Woman to Woman

By Whiley

October 7, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Thank you finally a good topic ! lol

By kimberly

October 7, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Has JOURNALISM failed women?

By Paul

October 10, 2005 07:24 AM | Link to this

The problem in this discussion seems to be that Diane and Shaunti do not agree on just what they are discussing (see the last paragraph in each comment). Quite frankly, after reading Diane’s comments, my initial thoughts on the subject were much more limited than [Diane].

Diane also confuses her position by introducing other issues. FIRST, what does the Civil Rights Movement have to do with it? SECOND, although some Blacks remain poor, so do some Whites, some Hispanics, etc. Although it might be easy to merge the Civil Rights Movement with Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” because of the time line, I believe there are about the same percentage of people below the poverty line now as there were before those movements began. Again, what does this have to do with “feminism?”

By Gary Harrison

October 10, 2005 07:47 AM | Link to this

Has feminism failed women? A resounding NO!!! It is part of a larger failure of human beings to BE the creatures created in the Garden of Eden. Look around you: women strive to be more masculine and the men become “metrosexuals.” Why? Because men are little girls inside (having been raised by women almost exclusively) and being more “touchly-feely” than most thugish women. Women are raised by other man-hating women and grow up man-destroyers. That is because they have been taught to hate men and are HARD inside (like a man is supposed to be- making decisions, taking responsibility, etc.). Where are the feminine, modest women of yesteryear? Probably with some lesbian because lack of a real daddy caused them to hate men. No, feminism hasn’t failed. It is right on target. Sit somewhere and people-watch for a while. See for yourself that men are becoming more and more feminine while girls favor masculine clothes, activities, and running in man-depreciating packs. Shaunti/Diane: examine truthfully YOUR feelings abour men. You probably have feelings based on the lack of a father in your life or your experiences with “men” iin your lives. Where is the focus on raising families with your “husband” that used to exist for women? Probably laid up with some woman “PARTNER.” Yea, feminism!! You go, GIRL!!

By Laura

October 10, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this

Feminism has not failed us, but at the same time it has not accomplished all of its goals and the reason for that is women like Shaunti. The ERA movement failed a generation ago because not enough women supported it. No matter what strides we make there always seem to be scardy-cats like Shaunti who play into the hands of those who believe all feminists are feminazis. I am a stay-at-home mom who has been married for almost 10 years. I embrace my feminine strenghts with open arms. I am also proud to be a feminist and, should I ever re-enter the workplace, I should hope to get the same pay as a man doing my job, but I won’t because some women continue to uphold the argument that we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.

By Denise Noe

October 10, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this

Feminism has helped women in some ways and harmed in others. Women who are high-competency in professional and business areas have been greatly helped because they are able to enter those areas and advance in far greater numbers than they could have in pre-feminist eras. Women as diverse as Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Condileeza Rice all owe a debt to the feminist movement. Feminism has harmed women who are low-competency in the workplace because it has undermined the traditional assumption that women should be supported by men. Although the overwhelming majority of the homeless remain men, we now see some women showing up on the streets and in the shelters. Part of this is, IMO, due to the fact that low work competency women are less likely to marry out of utter destitution because men today tend to expect working wives. It may also have harmed those women who are high competency in domestic skills by leading to a devaluation of work in the home. In many areas, feminism has been a mixed bag for women. The rape shield laws and improved sensitivity toward rape victims has meant that such malefactors are more likely to be punished and their victims less likely to be subjected to a kind of “courtroom rape.” However, to the extent that publicity around this crime has unnecessarily frightened women or heightened tension between the sexes, it has been negative. Feminism has helped women at the top and harmed those at the bottom because the positions of the sexes isn’t quite analogous to that of ethnic groups. Society has not been the “man’s world” of cliché but a mixture of patriarchal and matriarchal elements. Men have traditionally been the overwhelming majority of those at the top due to its patriarchal side and the majority at the bottom because of its matriarchal aspect. The homeless, alcoholic, imprisoned, and (most especially) the condemned and executed are apt to be men and these are the characteristics of an oppressed people. We should be at least as concerned about the men we allow to sink to the bottom as we are about the women we have unfairly prevented from rising to the top.

By Lori

October 10, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

I can’t believe that this is even a debate.

What can possibly be wrong with women wanting to be treated as equals? This doesn’t mean they are man-haters. Would you call Martin Luther King, Jr. a “white-hater”? Of course not! We’re talking about people fighting for equality, and that’s it.

By Heather

October 10, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this

I think the title of this weeks commentary pretty much says it all, Has Feminism failed WOMEN. We are not asking if it has failed our children or our society, we are asking if it has failed WOMEN because obviously all we women now care about is ourselves.

Are women better off now than they were 50 years ago? In some ways we are and in some ways we are in so much worse shape that it is unbelievable.

Are our children better off? NO, THEY ARE NOT. We raise our sons to think women should work, clean house, raise children, chop wood, whatever a man can do a woman can do, only better. We pound this into the minds of our young men so that when they are grown men they expect their wives to be superwomen.

Is our society better off? NO, IT IS NOT. We struggle to find daycare for our children and then wonder why our children must be drugged up for ADHD and Bipolar disorders. Then we wonder why our children go into their schools with weapons and kill other kids.

Who has truly benefited from feminism? Big business. Large corporations can now market their products to more people at higher prices because two income families can afford to buy more stuff they don’t really need.

GO FEMINISM!!

By Lyrazel

October 10, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

…chortle…giggle: Shaunti is a closet feminist! How dare I besmirch Our Lady? Ok, lets first do some history of said Lady Shaunti: Born (was not abandoned/killed because she was not male), graduated highschool (allowed to take advanced college coursework only afforded to men prior to 1960) Went on to college (Harvard was an all male school before feminism…lets blink and forget that fact, Shaunti….not enrolled in secretarial school) At 18 Ms Shaunti voted, (gasp! Liberation foulest deed was getting women to vote!) Lady Shaunti learned to drive that tidbit of overlooked independence going somewhere without the guys! Our Lady Shaunti worked a job in male dominated partnership (not as secretary, not as teacher, not as governess) took birth control (not married until AFTER job, was not virgin bride) Married and assumed role as Holy Madonna after child born. Continued to work outside home on projects such as this, her book…earning money…does she have separate bank account? Hmmm…and now with her loved rugrats in school will we hear Shaunti say: my daughter does not need to participate as an equal in sports, so let her be delegated to the sidelines to serve cookies to the boys, and never give my daughter special attention to her study in science, math and *boys subjects.

Nah!

