the same things as a lot of social movements -- the increasing co-optation and subversion of the organized right wing -- but I don't see it as something that is losing its relevance or importance.
And I'm sorry if I alienated anyone with my "scholarly" vocabulary. I wanted to say that all of the foundational texts and writings of feminism were written outside of academia, and are grounded in women's concrete experience, and I don't think the fact that these texts are now studied in academia really takes away from the fact that they are, fundamentally, about women and women's experience and women's oppression. Feminism plays a huge role in my scholarly practice, it's true, but only to the extent that it plays a huge role in the way I live my life in general.
Posted by xuli on 2005-02-28 16:52:58
Post Subject:
Hmmmm. Great topic, Athos! Thanks for posting. I don't subscribe to The Utne Reader, so I didn't see the article and wasn't able to read the whole thing. I'll check to see if the library has it next time I'm there so maybe I can read the whole thing.
I have to admit the first paragraph of the article makes me wary. I worry about any kind of feminism that posits women as "essentially" or "fundamentally" linked to peace, or somehow more peaceful than men ... which is where it kind of sounded like this article was going, based on that first paragraph. As a feminist, I'm wary of any ideology that ascribes certain fundamental, essential characteristics to women (and, by extension, certain fundamental, essential characteristics to men), even if that ideology is coming from another feminist.
I also have to say that the following quote makes me uneasy:
As women assembled near the pyramids in Egypt and held potluck dinners in Alaska, staged candlelight vigils and other rituals in countries around the world, it confirmed Schaaf's gut instinct that an untapped reserve of energy "lies like oil beneath the common ground the women share."
I worry about any kind of feminism that tries to over-emphasize women's "common ground" and erase the important distinctions *between* women ... like the fact that those women assembling near the pyramids in Egypt live in a part of the world that is being torn up and invaded constantly by the government that those women holding potluck dinners in Alaska pay taxes to. That some of those women in Alaska probably drive SUVs, contributing to the worldwide energy shortage that is creating wars in places very close to where the Egyptian women are gathering.
In the early 1980's there was an important critique of 2nd-wave feminism from women of color and women from outside the US -- namely, that by ignoring these distinctions between women, and the ways in which women oppress other women, they were creating a movement that was not inclusive and not based on the liberation of all women. Having read only the first paragraph of this article, I fear that it's going down that same path.
Really, though, I need to read the rest of the article before I comment any further, because maybe it's going in an entirely different direction.
Also, why does feminism have to have all these "waves"? This isn't directed at you, Athos, or at the article ... it's just kind of a general gripe I have with the way feminism is presented. I use the "wave" vocabulary myself all the time (like in the paragraphs above), but I find it weird. I mean, Marxists are all just Marxists, even though different Marxists have very different approaches, you know? Pacifists are all just pacifists. Environmentalists are all just environmentalists. I worry sometimes that the "wave" vocabulary in feminism breaks up our connectedness to each other -- even though I can critique the racism and classism of 2nd-wave feminism, for instance, I still owe a huge debt to them for my reproductive freedom, my lack of overt employment discrimmination, etc. I am, in many ways, connected to them, even though I'm trying to build on what they started and improve on it. The vocabulary of "waves" seems to me sometimes to de-emphasize these connections among feminists and de-emphasize the fact that we are all in dialogue and working for the same things, even when we disagree.
Posted by amygdala on 2005-03-01 13:43:36
Post Subject:
I'm really bothered by a lot of this (though since I don't subscribe to Utne, I'm basing my thoughts on the excerpts and descriptions that have been posted here).
First, I just do not believe that women are somehow innately more peaceful or nurturing. I'm not so convined that had women been running the world for the last millenium there would have been fewer wars or anything. I think it more power itself that is responsible for much of the warring and conflict rather than who wields the power. We have all seen examples of the cruelty that women treat each other with in our own lives (at least, I have). Maybe the specific wars would have been different but the idea that somwhow, if the world were run by women it would automatically be a clamer, more loving place just has no resonance with me.
Maybe I am coming at this from the wrong perspective. I guess I don't think I'm any less likely to start a war just because I have ovaries. The part of the Gather the Women statement about "As women we bring life forward. We are in touch with the cycles of life" to me is just continuing to put forth the anatomy/destiny view that I just do not agree with.
As for the religious aspect, my faith informs a lot of my feminism (I love Lilith, for example). But I totally disagree with the idea that somehow feminism has to get religious/spiritual to survive or to progress. I don't think people who are atheist or agnostic or just not spiritual should be excluded from feminism, and frankly even if it isn't "religious" per se, the New Age-y stuff totally and completely turns me off.
