Feminism Redux

[Security Squish]

Men should not be mocked for going into nursing (and perhaps ought to be mocked for not going into nursing, it is in such high demand).

You're my hero! :cheers:

[tzanth]

Mormont,

Okay. That being the case I'd like to know what the change in emphasis means concretely for feminism?

It means exactly what mormont has been saying. We still want equal rights for everyone, but we need to acknowledge that not everyone's experience of sexism is the same. Second wave feminism tended to be a movement defined by a certain subsection of relatively privileged, western people. As such, it addressed the issues and needs within feminism that were of most concern to such people. Other women around the world, however, are often faced with different situations and have different needs and expectations. Third wave feminism thus recognizes that not everyone's vision of feminism is the same. This would be were the sex-positive movement could be seen as third-wave, as sex is seen as good by some feminists, and possibly exploitative by others.

ETA:

Raidne; so you see third-wave feminism as being seperate and distinct from post-modern feminism? If so, how?

[Security Squish]

Physical strength in a world containing modern conveniences such as forklift trucks and guns is increasingly capable of being circumvented.

Only if you always carry a gun and a forklift. Being strong is very helpful in my line of work and will likely always be a plus until nurses are replaced with robots. I agree with you about the genralizations bit and the fact that some women are stronger than most men, but that doesn't make being physically stronger than others of little use. Strength is one factor leading to sucess in some walks of life.

[Meg]

The problem with second wave feminism is that it has turned off many young women from feminism. Here are two examples-

A friend of mine is a daddy's girl who knows her way with tools much better than most men and is proud of her own tool kit. She believes in equal pay for equal work but hates feminists. Why? Because many second wave feminists seem, to her, to hate men and she doesn't.

Another example is the 50- something female professor who calls herself a feminist. She is a second waver and spends the majority of her time calling all men "oppressors." According to this professor, if a man opens the door for a woman, he is oppressing her or if he buys her flowers then he is once again oppressing her. She doesn't talk much at all about equal pay for equal work or childcare, issues that most people would relate well too. As you can imagine, she has turned off many of her young female college students from feminism. She just doesn't get it that many young females don't see what the big deal is about a guy opening the door for them or how that action oppresses them. The professor just comes off as some crazy man-hater.

[Meg]

It means exactly what mormont has been saying. We still want equal rights for everyone, but we need to acknowledge that not everyone's experience of sexism is the same. Second wave feminism tended to be a movement defined by a certain subsection of relatively privileged, western people. As such, it addressed the issues and needs within feminism that were of most concern to such people. Other women around the world, however, are often faced with different situations and have different needs and expectations. Third wave feminism thus recognizes that not everyone's vision of feminism is the same. This would be were the sex-positive movement could be seen as third-wave, as sex is seen as good by some feminists, and possibly exploitative by others.

ETA:

Raidne; so you see third-wave feminism as being seperate and distinct from post-modern feminism? If so, how?

I agree. Many second wavers seem to believe that all women want to work 60+ hours in corporate America climbing the corporate ladder. They fail to realize that many women today don't have a choice as to whether to work or stay-at-home. Most women have to work!!! In college, I met a few females who admitted that they wanted to be SAHMs once they got married and had kids. These were smart independent women who enjoyed their college educations but had no desire to spend the next 40 years wearing suits and working for corporate America. I think third-wave feminism is more accomodating of this fact.

[litechick]

LoB I think you are mistaken but your efforts to find what you wanted to find are duly noted. ;)

It's not unusual that sexism and consideration get mixed up.

If I tiptoe around competitiveness on short acquaintence, I don't see that as any different than avoiding talk of religion and politics.

Men who need their egos massaged are empty shells. Women who think men need their egos to be massaged are doing men and women a disservice.

Yes. And yet it happens all the time. "save me, I'm afraid of the big bug!" or "I'm so silly, I don't know how to work this. Will you show me?" Whether you denounce it as a disservice to humanity or shrug it off as harmless flirting, my point is that I consider it the greatest obstacle to gender equality.

I'll shut up now. I'm not trying to derail the thread.

[Kat]

These were smart independent women who enjoyed their college educations but had no desire to spend the next 40 years wearing suits and working for corporate America. I think third-wave feminism is more accomodating of this fact.

