Feminism redux - please read first post of thread

[Elder Sister]

Every god damn fucking week, the feminism thread is derailed and dragged back to the mud by people equipped with no more than 5th grade level reasoning skills and a dick, offering craptastic argument that insult both women, men, and the human intellect. So, this thread is the place to get away from that metaphorical shit.

In this thread, the validity of feminism is not a subject for discussion - accept it, or don't post here.

The topics suitable for this thread include, but are not limited to:

- as cross-cultural feminism

- comparisons and developments in a various branches of feminism

- social, cultural, and political phenomena that exemplify/illustrate feminism positively or negatively

- the role of feminism in different arena of human endeavors (job, religions, sports, dating, entertainment, etc.)

Criticism for the existence and justification of feminism can still take place elsewhere on the board - go knock yourselves out over there.

I haven't been in GC much of late, and had pretty much stopped coming into the feminism threads because of all of the above.

I read this and desperately wished TP adored redheaded females with no bodies and tiny T-Rex arms. Because I LOVE YOU, TP. :love:

With regards to the cheerleading question, I personally see (especially with collegiate cheer) a big switch in thinking from 'feminine' to 'athletic' - there doesn't seem to be as much of a stigma attached to it. Just my opinion.

But the awesomeness of TP is not opinion - it is fact. :love: :love: :love:

[Shryke]

This was a pretty awesome response to some bullshit I thought:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/mayor-de-blasio-wife-newspapers_n_5354255.html

Basic timeline:

1) Chirlane McCray, wife of NY Mayor Bill de Blasio, gives an interview where she talks about how she dealt with motherhood in honest terms:

she struggled adjusting to motherhood after the couple's first child, Chiara, was born.

"I was 40 years old. I had a life," McCray told the magazine as part of a cover story profile about her outsized role in her husband's administration. "Especially with Chiara — will we feel guilt forever more? Of course, yes. But the truth is, I could not spend every day with her. I didn't want to do that. I looked for all kinds of reason not to do it."

McCray said she loves her daughter but had been working since she was 14.

"It took a long time for me to get into 'I'm taking care of kids,' and what that means," she said.

2) Predictably, some of the press jump on this cause god knows women aren't allowed to be attached to their careers or conflicted about motherhood. I think they are also supposed to lean in too, cause wtf, it's not like this shit is supposed to be consistent or make sense.

The New York Post ran a screaming headline of "I was a bad mom," a sentiment that McCray does not express in the magazine piece. The Post's article says her comments are "bound to horrify most moms."

The Daily News ran a headline of "Didn't want to be a mom," which de Blasio said was inaccurate and wasn't reflected in the magazine piece.

3) de Blasio, in a display of quality humanity, said the right thing which was to tell the press to shut the fuck up and apologize to his wife for this bullshit.

[Mad Monkey]

I feel like women are not supposed to be able to "win" the whole motherhood/career 'conflict'. It seems as if no matter which decision you make you will receive the same volume of hysterical shrieking from pretty much the same people. With a lot of social pressures it seems as if society is trying to hem you into a specific role or set of behaviors, but I can't think of what women are "supposed" to do for this one. There doesn't seem to be any way to just 'give in' since every decision makes you a monster. Thoughts?

[1918me]

I feel like women are not supposed to be able to "win" the whole motherhood/career 'conflict'. It seems as if no matter which decision you make you will receive the same volume of hysterical shrieking from pretty much the same people. With a lot of social pressures it seems as if society is trying to hem you into a specific role or set of behaviors, but I can't think of what women are "supposed" to do for this one. There doesn't seem to be any way to just 'give in' since every decision makes you a monster. Thoughts?

I don't know what one can do about it, honestly, but for some reason I've always just assumed that if women are visibly career-oriented for a long enough time, people will begin to adjust their schemas about women appropriately. Of course, women have been a big part of the work force for a long time now, and it seems that all that's happened is that they're expected to take on motherhood on top of everything else.

Honestly, I think this is where the role of the stay-at-home dad is important. I think if more men would take up the responsibility of the primary care giver, while more women are allowed to focus solely on their careers, societal attitudes about it may shift over time. However, motherhood is still so often seen as such an intrinsic part of womanhood in general, and this is still reflected in people's expectations.

I guess, in short, I hope that over time people will begin to see men as equally valid caregivers, and women as more than a set of pre-defined roles. I doubt know what one can do to really speed up the process, though, on an individual level.