As for where does feminism fit, politically...I'm not sure. Obviously the women most mentioned in Presidential terms are Condi and Hillary, niether of whom is "traditionally feminine" at all. Especially Condi. I actually think she'd have a tough time getting elected, since she's never been married or had kids and those things are still viewed as essential to womanhood in some quarters. And Hillary already has a lot of people with a negative opinion of her. So I don't think we'll have a viable female candidate for a bit. I think political feminism still has a lot to do in this country. Feminism seems to be really tied to choice right now, and while I think that choice is a huge (and a feminist) issue, I think there is a lot beyond that that needs attention. Things like childcare and birth control and the environment and employment discrimination are still real issues that I feel have been neglected lately, probably because of the ideology of those currently in power.
I don't know. I'm only 24, but most of the third-wave stuff I've read doesn't work for me. I guess I'm more second-wave because I tend to focus more on the sort of legalistic feminist goals, but that doesn't always mesh with me either. I'm not sure what exactly I want out of a fourth wave, but a spiritual emphasis on the nurturing and interconnected-ness of every single woman isn't it.
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-07-19 19:33:19
Post Subject:
I love magazines that discuss feminism and all its viewpoints. Bitch is my favorite magazine because it seems to cover all the little differences and viewpoints, if you're paying attention, but it has established what feminism is.
In fact, it's easier, and more positive, to establish what feminism is rather than what it isn't.
I think that people could argue on and on if stiletto heels are feminist or not, but it wouldn't do anything for the movement. Even such topics as the sex industry and its relation to feminism can be argued, causing people to come up with different, or often vague or confused, opinions. That still doesn't take away what feminism is.
Posted by Athos on 2005-02-28 17:23:49
Post Subject:
i'm so hoping that whatever the 4th wave is, that a major component is, as my roommate would say, less myopia - more understanding about women on an international scope, and how as xuli points out, how absolutely connected our choices here are to the freedoms women enjoy or are denied all over the world.
i don't mind the "waves" - though many times it made me feel lost. like i'm not part of the third wave, and that's what's out there now, so there is no feminism for me. to take the image futher, i like how there's the ocean, which is all we have in common, and periodically things shift to gather momentum for a wave.
i guess i'm bringing all of this up because international women's day is approaching, because of the UN anti-abortion resolutions, and other anti-women rhetoric i've seen latey (esp that coming from the vatican).
many times posters on this board have said that conscious living/DIY is a feminist value. how does that fit in with any fourth wave?
also what interests me is that considering so much *positive* social change has been begun by people of faith, like the civil rights movement, the possibilty of tremendous change by women of faith really excites me. a little OT, but just think what would happen if all of the US women who defined themselves as christian suddenly because politically involved in creating a society with more christian values of forgiveness, care for the hungry, etc. i see so much negativity associated with extremist religions, that it really interests me to imagine the future with the liberal faithful.
wasn't part of the problem with the past elections that democrats ceded to republicans all of the control over god and faith? how will feminism affect that? how will feminism change if church-going women from republican states begin to see feminism as something they can and want to identify with?
Posted by xuli on 2005-02-28 17:52:34
Post Subject:
i like how there's the ocean, which is all we have in common, and periodically things shift to gather momentum for a wave.
I like that image -- makes me feel better about not being able to escape the "wave" vocabulary.
what interests me is that considering so much *positive* social change has been begun by people of faith, like the civil rights movement, the possibilty of tremendous change by women of faith really excites me.
wasn't part of the problem with the past elections that democrats ceded to republicans all of the control over god and faith? how will feminism affect that? how will feminism change if church-going women from republican states begin to see feminism as something they can and want to identify with?
Your train of thought here is really exciting. (And totally different from what I got out of that one paragraph of the Utne article, so I really hope my library has it so I can take a look!)
I have a long history of struggling with religion, and whether I'm religious or not, but one thing I definitely think is true is that it is very hard to have a movement for social change without some form of moral commitment to an idea of right and wrong. And I struggle often with the fact that I do believe in moral commitments, in right and wrong, but I'm also in an academic program where the idea of moral commitments is often greeted with a lot of skepticism, and where an idea of relativism prevails. I'm very interested right now in finding theoretical perspectives grounded in moral commitment -- grounded in the willingness to say, "I believe this" -- grounded in a commitment to creating a more just social order (rather than just endless questioning about what "justice" means, or "truth", etc.)
I am excited by the idea of a feminism that would seek to go beyond a sort of postmodern "anything goes" attitude (which I think a lot of so-called third wave feminisms have fallen into) and moves into a more rigorous questioning of what are the implicit moral commitments that all of us have, whether we acknowledge them or not, and what do they mean and how are they affecting the world. And I think that sort of thing is in line with what you're talking about here, and I find it very exciting.
Posted by nervy on 2004-07-21 16:02:52
Post Subject:
Everyone has provided such great answers about what feminism is that I'm not sure what to add, aside my personal experiences being a girl and finding my feminism.
