Is Sarah Palin a “Feminist”?
December 30, 2009
by Amy Siskind
|The following op-ed by Amy Siskind is featured at The Huffington Post. Feel free to comment there.
Is Sarah Palin a “feminist”? Would she stand up for women’s issues? Going Rogue provides us with useful clues. And, how can Sarah use her life experiences, as revealed in Going Rogue, to win over women voters?
First a confession. Yes, I am the president and co-founder of a new national women’s organization, but I am not a “feminist”. My epiphany came earlier this year. A neighbor had volunteered to send out thank you notes for my organization. One day, she apologetically announced: “I have a confession. I’m not a feminist.” My immediate, unfiltered response: “Neither am I.”
Frankly, the women in my generation — the PTA and soccer moms — generally do not consider themselves to be feminists. I was hardly surprised when a Daily Beast poll found that 80% of women don’t associate with the word (and yes Tina, we are looking for a replacement term).
It’s not that women of my generation do not care about women’s issues. We care immensely. The major issues impacting my generation are born from the successes of the women’s rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s. While we gained the freedom to enter the workforce, women of my generation struggle with the guilt of working or the guilt of giving up a career. If we work, we face discrimination in some subtle, and some not so subtle ways. We are also faced with a crisis decades after women gained sexual freedoms: the sexualization of our teenage daughters and the escalating rates of teen dating violence.
In Going Rogue, Sarah Palin reveals her own experience with the issues of our generation. So I wonder – could a woman like Sarah, who has shared many of our struggles, help to advance women?
We need to give this question serious consideration, and here is why: women’s health — be it mammograms, pap smears or abortion availability — is under assault. Not by the Republicans. The assault comes from a Democratic administration and a Democrat controlled House and Senate. Only women, from both parties, are speaking out for us. Even though women delivered President Obama the election, voting largely around the issue of choice – the reward: a major setback to Roe. Perhaps it is time for women to re-examine some of our preconceived notions of who best represents our interests.
Would Sarah Palin fight for us? First, let’s clear up a few factual inaccuracies: Sarah does not oppose contraception (p. 238); did not ban library books (p.237); the rape kit story is false (p.237); and Tina Fey’s words are Tina’s, not Sarah’s (p.309).
Here’s Sarah in her own words:
1. Work/Life Balance (p. 103)
It irked me that too often women are made to feel guilty for seeking the next open door, no matter what career choices we make.
Quote by Track in 2004 (p. 341)
“I don’t want you to run for U.S. Senate, Mom. Who would be our hockey manager?”
2. Surrounding Herself with Women in her Campaigns (p. 70)
I ran a very grassroots campaign, mostly with the help of my girlfriends. We painted pink-and-green signs….
[Two closest aids throughout her political career: Meghan Stapleton, Kris Perry.]
3. Attacks on Her Children (p. 351-2)
Letterman’s “joke” about Willow
No, I guess I can’t take a joke that suggests it’s funny to humiliate a young girl…to the detriment of young women, who are already too often made to feel like sex objects…
4. Sexism
Quote by man in Wasilla (p. 71)
…he said. “But you’re not going to win because you have three strikes against you….Track, Bristol, and Willow.”
During VP run (p. 318)
Schmidt told Randy he thought I might be suffering from postpartum depression.
5. Women’s Issues (p.151)
(while cutting the budget as governor)
We…beefed up funding for public safety officers to handle alcohol abuse and domestic violence…
6. Womens Representation (p. 200)
Quote by Alaska House Minority Leader Beth Kerttula (Democrat)
“I finally get to go to the restroom and talk business with the governor. The guys have been doing this for centuries.”
7. Personal Tragedy (first miscarriage) (p. 56-7)
The miscarriage carved a new depth in my heart. I became a little less Pollyanna-ish, a little less naive about being invincible and in control.
8. Title IX and Equal Opportunity (p. 29)
My parents gave us equal opportunity and expectation…I’m a product of Title IX…I was a direct beneficiary of the equal rights…Later, my own daughters would benefit, participating in sports like hockey, wrestling, and football, which had been closed to girls for decades.
But even if Sarah Pain could be an advocate for women issues, will women vote for her? Here’s the challenge for Governor Palin: if you want to win the White House, you’ll need women voters. Your recent favorability rating among women is 37%, significantly lower than with men.
