On Point with Tom Ashbrook and Germaine Greer
I recently listened to a rebroadcast of an interview with feminist icon Germaine Greer on NPR’s On Point. While the main topic was Greer’s recent book, Shakespeare’s Wife exploring history’s concept of the original Anne Hathaway (itself a fascinating topic for Shakespearian enthusiasts or history buffs), there was also some great comments directly related to feminism. Among those which seemed most interesting to me were:
- Greer emphatically insisted that her goal was not “equality” (ie, trying to be like men or having the assumption of masculine roles as the highest goal), but instead she sought liberty, where women would be legally and culturally free to chose her own course–be it a traditionally feminine course or a masculine one. In doing so, she reaffirmed what is often asserted on this blog: that feminism is about choice, not a rejection of all things maternal.
- Women should own their sexuality. Despite what some critics of Feminism claim, she did not encourage promiscuity; she was rather critical of women who are sexually active because it is expected by their men. But women should understand and embrace their sexuality and make decisions based on their own conscience, not external pressures.
- Greer alluded to further advances for Feminism in the same sort of direction to which our own Lisa has pointed: a Feminism which elevates the traditionally feminine roles on the par with men, and which involve men helping take those roles.
The point which I found most interesting was that Greer appears to feel that the biggest impediment to the continuing progress for Feminism is misogyny among women, and the inability for women to truly unite and work together to further the goals and principles of Feminism. I found this intriguing because I have previously wondered why it seems that the most ardent opponents of Feminism seem to be women, from some individuals I know personally to bigger public figures like the Eagle Forum’s Gayle Ruzicka (in Utah) and Phyllis Schlafly, or like Anne Coulter. A brief exchange between a female caller and Greer further suggested that women tend to become jealous of and tear down one another rather than rallying together.
Anyone else listen to the show? Any thoughts on any of these points? In particular,what do you think about Greer’s take on the obstacles to Feminism? Is the greatest challenge to feminism a feminine misogyny? Is there something about the way women interact with one another which hinders them from advancing the cause?
I’ve often suspected that it’s fear that one has made poor choices that is behind anti-feminism in women. For example, I know a good many older-than-50 Mormon women who are vicious in their gossiping attacks on any woman (but especially a Mormon one) who chooses to do something other than be a stay-at-home mom. This seems to be much less common (but not unheard of) among younger women. I wonder (for I have absolutely nothing to back this up other than my own observations) if this anti-anything-but-traditional-roles is done out of trying to validate one’s own life. Is this hatred born out of a resentment that another woman had/made other choices? had more freedom?
If a woman forces other women to be like her, is she (possibly) trying to justify herself rather than admit she may have made better/other choices and been happy or even happier?
One of the nastiest ant-feminists I know personally is a woman in her late 40s. She married into a high-profile Mormon family with a very famous name and a certain reputation to uphold. This woman has done everything expected of a traditional Mormon Donna Reed: forfeited any type of career or even job, had five children, taken Primary calling after Primary calling, driven a mini-van for years, a jogged every morning to stay thin enough that her husband stays interested in her. Her anti-feminist approach is to sweetly put down careers or family planning or waiting to grow up a bit before getting married in every talk and every lesson she gives. All this leads me to suspect that she actually has felt pressured to live her life the way she does in order to fulfill what is expected of a woman marrying into such a famous Mormon family. Jealousy often begets hatred/bullying, so I have suspected for two decades now that she is really jealous of those of us she belittles and preaches against. Is she just trying to smother the part of herself that is unhappy and trapped? I don’t know.
Sorry this is rambling.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — December 31, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
PW - I couldn’t agree with you more.
I think there’s also an element of internalizing those damaging messages. I have a friend who says some of the most misogynist things I’ve ever heard, but I think she actually believes them. She’s completely bought into thinking that woman are flightier, less equipped for the world, frail and weak. It makes me think I would not like to meet the men she grew up with. She’s like those racist stereotypes of the Uncle Tom or self-hating Jew.
Comment by Reese Dixon — December 31, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
I think the distinction between equality and liberty is interesting.
I wonder if some women take what has been personally revealed to them and assumed it is THE way for everyone else too.
I do think women compare more. When we work together well, it’s amazing-but when we don’t it’s frightening.
