I agree with some of what Steinem said and not with other aspects. Let’s get the latter out of the way first.
It’s this: “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life.”
Now, I disagree, or at least feel the jury’s out. Personally, I suspect it’s class/the income gap, which intersects with both race and gender. And while the income gap intersects much more with race, many more things – eg intra-family or intra-community – intersect more with gender. I don’t think Steinem or any of us are qualified to answer this one definitively.
I do agree with the following:
“So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman… and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.”
and:
“I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together.”
and especially:
“What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system”
Yesterday I was having breakfast with my husband and daughter and I was telling him about my blogging block. Something was bugging me but I couldn’t figure it out. Why did I feel that talking about feminism and race was so frustrating? Why was it so hard to articulate why I felt sexism was more publicly acceptable without being accused of Oppression Olympics – which are really two different concepts, since I do not believe sexism is more critical than racism.
He said: “all these other women are fighting you on that.”
And that’s it. That’s the fucking crux.
There are not many people of color who have a problem identifying as anti-racists, the way women have issues with the “F” word. You don’t find many POC who resent other POC with more financial/educational privilege aspiring to power. Of course, there are counterexamples on both sides – but I’m talking percentages.
How many POC do you encounter who don’t believe racism is an issue, or much of one? Do you know any who don’t believe those their own race are equal? Who do not believe those of their race are just as well-equipped politically or professionally?
But we all know women like that. Didn’t Ann Coulter say, only a bit kidding, that women shouldn’t have the vote? Caitlin Flanagan makes money voicing actively anti-feminist principles, such as that other women shouldn’t try to.
And let’s face it, do POC politicians (unless they’re women!) typically get called “ambitious,” “shrill,” get mocked on their physical characteristics by other POC? Outside of politics, don’t most POC help each other professionally?
I personally do not find the same to be true about women in close to the same percentages. I’ve had wonderful female mentors and I’ve also been cut down hard by women in the workplace. I also feel that some of the anti-Hillary sentiment coming from women reflects this. Sure, some of it is principled (although I disagree with it – but plenty of people who disagree with me do so for principled reasons).
Also. IMO, not only do more women, collectively, have a more conflicted relationship towards women’s equality than POC, collectively, have towards theirs. They also have more of a stake in maintaining the status quo.
After all – POC do not benefit from racism. I do not consider affirmative action, such as it is, a benefit that makes up for or rigorously address the tolls of racism. I believe others, at least other liberals, would agree.
However, many women do benefit, or believe that they benefit, from sexism. Getting protected, rescued, paid for, supported. It can appear to be a pretty neat path. And I’m not pointing a finger of blame here; we are brought up in large part to buy into this, and the surrounding culture supports it.
Even though many of us are urged to compete with boys in school, we are familiar with the fairy tale plots, we are familiar with the characteristics that we are encouraged to develop. We get the claps and oohs and aahs when we dress up in Mommy’s heels and dresses, we know our brothers don’t get that kind of affirmation for dressing up.
As we get older, we get judged by friends on how well off our dates are – less so based on how good-looking they are, although that shows well too. We display our ring fingers, our paid-for vacations.
Feminism can be a mixed bag for us. On the one hand, who likes glass ceilings or not getting to vote? On the other, an equal responsibility to pay, to make a social overture, or to support our spouse is not universally greeted with enthusiasm. When I was in college (even circa early 90s, it was 40K annually including room and board), the occasional female co-ed would announce her plans to be a stay-at-home-mom. OK, fine, but not so easy to do when you can’t make a principled claim on the male half (assuming you are hetero) to cover you, when he cannot do likewise.
I’m not standing apart from this analysis. I’m a hardcore feminist, but I’ve benefited from sexism. I still do, to a lesser degree. When I bailed out of my big law firm and stripped for a couple of years to make some bank to fuel an entrepreneurial career – that was not a decision a guy in my place would have made as easily or been able to implement as successfully.
And I’m a bit of a hypocrite for making it. But with an excuse of sorts. For various reasons, some here, the reasons I felt driven out of BigLaw had to do with sexism in the first place. So refusing to profit from it would have been more of a double negative than a mathematician like me was willing to countenance. (Multiplying two negatives makes a positive, but adding them results in an even larger negative).
So I’m totally implicated in all this.
Joan Morgan, in “When Chickenheads Come Home to Roost: A Hip Hop Feminist Breaks It Down" (a recommended read, for a good discussion check out Racialicious) says:
“Can you be a good feminist and admit out loud that there are things you kinda dig about patriarchy?
Would I be forced to turn in my ‘feminist membership card’ if I confessed that suddenly waking up in a world free of gender inequities or expectations just might bug me out a little?
Suppose you don’t want to pay for your own dinner, hold the door open, fix things, move furniture, or get intimate with whatever’s under the hood of a car? …
[T]ruth be told, men with too many ‘feminist’ sensibilities have never made my panties wet…”
Personally, I would trade the things I have taken advantage of wrt patriarchy for its absence. But would it be an adjustment, as Morgan notes? Yeah. Also, I have no problem getting wet for feminist men, and no longer succcumb to the wiles of chauvinist bad boys. That wasn't always true, though. And while paying for dinner isn’t an issue now, I’ve taken advantage of that in the past. And I’m quite glad I’ve found one of the rare Jewish specimens who can fix things and is quite intimate with what’s under the hood.”
La Lubu says accurately here:
“I'm raising a daughter; I sure the hell am not about the business of raising another adult, no matter how good-looking he is. Not even if I won the lottery. That men can indulge the Pygmalion illusion is another function of disparity---the lack of a second shift. That is, until they've taken that fairy tale to heart. I've known several men who've lived to regret playing the handsome prince to someone else's Sleeping Beauty.”
Right now, we’re OK being Sleeping Beauty. Especially if we play the games we need to play to get our prince, handsome or otherwise. Even if we don’t, we won’t be considered a loser the way the male SBs are – just someone who prioritizes parenting.
Or what if we don’t want to be SAHMs but want to be in a helping or not-well-paid creative profession, one in which we may look to husband or dad for help paying the bills? That’s OK too. We can be the non-economically-productive (comparatively) but creative/caring Muse for our spouse.
And there’s a stake in maintaining this. What if more women, instead of SBs or Muses, have the option to and choose to become Mulans – still cute, maybe , but also willing to sport the (typically viewed as) male garb and go into battle?
That’s not so great for the SBs and Muses, heretofore viewed as the prime catches in the relationship game. One or two Fiorinas can be written off as imitation males, but if it got to be more prevalent, the SBs and Muses might face more pressure.