She like many women of her age group confuses feminism with the NOW movement and feminists with the few mighty lesbians who advocated not shaving their armpits before church. Her article sure tells me that she sure wants all of the benefits of feminism…giggle…get out of the closet Shaunti!

By Whiley

October 10, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Has feminism failed women? No not at all. Men have. That’s why feminism exists in the first place.

By Chet

October 10, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

I have an idea: let’s have whoever chooses the topics for these articles do this one again, except decide from the beginning which “feminism” is being discussed— the philosophy or the movement.

In my view the philosophy has helped women, but the movement has hurt them.

By Ken

October 10, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

As an outsider looking in, I beleive Feminism has greatly helped women, but many Feminists have hurt women.

I watched a segment on “60 Minutes” where they interviewed several women who left “high-powered” job opportunities to raise their children. This was their choice and their appeared by all acounts very happy with their decisions. However, these women were promptly ridiculed by another woman in her fifties. I apologize her name escapes me. This woman says she fought and struggled so that talented women could escape the kitchen. So they could escape the stigma of raising children, and these women were simply rolling back all of the progress she fought so hard to achieve.

I kinda thought the whole idea was to give women the choice of what they wanted to do with their “career”. We now see those choices available to women, but when a woman actually chooses to stay at home with her children, especially when that woman is educated, business savvy or has other marketable skills, she is questioned and sometimes even ridculed.

By Whiley

October 10, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

So occasional criticism from other women sets all women back? We aren’t that fragile my dears. lol. Feminism hasn’t hurt women at all. Feminism hasn’t hurt children either. Feminism is the reason women now have options, when not that long ago there were little.

By Van

October 10, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

As usual, the extremists on both sides of this issue are passing a lot of wind.

Whether or not feminism has helped or fail women will have to wait for history. In 25 or 50 years we will have a better grasp on the effect of feminism on women has been.

Until then, we have a society that allows anyone to raise to any office or position they can achieve through their own hard work.

If history shows that a movement, any movement, that elevates a person based on filling a slot or quota and not on hard work and qualifications is detrimental, then it has failed.

By Billy

October 10, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

To paraphrase Lois Griffin, Feminism is about choice. If a woman chooses to be a stay-at-home Mom, more power to her. She should not be subjected to ridicule from women who choose otherwise.

In a similar vein, however, women who choose to pursue a career instead should not be criticized for that choice. All we ever hear about is the supposed collapse of the family unit and other comments that imply, indirectly or otherwise, that our society’s problems are, if not created by, then at the very least exacerbated by many women’s selfish insistence on maintaining full-time careers. Look at Heather’s above post for an example.

I know I, for one, hear much more criticism of career women than I do of homemakers. It’s incessant. There’s a pervasive idea among the highly vocal conservative minority (yes, it’s true) that it is somehow un-American to want something other than marriage, the man working, the wife keeping house, and 2.5 kids playing in the front yard behind the white picket fence.

As to whether Feminism has failed women…I like the line about the movement helping while some feminists have hurt. That’s a pretty good assessment. I think the only part that somewhat failed was the sexual liberation. Don’t get me wrong, things are a whole lot better on that front than they were 50 years ago. Women are more in tune with their sexual selves now, whereas before they were not supposed to have sexual selves apart from breeding and pleasing their men. I think the mistake came when women began to believe they could (and should, in some cases) have sex like men often do — often, with various partners, and with few strings attached. While I believe in not judging actions between consenting adults, I think it would have been much healthier for everyone if the concentration had been on getting men to be far more selective with sex.

But, of course, hindsight is 20/20, and this is but a small mark against what had otherwise been a highly beneficial movement

By Whiley

October 10, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

If anything feminism has saved us. Isn’t it mind boggling we had to fight & argue to have the right to vote? Own property? Have our own bank accounts etc? How was it we allowed ourselves to be forced into such a low status? Centuries of negative conditioning more than likely?

The battles that have not been won yet are anything concerning our sex lives & uterus. Sexual harassment & fair pay still needs a little work, & sexual & domestic violence needs a LOT of work. Women don’t hate masculinity, we hate extreme masculinity.

By TT

October 10, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

I agree with you 100 percent, Billy. But it strikes me as amusing that Shaunti can purport to discuss the ill effects of feminism when she obviously doesn’t grasp the meaning of the word. Feminism doesn’t insist that men and women are the same, it asserts that men and women have equal rights.

For those of you afraid of the “f” word, try reading J. Ann Tickner, Rebecca Cohn, and Cynthia Enloe for an accurate portrayal of the feminist philosophy. If equality is frightening to you, then you must have something to gain from the current inequality in our society. Or you must be like Shaunti, too meek to embrace your own potential. Feminism is about choice; any woman who criticizes the movement must enjoy having decisions made on her behalf.

By Just Being Me

October 10, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Unbelievable… 4 in a row.

By Nanette D. Massey

October 10, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

What planet is Shaunti from?

By Whiley

October 10, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

4 in a row what?….

By Scalia

October 10, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

So having a man around, even if he is no good, is a drunk, is a compulsive gambler, and never says anything positive is a good thing? It’s okay if the man gets paid on Friday and comes home with half of his check gone. It’s okay if he talks trash to your mom, you, and your siblings. The good thing is a man needs to be there.

A good father is one that teaches you things. He is there to listen to you, guide you, show you what it means to be a man. You don’t have to be angry all the time. Men are given to options: anger or mute. Is that realistic? Why should you be looked down upon if you show any other emotion?

As for women, they have it good. They can express themselves and their parts won’t be on the chopblock. If a man sheds one tear, his pen!s is on the chopblock. He is less of a man. How did society get like this? No wonder so many men are drunks, etc. They have no outlet.

And not all men are metrosexuals, despite what you believe. There are plenty of men comfortable with the way they are.

By Michael H.

October 10, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

The past two decades have seen an explosion of feminist writing on the philosophical canon, a development that has clear parallels in other disciplines like literature and art history. Since most of the writing is, in one way or another, critical of the tradition, a natural question to ask is: Why does the history of philosophy have importance for feminist philosophers? This question assumes that the history of philosophy is of importance for feminists, an assumption that is warranted by the sheer volume of recent feminist writing on the canon. This entry explores the different ways that feminist philosophers are interacting with the Western philosophical tradition. Feminist philosophers engaged in a project of re-reading and re-forming the philosophical canon have noticed two significant areas of concern. The first is the problem of historical exclusion. Feminist philosophers are faced with a tradition that believes that there are no women philosophers and, if there are any, they are unimportant. Of course, women are not entirely absent from the history of philosophy, and that brings us to the second challenge we face. Canonical philosophers have had plenty to say about women and what we are like. In general terms, we often find that philosophical norms like reason and objectivity are defined in contrast to matter, the irrational or whatever a given philosopher associates with women and the feminine. Our tradition tells us, either implicitly through images and metaphors, or explicitly in so many words, that philosophy itself, and its norms of reason and objectivity, exclude everything that is feminine or associated with women.