When I was a young mother with three children I was starting to homeschool. There were quit a few ladies in our ward in my exact same place-number of children, husband in grad school… and none of them homeschooled. That was fine with me, except that most of them felt the need to confront me about it. I didn’t expect them to homeschool, I didn’t think I was better than them because I homeschooled, I just believe that God has a plan for each of our families-in all families it will include the parents being involved in education-but how that involvement looks will be different.
In the end I would avoid certain people, avoid the topic like the plague, talk about the local school and just hush to keep things happy. Some of those women never believed that I didn’t think they should homeschool too.
I have secretly wondered if a side benefit of not having more women in the scriptures has been that we haven’t eaten them alive.
I think of the woman in PW’s example-I haven’t heard her lessons-do we really know she was running solely for that reason? She wasn’t running because of her health, and the break and it made her happy? at all? She accepted those callings ONLY because of pressure-none of them were inspired? I get that she speaks in an exclusionary way… I just don’t know why…and why for Reese’s friend too? what is hiding there.
Comment by britt — December 31, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
I know women who are very critical of women who don’t choose the same lifestyle they did (having babies right away). I hadn’t thought about trying to project personal revelation on others before, that’s a good point. I had always viewed it as trying to validate their own choices.
Comment by Alliegator — December 31, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
yay derek! i heard that interview twice and thought about how it would make a great post…done by someone other than myself.
great job.
Comment by mfranti — December 31, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
I don’t think the answer is avioding those women. I have had tons of experience with women being aggresive torwards me, but I find i become the person they want me to be when I ignore them. But when I act like the stable nice person I am and smile at their rude comments, then they have less to say and feel right about. I think there are plenty of feminists that get on their sahm soap box. Those women are not feminists to me. I feel a feminist is someone whom loves and supports other women to fulfill their dreams even if it’s not what we choose for ourselves. I have become close to a few women whom think being a sahm is better. But every situation and women is different. We should celebrate those differences. A true feminist witholds judgement and refrains from putting any ideal onto other men and women.
Comment by Cz — December 31, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
In one of my courses this semester we discussed a journal article on how teenage masculinity is policed most heavily by teen males, not outside forces. I definitely think that women exert significant pressure on other women, and that it is often due to a desire to validate one’s own choices.
That said, I often find myself falling into similar traps. I do sometimes think that I am a “better” person than my sisters who had three kids by my age (23), never went to college, and didn’t work once they found out they were pregnant with their first. It is a pride issue. I don’t feel that way about all women that made different choices than me, and it could just be because they are my sisters.
Comment by kew — December 31, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
I just finished reading Deborah Tannen’s book on relationships between mothers and daughters (called You’re Wearing That?). In it, she cites numerous studies showing that, from a very young age, what girls most value in their social relationships is sameness. They want to feel that others are like them and that they fit in. This comes out in the type of language they use and in the social patterns they follow throughout their lives. It was interesting to consider how this impacts on our relationships with our mothers and daughters, and I think it may have something to do with why women can be particularly nasty to other women who they perceive as being “different.”
As previous commenters have noted, some women perceive different choices as threatening, as somehow negating the choices they made. I read this book to try to better understand my often fraught relationship with my own mother. I think personally that my having made different choices makes her feel that I don’t respect the choices she made, and I think she may be a teensy bit jealous that I had the option to make those choices. For example, when I chose not to change my last name when I married, pretty much everyone was fine with it except her. She was adamant that I should change it, and long after we’d stopped arguing about it (five years later), she begged me again to change it when my daughter was born. There are many other choices I’ve made that were different from hers. Meanwhile, she has a much better relationship with my sister, who is in many ways almost an exact replica of my mom 30 years ago. There’s something about women–not sure if it’s nature or nurture–that impels us to value sameness.
