Posted by microsinger on 2006-04-18 12:22:11
Post Subject: Need input, opinions, and ideas for 'newzine' column title
I am preparing to present a proposal to a regional newspaper/magazine in my area. The newzine iteslf is called "Heartland Women" and it features articles/columns about local events, health and wellness, business, investing, etc., all geared towartd a female audience. My column would be a monthly or bi-monthly (depending on my options) one featuring an array of topics that revolve around the home; cooking/shopping, crafting, decorating, budgeting & simple living, gardening, recycling, etc. It would be similar to Martha's newpaper column; new subjects each week, a few recipes, a craft tutorial, hints and tips. The only names I have come up with are "Heartland Home" which fits well but is a little too 'pre-Freidan' for my tastes, "The Domestic Dabbler" which is ok, I guess. My audience is not likely to be too "hip" so I have to keep it somewhat tame. "The Renegade Hausfrau" would probably require too much definition and I would probably either offend the homemakers, the feminists, or both. Any thoughts, suggestions, tips??
Posted by voodoopinupqueen on 2007-01-23 14:41:46
Post Subject:
heck, I hate housework! My house is a wreck! I just think women need not shy away from the kitchen or the sewing machine for fear of being labled as "anti-feminists"--that's the new domesticity as I understand it. Men too! My boyfriend is a great cook and he does all my heavy-duty mending because I can't use a sewing machine! I like doing "woman's work" because nobody's making me get in the kitchen, so occasionally, I embrace it. :P I like to do my baking in a crinoline and combat boots.
Posted by microsinger on 2006-04-18 12:26:55
Post Subject: Need input, opinions, and ideas for 'newzine' column title
I am preparing to present a proposal to a regional newspaper/magazine in my area. The newzine iteslf is called "Heartland Women" and it features articles/columns about local events, health and wellness, business, investing, etc., all geared toward a female audience. My column would be a monthly or bi-monthly (depending on my options) one featuring an array of topics that revolve around the home; cooking/shopping, crafting, decorating, budgeting & simple living, gardening, recycling, etc. It would be similar to Martha's newpaper column; new subjects each week, a few recipes, a craft tutorial, hints and tips. The only names I have come up with are "Heartland Home" which fits well but is a little too 'pre-Freidan' for my tastes and "The Domestic Dabbler" which is....ok, I guess. My audience is not likely to be too "hip" so I have to keep it somewhat tame. "The Renegade Hausfrau" would probably require too much definition and I would probably either offend the homemakers, the feminists, or both. Any thoughts, suggestions, tips??
Edited to add: Sorry for the double post. My pc froze up and I guess I hit submit twice.
Posted by brdgt on 2004-05-28 08:32:13
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 Fonzarella on 2006-03-23 04:33:22
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 audreypillow on 2005-10-12 15:53:27
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 anthrogirl on 2006-01-12 22:37:28
Post Subject:
I'm sorry what I said touched a nerve for you, anthrogirl. I am in no way trying to defend Dworkin uncritically, or to suggest that she got it all right. (I really meant what I said when I said I thought she had misguided ideas.) I have many, many problems with her. But I also think this part of your post raises some interesting questions:
Actually, it's not your fault, and I didn't at all think you were defending her. Like I said, I see her as a sad figure.
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.
How much of a responsibility do writers/thinkers have in the way their work is used?
A lot, if they were alive when people misused it, and they were warned that it could be misused. In her favor, Dworkin was upset that her work was used that way, only because she was dismayed by the i]politics of the people who used her work. She wasn't upset, so far as I can tell, by the content of their censorship- after all, she advocated censorship. McKinnon isn't at all sorry. She wishes they had gone further.
I can think of some pretty nefarious uses of, say, Judith Butler too -- I've seen scholarship where Butler's ideas are used to argue that since gender is all a social construct anyway, there's no point in feminist activism at all! How much should I hold Butler responsible for others' careless readings of her work?
Not at all, since that's what it is- careless reading. Dworkin's work wasn't carelessly read. It's quite clear- men are rapists, all porn hurts women, and so on. That's the problem- there's no nuance. During her lifetime, feminists tried to talk to Dworkin about her stance, but she wasn't interested. As for McKinnon- she's a law professor. She fully well understands civil liberties and how people can misuse people's right to them. She doesn't care, as long as it saves one woman from degradation. This is the same argument being used to keep gay lit out of schools, stop abortion, and a lot of other things.
I once had the displeasure of sitting next to one of McKinnon's law student/minions at dinner. I walked away feeling like a Jew sitting with a member of the Nazi Party in 1930- and that's not hyperbole. She sniffed at the idea of actually loking at porn. After all, she knew what it was. She told me women didn't watch porn, and she knew her Dworkin by heart. She came thisclose to calling me male-identified for saying that I had not only read porn and enjoyed it, but plenty of women had- they had read the Beauty books by Anne Rice, and romance novels. I knew this was true because I had worked in a bookstore for a while, and those novels had flown off the shelves. She essentially told me I didn't know what I was talking about. Whenever I've talked to hardcore Dworkinites, I've heard the same thing, even though not a single one has admitted to taking the time to speak to a porn producer/consumer or sex worker of any kind.
And how much should we hold Dworkin responsible for the fact that her work, too, has been used very carelessly in extremely misguided activism? I mean, yes, there are horrible aspects of her work. I totally agree. But you also can't single-handedly walk into Canada and start making laws right and left because "Andrea Dworkin says so." So at some point we have to look at the fact that Andrea Dworkin put forth some ideas -- many of them deeply flawed -- in a flawed society, and put back some of the responsbility for the terrible ways in which her work was used on that society.
No- but no one has made laws based on Judith Butler. They have made them based on Dworkin and McKinnon, in some cases with their blessing. That's what bothers me.
Going to bed now- and no, I'm not angry. It's a valid discussion. Feeling passionate about something isn't necessarily the same as being angry.
I'm really just talking off the cuff here. I might decide tomorrow I disagree with all of this! But I think it's a really interesting issue -- to what extent we hold individual thinkers/writers accountable when their work reveals in very emblematic ways deep injustices in the culture that they are writing from. And I continue to say I haven't read Dworkin, just read people who cite Dworkin (both pro and con). But I do have a hard time with the fact that Andrea Dworkin's name will unleash more vitriol in a room full of feminists than Rick Santorum's -- and Santorum is actively making harmful laws, which Dworkin never did! I do think there's a problem there, and I don't think one has to be an apologist for Dworkin to think so.
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-02-07 08:42:46
Post Subject:
One other thing: by the time Betty Friedan wrote, black middle class women in cities had already started turning their Sundday social s and women's clubs into vehicles for change. Non-white women and poor white women already knew that it was extremely difficult to balance marriage, family, and outside work; it was Friedan's myth that women could 'have it all'. The truth is that no human being can have it all. Sacrifices and choices have to be made all the time. The only way any woman can have it all is if she hires another woman to do her cleaning and find help in the raising of children- in other words, the only way for a woman to not be a housewife is to hire a part-time surrogate, unless her husband is willing to stay home and do the work himself. But if housewives are viewed as neurotic, uneducated, simple-minded, and confused- what political and economic position does that give women who clean houses and act as nannies? And what does it say about most feminists that they aren't addressing the exploitation of women by other women?
Working at home is hard work. Even with timesavers, it often requires back-breaking labor that is boring and repetitious. Talking to children all day destroys the mind's ability to think, especially if women are discouraged by society at large and other women in their circle to keep their minds and ideas limber. But simply going out, becoming a lawyer, and hiring Jewel or Conchita or Gayle to clean your house or pick up your kids from nursery because you're too busy, and then feeling such contempt for the cleaner or nanny that you don't pay her what someone would have to pay you in order to do that kind of work- we already have one sex that's quite adept at that kind of exploitation. I'm a teacher, and I don't want to clean all day, either. But there are ways of making that job less miserable, just like there are ways of not exploiting other women. It's one of thereasons I don't have children, and why I'll have to make at least $100,000 a year before I can hire a cleaning lady- because I think the job is worth at least $100 an hour.
The reason I think these issues don't get addressed is because middle-class and wealthy white women have always had a dirty little secret- and that secret has been seeing some women as less human than others simply because they are poor. There is no other way to explain why many feminists have not defended the rights of women on welfare to raise their children safely, which otfen means staying home to keep them out of trouble, or why many feminists have not tackled the issue of what housework is really worth- and what they should pay their housekeepers. Is it truly feminist to breed like a bunny, use medications and in vitro fertilization to start your family late, insist that the world cough up enough raw resources for your little darling- and then deprive another woman of a decent living wage and in some cases the right to see her children? Micht it not be more feminist to discourage women above a certain economic line to stop having children, and to use that money to give health care and a pay raise to their housekeepers, who are often raising children on the poverty line and who do not have the same resouces for their kids? Perhaps some women could uplift other women by paying for a poor child's education, instead of spending ridiculous sums of money on breeding a child for someone else to raise. Women in the US have not fought as hard for daycare and work creches as they have in other countries, because they can hire someone to push the stroller. What if they showed their feminism by working for all children to be given a decent start in life, and for all women to be educated to whatever level they wished, without money being a problem? Then the women who stayed home or became housekeepers would be better educated people and probably more capable at their jobs- but then we'd have the problem of many of them getting uppity and not wanting to work for other women, right? Which is one reason the Civil Rights movement started.
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-02-07 08:21:28
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 soapandwater on 2005-02-28 11:14:45
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 06:22:32
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 anthrogirl on 2006-02-10 06:28:11
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 xuli on 2006-02-09 09:09:18
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 somnambulicious on 2006-03-23 14:51:06
Post Subject:
Taylor is grossly oversimplifying Levy's stance. Of course, that's not surprising, given the title of the article. I, for one, thought that the book raised a lot of good points; if nothing else, it sparks a discussion that needs to take place among feminists.
Posted by xuli on 2006-02-10 08:44:58
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 soapandwater on 2006-02-09 08:36:15
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 2005-03-04 11:51:06
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 soapandwater on 2005-02-20 19:10:23
Post Subject:
I just finished Our Band Could Be Your Life and he had some interesting comments in the epilogue on how indie rock changed the music industry and was, in turn changed by it.
He speculated that perhaps the next music revolution will involved the internet, as indie bands are more comfortable using technology to get their music out for free to anyone that will listen.
Thus, I will pimp my friend's record label, North of January
That sounds like a fun read. I wish I had time to read (although what can I say, you're in GRADUATE school).
I checked out North of January. Is that also the name of the band that plays on the jukebox? The songs were greaaat. I'm totally hooked in.
Since this thread has resurface, I'm going to call attention to a very big problem: Kill Rock Stars has been sucking lately. Baaaaaad. I don't know what it is, but all the bands that are currently signed to it are either defunct or just sucky. Is this the end of an era? They're all generic-sounding, and I can't stand it. With S-K gone to Subpop, I wonder what's going to become of KRS?
And Mr. Lady is officially dead. Ouch!
I guess they're not technically indie but more small label, which I'm fine with, and I guess if the money's not there, something's got to give. But it doesn't explain why KRS is so blah. They used to have more feminist stuff, too, but are there no more feminists in rock? Or have they all been signed to bigger labels?
It's funny.
I'm a music snob, but I want people to listen to feminist bands. But, oh, I'm already pissed that my friend gets to go to a Le Tigre concert and I don't. So it begins...
Posted by xuli on 2006-01-12 19:57:14
Post Subject:
I'm sorry what I said touched a nerve for you, anthrogirl. I am in no way trying to defend Dworkin uncritically, or to suggest that she got it all right. (I really meant what I said when I said I thought she had misguided ideas.) I have many, many problems with her. But I also think this part of your post raises some interesting questions:
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.
How much of a responsibility do writers/thinkers have in the way their work is used? I can think of some pretty nefarious uses of, say, Judith Butler too -- I've seen scholarship where Butler's ideas are used to argue that since gender is all a social construct anyway, there's no point in feminist activism at all! How much should I hold Butler responsible for others' careless readings of her work? And how much should we hold Dworkin responsible for the fact that her work, too, has been used very carelessly in extremely misguided activism? I mean, yes, there are horrible aspects of her work. I totally agree. But you also can't single-handedly walk into Canada and start making laws right and left because "Andrea Dworkin says so." So at some point we have to look at the fact that Andrea Dworkin put forth some ideas -- many of them deeply flawed -- in a flawed society, and put back some of the responsbility for the terrible ways in which her work was used on that society.