In response, feminist philosophers have criticized both the historical exclusion of women from the philosophical tradition, and the negative characterization of women or the feminine in it. Feminist historians of philosophy have argued that the historical record is incomplete because it omits women philosophers, and it is biased because it devalues any women philosophers it forgot to omit. In addition, feminist philosophers have argued that the philosophical tradition is conceptually flawed because of the way that its fundamental norms like reason and objectivity are gendered male.[1] By means of these criticisms, feminist philosophers are enlarging the philosophical canon and re-evaluating its norms, in order to include women in the philosophical “us”.

By Michael H.

October 10, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

One is not born, but rather becomes a woman. (Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949)

Philosophy (and our western society) has been dominated by the ideas of men, and this has caused many postmodern Feminist Philosophers to rebel from this male domination / patriarchy. Using ideas of postmodern relativism, (existentialism, no absolute truth) women have sought to free themselves of male defined gender roles and define for themselves what it means to be a women and thus how women should live. While this may liberate women, it unfortunately offers little guidance and does not abide by the fact that women are constructed of matter, interact with all other matter in the universe, and have evolved certain genetic traits as part of their evolutionary ancestry. Thus there are certain absolute truths that women (all things) must abide by if they are to live by the truth and the wisdom this attains.

The metaphysics of feminism considers what it means to be a ‘woman’ / ‘man’ based on how matter exists in space. The metaphysics of feminism understands and promotes equality at a fundamental level. Man and Woman both exist as structures of the universe / space, as does all life. How we are to live as man and woman is derived from metaphysical foundations of what actually exists (laws of nature). Now I understand some of you may be thinking ‘this is archaic’ and ‘metaphysics offers nothing to me as a woman’. In fact the opposite is true, Metaphysics, and its task of correctly describing what exists and its necessary interconnections, necessarily defines what it means to be both ‘Human’ and a ‘Woman’. The following brief introduction to the Wave Structure of Matter explains this correct foundation for describing reality, and thus explains how Woman is necessarily connected to Man, Child, Nature, Sexuality, Society and Cosmos by understanding how matter exists in Space. Woman, Man and Cosmos are united as One, and only through this interconnection can a woman understand her true self and be liberated from the bondage of past customs.

I think then that it is clear that while I am yet a male externally, I am decidedly female inside.

By Renee

October 10, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

JBM what is the four in a row??

By Billy

October 10, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Michael H, that is a ver interesting poszzZZZZZZZZZ…

By Billy

October 10, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Michael H, that was a very intersting poszzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ…

By Just Being Me

October 10, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

4 of these non-topics…

By Renee

October 10, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Yeah I agree totally!!!!!!!!

By Real Life

October 10, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

A math teacher at my private religious high school, made the comment to the girls, that he did not give outside tutoring to girls as “it was a waste of his time as girls were not college bound.” “You don’t need a degree to cook, clean, and serve your husbands,” he stated.

PS - I am working on my Master’s.

By Whiley

October 10, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

I look forward to the day that women hold at least 1/2 of all govt. positions. After all, we are over 1/2 of the US population aren’t we?

By Billy

October 10, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Whiley, that reminds me…and I know this is a tangent here…but it really grinds my gears that supporters of us being in Iraq point out that 25% of Iraq’s parliament or whatever is composed of women, like it’s some grand statement about the progressive nature of the government. Nevermind that the 25% is mandated by the interim government charter or whatever you want to call it. What kills me about it is that it’s the same group of conservatives who are against quotas where affirmative action is concerned.

Sorry about the rant.

By Nikita

October 10, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Real, amen sister. I went to a private non-religious school and was told by my advanced Calculus teacher “you don’t really need to learn this. Like all the other girls, you’re gonna marry some guy and spend all your life taking the kids to prep school when you aren’t planning your vacations to Cozumel or buying new Volvos or hiring new maids.” In other words, don’t trouble your pretty little head with Calculus. I wrote a him a letter a few years later to thank him for that — because I really thrive on opposition and his stupidity made me doubly determined to do well in math even though I’m not naturally inclined to do so. I even came in second in a statewide math competition, no doubt to p* him off.

anyway, while the argument this week is an interesting one, shaunti and diane do appear to be discussing different things. not only that, but the shallowness of their arguments makes it too easy for the uneducated knee jerk folks among us to just riff at will on the rush limbaugh-esque interpretation of feminism.

Feminism is about allowing women to make choices and to be accepted on equal footing with men. The philosophy of women having particular gifts which they uniquely possess and are obligated to develop is not feminism, and it is unkind to women who are not inclined in those ways. (By extension, the same is true of similar notions of what men are good at and should do.) Ditto this notion of counterfeit men. I’ve had many jobs in male-dominated fields, and I have done very well in them. In fact, many women have done well when they choose male-oriented positions. I have loaded trucks (women do very well at this because the job requires an ability to multitask, organize, think fast, and use a wide variety of motor skills while carrying up to 75 pounds laterally), sold cars (women salespeople do very well), etc. I am not as strong as a man, but I don’t really need to be. All I need to be able to do is support myself in the field of my choice by doing good work, and I don’t need to be limited in my career choices by other people’s expectations. Which is what thi comes down to. Feminism vs. the old order in which women knew their place and stuck to it, dependent on men for support and destined to a very narrow career path.

By Randy

October 10, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Everyone is equal in Jesus’ eyes. I love my daughter and want her to have every opportunity any guy would have, she is sharper than most males in business.

By Ken

October 10, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Not sure why anyone finds this topic boring or irrelevent… It effects over half of our population.

I just checked the Senate roles… I counted 13 female Senators (I may be off b/c that was very fast). When I think where we were just twenty years ago, that is huge increase. That is progress. Why not focus on where our society has come rather than how far we have to go.

Please also keep in mind that it takes time to change those types of demographics, unless you force it into your constitution like in Iraq. Try that in the U.S. and munity would abound.

Some of the older women on this BLOG are still battling with men and perceptions from their generation. I can honestly tell you that men and perceptions from my generation do not see the same differences between the sexes, races or religions. We want everyone to succeed or fail based on their ability.