Comment by Sofia — December 31, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Britt,
I thought I’d made it clear: I don’t KNOW what any of these women are thinking; I only know what I have observed. And I have observed much nastiness directed toward me and toward other women who don’t fit “the mold” which was preached by Pres. Benson. Now, since I am a school teacher and have noticed that teenage girls are usually the most vicious toward the girls of whom they are jealous and/or toward those who don’t fit what they think girls they’re age should be, I’m wondering if this is what’s going on with the anti-feminist women I’ve seen. Why, for example, if the woman I described is TRULY HAPPY with staying at home and doing the “supporting role of women” thing for her famously-named husband, does she feel the need to put down other women who have careers or have chosen (gasp!) to have fewer than 5 children? It seems to me that she might be a bit more relaxed if she didn’t feel the need to justify herself. I could be wrong, of course, and I thought I made that clear before.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — December 31, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
Reminds me of a book I read years ago called “Female Chauvinist Pigs.” I still don’t understand why we as women would want to tear down each other and not support one another in our individual endeavors but nevertheless it clearly happens that women do not consistently support each other and often do the opposite in subversive ways. Perhaps this feminine misogyny is due to insecurities, or habit, or lack of ability to see one’s actions and effects clearly, but whatever the cause, I hope we can endeavor to set good examples for future generations.
Comment by moksha — January 1, 2010 @ 1:06 am
Great thread, Derek.
Susan Faludi made that point in Stiffed, and was shunned for it. Some folks have a hard time conceptualizing feminist goals without some “patriarchy” bugbear.
Comment by Christian — January 1, 2010 @ 4:28 am
PW I was just pointing out that we jduge people constantly, even in small ways of assuming why they are doing things…its an attempt to understand people. I don’t know that this woman would ever let you in so you could understand her. So we don’t know. When we guess we make assumptions and we all know what that does.
Maybe her mother worked and it caused issues in her family (my mother worked exactly one day when we were young and it just so happened that the one day she worked my brother superman dove off the couch into the coffee table-splitting open his head. my brother the babysitter called the paramedics and sent me to run next door to get the nurse neighbor. he handled it perfectly, but all my mom remembers is coming home from work to a fire truck, ambulence and police car in the driveway-it affects how she talks about mothers working-I can hear it, but the people who don’t know probably wonder about why she talks the way she does-when she now has a masters and spent many years working once we were in jr high), maybe she wanted a career and God said no and she hasn’t come to terms with that. Maybe she has nasty headaches because of a medical dissorder, maybe one of her children is suffering with cancer and it has made her bitter. Maybe she HATES teaching and gets horribly nervous and it comes out in judgemental sounding voice. Maybe one of her children is now ANTI mormon and she is really struggling with that. Maybe she suffers from clinical depression, and her medication is a constant struggle and just not working how it should. Maybe she has hypothyroid issues. I’m not saying she SHOULD be speaking that way. i’m just saying there are a hundred possible reasons-all unrelated to whether she is happy with the decision to stay home.
Maybe because she has a famous husband people judged her like crazy-so she feels defensive about every single one of her choices. Maybe she had no idea what living under a microscope would be like.
I don’t know.
Why do we judge people who don’t support our lifestyle? Why do we need approval from other people? Why is it more important when they teach in church? Are our own insecurities also part of the problem? If we could just be calm and shrug things off…what would happen? People aren’t perfect, we say that to ourselves a million times, yet it still is important what people teach in the church we believe to be true.
Comment by britt — January 1, 2010 @ 10:19 am
I totally agree with the point about female misogyny being a main obstacle for the spread of feminism. I think a lot of women believe the lie that media and whomever else tells them, that the way to liberation is through sexuality (which is pleasing to most men) while, in truth, the real way to liberation, is through self-knowledge and self-respect (I think) which, in my case, leads me away from sexual promiscuity (which is NOT pleasing to most men.) I think another reason that feminism has such a hard time spreading is the lies and misconceptions that most people have about the subject. I think many women (and men) are feminists, yet don’t know it… or wouldn’t necessarily want to be because of the negative (and pretty outdated if you ask me) ideas about what being a feminist entails.
Thanks for this post, it was really refreshing to read!
Comment by Sarah — January 1, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Thinking about the angry reaction of some traditional women to women who take non-traditional paths I wondered if it isn’t based in a sort of tit-for-tat mentality.
Most traditionally minded people take it as a given that feminine things are beneath men, and that femininity can be used as an insult to men. I think there are two camps in how women react to that.
In the first camp women take it as a given that men are just better than women and see it as no wonder that women would want to behave like men. But since men are just plain better, all women who try masculine things are doomed to failure. IN this camp non-traditional women aren’t threatening, they’re just misguided.
