While I do not believe that issues like abortion, equal pay, sexual harassment, etc. are “white” or “privileged” issues, I do feel that the movement should also center issues such as educational opportunities for poor women, gendered immigration abuses, forced sterilization, rights of women with disabilities, how sex work and feminism interact, etc.
Obviously that’s not a complete list, but you get my drift.
There’s one “ism,” however, that never (or rarely) comes up in the context of intersectionalism, and that’s ageism. Which is odd, to me. I mean, it’s especially strongly linked to feminism in that women suffer disproportionately from it.
Somehow, though, even (especially?) in third-wave feminist circles, it’s become popular to trash or ignore the contributions of first and second-wave feminists.
Steinem, for example, has come under fire for her recent NYT article for playing Oppression Olympics. I agree and disagree with the article in parts, and don’t want this post to become a referendum on its merits or lack thereof. However, the scorn and dismissiveness that the third wave has exhibited towards Steinem completely ignores the following:
• Her 1962 article in Esquire magazine about the way in which women are forced to choose between a career and marriage preceded Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique by one year.
• Steinem joined with black feminist leaders such as Florynce Rae "Flo" Kennedy, with whom she toured the country, and co-founded the co-founded the National Women's Political Caucus with Shirley Chisholm.
• Steinem also partnered with Wilma Mankiller, formerly the first female Chief of the Cherokee Nation, on a number of initiatives.
• Steinem voiced strong support for Anita Hill and suggested that one day Hill herself would sit on the Supreme Court.
• Steinem co-founded the Coalition of Labor Union Women in 1974
• Steinem has been a staunch advocate of women with disabilities (she herself was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1986 and trigeminal neuralgia in 1994).
• She was an advocate for children she believed had been sexually abused (see two Frontline features)
• Her statement as follows (noted in her wiki entry to have come shortly before the NYT piece) was ignored: “Both Senators Clinton and Obama are civil-rights advocates, feminists, environmentalists, and critics of the war in Iraq. Both have resisted pandering to the right, something that sets them apart from any Republican, including John McCain. Both have Washington and foreign policy experience; George Bush did not when he first ran for president.”
Similarly, Robin Morgan, Betty Friedan, and numerous other second-wave feminists are routinely discounted, their flaws held up to microscopic scrutiny, their contributions written off as irrelevant.
Daisy has written eloquently about women bloggers facing ageism and not providing age in their blogs. She states:
“Various cultures throughout the world once prized the old, as those who had knowledge and wisdom. As American imperialism runs roughshod all over the world and into every nook and cranny of the globe, we see all that is old is shunned and shunted aside. Hatred of what is old is now invading hearts and minds and cultures everywhere. Universally, the belief that old age equals wisdom is fast disintegrating. NEW NEW NEW shall reign. The old is hidden or eliminated, and that includes old people. …
I am pretty tired of this, and I have nearly given up blogging twice over it. Being ignored or talked down to, hurts. How much of this is also sexism and elitism/classism is hard to say... perhaps taken altogether: an older, working-class woman in South Carolina is simply unimportant. Possibly, if I were from New York, London or someplace cool, that would be sufficient to allow me to be taken seriously. But I keep coming back to age: Menopausal gals ain't hawt, and subsequently, we don't say very hawt things. And on the internets, hawtness is a crucial selling point.”
It’s important as a feminist to be aware of other isms. We all make mistakes and hopefully we can react in an adult way when they’re called out. However, we need to be rigorous about calling out mistakes about all isms.
For example – and mind you, I think very highly of this blogger – take a look at this (emphasis added by me):
“I do find beauty in the clear blue eyes and pale skinned races, too. These are all parts of our humanity. And these races have many very beautiful people, as well. True, the lack of melanin means you don't age so well, or hold up under the sun so well, but aesthetically, you can be very beautiful as a group (when younger).”
Now, I was recently referred to this article to understand the “white lens” concept better. And the article is a very useful one. However, in getting rid of the “white lens” should we substitute an ageist lens? Or, does white lens encompass ageism? Per the definition in the post of “a matrix of thought and images and unspoken assumptions and laws and biases and consequences,” perhaps so.
So in an intriguing essay conceptualizing a system of biases, the author demonstrated one himself – one which he had not even addressed as an important bias to look at. And one which has not seemed to disturb many people.
In this election, the “isms” discussed have been racism and sexism. However, ageism has been a key aspect of the sexism directed towards Clinton.
For example, the nutcracker. Women who are attractive (as Clinton is, I think) but also young don’t get called ballbusters.
Secondly, as demonstrated by Melissa McEwan, here, reporters glory in pointing out age on a female candidate. Of course, Reagan and other octogenarians came in for comments about age, but these have typically been more in the context of fitness for service as president. As a 60-year-old woman in good shape, that’s not the concern Drudge had about Clinton. And kudos to McEwan for pointing it out.
Also, we’ve heard the “just not this one” comment about a female president who’s anyone but Hillary? Many of the folks saying this, like Fred Thompson here, are thinking women are OK, even maybe as president, if they’re young and cute. Or anyway, he suggests his daughter as a future candidate, which apparently was met by supportive cheers. Sure, it’s find to think of women in power, if they are young and cute.
Only a 60-year-old FEMALE candidate would be referred to as "aging and resentful." (h/t Violet Socks)
Finally, think about how often you hear certain words applied to young women. “Shrill,” for example. Not often. But we rarely call that what it is.
So let’s do that. Let’s call it out. And let’s talk about how it fits into feminism.
Let’s add some more 40+, 50+, 60+ bloggers to the big feminist blogs. I know some are already there, of course, no need to provide me a list. There aren't many, however.
And don’t get me wrong, some of my favorite bloggers are 20-something. But at 40, for me more bloggers who have a few professional and life miles on them would be worthwhile. Not that I’m not going to like the earnest early-to-mid-20s college or just-post grad with a bucketful of idealism and fewer real life datapoints showing that sexism didn’t go out with the first or second waves. (In fact, among my 20-something faves are women whose early experiences did give them unique knowledge of this). I’m sure they’ll be great.
But, for example, in threads like this one, I’d have reacted differently in my 20s. I’d have had a pure “that’s the right verdict, yay!” reaction. (Note: I am not speculating as to whether the author of this post had the reaction she did because of youth, only about how my own reaction would be affected by it).
Now, I’m a mom. (Again, in an abundance of caution, a qualification: that’s my own situation, not what I think is necessary for an altered viewpoint over time). So I don’t get excited about moms doing cocaine while pregnant getting off prosecution for having a stillborn child, even though I understand the cocaine likely didn’t cause that and I don’t believe prosecution is the right strategy for addressing addiction while pregnant. But in my case, age means I’d like to hear some acknowledgment that there needs to be some responsibility taken. Or that we need to work on helping that to happen.
And no, it’s not ageist to say that. While most 20-somethings (I did too, at that point) think they’re uniquely sophisticated, and some actually are, in the main there are some benefits to age, and denying this is part of the problem.
Anti-ageism may not be hip. And I'll be honest, if I weren't in a position to feel (temporarily) armored against accusations of "jealous old hag!" I'd have a harder time writing this. It may not expand the feminist movement in the ways we think it should be expanded. It may not bring in the sexy demographic we (generic "we" not me in particular) think is best to bring in.
But those aren’t good reasons to avoid doing the right thing.
79 comments:
Third wavers can have knee-jerk responses w/o having read any books.
Brava! Representing for the old broads!! (psst! I'm 41 next week!)
I often wonder why there isn't more mention of ageism myself---with all the various ways it is manifest. To me, it's as obvious as the sun rising in the east in the morning---and not just because I'm in that over-40 group, either. It was painfully evident to me as a young woman also.
See, I spent my twenties longing for the gravitas of age. I couldn't wait to turn thirty, because I knew that magic number carried mental weight. As a young woman working in a near all-male field, I developed the habit of talking like I was older---using the cadences, inflections, slang and pop cultural references of people older than I was. It wasn't a calculated move---it was something that I just found myself doing after awhile just from the influence of being around mostly older people all day (as in, my parents age or older---many of the guys I came up with as an apprentice are either retired or dead---I didn't work with too many that weren't at least twenty years older than I was).
And somewhere along the line, I noticed that when I inadvertently took on that mantle of "age", that I gained respect. As a relatively small woman (I'm only 5'5", which is very short by midwestern standards) with a "baby face", that assumption of substance is something I've had to actively work for.
Now, as an official "old broad", after twenty years of being one of the unofficial historians of my Local (translation: talking a lot with the old timers and remembering their stories), I find the Boomers talking to me as if I were one of them. It's funny---I've had younger members playfully accuse me of "being a hundred years old"---and not looking it.
And that's key. Not looking it. I always mention my age because I want to counter the mainstream assumption of older women---but the fact is, I can be comfortable about it precisely because I don't "look my age". Ageism walks hand-in-hand with notions of beauty. I'd like to think I'd have just as much of a blase attitude about age if I did look older, but I'll never know for sure. I think that's a privilege of sorts---being the "stealth" older woman.
Age impacts women differently than it does men. The assumption of "fluff" routinely assumed of young women isn't operational for young men, though they have the same "baby faces". Young women don't have the leeway of "youthful indiscretion" that young men have. Younger women operate under the double-bind of being taken for a lightweight, while being expected to always think and act as a heavyweight.
And when we are older, we're assumed to be real hardasses (which some of us are, *wink!*) as if that brusqueness just floated in on the breeze, completed unrelated to a lifetime of struggling under the double-bind. At the same time, we're assumed to lose our both our looks and our mental faculties sooner than men (observations to the contrary), if not through childbirth then through menopause.
I always tell young women (all together now!) "you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't." So be yourself, your whole self, and revel in it. (and I'm still thinking about that post! just haven't had time this week to get to it!)
Hi.
Personally, I think the series that try to describe my idea of the White Lens—La Lente Blanca—is more useful as a whole, then just that one post. I was working out a bunch of thought. That post was the first one. And I have to say, I threw that line you quoted in there in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. You can tell, I hope. It was not meant to point out the low value of older people, it was meant to highlight pride for those with browner skin. To flip the devaluing around as a way of sticking a finger up to the current meme of Whiteness as Better.