I hear the rants of women like Wjiley, Lozen and others and feel terrible for them. They lived in a a time when they were stifled. They were not given opportunity. They were forced into careers, jobs etc. That situation has rapidly decreased. For example, three fourths of the managers in my office are women. Half of the workforce is women.

Change is happening. It simply takes time. The more someone forces it, the more difficult that change becomes.

Sometimes force is necessary to get the ball rolling, however, once the movement gets rolling, the inertia is difficult to stop.

By Nikita

October 10, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Addressing Heather’s earlier post:

I think the title of this weeks commentary pretty much says it all, Has Feminism failed WOMEN. We are not asking if it has failed our children or our society, we are asking if it has failed WOMEN because obviously all we women now care about is ourselves.

I’m not sure what to say to this. The title implies both that it may have hurt society and children because women make up 51% of both. But we must also consider what the implication of your last sentence is. Clearly women should subordinate their wishes, needs, and skills to the paradigm which has dictated what women can do for eons. And your concern for children doesn’t extend to the well-being of your female children as they become adults.

Are our children better off? NO, THEY ARE NOT. We raise our sons to think women should work, clean house, raise children, chop wood, whatever a man can do a woman can do, only better. We pound this into the minds of our young men so that when they are grown men they expect their wives to be superwomen.

Perhaps they might expect their wives merely to be individuals whom they love and expect love from in return. If they marry. Also, you asked about children, but you follow up with a non sequitur.

Is our society better off? NO, IT IS NOT. We struggle to find daycare for our children and then wonder why our children must be drugged up for ADHD and Bipolar disorders. Then we wonder why our children go into their schools with weapons and kill other kids.

Personally, I don’t have children until I can afford them. And that includes affording the assistance or professional arrangement to be able to give them the quality time and love they deserve. Perhaps we wouldn’t struggle so if we didn’t feel that breeding is our birthright, to be exercised at the first moment possible following marriage. As for weapons, please look up some stats on the situation — violent incidents have fluctuated since 1993, but are generally trending downward.

By Billy

October 10, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Well said Nikita.

By Just Being Me

October 10, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Ken, I don’t think anyone said the topic was boring or irrelevant, but let me be the first!

It is boring because it is a non-topic. Even Diane and Shaunti can’t seem to figure out what the topic is, evidenced in their discussing two very different subjects. Diane’s article seems to be answering the title question (which, in my opinion, is a senseless question anyway), while Shaunti’s answers a more general question seemingly about what the feminist movement is all about and why women avoid the movement. These two don’t even know what they’re discussing.

Huhhhh?????????????

You mean to tell me that you believe this subject is a worthwhile discussion to capture and ignite bright and intelligent minds for 5 whole days?

Not this one.

Well, at least it offers a good opportunity for all the feminists to come and preach to all the men about how they’ve kept us down and to all the woman about how suppressed we are and don’t even know it…

By Whiley

October 10, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

One would think because of the daily occurrence of women being murdered by the men that claim to love them something would be done. One would think because daily women & children are sexually abused or raped the govt. would rise up and stop this terrible epidemic. One would think that women who were blatantly harassed on the job still wouldn’t be told “we are sorry you have no case, better just to quit”. One would think that today, as advanced as we are this world would finally see the importance of better family planning for all women.

Those are just a few of the reasons we have to scream, yell, kick & fight.

If women were finally equal & finally protected from violence, who would that hurt? Why would that be a bad thing?

For those that criticize our rants, how do you think we’ve gotten where we are now? By sitting back & waiting for someone to let us? lol Nobody is going to give us the rights we need, we have to take them.

By Nikita

October 10, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

p.s. on jobs held by men and women, I actually think it is helpful to women to take jobs that were traditionally reserved for men, particularly when it comes to jobs that are physical. As you all know, we’re trending toward obese as a society. I suspect women are harder hit because many of the changes generally blamed for this are ones that affect them disproportionately. For example, concerns about safety and decreasing pedestrian traffic. Women, as supposedly vulnerable people, and also the primary movers of children and their stuff, don’t get much exercise. And since they also tend to lack time, the gym isn’t as effective a cure as working required physical activity into other activities. as for professional activities a bit further up the economic chain, in most industries people need to market to women and this makes female executives quite successful. Also, women are slightly better at finessing and defusing difficult situations — quite the asset when doing comparatively stressful work. The only real issue that I’ve run into is that men occasionally will physically intimidate women — but that’s pretty rare.

By Gina

October 10, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Women will finally be equal when they don’t have to or want to depend on a man for support. Now as it stands after divorce, even a woman with a high-paying career can take everything from a man. When trying to achieve equality, one must be willing to treat the other as an equal. That is not happening especially in family court. Women still pull the “gender” card.

I agree with Ken…Feminism has not failed us, some feminists have failed us.

By Gina

October 10, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Nikita, More women should consider the fact that they can’t afford children. However, they have children anyway because they know they can either receive public assistance or child support.

By Renee

October 10, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

JBM - You are so on point!

Whiley - I just wanted to ask about your 12:31 post. What does women & children being raped and women being murdered has to do with the feminist movement.

By jlb

October 10, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Women are better at some things than men. Men are better at some things than women. Both of the sexes need each other equally. Feminist is just another label. When we can all work together, what ever it is, then we will collectively be better - more productive - happy. All of these labels are counter-productive to a happy well adjusted society.

We should quit using our differences against one another and use that diversity towards a productive means.

By Just Being Me

October 10, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Renee, very good question (although I already know the answer!) LOL

By Heather

October 10, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Nikita, what world are you living in? Its not just the poor and struggling who are putting their children in daycare. As a matter of fact, most poor and struggling folks can’t afford daycare. All professional women who are mothers of young children are placing these children with other people to take care of them.

You talk of waiting until you can afford the assistance or professional position before you have kids, well good luck sister, you probably will die childless. It sounds as if you think the only people who should be having children are the rich. Well thats great for now, but whose going to check you out at the grocery store in 30 years?

Do you even know whats involved in finding a good daycare? When I said struggling, I wasn’t talking about struggling to afford it, I was talking about struggling to find quality care for children.

Then you said some fool thing about violence in schools being on the decrease, maybe thats because drugging up our kids in on the increase?? Meanwhile, I just read about a 9 year old GIRL who stabbed her good friend, an 11 year old GIRL, over something stupid. I see that the women’s movement has had a great affect on these two FEMALE children. And what about the girls that put rat poison in their classmates milk during lunch. And then there were the two girls who fed poison cake to students in the cafeteria. Funny how all of these children were FEMALE.