In the second camp women take a mirror image idea- sure it is beneath men to be feminine, but it is also beneath women to be masculine. Rather than seeing one generalized hierarchy of awesomeness in which women are relegated to the lower half they see one for women and one for men. That way men can use “girly” as an insult all they want, because women can simply accept that such things are insults only to men, and that ‘mannish’ is equally insulting to a woman. The thing is if *any* women wants/enjoys something masculine then the whole thing falls apart. This is the camp that sees non-traditional women (especially happy ones) as a threat because they don’t fit in the worldview.
I would say that, ideally, there should no hierarchy of awesomeness. That masculine or feminine things are neither objectively better than the other, nor conditionally better than the other depending strictly on your plumbing.
Comment by Starfoxy — January 1, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
Britt,
Since I’ve known the woman I described since she was a newly-wed without children who acted with shock and scorn in my presence when joke was made about not every woman wanting to have a baby 9 months after marriage (yes, all of us had to hear that lecture on how a “faithful” woman would “never” put off having children), and since I know that all five of her kids are healthy and at least outwardly devout Mormons, I can rule out a couple of your guesses. I do think, however, that you’re right about how she must feel very pressured in her fishbowl — but I think that ties into the jealousy.
Anyway, she’s just one example. I know lots of others.
And, again, this is only based on my observations, but I still feel that jealousy and self-justification are at work here. But you are, of course, allowed to disagree.
Happy New Year.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — January 1, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
#9,#11 I agree with both of you. I think we should not judge and not make assumptions. But when a women comes out and says that you should not be able to have the time and freedom you have And it’s not gods way, then they are the ones being critical. Or when they say, “you are putting too much pressure on your husband.” ummmm no my husband is making the choice to be free from the ideal of masculinity. So I think we are all right. It’s a misguided assumption but sometimes it a very true insight that some women get upset at other women for the opportunity they have.
Comment by Cz — January 1, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
#13 I like your there should be no “hierarchy of awesomeness” it really sums up feminism in 3 words, wait 4.
Comment by Cz — January 1, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
I agree that a big part of the problem is women having difficulty accepting other women’s decisions when they are different from their own. I don’t think it’s just those with a more “traditional” mindset though.
For example, I am a stay at home mom right now. It wasn’t because the church told me to be, or because I thought it was my divinely appointed role, or because I couldn’t do anything else–it’s because it’s what’s best for my family right now. I desperately want to go to graduate school and have a career, but for me, it’s just going to have to wait a few years because it’s more important to me to have a parent raising my kids. Most of my friends, however, work at least part-time or don’t have children at all. Sometimes I get the vibe that they’re judging me a little for being *too* traditional, or wasting my life, or whatever.
That said, I tend to direct things towards myself, so they might not think that at all–it could very possibly just be me judging myself. So I can certainly understand how someone who directs things outwards instead of inwards might criticize people because they themselves aren’t completely, blissfully happy with their own lives.
It seems like love and acceptance, of ourselves and of other women, is something we generally need to work on–which is what feminism is all about!
Comment by J-town — January 1, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
#18,
My empathy goes to you. I’d REALLY like to get my PhD (I was even accepted at my first choice of universities), but right now it’s more important for me to be near my mom and dad for however many years they’ve got left. Hence, the degree waits, even though it will thrill my parents to no end if I got it.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — January 1, 2010 @ 6:50 pm
I think that sometimes it’s just a weird reaction to insecurity about our own choices; since we have so many options in this day and age (which is AWESOME), at least I have a tendency to constantly second-guess if I’m really doing the right thing for me and my family.
Take a whole bunch of people who feel this way, add the public recognition that there really are different “right” answers for different people (but is that “there really are different ‘right answers,’ or “there really are different ‘right answers,’ *wink wink*”?), and a whole lot of pressure to always do the rightest bestest thing, and it’s a recipe for feeling judged by everybody who does things differently than you.
If it’s any consolation- male dairy farmers who feed their cows grass get the same judgmental crap from male dairy farmers who feed their cows corn that working moms and SAHMs get from each other. It’s not a completely feminine phenomenon.
Comment by mellifera — January 1, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
I remember hearing about one Ward some years ago, when some of the men were teaching that studies show that the male body’s hormones are ruined by doing housework!
No, I didn’t buy into that $%^&!