But I guess I still think that people with more melanin age better. "Black don't crack" people have said, long before I wrote those lines. Friends say to me "Cholo don't crack!"
But I should make clear that I do agree with your overall assessment, topic. You are right, women suffer from ageism (but really it's just part of how we mostly value women for their visual appearance) and it is a real issue. I'm just not sure how I fit into it with that one line.
I'm almost 40 and hey, I've earned every damn year. I think this culture overvalues empty youth, superficial things like looks, and throws away its elders. I could go on on this topic forever. It's a topic I care about and have written a bout.
However, I still think paler skin holds up worse as the years go by, and to the sun's exposure. I don't think that is ageist. I think that is how it works. Just sample people. Black and brown people age better. It's from years and years of adapting to sunny lands. That's not ageist. Is it? It's what I've seen. I didn't put a value on it beyond implying brown skin is prettier, and trust me, I greatly appreciate wisdom and lived experience. That said, many people age and waste their mind, dont gain much by aging, and I won't really give them credit for just having lived. Some people are old fools! Hope I'm not soon one. :)
La Lubu – from another 5’5” 40yo “old broad” -- nail meets head:
“And that's key. Not looking it. I always mention my age because I want to counter the mainstream assumption of older women---but the fact is, I can be comfortable about it precisely because I don't "look my age". Ageism walks hand-in-hand with notions of beauty. I'd like to think I'd have just as much of a blase attitude about age if I did look older, but I'll never know for sure. I think that's a privilege of sorts---being the "stealth" older woman.”
Yes. I always mention my age too – in fact, I inject it into the conversation a lot. But if I think about it, part of that’s to hear the inevitable “really? You don’t look it.” I have the kind of skin that doesn’t “crack” as Nezua mentions below, from and Eastern Euro background, as you likely do too from a Mediterranean background.
It’s cool to represent for ageism as someone who doesn’t really (yet) suffer its harsher blows. Would I be brave enough to do so otherwise? I hope so, but who knows?
Nezua –great to see you here and thanks for your thoughtful comment. I do agree that that was a tossed-off line and not reflective of your very interesting series. I hoped to have presented it as such.
And yes, people with more melanin do age better. No question about that. I have to admit, I’m quite grateful not to be Nordic. Your expressing pride in the resilience of your brown skin is completely fair.
It was the phrasing that was problematic for me. We agree that melanin affects wrinkling of skin. Sure. That’s just the technical fact. But it was the conclusion that “signs of age = no longer beautiful” that tapped into the societal lens of “old=ugly.” While it’s admittedly hard to get away from that, I think it’s possible. Grandma Moses had a number of (much) younger lovers up past her 80s, I think.
And the kicker is, that societal lens operates on women much sooner. Do you see any women Sean Connery’s or Harrison Ford’s age playing those parts in film? Or even Denzel Washington's -- his co-stars are typically much younger. (Although POC in film is a whole other issue deserving attention). And that’s not just some studio exec being an ass, they’re giving us as a culture what they think will sell.
Whether we as women are white, black, brown, whatever, we will eventually age. My sisters, who are Korean and unwrinkled at 37 and 38, recognize that they do not get the male attention they used to – although they still do great in that area. Granted, they could if they were willing to amp up their gym time and dress differently, which some superficial people “of a certain age” (hi) do to hold on to that attention and personal standard as long as possible. But it is common that as one gets into 30s and 40s, metabolic shifts for all races and cultures and other lifestyle changes result in loss of perceived mainstream attractiveness.
And that, as you say, this affects women much sooner. And that, as La Lubu says, this is a perception and not a reality. And that, in fact, is where ageism and sexism intersect.
I’d love to read your posts on how this culture throws aside its elders if you’d be so kind as to share a link.
i remember a friend's mother. she was one of the most beautiful women i remember. yes, she had good bone structure. yet, she was probably in her 40s (it seemed older when i was 22) and was in the sun SO much that even if there had already been a little olive or brown in her skin base, her (now) browned face was wrinkled from side to side, especially when she smiled. wrinkled more than usual for her age. amazingly lined. yet her energy was so radiant, you could not see those wrinkles as anything other than part of her beauty. i was attracted to her then, no problema. and i still am this way. for me a lot of my draw toward someone is their energy. but we are talking society, not me.
its true that we are acculturated to throw away women when they begin to show wear. i do not deny that. i have friends who are actresses. trust me, i hear about this a lot. the roles getting harder and harder to score. what kinds of rules they are, and so on. women seem to be in an nearly impossible vice in this culture. i don't claim to have answers.
i can't and wouldn't deny the slant of my phrase you point out. you are right. i do feel that way. i do see younger as prettier. and yet...how much of my thinking and feeling "young skin is prettier" is simply biological fact we cannot get away from? i do think everything you say is true culturally. and yet, i do think it is "natural" for me to be tugged toward that look. age, decay, it is not normally attractive to thriving life. but we are human...many other things come into play. and i think nuance is always where the truth is. and in this culture where we are BOMBED on tv with the xtremeness of that continuum, we cannot help but be repulsed by this seemingly empty adoration of youth and youth's trappings. (it is pretty empty as presented here. and perverted as we put younger and younger girls on the plate.)
by the way, my mother's pale skin and my father's brown skin have mixed to make me rather malleable. i'm olive based, and in the summer i can get utterly dark. but in the winter, i can seem pretty light for a "brown" person. so i'm all over the place.
and grandma moses may have had lovers and i'm glad for that. but to be fair to the discussion's logic, that doesnt mean that "old=pretty" necessarily, either. right? it just means that some of us value more than just taut, resilient, elastic, and glowing skin. maybe because we have more going on underneath our own skin, too....
on the other thing—my writing on the elderly in this culture—its more of a thread that winds in and out of my writing, tho on a regular basis. it might be hard for me to find a link. but i'll keep it in mind for when i come across some of it, send some your way.
peace. :)
i don't mean to sound argumentative. reading back, it sort of feels that way. and i am glad to be thinking on these things again, i wanted to say, too. i will continue to do so.
Nezua – no worries, I didn’t see that as argumentative.
I think there are certainly biological elements to it. I’m not going to pretend any of the the five guys on my “approved” list are over 50. And only two are over 40. But that’s not all there is to it.
Let’s face it. On certain people, aging can be a positive – up to a point. They don’t get their wrinkles airbrushed out. They can still get a date without all their hair. They don’t get scrutinized on the job for their attire or weight unless either are extreme. You know where I’m going with this right?
OK, and here’s the comeback: “well but they are expected to have money and/or power!” Well, yeah, that’s there. But hey, my dad has always (well, since his divorce) been able to get a (much younger) date without either. Sure, he’s my dad and a great guy, but come on.
So if biology were the end all be all, then what’s up with that? I don’t think it’s all biological. I believe that age on women can be an aphrodisiac, or at least not a dealbreaker. If various things happened – per previous posts and future posts -- to shift women’s roles in our society, then I do think that other factors might play a larger role in perceived attractiveness.
No, I don’t think the bio component’s ever going to vanish. I don’t see you or other late-30-something guys having crushes on Grandma Moses. (Although one of her lovers, I think, was 30-something). But I do think it’s possible to get to a point where ageism involves more of a component of respect for age (where earned, of course) and where it does not continue to intersect so profoundly with sexism.
I know how it goes re olive skin and the range of tan-ness. I can go from light greenish yellowish to medium brown. Because I’m paranoid about aging (yes I’m part of the problem!) and coat myself with sunscreen and avoid the sun, it’s usually the former. (My dad, who doesn't care about the sun, did get sent to the back of the bus at one point back in the 60s.)
Thanks for this, Octo. La Lubu hits on nearly exactly what I was going to say in trying to expand on this - I feel like, age-wise, I'm essentially right on the line between being dismissed as young and "fluffy" and all that you describe coming afterwards. I'm still pretty young (28), but suddenly, within the past year or so, I've been able to *see* the other side of the ageist coin, and realize that I'll hate it just as much there, too (contra my somewhat naive longing for gravitas and the assumption that I'd be taken seriously).
It's not just that we (women) hit that age of dismissability sooner it's that we essentially cross from being dismissed as harmless, flighty, twittery to being aggressively pushed aside, because with our wrinkles and sagginess and weight of life experience, we're getting in the way. I've been waiting for this magic age where suddenly people will start taking me seriously, and now I'm hearing women only slightly my senior talking about how frustrated they are to be dismissed as old and out of touch by women my age and younger.
You're right, ageism should be discussed a hell of a lot more, because the very fact that there is no magic age should let us all in on the not-so-secret trap that it is.
hey octo,
'intersectionality'
isn't intersectionality the logical enemy of everyone who is trying to unify people for political action based on GROUP markers? Doesn't any intersectionality debate logically end with individualism - aka humanism - instead of group-ism?
Purtek -- good point. There is no magic age. For a genetically-lucky (or surgically inclined) few, the 40s can be a point at which professional credibility and still-young-enough-to-avoid-the-curb intersect. But that's the exception.
I know exactly what you mean about longing for gravitas. I have meetings with partner candidates in hotel lobbies often, the kind of hotels where at lunchtime it's a bunch of boring self-important suits. Until maybe the last couple of years, I've always felt a longing (mixed with a bit of contempt) to fit in, and not feel like some college kid who doesn't belong.
Now, I feel like I do belong. I'm more age-similar to many of the people I'm dealing with, I've been around the block in this industry and can throw out "eight years" of doing it, which is respectable and gives people some clue as to my vintage.
So that should be good, right? But now I'm aware that at some point in the near future, I will join the ranks of women "of a certain age" whose wardrobe, body, hair, whatever are cruelly dissected.
While being (for now) at a point where candidates often cross the line into stupid innuendo is irritating, I have a feeling the dissection won't be a welcome substitute.
Tobias:
"isn't intersectionality the logical enemy of everyone who is trying to unify people for political action based on GROUP markers? Doesn't any intersectionality debate logically end with individualism - aka humanism - instead of group-ism?"