By anonymousella

October 10, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

gina, i’m calling you on your b.s.:

However, they have children anyway because they know they can either receive public assistance or child support.

poor women who have children they “can’t afford” do so because they would rather not have an abortion and/or see their pregnancy as a part of the consequences for having sex. in some ways, it’s an ultimate act of responsibility: living with the results of your actions.

to the topic, however: shaunti does a marvelous job at misunderstanding feminism and thereby avoids the question of whether it has failed as a philosophy and a movement.

By Mara

October 10, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Once again the old stereotype rears it’s ugly head. Whenever the “F” word comes up, there’re still a few angry stalwarts insisting that feminists are man-hating, hirsute lesbians intent on emasculating the male of the species and destroying the family unit. As a married, make-up wearing, stilletto-heel loving “40-something”…that description is insulting and belittling.
I love my husband, my career, and my freedom to NOT have children until I’m ready. I am grateful to those who came before me. Because of them I got to experience the thrill of playing sports instead of just watching and cheering. Because of them I had the opportunity to explore science, math, and technology. Because of them I was able to vote, to choose how I live my life, and the skills to support myself. Because of those feminists who came before me, I was given the chance to discover that my self-worth was not dependant on my womb, my cooking skills, or the ability to get shirts whiter than white. My husband doesn’t feel emasculated when he cleans the house up. In fact we laugh at it because he’s so much better at it than I. We enjoy cooking dinner…together. We do laundry together and keep up the house and yard…together. Neither of us feel the need to be “in charge”. Does that mean his p**s is on the chopping block? Because he doesn’t feel the need to dominate any portion of my life, does that mean that he’s less of a man? If you think so, then you have a very shallow definition of what being a “man” is all about. Or a woman, for that matter.

By Whiley

October 10, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Renee, Women & children being raped and women being murdered has everything to do with the feminist movement. Feminism or the women’s rights movement was originally started to help women attain equality in the legal systems, justice systems and employment systems. Often when a woman was in a situation where she had to work (she had been abandoned, was unmarried, not cared for economically, her husband was deceased) she and her children could not survive economically if they could not find a man to help provide support. This often left women in situations which could be mentally, physically and psychologically compromising…such as in the case of abuse of the woman and/or her children.

Sadly this is too often the case today.

Feminists fight against the violence being perpetrated against women & children. It is a horrible epidemic being perpetrated openly everywhere & our country does not do even close enough to stop this. Feminist are the reasons today Domestic violence is finally being taken seriously in police departments. Feminists are the reason women have access to family planning. Feminists are the ones that finally stood up & demanded more control put on porn. Particularly in the legal section or violence against women, you will see so many personal stories/testaments of why feminism is still relevant. These are only a few examples.

10 years ago, feminists were the only ones focussed on domestic violence — it was feminists who created shelters, who funded this movement (it wasn’t until 1994 that the federal government first gave money to help end violence against women). It was only after Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered that most Americans started to understand how pervasive this issue was/is, then they responded by getting more involved. Before Sept. 11th, feminists were the only people paying any attention to the Taliban’s treatment of women and how they were denying women and girls their basic human rights. Feminists were the only ones putting pressure on the U.S. government to intervene and stop this hostile reign. Not until Sept. 11th, until this impacted more than women and children , did people bother to pay attention.

Feminists focus appears to only help women, but it really helps everyone.

By Gina

October 10, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Mara,

You rock! I agree with you.

By vince

October 10, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

I was shocked to discover that feminism created lesbians and gays. Wow. I thought the homos showed up in 1945. On that theory (you know, a mean dad makes a girl gay), I suppose society needs to take a hard look at mean dad’s, cause if they have a son, their son becomes a d**. And, we all know that a lesbian trapped in a man’s body spells trouble.

And, I had no idea that when a woman is a victim of a violent crime, its because of a movement toward equality. So, when a man is a victim of a violetn crime, it’s to balance out society with some inequality talk.

In 1939, MGM released a movie called, “The Women”. A black and white film featuring MGM’s biggest female stars. Not one man to be found in that movie. Not in the background, not anywhere. When the central character’s mother confronts the daughter about the son-in-law’s infedility, the mother advises the daughter to not give up the marriage if there is still love left. And, continues to say she (the mother) experienced her husband and cheating.

The daughter’s response, “That was fine for you mother, back in your time when women were herded like cattle, but not today. Steven (the cheater) and I are equals. 1939, folks. I wonder if that could fly in a movie made in 2005. Probably not. Anything having to do with equality of the sexes has been defined over the last five years as “anti-American” and unpatriotic. Apparently only the “evil doers” want women to be healthy, happy and thrive.

I’m also shocked over how a pro-life person can eat beef, chicken and/or seafood. I guess life isn’t all that precious when you want a cheeseburger. And, I am really shocked when a pro-life person shows no regard for the physical and mental health of women. Because, (this may be a shocking discovery for you) women make more life. Men cannot make babies.

By Scott

October 10, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

JBM - I agree with you

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 10, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

GINA - in some cases it’s not the court who is giving the wormen child support or primary custody of the children. I know a few men who would not accept custody and do not feel they should pay child support. So don’t blame it all on women being greedy for welfare and child support.

I’m a single mom who has never recieve welfare or child support and I still allow my duaghter to spend time with her father. There are many of us out there.

I have a friend who’s husband does not want custody, because he feels that it’s a womans job. My friend thought it would be better for the kids to be taken care of by their father, because she works nights and doesn’t see that changing for a few more years. The kids are currently staying with her parents at night while she works and he’s at home with his girlfriend. We all know that daycare for second and third shift is almost non existance, but what does he care when the ex-inlaws will do it for free.

By Heather

October 10, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Vince, are women today healthy, happy, and thriving? Or are we just as exploited as we have ever been? Walk into any gas station in America, take a look at the magazine rack, and then tell me just how much feminism has managed to accomplish.

In times past, men had enough respect for women to at least keep such things under wraps, now days it is right out that for all to see. Yet feminist go on and on about how we are more equal now. It seems to me that we are more exploited if anything. Women still do most of the work in the home, only now we also get to put in 8+ hour days at the office as well, unless of course we are selling our naked bodies to porn producers, then we get to spend that time on our backs.

By Real Life

October 10, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Heather, if you biggest and only goal in life is to be a brood mare and a maid, go be one, shut up, and leave the rest of us women alone. Some of us have higher goals and dreams. I love education. I love that I can attain any level of education that I choose to persue. Witches like you who want to take that away from me, other women and our daughters, make me sick.