I’m not knocking women’s decisions to stay at home or pursue a caregiving or creative career. I think all of those are important. My point is only that these are things that fewer men feel able to choose, and that feminism implicates how long we will feel as free to choose them as we currently do.
So these are some reasons I think sexism is still more publicly acceptable. Because the affected parties are more ambivalent, and/or complicit, than in the case of other “isms” like those involving class or race.
Again, it’s got nothing to do with how I view the seriousness of the “isms.” I think all are critical and I find competitions as to which is more so to be odious.
Public acceptability has to do with who is going to complain or get angry. And yeah – I think in the case of women, we’re less likely.
In my tiny corner of the world here and offline, I would like to change that.
54 comments:
You do change it.
Great analysis. I think you're right. Not being united in feeling aggrieved is the biggest possible fracture in any movement.
The problem, of course, is that losing the minor benefits that are unequally doled out to some women will be more than offset by the great advantages, more equally distributed, that will be women's in the absence of sexism.
But we can't always see those as clearly as we can sometimes see the minor advantages.
But all hope is not lost - there are enough women who do get it to make the fight only periodically discouraging.
Octo,
interesting, a "men's rights" post.
"My point is only that these are things that fewer men feel able to choose..."
Isn't this, in a way, what machina suggestedin the comments to the previous post - there will be real change if women need to / are willing to tranfer value (financially or otherwise) to increase their access to men?
Thanks, Apostate!
Tobias: yes, I think men do benefit from feminism as it should work.
"Isn't this, in a way, what machina suggestedin the comments to the previous post - there will be real change if women need to / are willing to tranfer value (financially or otherwise) to increase their access to men?"
In part. But it's a two way street. There is a high cost to women of transfering value (as this election demonstrates). Men play a big role in that high cost. My senior partner said the other day, after making a sexist and stupid comment about HRC's ankles, that "another reason she wears pantsuits is we're not ready for a President in a dress."
Well guess what, dude. If you want more choice about your responsibilities, if you want to retire sooner and not work as hard, you better GET ready.
Hey Octo -
Good post. To engage a little further on some points:
Why did I feel that talking about feminism and race was so frustrating? Why was it so hard to articulate why I felt sexism was more publicly acceptable without being accused of Oppression Olympics – which are really two different concepts, since I do not believe sexism is more critical than racism.
One of the main problems is that so many people follow this kind of argument with something ridiculous. Like "oh, no one makes shine my shoe jokes at Obama!" which they do, and much worse. I someone pointed me to a link collection of the images and discussions involved. But a lot of people think that if they aren't hearing it, it isn't happening.
There is also the idea of what is publicly acceptable. So again, what you are privy to and what you experience is different than what other people do. So while you may have more overt sexism, you also have people able to publicly denounce sexism without fear of reprisal. Whereas racism has gone into that same gray area as homophobia has - there are many things that are racist, but since they are not immediately obvious, people tend to push those aside. So, having an employer just happen to think that African-Americans are from low income backgrounds and less qualified than their white backgrounds regardless of the truth. That person isn't announcing "blacks are inferior" but they have internalized that idea and they act on it. Same thing with homophobia - you hear a little less out and out denunciations of homosexuality, but you run up against a lot more people who just aren't comfortable with the idea of gay marriage because "it just isn't right." Again, most of these people would be horrified by an outright show of bigotry, but use their actions to perpetuate inequality.
I wonder why it is necessary to rank sexism to begin with? Instead of the sweeping declarations, can't we just state the facts?
And let’s face it, do POC politicians (unless they’re women!) typically get called “ambitious,” “shrill,” get mocked on their physical characteristics by other POC? Outside of politics, don’t most POC help each other professionally?
No, they get labeled sellouts. We have our language used to take down politicians and mock them.
PoCs try to help each other professionally, but not all do - and most are not in a position of power to do so. Part of the reason that women of a certain race stick together at work is because white women tend to sell them out as well. See this article:
http://www.raceintheworkplace.com/2008/01/11/the-corporate-divide-between-black-and-white-women/
However, many women do benefit, or believe that they benefit, from sexism.
Agreed. In addition, keep in mind that many WoC have been indoctrinated into sexism - in our communities, adhering to the ideals of mainstream society is seen as the key to get a better job, husband, or have a better life. That includes the same sexist ideals. And as women do this, MoC have their sexism and male privilege reinforced, which leads to more rigid social policing.
Going back to this:
Personally, I suspect it’s the class/the income gap, which intersects with both race and gender. And while the income gap intersects much more with race, many more things – eg intra-family or intra-community – intersect more with gender.
I think this is a huge one. These ideas of money, class, and behavior are pervasive throughout communities and share very common characteristics. Perhaps that's the right method of attack?
Ah, link issues.
Try this one:
http://tiny.cc/Wps08
Octo,
"Tobias: yes, I think men do benefit from feminism as it should work."
I agree, I just can't live with the label, to be honest.
"In part. But it's a two way street. There is a high cost to women of transfering value (as this election demonstrates). Men play a big role in that high cost."
Sorry, I can't follow. What are you saying here?
Great post, and this sums it up: Because the affected parties are more ambivalent, and/or complicit, than in the case of other “isms” like those involving class or race.
That's it, right there. I spent the better part of an hour trying to say the same thing on one of my guest posts on Feministe---that sexism doesn't impact us all the same way. But you found the conclusion---complicity. Ambivalence. And yes, benefit. (*gasp*! she said that out loud!) Hence, "fun" feminism (I'm so not like those other b*tches!) as opposed to political feminism (Yes, I am like those other bitches. Put it on my check. And hers, too.)
I also think we fight (at least) dual-consciousness at all times---seeing with the male as well as the female lens. Combine that with our other identities and the need for respite from the Struggle....and we find ourselves putting up with some shit in what we feel to be our own communities to catch one quick breath before being back in it again against the System (or....maybe that's just me! But I don't think so...)
See, the Superwoman and the second shift predated feminism. We've had a long time to internalize those roles, and spent very little time questioning them---especially the Superwoman. The "I'll not only kick ass, I'll kick it harder, higher, and faster than you, and then you'll have to give me my due." Exceptionalism. Individualism. (I know I rag on individualism a lot, but I feel strongly that there is a lack of balance in the U.S. regarding individual vs. communal needs and/or solutions. Shit, from the Palmer raids to McCarthyism, and I'm surprised the word "community" is still used.)
"In part. But it's a two way street. There is a high cost to women of transfering value (as this election demonstrates). Men play a big role in that high cost."
Sorry, I can't follow. What are you saying here?
I don't know what Octo meant, but I read it as the high personal cost those first few women bear during the transition. It takes a piece out of ya.
Latoya – hey, good to see you, and some thought-provoking points.