No and no. The way this gets avoided is to maintain the focus on the core area of activism. And the reason it's necessary is that avoiding the intersections weakens the movement.
After all, with feminism, it's for all women. So if it didn't look at how gender specifically affects women of color, disabled women, lower-income women etc., it wouldn't be what it's supposed to be. (See earlier posts).
That doesn't mean it should dissolve into a free-for-all discussion of isms. But with keeping gendered effect at the root, both an intersectional and an effectively focused treatment are possible and actually complementary.
Octp, well, sure, I agree that it's possible and useful to analytically look at group-marker-clusters from different angles. But for political activism, prioritizing will always be necessary, and that's when you run into philosophical problems because of the plethora of marker constellations.
Octo, not octp, of course... o and p are neighbours on my keyboard ;)
http://tinyurl.com/352s8l
A debate between Steinem and Melissa Harris-Lacewell, an Obama supporter and academic. This was back in January, but I think it is worth posting here. I remember watching it then and being enraged by H-L's disrespect for Gloria Steinem. This is a lion of a woman, a hero, a legend, and she's being told she hasn't sufficiently considered questions of race and gender? Really? The hostility and dismissive attitude really comes out in the video. It worries me that this is coming from an Obama supporter. Move out of the way, old hags, we got NEW IDEAS here.
I think it isn't a coincidence that women often begin to feel the full measure of their powers when their attractiveness, in the mainstream sense, wanes. These trivial concerns really do take up an inordinate amount of mental real-estate. Maybe the most revolutionary thing we can do is put down the curling iron and read a book?
I remember in high school that it was always the boys in my group of friends that bought the music, that were in bands, that dictated our cultural touchstones, as it were. Because girls weren't interested in music? No, because we spent our resources of time and money on our looks. Depressing.
Yes! I'm puzzled by H-L's statement: "[Steinem's example of a black woman in Obama's shoes having difficulty he isn't having is] asking us to ignore the ways in which race and gender intersect. This is actually a standard problem of second-wave feminism.. [which has] really failed to think about the ways in which trying to appropriate black women’s lives’ experience in that way is really offensive, actually."
This after Steinem said: "I really think that we have seen historically that women of color, African American women, have understood—have been just in a better position, you know, to understand the roles of both sex and race, and it made me nostalgic for the days of Shirley Chisholm and campaigning for Shirley Chisholm."
In what way is that appropriating? She acknowledges the unique perspective of WOC and doesn't make any claims on it.
H-L came out on the attack, and while it was certainly her right to disagree, she did so without any professional or human respect for Steinem's accomplishments which have served all -- yes, white and WOC -- women well.
Many of my younger relatives, high-school and college-age, are all about Obama, but cannot always specify why, other than to use code words like "new," "young," "hip." (Note: I'm not claiming no Obama supporters have substantive rationales). Clinton has taken chances (some which didn't work, which she gets guillotined for) to shake up the system.
Change for its own sake, wrapped in a youthful package, doesn't always make sense, and I for one don't see a whole lot of meat on that bone. I've seen innovation come from folks of all ages. Main difference is that the older ones usually know where it can actually be implemented.
SMMO -- on the curling iron thing -- I agree in part. The amount of time/$ spent on adorning oneself for supposed benefit of the other (or same as the case may be) gender should be close to equal between genders, and if it's not (we know it's not) that's a problem.
I think there's a happy medium, though. A number of teenage/college age boys do things like get fashionable haircuts, care about cool jeans and sneakers, work out in the gym for good physiques. I wouldn't advise my daughter to take no pride or attention in her appearance. For superficial reasons like -- it will make a difference in our flawed world -- and for better ones, like pride in herself, health, feeling creative about putting certain colors together if she is into it, etc.
I have spent a lot of time and $ on stupid, wasteful stuff, certainly. I try now to focus around things that will make a longer term difference, like fitness. I get into the hair and nail salon maybe once a year, and I order clothes online. But I do spend lots of time/$ on working out. I don't think that is the solution for everyone, but I feel good about it, I like that my energy level hasn't decreased and that my muscles scare some folks (including MrO if I flex). I have also found that increasing muscle content means I don't feel tempted to diet, which is my own stupid hangup of course.
I feel better about fitness expenditures because it's one area where men are often even more vain and psycho.
But I do agree wholeheartedly that more time spent by girls/women on appearance than that spent by boys/men is adding one more obstacle to our already cluttered course, and as a mom of a girl (you've got it easier there) I'm on the alert.
Tobias -- certainly, for activism, prioritization is important. That's kind of the focus of my last several posts on prioritizing feminism in allegedly feminist-focused media. I see feminism as broader than just equal pay and choice, though.
It's frustrating that this point is so hard to get. On the one hand, you are claiming it leads to a lack of clear priority. On the other, my posts on the topic and comments on sites like Feministe about why Sean Bell isn't a feminist issue in and of itself seem to put me into some kind of second-wave-doesn't-get-it category in some people's eyes.
In fact, if you pop over to Feministe (or, don't and just say you did) today, you'll see one of very few articles calling out sexism in the 2008 election. Predictably, commenters are whining about "why don't you call out Clinton for racism, re her hard working/white comment?"
Oh, please. For one thing, while it's always good to call someone out for racism, why is it hard to get that a feminist blog is about, first and foremost, calling out SEXISM for shitsake? And second, I think it's fairly clear this was Clinton's rather awkward attempt to parse the demographics correctly. After all, she is not leading among working class blacks. She likely felt it would look odd if she didn't qualify it. Obama's had similar wording issues which have not been called out.
I can't even talk about aging. If I could afford it I WOULD get rid of the waddle under my chin with PS and the first woman who criticizes that had damn well better be over 60.
But I do want to talk intersectionality ---about "isms".
Octo said, "The "movement" should not treat various groups as footnotes. The "movement" should "center" issues such as...."
I do get your drift and you are going off the cliff. Here let me catch you.
What is and Where is the "movement"?
The movement is made up of feminists who work and support the issues they individually find relevant to their lives. The personal is political and all that. If you care enough - if you are limited by an ism, then you organize around an issue - if you don't, there is no mama movement to save you or do it for you. Why should some "other" be responsible for doing what you have decided is important? Isn't that the talk of the 20 somethings?
I understand saying the government should fund.... but the movement should center??? Jeez - the affected must do analysis - raise consciousness, write books. Don't mourn - organize..
See I think this is a great discussion but not the part about the movement should...
YOU are doing it Octo with the specific examples you used in your post -- that is where the ageist movement is right now. In your analysis. There are other aging women writing on the subject notably "As Time Goes By" but not as feminists. There is age discrimination legislation which is a whole other area. There used to be OWL who worked on these issues. Where are they now? NOW did a lot of B&B like pensions, SS, etc.
But these things never got at the wound of which you speak. The need to demolish the old leader to make a place for your own control. The contempt of the third wave, their sexist mother hatred and the Inhumanity of women to women. But it happens all over the animal kingdom. The young move aside the old, sometimes with much brutality and the crowd accepts the new leader.
Lantos, the Holocaust survivor, said, the veneer of civilization is very thin. At any moment it can be torn and the horror of our baser passions revealed. I would relate what happened to Steinem to what happened over and over in the movement when we were strong in our groups. The incivility of trashing done to take what the leader has, to diminish her and put yourself in her place. I try to understand this and cannot crack the hard cruel shell of it.
Steinem and Morgan were called out for saying gender trumped race. Actually, Steinem only said gender is the most restrictive force in the kitchen and Presidential politics. She's absolutely right about that as we can see every day in the campaign.
What's insane is the media, blogs, the campaign, progressives, feminists, POC, hell everyone for the last 200 years, said race trumped gender and no one says anything. It's because racism affects men, sexism does not.
Now, THAT'S what you call a double standard.
GC – of course, feminists individually must focus on various issues in our everyday lives, otherwise nothing would ever get done. You’re right, one cannot rely on “the movement” to do that.
To be more precise about where I was going with “movement:” I mean the larger groups with task forces that either write about or organize around various issues, and which issues they should focus around. Eg: large feminist blogs, NOW, state-run feminist organizations, college-run feminist organizations. These are larger bodies who do have the power to set forth an agenda. Whereas an individual talking about “centering” in her own life various issues usually just mean pontificating about them, larger organizations do have the power to shape and focus.
Age discrimination legislation, as you point out, is out there, but it doesn’t cover the more nuanced feminist-focused issues in large part.
I can’t crack the shell of the treatment of Steinem either. But I do know what happens to those who cannot (or choose not to) remember the past.
As for plastic surgery, today in the here and now I have no issues with either gender getting it, within reason. I don’t know whether it’s good or bad, but the guys are catching up to us in that regard, even without counting hair replacement. If you could lump Viagra in there, fuggetaboutit. I greatly respect those with the will to grow old gracefully, but I don’t plan on being among them.
Donna -- absolutely, I didn't read Steinem as trying to initiate an oppression pissing contest either. She was simply saying gender is a greater obstacle than race in running for president. Not that sexism's more important than racism. People love to twist.
Even my mom, who's an Obama supporter (don't ask) and is drinking the Change Coolaid by the quart, admits that there's been more sexism than racism in the campaign, and that it's more likely to find women who are sexist than POC who are racist -- which compounds that. She too, like Steinem, does not feel that this establishes any kind of importance ranking.
That was a great post! I think the aging of the baby boomers will cause us to rethink our ideas about aging. Now that I am 3_ and a mom, I usually have to remind myself to have patience for the young and validate their experiences. I find that as I age I truly respect the women that have come before me and their experiences. I look to them for guidance.
So I popped over to Feministe and saw the double standard re: Oppression Olympics. Ampersand just said the WaPo couldn't do it:
Reading this, I was so with Ms. Cocco, mentally jumping up and down and cheering for her. The first 13 (of 15) paragraphs really are excellent. Then — with the editorial all but over — she had to drop in this cluncker. Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-
Seeking a gold medal in oppression Olympics, Ms. Cocco?
then kat and kit turn around and applied the double standard at Feministe. It goes both ways. Sexism is so ingrained women don't see it.