By Jessica

October 10, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

It’s difficult if not impossible to think and speak critically about things we have been trained not to see. Understandably troubling, it is vital that we are able to unveil the hidden ways we participate in a system, particularly those aspects of the system we fundamentally oppose.

Both women’s views on this question are legitimate for me, and to dismiss either outright, doesn’t give us the opportunity to really interrogate the underlying issues of this debate (if we can even call it that, given the polemic quality of our response). Since both the movement and the philosophy guide and inform each other, it seems senseless to me to try and differentiate them in this discussion.

As it has already been pointed out, the question reads: “Has feminism failed women?” While it’s valid to ask why this question does not instead say, “failed us?” we should remember that the term effectually describes what it represents, quite literally: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes,” or “organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests” (From Merriam Webster).

While Feminism does usually start out it’s inquiry from an interest in “women’s rights and interests” it often and usually extends to a question of Civil Rights, which is why these two are related. We see an instance of this in the essay, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” by Peggy McIntosh. Through her investigation into her own thoughts on this idea of white privilege, she comes to this realization:

“I began to count the ways in which I enjoy unearned skin privilege and have been conditioned into oblivion about its existence.” She goes on to say, “My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture. I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will.”

The importance of personal experience and context are, in my opinion, a key part of what Feminism means for contemporary society. But this only partially supplies a definition for most people. The element of “informed choices” and the liberty to make them cannot be divided from a true representation of contemporary Feminism.

Because of this, while I think Ms. Feldhahn’s response has merit, I’m troubled by her habit of acting as authority for “many women” instead of qualifying her response as personal. It’s important to recognize that whether or not we agree with Shaunti Feldhahn’s response, it illustrates a very prevalent feeling among women that they should somehow be ashamed of “choosing” or “desiring” to take on “traditional roles.”

This is a reality that many self-named feminists refuse to consider. The perceived judgment some women feel is being passed on them is unfortunately all too real. This is not to say that it is common (I can’t really attest to that), but simply that it exists. It’s curious to me that Feldhahn feels so much of feminism is extreme. But we live in reactionary and extremist times, so I suppose it’s not that surprising.

Equally troubling, is Diane Glass’ response, which fails to admit any failure at all. Or, that if it has failed, those failures are not important because (or at least it seems) other movements from similar historical contexts also did not live up to our expectations. For me, this is a common response from people who had such high hopes for these then radical changes and protests, and were ultimately let down a little (if not more than a little) when these hopes weren’t fully realized. Disappointment is a not uncommon feeling about movements in general.

It’s also strange that Ms. Glass refuses to credit Feminism with any responsibility for gender roles, as though this somehow gives the word a clean bill of health. What I fail to see commented on is the fact that both Glass and Feldhahn adopt a defensive posture for their response. Both women feel judged by an unnamed force. Glass says, “Why should women be blamed for making choices outside of marriage and family?” Who is blaming her, and why, if the blame comes from no one in particular, would she perceive blame in the same way that Feldhahn does when she says, “I want to be nurturing, but feel like I shouldn’t be.”

In my opinion, contemporary Feminism tries to engender an environment of honest inquiry, and provides choice for people with authentic differences without condemnation. Beneath all this polemic, I see the opposite occurring. We have condemned both women’s views without an honest attempt to first entertain them.

By Mara

October 10, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Gina. And I agree with you about the family law situation. In divorce, the rights of fathers are oftentimes overlooked in favor of the perceived “nurturing” instinct of the mother. It’s something that should be looked at. Most feminists see the need for the equality of gender in all its aspects, even those where women have the edge.

By Scalia

October 10, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Women have the choice if they want to appear semi-nude on the front of a magazine. How many actresses have a non-nudity clause in their contracts? Several. Julia Roberts for one. Cameron Diaz another. Jessica Parker, Kristin Davis, and Cynthia Nixon from Sex and the City never appear nude in the show. They are always covered up.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 10, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Heather,

Women were being exploited for centuries - we just didn’t have videos, television and cameras. We are more of everything at this time and place, but feminist has nothing to do with it. It’s just plain old greed and lust.

Why don’t you blame men for all the increase in porn? Women buy it as well, but it’s definitely an industry owned by men. I agree that we still come home from an 8 hour job to cook and clean, but at least we have a choice. You can be a stay at home mom, a working mom and just a plain single woman with no kids or a husband. Feminist movements have brought about choices, that women did not have years ago.

By Renee

October 10, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Whiley I disagree but I would be typing all day to make my points and I am too busy today. But to sum it all up, I don’t see anything about those isses that equate the feminist movement.

Nor, do I equate porn with it Heather.

I don’t understand it, first women want to be empowered with this equality but they can’t be because they are these frail, exploited bodies. And they can’t stand up for themselves for the constant whining. (I’m expected to clean up and cook all the time, I work and take care of the kids, etc)

I mean men aren’t whining about men being in porn (forced no less) and whining about being house husbands. A woman can do some things a man can’t do but not everything. Women and men are different.

Women will never be empowered or taken seriously as long as this whining continues!

By TT

October 10, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Heather, Feminism does not advocate the exploitation of women. Exploitation of women was occurring many centuries before the feminist movement took root. To blame scantily-clad women on magazine covers and pornography on the movement for women’s equality is purely ignorant. Stop using feminism as a scapegoat for the effects of the “sex sells” culture that most men relish in.

It’s amazing to me that some people will argue a point without bothering to familiarize themselves with the terms of the debate. Someone please refresh Heather’s memory on what feminism means.

By Heather

October 10, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Well be sick Real Life. We are talking about real life here. Yes, you can do anything a man can do. Good for you. Can you do any of the things women could do 200 years ago? Have we evolved or devolved? Are you truly happy?

I don’t want to take any of your rights away from you. Why would I want to do that? The question is whether feminism has failed us. I think it has. If my stating my own opinion on a public forum makes me a witch in your eyes, so be it. You need to grow up a little bit.

By Jessica

October 10, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Something else that’s interesting to me is the format of Women To Woman. Why is the “left leaning columnist” providing “commentary” and the “right leaning columnist” providing a rebuttal? Aren’t these both commentaries and rebuttals? And, if not, why does one woman get the change to provide a rebuttal and not the other? Isn’t it suspicious that their arguments seemingly provide only a surface exploration of the topic, as though this segment of the paper were actually intended to be divisive (being both disruptive and dividing) instead of investigative.