If you want women’s votes, you must speak up on women’s issues — just like you did in Going Rogue. And, since many women vote around the issue of abortion (that’s how the DNC corralled a victory for Obama in 2008), you need to be brave and take a stand.
Few reading here likely know that you stood up to your own party on gay rights (p.143). That while you were governor, conservatives passed a bill that would prohibit state benefits to same-sex couples and you vetoed it:
…I would be bound by judiciary’s ruling…Therefore, even though legislators passed a law that reflected my personal views, I vetoed it. It wasn’t about me; it was – and is – about respecting the Constitution and the separation of powers.
Governor Palin — you can’t get to 1600 Pennsylvania without taking that same stance on another judiciary decision: Roe v. Wade. But if you do, you might just yet break that highest ceiling.
Women of your generation are unwilling to claim the label “feminist” because it has been successfully turned into an epithet by the media and others, and who in their right mind would want label themselves with a pejorative term. That doesn’t make feminism bad. It means that the backlash against it was successful in alienating younger, less experienced women from the movement. Too sad.
If you think there is anything you can call yourselves that will not be turned into a negative label, if you are even remotely successful in improving opportunities for women, you are very naive.
Enjoy the freedoms our generation obtained for you, includings ones you no doubt take for granted, such as the ability to buy a car, put your own name on a mortgage, have an individual bank account, stay in a hotel by yourself or eat in a restaurant alone without being considered a prostitute, attend law school or medical school (less than 3% of admissions were female in 1970), hail a cab in NYC and have one stop for you, play on a sports team in HS or college, wear pants (slacks), and I haven’t even started on health care rights. All of these changes happened during my generation, if not yours.
[...] the whole story here: Amy Siskind aggregated by [...]
[...] the whole story here: Amy Siskind aggregated by [...]
Thanks for this piece Amy. I intend to become a contributing member of this Feminist organization. Several years ago, I would not have identified as a Feminist, because it became the, as posted here, the F-Word. All I knew was that you were cool, hip, open-minded, and intellectual to not identify as Feminist. Now because of the tarnishing of the word Feminist, a lot of us do not or no longer identify with the word, and that is ok. I agree, perhaps the movement just needs a new title, because of the outpouring of men and women who do identify as Feminists but actually tarnish the image by doing so (porn-identified males who fail to understand what women’s rights actually are or what a woman actually is in the first place).
So do I identify as Feminist? Yes. I try very hard, though, to define for others what Feminism really is, versus what they think it is, often wrongfully so, so perhaps it would be better to not identify as Feminist at all, and simply rename the movement that we all here are towing the line for, in small numbers.
Unfortunately, I do not think that women can achieve freedom or equality within the Patriarchy. That is why we have stupid slogans like “work life balance.” Because men created economy for the sole purpose of making themselves the center of human life, when naturally that center is women, working together. Can we dismantle the Patriarchy? I don’t think so, because men will continue to use war and the enemy approach to solidify their unnatural way of life.
Thank you for this article! I greatly appreciate the fact that the New Agenda supports all female politicians regardless of party, and I understand that you’ve taken some flack for writing positively about Governor Palin. I appreciate your willingness to do so for the sake of supporting women.
I do take issue, however, with the idea that Governor Palin must become pro-choice in order to win the presidency as a female (if I am reading your piece correctly). I understand the reasoning that you use in the fact that Governor Palin vetoed the prohibition of benefits to same sex couples on the basis of constitutionality. However, I don’t believe the same can be said of using Roe v. Wade, which many argue that the decision of abortion rights really should be left to states via the 10th amendment. Also, judges made a judgment call (outside of the lens of constituionality) in the Roe v. Wade decision in legalizing abortion, as in the eyes of the supreme court, life didn’t begin as conception.
I do appreciate you using the Governor’s book to outline her support of various women’s issues, and I hope that the fact that you did that will encourage more women to read the book. I would suggest that Governor Palin’s lower favorability among women may be due less to her not supposedly taking a stand than it is due to the misportrayal of her via the media and admittedly poor interviews over a year ago. I think she is well on her way to redeeming herself with her book tour, interviews, and her appearance on Oprah. Also, check out highlights of a little covered speech from the Governor during the 2008 campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBu6polVXVs . She has been very supportive of women’s rights.