Renee -- great to see you here, and thanks! I hope you are right about the baby boomers' aging ushering in a new respect. I'm not overly optimistic, but who knows. I think what it will take is for more women to be visible in the White House, the union halls, the boardrooms, the small startups, the university president's homes, at the helm of public interest organizations. For women who want to shoot for whatever professional position not to be seen as maneating ballbreakers, but just the norm.
And for women who either do or do not want these things to be able to trade on whatever power (of whatever kind) and strength they gain with age as things both genders will be attracted to -- the way our male counterparts now are able to do.
Unfortunately, I don't see us just morphing into this.
Donna -- I'm sorry you had to witness that debacle over there. Didja notice how the upshot was that the author wound up falling all over herself apologizing for using a man's nickname in an informal, non-racist way, while the topic itself -- a sexist term used towards a woman by that man -- got completely submerged?
Backlash Spectacular on feminist blogs!
It's nauseating.
Grow old Gracefully -- WTF does that even mean ? I hear that a lot and I think it really means shut up fade away and do not remind us that we also shall age. My grace is coming from a surgeon's knife as soon as I can pay for it. Or else it is a bumpy ride because of the whole beauty trip -- one has to be attractive or you just are invisible at best. Anyway don't get me started on THAT!
Octo said:
"Eg: large feminist blogs, NOW, state-run feminist organizations, college-run feminist organizations."
These are few and far between. On campus the money and resources grabbed by what is called gender organizing, the women/feminists left with 1/2 of a paid staff person, often a transsexual, and a few volunteers working on what they have prioritized as important in their lives, welcoming other women to do the same. Most community groups are just membership organizations composed of women who send in dues or donations. In NOW, a huge group at any meeting or action is 25 members. Do you think I am wrong? I would be glad to be wrong. The DV shelters have become rescue and not political organizations in order to stay funded.
I actually tried to connect with a lot of the so called organizations, NOW, Feminist Majority, MS, etc.,. I have been trying and found nothing feminist for the previous 5 years to support the women in Iraq and Afghanistan, except the women at the State Dept. In doing so, I found our feminist organizations were empty or corrupted. The Boards taken over by opportunistic corporations, provocateurs,LGT Gender activists and left organizations. The few organizations with money fronted off by movement vampires. They can hardly be called feminist movement organizations any more.
I do not think, or have not thought in the past, of large blogs with feminist in their names as ever having been actually doing feminist analysis. The reality of women's experience, the authentic voice was absent. That is what happens when we write or work on an issue because we think we should or someone convinced us it is politically correct to do so. I was reading a lot of warmed over left politics, anti war and porn advocacy on so called feminist blogs. Not from a feminist perspective either but just the same old stuff, straight out of the playboy philosophy. There is a feminist way of thinking about defense and sexuality but I never saw it on those blogs.
We are the movement we think is out there somewhere. Astarte's Circus is the movement.
I never expect women to work on other people's issues, at least not to lead. To me it is like asking for sacrifice. People have the right to work on what affects them directly and when they do the solutions and the passion are more authentic. I like to listen for the "I" voice (this is MY experience) rather than the you are wrong for this or that voice. So I never say "you" should be doing this or that or "they" should be doing this or that. I notice there was a lot of that talk on the web before the election. I only say, you are oppressing me when you do-------------, or you should not be standing in the way of this or that. And I say, get out of the way. And I say, get off my back.
So it is up to the old, in my opinion, or to those growing old or to those who care about how women are treated when they are no longer sex objects to work on, write on ageism. And to call out the offenders as you did in this post.
I think your analysis of the actual dynamics of ageism as it affects women is brilliant. Few have noticed that a large part of the sexism directed at Clinton is not because she is a woman but BECAUSE SHE IS AN OLD WOMAN. You have exposed that brilliantly.
"For example, the nutcracker. Women who are attractive (as Clinton is, I think) but also young don’t get called ballbusters."
I don't think there is a movement to center such issues or to do any of the inter-sectional things the creative class writes about on blogs. Yet, I know that the writing is critical to form the movement.
You are it Octo, and now many are here to be sisters in your efforts to raise consciousness about issues that affect all women.
The thing encouraging is that the presidential campaign has woke the sleeping giant of feminist consciousness and where there was silence so many real feminist voices are now loud and clear, at least on the web. But this is new - only months old.
One of the most universal issues (meaning all types of women affected) you said the movement should be talking/doing more about is how sex work and feminism interact, BUT SEE, Violet's post and comments here:
Shttp://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=671
I think you were part of that discussion. To my mind, that which affects us all, is talked about a lot - so much so that the porn industry has funded advocates to push back their position in feminist's communities.
That which only affects directly a segment is talked about by those affected and that is fine.
But after the election - will we still be talking about the sexism that affects us directly or will we go back to talking about the issues the left tells us we should ALL be discussing, even telling us HOW we should speak when discussing them??
I don't think there is a movement out there -- yet. These voices now, women who have been observing, reading and thinking over the years, are the beginning of a feminist movement - the real third wave not just the women's studies so called 3rd wave. And the older women will provide the depth and experience the young need and the young will provide the energy and daring.
Right now the wheat is separating from the non wheat.
I pray our on-line feminism grows into community action on a national and local level, funded and political. I pray we each find our own center in which to grow a vibrant movement that actually creates institutional change to better the condition and status of women everywhere.
Even after the election, for because of the Hill's martyrdom, we have found one another and our own voices as she has found her voice.
Nezua: I get what you're saying about La Lente Blanca. Growing up as a person of mediterranean background---no, scratch that---as a girl of mediterreanean background, don't think I didn't notice just exactly how, and to what degree, the White Lens left me out. I noticed even before I could articulate it, that women who looked like the women in my family weren't visible in the general public eye. We weren't Breck girls. Yeah, I absolutely get the impulse to put a thumb in the eye of that lens.
But, while it's an objective observation that very light-skinned people with little melanin develop wrinkles and skin damage to a greater degree (and at an earlier age) than people who have more melanin, it is a subjective judgement that those signs of aging are unattractive. Pale-skinned men with "laugh lines" or "smile lines" aren't generally considered unattractive---those lines are considered a sign of character, of a life well-lived, of a vibrant, physical life. Handsome, even.
Not so for women. Therein lies the rub. We are supposed to remain the perpetual ingenues.
Why do you think that is? Why can a man "age gracefully"---that is, just be himself? While a woman is expected to divert a whole helluva lot of time and effort and money towards gearing her appearance to reflect a life not lived yet?
This hasn't become a personal issue for me yet; my DNA gave me the luck of the draw in that regard. But ultimately, it will. Despite the relative advantage my DNA gave me in the aging game, the mostly northern european white men I work with will be considered "younger" and "better looking" and "more alive". Why? When objectively, they look older than I do?
Octo, interesting that you brought up exercise. I think working out is still transgressive (despite "fitness models" being the new ideal) because of what it gives a woman mentally and emotionally. That physicality has a profound effect on the body/mind connection, the immune system---not just appearance (tho' it sure is fun to flex!).
And as it relates to age---it doesn't just make a person look younger, or even feel younger in their body (as far as strength, flexibility, stamina, etc)---it makes one feel younger in the mind. At least it does me. It brings back the pure joy of play---something that women are supposed to give up even as a child. Women who get back into that, who regularly engage in something physical that doesn't involve their work or caretaking of others---do that for themselves....shit, we never go back.
greenconsciousness, could you explain what you mean by women's groups being taken over by "opportunistic corporations, provocateurs,LGT Gender activists and left organizations"? I ask because the opportunistic corporations I can easily see as a negative, but I don't see left organizations as necessarily a negative, and see LBGT activists as a positive. Lesbian, bisexual and transgender women have an added burden of struggle under heteronormative society---the way I see it, they don't have the options heterosexual, cisgendered women have at alleviating ('cuz no one escapes) some of the manifestations of sexism. It's something I get a glimpse of as a single ("unwed") mother (that is, not fitting into some of the heteronormative mold---so I'm not seeing any allegiance problem with feminism coming from LBGT women.
We are the movement we think is out there somewhere. Astarte's Circus is the movement.
Did you see this at TGW?
I've just realized how closely this whole campaign tracks the patter of the nomination of Clarence Thomas. Any and all criticism of the nominee is discounted as suspect racism and the woman trying to report reality is demonized with glee.
Third wave feminism and the Obama candidacy demand unity. Dissent is not allowed. The Obama candidacy throws women, GLBT, the working class, elderly, Latinos, Asians and Catholics under the bus. Both remind me of black nationalism which is antithetical to feminism.
GC – thanks for your kind words. I don’t disagree that large feminist orgs are focused around a particular issue, eg reproduction, or are quite small in terms of group size. As to big blogs, I think there are a very few who do a good job. I think Shakes Sis is consistently strong. Feministe and Feministing are kind of a crapshoot, IMO. Some good material, mixed with “look I do care about this worthy issue that has nothing to do with feminism but I’m going to say it does!”
I wouldn’t even say Clinton is old – I think old’s a state of mind, but if we had to pick an average age where it’s fair to say that, I’d say 75. (My dad’s 72… that may have something to do with my choice). But yeah, if we define “old” as “the age that ‘age’ starts to be an issue” it would likely be maybe 35-55 for women depending on genetics and occupation (not counting stuff like modeling or sports, which’d be younger). And a good ten to twenty extra years for guys.
Regarding sex work – I don’t recall being part of that particular discussion on Violet’s post. But yeah, she and I disagree a bit on that one. I’m with her (see 1-2 posts back) that it’s generally not a good choice. But I’m not with the Farley way of thinking on whether individual women who feel it works for them, and have a safety net or Plan B, should be questioned or judged. Violet didn’t actually state the latter, but is probably closer to Farley than I am. Nevertheless, I don’t feel we have to agree 100% to have mutual respect.