Sure it is, but it's also very likely to point out the privilege one has in being able to decide to stay at home. This choice sometimes begins to seem more and more irrelevant to your average mother. (See: Almost any article about parenting in the New York Times.)

Re: Second-wave feminism. There are a lot of second-wave feminists who are perfectly reasonable people and somehow managed NOT to alienate all their male friends, relatives, and acquaintances. Most of my female role models growing up were second-wave feminists, including my mother. Yes, there were weaknesses to second-wave feminism, but the strengths (at the time) far outweighed those weaknesses. And unfortunately, those efforts have been tarnished by whackjobs with a vested interest in being anti-feminist.

Personally, I enjoy my right to go to work without being sexually harassed. Thank you, second-wave feminists.

Re: Competitiveness...if you're actually a competitive person, I'm not really sure how downplaying that is going to work out in the long run, but that's just me. I have a competitive streak, and because of that, I've never really been interested in trying to pick up guys who like meek women while engaged in a competitive activity like games, or arguing, or whatever. Because then that person would be in for a world of surprises later on. :dunno:

[Ocean of Notions]

What I find distasteful about second-wave feminism the viewing of qualities seen as "feminine" as something negative. I find that rather hypocritical. If we view feminine qualities as inherently negative, isn't that anti-woman in itself? Doesn't that create more biases against women? I believe one can be "pro" women and not reject all traditional feminine roles or qualities.

[TerraPrime]

What I find distasteful about second-wave feminism the viewing of qualities seen as "feminine" as something negative. I find that rather hypocritical. If we view feminine qualities as inherently negative, isn't that anti-woman in itself? Doesn't that create more biases against women? I believe one can be "pro" women and not reject all traditional feminine roles or qualities.

I don't think that's what second-wave feminism was saying, though, that feminine qualities are negative. There are any number of analyses for the social phenonmenon of genderizing traits, and several of them may appear to say that feminine traits are undesirable, but I think the analyses usually go deeper than that. One can, for instance, legitimately critique how women are evaluated as leaders and point out that traditionally feminine traits are under-valued, without saying that those traits are inherently bad. As with most any field that spans a lot of ground, feminism is going to have representatives on both ends of the spectrum, and some of them might not seem all that appealing, but I don't get the impression that the consensus of second-wave feminism is that feminine traits are negative.

[Guest Raidne]

Raidne; so you see third-wave feminism as being seperate and distinct from post-modern feminism? If so, how?

If you're saying that Helen Gurley Brown, Naomi Wolf, Camile Paglia and Belle Hooks are all third-wave feminists, you have, IMHO, reduced the term to meaninglessness.

I use post-modern for the racial/multicultural/socioeconomic class distinctions because these are generally focuses of post-modern critiques. I would not call that perspective third-wave feminism because it started not too long after second-wave feminism therefore doesn't describe another generation or anything like that. It's a critique that points out problems with and solutions to second-wave feminism, from within the framework of second-wave feminism.

What I find distasteful about second-wave feminism the viewing of qualities seen as "feminine" as something negative. I find that rather hypocritical. If we view feminine qualities as inherently negative, isn't that anti-woman in itself? Doesn't that create more biases against women? I believe one can be "pro" women and not reject all traditional feminine roles or qualities.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that being anti-feminine is being anti-woman. But it's complicated. There are some traits that we have ascribed to the feminine that are positive - like compromise, facilitation - that our culture neglects, and that's too bad. But I also think it's fine for people to have different personalities and not value those things on an individual level. And I don't think those people are necessarily male or female. And so by saying that disparaging the feminine = disparaging women, we're saying - necessarily - that women have personalities that are described by these traits - the feminine.

And that's not a premise I'm okay with. I think it's anti-feminist. Women should be allowed to have whatever personalities they want. And men should be allowed to have whatever personalities they want. We shouldn't reinforce these masculine/feminine ideals, IMHO, but we also have to be careful about the historical devaluation of traits that are feminine. But, IMHO, for our own good as a culture, not as a part of the feminist project.