I again want to thank you for your support of women. However, I would like to encourage you also to have bloggers write who are pro-life. While you have been supportive of all female candidates, it appears that the majority of articles have been written from a pro-choice angle. One of the latest Gallup polls shows that 44% of women are pro-life. There are many of us who are pro-life and strongly supportive of women’s rights. We would appreciate our perspective to be represented as well.
Again, thank you very much for all of your work! Keep it up!
The problem I’m dealing with intellectually is the enemy problem in Patriarchy and women’s rights. Women’s rights, and legalizing women’s equality within a Patriarchy, substantially weakens the economy and structure of that Patriarchy, largely due to men’s discrimination against women, that cannot be stopped. I think, if women truly had full equality, it would not crumble, but the state of our Patriarchy, such as our economy, is weakened because of women’s half-way, or third of the way, rights. Should we revert to marriage, forced marriages, and war that reduces the number of single men which are burdens on the legal system? I don’t know.
Well, I think it is important to point out that young women still very much need men who have all of the resources to support them and they cannot do that by identifying as Feminists early on, because men think that means that they hate men and will in many different ways make life worse for them than they already do.
Thanks Whitney for your support.
I want to answer your question on pro-choice vs. pro-life. The New Agenda does NOT take a view on this issue. We decided to leave party and abortion rights aside when we started the org. These are the two most divisive issues among women.
You are correct that many women are pro-life. However the latest poll I could find said that close to 70% do not believe that their personal rights should be imposed on others. Kind of what Sarah did with gay rights as governor.
Like it or not, so many women vote around this issue. As I cited in the piece, that was the issue used to corral Dem women to vote for Obama.
It’s just my advice to her for winning over more women – which she needs to do to win the WH. I agree though, being a Hillary Clinton fan, that there are many other biases that women face when they run and Sarah faces many of the same which is why we are consistently speaking out for her.
And one other comment Whitney – the piece was written for the HuffPo audience specifically. Goal being to show a balanced view of Sarah to progressive women.
As a wise friend once told me: “Don’t preach to the converted, cater to the uneasy.”
Thanks so much for the response, Amy! I understand your reasoning. I used to be a “value voter” who voted around that issue myself, voting only for the pro-life candidate. This has changed somewhat. Although the vast majority of candidates I vote for are pro-life, that is not the deciding factor for me. I also understand the angle you are taking for this considering your article. Thanks!
I meant “considering your audience” in the previous comment. Sorry.
What I wish for in 2012, is an end to this ridiculous health-care bill. Sarah Palin as president. A solidifying of women’s equal rights. Fair pay legislation that will rebuild the economy. A softening on the tax burden of employed women who already face discrimination in their work. And a war which reduces the single male population substantially.
Well, Sarah may not be the *perfect* Feminist. But we know she will be one heck of a lot more concerned about Women’s issues that Mr. Obama has proven to be. So… in 2012 I’d give her a real fighting chance (if she runs against Obama.)
2016 could be a whole ‘nother hurdle. As we may well see a Sarah and Hillary match up. That will be a tough call for many of us (yes I am a Feminist and always have been.) But… ya know what? It’s a call I’d love to have to make in my life time…
To vote for one competent woman or another…. to occupy the White House.
Wow!
SYD
Palin can think what she wants about abortion, as long as she doesn’t impose her own opinions and respects the law. Which she does. That’s fine by me, and again she’s feminist enough on more other issues so that, on the balance, she’s quite acceptable to me as a pro-choice atheist liberal. Obama’s got a D after his name and all, and he’s set choice back decades with his hellth-kare bullshit. Palin has an R after her name, and she’s never once acted to block anyone’s access to abortion. Okay, so which one is pro-what? Judging these two people, or any two people, by the letter after their name is clearly not getting at the heart of the matter.
I don’t like being feminist anymore, either, and I won’t use the word to describe myself to any but a small group of women who feel the same way I do. Last year, feminism was revealed to me as valuing men more, sucking up to them, and knifing other women in the back. That’s not feminism. That’s a nightmare.