Similar to my slight difference of opinion with Linda Hirshman. She thinks any woman’s decision to stay home is de facto a bad choice. I agree with her that on average it’s not the best choice and that I’d like to see the %s of women staying home equaling those of men. But on the individual level, I don’t hold myself out as able to micromanage what’s best for each woman. You’ll never hear me criticizing Linda, though. Strong POVs sell books, and her POV deserves to be out there.
La Lubu –on your question to Nezua of: “Why do you think that is? Why can a man "age gracefully"---that is, just be himself? While a woman is expected to divert a whole helluva lot of time and effort and money towards gearing her appearance to reflect a life not lived yet?”
I want to hear Nezua’s thoughts on this one too. Mine are that you answered the question in your last four words. “life lived” is perceived as a positive for guys. There’s a reason many of us, even us feminists, don’t find 18-22 year old guys attractive whereas men our age (even feminist men) do. It’s ingrained.
I guess that too leads to a “why,” and I think it comes down to the fact that women are not yet fully accepted in the roles that lend men perceived attractiveness. And I’m not just talking elitism, eg presidents and CEOs, but car repair shop owners and small business entrepreneurs and the person who continues in the grownup world while the spouse supports that. I think if we had more of a balance there, then “life lived” would be perceived as attractive for both genders.
LaLube
Not all lesbians, gays and transgendered people are feminist - it does not come with sexuality.
And where I particularly resent it is on campuses where funding to fight discrimination against women has been split - divided to accommodate "gender" issues and coordinators hired whose primary orientation is toward trans gender issues. I know women suffering from university sexism in classes, and sexual harassment from professors, a hostile environment and those issues given no attention because they are not a priority for the people hired to be the Gender AND Women's Issues Co-ordinate. However whole "women's" conferences (read money for conferences) is devoted to trans gender issues.
I personally tried to get help for two art students disgusted with outrageous sexual harassment by a particular professor without any assistance from the "Gender" Coordinator.
On Twisty's blog, campus women are complaining of porn being broadcast from the activity center at their university and in WI it was sold in the bookstore. This is what I mean by takeovers.
I know what you mean as the lesbian feminists I work with are the best but they do not appreciate the trans gender intrusion into women's organizations either.
That said I would respect transsexuals more if they built and funded their own organizations instead of all the bullying and resource grabbing from women.
And on a more general note on what women's organizations have become, look at NARAL and PP's leader endorsing BO. Congress women funded by Emily's List endorsing BO.
Left organizations are notorious for co-opting women's organizations. I can only say you must not have organized with women's groups in the 70's and 80's if you don't know about this. The horror stories are in the hundreds. The left is really hated by old organizers. The weather woman busting up planning meetings to talk all night about white middle class this and that while women who hired babysitters put on their coats and went home. Ms refusing to run ads with Jewish women because they are allied with the Palestinians who honor kill women. I don't have to go on because there are women in the environment movement who have their own stories. The left did to the women's movement exactly what BO is doing to Hillary for exactly the same reasons - because they want her(feminists) supporters to work for them on their issues as they define them.
And I have another Union issue I want to talk to you about but I will get to that later - --
Here is the Union issue -- you know we both said it would be better if women entered the unions in groups. But The union is keeping people out who do not have relatives in the union. I hear about this a LOT! Trouble getting in and others have no trouble at all. Look at this! What should a person do?
"Second bad experience was in Colorado. I have two uncles who were IBEW electricians in Denver and one relative in Wyoming who was IBEW (he has since quit). I was working for independent, non union contractors and then lost my job(s). There was one union shop in town and when I talked to him he said he would be glad to hire me, just go get a union apprentice ticket. No problem I thought. Went to the union office in Denver and was flat out refused. I was told that I had to have someone who would agree to hire me as apprentice first. When I returned and told them I did have a job lined up and provided written proof, they said I still could not join and then gave no reason. That was after several trips to Denver and all day visits at the union office, filling out b.s. forms and waiting to talk to people who would never show up for their appointments. Those trips were very hard financially for me, not to mention my aversion of big cities. My uncles could get their kids into the union with no experience at all, I had 10 years experience and held a Colorado Journeyman's license for several years and was willing to start out as an apprentice. "
Donna - what did you mean by this? What is
"Backlash Spectacular on feminist blogs!"
Backlash Spectacular by Katha Pollitt. She's an Obama supporter.
Thomas kicked off the third wave of feminism. Obama kicked off the fourth wave of feminism. It's time to discuss intersectionality unless you're waiting for the fifth and sixth waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
http://nymag.com/news/features/46011/#
Pollitt's partisanship has nothing to do with her article. She just noted a misogynist backlash.
Please forgive me Octo for using this thread to get in touch with all the people i need to talk to -- this is the last time and it is important
Donna D
I need a cite to that post you did on who is funding Obama
greenconsciousness, re: the IBEW story---the International policy on organizing is if you've got ten years provable work experience, you don't even have to test in---you get a journeyman ticket. This person would not have to go through an apprenticeship program.
Also, keep in mind that the apprenticeship program is not governed by the Local---the curriculum and requirements are set by the NJATC (National Joint Apprenticeship Training Council---a collaboration between contractors and the IBEW). The JATC program itself functions independently of the Local; what the Local does is put the apprentices out to work, while the local JATC handles testing, interviewing and selection of apprentices as well as maintaining educational standards, advancement and discipline. Apprentices sign a contract with the JATC, and the JATC is charged with finding them work (which they do through the Local). Unlike journeylevel electricians, the business manager does not refer apprentices---the chairperson of the JATC committee does (or, that duty is delegated to the Training Director---who is hired by the JATC, not the Local). The apprentices take their (job) referral ticket (which is signed by the BM or an Assistant) to the jobsite. Confused yet?
(I mention this because it can all sound very convoluted to someone who just wants a damn job. Mixed or contradictory messages can be sent because of the structure. If the person seeking to be a member doesn't know how the structure works or who specifically to contact, it can be a clusterfuck, depending on the Local)
I mention this because all apprenticeships are overseen by the United States Department of Labor. They are accredited educational programs, and veterans can get GI Bill benefits while going through the apprenticeship.
Now, when it comes to organizing, Locals that are very pro-organizing try to slot folks with nonunion experience into the apprenticeship program. If they have any experience, that's the best way---they get to start out at a higher wage than if they were first coming out of the gate, and they get the benefit of more education than they've generally received in their previous life. Unfortunately, not all Locals are pro-organizing, and some Locals that are do not have the cooperation of the contractor side of the JATC.
This was a woman? I ask because it is very rare for a woman to work as a nonunion electrician. In fact, when I went through COMET (organizing) training, that was part of the curriculum---that the nonunion side didn't hire women.
There are many ways to approach solving this problem, if the person you speak of is still interested in IBEW membership. I can guarantee you that if this story played out exactly as you wrote it, the International would take a real dim view of the way in which this person was treated.
This person mentioned an aversion to big cities. That's somewhat of a disadvantage for women, as larger cities tend to have a greater critical mass of women members, and usually at least one well organized labor group specifically for women (ex: Chicago Women in Trades, etc.). But it's not impossible to work around. I live and work in a smaller city (120,000 give-or-take) and do all right. And there are huge efforts to organize in the South.
This person does have other options. I'm not familiar with Denver. Around here, a person would not be told to find someone else willing to hire them first (in the Inside jurisdiction, which is what I'm assuming this person is. In the VDV (voice/data/video), they would). Was this person even invited to sign Book Four (the IBEW is a hiring hall with a book system. Book 1 is "local hands", or members of that Local. Book 2 is travelers, or folks from other Locals. Book 3 is out-of-classification, or IBEW members who hold a ticket in one jurisdiction but can be sent out to work in another if that area is particularly short-handed and there aren't Book 2 people to take it---like in my Local, we've got J.W.'s (journeymen wiremen) working under the VDV classification (electronic systems techs).
And book four---that's anybody. Anyone off the street.
Locals vary quite a bit in how averse they are to "outsiders", or who they view as outsiders. I'm really sorry for what happened to this person, and apologize on behalf of the IBEW. For what it's worth, I got in even though I had absolutely positively no "connections", nor was my family even from here. I was an outsider in every sense of the word. It was a disadvantage at first, but became an advantage later---and meanwhile, I inserted myself into the life and lore of the Local until I was regarded as an "old hand".
You are welcome to contact me privately through email on behalf of this person if you like. Or, if Octo doesn't mind a sideways turn on the thread, I'll answer here too.
And back to the first sidetrack: on the left---now I know where you're coming from. When I think "left", my mind flashes on community organizing groups (like ACORN and such), labor affliated groups, and peace movement folks. None of those folks have been busting up anybody's meeting, and my biggest criticism of them is their seeming inability to remember to return phone calls and/or show up anywhere on time (the bane of the left! I remember when I was a young hellraiser without a driver's license, waiting for a ride out to a lefty meeting that was a loose collection of labor, environmental, and civil rights groups. Ed Asner was going to be speaking. My dad was laughing his ass off while I paced on the front porch, saying, "Kid! They're liberals! Liberals are never on time!!" The old man is to the left of liberals. He was also correct.)
There’s a reason many of us, even us feminists, don’t find 18-22 year old guys attractive whereas men our age (even feminist men) do.
Yep, Octo---this is true. Or as I usually say, "shit, I got socks older than that kid." You know like the carnival ride signs that say "you must be this tall to ride this ride?" For me, a man has to have a certain amount of life experience. He has to have had a certain amount of shit happen in life---the kind that leaves scars. Otherwise, I just won't think he's grown enough for me.
Thank You Thank Thank you both LaLubu and Octo -
I will pass on the info - I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it is so complicated she probably did not know what is going on - her experience is in installing solar and with non-union places as far as I know. I really want to see what happens here and I will contact you on your blog if this doesn't get straightened out. Thank you again Octo - I will not take advantage again.
GC – I haven’t been on a campus in over a decade, so I’m not sure how the funding and women’s services resource allocation currently operate. However, I see transwomen as women, so I don’t feel comfortable about using “intrusion” or “takeover.” If all resources of women’s support groups went to any one group, whether it be transwomen, blondes, gymnasts, straight women, pre-med women, or whatever, I’d have a problem with that – is that what you are arguing?