I'm really just talking off the cuff here. I might decide tomorrow I disagree with all of this! But I think it's a really interesting issue -- to what extent we hold individual thinkers/writers accountable when their work reveals in very emblematic ways deep injustices in the culture that they are writing from. And I continue to say I haven't read Dworkin, just read people who cite Dworkin (both pro and con). But I do have a hard time with the fact that Andrea Dworkin's name will unleash more vitriol in a room full of feminists than Rick Santorum's -- and Santorum is actively making harmful laws, which Dworkin never did! I do think there's a problem there, and I don't think one has to be an apologist for Dworkin to think so.
Posted by april again on 2006-03-29 16:51:10
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 sallysunshine on 2006-02-09 08:50:12
Post Subject:
I actually think these discussions often get bogged down in stereotypes. I mean, it often seems to me that Third Wavers are fixated on sexuality, to the point where they completely ignore all other issues. It's actually easier to engage older feminists on issues that have to do with (non-sexuality-related) healthcare, for instance, which are the issues that loom the largest in my life right now. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that Third Wave feminists realize that most people on Medicaid and Medicare are women and that what happens to those programs is a feminist issue, and one that's at least as important as having woman-friendly porn. But I'm not sure that's fair: it's possible that I'm caricaturing the Third Wave and that the Third Wavers with whom I've dealt have been unrepresenative.
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-02-08 21:19:06
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 MlleEmily on 2005-02-15 00:08:19
Post Subject:
*If you knit, why did you start?
My mum taught me when I was about 9 or so. I thought it looked like fun. She didn't really like knitting but I took to it.
*Do you identify as a feminist?
Yep. Though I have to tell you, what people think feminism has to do with knitting I don't understand. Plenty of non-feminists knit. Plenty of ANTI-feminists knit *shrug*. I love Debbie Stoller's books but I think her equating the re-emergence of knitting as a hobby for young women with some sort of underlying feminist ethos is wishful thinking.
*What does knitting do for you?
Relaxes me. It's the only time I can stop fidgeting, 'cos it kinda IS fidgeting. Fidgeting with an end-product.
*Why do you like it?
I've always liked the look of knitwear. And I love the sensuality of it. I love yarn.
*How do you communicate with other knitters (knitting group, online forums like this, etc)?
Mainly online, though I did join a group- I haven't attended it much though.
Why do you choose to connect in this way?
Online is very immediate- like if I have a question I can post it and someone will have replied within a day or so.
*Do you think knitting today is different than it was several generations ago? Does it serve a different function?
Hell yeah. It's a HOBBY now, that you do with your leisure time. Women used to HAVE to do it or noone in their family had sweaters/socks/underwear. I doubt they liked it as much then. Prolly liked it as much as we like doing laundry or washing dishes.
Posted by aubrigail on 2005-01-07 13:08:10
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 kittensrme on 2006-06-30 10:12:36
Post Subject:
Pay the Piper by Adelyn Bushnell: Okay, so I hear about this great young adult novel about the Pied Piper coming to modern times called Pay the Piper. I get this book and it opens with this old singer reminiscing or some crap and--well, long story short, this wasn't the book I was looking for. Total waste of time, because it sucked.
Everything is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer: I cried really hard. I loved this book.
Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez: I really liked how this one ended. I didn't like how long the chapters were, though. It made it really hard to get motivated to read it because I knew I'd have to commit to an hour and a half of reading.
The Stranger by Albert Camus: Short, pretty interesting. One of those books you feel obligated to read, you know?
The Postman by David Brin: Kind of annoying when they were talking about those wacky feminists, but otherwise a good read.
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith: This book would have been 100 times better if about 150 pages were cut out. Just saying.
Posted by h_pets360 on 2006-02-07 11:46:24
Post Subject:
I don't know enough about history (except it's f***ed up). I really appreciate posts like these then.
I only realized the last coupla years or so that early feminists ... and some today .... don't feel it's as important to fight for equal rights and opportunities for everyone.
Posted by slowgraffiti220 on 2005-03-01 09:32:54
Post Subject:
i haven't read the article (i don't have a subscription), but i will say a few things about women, feminism, spirituality, and activism.
firstly, i think the idea of women across faiths coming together and finding that they share a feminine spirituality is hogwash. that feminine spirituality that they all share is likely a result of the fact that they all shared enough of the same ideals in the first place to be coming together for some women-across-faiths initiative, not because women have some special spirituality in how they practice religion. i think this whole idea about women having any innate feminineness is dangerous and just wrong. i would say that, yes, many women have many characteristics deemed feminine, to the point that these characteristics might be considered inextricable from their personalities/who they are as people, and that these characteristics and values, such as communication, peace, etc...are traditionally devalued in many arenas, particularly that of world politics. i do not however think that these characteristics are somehow innate to women, but rather, that their high frequency in women and high exclusion in men merely speaks to how we socialize children in this modern, "unsexist" age. 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.
aside from all of that there is the fact that being a woman in different cultures means different things...for example, when american feminists got together with russian feminists after the cold war ended the russians felt that to be feminist meant that they could exercise their right to be trad. womanly finally (after years of state mandated short haircuts, pants, and scarce make-up)...the american feminists couldn't get it because to them, what the russian ladies had had during socialism was what they'd been fighting for the right to do over in the capitalist world. being a woman means multiple things, both on the intercultural level, as above, and the intracultural level...i myself feel in many ways ungendered, and i think that's an important perspective to consider as well...personally, i thought that's where we were going in feminism with all of this get crafty stuff...that is, to a place where all forms of work, thought, and life were valued to and for all people...that by doing something trad. feminine like knitting while doing something trad. masculine, like wearing pants on the subway on the way to work, you were being an activist by saying, i am a human first, my life is not dictated by ideas of a gendered me.
as for the faith and activism...i am afraid of that. i respect peoples' right to have their own faith and to express it, but i'll be damned if "people of faith" are going to come into activist movements and choke me out of it with this idea of, "we need to join together in our commonalities!" as a person of no faith, i don't really have commonalities with these people on that level. i speak from experience with this...for whatever reason, i work within the seriously religious/catholic organization of Amnesty Intl. and i see this all the time. i am a good leader. i have strong beliefs in what i do. but i want to walk the hell out of a conference when someone starts with some interfaith prayer. i take my humanist values from the humanist tradition of logical, rational thought and try to comport myself in an ethical and humane way. a group prayer actually ::really:: alienates me because it's presented as somehow necessary to the process of activism...i've even had people say to me, "i don't think you can have a social justice movement without faith...all of the biggest movements for peace have come from religious ends..." well gee wiz, thanks for basically calling me incapable of fighting for social justice and completely negating the validity of my worldview and values. i pointed out that all of the biggest movements for violence have come from religious ends as well, and was promptly informed, "well, that's not the same." (i actually don't find that to be the case, but i thought it was the easiest way to point out the flaw in her logic.)
anyways, just my 54 cents on this issue.
(edited because i realized that i can't spell for shit)
Posted by ambelina on 2004-12-29 14:04:35
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 anthrogirl on 2005-12-29 16:08:33
Post Subject: Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs
Seems like a lot of people I know are reading Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, so I thought I might start a discussion of it here. I just picked it up at the library today and finished the first chapter. I found myself nodding my head and feeling sad.
The book also reminds me of an interview I heard on Morning Sedition (Air America Radio) a few weeks ago. Mark and Mark interviewed Frederick Kaufman about his recent article in Harpers, "Debbie Does Salad: The Food Network At the Frontiers of Pornography," in which he argues that the "style" of porn now dominates news and food tv.
So, who's reading/read it? What did/do you think?
There was a thread about this over on "Freestyle" a little while back
Alternet Review
Slate Article
I've read some of it. I think porn- namely the commodification of objects in a heightened erotic manner- has become the leading cultural trope in the US. It's capitalism taken to the nth degree. Anything that cannot or will not be easily exploited is undervalued or devalued- art that takes time and an education to understand, smart people, older people, science that doesn't produce techological toys, and so on.
I agree that young women have in a sense given up what they feel is a losing battle- if they are going to be commodified anyway, why not turn it into self-exploitation? While I think that this is both wrong and sad in many ways, there is a glimmer of logical reasoning behind i that in the right mind-set could be useful. Movie stars like Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis and Ida Lupino were part of an exploitative movive system- but hey made it work for themselves and were among the first stars, male or female, to crotrol their own images without losing their dignity. Hattie McDaniel also refused to be humiliated by the studio system. Present-day women could learn a lot from these images. Dressing like a whore does not make a woman valuable. It just makes her cheap.
Which brings me to another point. Having known women who have paid off their Manhattan condos and college diplomas from work in prostitution and professional domination, I wouldn't say that such women don't have 'marketable skills', any more than a model lacks 'marketable skills'. Top-level and mid-level whores and Mistresses are experts at manipulating male desire. There is a great deal of mutual exploitation. Not all women are victims. That is also very different for doing it for 'pleasure'. Most of my professional research informants (I studied, in part, women who work in sexually-oriented businesses) were not unskilled or ill-educated. Several had MA degrees or professional degrees, and one had a PhD. Nor did they see the money they received as easy, and they did not necessarily derive 'pleasure' from most of their work sessions, any more than a lawyer always enjoys reading briefs. What they enjoyed was the money, the excitement, the entrepreneurial aspects, the ability to make their own hours, the confirmation o their desirability, and being paid to be transgressive. That many of them were also wives and mothers, and that more than a few were lesbian or bisexual, made the work even more exciting. Like good professionals in any line of work, they looked forward to the interesting clients and jobs, because those were the ones that kept their interest and solidified their desire to stay in the profession.
Sex workers fall in to a wide variety of economic and aspirational categories- a lot of strippers are working their way through college and grad school. Most prostitutes only work part time, and do it for extra money to supplement the rent or pay for luxuries. Judging sex workers by women one sees on the street is like judging criminals by who one sees in a lock-up; successful sex-workers often fade into society after a short full-time of long part-time stint 'in the life', just as most successful criminals never get caught and live otherwise normal lives. What usually brings down people in the demi-monde is excessive drug use and/or greed. If you combine those with a poor education and a lack of skills, then you get the people who are easily identifiable.
While I am no great lover of whoredom (it's more dangerous for the sellers than for the buyers), my problem with the present day is the vulgarity and lack of sophistication. If one is going to be a real free spirit, do it the way women did in earlier eras- by using it as a pathway to an education and economic improvement. Men exploit themselves all the time, but the smarter ones do it for higher stakes than appearing in a male equivalent of a Suicide Girls calendar. Having had the experience of loving a man older than myself without benefit of clergy and getting an apartment out of it (I suppose in some circles that would qualify me as an 'adventuress'), I'm not going to criticize women for using youth and beauty as stepping stones- so long as they realize those commodities have a short and delicate shelf-life, and that being a whore of any kind is always more profitable than being a slut of the highest kind. It's also more respectable in the long run- the world (especially 'nice' women) have always adored women who present themselves as reformed whores, but reformed sluts are usually just seen as being stupid. Even though I'm a feminist to the bone, I do think that this is a crucial fact that conventional feminists have chosen to ignore because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
Posted by anthrogirl on 2006-02-08 15:37:03
Post Subject:
Anthrogirl, you are so right on-- I don't have the words to express how deeply I agree with everything you've written here. Thank you for lifting me today-- sometimes I get kind of mired in the muck of today's world and it's wonderful to have my feelings clarified and backed up. Esp. when I'm feeling particularly inarticulate.
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!
That truly is an awesome book. And please don't think I don't understand why Ms. Friedan's life was so meaningful- I do. I'm not sure she was capable of articulating some of the qustions I'm asking- the article by Germaine Greer (another of my culture heroes) on Friedan's death pretty much sums it all up (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1703933,00.html). I just feel that there is a lot of smugness and self-serving pride in simply acting like she was the best thing since sliced bread. I found it interestin that The Guardian either didn't ask or couldn't find any feminists of color to say, 'she was my hero'.