By Real Life

October 10, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Heather - you need to move to the middle east. You would be happy there. You can’t vote in most countries, own property, men are allowed to rape and hit as the see fit, your children are not your own - the husband owns the children, in fact in most middle eastern countries women are property to be bought and traded. If you don’t like that women can be educated, hold jobs, own property, vote, then go somewhere where women can’t. Delta is ready when you are. Oh, take Feldman with you.

By Renee

October 10, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Jessica - Diane gives the commentary as well as Shaunti. It differs depending on the subject and the week.

By Heather

October 10, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Amazed, most women do not have a choice to stay at home or work. Our economy has shifted as the dynamics of the family have shifted. It is often perceived as necessary for women to work today. I say perceived because most people seem to desire to live a lifestyle above what they can actually afford so it becomes necessary for the wife to work to keep up with the Jones’.

By Heather

October 10, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Real Life, you are just looking for a fight aren’t you?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 10, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Heather,

Contrary to your beliefs, many of us chose careers that we love, not to keep up with the Jonese. I have a Computer Science Degree, because I like to design software. However, I have drifted into the data analysis sides in the past few years, not too happy about that.

Would you describe to me, what you consider to be a happy life? I believe you posed the question to another blogger earlier.

By Jessica

October 10, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Renee, thanks for clarifying. I’m new to Georgia and to this section of the paper.

By Mara

October 10, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Uh, Heather, Yes…we can do the things women could do 200 years ago…but who’d want to? 200 years ago we had no electricity, no indoor plumbing, primitive medicine, superstition (well, we still have that but people keep saying that we need religeon…)and society and governments based on blood-lines. We had no feminine hygeine products, no tooth-paste, no shampoo. We had corsets that were pulled so tight they literally disfigured a womans midsection and displaced her internal organs. A woman was considered chattel and as such had no say in the disposition of herself, her monies, her property or her children…all of which became belongings of her husband. He could beat her, rape her, sell her virtue, or torture her. He could lock her up, force her to labor day in and day out, forbid her contact with any other soul, and even deny her food and clothing. So, would you want to be a woman of 200 years ago, and if so, why?

By Heather

October 10, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

TT, my point in bringing up porn was to illustrate just how unequal we still are. Men still exploit us, like they have for all time. Feminism has accomplished very little. Yes, we can vote. Yes, we can own property. Yes, we can go to college. But feminism did not stop there.

The definition of feminism:

n 1: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women 2: the movement aimed at equal rights for women [syn: feminist movement, women’s liberation movement, women’s lib]

Notice the synonmyn for feminism, “women’s liberation movement”. We women demanded that not only should we be given equal rights, but that we should be “liberated” from our families and husbands. Married couples are no longer one unit moving forward together, they are two distinct and separate liberated individuals who are more interested in their own happiness than in each others. This is why I feel feminism has failed us.

By lozen

October 10, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Heather, I just want to ask you: What does daycare for children, not having kids unless you’re rich and kids stabbing each other in school have to do with feminism?

By Whiley

October 10, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Heather, feminism has failed us??? Are you kidding me?

Most of the men today prefer an equal partner. All around equality makes everything better.

By Just Being Me

October 10, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Renee, I completely agree (including the part about being too busy to type for hours explaining my dissent).

Heather, you asked, Vince, are women today healthy, happy, and thriving?

I’m not Vince, but as a woman I think I might be qualified to answer: YES. This woman is healthy, happy and thriving. Can all women say the same? Of course not. But I can.

And, as for that exploitation subject… GIVE ME A BREAK!! If you take a job for pay, how are you being exploited?

By AllAboutMe

October 10, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

…has feminism failed men?…why yes it has…men wanted liberation…more than one to a cuddle…braless bouncers still perky after all those years…and what do we get… men are a continuing open wallet…pay their alimony…pay their dates…pay for their pretty perks…while men get a few sick days women get maternity leave…while men get career choices…women get to be housewives…then nag about not getting great jobs they can abandon…like its mens fault…nah…women dont know it but most men want to be women…its a mad world..men just wish the underwear fit better…

By Ken

October 10, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Real Life…

I don’t think anyone said that you should not, or wanted to prevent you from achieving whatever it is you want to achieve.

There are many things in our society that I believe have contributed to our decent into depravity. However, I would never legislate the prevention of said things. Why? B/C we as humans cannot be forced to do things we do not want to. When we are, we resist. That is the very nature of being human.

We make choices and do not like being told what to do. If you don’t agree just listen to the ranting on this BLOG. It is nearly always about some group telling some other group how to live or what to do.

The only way to achieve real change is for society to realize they need to make that change. Those are the only changes that last.

By Heather

October 10, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Amazed, so many women work because they have no other choice. Its great that many women are happy with the careers of their choice. Its great that we women can go to a female doctor if we prefer one. I am not saying that the benefits of the feminist movement are bad things. I am saying that the movement itself has failed women specifically and society in general.

As for what I consider a happy life, its easier to tell you what I think does not make a happy life. Isn’t it true that women are more at risk now days for heart attacks and heart disease? This is because of the increase in stress in women’s lives. Not only are we expected to be just like men and do whatever men do, we are expected to continue to be women and do all that women have traditionally done. Only we don’t receive the training as girls to do traditionally feminine things because they are portrayed as degrading to women, yet as women we still find ourselves needing to do them.

By Heather

October 10, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Whiley, do you really think most men consider women to be equal partners? Have you done a survey on just what men think? Have you done a survey on just what men want? Try it. Go find a man and have him ask 20 other men what they think about women, if they think women are equal, and what they want from women. I think you might be surprised by the results.

By Eye Think

October 10, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

What is feminism? What is failure? And finally, what is a woman? We all got it wrong form the beginning. Every female is feminine enough in every respect and in her own right. Therefore, the act of pushing the verb feminism or the adjective feminist suggests some level of infuriority complex that needs to be mediated by some form of recognition. Women don’t need to be told they are feminist or be recognized for what they already are. They know themselves. The bible is full of women who have proven how powerful women have been since eating the apple in the garden of Eden. Eve was the first active feminist because she convinced God’s first creature to join her in eating the forbidden apple. Whather this story is symbolic or real is beyond me. So, women are powerful, have always been powerful, and will always be powerful. Men, beware. Don’t get fooled. Women, are the ultimate power machines eventhough sometimes that is not very apparent. If you want to see the power of a woman, wait until a divorce happens. Then, you will see how the law cleans out a man in order to give everything to that same woman. Isn’t that power enough? Isn’t that feminism at its most capitalist heights? I don’t understand what the complaint is all about.