I'm 24 and was raised with "Girls can do anything" posters on my walls and pants 'n' suspenders (not frilly dresses) in my closet. I was a huge tomboy as a toddler and just a general brainiac/dork throughout grade school. Then I got to high school and suddenly decided I had to be "pretty" and "popular" and "girly." I would read magazines like YM and Seventeen, desperately devouring tips on how to apply eyeliner (I still can't do it) and transform myself to pick up boys (it turns out, some boys like brainiacs). It was confusing time for me. I felt like my breasts were too small, my brain was too big, and I'd be a total failure if I didn't find a boyfriend. Any budding politics I had took a backseat to being "normal" for a few years. And then I realized it was all a bunch of crapola.
It's great to be a girl/woman, but it's important to do it on your own terms. Feminism helped me figure out what my own terms were, what I believed in, and how important it is to be empowered -- not to just wait around for someone to give you power, but rather to grab hold of it yourself.
I'm not sure how old the crafter who started this thread is, but you identified yourself as a "youngun" so I'm going to guess that you're teenage-ish. It's a great time to figure out your personal politics and to see what feminism means to you.
I publish a feminist teen magazine in Canada called Shameless. Check out our website if you'd like: www.shamelessmag.com. We're not available in American stores, sadly, but if you're interested, we sell subscriptions. And if you're not interested, that's totally cool too. Just a heads-up.
Venus is a U.S.-based feminist-friendly mag you might want to check out too (as well as Bitch, which I worship). Big focus on music and DIY culture.
Posted by eixmi on 2006-02-07 06:41:24
Post Subject:
I'm so glad you posted that, anthrogirl, because the unqualified praise I've heard for her since her death (which I guess isn't that unusual) has been worrying me. I've never read The Feminine Mystique, but I've read a lot of criticism of it and I've never seen Betty Friedan as one of the great heroes of Women's Liberation. She was the epitome of middle-of-the-road liberalism.
There's a good obituary by Sheila Rowbotham in The Guardian, and an interesting follow-up piece with reactions from the Big Names in feminism.
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-02-20 18:04:32
Post Subject:
I'll do a bit of the heavy lifting on feminism, artgeek. Feel free to pitch in.
I was taught to craft by my parents, who often made things with their own hands. My father built and upholstered two bars and made the bookshelves in our living room, and my mother sewed in the early days before working outside the home for long hours kept her busy. She still cooked quite a bit though, and that was her means of self-expression. She made clothes for one of my Barbies once. I started making things fairly young, too, and as a teenager I took up things like embroidery. I have a sampler I made for my grandmother hanging in my apartment.
My dad treated barbequeing like a craft too, and he did gardening. He was very proud of his roses, and he knew how to do basic plumbing and cement pouring. He taught me how to make toys out of wood and paper. I watched him build slot cars from kits, and do wiring around the house. However, my father made it clear that his kind of crafting wasn't for girls, which disappointed me- I sometimes wonder if in an alternative universe I'm not a furniture maker. But even though I wasn't encouraged to do certain things, I found my own way through cooking, papercraft, and other things. My parents were always finding me doing something like drawing or coloring.
Up until recently, crafting was for me mostly decorative. And then I started realizing that some of the scarves I saw in stores looked easy to make. That's when I took up crochet.
Is crochet feminist for me? Well, yes. I'm approaching it the same way I approach cooking or plumbing- learning the basics in detail and then going freestyle as I gain more confidence. I used to feel somewhat ashamed of my love for crafting, and I hardly ever finished projects, because they seemed too 'girly'. But when I make useful things, I feel more competent and fulfilled. It's an expression of my womanhood, and it connects me to all the women on both sides of my family who have made beautiful things for themselves and their families. By extension it also connects me to every other woman who has found self-expression. Doing it this way instead of through carpentry or plumbing is a reclamation- these activities do matter, even if men like my father pooh-pooh them, as he did with my mother's sewing and my my embroidery. I cannot express how happy it makes me. When I crochet, my heart lifts up. The only things better than crochet would be writing and cooking.
Posted by soapandwater on 2005-03-01 11:04:25
Post Subject:
I think the key here is not to let some speculation about the rising waves of feminism dictate what we do or not do.
The way I see it, I'm going to pretty much disregard the trends in feminism if I see them at all counter-productive, and I hope other feminists would do the same.
My big thing that I like to do (which irritates a lot of people) is say when something is NOT feminist because I think right now we have a skewed idea of what feminism is.
I think the third wave and second wave could really merge and create something really great. I also think certainly religiouns need serious rethinking because if a woman is being dictated by her faith, how can we possibly expect her to start breaking the mold?
That's a problem.
I see this as an opportunity to redefine how we see the dominant (and not so dominant) religions and say, "Okay, let's just say that maybe the Bible was severely wrong in its translation. Let's say that maybe women are a hell of a lot more important than just being one thing or another."