“Like ‘oh, no one makes shine my shoe jokes at Obama!’ which they do, and much worse. I someone pointed me to a link collection of the images and discussions involved. But a lot of people think that if they aren't hearing it, it isn't happening.”
That’s the thing though. I’m not saying racism isn’t there, just that it’s less publicly acceptable particularly in the sense that the affected parties aren’t as conflicted as are women. Sure, Obama faces racist “jokes” and that sucks. But from other POC? Doubt it. At least, not in close to the quantity that HRC gets "sexist" jokes from women. I think generally, POC are more aligned -- to their credit.
“So, having an employer just happen to think that African-Americans are from low income backgrounds and less qualified than their white backgrounds regardless of the truth. That person isn't announcing ‘blacks are inferior’ but they have internalized that idea and they act on it.”
I agree, and same with women. Employers make these same assumptions, like she is going to get preg and quit, or she got this far b/c of her looks.
Your point here is excellent, I think: “[POC] get labeled sellouts. We have our language used to take down politicians and mock them.”
That’s true. Some of POC attorneys I represent have indicated that they’ve been called “oreos” or “bananas” by other WOC.
I still do not think that the intra-POC controversy about success is even close to in the same category as the intra-women controversy, however. Corporate women get called sellouts by other women in helping professions -- happens to me every day of the week, including from my mom. But women are more often targeted by similarly situated women than POC are, I think. eg, WOC attorneys whom I know get more grief from other women in the workplace than from POC attorneys in the workplace.
“Part of the reason that women of a certain race stick together at work is because white women tend to sell them out as well.”
I read the article, but don’t completely agree. Women sell each other out at work, irrespective of race. I believe white women don’t support WOC as much as they should, but that this is mainly because women don’t support women period as much as they should. I’ve seen WOC support each other, but I haven’t gotten support from senior WOC or senior white women. Note: I agree with WOC focusing their resources on each other – so no gripes on that. But I don’t feel white women get special mentoring from other white women that WOC do not get.
Tobias: “I agree, I just can't live with the label, to be honest.”
That’s honest. And also a bit self-destructive. Ultimately, in my book, a guy who won’t wear the label doesn’t get the benefits that come along with that. MrO thinks his benefits are pretty sweet.
What I am saying in the context of “There is a high cost to women of transfering value (as this election demonstrates). Men play a big role in that high cost?” That when a woman determines that she is going to buck the SB/Muse trend, she pays a price. She gets called “bitch in pantsuits” or whatever appears to fit. Her sexuality is questioned. She gets criticized by both men and women as a “bitch” who is too “ambitious.” Men who would like the benefits need to stop participating in the costs.
Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.
Nitpicking time. The statement IN FULL is correct. You can see what's happening in the election and sexism is the most restrictive force in the domestic sphere.
Octo,
"That’s honest. And also a bit self-destructive. Ultimately, in my book, a guy who won’t wear the label doesn’t get the benefits that come along with that. MrO thinks his benefits are pretty sweet."
Not really. We already talked about the bad experiences with the irrational feminists I once lived with... so, not just benefits, and certainly not just good memories. Too much baggage to call myself feminist, certainly not as long as feminism is as badly defined as it is currently. I may possibly wear an octo-branch shirt, but in the end, sorry - I'm all for finding a gender justice label that isn't gynocentric - it's the name, not the concept (well applied).
"Men who would like the benefits need to stop participating in the costs."
Thanks, now I understand what you were trying to say.
Tobias: depends on whose definition you're buying into.
"I'm all for finding a gender justice label that isn't gynocentric"
Ultimately, the belief that men's rights are currently as under attack was why I'm never going back to Feminist Critics, and I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for that being essayed here either. The justice label for me needs to focus on the group who most needs justice.
Donna -- it's up there but I'm not sure. I think poverty is more restrictive in terms of on average where people will wind up.
You're right in the sense that if a previously destitute person and a woman from a middle class background were both up for a top job, she'd have the harder climb perception-wise. I just think the hurdles for the destitute person would be as high or higher to get there in the first place.
Octo, she only mentionned Presidential politics and the kitchen so it's an accurate statement. I'm starting to believe class/poverty trumps all but not in Presidential politics and domestic gender roles. We've never had an impoverished Presidential candidate.
Wouldn't that be interesting?
Octo,
"Tobias: depends on whose definition you're buying into."
Exactly. I've come across too many. The more you see, the less you know.
"Ultimately, the belief that men's rights are currently as under attack was why I'm never going back to Feminist Critics, and I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for that being essayed here either. The justice label for me needs to focus on the group who most needs justice."
Hmm, I'm not exactly sure where I may have said anything to that effect? I think men do have more problems now than when gender roles were more rigid, but that's nothing I would classify as a "rights" question, it's mostly adaptation pains (to which I hope more feminists will listen eventually - you already do, in my opinion, as we I think is apparent in this post, for example.)
"The justice label for me needs to focus on the group who most needs justice."
That's fair enough, but I'd prefer something aspiring to "justice for all" to have a label focusing on the projected ideal as opposed to past and current injustices.
Donna - we never will have one, but it would certainly be interesting!
Bill Clinton's upbringing was lower class and HRC's was working class -- despite false aspersions from a certain private school candidate's campaign.
Tobias -- substituting a gender rights moniker for feminism would suggest that men's rights are curently under attack in the same way. That's why it's ridiculous.
Racial, poverty, immigration movements all believe in "justice for all" but you don't hear anyone advocating subbing something like "income rights" or "color rights" and for good fucking reason.
I'm sorry that men feel left out of the appellation (really, shedding tears as we speak) but it should be fairly obvious that focusing on the areas by far most vulnerable is the only way to get things done.
How many POC do you encounter who don’t believe racism is an issue, or much of one? Do you know any who don’t believe those their own race are equal? Who do not believe those of their race are just as well-equipped politically or professionally?
Unfortunatly I know many POC who don't believe that racism effects their everyday lives. They think that saying that we are all equal makes it so. It is a coping mechanism and not recognized as such. Even Obama said that the civil rights movement took us 90% of the way there. That is denying the systemic nature of race in America. This even while one can find images of his wife being lynched on the internet. http://www.womanist-musings.com/2008/05/social-lynching-of-michelle-obama.html
These people are looking for white acceptance and have internalized hatred of blacks. They don't want to be one of "them". This is the kind of argument that Bill Cosby is making though he does not recognize it as such.
As a WOC I can recognize that both my gender and my color stigmatize my body. Many WOC do not see gender in this way because of pressure to identify solely on a racial basis. It is in this way that black male patriarchy continues to rule the roost so to speak. It is not about one being worse than the other, it is about how they work together to deny agency.