I'm actually more upset over Coretta Scott King dying, because she left her own legacy through the King Book Award (http://www.ala.org/ala/emiert/corettascottkingbookawards/corettascott.htm) and other outlets. She was willing to stand up to black leaders in favor of gay rights, and she never stopped fighting for poor people. I found her a lot less self-serving.
Posted by Defarge on 2006-05-10 06:43:00
Post Subject:
I'm sorry. I call troll. Apologies Mods if this causes
One, if you are so third wave or indeed any type of feminist, you would know it's spelt misogyny. The gyny from the same Latin root as gynaecologist.
Two: The disruptive and rude posting. Insiting they have done nothing wrong and we are uptight is classic troll material. Ignoring the general forum conventions and the fact this board is open to anybody over the age of 13.
Three: The insistence that second wave feminists do all this stuff, as if there has been a second wave feminist meeting in Iowa City when all of this information has been put forward. I have never ever ever encountered any place where second wavers walk the streets judging women.
Four: Real or not, I think it is highly inappropriate to essentially name and shame your gynae for what may well have been a harmless compliment. I compliment women a lot of their clothing, their fishnets and their stockings. Doesn't mean I want to jump into bed with them. The conversation about the redness is something that any gynae might say, if they noticed unusual redness. It's not a sign that she hates men.
Four: The sexual content (bragging ?) in every post. I've been in various online communities for many years, and I have never ever seen a woman immediately start posting with that sort of syntax. I'm not at all prudish, I give sexual health advice for a living. I'm just not convinced this is genuine.
Five: Troll or not, the implication that butch dykes all wnt to own you is ludicrous. Butch dykes do not automatically think you are hot for wearing a dress and not all butch dykes are feminists.
I think this is a troll, possibly one looking to get kicks either from getting us to argue or possibly giving head stories to wank over. Pathetic in either case.
Posted by soapandwater on 2005-03-04 12:12:09
Post Subject:
I guess I need to read Manifesta soon.
Oooh, I love hating and loving Inga Muscio. I totally love the book Cunt even though it was one of the first books I've read and liked a lot that has made me also have to disagree with the author. That doesn't make sense, but what I mean is I'd read some of it and go, "That's amazing and dead on." And then I'd read other parts and go, "But that's not."
Inga Muscio also promotes myths about rape that pissed me off.
I give the book Cunt a lot of credit for half of the book, but I don't agree with going, "Oh, Inga Muscio. Feminist of feminists." She's not even a self-proclaimed feminist in the book.
I want to read Manifesta sometime, but I feel like it'd be rehashing stuff I already know (I could be wrong). I'd much rather get a bell hooks book to read, as I've only had the pleasure of reading an article of hers here and there.
I'm wondering-- who reads Ms. magazine? I don't connect with the magazine at all, really. Are they sort of the top experts on feminist lit?
Frankly, I want to read feminist fiction, but the only kinds my women's studies classes recommend are really poorly written ones that are great women's studies pieces (Stone Butch Blues made me wince).
Posted by brdgt on 2005-08-31 12:07:47
Post Subject: what did you read in August 2005?
Last month of unemployment, summer vacation from school, and the mad dash to finish as much "fun" reading as I could before classes start:
Artemis Fowl: The Eternity Code by Eoin Colfer - Pretty good. Certainly no Harry Potter or Dark Materials, but enjoyable.
Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson - HATED it. Don't get me wrong, I love Stephenson, but I hated this book so much that it even makes me hate his old stuff in hindsight.
Y the Last Man: Unmanned by Brian K. Vaughan (writer) and Pia Guerra (artist) - Yes, I count graphic novels and trade paperbacks ;P Excellent series about what happens when all men but one (and his male monkey) die in a mysterious plague.
Wonder Woman: The Hiketeia by Greg Rucka (writer) and J.G. Jones & Wade von Grawbadger (illustrators) - Very nicely done, nice exploration of Batman and Wonder Woman's relationship.
The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers - AMAZING and heartwrenching, I still tear up thinking about it.
Gout: The Patrician Malady by Roy Porter and G. S. Rousseau - Excellent book, much better than I thought, but suffered from poor author collaboration/editing. You could clearly tell who wrote what and it distrupted the flow.
The Deadly Truth: A History of Disease in America by Gerald N. Grob - Another excellent history of medicine book, the absolute best survey of the topic I've read actually.
Eats, Shoots, and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation by Lynne Truss - Didn't like it, didn't learn much, and often felt insulted.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by JK Rowling - Reread. Can't wait to see what they are doing in the movie this November!
Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly by Anthony Bourdain - OK. Wanted more "underbelly" and less "colorful" anecdotes.
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury - Well deserved of its praise. Like many great books, films, and songs it is odd to read now and think of everything that has imitated it.
Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks - Lovely. Now I have a book to recommend whenever someone wants to "learn about those man-hating feminists."
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by JK Rowling - Reread.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by JK Rowling - Just finished it this morning! I know, the last person on earth, but, hey, I was 798th at the library! Opinion? Honestly, I think it's the best one in the series. Certainly the most well written.
Posted by h_pets360 on 2006-02-09 03:10:26
Post Subject:
I think the problem with mainstream feminism, just like mainstream anything, is that it tends to be controlled, inadvertantly or not, by the people in power. and the people that are in power, or less restricted, in the feminist movement are middle and upper class white women. So poor white women, and the vast majority of women who are feminists who are also racial minorities get ignored.
there are pockets, and an increasing awareness. i'd like to say this is a good start, but it's a very very slow, very very late start.
Posted by moon_lemming on 2005-08-02 11:05:04
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.
Posted by Marina-Trilobyte on 2005-06-17 16:25:55
Post Subject:
There's no Pacifica station where I live. There's no Pacifica station where most people live. I'm a little sick of lefties in New York and the Bay Area preaching to the rest of us about how we should be listening to stations that don't exist in our part of the world. Where I am, it's NPR or commercial radio. And at its very best, commercial news radio is about missing pretty white girls and celebrity gossip. At its worst, it's about how liberals and feminists and anti-war activists are ruining the world.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winnah!
Also I've heard Democracy Now. In fact, I've listened to it repeatedly when tired of the programming on my local NPR affiliate.
The only difference between Democracy Now and Fox News is where the bias falls on the political spectrum. Being a relentless cheerleader for progressive issues doesn't make a show any smarter than Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. It's just perpretrating a different variety of ignorance.
NPR *tries* to present the issues accurately and well and at times they do a damn fine job.
Incidentally, I'm a little curious as to who people are interpreting as "right-wingers". Are you thinking of folks like Diane Rehm? I agree with what I think is being said, that there's a sense that on an issue, you bring in a moderate and a drooling right-winger and that's considered "representation" from both the right and left. But that's a general idiocy that's being done all over, not an NPR thing.
Posted by mrs maraschino on 2005-01-31 21:33:51
Post Subject:
i started knitting a year or sothing ago. i dont remember why i started, but i dont remember there being much popularity as there is now. i asked my mom to teach me, and then after getting bored boguht a stitch n' bitch book. i think that mostly i enjoy knitting because i am a nervous, smoking, coffee drinking, fidgeting girl...and so that just makes sense to need somthing to do with my hands. but i think that knitting as well as any other crafting is somthing that i enjoy because i feel like i am not just consuming but also creating and in atleast a tiny part of my life can feel self sufficient. maybe that is why so many feminists are atracted to this sort of activity, because in a place where often times independant people, feminist or not, feel trapped in a place where everything/one around them is controlling their life...like the only clothes we can wear are the ones we find on the wal-mart rack, orthe only food we can eat is out of the packages in the kroger, or the only beliefs we can have are the ones written in books. i guess in a way by making a scarf i feel that its a small fuck you to everyone that doesnt beleive i can creat for myself the place that i want to live in.
i am also really exited to see people getting exited about knitting and craftying an diy-ing. it seems like more and more people are starting to be concerned about where the things they buy and use are coming from...even with the sudden hype about natural foods and such (or is that just me?)
Posted by sallysunshine on 2005-06-17 12:57:48
Post Subject:
I know that as a good lefty, I'm supposed to hate NPR and say "good riddance" and tell everyone to listen to Pacifica, but I can't do it. Here's why:
1. There's no Pacifica station where I live. There's no Pacifica station where most people live. I'm a little sick of lefties in New York and the Bay Area preaching to the rest of us about how we should be listening to stations that don't exist in our part of the world. Where I am, it's NPR or commercial radio. And at its very best, commercial news radio is about missing pretty white girls and celebrity gossip. At its worst, it's about how liberals and feminists and anti-war activists are ruining the world.
2. Despite the recent trend towards annoying right-wing commentators, NPR still does more real reporting than any of their competitors. Did anyone else hear the long report on Morning Edition last week about Merck's attempts to intimidate and silence doctors who raised questions about the safety of Vioxx? How about the report about how drug company money is influencing medical schools? It's hard to imagine a commercial station doing that kind of research into an industry that buys tons of ad time.
3. About half of what's on my local NPR station is local programing. And that's significantly better than the national stuff. It's significantly more likely to include truly radical or politically-unorthodox voices.
So yeah, from my point of view it's not close to perfect. I frequently hear things on NPR that irritate the hell out of me. But it's the best thing we've got, and I'm willing to fight to protect it.
Posted by MlleEmily on 2004-08-21 02:50:16
Post Subject:
1. how did you learn to knit? how old were you then and old are you now?
My mother taught me when I was about ten years old.
2. knitting = nesting? is your knitting a way of getting back to simpler times?
It's very relaxing, I'll say that much... I'm not one for thinking that the so-called 'simpler times' were actually much simpler, or better in a lot of ways. I think that's a pretty romantic view, a myth that politicians are always keen on trotting out when they want to et more conservative.
3. in regards to the current resurgence in knitting, when do you think it started and why?
I was going to say this current world conflict thing making everyone want to stay indoors and do homey, crafty stuff... but the knitting resurgence occured before all that. People do seem to want the satisfaction of making something unique, in a kind of backlash to mass-produced consumer goods. Nothing you can buy seems really all that special when you see someone else wearing it on the bus... and the fact that something can be bought by anyone with the money makes it consequently less exclusive and appealing... the very thing a lot of mass-produced goods claim to be (ie labels, brands). It's like all the stores push this idea of exclusivity and how wonderful it is to have unique items... and then these very stores can't deliver on that promise, so people perhaps are trying to get the uniqueness that's been so exalted the only way they can... by creating something new themselves.
4. do you have a crafty group that you meet with? how often? why do you dig it?
I have been to a Meetup for knitting three times, and really like it. I go because I'm a knitting obsessive and talk about it with a vehemence that's very dificult for non-knitters to tolerate.
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 to supernaturale.com, crafster.org, and this site. I think being able to view a lot of different patterns and finished projects from people from very disparate geographical locations is cool-- it makes me feel connected to a larger knitting community, however illusory this may actually be.
6. is there a subversive element to knitting? a punk rock element? or simply a DIY smugness?
No. Are you kidding? This sort of talk's actually been pissing me off lately. The political status quo ain't changing 'cos you knitted something. That requires just a little more effort. There are those who'll tell you knitting is some sort of feminist act too, which is ludicrous. It's not feminist or anti-feminist- it's just bloody knitting!
There's a lot of talk among third wavers about the misguided second-wave feminists who bashed stay-at-home moms and homemakers, and I really just do not think that was ever the case. If anything, Betty Freidan at al were more about telling people to appreciate what women did and NOT dismiss it as mere 'women's (ie worthless) work'. They were never about the denigration of housework per se, just that it shouldn't just fall to women to take care of what is really very hard work and that women ought to be allowed to have equal say in political life and economic outside the domestic realm. The third-wavers attack on second-wavers on this particular point is completely unfounded.
But I digress...
Maybe knitting can be personally transforming, in that you learn to appreciate things in a more non-commercial way... although even that's suspect, given most people have to buy their wool at a store and there's a whole element of fibre snobbery. I'd go with the DIY smugness theory before I'd
say the other two.