So despite Gloria’s cherished belief that women politicize as we get older (meaning, we agree with HER), I’ve gone from outspoken loud-and-proud “I’m-feminist” to a greying middle-aged woman who won’t use that word for myself. Not because feminism is about “reverse sexism” or any of that horseshit. It’s about the plain old forward-facing kind, the kind that kisses male ass and devalues women.
I prefer the term “pro-woman.” That’s IT. Pro-woman. Are you female? Then I’ll vote for you, period. No more of this balkanizing horseshit, and I’m not going to be suckered into the bullshit belief that says that knifing some “bitch” in the back to get a mayun in the WH with a D after his name is better for women anymore.
And besides, who gives a shit for perfect? No woman, no matter how goddamned accomplished, will ever be sufficiently “perfect” to other catty idiot females who are looking for excuses not to support her to demonstrate to potential husbands that they aren’t a real threat. Women LOOK for reasons not to support women — one hair will always be out of place somewhere. Fuck perfect.
BTW, I don’t think that Amy was saying that Palin has to be pro-choice to win over women, just that she has to talk about how she thinks on the issue. Just express what she’s thinking instead of tip-toeing.
Her stance on it is considered enough even for a staunchly pro-choice “godless” liberal like me to think that voting for her as a woman is better for women than voting for a man who’s support for choice is likely to be far more tepid and unreliable.
My own stance on choice is that women haven’t even reached the level of power needed to care about our stance on choice. Seriously. Step one, get women in power in huge numbers. (Half? Try 100%. I’m sick of this half shit. If you’re playing to break even and your opponent is playing to win, you win’t gonna settle out at the 50-yard line.)
Get women in power, overwhelmingly. Then you know what? Women will decide. And isn’t that the point? WOMEN WILL DECIDE.
Personally, I strongly suspect that with a majority of women in power, abortion would rapidly turn into “I don’t like it but I’m not going to interfere.” In other words, the ultimate positive for womebn: not that abortion is legal OR illegal, but that it’s off the books entirely. Not within the purview of any legislature of any kind. And we get there by electing ALL women, because ALL women have the right to think what they want and try to turn that into reality.
Christ, the way most “feminists” think, women in power is the worst thing in the world for women. They think a woman in power will cause the Earth to turn into a blasted heath. Talk about gynophobia.
I AM RESPONDING TO ALICE
Alice, you must be of my generation also. Women from the 50s and 60s, we can hardly believe that we are able to buy property on our own! Actually have the choice to live without a man if we so choose.
To reject the label feminism for some other label that is easier to say is not the answer. We need to embrace the idea of women as having value — what’s so great about men and their wars and their planet-killing technology and their reduction of women to oppressive slavery?
Sarah Palin? At least she’s working on making the almost billion dollars it would take to get elected in the US.
I am all for a revolution here that would require public financing for all elections, number one. Clean out all these people in congress and present administration we have now who have been bought by big business, capitalism.
Women have the power to change all this. Most of us just don’t know it yet because nice women are too busy worrying about what men think of words like feminism.
Quit looking at your present, girls, look to the past, and then, the future. It’s in your hands.
Thanks for writing this for the Huff Puff Amy. I agree that people who work for women need to reach out with our views and ideas I just don’t usually have the stomach for it. Really the downfall of old feminism came when they started only talking to themselves echoing each others thoughts and when they abandoned women to worry about the fate of other groups.
I get the feeling from Democrats and Media that women need to just shut up about our health needs because if we insist that our needs are addressed then no one will get anything. Well it hasn’t been necessary for any other group to just keep quiet so I find that very offensive. So far we are going to be forced to pay taxes to support this new system but our reproductive health will not be served by it. As someone else said we are all going to be defacto conservative Christians but I thought our government couldn’t dictate religious practices.
I am off to read your comments at Huff Puff. I don’t have clearance to comment there.
WOW what a bunch of ignorant twits there are over at the Huff Puff. You can tell by the amount of energy they put into their mocking and hatred of Palin that the fact that the Republicans had a woman on their Presidential ticket just created major cognitive dissonance in their petty minds. Blind hatred is their only way of dealing with it but they are too stupid to realize how pathetic it makes them look. There is a lot of stating “she thinks such and such” which she doesn’t or “she said such and such” which she didn’t and then calling her out on it. It just amazes me how rabid liberals make up things and attribute them to the object of their cognitive dissonance and then act like they have proved something of great value. I am so turned off by Liberal Democrat elitist mockery. At some point I hope they spawn some leaders who are capable of discussion of real issues.