[Athias]

There are some women who operate under the false notion that they can have everything--a career, a family, a purpose other than what is supposedly described by their sex. It's a political narrative pushed by those who think only in collective terms. Now when fathers had the role of being the sole breadwinners, their being "good" fathers was historically rooted in their fulfilling their obligations to their wives/paramores and children--which had its negative connotations. In essence, he only served a function if he could provide resources that sustained his family. Women, whom were protected from providing labor in harsh environments, had more time and contact with the children. And because of this, her function was to rear and nuture her children. Let's not forget that there was no such thing as baby formula before the 20th century. Also given the fact that infant mortality rates were hgih back then, where would she have the time to look after 6-7 childen (a measure used to hedge against their prospective deaths) and work outside of her home. These roles, which Patriarchy Theory would argue were socially constructed to subjugate women, were in fact necessary to sustain the survival of one's family.

In the advent of the industrial age--and its technological innovation--working inside and outside of the home became less time consuming. The harsh environment to which men have become accustomed--and at great numbers have lost their lives--had become less harsh. And not surprisingly, that is when women started to enter the labor force in large numbers. As the years have gone by, and the environment have become less and less harsh, women sought inclusion in the positive narrative that was constructed to keep men at work--DESPITE the fact that the subtext was originally and still is quite negative. In spite of the numerous premises pedaled that motherhood is "expected" of a career woman, government policy and technological advances argue to the contrary.

I just wanted to offer a bit of historical context before I conclude this comment. Chirlane McCray may not in fact be a bad mother/parent, but somehow it's offensive to even entertain that notion. A consistent element in the description of bad or neglectful parents is usually parents that work too much Somehow, she's exempt from such a characterization because she has a career? I have no doubt that the journalists she had spoken to are manipulating her words--and she shouldn't be surprised that her honesty created her scaffold. But Chirlane McCray, being the wife of a politician, paraded her traditional role in her traditional yet "progressive" interracial family, but now it's off limits? It's too offensive? I'm sorry, but this is not an example of an institutionalized "group think" that is geared to disengage women from purposes outside of their "expected" gender roles. It's just a story of modern journalists and politicians overreacting.

*Side Note* As for stay-at-home dads, I don't think it's an issue of being capable of nurturing children--especially with all the supplies availabe today. Women tend to favor alpha's who can maintain themselves in dangerous environments. And being a stay-at-home parent is traditionally a safe role. Why is that important? Because when it comes to risking one's life for the family, she'll "expect" her male counterpart to take on that role. But that's just my speculation.

[Lyanna Stark]

Face palm

[emberling]

You seem to be spending a great deal of time writing long posts involving your beliefs as to why "Patriarchy Theory" is wrong.

In the interest of saving time you may want to educate yourself on what the theory of the patriarchy actually is before doing this again.

Hint: it does not have anything to do with design to subjugate; it requires no ill intent on anyone's part. Whether a social construct is a relic of a outdated necessity or a new invention is not relevant to whether it is a social construct.

You may also not want to undermine all your effort at attempting to portray high-minded discussion by ending with...whatever the hell kind of muddled evopsych mess that last paragraph was. Because bald husbands typing up spreadsheets in cubicles are risking their lives, apparently by metaphysical kinship with mammoth hunters or something.

[Mad Monkey]

Face palm

Yeah, I know, but is another good example of what I'm talking about though. I know this is old hat at this point, but do we ever even ask male politicians to justify how they can be a good father too? It seems like we just take it for granted that they are unless we hear some bad news about their family lives disintegrating.

A consistent element in the description of bad or neglectful parents is usually parents that work too much Somehow, she's exempt from such a characterization because she has a career?

Exactly! It's this kind of backwards logic that kind of highlights how women can't really win this one no matter what they do. If a woman has a career, it is fair to assume that she must be a "bad or neglectful" parent... or, at the very least, that it's reasonable to infer that she is one. It just wouldn't happen with a man; if the article was about Bill de Blasio, we would need waaay more information about him being absent or neglectful to his children or being cold, distant, or even abusive before we could characterize him as a "bad father". But for a woman, the mere idea that she might have a career outside of the home is considered prima facie that there is something wrong with her.

Honestly, I think this is where the role of the stay-at-home dad is important. I think if more men would take up the responsibility of the primary care giver, while more women are allowed to focus solely on their careers, societal attitudes about it may shift over time. However, motherhood is still so often seen as such an intrinsic part of womanhood in general, and this is still reflected in people's expectations.

I think it might erode over time. I understand that it will be slow going, but I guess I'm just struck by how little progress we've made. I didn't expect motherhood and womanhood to be separated so soon, but I kind of assumed that at some point in my lifetime it would be uncontroversial for a woman to be a mother and have a career outside of the home.