7. why do you knit?
It's super fun! I love having made something myself! People tell me I'm clever (or tell me I must have too much time on my hands, nasties!). It's also a good way to watch a lot of television without feeling guilty- hey, as long as I'm knitting something, that's DOING something, so the guilt of spending six hours straight watching the Six Feet Under DVD set is assuaged. And it's just so relaxing and zen.
8. what other crafty things do you do besides knitting?
I love to sew my own clothes, fabric collage, decoupage, basically anything creative. I a bit of crochet too.
9. the future of knitting- is there one or are we just kidding ourselves?
Well, I don't think anyone will stop knitting... as far as craft fads go it will ebb and flow with the mainstream but people will always knit I think. I think it's relative simplicity augurs well for it's continuing practise, whereas some trraditional hand crafts have disappeared almost completely (I'm thinking of certain types of lacemaking, and embroideruie and passementerie) because they really require some pretty hard-core learning to be done well.
10. do you prefer to knit alone or with other people? why?
I can do either. Knitting in a group is fun more for the chatting about knitting and getting tips and seeing averyone elses project than actually getting much done!
11. true or false: can craft save us all? (elaboration here would be nice, but not necessary.)
Only Jesus can save us all... just kidding. But a critical look at consumerism and mass-production wouldn't do anybody any harm... although as I've said, hand-made stuff can be a source of just more competitiveness and snobbery, if you're that kinda person.
Posted by thebossofyou on 2005-02-14 10:48:28
Post Subject:
i definitely identify as a feminist and a knitter. i am still pondering the first group of questions you asked but i figured i would go ahead and work on the ones below! hope this helps!!
If you knit, why did you start?
my grandmother always knit/crocheted/etc and i was always amazed at it. she taught me when i was very young but it took a friend refreshing my memory around 6 or 7 years ago to get me going again. the women's university i went to (hollins university) had a large population of knitters and you could pretty much guarantee to see someone doing it while you were walking around the campus.
Do you identify as a feminist?
absolutely. of course, i am of the mentality that there are more feminists out there than are willing to admit. i mean, by the loosest of definitions, if you are woman and wearing pants to work, you are a feminist (or at least should realize that you have a feminist to thank for that option). i wish people (men and women) owned this label more.
What does knitting do for you? Why do you like it?
knitting gives me a sense of tradition. i like it because it gives me a connection back to my grandmother and a greater appreciation of her skill. and a simple reason is because it is portable. i have knitting with me at all times - i never feel like my time is wasted when i have to wait in the doctor's office or i'm riding in the car. kitting has saved my sanity more than once!
How do you communicate with other knitters (knitting group, online forums like this, etc)?
i use online forums like this, but i would like to be more connected to other feminist knitters. it is an interesting combination. the knitters that i am closest to are my friends that knit or the ones that are learning. it tends to spread...
Do you think knitting today is different than it was several generations ago? Does it serve a different function? i think that, much like the roles that women play, the boundaries have loosened a bit. there are so many artists out there that are looking towards crafts like knitting as means to create their work. there are still purists out there (and a lot of them reside in my town's LYS) that seem threatened by this new resurgence in the popularity of knitting among young people. it’s too bad because there is so much knowledge to be gained from these women. not to say that there aren't women that are excited - a friend's grandmother thinks that it is awesome! despite all the differences and changes over the generations, i think that the foundation is still the same though - the simple satisfaction in producing something with your hands.
Posted by kateartichoke on 2005-02-14 00:53:47
Post Subject:
How do women define 'feminist?'
i think defining 'feminist' is almost impossible because the word can have different meanings to everyone. i guess in short i would define a feminist as someone who works to achieve equality between the sexes.
What role does knitting play in a woman's life?
anymore, the role knitting plays in a woman's life is completely up to the woman. it can be non-existant to some women, a hobby to others, and a symbol of opression to others.
What does it do for her?
some i'm sure take it up for relaxation, others becaus they're crafty and like to make things with their hands, others have to take it up because they're forced to. the answers could go on and on.
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)?
it seems like the groups that knitting is currently taking off with do identify themselves as feminists.
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's been in the last 3-4 years that knitting has really taken off.
Some more questions I'd like answers to:
If you knit, why did you start?
i love working with my hands, and it seemed like a wonderful, crafy way to make myself clothing. i have very crafty parents, started doing cross stitch and sewing in elementary school, and knitting seemed like a natural progression.
Do you identify as a feminist?
yes
What does knitting do for you? Why do you like it?
it is a productive way to let out my nervous energy while being creative. knitting is something i do every day, and knowing that i am being crafty and making something makes me happy. i try to have as much of a diy lifestyle as i can, and all those things, plus making myself and the people i love scarfs and sweaters and all good knitty things, gives me a sense of satisfactiona and pride.
How do you communicate with other knitters (knitting group, online forums like this, etc)?
mainly online.
Why do you choose to connect in this way?
i live in a small north idaho town, and the other people my age have not caught on to knitting. so i either communicate with knitters who have my interests online, or not at all
Do you think knitting today is different than it was several generations ago? Does it serve a different function?
knitting today is all about fun. most of us don't have to knit, we aren't expected to knit or to even have a clue how. so yes, it is very different. fifty or 60 years ago women were expected not to have a career and stay home and take care of the family. a lot of the time knitting was another sign of the oppression women felt - it was part of the housework. when we knit today, we should remember that, and not forget that what we consider fun women not so long ago considered work.
Posted by kazoogrrl on 2005-01-02 23:29:55
Post Subject:
boheme-anne, I don't care if you agree with me. But do remember that you have the choice to live the life you have because of the feminists who fought , and continue to fight, for your equal rights, whether you can appreciate that or not.
Posted by xuli on 2004-07-23 14:42:53
Post Subject:
Wow, Soapandwater, that was interesting. Two of my favorite things:
1) The way the writers of that email emphasize what Teresa Heinz Kerry has done with "John Heinz's money." Um, whose? Actually it's *her* money; he left it to her. But then again, I'm one of those ultra-radical feminists who believe that women have a right to own property in their own names.
2) The fact that by supporting the Tides Foundation she automatically supports stuff like Saddam Hussein and Hamas. Using that logic, anyone who supports the ACLU could be painted as a KKK aficionado, given that the ACLU took on a famous case wherein they supported the idea that free speech includes Klan rallies.
3) Oh wait, no here's a third thing I liked: That part about her being unfit to rest her head near the President's at night. WTF?
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-12-26 12:12:35
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 09:57:16
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 Parel on 2004-12-30 12:50:18
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 soapandwater on 2004-12-29 21:17:43
Post Subject:
"I can be a single mother, a company CEO, and fix my car too!"
I've never met these women. My mother was a single mom and struggled greatly with it and could not fix her car (it rattles still) and thought she needed to find a husband, a father-figure for me, to make her life complete. And to make me have a better life.
Granted, I WAS raised on McDonald's, but then, my mom LIKED McDonald's, so I really can't say that it was due to her being a single mother who was working a lot as a nurse or waitress (she flits between the two). As an adamant feminist, I know that if I were a single mother, I would NOT raise my child on McDonald's because I just don't AGREE with it.
As for being thrown in daycare, of COURSE single women are going to have to rely on something for children to be safe, in some way. I mean, I don't think there are a whole lot of single mothers willingly there by choice. I've grown up enmeshed in single motherhood, and I was constantly aware that my mother wished she could stay home and raise me.
Really, though, she just didn't want to have to work herself to the bone.
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.
And I don't see WHY a man can't do the same things. That's where feminists get upset. Why it can't be an equal share or why it's so bizarre for the man to stay at home. It's not like a feminist is really going to make you look bad for staying at home (at least, a feminist theoretically shouldn't), but she'll get mad if you say it's more of a woman's place to stay at home.
Posted by xuli on 2005-01-09 13:38:16
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 14:10:01
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 siouxsie_homemaker on 2004-08-20 12:36:02
Post Subject:
I think few people are going to be friends with someone whose political veiws are violently opposing to their own.
But I think a really important thing to point out is that balance is critical. When you swing the other way and just surround yourself with people who agree with you, you face certain problems. When everyone thinks the same within an insulated community or group, no one ever challenges one another. Also, you start to loose the ability to tollerate or converse with people who disagree with you on anything.
When I lived in the Bay Area I noticed that everyone I was friends with or even generally exposed to had just about the same veiwpoint on everything. Some people would call that a utopia, when nearly everyone is vegetarian/vegan, pro-sex third wave feminists, pro-choice, and not sizeist, homophobic or transphobic or openly racist. But then they all also listened to similar music, and had the same kind of clothing tastes... And they looked down on anyone not in their group, vanilla lesbians, people without the same priveledged psuedo-political middle class white kid education, and *especially* supposedly "ignorant" country music listening mid-westerners. Which is hard for me, cuz those mid-western hicks are my family.
It was so stifflingly and conformist and no one even seemed to realize it.
Moving to San Diego I had a huge period of culture shock in for me. When punk guys in bars used the word "fag" in a sentence I almost dropped my beer. But I've actually come to befriend some of those guys, some of whom still think it's hot to watch two straight girls make-out. And I can talk to them and reason with them and get them to change their minds sometimes, which is pretty cool. And in turn, they taught me to relax and little and not judge others as harshly.
Posted by TemperTantrum on 2004-07-19 18:17:22
Post Subject:
Feminism needs to quit being such a dirty word. I believe in equality for women. I'm a feminist.
Sometimes, feminism can be kind of limiting, and historically the feminist movement(s) have been seen as white, straight and middle-class, and that needs to change. So, while I can appreciate the problems with various feminists groups/movements/doctrines, I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
That's my less than two cents as I am kinda cracked out on Benadryl for my awful awful mosquito bites.
Posted by TemperTantrum on 2004-07-19 18:18:26
Post Subject:
Feminism needs to quit being such a dirty word. I believe in equality for women. I'm a feminist.
Sometimes, feminism can be kind of limiting, and historically the feminist movement(s) have been seen as white, straight and middle-class, and that needs to change. So, while I can appreciate the problems with various feminists groups/movements/doctrines, I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
That's my less than two cents as I am kinda cracked out on Benadryl for my awful awful mosquito bites.
Posted by soapandwater on 2006-02-03 09:51:41
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 rmeb on 2005-01-03 09:13:35
Post Subject:
This is a really interesting discussion. I've been gone for a while, and now I remember why I loved the kinds of topics we get to talking about here!
My sister and I were talking about this topic the other day, after she went to a lecture by a psychologist who did a study about women working outside v. inside the home (I can't remember her name, but I can ask my sister if anyone is interested). Anyway, one of the psychologist's co-authors decided to take the opposite of the main theme of the study (which was that many women find themselves to be happier and therefore better members of their family when they also work outside the home) and argued that ALL women would choose to stay home if they had the opportunity to do so, and that anyone who wouldn't just didn't care as much about her family or "home". Apparently, her theory was backed up by a few studies, but I just couldn't believe it! It wasn't an old study either- it was done in the last several years!
I mean, I think that working in the home is valuable and important, don't get me wrong. However, for me (I'm not speaking for anyone else), it wouldn't be the right choice and I think it's extremely insulting to insinuate that would make me less of a wife and/or mother. I worked extremely hard over the last several years putting myself through college and grad school, and I have a job that I love. Part of being happy as a person in my opinion is being fulfilled in every aspect of your life which to me includes having a career. Otherwise, why would I have studied, sacrificed, worked hard, (and spent $200,000 in student loans) over the last 8 years?
As far as the "throwing their kids in daycare" comment, I'm not sure where to start. First, I can say that I think to characterize putting your kids in daycare is a selfish, flippant decision is an unfair characterization. As a kid who grew up having various forms of daycare, I can tell you that it has many positive aspects (these have also been proven in various developmental psychology studies). Kids learn to socialize with other kids and adults earlier and are experienced to people from other families and backgrounds, something that doesn't usually happen at home. I think that kids can never have too many positive adult role models, something they are hopefully getting from their daycare providers. I still keep in touch with my childhood babysitter, and she was a very positive, influential, wonderful woman, who, along with my amazing "working" mom, helped me become the woman that I am today. Isn't the old saying that it takes a village to raise a child? In my opinion, good daycare providers are part of that village, along with someone's family, teachers, neighbors, etc.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be OK for women to want to stay home. As kazoogrrl eloquently put it, the right to have that option is something that feminists fought for too. I just don't understand the traditional notion that every woman should feel as if her outside the home job is just a necessity rather than something that that she likes, wants to do, and makes her a fuller person.