[Ocean of Notions]

I don't think that's what second-wave feminism was saying, though, that feminine qualities are negative. There are any number of analyses for the social phenonmenon of genderizing traits, and several of them may appear to say that feminine traits are undesirable, but I think the analyses usually go deeper than that. One can, for instance, legitimately critique how women are evaluated as leaders and point out that traditionally feminine traits are under-valued, without saying that those traits are inherently bad. As with most any field that spans a lot of ground, feminism is going to have representatives on both ends of the spectrum, and some of them might not seem all that appealing, but I don't get the impression that the consensus of second-wave feminism is that feminine traits are negative.

I never said it was a consensus. Let me clarify. The impression that I get from most second-wave feminist theories that I've heard and the feminists that I've encountered.

[Ocean of Notions]

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that being anti-feminine is being anti-woman. But it's complicated. There are some traits that we have ascribed to the feminine that are positive - like compromise, facilitation - that our culture neglects, and that's too bad. But I also think it's fine for people to have different personalities and not value those things on an individual level. And I don't think those people are necessarily male or female. And so by saying that disparaging the feminine = disparaging women, we're saying - necessarily - that women have personalities that are described by these traits - the feminine.

I think you've misinterpreted me, but then again, I could have been more clear. I never said that people shouldn't have different personalities. What I meant was, there are certain qualities we traditionally consider feminine (obviously, it depends on the culture, but I'm making things simple for the sake of explanation) and I find it anti-woman to think of these qualities as bad because of their association with the idea of femininity. For example, someone mentioned male nurses. Certain people find the idea of male nurses to be distasteful due to their ideas of gender roles. They might describe male nurses as taking on a feminine role or possessing feminine qualities and view them in a negative light because of these qualities. I've run into feminists that believe conforming to feminine roles of wearing makeup, dressing in a certain manner, or taking on certain jobs as negative. These same women shun other women to taking on these "feminine" qualities. What I'm saying is that to consider what is "feminine" as inherently negative is anti-woman in itself. I'm not saying we should all embrace traditionally feminine roles. I think they should be examined and one should recognize the greater socio-political power structure that exists surrounding such roles and qualities.

And that's not a premise I'm okay with. I think it's anti-feminist. Women should be allowed to have whatever personalities they want. And men should be allowed to have whatever personalities they want. We shouldn't reinforce these masculine/feminine ideals, IMHO, but we also have to be careful about the historical devaluation of traits that are feminine. But, IMHO, for our own good as a culture, not as a part of the feminist project.

I totally agree.

[Lady Blackfish]

I don't know, I don't think that things like career women vs stay-at-home moms conflicts should define second wave feminism. That was never the impression I got. I'm with Kat, I guess:

Re: Second-wave feminism. There are a lot of second-wave feminists who are perfectly reasonable people and somehow managed NOT to alienate all their male friends, relatives, and acquaintances. Most of my female role models growing up were second-wave feminists, including my mother. Yes, there were weaknesses to second-wave feminism, but the strengths (at the time) far outweighed those weaknesses. And unfortunately, those efforts have been tarnished by whackjobs with a vested interest in being anti-feminist.

Personally, I enjoy my right to go to work without being sexually harassed. Thank you, second-wave feminists.

I am sympathetic to a lot of third-wave feminism, or at least what some people call third-wave feminism (it's always been a fuzzy term, no?), but the one thing I've always been iffy about is that it almost defines itself against second wave feminism. This doesn't make me want to throw it out, but I've never cared for that aspect. Third wave feminism is no more impervious to hyperbolic exaggeration or misrepresentation than second wave feminism is/was.

I certainly wouldn't deny individual grievances but, well, you also had people like Gloria Steinem encouraging employees at Miss to bring their children to work and calling for male investment in child rearing to be evaluated. I think there are legitimate criticisms, especially concerning the visibility of poor/nonwhite women, but I wouldn't characterize second wave feminism by radical elements. As a young person who wears lipstick and likes moms, I'm pretty grateful to it.

It's always the same old tug of war, it seems to me, between "can" and "has to" ... I don't think second-wave feminism says you have to become a CEO. It says you can, and it may also say that it's possible to use the idea of becoming a SAHM as a deterrent meant to discourage and distract those women who want to become a CEO from becoming a CEO, but that's different, even if it gets hoary and bristly. But bristly discourse isn't unique to feminism.