Comment by Mike H. — January 2, 2010 @ 12:03 am
Thanks for the discussion. I think that jealousy can have a lot to do with the sort of criticism which people have been discussing. Jealousy over decisions and opportunities is hardly unique to women, but do you think it is more common among women? If so why? Could it have something to do with the fact that men in their traditional roles are more directly competing with one another (for jobs, for example), and thus have a “safer” outlet for that sort of negativity, while women, whose traditional roles are defined by their relationships with men rather than self-achievement, have no outlet and so the negativity festers (just pondering extemporaneously, this idea may be nonsense)?
Regardless of the cause of the jealousy and infighting among women (to overgeneralize), how do we over come this tendency to better promote the Feminist movement?
I do think that true feminine misogyny is not really about jealousy, however. As several have pointed out, jealousy can just as easily go the other way (I’m sure there are career women out there who criticize SAHMs because they are at some level jealous of the opportunity to focus on developing loving relationships with their children, for example), where feminine misogyny is specifically about enforcing cultural norms and stereotypes. Schlafly has achieved plenty of material success and worldly power, and I doubt she is jealous of the success of any feminist ideal. What distinguishes the jealousy from the true misogyny? I think Reece’s (and Sarah’s) internalization theory has a lot of merit. What other roots might feminine misogyny have, and how do we combat it?
re: 7
Thanks for the nightmare flashbacks about teen males policing my masculinity… ::shudder::
It is an interesting analogy.
Comment by Derek — January 2, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
re # 22
Could it be that some women are acting out this misogynistic behavior found over history to be so typical of males because then it elevates them to some small degree to the status of male, or in otherwords then they are like a man? And since society (or at least some men) typically values the male as the superior sex and so by due course we should aspire to be that then in a sense; that is a sort of domination and a road to elevation. So for women to be better people they have to be more like a “man”, whether its by being more ‘masculine or by enforcing the prescribed roles of man; either would in turn create more power and dominance. And thus even if a woman lives her life in culturally embedded feminine roles, she is still exerting a sense of power by criticizing other women who don’t play their(her) same role. Unfortunately throughout written history we seem to dictate what is appropriate as masculine or feminine and that someone can’t truly be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ if they deviate from those norms. Hence if small comments like “hey you have to give up your man-card now” when a man does something that isn’t considered traditionally masculine continue to limit both sexes. Yesterday at dinner with a bunch of friends– the woman in the other partnership was telling a story about something that happened to her husband and she commented that he was “screaming like a girl”. (insert throwing like a girl, or any myriad of comments to consider). That comment got the biggest laugh from everyone and it was clearly humiliating to him. He kept saying that she was exaggerating and that he really wasn’t screaming like a girl. Now I can see a lot of commenters say that she really shouldn’t emasculate her husband like that- my comments and thus my question follows that why is that such a bad thing? Why is ’screaming like a girl’ an insult? Why is being like a woman an insult and a derogatory comment to a man? The lowest of the low, that a man should be like a women- or become at all too ‘feminine’. So then we have women (following in footsteps of historical domination by men) policing both men’s masculine dictates as well as the feminine roles that women should play too. Perhaps these societal mores continue to be enforced because we have been so conditioned to believe and accept that men are only attractive if they are and do things that are considered masculine by our created ideas and vice versa for women. (Along with being conditioned to believe that men are the superior gender and thus women shouldn’t want to do anything outside a societally dictated feminine role.)
One thing we can do that seems small but can help foster a different perception of equanimity between the sexes is to stop utilizing gender exclusive and gender minimizing language. Even on Discovery the other day I saw something about ‘All Mankind’. Why on earth would it not be Humankind?
I think we also need to accept and teach that our differences (between men and women) are not that broad and that those differences are horizontal, not vertical. We are all similar in many ways as the homo sapien race and accepting that and not demanding that we be so different could be liberating. Men would not have to be so ‘macho’ to be seen as a real man and women could still be considered very feminine even if they are 6′8 and could take any man to the mat (silly hyperbolic examples to demonstrate a point here). It takes both men and women combined to create life and we are equally important and there is no need to dictate what either sex or individual needs to be like or do in order to be a card carrying member of their gender.
(See “Eve’s See: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History” for a more thorough interesting read about the evolutionary biology & history that has shaped our beliefs about the sexes.)
Comment by moksha — January 2, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
I worked with white feminists (both middle-class and working-class, straight and gay) for half my working life, and the experience has put me off feminism of all kinds forever. I probably come under the banner of ‘feminine misogynists’ you’re talking about. That is just another feminist label or jargon to come out of the movement. I don’t hate women. I just like feminism.