Just because you work outside the home, doesn't mean you can't still take time for your family, make your own meals, and "take care" of your house, although it might mean you need more contributions from your partner, kids, etc. I think that having a home where everyone contributes, not just where the mom takes care of everything makes for more self-sufficient kids and also (in my opinion) makes for a more balanced relationship between parents. Besides, it's always pissed me off when people act like when men contribute around the house, they're doing this big favor and it should be commended to no end. Hello? They live there too! I look at a male partner who contributes as a requirement, not a bonus.
Posted by kazoogrrl on 2004-12-30 17:13:20
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 honeybee on 2004-07-08 17:08:23
Post Subject:
when i disagree with someone, i feel the need to find common ground, so that i, and possibly the other party, can better understand our differences.
i value clear communication as a way to foster peace and tolerance, which i see the world as needing more of. i don't feel that giving up in frustration and leaving a situation of misunderstanding is productive if i still think there is a chance to relate. sure, it's not as easy being around people with a different opinion, but where is the growth in that?
what has ever been accomplished by someone giving up?
i can see that i've offended people with my "feminist clique" comment, which i retracted, BTW. i was frustrated that there was an unwillingness to contunue to educate others what feminism means. it felt like an elite group was basically saying, if you don't know, your loss, and i'm not going to waste my time talking to you.
for the record, i don't feel comfortable labeling myself a feminist; rather, i want to see broader equality to for every person, not just women. however, it's vital to have feminists fighting for womens' rights, too, so i'm glad there are strong feminists around like the ones speaking up here.
and i would have defined polarity in this context pretty much exactly how my dictionary does, so i think that's a moot point.
Posted by xuli on 2004-07-21 14:25:03
Post Subject:
Reading list-wise: I really didn't like Cunt.
I didn't like it either. I thought it had some pretty frightening anti-choice, anti-contraception tendencies. I understood the overall argument -- that abortions and contraceptives are controlled by "the man" -- but I thought the solutions proposed were irresponsible and dangerous, not to mention dismissive of those of us who use contraceptives and like having the right to abortion defended. Inga Muscia is a good writer though, and she has her strengths.
Which points to a cool thing about feminism -- there are many feminisms, just as there are many feminists, and we often disagree with each other but we also often learn from each other.
Posted by geek_chick on 2004-07-19 19:10:18
Post Subject:
I'm 21 and I have gotten a lot of flack for calling myself a feminist. It is too bad that it has such a bad rap. Feminism to me is basically what every one else has said, equal rights for all. I am minoring in Women Studies at school and what has completely amazed me is that feminism is a full spectrum of beliefs. There are so many different sub-groups that while they consider themselves feminists, they all would not necessarily agree on issues. I hope this makes sense. So I guess my point is that you should feel no shame in identifying yourself as a feminist. I feel that the more people who do so, the less dirty the word will become!
Oh yeah....I agree that Bitch is an excellent magazine, if focuses on the media. Bust is another fabulous magazine, it has a little bit of everything in it.
Posted by geek_chick on 2004-07-19 19:11:59
Post Subject:
I'm 21 and I have gotten a lot of flack for calling myself a feminist. It is too bad that it has such a bad rap. Feminism to me is basically what every one else has said, equal rights for all. I am minoring in Women Studies at school and what has completely amazed me is that feminism is a full spectrum of beliefs. There are so many different sub-groups that while they consider themselves feminists, they all would not necessarily agree on issues. I hope this makes sense. So I guess my point is that you should feel no shame in identifying yourself as a feminist. I feel that the more people who do so, the less dirty the word will become!
Oh yeah....I agree that Bitch is an excellent magazine, if focuses on the media. Bust is another fabulous magazine, it has a little bit of everything in it.
Posted by CraftinFool on 2004-04-25 13:34:10
Post Subject:
First of all, I think it was obnoxious of your boss to lecture you about your name. That's your business and there are plenty of good reasons TO change and and NOT to change it. Plus it wasn't very professional of her to get that extreme about it.
Anyhoo, I took my husband's name when we married. Luckily no-onw gave me crap about it, b/c picking a fight with a bride-to-be is dangerous!!
I took it partly b/c we plan to have children and I'd like the whole family to have the same name. But also b/c I just like the sound of his surname better. It's a beautiful name and I wanted it. My maiden name was long and Italian and always getting pronounced or spelled wrong. But the new name doesn't make me feel any less a part of my immediate family.
No-one has the right to tell you that your choice is wrong or non-feminist. I thought as modern feminists we were supposed to be able to make our own choices!
Posted by soapandwater on 2005-02-28 17:11:51
Post Subject:
Speaking of waves, you know, I've had trouble identifying myself as a third-wave feminist, although I'm technically young enough to be part of, say, the fourth wave movement (if it comes about).
I used to think it was just a generational thing, and I certainly like the whole thing that happened in the early 90s with the riot grrrl movement, although that fizzled out and we're once again in a world where men are the only ones seen as real musicmakers.
And I certainly have a problem with "this is how I interpret feminism." That can be severely skewed that a ton of people are saying, "I'm feminist, so I can manipulate people with sex."
Logically, if this third wave sort of flopped, we have to aim higher then. There are certain things that I do consider morals of mine; they're the things that make me cry, if I think too hard on them. What's really amazing is how great the philosophies of, say, Jesus Christ are and how they could be applied to, I don't know, helping out fellow human beings.
I don't believe women are inherently these things. I believe we've been socialized to be nurturing, blah blah, etc. I do believe, though, that every human being has the capacity to heal, in some small way, and it wouldn't be a bad thing for feminists to be the one leading the way.
Because right now, things seem terribly desperate. And depressing.
Posted by ada on 2005-03-01 09:49:05
Post Subject:
I'm afraid that looking at the 'Gather the Women' website (that the Utne article is talking about) brings me out in a rash... there's phrases like
Gather the Women rests in the deep well of grace provided by Divine Source, with the commitment to honoring all the diverse expressions of faith in that One Being.
See, I think this is setting up a religious feminist movement, including only those religions that believe in 'one being' who is 'divine'.
Nothing wrong with that as such - as Athos said, many past social movements came from religious people and communities, and just imagine the changes possible if traditionally conservative religious groups would begin to think in feminist terms.
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?
Perhaps I am being too harsh - and I don't mean to say that this is actually what the 'Gather the Women' movement is about, or will come to. But I find this strongly religion-linked approach unsettling and excluding.
*edited to add*
I am not sure I quite got at what I was trying to say. What I mean is, it's fine by me if religious women want to form a feminist movement, all power to them if it is actually feminist in the sense of building on the work of earlier waves of feminists rather than dismantling it (e.g. abortion rights). But I don't think it could include enough women to ever be a 'fourth wave'. And if it is the fourth wave, then it's pretty obvious what the criticism to it would be - see slowgraffiti220's post for that! - and where we might go with a fifth wave. (And, if I can already now anticipate the hypothetical 'fifth wave', and actually women are already living in that manner, doesn't that seem a better candidate for the next substantial movement in feminist politics?)
Posted by soapandwater on 2005-03-01 10:04:25
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 anthrogirl on 2004-11-07 10:36:36
Post Subject:
I think that waiting for politicians to change things or be better people is a mistake. Real change has rarely started with politicians- even under Roosevelt, those ideas came from other people and were brought into the New Deal. The same is true of The Great Society.
We all need to fight like Hell. We need to raise our children to have a greater understanding of patriotism, and of what their country can be. As an African-American, what I'm seeing is what I've often seen- uncaring people are in power, and if some of us want a place in the world, we have to fight for it. For people of color that has always been the case.
A few weeks ago I had a similar discussion with my boyfriend who is white. He felt that decent thoughtful people had been marginalized, called traitors, and had their patriotism called into question. I laughed sadly and said, 'congratulations-you now know what it's like to be black. We have fought in every American war; we've shown our love and loyalty; we have created music, art and science that led to this country becoming a great land. And yet politicians still shield the terrorists who want to kill us (and some of them are members of terrorist groups); our loyalty is still questioned; our history is still unknown; people still disenfranchise our votes; our children are still kept in ignorance. most of America has been in love with jazz, blues, R&B, and hip hop in turn, but they've never known what it was like to be black, and where that music comes from. Now they'll find out.'
My parents taught me to persevere in any crisis- that there was a good chance that I would never be taken seriously by most white people and that my rights would often not be respected, even if I willingly performed my duties as an American citizen. Now I can see that there are many people of all ethnicities and backgrounds who do not respect my right to exist. As a queer/bisexual woman of color (I came out in 1978 when I was in high school) I have never expected the world to work in my favor. I think this is a wake up call to people of good will- stop being complacent. Get angry. Fight like hell. For those of us who are feminists, we need to stop thinking about just making money or trying to masculinize ourselves, and start realizing that we must be female warriors. In its own way, I think this site is part of that reclaiming.
One of the reasons poor white women and many women of color rejected feminism was because many of the ideas were inherently classist and potentially racist- Poor women of all colors have always had jobs outside the home, often in the houses of the very women who exploited us while raising their consciousnesses and joining the Women's Movement in its various forms. For many of our grandmothers, the real dream was to have a shot at domesticity- and to have homes whose sanctity would be respected. The disparagement of housewifely labor left women who cleaned homes for a living in a feminist limbo- while in grad school I became bitterly aware of how many of my professors wore their ideas of equality on their sleeves, while exploiting the labor of other women who could not afford to stay home and raise their own children for want of a decent living wage or educational opportunities.
Raising the standard of domesticity and calling for those skills to be honoreed as the labor and art that they are will give women more choices, not fewer ones. I enjoy being out in the world of work, but I resent being told I have to become a pseudo-man with appreciation for the pleasures of cooking and crafting to do it. I also resent the implication that in order to get ahead and still have a presentable home, I have to exploit other women because I cannot afford to pay them well for what I cannot or will not do on my own. In my mind, Bushite-brand Republicanism is inherently anti-woman, anti-family, and anti-American, and we need to fight it with tooth and nail.
Posted by rmeb on 2005-03-01 16:23:18
Post Subject:
Great discussion!
It's funny that you brought this up, M, because a woman that I work with and I were just talking about this issue the other day. Our conversation was about the fact that we think the sort of old school "soap-box" kind of feminism (or activism of any kind, really) has sort of lost its luster nowadays. Unlike in the 60's & 70's, it's now pretty run of the mill to have people protesting, marching, signing petitions, etc. (full disclosure: I live in a liberal college town where at any given moment, you could probably run into about 3 different kinds of protests, but...). As a consequence, it doesn't seem to have the same effect on people or society as it onec did. She and I both thought that as the next "wave" of feminists, we need to come up with new and different ways to get people active, make our voices heard and AFFECT CHANGE. The problem is, how to do it?! Maybe your suggestion of combining a lot of the prior methods would work. We couldn't seem to come up with much, but I think those are the kinds of conversations we need to be having.
As far as your question about will we ever have a viable candidate for a high political office, I am sad to say that I do not think we will live to see a woman President. I think that the masses in our society still don't think a woman would be capable of handling the office, and as you mentioned, still expect certain "feminine" characteristics and qualities. For example, even though I personally strongly dislike Condeleeza Rice and her politics, I was still pissed to read an article about her in some magazine (probably glamour or cosmo) about how she loves to have "slumber parties" with Mary Matalin up at Camp David and loves to get dressed up to go to parties. Hello?! Is any of that relevant? Why should that affect how we feel about her as a governmental official?