It does serve as a good counter example to all of those people who say that feminism is obsolete in the modern era though.

[Lyanna Stark]

Mad monkey, it was not aimed at your post at all (which I think is a great point for discussion btw) but the random evo psych "women want alphas" post at the end there.

I guess I should turn around as well since I am on my way to work and my SO is home with the kids. :(

[Mad Monkey]

Mad monkey, it was not aimed at your post at all (which I think is a great point for discussion btw) but the random evo psych "women want alphas" post at the end there.

Oh, I know! I was just using that post as an example of what we were on about!

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

We have a live one.

Athias, a few points.

- Even wolves in the wild don't have alphas the way you're probably thinking of them, and humans aren't wolves.

- If doing anything other than surviving and procreating is something other than "the role described by [our] sex", it holds for people who aren't women, too. No career aspirations for anyone, just subsistence.

- We didn't "evolve" into the nuclear family structure, one family to a dwelling, or we'd see it throughout more of the world. Don't mix sociological and evolutionary drivers without being able to at least try to separate them.

- Avoiding evolutionary arguments at all is probably not really the route you want to go down. We do a lot of things we haven't evolved for, like post on message boards.

- Women were not protected from all harsh conditions. In some cases, they weren't precisely protected, they were forbidden. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't take those risks. Of course, in some cultures, they were also considered too weak or brainless to vote, or run certain businesses (but not others, funnily), or walk without metal cages supporting their rib cages, so every "fact" about what women are capable or not capable of might not hold true.

- There's a difference between being constructed to subjugate women and having the effect of subjugating women. I imagine that some of the greatest restrictions and oppressions were worded -- and possibly even believed -- to be "for their own good".

- Not all baby formula is the powdered stuff we know today. However, even that was really pushed in the middle of the 19th century. "Dry nursing" and pap and all that has been around much, much longer. Not everyone could either breast feed or have a wet nurse, so they found ways.

- It is entirely possible to question whether someone is a bad parent. Judging a mother for doing it when a father goes unremarked is still completely sexist. Judging someone for doing it with no details about how long or how often they're away is just knee-jerk -- any time away becomes "too long". It's also sexist to say that men are never capable of being stay-at-home carers, as a general comment. Since you agree that men are capable, then why not someone else? A different family member? A dedicated carer like a nanny or au pair? Why does the judgement so regularly fall on the woman and never the man when a parent is not home all of the time?

As a side note, using "whom" incorrectly isn't really better than omitting it. The latter's everyday, casual speech, but the former is an error.

ETA: so many typos! I've probably still missed some; editing on the iPad is nearly as frustrating as writing the initial post on it.

[Lyanna Stark]

Oh, I know! I was just using that post as an example of what we were on about!

You are a better person than I :p In my defense I had not had my first cup of coffee for the day!

[Lummel]

There are some women who operate under the false notion that they can have everything--a career, a family, a purpose other than what is supposedly described by their sex. It's a political narrative pushed by those who think only in collective terms. Now when fathers had the role of being the sole breadwinners, their being "good" fathers was historically rooted in their fulfilling their obligations to their wives/paramores and children--which had its negative connotations. In essence, he only served a function if he could provide resources that sustained his family. Women, whom were protected from providing labor in harsh environments, had more time and contact with the children. And because of this, her function was to rear and nuture her children. Let's not forget that there was no such thing as baby formula before the 20th century. Also given the fact that infant mortality rates were hgih back then, where would she have the time to look after 6-7 childen (a measure used to hedge against their prospective deaths) and work outside of her home. These roles, which Patriarchy Theory would argue were socially constructed to subjugate women, were in fact necessary to sustain the survival of one's family.

In the advent of the industrial age--and its technological innovation--working inside and outside of the home became less time consuming. The harsh environment to which men have become accustomed--and at great numbers have lost their lives--had become less harsh. And not surprisingly, that is when women started to enter the labor force in large numbers. As the years have gone by, and the environment have become less and less harsh, women sought inclusion in the positive narrative that was constructed to keep men at work--DESPITE the fact that the subtext was originally and still is quite negative. In spite of the numerous premises pedaled that motherhood is "expected" of a career woman, government policy and technological advances argue to the contrary...

Goodness, this seems to me to be completely wrong.

