Posted by ada on 2005-03-01 10:49:05
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 honeybee on 2005-03-01 12:46:54
Post Subject:
But I am nervous that, in the past, the version of 'feminism' this brings forward is not a liberal feminism. For example, the bit of the article that honeybee cites - that women being outsiders from the authority positions in institutions is really a good thing because then they don't have to follow protocol - makes me terribly nervous. What does this leave women free to do exactly? Make subtle suggestions to their husbands while serving him dinner?
i interpreted this differently-the way i see it is that the people outside of the mainstream institutions don't have to hedge their words and follow the antiquated constructs dictated by these institutions; rather, they can speak and act freely, and in doing so, garner more attention with their stronger and more radical ideas. work for change from the outside in, if you will.
and i also get a different impression about the faith of the women in these gatherings. perhaps i'm projecting my own loose medley of paganbuddistagnosticism, but i don't see where christianity is the loudest voice of the group in the article. (then again, i don't think 'god' when i read 'divine source'- it sounds to me like a more inclusive term that isn't limited to one form of religion). i, too, balk at the word religion, but the term spirituality has a much different feel to me and that's the word that stands out in my mind after reading the article in utne.
slight tangent- i was not, as many of you have been, formally schooled in feminism-i didn't take women's studies courses, and my attitude toward most feminist literature is similar to my attitude towards art- i feel more comfortable coming to my own conclusions and adopting styles and beliefs that feel most natural to me, rather than going on what the masters or experts dictate. also, i was not raised by a self-proclaimed feminist, though, when i was young, my mother always made sure i knew i could be anything i wanted and that boys and girls were equal. that, in addition to being lucky enough to not have encountered discrimination based on my sex have lead me to take my rights as a woman for granted. i guess my point is that sometimes i feel devalued by scholarly feminists and a bit out-of-the-loop with all the talk of second wave, third wave, etc, especially when i speak of my values as a woman who is in touch with my innate connection to the cycles of nature and the wonders of carrying, birthing, and nurturing another being. these are primarily feminine qualities and abilities, and to hear dissent over my feelings and beliefs is sometimes frustrating.
/end tangent (for now ;). and i'm getting a lot from this discussion.
and there are more points i wanted to address, but i don't feel like a megapost right now.
Posted by soapandwater on 2006-02-03 10:51:41
Post Subject:
Please don't insult our intelligence by insinuating that we haven't heard all the pro-capitalism arguments before. Many of us were, after all, raised in the United States.
There is no "current" feminist thought, either. There is everything from liberal feminism to radical feminism to marxist feminism to delightful cocktails of feminism, of which I partake. It's not hurting the country, as far left, progressive feminists hardly have a seat in Congress.
Of course, there will be pro-capitalist feminists, as well as anti-capitalist anti-feminists, as well as pro-capitalist anti-feminists, etc. Good, people can think for themselves.
You do realize that we understand fans (or fanatics) of capitalism exist. We are aware, even those of us in socialized countries, of the implications of capitalism on a global scale (you like capitalism so much? Please, make it kinder in Juarez). However, we have every right to challenge your sweeping generalizations you make about how inherently good capitalism is.
I would never argue that capitalism or socialism or communism or any sort of economic system is inherently good-- I don't trust human beings. Period. Therefore, even in theory, all economic systems may sound nice and polite, but people mess them up.
But for you to come here and argue that we benefit from capitalism all day long-- I'm sorry, but I eschew atomistic thought. It's not about me. It's not about you. It's about EVERYONE, and capitalism may benefit the individual, but it doesn't benefit EVERYONE all day long. So even if I were to Benefit All Day Long from the mighty power that is Capitalism, someone else suffers greatly.