I couldn’t read all of the comments above because it started to get boring; there are more important things in the world to consider (the phony ‘war on terror’; the erosion of civil liberties; the lies being told by people at the highest levels of governance eg. the ‘global warming’ fiasco, ’swine flu’, poisoning of our food and water supplies… I could go on). Feminism is a nice distraction and designed to exclude half the population from keeping their eye on the ball.
Peace.
Comment by jayne — January 2, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
oops, typo. Line 4 should read ‘I don’t like feminism.’
Comment by jayne — January 2, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
Jayne, I think that feminism is key to solving a lot of world problems. When all people — regardless of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, class, religion, political affiliation, or any other category — are treated with the same level of respect and opportunity, we might not have things like the war on terror, erosion of civil liberties, lies in high levels of governance, and so on.
Ok, that is very idealistic but I really think that how we treat members of minority groups affects how we treat humanity as a whole.
Comment by Theolina — January 2, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
I think that false/inflammatory definitions of feminism are designed to distract people from the real goals. I agree with Theolina (26), I posted awhile back about reading Three Cups of Tea, and how it talked about educating women in the middle east (or central asia :)) being key to stopping extremist groups, because the educated women don’t allow their sons to join.
Feminism is giving women knowledge and opportunities to make their own choices, whether they choose to work as a professional or choose to raise 16 kids, or somewhere in between.
I don’t see why a society where people feel forced into certain roles is healthier than one where people know their options and choose what works best for them.
Comment by Alliegator — January 2, 2010 @ 8:55 pm
#22 Derek I understand what you are saying and know you are just using this as an example, but I would like to point out that develping loving relationships has little to do with being a sahm. Some women whom stay at home have horrible relationships with their children. Some working mothers have horrible relationships also. I dislike your assumption that being at home makes it more probable to develope said loving realtions.my mother was gone doing her phd but we are incredibly close. My friend and her mother not close at all yet she had all the time in the world to develpe a loving relationship.
Comment by Cz — January 2, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
This doesn’t add up, to me. I had five children and it took years of contraception and finally sterilization to limit our family to just five children. I’d have had a dozen or more without the benefits of modern contraception. My grandmother had 10 before being widowed. To me, only five kids is a sign or careful family planning.
Comment by Naismith — January 2, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
Naismith, I only have one kid and that’s after loads and loads of work. Obviously women have different levels of fertility.
Comment by Reese Dixon — January 3, 2010 @ 1:59 am
I totally agree. And family planning was important for both of us.
Comment by Naismith — January 3, 2010 @ 8:14 am
First of all, let’s keep in mind that Greer was a second-wave feminist. Faithful LDS women have lots in common with second-wave feminists, because the emphasis on the importance of family etc. is very much consistent with church teachings. We did THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE in RS book club a few years back, and the sisters were amazed at how much of it was being lived in the church perhaps better than outside the church.
I am not a misogynist in the least; I do understand feminism having taken college classes in women’s history/studies. I am happy to work with feminist groups when my issues align with theirs. I respect the choices that women make in their own lives, and wouldn’t presume to judge because it is not my stewardship. At church, I call out those who engage in mindless sexism. When a student family moves to the ward, I ask who is in school, not assume it is the dad, etc.
But I am not a feminist and have zero interest in “furthering the goals of feminism.” I am a disciple of Jesus Christ first, and find feminism an empty “ism” in comparison. Current day feminists (Leslie Bennetts, Linda Hirschman, etc.) argue that women need to put the movement first. This makes sense from the movement’s point of view. And it would “further the goal of feminism.” But I’m not willing to do that, so I am not a feminist.
As far as nasty comments, I certainly got/get a lot of them from self-described feminists. Although I returned to the workplace once my children were older, I still get some flack for those years off. People expect me to regret them, and I don’t. I am outspoken that they were a valuable season of learning and growing, working in a different field.
I think there is a huge body of women like me–not antagonistic to feminism, but not willing to jump on board as a feminist. We could be great allies to feminism, if feminists like Hirschman and Bennetts weren’t so busy telling us how stupid we are.