As to NARAL and PP’s leader endorsing BO, as well as congresswoman who’ve previously been Hillary supporters – I think it’s about following the money. Axelrod is very astute about astroturfing and other ways of developing funding and support. I thought there’d be more exceptions, in feminist venues, to “you get what you pay for” – apparently not.
GC and LaLubu – by all means, feel free to discuss here the woman who wishes to get into the union. Talking about helping women to get over career/gender obstacles is never a tangent.
GC,
Here you go:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Oops, let me try that again:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/
contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
I think wrt the 18-22 yo guys, Nez's statement here is instructive:
"and grandma moses may have had lovers and i'm glad for that. but to be fair to the discussion's logic, that doesnt mean that "old=pretty" necessarily, either. right?"
I agree in a way, "pretty" is probably not the right word. Wrinkles and other signs of aging are not objectively attractive on either gender. But what about the word "sexy?"
Not because old = intrinsically sexy. But some people, because of the wit or wisdom or style they've picked up, take on a sexiness in their 40s+ that they didn't have earlier, even if earlier they were objectively more "pretty."
Check out this thread. A 25-year-old woman, and a 40-yo woman, find a less-objectively-attractive man sexier than a good looking guy 15 years his junior.
And speaking for myself, one doesn't have to be president of the US to trigger this. For example, I find Gio, who sells sandwiches, in "Ugly Betty" to be extremely hot, and I'd find him hot if he were older too. He's not my usual type and I don't think he's objectively that handsome. But he's got ... something. He's confident, he's a rule-breaker, he's smart, he could give a shit what anyone else thinks.
Same with Mike in Desperate Housewives. He's 45+ and a plumber. But he's by far, to me, hotter than the young stud Eva Longoria's character cheated on her husband with. Mike's got a few miles and he knows what he's doing. (His ass ain't bad either).
So... point being, age can bring a sexiness that allows a guy to be perceived to be more attractive over time. Somehow, though, even the smartest guys do not function this way ... usually.
I say "usually" because there are exceptions. My husband would do Sherry Lansing, who used to run the studio he worked at, over a 25-yo starlet. He thinks she's a dynamo. Sherry is 63. My dad actually tried to ask Martha Stewart out. (She went to Barnard with his sister and he tried to get the latter to set up a date -- sadly, no go). Now, the idea of Martha being an evolved guy's view of someone good to date, not to mention what she'd have in common with an absentminded Renaissance professor, are both somewhat mind-boggling. But she's a bit of an atypical crush.
Of course, both these guys are totally capable of lusting after 20-year olds too. But -- at least, it's reassuring to me that exceptions arise. I think if the roles of man = provider/actor and woman = decorative, passive receiver were more averaged out, we'd see more.
I apologize that this discussion is somewhat heterocentric. I do not know much about LGB communities and how these dynamics would apply.
From what I've read, I think the gay male community has similar dynamics in that looks and youth are quite prized. But, I can't speak to this with a lot of knowledge.
As to lesbians, here I know even less. I do know that my lesbian couple friends seem more age-equivalent than many straight couples, which makes sense. I'd be interested to understand more how these kinds of dynamics apply in GLBT relationships.
For example, I find Gio, who sells sandwiches, in "Ugly Betty" to be extremely hot, and I'd find him hot if he were older too.
Ha! Me too! That's a typical Thursday night discussion between me and my daughter---I open with "Betty really needs to dump Henry and get with Gio", whereby my daughter will say, "Shut up!" and "But Henry loves her!"
"yeah, which is why another woman is carrying Henry's baby. Henry doesn't know what the hell he wants, and Betty deserves better. Like...Gio, for instance."
"Shut up!"
"C'mon, admit it kid, Gio is gorgeous. ("Shut up!") "You think so too." ("mama!") "Why can't I find a man like Gio?" ("Because they don't live around here.")
Confidence. Confidence is sexy. Being one's whole self is sexy. Being open is sexy. And those are qualities that only tend to come with a certain age.
I think you're right about the power/activity balance contributing to that dynamic.
No Octo - I do not see transsexuals as women. I see them as transsexuals.
They have issues which are different than that of born women and lesbians.
There are two types of transsexual, one that cannot accept their homosexuality or personality which is not traditional in relation to their gender so change their gender in fantasy or reality; and those who have a profound body discomfort which is sometimes a genetic or physical problem and surgery is necessary.
The life experiences of women are different than the experiences of transsexuals. Sometimes, often,trans people try to pass in women's groups in order to hear and then use the experience of women to "pass" more effectively. There is a lot of deception involved in the trip and it is offensive to many women who do not want their personal stories used that way.
Money for feminist staff/ services/resources/ consciousness raising have been diverted to things like conferences on transsexualism and the language (queer, Dyke, top, bottom, bitch ) and extreme role-playing, butch/fem has nothing to do with feminism - it is the worst stereotyping. This is what angers me and what I see as a takeover and intrusion on feminist resources. Trans justifying role playing and deception rather than organizing as feminists.
I know many women do not agree. Yet they can see that the campuses are hotbeds of sexism - see the backlash all around them. The thing is, duh, women need that money/staff/ resources for our feminist priorities and issues common to all women.
This is a long discussion and I don't feel it is appropriate here - but another time for sure.
Thanks for the link Donna -I am giving it to Anglachel's Journal on her ponies and cows post
Donna I wanted the link to YOUR post - what you wrote - we have this one
Late to the thread... funny you should write this now. I mentioned a wedding (on my blog) I attended yesterday (it's getting so I blog about every fucking thing I do! but I digress...) and there was an incident that upset me, in which several folks (oldest: 31) just pointedly LEFT ME OUT of a discussion/situation and I was too embarrassed, angry and hurt over it to say anything. Instead, I withdrew, left the room, and I'm sure they have no clue that I was livid. I am currently figuring out how to deal with my feeling of being thoroughly dissed, since I actually work with two of those people and I don't want it to negatively affect my job.
I'm not asking for pity, but I'm sure they will take any objections I have that way... something I'm sure disabled people understand, too. How to object righteously without looking bitter, unhappy, pitiful? It's a problem.
I told one friend about the incident, a young person who thought I over-reacted. When I asked her to put HERSELF in my place... well, it simply wouldn't have happened to her, so she found that difficult to do. But I kept on, driving the point home... it WOULD NOT have happened to a young person. That's my whole point. And if they had not asked YOU to join in, how would you have felt about that?
RELUCTANTLY (very) she admitted I had a point. But what is this reluctance (this is a liberal person) to admit that ageism is real? Or if it IS (and most people admit it is), what is this avoidance of really admitting it might/does apply to ME?
As for your observations about the second wave being trashed--tell me about it! I have completely given up on certain bloggers. I won't comment on their blogs again. They have no idea what they owe second-wave feminists, and no interest in learning about it. "They know everything that has ever happened, and there is no end to derision." (Nietzsche)
However, in getting rid of the “white lens” should we substitute an ageist lens?
Some POC bloggers are extremely ageist, as white bloggers are. (See above, I refer to both POC and white bloggers.) Also GLBT... no one is immune. Enduring oppression is no guarantee you won't diss the old folks.
I've started counting how many old women are included in various blog rolls. Some have none at all, like NOBODY AT ALL over 35 even. They don't apologize for that in the least, yet expect people to apologize to them for lack of inclusion of POC or GLBT.
It would be funny if it weren't so damned pathetic.
I tell myself--they'll find out how it is. If they choose not to change the culture, they are deciding that they will undergo the same treatment they are dishing out to me. Karma's a bitch!
It's the only form of prejudice you can say that about. ;) Which is why it scares everyone equally.
I have a "childish" face and tend to look young; I giggle and "act" young (immature!) blah blah... an interesting phenomenon is people acting one way towards me and then utterly and totally changing when they find out how old I am. They thought I was 35! --their eyes bug out and they hyperventilate. I used to think it was a compliment, now I see it really isn't. What it IS: they thought they KNEW what was "young" or "old" (like, certain tastes, certain music, fashion, whatever) and I have upset their categories. (I am thinking this probably happens far less often out in glamorous California, Octo!)
Some people, upon learning my age, act radically differently, just as people act different if they learn you have epilepsy or you are gay. Same. The boundaries must be POLICED, and you SNEAKED OVER and that bothers everyone. That's what the *shock* really signifies, and now, I find it very tiresome and predictable.
Yes, I have a grandchild, and I listen to punk. Some punk rockers ARE grandparents, believe it or not. Iggy Pop just turned 61. Why are they shocked that I love Iggy--he is closer to my age than he is to theirs?!?!?
Thanks for letting me vent--you knew I would! :P
I tell myself--they'll find out how it is. If they choose not to change the culture, they are deciding that they will undergo the same treatment they are dishing out to me. Karma's a bitch!
Boom. Shot. Daisy! That's exactly it, and an answer of sorts to your earlier questions---fear and denial. Fear that if they acknowledge it, they'll have to admit it is going to happen to them. And, that's uncomfortable, so there's always denial to fall back on. Lalalala I can't hear you lalalala....and then the hammer falls.
The boundaries must be POLICED, and you SNEAKED OVER and that bothers everyone.
Ha! What a great way of putting it! And....if the "old folks" are into it, hey---guess you aren't as hip as you thought you were, huh, kiddo? Takes all the shine off the special,y'know.
GC -- while I agree that the life experience of cisgender and transgender women differs, I do feel they have a rightful place in the feminist movement as do all women. Despite the differences, they've experienced and continue to experience discrimination due to gender. But yeah, let's defer this discussion to a different place and time.
http://donnadarko.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/fat-cats-own-obama/
http://donnadarko.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/
fat-cats-own-obama/
Daisy -- interesting, isn't it, what "isms" it's kosher to tell someone they're overreacting to?
And you're right: you're not looking for pity because of something that's inevitably going to happen, you're looking for acknowledgement that it shouldn't happen.
And yeah, I love the blogroll and Big Blog author "inclusion" wrt age (Shakes Sis is an exception). There's such careful attention to other categories.