Think of all the backlash in speculating about whether or not Mary Magdalene was more than what the Bible said (Sorry to use Christianity as an example, but it's the only one I know; just know that it's an example)?
We need to reexplore history and spirituality, and we need to come to better conclusions about the role women have played. Religion doesn't need to be this scary, imprisoning thing, but it is right now.
It's one thing to be a person of no faith because you've logically come to that conclusion. It's another to feel alienated because you're a woman or hold certain beliefs that you feel are your morals that you won't compromise.
This is a very scattered post, but I think that whether or not we slap "fourth wave" over this sort of movement, I do think, somewhere along the lines, this needs to happen. I think certain religions hold women down, which is odd, considering how a good deal of religions I have common knowledge of seem to promote feminist ideals at some point.
Posted by honeybee on 2005-03-01 12:46:54
Post Subject:
But I am nervous that, in the past, the version of 'feminism' this brings forward is not a liberal feminism. For example, the bit of the article that honeybee cites - that women being outsiders from the authority positions in institutions is really a good thing because then they don't have to follow protocol - makes me terribly nervous. What does this leave women free to do exactly? Make subtle suggestions to their husbands while serving him dinner?
i interpreted this differently-the way i see it is that the people outside of the mainstream institutions don't have to hedge their words and follow the antiquated constructs dictated by these institutions; rather, they can speak and act freely, and in doing so, garner more attention with their stronger and more radical ideas. work for change from the outside in, if you will.
and i also get a different impression about the faith of the women in these gatherings. perhaps i'm projecting my own loose medley of paganbuddistagnosticism, but i don't see where christianity is the loudest voice of the group in the article. (then again, i don't think 'god' when i read 'divine source'- it sounds to me like a more inclusive term that isn't limited to one form of religion). i, too, balk at the word religion, but the term spirituality has a much different feel to me and that's the word that stands out in my mind after reading the article in utne.
slight tangent- i was not, as many of you have been, formally schooled in feminism-i didn't take women's studies courses, and my attitude toward most feminist literature is similar to my attitude towards art- i feel more comfortable coming to my own conclusions and adopting styles and beliefs that feel most natural to me, rather than going on what the masters or experts dictate. also, i was not raised by a self-proclaimed feminist, though, when i was young, my mother always made sure i knew i could be anything i wanted and that boys and girls were equal. that, in addition to being lucky enough to not have encountered discrimination based on my sex have lead me to take my rights as a woman for granted. i guess my point is that sometimes i feel devalued by scholarly feminists and a bit out-of-the-loop with all the talk of second wave, third wave, etc, especially when i speak of my values as a woman who is in touch with my innate connection to the cycles of nature and the wonders of carrying, birthing, and nurturing another being. these are primarily feminine qualities and abilities, and to hear dissent over my feelings and beliefs is sometimes frustrating.
/end tangent (for now ;). and i'm getting a lot from this discussion.
and there are more points i wanted to address, but i don't feel like a megapost right now.
Posted by xuli on 2005-03-01 11:20:35
Post Subject:
Wow, so much to think about! I'm so glad this thread is getting so many responses! I love me some intellectual debate about feminism! Woo hoo!
the utne article also says'
"When you get Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, and Sufi women in the same room...another religion emerges, which is feminine spirituality." i think that with all the strife in the world that is a direct result of religious difference, it's key to find ways to erase boundaries between faiths and find common ground in spiritual practice. if women are going to lead the way, all the better.
The sticky issue I have with this is the same sticky issue I have with the quote from the article that essentially equalizes Egyptian women with women from Alaska -- where's the attention to the fact that there are material power differences here, and how does "erasing boundaries" also erase the attention that needs to be paid to a history of oppression. Erasing boundaries is easy to do when you're in the hegemonic position. (Which, Honeybee, I'm pretty sure you don't identify as Christian, and I don't either, but I'm thinking more in terms of the people who started this organization, who from what I gather were from the US, which makes me assume that they were raised in one of the hegemonic forms of monotheism dominating the globe right now, even if they don't subscribe to that now.)
i know i'll probably get flamed for being unfeminist by saying this, but i feel that women have something very powerful to offer in bringing about the peace process- something which centuries of patriarchal, violent society has lacked and desperately needs.
Well, I won't flame you, but I will vehemently disagree with you. (And actually, your position is one that is very in line with radical-cultural feminism -- which was quite prevalent in the 1970s/early 80s-- so I won't even call you unfeminist, I'll just mention that you're subscribing to a brand of feminism I don't agree with.) I think it has nothing to do with women inherently possessing certain qualities, but with women possessing perspectives -- like any underrepresented, oppressed group -- that haven't been historically acknowledged. But Slowgraffiti220 put it much better than I can:
i think that bringing more women and women's experiences to the table in the political arena would help bring some trad. feminine values into the spotlight, and that overall it would be a good thing...but i primarily think that it would be good not because of some innate differences between men and women (i.e. women bring the yin to the men's yang or something to that effect), but just because of the inclusion of people, who as of now, experience the world and social forces in very different ways and from different perspectives. this is the same reason i want to see more "minorities" of all sorts in the political arena though.
