Feminism redux - please read first post of thread

[The Prince of Newcastle]

Treat others as you would like to be treat. Job done.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

That's great on an individual level, and is still easier said than done, but it really doesn't address any of the systemic inequalities in various societies.

[Greywolf2375]

Where I had problems, was with the important stuff... like not wanting her to join the local Girl Scouts, a battle I lost. Where I put my foot down was when she got a bit older and wanted to be a cheerleader. I braved the tears and the sulking, and the "I hate you", but I did not allow it. To me, cheering on a bunch of boys on a playing field is degrading. I sometimes wonder if I was being too harsh.

Harsh, probably...but also not understanding the whole context. At young ages/low levels, yes, much of cheerleading is focused on male sports - specifically football. PeeWee football leagues also have PeeWee cheerleaders. However, as you get to upper levels - and they start around age 9-10 - much of cheerleading today is actually about the competition and not the team they are cheering. Most large universities have cheerleaders for both mens and womens basketball, it's usually the same team but not always. UConn for example has the Blue team cheering the women and the White team cheering the men.

There are absolutely issues within the cheerleading community - body image being a key one. That however does not crop up once someone hits high school - many of the people I know who work in the areas of directing how cheerleading works and is perceived are driving to change those perceptions at the youngest ages.

I'd say not allowing your daughter to try being a cheerleader because it is degrading to cheer on boys is short sighted.

[Gneisenau]

There are absolutely issues within the cheerleading community - body image being a key one. That however does not crop up once someone hits high school - many of the people I know who work in the areas of directing how cheerleading works and is perceived are driving to change those perceptions at the youngest ages.

I'd say not allowing your daughter to try being a cheerleader because it is degrading to cheer on boys is short sighted.

That seems like a perfectly valid reason to me.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Someone on my Twitter feed just shared this. Nellie McKay, "Mother of Pearl": http://youtu.be/0UaqAS93VwQ [i hadn't heard it before; sorry if I'm repeating stuff you've all come across already.]

[Robin Of House Hill]

I agree with you that the color pink and little girls loving princesses is all fairly inconsequential... though I don't get the unholy attraction little girls have for sparkles. Seemed every craft project I did with my stepdaughter involved glue and sparkles. Then there was a great technological advance made, and you could buy glue with sparkles already in it! For little girls it's like heroin. :)

Where I had problems, was with the important stuff... like not wanting her to join the local Girl Scouts, a battle I lost. Where I put my foot down was when she got a bit older and wanted to be a cheerleader. I braved the tears and the sulking, and the "I hate you", but I did not allow it. To me, cheering on a bunch of boys on a playing field is degrading. I sometimes wonder if I was being too harsh.

That is the sort of thing that I wish feminists were more vocal about; young girls being involved in cheerleading, beauty contests, selling cookies, etc.

So glad to see someone discussing the really important issues. :rolleyes:

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I struggle with Barbies-my girls don't have then. For some reason Anna and Elsa dolls which are somewhat similarly ridiculous don't bother me. Maybe it is the story? I know I struggle with both my and my mother's baggage on the subject.

Eta: I don't really have a problem with competitive cheering. Maybe I should? This is the sort of dichotomy I'm interested in. Do the origins of a thing matter once it has transformed?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Deedles, see Brave, if you haven't already. Better than Princess and the Frog in my opinion. Frozen pretty much dominates my life right now though. It has really captured the imagination of this cohort of kids. Boys and girls, interestingly.

[Lyanna Stark]

Is it really?

Of course it is, because the ultimate female fantasy is to be super thin and pretty with huge boobs, didn't you get the memo? We all dream of electric sheep of being barbie dolls.

A pretty good article on why objectification is dangerous.

Anyway, the cumulative effect of all this is that we are socialising generation after generation to view the world, and the women in it, from the point of view of men. As a result, only men are seen as full and complete human beings, not women. Women are objectified - this means we are denied agency, and are seen from the outside, our own consciousness, our thoughts and feelings, utterly overlooked.

Which matches what Simone de Beauvoir wrote already 1949 in The Second Sex.

A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man. The terms masculine and feminine are used symmetrically only as a matter of form, as on legal papers. In actuality the relation of the two sexes is not quite like that of two electrical poles, for man represents both the positive and the neutral, as is indicated by the common use of man to designate human beings in general; whereas woman represents only the negative, defined by limiting criteria, without reciprocity.

...

It amounts to this: just as for the ancients there was an absolute vertical with reference to which the oblique was defined, so there is an absolute human type, the masculine. Woman has ovaries, a uterus: these peculiarities imprison her in her subjectivity, circumscribe her within the limits of her own nature. It is often said that she thinks with her glands. Man superbly ignores the fact that his anatomy also includes glands, such as the testicles, and that they secrete hormones. He thinks of his body as a direct and normal connection with the world, which he believes he apprehends objectively, whereas he regards the body of woman as a hindrance, a prison, weighed down by everything peculiar to it. ‘The female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities,’ said Aristotle; ‘we should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness.’ And St Thomas for his part pronounced woman to be an ‘imperfect man’, an ‘incidental’ being.

...

Thus humanity is male and man defines woman not in herself but as relative to him; she is not regarded as an autonomous being.

This may have been written over 60 years ago, but it is still true today, very much so.