Dianet, I think we also spend too much time worrying about who is and who isn’t a “real feminist.” (In addition to wondering about how to get our rights and still appear as nonthreatening and cute to potential husbands as possible.) And after 2008 and 2009, I finally know why this was always such a pressing issue.
Women as the lowest-ranking primates in our troop will attack only one group of other primates: the women of another tribe. Is it hormones, DNA, or socialization? Yeah, who gives a shit. That’s how it is.
So that’s why so many blogs and feminst organiaations were always so psychotically obsessed with whether something is feminist, or whether someone is feminist. Because if you AIN’T, well honey you’re on your own, because not only will they not stop to help you if you are being gang-raped and left for dead, they may just cheer. And women themselves knew it, which is why the one thing guaranteed to create hissyfits and tantrums in ANY so-called feminist forum anywhere was to asert that So-and-So “wasn’t a feminist.”
What that meant — and what it still means — is “that bitch is on her own.” She’s not one of us. She doesn’t smell like we do. And if she’s not part of our crowd, then when she gets drugged and gang-raped and left for dead under the park bench, then the rest of the tribe will walk right the hell on by.
And the women who stood accused of Noty Being Of The Tribe knew it. While is why they panicked and threw shitfits when the accusation was levelled against them. “You’ll help me if I’m left for dead by the side of the road, right? Right? Won’t you?”
That’s a big part of why I just don’t care about that word anymore. Stop using it. And don’t replace it with anything, either. I don’t care if Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Cynthia McKinney, or Michelle Malkin are feminist or not. They are women. Therefore, they have my vote.
We really do have to go orthogonal to all ideological definitions, period. If the parties run on political affiliation, we vote based on gender. If they run based on hair color, we vote based on height. That’s the only way to do it, to throw a monkeywrench into their way of defining this stuff.
So to hell with “feminist” and “feminism” and “humanism” or “womanism” or whatever horseshit phrase we’re trying to use. Pro-woman. ALL women. After all, ALL women who run for high office will be subjected to the basest, most degrading and humiliating treatment possible to keep them out of it. And you either believe that that’s important enough to get your vote or you don’t. You either think that ALL DEGRADATION AGAINST WOMEN IS WRONG, or you don’t. You either put ending the sexual degradation of women first on your list, or you wimp out. Screw the word feminism. WOMAN is the important word.
[...] Original post: The New Agenda » Blog Archive » Is Sarah Palin a “Feminist”? [...]
Alice,
That may be the case w/ mortgages. When I left my husband and applied for a mortgage on my own it was granted because of excellent credit. However, on the cover page of the mortgage was my name then a comma, and the words “an unmarried woman.” I shared this w/ my closest friends who were in similar places in their lives. It sums it all up in that one blurb, doesn’t it?
Well married or unmarried is a relevant fact when borrowing money. Because marriage may or may not give you an emotional partner, a sexual relationship, a partner who cares about you, etc. but one thing for sure it gives you is a financial partner for better or for worse. If you are married then nothing financial is legal if it doesn’t have your spouses signature on it in a community property state. I have had to sign papers for my husband to sell a house he bought before he married me and he has had to sign papers regarding money I inherited and intend to pass on directly to our kids bypassing him. So married or not is a relevant financial fact.
Great post. Thank you. And Gov Palin has an excellent record of walking the talk. So when she stated during the 08 campaign she follows the law and Constitution regardless of her personal beliefs and position, she doesn’t try to force that belief on all, her record demonstrates exactly that.
So many thought-provoking comments here. With respect to Sarah Palin, any woman who gets her rear end out on the frigid waters of Alaska to support her family defines the word “feminist”, if there is a definition for it any more.
I like the idea of reframing the feminist dynamic as”pro-woman”. As Janis pointed out, the attacks on Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin stem from the lowest animalistic instincts. What we have to liberate ourselves from is the ’snark-and-malice-female’ who shills for the man, whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, Christian or Muslim; the woman who serves and blindly adheres to a corrupt patriarchal system. As Bes pointed out, women’s issues were lost when diluted by other interests, and I suspect that was also a political strategy to undermine our primary focus.