I think where I want to do some more thinking now is on this question of the role of faith in activism, which is really interesting to me. I really like the points that Kindarana, Ada and Slowgraffiti220 all brought up; at the same time, I do continue to stand by what I said earlier about activism needing to be rooted in some kind of moral commitment. Maybe it's just my particular social location -- in academia, in literary theory no less, where any statement on behalf of something "just" or "true" or "right" brings out endless questionings of the terms and ultimately results in a lot of paralysis (I have very few role models who are both activist and academic) -- but I'm really interested in finding a way to make moral commitments (not necessarily faith-based, but not necessarily excluding faith either) in a way that's not naive or exclusionary. I don't know how possible it really is, but I guess that's where I am now.
And it's interesting -- I really love Athos's interpretation of the Utne article, but not so much the snippets of the article I've read or the bits from the Gather the Women website that Ada posted. Hmmm -- I'm not sure what to do with that. I guess it just speaks to the value of discussion, and getting others' perspectives on interpreting things. I could read the article tomorrow, decide the whole thing is hogwash, and still feel like it was valuable to me simply because what mattered in the end was a particular interpretation of the article.
Posted by stella on 2004-12-26 14:27:07
Post Subject:
to me, breaking feminism into sects, or complaining about the work for not itself being more inclusive, is just damaging to the overall reason feminism needs ro exist.
i'm not a person who spells "human" differently because it has the word "man" contained in it, but i really think that solidarity is more important than choice of words.
Posted by Parel on 2004-12-30 13:50:18
Post Subject:
While we're being divisional, I'll come out of hiding and declare myself a feminist of the beauty myth strain (ignoring previous mother/worker argument because, as a high school student, I have absolutely no experience in such).
I think that it is considered unglamorous to be a feminist these days, which is (as you know) dumb because feminism is just about righting wrongs-- which seems simple until we consider that there are so many wrongs which still need to be righted (namely the way we're relegated to working to be beautiful while we're also expected to work in the workplace and in the home-- also sexual harrassment in the workplace, but let's move on a bit).
Some people argue that we're righting the wrongs too much. They might cite men's college sports teams that have been cut as a result of Title IX.
"Women don't need that sort of law these days," they say. "Women have equality." Yes, well, Title IX is still not being followed (in re proportionate funding), and would there be nearly as many school sports teams for women without that sort of incitement? What would have been the impetus for funding of teams which would allegedly not have been as popular or brought in as much money as men's teams?
And I've gotten entirely off topic, but here goes the crux:
Feminism is still relevant, and we can focus on whatever aspects we like, but we have to be willing to be classified as feminists. The moment that we dismiss or abuse the label or even concentrate too much on it, we acknowledge the shame that some place on being a "feminist" in the same way that some place shame on the "gay" or "single, unmarried mother" or "atheist."
We have to right those damned wrongs.
Posted by boheme-anne on 2004-12-29 21:17:31
Post Subject:
I sometimes find it hard to follow feminism-and so I rarely classify myself as a feminist.
Personally I think it has to do with the fact that I do a lot of things and most young women don't do anymore because they are busy doing all the things feminist fight for. I enjoy being "the woman". I'm glad I'm the one that cooks in our house most of the time, I love to sew, I knit, I am artistic, I long for the moment that I will be a mother-and a lot of times I get annoyed with the "I can be a single mother, a company CEO, and fix my car too!" kind of women I come in contact with. I don't want to say that I don't think it's possible or that I don't respect these women that fight for the kind of lives that give them genderless freedom. I'm saying that a lot of times that same woman throws her children in daycare, feeds them McDonald's food, and barely has any social life. I purposely want to do things the old fashioned way becuase I think some of these extreme changes in women's lives are causeing problems they don't always see. Once again, I don't want anyone to say I am against feminist, I just don't always agree with them.
Another example of how I feel is what my boss said to me the over day. He was talking about his son turning 18 and how he has to register for social service (I think that's what it's called, excuse me if it's not) within 3 days of his birthday. My boss wants to know why women don't have to do this. Why women want equal work/pay/lifestyle when they still don't have to register once they are 18. I didn't say anything, because I understand his point but deep down I don't think women should have to. Again, my torrid feelings about equality. But it's just my opinion! I have friends that are really into feminism though-my favorite point by my one friend has always been "when I get married the guy is taking my name!!!" I respect her feelings but I'm still glad to be Mrs. Hydro.
Posted by ambelina on 2004-12-30 14:35:45
Post Subject:
Parel, don't go into hiding! Flaunt your fabulous feminist self!
