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 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 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 2006-02-03 10:51:41
Post Subject:
Please don't insult our intelligence by insinuating that we haven't heard all the pro-capitalism arguments before. Many of us were, after all, raised in the United States.
There is no "current" feminist thought, either. There is everything from liberal feminism to radical feminism to marxist feminism to delightful cocktails of feminism, of which I partake. It's not hurting the country, as far left, progressive feminists hardly have a seat in Congress.
Of course, there will be pro-capitalist feminists, as well as anti-capitalist anti-feminists, as well as pro-capitalist anti-feminists, etc. Good, people can think for themselves.
You do realize that we understand fans (or fanatics) of capitalism exist. We are aware, even those of us in socialized countries, of the implications of capitalism on a global scale (you like capitalism so much? Please, make it kinder in Juarez). However, we have every right to challenge your sweeping generalizations you make about how inherently good capitalism is.
I would never argue that capitalism or socialism or communism or any sort of economic system is inherently good-- I don't trust human beings. Period. Therefore, even in theory, all economic systems may sound nice and polite, but people mess them up.
But for you to come here and argue that we benefit from capitalism all day long-- I'm sorry, but I eschew atomistic thought. It's not about me. It's not about you. It's about EVERYONE, and capitalism may benefit the individual, but it doesn't benefit EVERYONE all day long. So even if I were to Benefit All Day Long from the mighty power that is Capitalism, someone else suffers greatly.
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-02-03 10:23:11
Post Subject:
I was wondering when the "troll" word would appear. I have obviously pushed buttons here, and have had mine pushed in return. I simply don't agree with the general philosophy expressed here. I was hoping there would be other people like me, but if so, they aren't speaking up. And who can blame them?
*Deep breath*
I don't support the collective definition of feminism as expressed here. Nor do I support socialism. Now, I'm no Ayn Rand - I just think there are a lot of "excuses" out there. The 'patriarchy" being one of the most harmful. When you believe that there is something keeping you from achieving a goal, you tend to make decisions along those lines, and you end up in a bad place. Why do that to yourself? What if you believed that you could do anything you want and then made decisions according to that? (within the confines of the legal system, of course). I think the current feminist thought is hurting the US and the world - especially women. I think most people can improve their situations - I think they have the desire to do it. I won't say it's easy. I'm in the middle of that myself. But I think there are too many young women today who want a safety net and a guarantee. Neither are offered in this life.
You may be young and idealistic, and maybe you haven't encountered many people with a dissenting opinion here. Sure, I can share coffee and crafts, but I don't buy into your philosophy. And I don't like that feeling of getting "sucked into" an argument over the internet with people I don't know and who don't know me. You know what I mean - this tension. We don't "know" eachother, yet the exchange of ideas gets hostile and personal very quickly. It's addictive, and like most addictions, not healthy. It's very bizarre when you think about it - this isn't a real community - it's "virtual". There's nothing wrong with that, but I think the degree to which I find myself personally invested to be inappropriate. Does anyone feel the same way? I have spent a lot of energy here, and so have you. To what end? Pissing each other off? Great. That will change the world!
Having "economic" discussions about emotional things seems unnatural and callous - but it is also the only way to get perspective on what makes the world work. Profits aren't bad - they are necessary for all of us to live. Wanting to have money is not the same thing as worshipping it. You can't change the world unless you have the resources to keep yourself afloat. It starts with you, the individual. That is why I used "Get Crafty" as an example - it is our common ground that we can all relate to here. It is the example of someone starting with herself to gain resources in order to use them to improve the world. We should follow her lead. Resources are the way to change the world. You personally have to aquire them. Don't wait for someone to make things better for you.
Now, I'm going to get a cup of coffee and resume my day. I've said my peace, and maybe, just maybe, someone out there understands what I'm saying.