It is often shocking what a straight line you can draw from arguments made 60 years ago to what goes on today. Even if feminism has taken great strides since then, the underlying issues are still the same.

[Sparrowyn]

I struggle with Barbies-my girls don't have then. For some reason Anna and Elsa dolls which are somewhat similarly ridiculous don't bother me. Maybe it is the story? I know I struggle with both my and my mother's baggage on the subject.

Eta: I don't really have a problem with competitive cheering. Maybe I should? This is the sort of dichotomy I'm interested in. Do the origins of a thing matter once it has transformed?

The problem for me, was that it seemed very obvious that cheerleading is subordinate to the sport they're cheering for. I think if cheerleading, or competitive cheering was truly transformed they'd be wearing something other than skirts? Cheering as a sport, totally fine with that... but they ought to ditch the skirts and tight sweaters.

And also, the whole Girl Scouts thing... it just made me uncomfortable.

From the badges the girls earn to the activities they participate in, just seemed like genderization at work. It just shows how profoundly inherent gender roles are in our supposedly "modern" culture.

I think this is where the rubber meets the road, and where I wish feminists were more involved.

It's crazy because in the end it was me who became the bad guy... and for what, trying to get my step daughter, and her mother to become a little more progressive. I am such a tireless champion of feminism. ;)

[Mlle. Zabzie]

And this is something I struggle with, but particularly with respect to the Girl Scouts. Why are/shouldn't the activities in question continue? They aren't inherently bad. In fact, except for the fact that they are historically gendered and therefore have been less valued, they aren't inherently valueless. Quite the opposite, actually. Same with cheering. Why shouldn't the sport choose its own uniform once it becomes it's own thing?

[McCracken]

I've always thought feminism should be about empowering people to make decisions unimpeded by their gender.

It seems stopping girls behaving in a traditionally feminine way would be counter productive to that.

[Underfoot]

I've always thought feminism should be about empowering people to make decisions unimpeded by their gender.

It seems stopping girls behaving in a traditionally feminine way would be counter productive to that.

I think modern feminism (I don't know what "wave" this would be, as I am not that well read on the topic) is not so much about stopping girls from liking feminine things as it is making sure that girls know that it is okay to enjoy activities or books or toys that are traditionally considered non-feminine. On the flip side, feminism also advocates that boys don't feel inferior or less "masculine" if they like toys/activities/whatever that are traditionally feminine.

[Lyanna Stark]

I've always thought feminism should be about empowering people to make decisions unimpeded by their gender.

It seems stopping girls behaving in a traditionally feminine way would be counter productive to that.

Depends what you mean with that and what you mean "unimpeded" because today, nobody lives in a vacuum and nobody is unaffected by their gender. That is simply impossible.

If you are talking about making informed, conscious choices based on knowledge about how the gendered power structures work then yes, then you are moving towards being "unimpeded by gender" (which is the goal of most, if not all, feminists).

Unfortunately, today a lot of women choosing traditionally female coded types of employment, dress or whatever are not doing so in a way that is anywhere near "unimpeded by gender". It is instead something done as a default choice, because "it is the done thing" or because other people think it's the ok thing to do. Often it is a mix of conscious and unconscious choices.

One of the main things you have to face as a feminist is your own prejudice and biases. Like for instance, I still hesitate to put female coded clothes on my son. For absolutely no logical reason. It is my own inherent bias expressing itself and something I have to deal with. This is always a process, for everyone. Nobody is ever "complete" in that regard.

[Spring Bass]

I was thinking about that, too. How do you determine the degree to which your prejudices are informing your decisions to wear traditionally gender coded clothing? Do you have to consciously think, "I know this clothing is associated with traditional gender roles, but I'm choosing to wear it and can take it off when I choose"?

[McCracken]

LS is it impossible?

It certainly is today but can't we strive to create a world where it is not? That is what I meant. That feminism can strive to create the conditions where people do not feel restricted by their gender or sex.

[McCracken]

This is why I hate how people like killer snark present feminism as one side of a fight between the sexes in a zero sum game. One side wins then the other must lose. Unfortunately there seem to be some feminists who see things this way too.

I think feminism can be liberating force for everyone. Why do people keep trying to reduce it into some juvenile us vs them situation?

[sologdin]

juvenile us vs them situation?

because an overtly-capitalist-yet-covertly-intellectual-marxist ad agency taunted men in general regarding phallic size pursuant to a contract with feminazis from far-leftist-islamist terror groups?

[Castel]

I was thinking about that, too. How do you determine the degree to which your prejudices are informing your decisions to wear traditionally gender coded clothing? Do you have to consciously think, "I know this clothing is associated with traditional gender roles, but I'm choosing to wear it and can take it off when I choose"?

Won't this sort of navel-gazing kill you? A less ambitious tactic would depend on you looking at situations where the bias has an effect e.g."Am I wearing heels for reasons that are not only inexplicable but actively detrimental if we remove gender roles?"

[McCracken]

juvenile us vs them situation?

because an overtly-capitalist-yet-covertly-intellectual-marxist ad agency taunted men in general regarding phallic size pursuant to a contract with feminazis from far-leftist-islamist terror groups?

lol

I was talking about people in general. Killer snarks reasons seem to be quite unique.