Feminism
One of the most popular topics in the 'blog-o-sphere is the battle of the sexes. It can be found in one form or another in nearly every 'blog post but occasionally becomes much more blatant. Recently I have been seeing, again, a burst of posts much more directly related to the sexes and their relationship to each other.
Now, my own view of feminism and the feminist movement is that feminists are challenging the long held notion that women are, by definition, inferior to men.
I am a great believer in equal pay for equal work and I believe that women are no more "completed" by motherhood than men are "completed" by fatherhood.
So much of the battle of the sexes seems to be rooted in the idea that there must be a superior sex. Over and over the underlying theme appears to be that for the world to function one sex must be inferior to the other and that because women have not proven themselves to be the superior sex they must by definition be the inferior sex.
So much of this doggerel is, I think, a holdover from a bygone era. Not too long ago in the course of human history women were less capable of providing support and sustenance for themselves and their families. Less upper body strength meant that in a world where things were most often accomplished by brute strength women were at a decided disadvantage in the work place.
Along came the industrial revolution and suddenly women became a much more viable option in the workforce.
I may be just a silly, stupid woman, but for me the feminist movement was (and is) about drawing attention to the fact that in today's fully automated workplace (there are a few exceptions) women are equal to men in every way and society should reflect this equality. As a woman I have no expectation of social equality and true workplace equality happening overnight, but I do have hope that, as the rate of social change increases due to ease of communication, it will happen soon.
This all does have a relationship to, well, relationships. I see no reason why, if I am as capable as a man and his equal, I should be inferior to him in a romantic relationship.
Why should I be romantically subservient? Why am I wrong to want the same things from life as my husband, brother, friend or father wants?
I have never gotten a satisfactory explanation as to why in a romantic relationship someone must be subordinate. Please, someone explain this to me.
posted by TheAmber at 3:13 PM
13 Comments:
ooooh! Good point Krupa! Now Lee can say NOTHING when I start doing some sweet sweet husband coveting!
I shouldn't say that too many people are already afraid/hoping I will cuckold Lee. LOL twits would take this as proof.
If you want to get back to the feminism of yore, during the '70s when the feminist movement was just starting to really develop, feminism is about much more than just equality between men and women. It's about eliminating ALL forms of hierarchy, all forms of discrimination and prejudice.
I've been reading this really interesting article about how the feminist movement has become too stratified to be able to identify with what it once was. Upper class women can't identify with lower class women, even though they both want equality. The wealthy women hire poor women to do the cleaning, watch their kids, etc. Rather than finding a way to compromise on these duties within their own marriages/relationships, wealthier women only hire poorer women to do these tasks. It brought up a good question of how can feminists continue the fight when we are only encouraging inequality among ourselves?
So, women should just hire poorer men to do housework?
Seems like you are blending socialism with feminism.
Carrie,
This is where you and I disagree significantly. I see the splintering of the feminist movement as a good thing. I think that Feminism of yore, while it served a purpose, actually did women a disservice. It focused on the needs and rights of middle-class white women in America.
I see no need for Upper class women to "identify" with Lower class women. For society and the economy to function the need always be a degree of class stratification, otherwise (as Lee said) you are talking about Socialism not Feminism.
The current stratification allows for cultural differences while still working (within non gender based social cast systems) for equality between the sexes.
I didn't say that wealthy women should hire poor men instead. I said they should do their own "dirty" work.
Perhaps "identify" is a poor word choice. I think empathize would be better. I'm not saying we all need to make the same amount of money and whatnot, because, as you said, economic stratification does need to exist to some degree.
Lower class women experience different issues than upper class women. Lower class women more often suffer from malnutrition during preganancy than do upper class women. Lower class women can't afford abortions like upper class women can. All I'm saying is that women with money should be more understanding of the problems that women with little or no money face due to the lack of economic resources. Why shouldn't women with money help out women with no money for things like child-rearing or abortions? I'm not saying they HAVE to, but it'd be more in cooperation with feminist values.
In one sense, what you are saying ought to apply to all people, male or female.
But I am not sure what you mean by "understanding" and I'm not sure how that relates to equality. Quite frankly, wealthier women paying poorer women for their services seems quite alright with me. The inequality here is about money, not sex.
Understanding=empathy=walking a mile in someone else's shoes. Equality is realizing that regardless of how much or how little money someone else has, we are all equal in the grand scheme of things. Feminism is of the same vein.
Reproductive issues are issues that affect all women regardless of class. Women gotta help each other out, because The Man won't. If society on a large scale won't promote equality of the sexes (i.e. equal pay for equal work), women should.
Sure wealthy women paying poor women for their services is all right. But are they being paid a living wage? Usually they aren't.
This is where I get into trouble for doing the same thing for which I was yelling at those pups over at Ryan Thompson's.
I am guilty of using a linguistic short hand. When I say equality I don't actually mean that all people are truly equal, perhaps in (insert name of deity here)'s eyes but not in mine. When I say "equality" I mean equal opportunity to succeed or fail and success or failure should not be rewarded or punished any differently based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, race or religious belief.
Somehow, I doubt feminism is at all about coddling other women.
As for wages...maintaining a "living wage" is the responsibility of the employee not the employer. Feminism is not about eliminating inequality of wealth or even condition. The fight you are looking for comes from the Socialist.
And further, feminism does not place males and females in opposition to eachother, yet the language of your argument certainly does.
Champagne socialist I am not. Rich I am not. I can't even AFFORD champagne. Sometimes I can't even afford to put food in my cupboards.
Where are you getting the idea that I am putting males and females in opposition to each other? "The Man" is qualitative language for the government, not men as a whole.
Nor did I say women must coddle each other. I don't think paying wages that are enough for a woman to feed her kid(s) is coddling.
The crux of it all is: How can women be equal to men when women aren't equal among ourselves?
In this regard, it does become a class issue rather than just a feminist issue. I think that on a very deep level, the two are intertwined. As TheAmber said, equality is having equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is not possible when you are born dirt poor and your parents can't even afford to feed you. Success depends on more than just hard work. You can't do much when you are starving or sick.
I'm not saying everyone needs to be economically equal. I'm just saying that there should at least be minimum standards in order to create sustainable living, which would then create equal opportunity.
Alas, I am getting back to the "Feminism of Yore."
Carrie,
Why should women be "equal among ourselves" when MEN are not equal among THEMSELVES?
And Carrie, there ARE minimum standards intended to create a sustainable living. It is called minimum wage. The problem is not a lack of them, it is that you do not think minimum wage is good enough.
What you are talking about is not specifically a feminist issue. It is an issue feminists may be concerned with, just as they may be concerned with global warming or the price of tea in china, but it is not simply a woman's problem.
I believe that feminism is about combating issues faced by groups of women that are problems SPECIFIC to women (the legal murder or women in some radical Islamic groups, the glass ceiling in the corporate world). Not everything is a FEMINISTS issue, just because it relates to women in some way. With a focus that broad nothing can be accomplished.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home