Also, think about how people talk about Hillary Clinton! She was slammed for not being "first lady" enough (ie. not being content to just decorate the White House Christmas Tree, cut ribbons at ceremonies, etc.), for having her own career, speaking her mind, etc. I think that all of the things that I like about Hillary are the things that a lot of run of the mill Americans would hold against her in an election. I think that in order for us to have a viable woman presidential candidate there needs to be some serious wholesale changes in our social framework.
That's all for now, but I'm glad this thread is here. I will think more and post more soon.
-r
Posted by xuli on 2005-03-01 13:10:56
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 honeybee on 2005-03-01 11:46:54
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 2005-02-28 15:52:58
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 soapandwater on 2005-07-31 16:33:10
Post Subject:
"I want to have his abortion" is so demeaning! Aside from trivializing abortion, there's more focus on female sacrifice for the sake of men. Go through a painful, emotional procedure because some guy knocked you up because he was hot? HOW WRONG is that.
Maybe we should have a letter-writing campaign so that Bust knows that this isn't what we need right now.
And even if third wave feminists suddenly started doing cocaine ("Relive the 80s! Career women aren't afraid to powder their noses!"), wouldn't it be the magazine's responsibility to take a critical look at that, instead of promoting it? I'm still just horrified by that. I might go skim the magazine at the bookstore this week (AND NOT BUY!)
Posted by xuli on 2005-09-14 11:42:13
Post Subject:
Discussing political topics in different community-type forums doesn't EVER change my views and I feel it fruitless to discuss over the internet--I discuss amongst friends/family.
I think this is an important comment because it helped me to think about the different motivations for discussing political topics. I have a very different view of things than you do, Knits4Fun, and I consider these online discussions to be very fruitful. Here's why:
Frankly, discussing political topics in online communities HAS changed my views. Will I change my views on abortion, the Bush administration, or my love of cats because of an online discussion? Absolutely not. But I've had online conversations with people like Jangrl and Notmarcie and Mindshare and Soapandwater about feminism that have given me insights about it I hadn't previously considered. My understanding of natural disasters has been completely transformed because of Brdgt. Because of Delgc, I've thought long and hard about my reliance on "big box" stores and thought about what that means environmentally. Because of HeatherC and her sharp wit, I've been able to see the humor in situations that I never would have otherwise seen, and I've been armed with some great one-liners to use in real life discussions.
There are ways that online discussions can change my views without resulting in a complete political transformation -- by deepening my understanding of things and giving me a view on a topic I hadn't considered before. I think it's important to remember that political disagreements aren't just "I'm pro-choice and you aren't" but "Even though we are both feminists, I have an understanding of transgender issues that you don't, and I'd like you to think about your views in light of this new information."
Posted by Craftasaurus Rex on 2006-08-09 09:17:17
Post Subject:
uh, how about "i watch it myself AND I LIKE IT"? i'm a little offended that you assume that i watch porn because i'm lonely.
my ex watched porn with and without me when we were together, and i didn't care.
hello, some women, yes, even some *feminists*, watch porn because they fucking enjoy it. people like ME.
I'm bringing this post back from the dead, because I totally agree with stella on this one. My ex and I watched porn together all the time. Not necessarily to get 'in the mood' (sometimes that was just a pleasant side effect). Sometimes it was just because porn can be really really funny.
I personally don't own any porn, but my roomate has a plethora, and I borrow it from time to time to giggle. It very rarely gets me "raring to go", I just watch it because it gives me ideas.
Posted by alteredtome on 2006-02-17 03:23:21
Post Subject:
uh, how about "i watch it myself AND I LIKE IT"? i'm a little offended that you assume that i watch porn because i'm lonely. my ex watched porn with and without me when we were together, and i didn't care. hello, some women, yes, even some *feminists*, watch porn because they fucking enjoy it. people like ME.
Amen, sister! I have no sex drive to speak of on my own (stupid hormones), but sometimes a little visual stimulation and I'm all purring again. :) I don't see a darn thing wrong with porn, it's just a visual version of erotica stories to me. I have a serious problem with the abusive crap, and I don't really understand some fetishes, but sex and getting turned on are a part of life, a part I miss out on a lot because I'm just not chemically driven right now. If I need some healthy help, porn is right there for me. What's the difference if I read the Olympia Reader or order up the Spice Channel? It's all the same to me.
And I agree with you, Marina. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of "letting" a partner do something, or being "allowed" to do something by a partner. To me, that's not reaching out to try to understand what's going on with your partner, or trying to understand your partner more, that's trying to control your partner to suite your insecurities.
Edited because I was really tired when I typed the rest of this, and it was just too, too much. :)
Posted by twilight on 2004-09-26 17:55:02
Post Subject:
I'd like to know what the different waves of feminism are. I've heard stuff like this is influenced by third wave feminists. I'm guessing first wave is the women who fought for the vote and second wave is from the 70's but I'm really not sure.
Posted by anmeikitty on 2004-07-08 12:26:24
Post Subject:
Anmikitty- do you have a spouse, would you like to get married, or at least let me be your faithful servant ! (in a damn feminist servile way)
I already have a manservant (who I totally love and am marrying by the way...I guess feminists aren't man haters afterall. Who knew?) but I could use a ladyservant as well! Especially one in the UK, one of my favorite places to be :)
Posted by alteredtome on 2006-02-18 13:39:28
Post Subject:
I just wanted to thank Marina-Trilobyte for the thoughtful post, and the great links.
Thanks!
I want to reiterate what blushinggirl said: Thanks Marina for your insight and the links. I've been reading the blog from Ali, the "porn clerk", and it's wonderful. She's funny, insightful, and honest, and her posts are very polished...she's a great story teller. I love that her musings focus so much on her being a First Amendment Feminist, and then refining that definition for herself based on her experiences at this store, namely: some of the disgusting behavior she witnessed in the basement, where the pornos are; her observations of the customers that came in for porn flicks; and then some of porn flicks that were completely about degrading and abusing women. It's a great view on how we, as feminists, define ourselves and our sexuality in the world today. Thank you again for sharing.
Thanks for bringing this topic up, boheme-anne, I love reading how other women on this board are viewing the whole subject of porn.
In my last post, I had deleted a huge chunk of it, because I was so tired that night that when I re-read it, it didn't make much sense. That chunk was some thoughts for KorinD, so I'm going to try putting those thoughts here, see if it doesn't sound more coherent. :)
KorinD, I am 99.9% that the porn he's getting isn't so he can check out other women, or fantasize about some perfect woman standard that no one really lives up to. It's not about having a love affair with a fantasy. He is using porn undoubtedly just so that he can masturbate while you're away. You know, get some "me" time in while you're gone? Like kittensrme said, guys need visuals to get turned on way more than women do, in general. That's why the sperm clinics stock porn for the donors....they don't expect them to imagine themselves into being aroused, because guy's brains just don't work like ours. Why do you think they always want the lights on? ;) LOL. We're lucky that way...a little imagination goes a long way for us. But people don't watch porn for the amazing dialogue, porn pretty much equals masturbation, especially for guys.
I think some people are missing the point about masturbation, as well. Masturbation isn't a replacement for sex, or a way to get you through some dry spells, not at all. It's an additional kind of sex, the kind that's all about you, where you know exactly what you're doing to please yourself. It's 'No-Stress Sex', and a cure for so many ails. It's a great tension/headache releaser and can be very self-soothing in times of stress. :) Just because someone is in a happy, committed relationship where the sex is fantastic, doesn't mean that they will quit masturbating.
You have to remember, too, that sometimes, sex can mean a lot of pressure for guys in hetero relationships. I mean, it's kinda awkward when two people first start having sex anyway, no matter who they are or what the sexual orientation, because you want to do it right and well, but it can be hard to do when you don't know the other person's body yet. But, I feel kinda sorry for the fellas in hetero relationships, because us girls can be pretty confusing, even after getting more comfortable with each other's bodies. I mean, for guys, everything is pretty obvious with their sexual anatomy, so they know that they are going to get off, their partner knows they are going to get off, so it's not a huge amount of pressure for their partner to please their fella. But trying to get us girls off, especially for hetero guys that don't understand how female sexual organs work, now that's completely different situation. Girls just aren't so obvious and guys can get so wrapped up in whether they were able to make you come, or whether you're having a good time in getting there. It can be so deflating to them if you didn't come vaginally or right around when they came (since they're pretty much done after that). I have had to give anatomy lessons to a couple of boyfriends of mine, just so they understand that for some women (like me), just purely based on anatomy, a vaginal orgasm just ain't gonna happen. And then having to explain that it still feels great to have intercourse, oy....ok, but that's for another topic. My point is that self-play is just a different way to have the pleasures of sex, without all the worry and pressure of having to bring someone else along for the ride. So, KorinD, like I said, the porn and masturbation is mostly like about him just having some me time, doing something fun just for himself, without any pressure, just like you or I might work on crafting to relax...that's all the porn means on the weekends you're away. And we all need me time, no matter how great a relationship is.
So, based on knowing that porn = masturbation for most guys, and knowing that most guys like to masturbate, whether they are having a great sex life or not, does it still upset you that he's masturbating when your gone? Because if it does, then it's time to start digging deep, and find out why him having sexual, safe, healthy fun without you is making you insecure. Like I said, watching porn to masturbate has nothing to do with you at all, it's not a comment on your sex life, it's not a comment on your looks or who you are, and so there's no need to feel threatened, really...it's just a visual aid to do something fun. Try to see this from his point of view. Also (and this is for Boheme-Anne, too), do you think that he was purposefully hiding it from you, because he prefers it over you, or is this something he just didn't tell you about or mention, because it's awkward to talk about? I mean, do you really expect him to announce "Hey honey, while you were gone this weekend, I rented 'Dude, Where's My Dildo?' and 'Big Trouble in Little Vagina' so I could have some quality time together with the ole meat wrench"? LOL. ;) Do you announce to him everytime you masturbate? And now that you do know, and you've gotten mad and upset at him for it, do you think he's going to tell you in the future? Is that being dishonest, or is that trying to spare your feelings? Because really, why should he stop masturbating because you don't like how he's doing it? That would be like him telling you to stop doing crafts, because he feels insecure about it because it's something you do alone, something you get joy out of that has nothing to with him. Really, the question here is why are you trying to change his behavior, why does him having fun doing something alone make you feel insecure about your sex life?
And knowing that he uses porn for masturbation, why would you try to have him watch it only while you were home? Is it so instead of masturbating, he'll have sex with you? Isn't that then trying to control his behavior by not letting him have time to himself to masturbate, by telling him it's only ok to watch when you're around, otherwise, it upsets you? I mean, I'm all for finding ways to seduce him so that you're getting more sex, so that your satisfied, but trying to do it in a way that controls his behavior when you aren't there just seems creepy to me.
Ok, still too long, and other's have said some of these things, but I hope that both you and Boheme-Anne will try to see your fellas side of things. Being dishonest is never good in a relationship, but neither is demanding such complete openness. We all need thing that are just ours, things we don't have to share, things we don't have to explain ourselves over. I hope you continuing responding, because I'm curious to know what you think of this point of view.
Posted by Snufkin on 2004-07-08 12:31:27
Post Subject:
The only negative junk I've seen here is the person who told people not to post about politics on her very first day becuase she doesn't like them and she found the other board to be "too left" (just like that damn Fox News! Damn feminists) and your posts here.
anmeikitty, should we ever meet up in person, I'm totally buying you a Klondike bar for giving me the best laugh of the day. Come to think of it, the genuine wit (call it 'biting sarcasm' if you must) is exactly why I prefer this board and group of gals over the other one.
Posted by anmeikitty on 2004-07-08 12:00:33
Post Subject:
how ironic that the perceived negative vibes on glitter that some people are reacting to are being carried over to getcrafty, which the same people have heralded as having a nicer vibe?
And its not even Alanis Morrissette irony, either! Who do ya think is doing all this carrying over of negative vibes? The only negative junk I've seen here is the person who told people not to post about politics on her very first day becuase she doesn't like them and she found the other board to be "too left" (just like that damn Fox News! Damn feminists) and your posts here.
Oh wait, this is supposed to be one of those deep rhetorical questions because lord knows we don't want to start a big old polarizing debate by each answering it and gettin' all crazy meta on it!