Earming or acting in the same vein as a man does not imply or suggest feminism. That is stupidity at its very best. So many women joined the crazy bandwagon in the 60s, confused, and thinking they were empowering themselves when they were already powerful in the beginning. Most of the great men in the bible and even today who fell, were not brought by an army of thousands, but by an army of one (a woman, sometimes women). Any man who says he is better off than a woman or acts in such like manner, is a foolish man. I have a healthy respect for women. They are incredible.

Therefore, feminism hasn’t failed women. It is the fake feminists of the 60s that have failed the true natural feminists (all the beautiful women of the world). God made women to be naturally beautiful as a way to keep men under some kind of spell and control. Every woman, I have come to conclude is beautiful in her own way and in her own right.

More women have given me the opportunity to rise in my career than men have. Yet i am a man. A man who ignores the power of a woman is sure to get burned at some point. Every woman is beautiful in her own way and in her own right. God designed women to have a unique type of power that men can’t see or replicate. Thus, the issue should not be one of equality but one of role. Fake feminists deceived us in the 60’s with equality. But the bible always reminds us of roles. A woman’s role is very important in any society. When that role becomes diminished, any society begins to collapse socially, then, economically. Lack of women led to the fall of the Spartans in Greek. While the appreciation and inclusion of women during the same period led to the flourishing of the Athenian society.

The high prison rates, crazy kids in school, and so many more odds things in our society are a partial result of the confused policy for our women. Do we focus on roles or equality? This makes a big difference. Our women have forgotten how to be women, queens, princesses, and ladies, which is were a woman’s strenghth lies. Today, we have hooligans, baba-mama, spoiled -brats, etc for women and wives. Thus, the men treat the women as such. This should come as no surprise to anyone. So lets stop complaining and reap the rewards of the confused state of our women, feminism or feminists. These are entirely two different matters altogether.

So, when a woman either decides to where skimpy clothes or remain clad like a human being, she portrays the essence of her values whether consciously or unconsciously. Skimpyness is a reflection of the individual getting closer to the animal kingdom, thus, any and all things go. A resulting consequence such as disrespect from men should be expected and in fact tolerated by the perpetrator. On the other hand, covering yourself so that your bossom or derrier is not forcibly represented may well attract you the right crowd and in fact may even help your agenda be forwarded. I don’t know. But it is worth the try. What I see today about women troubles me. They leave nothing to the imagination anymore, and yet there is this foolish argument about feminism. When a woman knows who she is, presents herself as such, with some wisdom, and a little bit of cunning, as always, she is the true feminist bar none.

By Mara

October 10, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

On one hand, I can see (sort of) where Heather is coming from vis-a-vis porn/exploitation. There’re all kinds of coercion. Consider that a dancer can make hundreds of dollars in a night. Would you dance nekkid to feed your kid? Sure, you could work two jobs and have no time with the child…Or would you pose in a porn magazine for college tuition? Yeah, you could get a job and take an extra year or so to finish… That’s one of the points that she seems to be missing about feminism. Economic equality would mean that a woman literally could not be exploited because there would be no “reward” to doing things that she wouldn’t ordinarily choose to do. On the other hand, those who have chosen to pose, or dance, or act in the adult entertainment field are adult enough to weigh the monetary rewards with their own feelings. Is it exploitation if the “exploited” thinks they got the better part of the bargain?

By Renee

October 10, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Lozen - It has NOTHING to do with feminism

Mara - your 2:42 post was hilarious

Jessica - Welcome

By Whiley

October 10, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

I should have said,the men I know prefer woman as equals. I only surround myself with great men. Not the pea brains you are talking about. lol Which is exactly again why feminism is needed. It’s going to take some serious reconditioning to get the entire cavemen out of the male species.

Feminism also fights old outdated ideas. For instance, when someone calls a man a “p*y” what is he saying? Or when someone says a guy does x like a girl, what is he saying? How about when someone tells a woman to do x like a man? What does that say? I think we can retire “feminist” when we retire sexism and misogyny.

Until then, my own statement’s gonna be, “Yeah, I’m a feminist…Why aren’t YOU?”

By Heather

October 10, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Lozen & Renee, it has everything to do with feminism. We are talking about feminism failing women. Since as someone pointed out, women are 51% of society, we are also talking about feminism failing society.

Children are part of our society and are the future of our society. Half of these children are girls who grow up to be women. You can’t separate the effect of feminism on children from the issue itself.

By Just Being Me

October 10, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Is it exploitation if the “exploited� thinks they got the better part of the bargain?

Nope. It isn’t. That’s why none of those examples are of women being exploited anyway. Those are the choices they made. Heck, I could buy my daughter a lot more things, take more vacations, buy a bigger house in a nicer neighborhood, and even spend more time with her if I became a nude dancer. I choose not to.

Those dancers, prostitutes, etc. CHOOSE to take those jobs, thus they are NOT exploited.

By Renee

October 10, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Whiley - correct me if I’m wrong but women and men are not equal. They are different, anatomically and mentally. Not saying one is better than the other but they are different. And physically, yes, some women are equal to some men, but as a rule, a woman is NOT a man. If so, we wouldn’t need men. If I tell my girl to stop acting like a man, I mean exactly that. If I tell her stop acting so girl, I mean exactly that.

So should we have equal rights, sure, if you want to go do everything those men can do, knock yourself out. That’s all we need is to have an army of nothing but women. They aren’t going to stop having attitudes long enough to handle any business.

In a male/female partnership, the woman’s strengths should make up for the males weaknesses and vice versa, but they are not equal.

By Mara

October 10, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Ken, are you serious when you say “we as humans cannot be forced to do things we do not want to.”? Are you serious?! Do you honestly think that the 14-year old prostitutes in AIDS-ravaged Africa want to be prostitutes? Do you think they want to take a sugar-daddy? Do you really think that when children are kidnapped and made to fight in armies and gangs that they want to do so? Do you really believe that no one can force a woman to have sex without her consent? We, as humans, can be forced to do almost anything if the leverage is right. Some get so used to be degraded that even freedom from coercion doesn’t mean that they have free choice…

By Heather

October 10, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Women who sell themselves to porn should be ashamed of themselves. There is just no nice way to phrase it. Everyone encouraging anyone to buy, sell, or perform pornography is a disgrace.

By Whiley

October 10, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Who ever said women want to be big & man-like, in army’s fighting & killing on the front lines???? lol Of course we are different & so what?
The fact that men are usually physically stronger and more aggressive than women is hardly brain surgery. Again, there’s nothing wrong with boys or men being hyper, strong, or even a bit rowdy. The problem is that many males misuse their natural strength and driven natures to violate the rights of other people.

By