One last point...whether or not racism is as overt as sexism is irrelevant. How it makes the person feel is all that is important. When people comment that I don't "sound" black it is just as bad as saying all blacks are inferior. I interpret it as such and so the effect is the same.
I love this post, Octogalore. You are spot on.
Some of the stuff I've been reading in the blogosphere lately is just crazy-making. It has me wondering why women continually self-sabotage? And I hate that I can't say how I feel without being accused of "not caring" about racism, or whatever. How does that even follow??
You nailed it. Again.
Renee – granted, you may know POC who don’t believe racism affects their daily lives. But as you said, they do think we’re all equal, and I assume this means equally equipped for professional success. Many women do not believe this about gender equality, however.
Re Bill Cosby – an interesting example. I don’t think we can analogize that to the “women aren’t equal” statements coming from Coulter and Flanagan et al, though. I haven’t studied Cosby’s comments in as much detail as I’d like to. But I believe the criticism of them hasn’t been that Cosby doesn’t think blacks are equal or has some kind of deep-seated hatred of them. Instead, critics feel he blames lower-income blacks unfairly for issues stemming from systemic racism and poverty. They feel he places too much onus on them to overcome obstacles that aren’t of their making. Others have said that his feelings that black families and communities should have other role models besides rappers and sports stars have some merit.
But in any case, his message appears to be that POC do have the abilities, the substance, to make it to the top, although he (possibly unfairly) makes procedural criticisms. The difference is, female critiques of feminism make substantive criticisms. They think women are not equally equipped.
“Many WOC do not see gender in this way because of pressure to identify solely on a racial basis.”
That’s the thing. I argue here that many women do not feel pressure to identify on a gender basis. Which complacence/complicity/ambivalence makes sexism less vilified.
Mike Gravel was bankrupt. He didn't get any delegates either.
Amber --thanks!
The problem is that discussing differences in how various "isms" apply -- many of which having to do with the fact that families are typically aligned in most ways besides gender -- appears more controversial than it is. Noting differences in application and how overt or publicly acceptable something is does not equate to a comparison of importance.
In fact, some of the ways in which gender SEEMS less oppressive -- the ways one can use it to cheat the system -- do not apply to race/class. I argue here that this has implications in terms of women feeling aligned. So it cuts different ways. Not better/worse just different.
eg, I've used gender to cheat the system in ways men cheat the system. I've gotten into professional situations by pressing the right gender buttons. Other women have gotten (temporary, perhaps) security the same way. These are ways in which gender allows shortcuts that race and class mainly do not.
But there are other ways in which these "shortcuts" are devastating to the coherency of the movement and the seriousness with which sexism is viewed.
So the argument isn't that one "ism" is more serious or important or that one doesn't care. Just that the differences in operation are worthy of analysis.
Octo,
"I'm sorry that men feel left out of the appellation (really, shedding tears as we speak)"
I can live with your sarcasm... doesn't make the explanation less valid for ME (which was all I claimed).
Bill Cosby did not want to be associated with the black community until recently. He never involved himself in the civil rights movement despite being repeated asked. His commentary today is based on the fact that he is embarrassed by blacks of a certain economic group. He is not embarrassed in front of other blacks he is embarrassed that white people will think that he is like them because he is black. He is not about empowering, he is about shaming people into conforming to a certain pattern of behavior. It is about more than education and economics where he is concerned.
WOC also do not identify with feminism because it has not been a welcoming place for us. We have been silenced and ignored. Lets face facts the feminine mystique was not written with black women in mind.
La Lubu: “I also think we fight (at least) dual-consciousness at all times---seeing with the male as well as the female lens. Combine that with our other identities and the need for respite from the Struggle....and we find ourselves putting up with some shit in what we feel to be our own communities to catch one quick breath before being back in it again against the System (or....maybe that's just me! But I don't think so...)”
I don’t think it is just you. I would love to hear more about this. I think it’s a big factor that we cannot rely on our own communities to see the Struggle in the way that we do.
“See, the Superwoman and the second shift predated feminism. We've had a long time to internalize those roles, and spent very little time questioning them---especially the Superwoman. The "I'll not only kick ass, I'll kick it harder, higher, and faster than you, and then you'll have to give me my due." Exceptionalism. Individualism. (I know I rag on individualism a lot, but I feel strongly that there is a lack of balance in the U.S. regarding individual vs. communal needs and/or solutions. Shit, from the Palmer raids to McCarthyism, and I'm surprised the word "community" is still used.)”
Here again I would like to hear more of your views on this. It’s somewhat of a different perspective than mine in ways I am sure you have already pinpointed. But then, I’m not sure my perspective is about what I think is technically best in an ideal world, more about what I feel is necessary to survive or to thrive in this one. It is probably no accident that we are in very different lines of work from that standpoint, possibly?
Anyway, the easier one first – second shift. That’s a tough one to question because it implicates our mothering which is very ingrained. Even now, with me doing about 60% of the parenting because I work from home, I know I worry about how good a parent I am more than MrO does. And that’s despite my work contributions being what they are. I, through some grit and foresight as well as just being in the right place at the right time with a shiny entitlement complex, hit a job lottery that he didn’t, and every argument we have about work distribution, it’s a nasty little weapon I have in my back pocket. I’d like to say I never use it – but that would be a lie. I know that this worry and ability to question the 2nd shift would be more difficult without that kind of weapon.
The Superwoman thing – along the same lines as 2nd shift but even more so because it also implicates how good we feel we have to be on the job to get our due. The fucked up thing here, as you note, is that this often takes the form of individualism, as it’s hard to ram the essential information into people’s thick sexist skulls without that sometimes. But is that the healthiest way to view life and professional happiness? Probably not, in the ideal world. I’m not sure what the answer is for this one.
Renee – I will have to look further into the Cosby history to talk more intelligently on this. I have read folks who feel that he is not in fact ashamed of blacks or concerned about white people’s opinions about himself. But it does seem as if his statements have more of a shaming effect, whatever his intention, as he often does not appear to voice strategies that are in line with the realities of what it would take to execute on them.
I agree with you that many feminist texts and BigBlogs are not responsive to WOC. I’m not sure that “feminism” as a whole can be blamed, however, or that one WOC can speak authoritatively on whether it’s been a positive experience for WOC as a whole. There are WOC (some who comment here) who feel it has been an essential movement that, like many such, could be improved in some significant ways including its inclusion of and speaking with the voice of WOC.
I am not claiming to be the definitive voice for WOC when I speak about feminism. I do however believe that I am expressing a popular view point. Many WOC do not identify with feminism because of the racism within the movement and the pressure from black males to devote our energies to black advancement. We are constantly being pulled in two directions, with neither party as far as I am concerned actively working to improve our lives.