Nice point about Title 9, too. I think we'll have to keep it in place for a loooong time to get to the point where the demand of parents and students and spectators and sponsors keeps it going without legal backup.
As for gender issues, I may have mentioned it in my earlier post, but I so highly recommend this book, I'll say it again:
Stiffed, by Susan Faludi
It looks huge, but it's a total page turner. Really, the crux of it is how gender stereotyping screws us all. It's not a pity party for men, but you get this sense of incredulousness with the author at how screwed up the gender roles are and why they're worth fighting.
As for the concept of being happy to be a mother, I say yea! celebrate it! But don't make that the end of your feminism - it can be a positive feminist action to embrace this traditionally female role, but it IS a privilege, and made possible by so many men and women who go out and do things to earn money to pay for it. Not to mention the men and women who are out there building cars and houses and airplanes and trucking the groceries to the store and the trash to the dump and printing the books for the schools and teaching the students.
Unless you think we should all live on self-sufficient communes with no industrially produced goods, there has to be a place for all of these people, too. And there's no reason that the ones at home taking care of the kids have to be women and the ones out building the airplanes have to be men. Sure, we got milk, but higher levels of testosterone and a penis do NOT make men uninterested or uncapable of raising children. Really.
Many of us suspect that we care more about this than the guys, because we're the ones who have been ridiculed and relegated for so long. Hence, "feminism" not "gender equalism."
For the record, I do enjoy sometimes embracing "traditional femininity," and I sometimes enjoy men who are embracing "traditional masculinity," so I don't think we have to do away with these things, but maybe make them a little less traditional, a little more optional, and a little more open. And maybe give the "traditionally feminine" a better rep and more respect.
Posted by xuli on 2005-01-09 14:38:16
Post Subject:
And I'm interested in hearing what you think about this -- what does being a woman mean? Does it mean anything?
I just wanted to chime in and say I've been following this thread avidly and haven't responded yet because I've been trying to think of how to say everything I want to say, and it's just really daunting.
The feminism threads are the most difficult ones for me to respond to, always, because feminism is so very important to me (so very, very important) that talking about it -- especially in a format like this -- can sometimes seem overwhelming.
But in response to that question, I wanted to mention something that was a pivotal moment for me in a graduate course I took on feminist theory last fall. We were discussing the (now-canonized) difference that feminists emphasize between sex (ie, the biological characteristics that distinguish men from women) and gender (the social and cultural ways that those biological differences are interpreted, so that women are thought to be "this way" and men are thought to be "that way"). We then discussed the fact that a lot of feminist theory has focused on the fact that there will always be sex (ie, penises and vaginas, etc), but that we can get rid of gender (ie, the fact that it means certain things in a culture to be a man versus being a woman).
And then my professor asked, "Do you all want to get rid of gender? Because I don't know if I do." And I suddenly realized that I really don't know either. There is so much about myself that I love that is intimately tied to the way I've been gendered in this world, the way that my identity is inextricably linked to some form of the way I've interpreted being a "woman," and I really don't know how getting rid of that would impact my identity and my way of being in the world. More importantly, I don't know if getting rid of gender entirely would even lead to a more socially-just world.
Certainly, I want to get rid of the power differences that are attached to being "men" or "women." Do we have to get rid of those categories in order to get rid of those power differences? I don't know. Do we want to get rid of those categories if we can get rid of the power differences without getting rid of the categories? I don't know.
Posted by Snufkin on 2004-12-30 15:10:01
Post Subject:
Which brings up another point: it's all well and good for some women to stay home and take care of their kids, but it is a privilege to be able to do so, and don't forget that.
Thank you for pointing this out soapandwater! I once had an old neighbor of mine who came from a very wealthy, very upper class family in Colombia lecture me about how feminism had brainwashed American women into going into the workforce and thus causing the downfall of the nuclear family. My response was to start asking him about his family and who did what around the house, like minding the kids, cooking, cleaning, yardwork, etc. When he started talking about how all of that was done by servants, I asked him if that meant that the women who were working for his family as nannys, housekeepers, cooks etc were feminists and were damaging the family structure in his country by working. His response was "Well, they're very poor and they have to work to support their families or the rural communities that they come from."
In that situation, I think there was a bit of a double standard in play. If you come from a lower socio-economic background (which can also mean a different racial background), people don't argue about staying at home versus working. I know that it always boggles my mind to hear the argument because women have always worked in my family. Not because they were committed to some crazy feminist ideology. They were poor and had to work to put food on the table. Sometimes without a second income from a spouse who'd either died or abandoned them. My father is actually the person who taught me that regardless of becoming a wife and mother, I would need to be financially self sufficient. Because he spent his childhood watching his sisters having to support their families after their husbands ran off. And he almost ended up homeless because my grandfather died and left my grandmother destitute. The women in his family didn't make a "choice" to work, it was survival.