I found in law school, even though I was only 5 years older than those who'd gone straight through (I got an MBA and worked in the auto industry in between) that often the early-20s students were dismissive of anything I had to say about "real life" outside academia. And I hadn't really had all that much. But because I'd worked in a uniquely sexist industry, I'd learned a few things. Nobody wanted to hear it, though. They were young, brilliant, had read all the books, etc.
That's what I find sometimes with women in this age range both offline and online. And caveat: not all young women -- there are some notable exceptions. But I've gotten brushed off when trying to reach out in a way I wish I'd gotten when I was that age. I would have loved an older woman to reach out and offer any kind of guidance, and it so rarely happened -- there were few, and those who were there were working two (or more) shifts.
Recently at a conference I met a young woman with a similar background. A couple of ideas popped about something she said she wanted to do career-wise. I didn't want to distract from the conference and gave her my # and suggested a couple times that she give me a call and we could brainstorm. She never did. Which struck me as odd. I mean, I'm not the most knowledgeable person about a ton of things -- but I do know legal career shit, inside outside and sideways, whether it's public interest, governmental or BigLaw, including some of the twists they don't teach you in school or in those resume-filler internships. Oh well. Who knows? Maybe she thought she was already savvy to all the hidden traps, or didn't see the value to another point of view. Her right.
Funny though, even though I don't go out of my way to counsel guys, I find the guys I encounter at student conferences for my Educational Council gig to be much more aggressive in seeking advice. Wanting to know not only the rules but how to bend them or vault over them.
Anyway --I'm heading over to read your story in more detail. I hear you about not wanting to get PO'd at colleagues. But also, you shouldn't have to deal with that shit. Especially because you do upset the categories, and the conclusion rational people should come to is that maybe that's because they are invalid.
Finally -- re California, a double-edged sword. Much more openmindedness about interests and past times. But re the body and physical aging scrutiny, it's intensified.
Daisy, PS re the venting on this stuff: bring it on. Totally safe space for that. I'm the one who was leery about Elizabeth Kucinich's old soul, remember?
Message sent on behalf of Shut The Freud Up Productions:
Shut The Freud Up Productions has produced a new video. Check out our new blog ( http://shutthefreudup.blogspot.com )
"DNC: Fractured Fairly Tales" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuMDmqwwbI ) is our (IndyRobin and GeekLove) latest video from "Shut the Freud Up" Productions.
Our last video "Mad as Hell" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM) was seen by over 165,000 people. It was written about in Salon (twice), Newsday, was mentioned by the New York Times, and was prominently featured on the front page of most blogs supportive of Hillary Clinton.
We need your help to bring the same attention to this video. It is different from the first, but nonetheless, equally important. "Mad As Hell" exposed the sexism in the MSM. "DNC: Fractured Fairly Tales" exposes the DNC for who they really are.
Please pass this along to everyone you know. When you do, please ask everyone to go directly to YouTube and recommend it, rate it as their favorite video, and leave a comment. We are counting on you to help us with the same dedication, commitment and attention you gave to our last video.
Thanks so much for your support. Our goal is the same as yours: to help elect Hillary Rodham-Clinton as President of the United States. She has never stopped working for us, so let's not stop working for her.
With much appreciation,
IndyRobin and GeekLove
Octo
Everyone has a place in the feminist movement if they are feminists or want to be feminists. Not if they want to sell crap and call it gold and tell feminists who call it crap that they are phobic. I will fight sexism wherever I find it and that was never a popular place to be. What you must understand, what I want you to understand before I stop, is that I am not hating anyone - I am making a space for people who want to free their s
Self from "other" imposed sex role stereotyping so they can find their authentic self.
Liberation.
A number of teenage/college age boys do things like get fashionable haircuts, care about cool jeans and sneakers, work out in the gym for good physiques.
Now, Octo, you aren't making the "men experience X tooooo argument, are you?
I wouldn't advise my daughter to take no pride or attention in her appearance. For superficial reasons like -- it will make a difference in our flawed world -- and for better ones, like pride in herself, health, feeling creative about putting certain colors together if she is into it, etc.
The problem is "taking pride in one's appearance" is so subjective and so easily manipulated. Does a woman who chooses not to blow-dry or color her hair not take pride in her appearance? Is styled hair objectively better than un-styled? The answer is no, but the beauty industry is pretty damn good at convincing us otherwise. Plenty of smart women, myself included, fall for an overpriced little jar of nonsense that will magically make us feel like we're ok in the world.
But I do spend lots of time/$ on working out.
Exercise is a different animal, IMO. Because there are actual benefits, ones that help women REALLY feel better.
Octo, some of this second/third wave hostility may be the fallout of a genuine mother-daughter split--or a psychological/political manifestation of same. I found this article linked over at Feminist Critics:
The day feminist icon Alice Walker resigned as my mother
..and after our discussion here, noticed how much of this was framed in generational terms:
[Rebecca Walker's] first book examined what feminism meant to young women and what role it played in the modern world. “When I began to challenge status quo feminism, my mother started to feel very injured,” she says. “To have a daughter who was questioning feminism — it was seen as a threat. Imagine Margaret Thatcher having a hippie child who wanted to live in India and become a Hare Krishna. It was that kind of schism.
“I keep telling people feminism is an experiment. And just like in science, you have to assess the outcome of the experiment and adjust according to your results, but my mother and her friends, they see it as truth; they don’t see it as an experiment.
“So that creates quite a problem. You’ve got young women saying, ‘That didn’t really work for me’ and the older ones saying, ‘Tough, because that’s how it should be’.”
I find it interesting that she compares her mother to someone right wing and unyielding, Margaret Thatcher. Rather than understand that these political styles (and the actions that spring from them) are a form of fundamentalism (accounts for the unconscious reference to hardliner Thatcher), she ascribes them to ALL WOMEN OF HER MOTHER'S GENERATION...when you know, I was one of the women that got put down for not being radical enough, by women like her mother. Plenty of Alice Walker's contemporaries have politics more like Rebecca's than Alice's. But by assigning us all "mom status"--she erases us.
The debate goes on: Rebecca, who lives in Hawaii with Tenzin and Glen, his Buddhist-teacher father, recently wrote about why she was supporting Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton — and immediately came under fire.
“The response from older feminists was that I, and other young women, were naive in thinking Obama could ever truly represent us, and we should be supporting the female candidate. The belief is that women become more radical as they get older, that we’re naive and we’ll ‘get it’ later on.”
Obviously, this is not something they can say to ME or anyone my age who supports Obama. (Did I tell you about getting called a teenybopper in love with Obama over on some British blog? I laughed my ass off.) But seriously, I don't like seeing these differences made about AGE, any more than I like seeing them made about RACE or GENDER. They are simply differences of opinion over political strategy (to me).
(((sigh)))
“Now, Octo, you aren't making the "men experience X tooooo argument, are you?”
Nope. Context was – I think the goal should be for girls/women to spend similar amounts of time as boys/men do on appearance, which isn’t zero. Point wasn’t that men and women are similarly challenged. Right now there’s a huge imbalance, I will go on record emphatically on that. There’s a reason my name is mud at Feminist Critics. I loathe most “men have it just as bad!” whines and am usually less than tactful in stating that.
You have a good point that the “taking pride” thing is subjective and malleable. It’s one of those “know it when you see it” things. I know I’m ready sooner than my husband if both of us start getting ready at the same time, and he’s hardly Metro. I buy makeup once a year, at a drug store (except lip gloss which I’m obsessively addicted to).
I’d apply the same kind of analysis with my daughter. Going shopping once a season, finding bargains, having fun trying on different styles = OK. Spending too much $, experiencing too much stress, taking more than 45 min start to finish to get ready unless it’s a major occasion = not OK. Not that these are absolutes, just examples of what seems sensible to me.
Why on earth does any woman wear make up (most of which is tested on animals in hideous ways)? Clowns paint their faces. It is so dishonest -transparent dishonesty.
Roman prostitutes used to smear their lips red to advertise they'd do oral sex. It is so so unhealthy -- well Greer in the Female Eunuch said it all -- but really at least make sure what you buy is not tested on animals. OR look at the pictures of what they do to rabbits to test your "make-up". PETA's site has them. Your face's are beautiful and makeup does not make them more beautiful -- it sullies them.
Did anyone notice Hillary's red lips and painted eyebrows? Looks horrible. Remember when she had almost no make up on -- it looked a lot better -- even now sometimes we see her without make up and she looks so much better.
Make up is a cover - a veil.
Daisy -- agreed. She's setting up a false mommy dichotomy.
Also, it gets back to the discusssion a couple posts back about the feminist appellation. Alice Walker has every right to be upset hearing her daughter call feminism an "experiment." Walker fought for women's rights, children's rights, issues of concern to WOC. Hearing her daughter dismiss the idea of equality of women, of all women, as experimental -- I'd be pissed.
And you're right, Alice Walker's politics were her own, not age-related, save the fact that she fought for things women Rebecca;s age didn't have to fight (as hard) for. But certainly there were women of AW's vintage who chose not to engage in those battles.
GC -- I don't know. I'm agnostic on makeup. Personally, I wear it maybe 2-3x a week, for meetings or if I'm out on the weekend. I probably spend on it what MrO spends on razors, cologne and shaving cream. (That's partly because he gets Versace and I get a secret, inexpensive kind that I cannot tell anyone or else I'd have to kill them, because it's deadly).
But enough about my bizarreness. I think if you have a 0-10 minute makeup routine and limited makeup expenses, it's pretty harmless.
Much of what we do is dishonest, appearance-wise. Shaving, wearing clothes, wearing any kind of support garments that aren't just for comfort -- it's all deception. Makeup doesn't have to be a mask.
I think it gets back to making sure one is not feeling compelled to go in for any more deception than men do. MrO, for example -- now, we know how guys get hair in new locations every year over say 35, and he's half Jewish. So if he went totally "nondeceptive" he'd have hairs coming out locations that would be frankly quite offputting, and even scary for my daughter (not to mention me). This is a whole lot of upkeep.