Why do we only hear about white women's racism and not men of color's sexism? It's because woc do not want whites to coopt racist stereotypes but it's disproportionate to how much we hear about white women's racism. After all, it's just as fruitful for woc causes if our communities were feminist as when white feminism is not racist.
I agree with Donna. The WOC I know and to whom I am related feel that voting, abortion, workplace discrimination laws, and other advances of feminism have actually helped them. They also feel the movement could do a lot better at addressing and including WOC.
But it's possible to state this while not knocking the concept that women are equal, but instead talking about how the movement that's sprung up around this is flawed and how we can work to improve it. I wish we could move in that direction. Nobody's saying that anti-racism doesn't help WOC because the movement has been flawed in addressing their issues as women. So why cast feminism aside because it has admittedly been flawed in addressing WOC's issues regarding race?
I think the dual(or more)-consciousness has many layers, and it starts early. Think back to childhood, how so many of the protagonists in stories are male, how so many musicians are male, sports stars (that get the attention) are male, how the tasty acting roles go to the male movie stars, the heroes of history are male, the great architects or artists, the bridge-builders and engineers, the discoverers, the nation builders---we soak this shit in long before we can articulate it, even while noticing that characters that feed our imaginations are male, and we're not. That's changing somewhat---my daughter has a helluva lot more female role models to look up to than I did at her age. I learned to think of myself as the exception to the rule, and it took me awhile to unlearn that.
And then think about entering grade school. How certain subjects are deemed "male" and others "female". How teachers speak differently to boys than they do to girls. How certain gendered assumptions are made as to talents and interests. How children are steered towards gendered educational options. How some teachers use the bully pulpit of the classroom to frankly proselytize sexist views. Not to mention the plethora of principals and administrators that are male, while the teaching staff remains predominantly female.
Now flash forward to the daily grind of adulthood. Some of the same dysfunctions of grade school are replicated in grad school. The "good" jobs are still predominantly male, and carry a certain jobsite culture that reflects that. Meanwhile, even the primarily female jobs carry the assumption that the workplace is the male arena. Do or die, kid. So we do. And try to avoid dying (metaphorically speaking).
When I entered the trade (especially at the time that I did, after Reaganomics and the economic devastation that followed it in the midwest---lots and lots of hostility about the few precious apprenticeship spots going towards "women and minorities" as they put it, when they were being nice), I knew I'd be up against a wall of sexism. I knew I'd have to be Superwoman, and simultaneously fight certain battles and let other battles go. I didn't have any female role models to look toward. I had to find male role models, and that wasn't easy (because of customs of socializing---women are relatives or sex partners, not friends---few men were willing to cross that barrier). My role models as far as struggle against sexism in the trade were predominantly african-american, from historical figures like Melba Patillo Beals (yeah, there was that kind of hostility to tradeswomen---check out "We'll Call You if We Need You" by IBEW sister Susan Eisenberg. And of course it was worse for black women, as another IBEW sister, Victoria King states in her book "Manhandled: Black Females", which started out as an "answer book" to "The Blackman's Guide to Understanding the Blackwoman", but became an autobiographical narrative of her journey through the trade in Local 3) to the black men in my Local who integrated it (with no small degree of resentment) not all that long before I did.
And meanwhile, there I was, a young woman who got out of a dysfunctional family of origin, only to find herself in an early marriage that I was also beginning to recognize as toxic, in a workplace that was openly and unapologetically hostile towards me (in those early years---by the time I entered by third year, I was starting to find brothers who lived up to the name. Contractors? For the most part, they have yet to get there). Trying to reconcile and negotiate all the various roles, even when they conflicted. While looking like I wasn't even breaking a sweat. (so, when people ask me, "wouldn't you like to be 20 years old again?" Hah! And go back to dancing-as-fast-as-I-can? Oh HELL no, with a heaping side order of and-over-my-dead-body too!)
I rested on my known ability to Endure.
Anyway, there was room for some respite to be had. But back again to the concept of "community"---some aspects of our community(ies) of origin are as inevitably flawed as "mainstream" (for lack of a better term) society. My communities? My identities? Well, I usually describe myself as a sicilian american, working class single mother. For better or for worse, the labor community and my ethnic community are mine, in a way that feminist community hasn't been---and not that I'm any less feminist for it (I'm elbowing my way through feminism just like I'm elbowing my way through the trade---I ain't going anywhere, so get used to me!) ;-)
I feel a visceral loyalty to those communities, the same way I do to my family. Even when it hurts. While terms like "feminist community" and "progressive community" or "the left" feel more nebulous, amorphous. A loose collection of folks who have some similar checkpoints, rather than a living body of people. And I feel part of the dual (or more) consciousness as rage against the more regressive aspects of my communities, while feeling the need to protect those same communities from critique by "outsiders", as we get more than our share of being Exhibit A of fuck-up-ed-ness while not having the means to better clear the record. That is, when we're not being ignored. That's a common thread in all marginalized communities, whether by race, class, ethnicity, religion, you-name-it. It's a part of searching for that room to breathe, to be one's Self. I've been supported as a living, breathing person, not just an idea, in those communities, even when I struggle against and not just with them. Capisce?
Now the Superwoman---She's been with us for awhile. See, while the standard feminist narrative begins with Feminism As We Know It Today hailing from Seneca Falls, I'd start it earlier---with the striking female millworkers over a decade previous. The second shift has been a mainstay for a long time. And while modern-day traditionalists whine about the impact feminism has on the family, they neglect to mention the real traditional solution to both an unwanted marriage or an unwanted child---abandonment. Single mothers whose second shift of necessity never ends, didn't begin in my generation.
One of the critiques I have of more recent feminist movement in the United States is its emphasis on individual solutions rather than community-oriented mass solutions. Something Happened roundabout the time ERA failed (though I prefer the term "postponed"---I'm not dying until that motherfucker is passed, dammit!), and frankly I don't know quite what. Something similar happened to the labor movement after Reagan fired the PATCO strikers and the AFL-CIO abandoned them. It's been downhill ever since---individual unions fight for our own narrow jurisdiction, trying to hang on to a thin slice of pie rather than stand in wholeness and solidarity with brethern and sistren....but I digress.
For example: back in my mother's day, when I was my daughter's age, it was common in feminist circles to hear and talk about the need for daycare, and why doesn't the school day match the work day, anyway? I remember being my daughter's age, and assuming that it would be really easy to find daycare when I grew up and became a mother (which is something I always knew I would do, in much the same way I knew I wanted to play with electricity!). I just took it for granted. Hah! What happened? It seems that particular issue has been shuttled off to the back burner. It seems that particular battle has been deemed not-so-winnable for now, that unlike the old days when so much effort went into ERA (which lost), it's better to shift meager resources into issues known to be winnable---like the fight to keep abortion legal.