So to hear somebody go on about feminism meaning women have to work and not supporting stay at home moms drives me nuts. Too me, it sounds like the same old bullshit of devaluing women's work -regardless of whether it's staying at home to raise a family or having to earn the income to support them. And with my Columbian friend, it just sounds like there's some classist assumptions as well.
Posted by amelia on 2005-01-02 21:24:07
Post Subject:
ETA: Sorry this was so long!! I just sort of took off on the keyboard.
As for kazogrrl, look, if you don't like that I don't agree with some of the things feminist friends of mine say and do that's tough (and notice I refer to them as friends). Freedom of speech still is a women's right, no? And I'm exercising my rights now!
Wow, that is completely unfair to kazoogirl. You can express your opinion but she can't?!?! She has freedom of speech too, I'd like to point out, and was expressing it by disagreeing with you. She never attacked you. And for the record, nothing I say below is an attack on you either. It's me expressing my opinion on what you've written.
Anywho, another non-fem quote was brought to my attention this time from my 63 year old aunt. Her and some former next door neighbors of mine were talking about car insurance for the neighbor's niece who is in college. Since my aunt is a retired insurance agent, she snapped "well if it wasn't for all the women screaming for equality young girl's insurance wouldn't be so damn high. They wanted equal rights, now they pay as much as the reckless young men drivers even though most girls's driving is much better".
I honestly don't understand this. Girls can drive just as shittily as boys, and if you don't believe me, sit outside any high school after the last bell. That's why their insurance rates went up, or maybe I must have missed Gloria Steinem's call for an equalization of insurance rates against women's favor.
To what I say, and I know I'm getting attacked for this, women shouldn't be doing that job. If a woman can't lift over 30 pounds, she needs a different job that she won't have too. If it means settling for a less paying job, so be it. It's not fair for a man to do his job, and a woman's job in the same position and get paid the same amount of money. If you can't do what's in the job description, get a grip and realize you have to make another choice.
You know, I don't think anyone here is going to disagree with you. I do think, however, that it's an old stereotype that women are weak and can't lift as much as men. I have a friend who's 5'1'' and maybe 115 lbs, and she worked in a heavy truck parts shop and regularly lifted very, very heavy items. I worked for a shipping company and I can lift 70 lbs, and so could every single other woman who worked there who's job required it. Company policy was that if it was over 70 lbs, two people had to lift it, and that policy applied to every one, male and female. So no, if a woman can't lift 30 lbs in a job that requires her to do so, then she shouldn't be there. But female frailty is a myth.
Sewing on buttons or changing a diaper is not the standard by which all women are measured, nor should it be. Neither is running a Fortune 500 or changing your own oil.
A few facts about myself, as a feminist:
I took my husband's name.
I change the oil in the cars, own the toolbox with the fancy drills and sanders and I know how to use all of them.
I handle all the finances.
I sew.
I cook.
I knit, crochet, embroider, and am an artist.
I'm starting my own non-profit corporation from the ground up.
None of these things defines me as a woman, nor as a useful part of human society. Except for the name thing, they're all useful skills and talents, and your genitalia shouldn't determine whether you do any of them.
For the record, I do enjoy sometimes embracing "traditional femininity," and I sometimes enjoy men who are embracing "traditional masculinity," so I don't think we have to do away with these things, but maybe make them a little less traditional, a little more optional, and a little more open. And maybe give the "traditionally feminine" a better rep and more respect.
I agree with you 100%. There's nothing wrong with "traditional femininity" since I myself proudly hold many "traditionally feminine" traits. But I'm sick of people trying to put me in a box and tell me "You were born with a vulva, so you need to wear a skirt and cook and clean and be submissive to your husband."
This is a really facinating thread, and to answer the mindshare's original question, I'd say I call it "feminism" because there's still a great deal of danger inherent in being a woman. There's the threat of rape, women's health care is still not equal to men's, women still aren't paid equally and are still denied positions they are qualified for. Class and race are enourmous issues, and must be in the same fabric as feminism - the example of the privilige of being a stay at home mom or dad is a perfect example.
Posted by mishapville on 2004-07-21 00:02:07
Post Subject:
yes notmarcie that was eloquent (as usual).
In some ways I understand how the term 'feminism' makes people a bit uncomfortable, since it suggests women are being promoted over men, but in my mind feminism means equality. I guess our feminist ancestors could have come up with a more inclusive term, but there's so much valuable inspiring history associated with it that I think it's important we keep it (suffragette is one of my favorite words).
I was trying to explain the present need for feminism to someone recently - yes, idealistically, many of us have similar and sometimes equal legal rights, but legal rights only go so far...I work in a male dominated profession and am moving into a female dominated profession so I've been thinking about this a lot. Discrimination, harrassment and abuse are all illegal but the onus of proof/defense is still on the woman, and the lengths a woman needs to go to defend herself are mind boggling.