I don't think there are hardcore "rules" -- like one needs to time ones spouse and make sure one is in keeping with that. Or that someone who has fun with clothes or makeup is wrong for spending additional time that is compatible with a healthy professional life. But just a general equity test -- am I feeling compelled to spend more time than a guy in my shoes would on appearance? If so, is there a really important life-affecting reason why? (eg, am I involved in some kind of visual medium constantly, as in a broadcaster or actress or stylist or fitness instructer?)
In any case, I'm no fan of women policing each other on these things. But talking through what parts of what we do feel compelled and what parts are genuinely fun -- I think that's useful.
I totally agree with you except when what we do for fun is cruel to someone else. Make up is tested on animals - toxic substances are dripped into their eyes which are pinned open. Fur comes from animals who live in tortured lives and electrocuted by anus and mouth. So called Faux fur (in boots gloves and collars and toys) comes from dogs and cats skinned alive in China. Watch out for those deodorants and aftershaves. Go to
PETA's website. Find products that don't come from torture and cruelty.
Also, women who work in the casinos in Nevada are forced to wear make-up or lose their jobs. Enforced sexual ads for the casinos.
I think stuff becomes bad when it is UNCONSCIOUS. We should know what we're doing in the everyday actions of our lives. I don't want to police you but I look to see how conscious people are. It is a tolerance for cruelty measurement. An awareness measurement - an empathy measurement. Empathy BTW, is something worthwhile to teach your child.
Speaking of which, I am suspicious of Alice Walker's feminism. It is a choice to have a child. Feminism is about choice but it doesn't end there. It is about conscious choice. If you are not into parenthood, admit it, don't just have children because a woman is supposed to do it and then leave them to be preyed on by abusers. Abortion is also a sacrament.
This type of reasoning - consciousness and choices is discussed more intelligently than i do in a report at the Radical Feminism site here:
http://ceceliahouse.
wordpress.com/2007/
03/31/pornography-
and-pop-culture-
part-1/
It compares 2end and so called 3rd wave approaches (I never noticed any 3rd wave of "feminism" happening)
WikiPedia:
"The word womanism was adapted from Pulitzer Prize winning author, Alice Walker. In her book In Search of Our Mother’s Garden: Womanist Prose, Walker used the word to describe the perspective and experiences of “women of color.”
Although most Womanist scholarship centers on the African American woman’s experience, other non-white theorists identify themselves with this term.
The need for this term arose from the early feminist movements that were led specifically by white women who advocated social changes such as woman’s suffrage.
The feminist movement focused largely on oppressions based on sexism. But this movement, largely a white middle-class movement, ignored oppression based on racism and classism.
It was at this point that Womanists pointed out that black women experienced a different and more intense kind of oppression than did white women."
ALICE WALKER BELIEVES:
"But this movement, largely a white middle-class movement, ignored oppression based on racism and classism."
PURE BS. NO ONE did more for women in poverty then that good old feminist movement (which was not all white BTW) - not Alice Walker for sure. I am talking about actually changing conditions not just writing books which made the author wealthy. Every single economic advancement from the Equal Pay Act to the laws against Sex Discrimination to EVERYTHING came from NOW and the FEMINIST movement. And the women who change society were volunteers and made no money from the laws they passed and the victims they helped.
Now Alic Walker endorses BO -- an artist is an artist and AW is an artist. She sees what happens to women of color clearly and tells it well. But she is blind to the fact that feminist victories benefited WOC, affirmative action benefited WOC tremendously.
AW's criticism is unfair and factually inaccurate and created divisions rather than united women. This method of operation she repeated with her own daughter and is reaping the whirlwind. What goes around, comes around.
GC -- looking at the wiki entry on "womanism," it's unclear to me whether Walker said that, or that was coming from the wiki authors (about feminism ignoring oppression based on racism).
I read the wiki entry as Walker coining the term because she felt it was responsive to issues she felt close to that weren't addressed to the degree she would find ideal in feminism. The more binary assertion they make -- not sure whether we can ascribe that for sure to Walker.
Personally, I feel that sticking with and working to improve the movement that stands for women's equality is a better strategy than trying to define an even more vulnerable and even less visible variation. But I can understand Walker's motivation.
As to her abilities as a mother -- I think there are two sides to that story and it's hard for anyone outside it to determine what actually happened.
Yes there are 2 sides but I am glad when children "tell" - I think it help us evolve - a word to the wise - be kind to your children.
I too wondered if it was the whole movement or AC or Wiki's author who said that about class and race but we have sure heard it enough haven't we? And it is such a blatant lie.
I remember when that Womanist thing came out -- it was used to distinguish WOC from white feminists. WOC did not want to be identified with feminism , I thought it was really because there was such hatred of feminists and the costs were high. IMO, that movement was trying to express something they thought made their oppression complex or different. They wanted also to both criticize and express solidarity with black men. Have the Cake and eat it too. They seemed caught in that same odd place the battered woman is caught with false consciousness of the Stockholm syndrome kind. Crossed hard wires.
I thought they could identify as feminist and still write and speak about the special issues both personal and political related to their gender/color. It was an unnecessarily divisive thing. And now it has become institutionalized. The Michelle Obama world view.
But I know we are all still evolving. We have to give ourselves time to assimilate it all. I am just too impatient - so I try to avoid thinking about it at all - I just try to wait. and I will vote for BO if he wins the nomination, gagging, puking and waiting and hoping. But after he is elected the whole world has 4 years and then I am done with hoping. And if he loses, I am done waiting in Nov.
"I loathe most “men have it just as bad!” whines and am usually less than tactful in stating that."
Just as i loath the "women suffer from it worse" whine and am usually less than tactful in stating that.
Anon: invalid comparison, cowardice (see: anon), and high number of misspells/typos per sentence. That's three strikes, my friend, take it elsewhere.
An article in today's Wash Post has given me much to think about -and led me to this thread via my google of "intersectionalism".
I'm interested in the conspicuous absence/references to same of age as a gender issue(I'm a really "old broad"-66!) I was really saddened/but not surprised by the(relative)lack of support by women for this female candidate. I think I'll be motivated enough to take a women's studies class looking at the evolution of feminism over the years. As a psychiatrist, daughter, mother and grandmother-I can say that working out your issues with your mother is the last thing you'll get to. In the meantime it pops up everywhere else in your life.
Anon
Phylis Chesler's book, "Women's Inhumanity To Women" has some great chapters on mom & daughter dynamics and she wrote a whole book on her mother and their troubled relationship.
Anyway, she knows Walker and wrote a post on this little drama on her site "Cheslers Chronicles" but that post is mysteriously gone - wonder if someone asked her to remove it.
I want to tell you all to go read there today. I haven't read it yet, but a quick glance told me a NOW founder died. Phyllis is writing about her life throwing in a lot of movement history as she does so well. The Second Wave ebbs....
http://pajamasmedia.
com/phyllischesler/
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,A片,A片,情色,A片,A片,情色,A片,A片,情趣用品,A片,情趣用品,A片,情趣用品,a片,情趣用品
A片,A片,AV女優,色情,成人,做愛,情色,AIO,視訊聊天室,SEX,聊天室,自拍,AV,情色,成人,情色,aio,sex,成人,情色
免費A片,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛
情色文學,色情A片,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,言情小說,愛情小說,AV片,A漫,AVDVD,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,成人交友,成人電影,成人貼圖,成人小說,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人遊戲,愛情公寓,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,成人論壇
A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,.18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人網站,成人圖片,AV女優,成人光碟,色情,色情影片,免費A片下載,SEX,AV,色情網站,本土自拍,性愛,成人影片,情色文學,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人貼圖
成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,成人電影,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,色情,成人電影,色情,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人,成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,成人電影,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,
微風成人,情色,成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,色情,成人電影,色情,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,打卡鐘,跳蛋,持久液,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,色情網站,色情網站,色情網站,色情網站,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,av女優,a片,a片,a片,a片,成人網站,
成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,情色,情色,情色,情色,黃金回收,黃金回收,黃金回收,黃金回收,借錢,借錢,借錢,借錢,植牙,植牙,植牙,牙醫,牙醫,牙醫,a片,a片,a片,a片,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,成人影片,
成人影片
,成人影片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,情色,情色,情色,情色,黃金,黃金,黃金,黃金,黃金價格,黃金價格,黃金價格,黃金價格,黃金買賣,黃金買賣,黃金買賣,黃金買賣,當舖,當舖,當舖,當舖,鑽石價格,鑽石價格,鑽石價格,鑽石價格,鑽石回收,鑽石回收,鑽石回收,鑽石回收,鑽石買賣,鑽石買賣,鑽石買賣,鑽石買賣,黃金存摺,黃金存摺,黃金存摺,
黃金存摺,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,情色視訊,情色視訊,情色視訊,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室,打卡鐘,火鍋吃到飽,創業加盟,賺錢,吃到飽麻辣鍋
a片,a片,a片,a片,a片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,色情,色情,色情,色情,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,情色,情色,情色,情色,打卡鐘,跳蛋,持久液,色情網站,黃金回收,借錢,植牙,牙醫,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情,h漫,情色,sex,黃金價格,黃金,黃金買賣,黃金存摺,鑽石價格,鑽石回收,鑽石買賣,當舖,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,打卡鐘,火鍋吃到飽,創業加盟,賺錢,吃到飽麻辣鍋
a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊
成人網站,成人影片,av女優,h漫,成人網站,成人電影,a片,色情,成人影片,色情,成人電影,色情,h漫,成人影片,成人電影,免費A片,色情,成人電影,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人網站,情趣用品,免費A片,成人網站,色情,a片,成人影片,情色,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人影片,微風成人,av女優
成人網站,色情網站,av女優,色情,成人網站,成人影片,成人電影,av女優,a片,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,av女優
色情,h漫,sex,情色,a片,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情
h漫,sex,情色,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友
情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,成人電影,h漫,成人電影,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人
美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
a片,成人網站,av女優,h漫,成人影片,免費a片,情趣用品,色情,微風成人,情色,sex,成人電影,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,成人電影聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人電影,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊
Post a Comment