And so, for a nation of women, something profound and yet so simple, like access to daycare (or a schoolday that matches the workday---can someone please explain why folks in the United States continually bitch, piss and moan about how children in other nations clean the U.S.'s academic clock, yet at the same time won't implement the obvious solution---the same longer schoolday and year-round calendar those nations use?)---well, it's regarded as an individual problem, with an individual solution. We have a whole nation of women who lose out or have to (artifically) postpone opportunities because of the lack of childcare. (And maybe I'm missing something here, but I can't see that as a losing battle.)
And I've mentioned it here before---passing. Passing for middle class. Now, I've got no truck with women who do so---the deck is stacked against us, and we do what we have to get by. But passing---an individual solution if ever there was one---is a talent not everyone has, and I'm not convinced it can be taught. Just like there's a reason Academy Awards are given, there's a reason books like Alfred Lubrano's "Limbo" are published. This version of individual solution manifests as "exceptionalism" in blue-collar fields like mine ("you're that one-in-a-million that can do this" tripe).
Just like with the labor movement, the feminist movement made it greatest gains in the legislature. And made its greatest gains back when it was True Believers doing the legwork of organizing, not paid professionals (business unionism in the labor movement, NPOs in feminist movement). Just some food for thought. To get some of that old-school momentum back, we need some of that old-school organizing---the low-key, every-drop-of-water becomes a flood type of movement.
I also think that just like the labor movement, the feminist movement has been the consistent target of concerted mass media propaganda (that's only become more effective since deregulation). Media justice movements, supporting existing alternative media, and creating more of our own media will serve us well.
LL: re dual consciousness (Superwoman to follow, next comment) – thanks for this. BTW you will have to let me know if you get to CA (or if I get to where you are, which is?) ever so we can get some drinks and talk further. Yes, there are more female role models now, but the actors and heroes are still mostly male. I have to force myself to refer to random animals we see as “she” as often as “he.” And per books like “The Lolita Effect” by Gigi Durham, there are now additional hurdles of girls being encouraged to be display objects much sooner than my contemporaries were. A topic unto itself.
And yeah, the jobsite culture of the best paying or most preeminent (eg in law, US Attorneys Office positions pay about 1/10 to 1/2 of law firm positions, but are still prestigious and guess what, still male-dominated) jobs replicates the earlier dysfunctions.
Your experiences entering the trades are really interesting and informative. Having to pick among professional battles when all are worthy of fighting (if not worth it) is something men don’t have to do close to as often.
“I rested on my known ability to Endure.” Familiar with that one.
Your discussion of having a “visceral loyalty” to the Sicilian-american, working-class, and ethnic communities but not as much to the feminist community despite being a strong feminist – absolutely do capisce -- that’s my thrust in this post. Women, not through faults of our own, don’t have the binding force of community going for us in the movement.
Even those of us who seem more mainstream are bound not to fit in, in some ways. Like me, for example. Here are ways I do not fit with either the “Feministe/3rd Wave” or the “Second Wave:”
--former sex worker
-- believe that full economic equality in result as well as in legal rights is critical and I have critiqued women's collective career decisions as not always feminist ones (although I do not make that critique on an individual basis) which is a no no in many books
-- caught age-wise between two waves, and often feeling like I don’t fit anywhere. I’d like to see a more diverse movement than the second wave appeared to focus on. But I think most of our third-wave representatives are hopelessly naïve, unfocused, lacking pragmatism, and losing focus on feminist analysis itself.
Now, I know that you, and other women even more so than you, can cite even larger areas of contention with “the movement” however it’s defined.
But I keep coming back to: feminism is about women being equal. I think that’s worth being passionate about, and worth working to make the movement responsive to those who aren’t anymore. My wish is that all women who believe we’re equal, and this is a larger number than those who are willing to use the F word, would fucking use it. And realize that using it doesn’t mean buying in to every flaw in the movement as it’s operated – because all movements have them, and those run by women aren’t exceptions based on some kind of vagina immunity.
I don't know quite where I fit in the "waves", or even if I fit in. I don't even like to reference the waves, because I'm never sure if I'm "getting it right", and I'm not sure where my life and background fit. My mother didn't enter the workforce in the second wave---my mother was always in the workforce, as was her mother---that sort of thing. I don't know how useful it is to name the waves.
Thinking on the visceral connections---I think one reason feminism has that problem is because we have not yet developed the (physical) community-based institutional frameworks necessary for women to come together and unite for justice. Feminism doesn't have a counterpart to what the Black Church (etc.) was/is for civil rights. The Ms. Foundation, NOW, League of Women Voters---big names, sure, we've all heard of them---but where are they besides the newspapers?
To put it bluntly, a lot of work got done in the seventies because there were frameworks for it to get done---a lot of it university-based as the floodgates were opened and more women entered college (including welfare mothers, unlike now when there's very little funding and certainly not for a baccalaureate, and time spent toward education doesn't count in "workfare"). There were more people in unions, and union women marched in feminist solidarity by the busload. The closing of factories had an impact on feminist movement too.
You can't get that visceral connection by reading the paper. Ultimately, you have to be rubbing elbows with other feminist women. And the second shift cuts into that. The local CLUW (Coalition of Labor Union Women) chapter which I was a part of folded in large part to the second shift---just about every woman in there was an officer in her union (or in another labor-affiliated organization, like Coalition of Black Trade Unionists), sat on committees in that union (and I do believe everyone involved sat on the area Trades and Labor Council), and add in the fact most of us were mothers (with a majority of single mothers).....
Even Superwoman has to take off the cape and rub her feet every now and then. The solution is critical mass, and the paradox is that the only way to get that critical mass is to form the locally-based frameworks that organize women. And make them braod-based enough that the frameworks have a chance of surviving.
Enter our own media. Again, something the labor movement and feminist movement have in common (besides female members!)---we've been excoriated in the media, and have few options for redress. In the early 1900's there was a labor press much larger than that of today. Published in several languages. We need more feminist presses, more feminist radio, more feminist art---visibility matters.
I recently read Ellen Bravo's "Taking on the Big Boys", and damn! does that book make sense. That's the feminist book I most recommend to young (or old) women who want to find out more about feminism. I really like the framework of 9to5, which keeps the struggle centered around economic issues---because most everything else flows from that, too (straight up Maslow's hierarchy of needs).
(aah shit. gotta get to work.)