Posted by John Sutton on 2005-11-23 00:58:20
Post Subject: This is all a bit overwrought, no?
Come on people! "appropriation of the craftivist sentiment?". Please!
Someone posts a men-centric history of knitting on a men's knitting website and women are up in arms?! What the hell is going on?! That history lesson, as I understand it, was a response (some would say over-reaction) to Debbie Stoller's Stitch 'n Bitch wherein she gives the guys short shrift before launching into a celebration of women's continuing contributions to the craft of knitting. But then it's a feminist book, so who can blame her? That being said, who can blame a men's knitting website for posting what appears to be an accurate summary (that's a key word, summary) of men's on-going contribution to the craft. This isn't about protecting our fragile masculinity or appropriating anything. It's about celebrating men's contribution to the history of knitting.
I find it astounding and a bit disheartening that knitting is losing it's appeal for someone simply because it's becoming more acceptable. That seems to me a childish reaction. And I'm pretty certain it's not the men who are responsible for knitting's new polished appeal; it's the hip young urban women and the Hollywood movie stars and the feminists! Blame Debbie Stoller! She says in Stitch 'n Bitch that she made it her mission to "raise knitting's visibility and value in the culture." Her MISSION. And of course I'm being facetious when I say blame her. It's a brilliant book that has done more to increase the popularity and perceived value of knitting than any other. Hell, probably more than any book or person ever! I say mission accomplished. And to her credit, SHE doesn't shy away from inviting men to the needles! Thank you, Debbie.
I don't believe we (men) have come under fire for knitting (at least I didn't until I found this website). Not once in 13 years of knitting have I had a negative experience, and that includes the first 3 years when I did my knitting on a US Navy aircraft carrier. I am, however, frequently surprised by the number of women who expect that I get ridiculed. I've heard on more than one occassion, "it's great that you are knitting! Don't people make fun of you?" Well, no, they don't. And even if they did, I would continue to knit. And I'm sorry if my knitting feels like appropriation to you or if my masculinity somehow makes knitting okay and therefor limits your ability to enjoy the craft (?), but I promise you that's not why I knit. I'm not trying to rob you of your heritage as a woman or as a "craftivist" and I'm not looking for applause or validation. I don't need it to justify my knitting. I knit because I enjoy the process and the results and, usually, the community.
As far as Dicks with Sticks goes...yeah, I don't like it, either, but that's just because I don't think it's clever (sorry Evan). It makes me think of "jerk". Now Denver Men with Balls...that makes me chuckle. On that note, isn't BUST a reductionist name for a magazine that emphasizes the feminine? And isn't that the point? If you're starting a men's knitting group and you want to attract men, you emphasize the masculinity. When you advertise, you aim at your target audience. I'm also willing to bet that the "bitch" in the Stitch 'n Bitch book title isn't that limited in it's context. At least I hope not, because it was a pretty clever title for a feminist's knitting book when I thought it meant more than just talk.
Finally, delcq started this discussion with an invitation to "discuss" and ends it by yelling troll at a guy who knits because he got a little annoyed by all the negativity aimed at male knitters. Go back and read through these posts. It's REALLY negative and kind of sad. Now, I urge you to find Jean's Crafty Manifesto on this very website and reread it. If you can't bring yourself to reread the whole thing (a shame, because it's pretty good), at the very least find the paragraph where she talks about what being crafty means. She says, "it means always trying to be nice." Troll is a little harsh. It's not at all nice, or crafty.
Posted by Snufkin on 2004-07-08 09:51:06
Post Subject:
The problem with the other board is that it is controlled by a feminist clique. Just like the way liberals control the media. The nerve of them!
This board is so much more visually appealing and is more like Glitter circa 2001 (a very good year, I think) than the other one is. Those were the days! A tight group of sassy, interesting, friendly ladies discussing anything and everything.
The other board is a little too young and neo-conservative and crappily designed for my taste.
Ha! As always, you get to the heart of the matter anmeikitty. Yeah, the thing I've never been able to figure out is that while probably *every other craft board* in the universe has got to be neo-conservative, why do people get their noses out of joint if one board is different and focuses on feminism instead? There's gotta be a million other places (or Promise Keeper's ladies auxiliary groups) where craft minded neo-conservative gals can gather online. But not the same case for us crafty feminists.
Posted by kungfugirl on 2004-07-08 17:52:17
Post Subject:
Well, honeybee, if you actually read what has been said by the girls on this board, it doesn't sound like anyone is interested in that, so maybe you'll just have to give up your goal of unifying the two boards. I'm sorry to be blunt, but there seems to be a self-serving denseness on your part where things are being said but you're not hearing or comprehending them. We can't 'educate' you or anyone else when you aren't listening.
And as far as my feminism remarks go, I'm not simply referring to your feminist clique comment, I'm talking about the fact that EVERY time I've gotten into a feminist discussion on Supernaturale, there've been accusations about feminists trying to tell others how to live, etc...I've given up on trying to change anyone's views on that board and now I just want to hang out on this one and have polite respectful conversations with thoughtful intelligent women who can respectfully disagree and aren't overly sensitive. Please respect that.
Posted by sallysunshine on 2004-11-23 11:32:51
Post Subject:
It used to be a big issue 30 years ago, but you never hear about it anymore.
I agree it's not as big an issue as it was 30 years ago, but I feel like feminists are the only people I ever hear talk about it. If you go to a meeting of a non-feminist lefty group and raise the issue of women doing all sorts of uncompensated labor in the home, they'll dismiss that as a private, personal issue, not real exploitation. And you'll notice that both feminists and non-feminists offer only private solutions to the problems of household labor, and they're generally solutions that put all the impetus on women. It is women's responsibility to choose whether to hire domestic help, and if a family does make that choice, it is the woman, not the man, who is practicing exploitation. It's a woman's job to cajole her husband into doing his share of the housework. It's a woman's job to find a partner in the first place who is committed to doing his share. On that issue, feminists like Barbara Ehrenreich and anti-feminists like Caitlin Flanagan are in total agreement. So much for "the personal is political."
But I think your post went against the general spirit of this thread, amelia, which is to criticize the feminists of thirty years ago for being mean about domesticity. It was, for instance, mean to point out that being a homemaker was risky, since if a homemaker should ever find herself single, her skills would have very little value on the job market. Feminists never said the skills had no *real* value: they merely pointed out that a lot of women were finding themselves impoverished because those skills were *socially* devalued. But it is hurtful to suggest to women that their marriages might not last, so feminists were being mean by talking about this. Even though it was demonstrably a problem. I feel like feminists got in trouble on these issues partly because people didn't understand their critique and partly because people didn't want to hear what they had to say.
I'm not denying that a lot of feminists have thought really kooky and insulting things, but the basic feminist critique of domesticity has never been that domestic tasks are useless. It's been that they're *devalued*, and that it is bad when women as a class are assigned work that is not seen as real work. There are lots of ways to deal with that, including assigning value to housework, and like it or not, in this society that means assigning monetary value to it. (Is that acquiescing to capitalism? Yes. But I'm not willing to buy into the old Marxist party line that women will just have to suffer until the Revolution.) That was what was behind the wages for housework movement, although there was no way that was going to go anywhere. Interestingly enough, hiring someone to do your housework is one way of recognizing that it is actual work with economic value. Or else you can argue that it should stay outside the market and not be compensated, but then you have to figure out ways to make sure that men are as likely to do it as women.
Incidentally, MlleEmily, I basically agree that the discussion here is about the fun stuff, but I'd argue that cooking falls somewhere in between. I generally like to cook, and I think it's a lot more creative and fun than mopping the bathroom floor. But I also have to cook, because I can't afford to eat out. It's not really a hobby, although it's generally a pleasant chore.
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-12-15 13:48:14
Post Subject:
The problem with many feminists is they think we have to become men
No, feminists do not believe that. That's a myth.
Taken from Merriam-Webster:
fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
Honest question: is it really that important that crafty and/or domestic feminists differentiate ourselves from those retrograde, anti-feminist crafty and/or domestic women? What if we see our shared interests as a tool for solidarity or evangelism, rather than as a source of shame for us?
Do you mean that women have a sense of solidarity, despite their different ideology, in crafting?
If you mean that, I'd have to agree that to some degree that works, as long as people avoid the sensitive subjects. I could theoretically sit in a room with someone who thought feminism was stupid and outdated and have a wonderful conversation about home economics. As long as we stuck to that topic, it'd be fine.
I, however, cannot stick to one topic for an extended period of time. Even a topic I like a lot. And I'd probably end up saying something like, "Wow, I really enjoy this self-sufficiency I've done. I'm thinking about having a craft fundraiser on my campus to donate the money to NOW or something."
I can't even tell someone I'm taking a women and economics course without another girl saying, "Oh, God. I heard that class is just going to be a bunch of feminists yelling at each other." So, while I may be able to talk fashion/pop culture with this person, I can't feel as if I'll ever be respected in my search to blend the two worlds.
Meaning, I don't necessarily seek solidarity in all women. I have to feel supported in my goals, or the goals would seem sort of unattainable.
I'm not making sense, but then, I'm not sure I understood the question either.
Posted by sallysunshine on 2004-12-15 16:29:00
Post Subject:
Do you mean that women have a sense of solidarity, despite their different ideology, in crafting?
Not really.
To me, feminism is not just a set of beliefs: it's a movement, and the idea is to change things. And in order to change things, we're going to have to enlist the help of people who don't currently consider themselves feminists. Some of them already are feminists according to my understanding of feminism, but they may shy away from the term, in part because there's been a pretty effective anti-feminist smear campaing. They think that being a feminist means hating men or forgoing makeup or not pursuing fun hobbies or whatever. They think that feminism is about limiting their choices, rather than expanding them.
I think that we might be able to use our shared interest in traditionally-feminine crafts to reach out to some of those women. I've seen that with my mother. I think my mom is a feminist, but she's always rejected the label, because she thought (wrongly, I think) that feminists would judge and reject her life choices. But she's a quilter, and through meeting feminist and womanist quilters, she's begun to change her ideas about feminism.
So it's clear to me that my crafty sensibility is a bit different from your average scrapbooker's, although it's not so different from my mom's. But I still wonder if we could find common ground with non-feminist crafters and maybe put a human face on feminism for women who haven't seen feminists as their allies. I'm thinking that instead of concentrating on how to convince people that we're not like those other crafty types, in fact we might concentrate on convincing crafty types that in some ways we are like them. And in other ways, maybe we can bring them to believe that they might want to be more like us.
Posted by craftytricks on 2004-12-15 14:18:23
Post Subject:
I really believe that being a woman and a feminist doesn't need a definition, there are no set rules.
I agree, very much so. Without strict definitions and rules, the term 'feminism' can bring a whole lot more to the table.
Also, I think it's crucial when thinking of the feminist movement to remember that not all feminists are public feminists. It's good and it's very important to have public feminists to organize events and start discussions and make their voices heard. But I think the private feminists, the ones who find their happy balance in their homes or with their family or with their work, may just be the real backbone to any sort of feminist movement 'revolution.' When I think of an actual acceptance of a new domesticity, I don't see it happening because of marches or defiance or shaking our fists at men. I see it starting in the private sphere with a division of chores or a flexible work schedule or a local craft fair. If each woman were to embrace and live her own definition of feminism, think of how far the movement would progress.
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-12-14 12:34:40
Post Subject:
Mindshare, a lovely good point! I think, though, the second wavers are still holding on to their critique of us third wavers (which I'm going to label us, since that's the best definition I can come up with at the moment).
I guess the real problem is how the cultural meets the bigger social movements, involving things like marches and all. It's good that this generation of feminists has been doing political action out on the streets, but I don't want the cultural politics to go undone. Because, let's face it, it's pop culture that needs to be dissected as much as anything else (okay, legal action takes precedence before pop culture, but you know what I mean).
I guess it's good we have things like Bitch magazine that scrutinize honest-to-goodness pop culture with a feminist slant. But how do we get the anti-feminists to read such stuff and find out that we're all knitting because we'd rather spend 10 dollars on a scarf rather than 35? And that's our message, not some housewife role? And that being a housewife doesn't necessarily mean subscribing to the same old beliefs?