Comment by Naismith — January 3, 2010 @ 8:31 am
#32 We put femnism first when we support eachother. Also people tend to assume others are a certain way.just because a women works with small children does not imply she is putting the movement first! Or that she is not putting her family first. The critism goes both ways.
Comment by Cz — January 3, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Criticism (using an I- phone)
Comment by Cz — January 3, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
germaine greer = my favorite.
i for one am not surprised that women growing up in a society that devalues women should devalue women. im sure almost all of us learn at a young age that boys are better than girls. some people never try to unlearn it.
another thought: perhaps something in the system of patriarchy (or maybe just the market that stands to profit from it) pits women against each other rather than allowing or encouraging solidarity. the best systems of oppression are the ones perpetuated by the victims, ie class structure, race issues, etc. if you can somehow trick the person you’re beating up on into thinking they deserve it, you’ll stay on top forever.
not that (most) men are consciously doing this. but its a pattern you see in abusive relationships, on a psychological as well as a sociological level.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — January 3, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
I wonder if Derek has a point in the working together thing. I know in my grandma’s era women worked together a lot more-not for money necessarily, but just to do the laundry or put up the harvest, or tie a quilt. We needed each other. I wonder if part of our competitive natures are sparked by the indepence and isolation of our society.
I also look back at the factories-industrialization of moving to cities and what that did for women-men went to work generally…what used to be men and women together getting things done and living became, men working and women doing everything else.
Comment by britt — January 3, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
I wonder if Derek has a point in the working together thing. I know in my grandma’s era women worked together a lot more-not for money necessarily, but just to do the laundry or put up the harvest, or tie a quilt. We needed each other. I wonder if part of our competitive natures are sparked by the indepence and isolation of our society. Is hate a luxery item? do we only have time to be competive when we have time to spare for it?
I also look back at the factories-industrialization of moving to cities and what that did for women-men went to work generally…what used to be men and women together getting things done and living became, men working and women doing everything else.
Comment by britt — January 3, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
#29 — just because some women are more fertile than others doesn’t make my comments invalid. For many people in areas where there is access to birth control, five children is a very large family (granted, in Utah, this is not the case).
Comment by A Paperback Writer — January 3, 2010 @ 9:51 pm
I love hearing feminism defined this way. Thanks for sharing, Derek.
Comment by Stephanie — January 4, 2010 @ 1:33 am
@13 said “Totally agree with the point about female misogyny being a main obstacle for the spread of feminism.”
Point of clarification- did Grier actually say obtacle to “the spread of feminism” or actual obstable to feminism? It seems a little too safe to equate misogyny with opposition to feminism.
Some might say that second guessing women’s life choices and their capacity to choose meaningfully was misogynistic, and an *internal* obstacle for feminism. If a woman wants to be a ‘Donna Reed’ type, and hears herself demeaned for her accomplishments by folks that call themselves feminists, then she may think and speak negativly about feminism. But it is her detractors, not her, who act misogynistically, and pose the greatest obstacle to feminism.
I agree with Grier. And Derek is right that female misogyny comes from women’s lack of legitimate chanels to compete like boys have. Women’s athletics will do much for us on that front. a nising generation of womrn is going to have a profound disxonnect from the passive aggression of our generation.
Comment by pat the destroyer — January 4, 2010 @ 2:22 am
[…] Why don’t women speak out for benefits for themselves and other women? Women who landed a great provider usually don’t see their stake in the struggle—unless a sister or daughter is less fortunate. Maybe it’s time to value all women as sisters and daughters. Leave a Comment […]
Pingback by Women Against Women « Course Correction — January 4, 2010 @ 2:27 am
I agree with several that Feminism is not just “a nice distraction,” but an integral part of solving many of the world’s problems. Making sure that the one-half the population which has so frequently been excluding is now included can only help progress on a number of other fronts.
re: 28
Cz, I see what you mean, and I agree that being a working Mom in no way prevents one from having a strong relationship with one’s children, and being SAHM in no way guarantees that sort of relationship. My statement was an off-the-cuff example of potential jealousy. I had in my mind the old saying (typically used in reference to men) that “no one on their deathbed ever wishes they’d spent more time at the office.”
re: 32
Except for the whole low-person-in-the-hierarchy thing, and the cultural emphasis on conformity to specific gender characteristics and roles (pink, soft, etc).
Comment by Derek — January 4, 2010 @ 10:13 pm