Yes – physical community is key. I have friends whom I’d step up hard for who don’t always have as much technically in common in terms of how we look at the world, but we spend time, we have some common ground, we kind of get each other and laugh together. It’s hard to form that kind of bond without the sense of community. Online can work, offline is better.
I will check out Bravo’s book.
“the only way to get that critical mass is to form the locally-based frameworks that organize women”
Agree. The challenge is in how to do this. A few obstacles I can see are these. There is such a diversity of working environments and fact patterns for women that many may not see a common cause.
Also, with working hours increasing for everyone and women still having the second shift, it’s harder to get male partners to fill in so that we could find time. When work was really 9-5pm, after hours get togethers were easier. Also, third wave feminism seems to be semi-morphing into women who get together to talk about other lefty causes rather than… women.
I don’t think it’s impossible though. And I agree about critical mass.
I think the basic point made is a good one.
In addition, feminism is a cause. As a cause, it often asks women to give up certain choices, or make sacrifices, to further the cause.
Feminism is largely articulated by prominent feminists, and they generally aren't doing too badly for themselves.
So I think it's easy for women to feel alienated from that. And when asked to give up choices for feminism, there can be a parting of ways.
"As a cause, it often asks women to give up certain choices"
Which ones do you mean? It doesn't ask anyone to give up choices, just to understand what implications the choices have when making them.
Also -- while I agree that any cause advocates a perspective, there's a reason (my focus here) that feminism's perspective is not as universal among women as other causes' perspectives are among their constituents. All causes are not comparable in that regard.
The difference is that there are "benefits" (which I believe, but not everyone agrees, are hidden costs) to women in allowing perpetuation of patriarchy. These benefits are not there in other causes -- to close to the same degree.
The fact women are separated by nuclear families is not an excuse to not get together or to trash feminism. Feminism works to break down the separation of public and private spheres. It seems here and everywhere else, people just want excuses to trash women and feminism and apologism like we see here is why Clinton isn't winning the nomination.
I'm sure you'd agree, Octo. What's wrong with everyone else?
It seems here and everywhere else, people just want excuses to trash women and feminism and apologism like we see here
Well donna darko, if you're wondering what's wrong with me, perhaps I could explain better if I knew what you were talking about. Examples, please?
I'll start. Since I openly spoke about conflicting loyalties, I'm assuming you're talking about me (and I don't blame you---that's why I put it out there. not specifically for you or any other individual, but for the "hivemind". I think it's an issue most of us struggle with as we negotiate the different aspects of our lives. else, why so many books on time management and the work/family balance?)
Anyway, when I talked about the CLUW chapter folding (by mutual agreement), it wasn't just about being separated by nuclear families. First, I thought I was clear that some of us don't have nuclear families---we're single parents, which means we're "on" all the time, and there is no one else we can look toward for help. (more on that later). No, the greater problem was the other job-related obligations we all had. We made the mercenary decision to focus our energies on the paycheck---the immediate need.
And that's why I like the outlay of Ellen Bravo's recomendations on where and how feminism needs to focus our political energies---to the brass tacks, the bottom line, of economic matters.
Right now, I feel that so mmuch of the momentum of the seventies was lost. I saw real, bona-fide economic and cultural changes in my life, that I have been the unquestioned beneficiary of---and it was due to feminism. (see Daisy's list) But that forward motion has stagnated, and in some areas (like central Illinois) is reversing. I thought (when I was young, that my future) daughter wouldn't be thought of as weird for preferring science to whatever the latest girly consumer fashion is. Now I have that daughter, and she loves bugs and furry creatures and wants to be a wildlife biologist, or maybe a vet---and even her teachers seem to think that's weird. (at least, they made mention of her non-girly ways at the last report card meeting. called it being concerned about her social development, since she wasn't willing to tone down her "boyish" interests to fit in with the cool girls). Shit---wasn't that supposed to be over? At least from the teacher's part? The message was something along the lines of 'if she keeps picking up bugs in the playground, only the boys are going to talk to her, and the girls are going to make fun of her, and then she's going to have a behavior problem referral because she gives them the what-for right back.' I said something along the lines of 'what she's doing isn't a problem, it's a solution, and by the way, Ms. Construction Worker here is and always has been a real shitty study in femininity. this is our version, take it or leave it. she can handle herself, but if she experiences bullying, I expect you to quell that crap as per the school anti-bullying policy.'
Now where was I? Oh yeah, forward motion. I think we've been hanging on by the skin of our teeth in some respects, letting our opposition set the schedule on what our concerns ought to be and playing catch-up to them---when they've got the media and the courts on their side.
Why not instead return to the offense like we did back in the day? And galvanize around economic issues? The time is ripe, considering the shitty state of the economy. Folks who may think they benefit from some aspects of the patriarchy are going to see their dwindling resources and rethink that strategy. Women know who Lily Ledbetter is, and women are fucking pissed. Because there's that immediate, visceral realization that it could be any of us. No consciousness-raising required.
I'm agreeing wholeheartedly with Octo's strategy of focusing on gaining financial ground, because that's unquestioned power. When women have more financial power, we gain more cultural power, too. We'll have fewer battles to fight if we choose our economic needs as the main ones, because we'll then have the cultural capital that gives us the edge in smaller battles (like the minor-league but still draining one of hvaing to justify/explain/whatthefuckever our daughters having "boyish" interests.
If I ruled the feminist world, I'd make one top priority agitating for the extended schoolday and calendar---making the school day match the work day. That, right there, would immediately help masses of women by keeping their children off the streets, giving them more opportunity to learn---and how does our opposition effectively argue against that? It would put more money in the pockets of women (and here in central Illinois, that's big. Gas is over $4 a gallon and there is little to no public transportation. Folks get paid less here in flyover country than on the coasts. I think I make a decent living, but it's gettin to be not enough to keep up with the non-negotiables like food, utilities, and gas.)
And for something completely radical, I'd start the conversation on co-housing from the feminist perspective. Back in the seventies, there were women (like Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz) who critiqued the effect the modern family has on women's lives. It was seen as too radical then, and frankly, some of it was pretty far-out. Our families haven't just been a site of oppression, but a site of resistance, also, and support.
But co-housing might be a way of rebuilding communities torn apart by the corporate economy. Folks are more receptive to looking at previously "radical" ideas like organic food and sustainable power sources. Planned, affordable housing in the city---yeah, might not be so radical now.
(shit! gotta get to work again!)
Donna – yes I agree, there is no excuse not to work together. And certainly no excuse to trash feminism. To try to understand why the reverse is happening, though, looking at possible explanations is important. I think the “separation by nuclear families” theme as pointed out by La Lubu and the “conflicting objectives” theme (and therefore less congruence around economic issues) is more true for women than for other groups, eg.