In pre-industrial and in early industrial times the basic work unit was not the man, but the family. Everybody worked as soon as they were physically able. A child of four or five was old enough to scare birds for instance (in which capacity a young Thomas Hardy was employed as a boy) or think of Dickens in the boot blacking factory. Part of the inspiration behind machine breaking in the early industrial period was exactly that it threatened to break up traditional family working were the whole family in their own household were employed for instance, at weaving, with each person doing what they were physically capable of, replacing it with a system of factory discipline - but even in that case women and children still worked (until such times and in such places as factory legislation intervened as social attitudes changed), although that shift did put nursing mothers out of the formal economy. In short everybody worked, in parts of the world this is still the case, in Nepal for instance a major cause of miscarriages is that in the countryside women are expected to work in the fields throughout their pregnancies.

The concept of motherhood and child rearing as some special activity that is isolated from the rest of economic activity is one that only a small minority of people have been able to afford throughout history and one that only relatively recently became widespread in industrialised because patterns of industrialisation moved economic activity increasingly out of the home where people could manage their own working flow to specialised settings (the factory, the office) in which work flow was determined by the employer. Even in this case the woman not in the formal workplace was not necessarily an exclusive child carer. In fact in terms of household work alone if you are boiling clothes and wringing them out in a mangle and so on the children have to look after each other.

Childcare didn't and doesn't require a parent sitting at home with the children on the parental lap for sixteen years while they all sing nursery rhymes together.

If you go to museums that have displays of historical costume you can some times see the slings that nursing mothers wore to hold their babies against their bodies while they were out weeding in the vegetable fields. At points in the past (ie depending on the type of work typical of the area, different types of agricultural or pastoral production require different labour patterns) women did have it all, not as an aspiration, but as a necessity of existence.

[Chaldanya]

*Side Note* As for stay-at-home dads, I don't think it's an issue of being capable of nurturing children--especially with all the supplies availabe today. Women tend to favor alpha's who can maintain themselves in dangerous environments. And being a stay-at-home parent is traditionally a safe role. Why is that important? Because when it comes to risking one's life for the family, she'll "expect" her male counterpart to take on that role. But that's just my speculation.

no lesbian couples anywhere have ever had children

no gay couples anywhere have ever had children

there are no single parents

we are all just a happy heterosexual families in this great wild world.

and this, people, is why evo psych makes me want to vomit (and also why we can't have nice things)

N

ps maybe I spend too much time on reddit but when I see the word alpha in this context I just think it screams Red Pill - I hope to god you're not one of those...

[The Killer Snark]

I personally have no issue with the career/motherhood provision thing, but I think in a fair society the same provision should be made for single fathers, of whom there are a few, who have to both work and look after children. Both genders would then have equality economically in terms of parental roles.

[brook]

number of times anyone at all has had to 'risk their lives' for me or my kids = 0

I think I'd prefer to take the chance of wrestling the lion myself if it comes to that than being stuck with some manly 'alpha' type.

[Chaldanya]

I personally have no issue with the career/motherhood provision thing, but I think in a fair society the same provision should be made for single fathers, of whom there are a few, who have to both work and look after children. Both genders would then have equality economically in terms of parental roles.

I know I'm going to regret asking this but what on earth are you talking about with career/motherhood provision?

N

[karaddin]

number of times anyone at all has had to 'risk their lives' for me or my kids = 0

I think I'd prefer to take the chance of wrestling the lion myself if it comes to that than being stuck with some manly 'alpha' type.

Number of times my partner has saved me from spider related issues > 1. Glad I went with the spider wrestling alpha.

[Lyanna Stark]

I personally have no issue with the career/motherhood provision thing, but I think in a fair society the same provision should be made for single fathers, of whom there are a few, who have to both work and look after children. Both genders would then have equality economically in terms of parental roles.

I'm at a loss as to what you mean with "the same provisions". Acknowledgement that single fathers, like single mothers, are parents? Or that single fathers, unlike non-single fathers, are parents?

I might add here that I live in a country with heavily subsidised childcare and parental leave. Note: PARENTAL leave, not maternity leave. To me, fathers taking time off to care for their children is the default, which may be why I am extra specially confused by "the same provisions".

Number of times my partner has saved me from spider related issues > 1. Glad I went with the spider wrestling alpha.

Which also means brook is extra-brave since everyone knows all spiders and snakes*** in Australia are lethal, or at least extremely poisonous.

***and approximately 50% of your other animals too [need I say "box jellyfish" - PS I am never visiting :p ]

[The Killer Snark]

Career mothers can take maternity leave with pay. I think that single parent fathers should be allowed to take time off with pay as well, or at least work less hours as an allowance to parental duty. That isn't really provided for under UK law. Granted, the law does cater to the majority in this instance, because I appreciate that pregnancy and childbirth involve the female more than the father, and that there's more single mothers out there than single parent men.