(Personally what bugs me most about the generational debate is the whole second-wave-feminists-hate-fun-and-people-who-have-it thing ... if you had to live with all those inequalities that we can take for granted as not having now, what on earth would you have to be so happy about, at least as a feminist?)

[denstorebog]

As an aside, but not really - R.I.P. Marilyn French.

[Guest Raidne]

Great post, LB.

What I think is that second-wave feminism got a little carried away when it shifts away from the political to the personal. Although, sometimes, they're intermingled. The child-care issue, for instance, I would view as political, since there are legislative solutions to the roadblocks that are part of the problem.

But whether or not women wear heels or lipstick...that's not law here, so it's personal. Of course, there are culture-wide sexist representations of women - advertising anyone? - that hit a very gray area for me. Can you set government-backed incentives for companies that engage in gender-neutral advertising? Is that the kind of thing we'd even want to do, or does that interfere with free speech? Is that the kind of thing feminism is for anymore, or not?

[ljkeane]

But whether or not women wear heels or lipstick...that's not law here, so it's personal. Of course, there are culture-wide sexist representations of women - advertising anyone? - that hit a very gray area for me. Can you set government-backed incentives for companies that engage in gender-neutral advertising? Is that the kind of thing we'd even want to do, or does that interfere with free speech? Is that the kind of thing feminism is for anymore, or not?

I think issues like advertising and the like can perhaps be something that can be a grey area it's not as if there are a shortage of not particularly positive images of men in advertising and many of the depictions of women that could possibly be seen as demeaning are debatable.

I think perhaps one of the issues I sometimes see with feminism is that there is a tendency to try and address issues that are a grey area and that can lead to a debate over whether there really is a problem at all and whether feminists are overreacting. I think there are so many issues were it is easy to see that there is a problem and the debate can be about solutions to those problems which is more beneficial.

Having just said this I do realise that the media probably does focus on those who have the more extreme views so my perceptions of what prominent feminists are advocating might be somewhat skewed.

[Jaerv]

Re: Second-wave feminism. There are a lot of second-wave feminists who are perfectly reasonable people and somehow managed NOT to alienate all their male friends, relatives, and acquaintances.

I spent my teenage years during the high tide of German second-wave feminism and I found it very alienating. Before becoming fifteen years old I knew that I was a incurable defective human being because I had a penis. In few years I would probably rape women, molest children, start wars, murder innocent people (i.e. females), and destroy mother earth with evil male concepts such as engineering, capitalism, and non-holistic science. No one directly suggested suicide to me but it was a frequent subtext for example when I was taught that “men are dying out anyway because the Y-chromosome is unstable and more and more degenerating.†Being interested in girls of course was offensive, and since coitus was considered an act of violence my erotic dreams were disgusting acts of hatred. Not alienating??? Ha!

But may be German second-wave feminism was a special case. We tend to exaggarete a little in this country when it comes to doctrines and ideologies...

[Tempra]

I spent my teenage years during the high tide of German second-wave feminism and I found it very alienating. Before becoming fifteen years old I knew that I was a incurable defective human being because I had a penis. In few years I would probably rape women, molest children, start wars, murder innocent people (i.e. females), and destroy mother earth with evil male concepts such as engineering, capitalism, and non-holistic science. No one directly suggested suicide to me but it was a frequent subtext for example when I was taught that “men are dying out anyway because the Y-chromosome is unstable and more and more degenerating.†Being interested in girls of course was offensive, and since coitus was considered an act of violence my erotic dreams were disgusting acts of hatred. Not alienating??? Ha!

But may be German second-wave feminism was a special case. We tend to exaggarete a little in this country when it comes to doctrines and ideologies...

Doubtful. My mother was spit on, called a slave, and a traitor because she was married and had a child by the time she was 20. Of course, she went on to be the first female law professor at her school while the other "feminists" accomplished nothing of merit.

Like any cause, the well intentioned and the extreme are mixed into one group. Though, it says something about second wave feminists when many (most?) women today do not even want to be called feminists.

[Guest Raidne]

Doubtful. My mother was spit on, called a slave, and a traitor because she was married and had a child by the time she was 20. Of course, she went on to be the first female law professor at her school while the other "feminists" accomplished nothing of merit.

Really? She was spit on? Truly?

[Tempra]

Yeah.