And you know what? I saw the coverage on Anderson Cooper-360 about what BHO did to Alice Palmer, a WOC who had mentored him, and I do feel sad that people don’t get as upset about this as they do about bizarre interpretations of random statement of HRC.
La Lubu – absolutely agree that we’ve lost momentum. (Working on a post about this building off your discussion of Superwoman). I am working really hard to try to counter the “princess” environment out there for girls with my daughter – she’s not quite 4 and while interested in science at that level, is very into pink and princesses. I am hoping this shall pass. Kudos for your daughter’s priorities.
It’s amazing how much stigma seems to develop around women talking about striving for equal economic power. Even within my group of friends online, I’ve been chided for looking for a capitalist solution (um, take a look around at what the prevailing system is, do we naively wait for the fairytale revolution for what we deserve?). I’ve been lectured that capitalism leaves out certain segments of women.
I’m a bit confused on that since lower-income women and WOC are a big part of the workplace, and are also suffering from a power gap vis a vis their male counterparts. Having equal power in our existing system, while also working to address its flaws (but not waiting for it to be overturned when that seems unlikely anytime soon) benefits all women.
And you’re right, having power as it’s currently constituted allows addressing feminist needs in areas that are not considered areas of power/importance in the current system – like needs of our daughters in schools and sports and life.
The extended school day, I can buy into more than the calendar. I don’t know; I got a lot of out of summer jobs, travel and socializing, and I wonder if we put kids in school, 9-5, all year long, do we get the burnout that we see in countries like Japan? One thing about the US is that we have more innovation, more patents per unit person, than any other country, and I wonder if that is because there is more opportunity to develop in non-structured ways.
My suggested compromised would be matching the school and work day, and keeping summers free, with employers funding summer daycare and daycare for employees who are likely to work unconventional or longer hours.
Octo,
"Which ones do you mean? It doesn't ask anyone to give up choices, just to understand what implications the choices have when making them."
Things like stripping, marrying for money, wearing mini skirts or make up.
Different forms of feminism take different approaches, more radical feminists take a fairly hardline though.
"Things like stripping, marrying for money, wearing mini skirts or make up."
Feminism as a cause only asks women to consider giving up one of the above. And doesn't require them to do so, just as it doesn't require men to. It just lets them know this will make them more vulnerable.
You know the one I mean, right?
Certainly, radical feminism has its opinions about stripping, make-up and miniskirts. I don't view that as the voice of feminism, though.
For me, the benchmark is: does an action decrease or increase one's personal power and leverage?
Marrying for money, collectively (not judging individual decisions), decreases it. We all know divorce stats. We all know cheating stats. We all know likelihood of proximity cheating when spouses' interests aren't aligned, eg only one is operating in the grownup world predominantly. I've gotten way too many solicitations from such guys, whose wives would swear they were completely faithful, to discount this.
Stripping, in some circumstances, can increase ones personal power. More about that here. As a long-term career choice, I believe (again collectively) it does not in most cases.
Miniskirts and make-up aren't either feminist or antifeminist, IMO. They're just choices. One can only determine if they increase or decrease power based on context. If one works in a strip club, darn right they increase it. If one is a top litigator or actress, she should wear makeup to optimize results in some cases, IMO. If one is petite, a longer skirt is not going to present as well and therefore won't be as power-enhancing.
On the other hand, for a job interview, a miniskirt and/or heavy makeup would be power-decreasing.
LaLubu, feminism works on all these issues but women are the first to trash its efforts.
Octo, women are separated by the public- private split unlike other movements. Feminism addresses these issues but it is trashed for its decades of efforts. There's a disproportionate amount of criticism of feminist movements and the disproportionate critique comes down to misogyny and internalized sexism. Again, what's wrong with everyone else not La Lubu but EVERYONE else? EVERYONE is a lot of people.
I'm ONLY asking you, Octo.
Of course, we've already answered this question. Women internalize sexism and will make any excuse to trash themselves as a class. Octo, seriously, what's wrong with everyone else? What do you think is going on?
Donna, I think you nailed it: "disproportionate critique comes down to misogyny and internalized sexism."
Problem is that more women struggle with these issues than members of other groups struggle against their own equal status.
Why is that? Cultural conditioning, surrounding (family) corroboration of that conditioning, and affirmation by those whom many women wish to partner with (ie, men). So basically, more counter-influences and more perceived rewards for maintaining status quo.
I mean, look what I'm dealing with over here. I make the fairly noncontroversial (I thought) point that one can't assume that white people for whom race is a factor (in whatever direction) in presidential candidate who vote for HRC are racist. I grant that some are. I further point out that for me, a POC candidate would be a positive all else being equal, so race is indeed a factor, yet I voted for HRC. Does it make me a racist, b/c I looked at criteria like experience and policy as primary issues?
I also point out that because blacks who looked at race as a factor voted for Obama in much higher percentages than whites who looked at race as a factor voted for Clinton, to the extent racial preference governed the choice it did so for both races. I was then contradicted and told that that's impossible.
Somehow it was lost in all this eagerness to brand a white feminist as racist (still not sure why?) that gender has been a massive factor in votes against HRC (I won't bore you with another link to Shakes' list, you know it well).
Now, I will allow that there appeared to be a form of mathematical disconnenct that was taking place here. The two fine feminists I was in dialogue with were likely humanities majors, and suffering from a concomitant difficulty with logical reasoning. That, rather than an eagerness to pile on to a feminist trying to defend HRC supporters, may have been the operative theme here.
OK, so what's my point? The natural constituents of the feminist movement are women. Women are not natural allies and, in fact, are quick to jump on each other to play "who's more liberal?" even where our own cause is the fall guy (woman).
What do you think?
I studied literature, women's studies and sociology but scored 700s in math, 600s in verbal so I'm logical. Women are DISPROPORTIONATELY illogical in trashing themselves. You see this all over the feminist, POC and progressive blogospheres.
I see it in your Sitemeter statistics too. Progressive men and women only get excited when women are being trashed. They go away when you and I make feminist points. The same in my Sitemeter statistics. People only get excited about the criticism of feminism. No one is excited about feminism.
Something very creepy and sinister is going on. It's not just misogyny but a constant denial of it.
Sorry -- there's my hard science bias. Yes, you humanities chicks are often highly logical as well. Just... didn't see that happening over there.
And you're right. Betcha Caitlin Flanagan is much more popular with progressive women than Linda Hirshman.
I meant I score higher in math and am therefore "logical."
Gotcha.
What do you think?
Overcompensation. The blog you cited was a white feminist's and you see this white guilt and absence of logic everywhere.
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
Post a Comment