Posted by xuli on 2004-07-21 10:50:40
Post Subject:
A few good anthologies on Third Wave (eg, the generation that came of age in the '90's) feminism include To Be Real, edited by Rebecca Walker, Listen Up: Voices From the Next Feminist Generation, edited by Barbara Findlen, and Adios, Barbie, edited by Ophira Edut and Rebecca Walker (later re-published under the title Body Outlaws after Mattell sued them for using the name Barbie).
I second Notmarcie's recommendation of Backlash by Susan Faludi, and would also recommend her book Stiffed, which gives some pretty amazing insight on why a feminist project is important for men as well. More academic and difficult, but really amazing, is Chandra Talpade Mohanty's Feminism Without Borders.
As for older feminist classics, check out This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, which is the anthology often credited with opening up traditional feminism to the concerns of women of color. This anthology has several editors, one of whom is Cherrie Moraga. (A short essay entitled "A Black Feminist Statement" by the Combahee River Collective also dates from the same period and is very compelling.) And all of Cherrie Moraga's work is really good, especially Loving in the War Years and The Last Generation.
Fiction and poetry that contains a feminist message is also a good option. Check out The Color Purple by Alice Walker, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, So Far From God by Ana Castillo, and poems by Adrienne Rich and Marge Piercy.
Posted by xuli on 2006-02-08 16:54:45
Post Subject:
Oh also, I recommend an awesome book called, "This Bridge Called My Back," ed. Gloria Anzaldua. It was a pretty eye-opening book for this white, middle class feminist!
Sorry to be slightly O/T, but that was edited by both Gloria Anzaldua and Cherrie Moraga. They both have other books of their own that are quite wonderful as well.
And Anthrogirl, I know what you mean. I find it quite saddening that when Anzaldua passed away two years ago there wasn't anything close to the response there has been to Friedan, because Anzaldua (and Moraga, who is still living) have done so much for the feminist movement in terms of guiding it towards being a movement of liberation for women of all races and social classes.
I have to admit I'm a little uncomfortable with your phrase "the Ayatollah Khomeini of feminism" though. Just because, well, it seems important to respect the specificity of the two situations.
Posted by MlleEmily on 2005-03-27 17:45:57
Post Subject:
Damn, if either of our sets of parents were sane my boy and I would be living with them in a second- house prices are OUTTA CONTROL and we could do with some rent-free living.
Seriously though, I think it's nice that families are staying together for longer, if they get along. Like someone else said, European families do this, and it's only really been since after WW2 that American people HAD enough money to be able to live as little nuclear-family units instead of larger extended ones... and we all know the fifties were *perfect* what with all the social isolation for women. There's a lot of isolation in modern life as people get more affluent and maybe this having to live with extended family is a blessing in disguise...
As for TIME magazine they seem to be bent on pissing me off with every cover-story they do... seriously every two years like clockwork there's an article on feminism being dead... but it seems to keep rising like a phoenix over and over again in time for them to recycle the same article. I really wouldn't credit them with having any kind of insight into ACTUAL societal trends.
Posted by moon_lemming on 2005-08-02 12:05:04
Post Subject:
What was the letter about, though, from the college?
(from the Apr/May 05 issue)
ACADEMIA NUTS
Thank you for sending our program a free copy of BUST magazine. After discussing this with the director of the Women's Studies Program and other students and faculty, we would like to request that no other copies of this magazine be sent to our program. I personally reviewed the copy and found that although there were some articles that expressed legitimate topics of concern to feminists, overall the magazine appeared to convey contradictory messages of feminism and the promoting of women as sex objects. Part of our mission is to dispel negative stereotypes of women and the magazine appeared to revel in these same stereotypes. Therefore, we do not believe that BUST mgazine is an appropriate resource for the Women's Studies Program at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
Katherine M. Johnson, Student Assistant, Women's Studies Program, University of Alaska Anchorage
Debbie Stoller replies: Thank you for sending our magazine your letter. After discussing this with our staff at BUST, we have decided that no further copies of our magazine will be sent to your department. I personally read your letter and although there were some sentiments that expressed a legitimate concern for feminism, overall the letter appeared to convey contradictory messages of feminism and the promoting of a mythic, monolithic ideology. Part of BUST's mission is to dispel the negative stereotype that feminism allows no room for debate as to what constitutes "topics of concern to feminists," and your letter appeared to revel in these same stereotypes. Therefore, we do not believe that the University of Alaska Anchorage Women's Studies Program is deserving of a complimentary subscription to BUST. P.S. If you should ever decide to allow your students to be exposed to a fvariety of feminist perspectives so that they may arrive at their own conclusions on these issues (which we consider to be not just central to feminism, but to getting a university education in general) rather than make these decisions for them, we will be happy to reconsider your status.