I'm mostly repeating myself and talkign aloud because its' something I'm struggling with greatly, since last week. HA!
Posted by breewell on 2004-11-08 02:58:30
Post Subject:
Unless "younger generation" is 16 or so, I think I'm part of that generation. I've found that if I am with women who are overtly political and boldly call themselves feminists, I am better received if I say I am a stagehand. Among my more moderate lady friends (williamsburg hipsters let's say) what Annath is saying is more true. Case in point the popularity of knitting on the L train! I also find though that those same women are less likely to identify themselves as feminists.
I am hopeful that this is not just a backlash against the "bitchy tough feminist" that indicates a swing back to docility, cuteness, and wanting to be "one of the guys" and not make waves (even if it means putting up with offensive comments), but I am not so sure. I say this because I definitely see this in my industry, and I am guilty of it myself. I put up with all sorts of "nice tits" comments, and "how I'd f*** her" discussion. I worry that if I speak up the guys will jump straight to the "See that's why we don't want women working with us, they ruin all the fun" I mean if having daughters and wives hasn't made them treat women better nothing will.
I would love it if being a feminist was an afterthought because every one (men and women) is more focused on being true to themselves and doesn't have to make an effort to ensure equality. I just don't think we're there...
Posted by breewell on 2004-11-01 18:07:39
Post Subject: my tome!
I think this is a really interesting topic (when I did women's studies my first time in college I did a thing on feminism and sexual power, not the same, but I have always been interested in alternate forms of feminism).
I have definitely noticed that many women are far more approving of the fact that I am in a male dominated union, and do carpentry and electronics for my job, than the fact that I love doing cross stitch and crochet. It almost feels like in what we say is the quest for equality, we have turned our backs on anything deemed feminine and embraced what is considered masculine. I think it would be better if we did not categorize any particular task, and could give all work (whether in the home, on the job site or in the office) the respect it deserves and accept that different people have different aptitudes and passions, and anyone really can do any job.
A major thing for me is stress about knowing I am going to want to spend time at home when I have kids. It is not like my husband will make me stay home because "that is where I belong" or anything, (in fact I think he would rather be the one that gets to stay home, we'll probably share) it is that I believe parenting is also a huge job that needs to be given props. It is a hard job and just because a person decides to do that rather than break the glass ceiling, they should not have to feel like they are rejecting their political values.
I remember in the letters section of Bust magazine after they did their Independent Women issue someone complained because they included a stay at home wife and mom as an independent woman. I do not think of Independence as a purely financial thing, I think an independent feminist woman can make choices for herself, based on what she wants in her life and loves doing, regardless of how those choices will be construed by people around her.
It annoys me that we need to play down parts of ourselves considered womanly (and therefore counterproductive to our movement) to be acceptable feminists. I hate feeling guilty if I wear gorgeous low-cut shirts because I have breasts, I can't help it! (besides, men didn't invent breasts, they just changed our perceptions of them).
I think it is also interesting that Ladyfest hosted a workshop entitled "Femmephobia in Queer Communities workshop" that they said would "examine ways in which femme identity is often delegitimized and viewed as counterproductive, while masculinity has come to be prioritized and often viewed as revolutionary." It was about the queer community, but sounds like what happens across the board among many feminists.
I do feel like this issue is starting to change as many of us third-wavers get older, and maybe get a little less dogmatic? and stop seeing things as black and white? (are we becoming fourth-wave?)
Sorry, I guess I went off a little, like I said as a crafty-girly-girl-feminist-electrician-tomboy I have a bit invested in this topic!
Posted by kindarana on 2004-11-01 14:48:59
Post Subject:
Ugh, your topic reminded me of the women who call themselves feminists because they embrace their feminine roles in the home. They had a website, I'll have to ask my friend if she remembered what it was, they're frightening.
Posted by sallysunshine on 2004-12-15 13:19:56
Post Subject:
Honest question: is it really that important that crafty and/or domestic feminists differentiate ourselves from those retrograde, anti-feminist crafty and/or domestic women? What if we see our shared interests as a tool for solidarity or evangelism, rather than as a source of shame for us?
Posted by kindarana on 2004-11-02 00:17:06
Post Subject:
Feminism doesn't mean you can't stay at home, it means you *choose* to stay at home. So if you're are more fulfilled by staying home, more power to you. It also means that if your husband's better with kids, he can *choose* to stay home too.
Feminism says that just because you birthed the kids doesn't mean you're automatically the better cook, maid, or teacher - and a stay at home parent is just that, a teacher. And judging by my kindergarten class, there are definitely some parents who *aren't* good teachers. But don't believe I only love my students for the money - I called the program asking to be a volunteer. The pay for daycare/preschool is such that those caretakers are definitely doing it out of a bit of love too.
But feminism is all about opportunities and choice. The difference between real feminism and the pseudo-feminism espoused by the groups I linked above is that a real feminist will say "I'm a feminist, and I choose to stay home with my children," whereas the pseudo-feminists will say, "I'm a feminist *because* I stay home with my children and embrace my feminine duties."
Posted by PrettyPettyThieves on 2004-12-15 12:33:39
Post Subject:
My personal idea of feminism is basically not being afraid to be a woman. The wonderful thing about being a girl is we have the freedom to pursue traditional "male" roles (wearing pants, for instance, or holding high-paying jobs) while allowing ourselves to occupy traditional "female" roles as well (baking, sewing, etc) If a man wears a skirt or knits, he's laughed at.
The problem with many feminists is they think we have to become men--I don't want to a be a dude, gross! They have cooties :P I love being a woman. Truth is, I don't want to be the breadwinner--I want to have a job, but I don't want to be the sole supporter of my family because everything has to be in balance--my husband and I should both work jobs (of course, I like to pretend that Ewan McGregor is my husband and he makes enough money in moving pic'ures so that I can lay around in a bubble bath all day and eat bon-bons, but that's just me)
It's kind of cool, because my sweetie is much neater than I am and a great cook too! :) I really believe that being a woman and a feminist doesn't need a definition, there are no set rules.
Posted by amelia on 2004-11-23 09:06:36
Post Subject:
But it's just a "guy thing" when one of them sits there with bits of feather and deer fur making teeny tiny anatomically correct bugs to fish with.
(I tried fly tying, and would include it in the "anti-craft" thread.)
Most crafts were designed by very frugal women, to use up the bits and scraps around the house. Quilting is the classic example. The other side of this coin is our consumer culture. Why spend months making a quilt when you can buy one in 5 minutes? But what's sadder is how even crafts have become "consumerized" - look at all the precut fabric squares in the stores, the specialized scrap booking supplies, the uber expensive yarns.
Feminism has always had a major disconnect with consumerism, so it surprises me when I see feminists buying sweat shop goods and hiring an undocumented cleaning lady for her house. It also seems like we've let men "off the hook" in terms of housework. It used to be a big issue 30 years ago, but you never hear about it anymore. They recently released a study showing just how much more housework women do, even when both partners have full time jobs and so on. We need to get the men back on the hook in terms of housework and being responsible for frugality and conservationism. Maybe if more men and women engaged in hobbies that emphasised the "anti-consumer" angles, we could start to break down the structures that support sweat shop labor and the exploitation of other countries poor populations.
Posted by rikki24 on 2004-11-01 13:20:30
Post Subject: feminism and domesticity
pardon the heady subject line... but i'm desperate to get some feedback from some smart, craft-savvy domestic radicals on a thesis i'm currently preparing for grad school on... you guessed it... feminism and domesticity. i was recently *a-hem* humbly dismissed from my job at martha stewart television due to circumstances beyond my control and figured it was an ideal time to return back to the land of eternal debt know colloquially as professional student-dom. i had been involved in women's rights activism and causes prior to taking the position and so entered into the job with a hyper-aware feminist consciousness. needless to say, i was continually amazed at the responses i received from women regarding the intersections of feminism and domesticity and, specifically, how martha (as the queen diva of the new commodified domesticity) positions women inside the home and what that signifies, good or bad. personally, i don't buy the whole "bullies women back into the private sphere- throwback to the 50's" arguement because i know first-hand how empowering, liberating, and validating the domestic arts can be for so many women like myself, even us women who identify as feminists. so i'd like to throw that topic out in the hopes that it may generate some general discussion. and i know that a lot of people may be sick of the whole martha martha martha, but any thoughts anyone may have about her particular phenomenon or mode of life-styling and branding in relation to feminism would be fabulous as well. thanks :)
Posted by soapandwater on 2004-12-14 09:42:05
Post Subject:
Here's the problem that came up in my women's studies class: there's nothing wrong with cultural politics, but what happens when people don't see that you're reclaiming domesticity?
Like, if a bunch of us hot ladies walked down the street in our heels, carrying a totebag full of knitting, how would anyone know that we were doing something progressive? Wouldn't some man socialized to be hyper-masculine just see us as doing what we're supposed to do?
Therein lies the problem, and I hadn't realized that until last week. How do we combine these so-called cultural politics with more progressive feminist action?
That's why I like the idea of crafting as a huge part of fundraising for thing we believe in. And I adored "bake back the white house."
I'd love to blatantly incorporate cleaning a house with somehow fighting the patriarchy, and I think it can be done, and I think that women are doing it, but BY GOD, it's not EASY. It's not easy to say "I'm a feminist, but I do this" because of the second wave feminism.
Second wave feminism was there for us, and then we sort of backed out and got back down to a more individual level of liberation, and now people are calling themselves feminists but saying, "I don't see why chivalry can't work."
Etcetera.
Philokitty, you're taking a break from academia. I can understand that staying at home is not the life you have envisioned. And from what I can tell, I don't think you'll be that way for long. But here's the thing: what can we do if we ever find ourselves in situations like that?
I could foresee myself staying at home for a year or so, in-between something or other, getting life together, while someone works. But how could I turn that into something that better suits my ideology?
It's hard because what good is a private revolution, you know? Or even a private evolution? It's sort of about influencing others.
Book-writing (thanks, Jean!!) and websites and DIY consumption, but still, how do we get the Better Message across?
(sorry this post is so long. I refrained from this post, and now I have said too much!)
Posted by delqc on 2004-12-15 14:39:02
Post Subject:
I can't even tell someone I'm taking a women and economics course without another girl saying, "Oh, God. I heard that class is just going to be a bunch of feminists yelling at each other." So, while I may be able to talk fashion/pop culture with this person, I can't feel as if I'll ever be respected in my search to blend the two worlds.
Meaning, I don't necessarily seek solidarity in all women. I have to feel supported in my goals, or the goals would seem sort of unattainable.
Ok, I am about to do something awful - compare women to men - and I hate that. Blah. Bare with me while I hold my nose and type this.
Can you ever imagine a man suggesting or even hinting that all "men" think a certain way or act a certain way or have solidarity - NO! Why? Because we as a society accept that "men" is not a useful category - sure there are some similarities, but some will be metrosexuals, some will be anarchists, some will be beer-guzzling football fans afraid of homosexuality, some will be homosexual bear-guzzling football fans, etcetera etcetera etcetera ...
No one expects all men to agree, to be the same, or to act in solidarity. 50 years ago, one could have described a political science ocourse as "a bunch of men yelling at one another." But it would have been ok, for some people, who valued the learning experience. Others woul dhave been annoyed and would have ixnaayed that class. And that's ok.
I guess my point is that I think that the fact that all women do not agree is WONDERFUL! We are all capable of independent thought, and deciding what we believe for ourselves - that's great! That is a major first step in liberation - and it shows that we have diversity of experience, which is also a great step forward for feminism.
While we all may have an awful lot in common by being women, there's a lot that we do not share. I am sure that the differences in this group in terms of religious beliefs, cultural practices, and moral values far outnumber the similarities. But - that's ok. I can still respect other people (i.e. women, men, gender queers, EVERYONE) who don't agree with my point of view. My own personal journey is that I must learn to accept and love even those who think I am crazy/stupid, and not judge them, but love them for their diversity of experience and the learning opportunity that it provides me.
If all women were in solidarity, we would have no choice, and feminism would have utterly failed.