It was wise of Amy to exclude a position on abortion when developing the New Agenda because it is such a loaded issue. I think most of us can agree to be pro-privacy out of respect for individual conscience, and most importantly, out of respect for each individual woman.
Monarch, it is indeed all tribalism at work. The word “feminist” will NEVER do ANYTHING but degenerate into an “is she or isn’t she?” discussion. Black people of either gender don’t talk about being “blackist.” They don’t talk about being supportive of “blackists.” They talk about being supportive of BLACK PEOPLE.
The word “woman” cannot be degenerated as easily as the word “feminist.” Is a conservative woman a feminist? Can a man be a feminist? Is Behavior XYZ feminist? The hairsplitting and ideological gerrymandering gets freakin ridiculous because women know that what it all boils down to is, like I said, “You’ll call the ambulance for me if I’m dying, right?”
Woman. That’s a non-negotiable word. If the mainstream media will crank up the “look at her hair, she’s too fat, too thin, not pretty enough, too pretty, she had too many kids, who does that bitch think she is” noise machine … then she’s one of us. None of this angels dancing on the head of a pin garbage.
Think of it this way regarding that comparison to black people, who aren’t so ashamed of supporting one another out loud that they have to invent a new word to keep from saying it:
Would we even NEED a word to describe ourselves if we weren’t too chickenshit to come straight out and say I SUPPORT ALL WOMEN? It’s like we’re trying to narrow it down or something. “I support women … b-b-b-but not all women! Not blindly! There’s still some women I hate, so go easy on my, Patriarchy! You still get to rape a couple with my blessing!”
If we had the guts to stand up and say, “YEAH I’M VOTING FOR WOMEN ONLY AND IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT TOUGH CRAP,” we wouldn’t need to invent a new word.
Bes, they had the financial information for her total takehome pay. Compared to that, no — marital status doesn’t mean anything. I outearn plenty of men, and I’m not supporting a spouse.
Well Janis it does matter legally if you are married or not if you are doing anything financial because if you are married then all of your income and debt is community property so both signatures are required. The paperwork would have said “Joe Blow a single man” if it was a single man making the loan because the point they are making is that legally only one signature is required for their paperwork to be legal, they do not care about anything else. It is not a slam against any particular woman or women in general they are simply establishing that their paperwork with one signature is legal because the person in question is not married.
Women need to clearly understand that whatever else a marriage may be it IS a financial merger. That can be good if you spouse has more wealth than you do. It can be bad if you spouse has less wealth than you do because anything you make during the marriage is half his and any debt he racks up is half yours. The bank actually came after me for student loans my first husband racked up before he knew me and for payment on the Porsche he bought after we were legally separated and awaiting divorce. I got out of both because my name and signature were not on the papers. Any reputable paper pusher is going to establish up front your marital status to justify the number of signatures they have on the paper.
Janis as always we seem to mirror thoughts. Agendas shouldnt separate you. Agendas are set by males and divide you. Once you achieve parity in power then you should discuss agendas, but until then women should vote for women over men regardless of poltics always. I will join with you in this and encourage as many other males as possilbe to join in.
Perhaps approaching the abortion issue the way she approached the gay rights issue in Alaska is not the only way.
I’m 40 y.o. and I’ve been pro-choice my entire life. But after Obama got the nomination I had to dig deep and re-evaluate whether I want to stick with the abortion litmus test anymore when I vote. I voted for McCain-Palin. But in the process I thought a lot more in depth about whether there is a new way to talk about abortion. I was so offended at how the Obama campaign & the Democratic Party used choice as a threat to put us in our place and vote along party line.
The the more I thought about it, the more I feel that we need to modernize this debate beyond the 50s, the 60s and the 70s. The coat hanger symbol to me is outdated. While some parts of the country is much more conservative than others, pre-marital pregnacies…specially for adult women..do not carry the same social stigma as back in the 50s. Many adult women today choose to be single mothers by choice. Also, use of birth controls are widely accepted today, whereas using birth control carried social stigmas back then.
Teen pregnacies, on the other hand, of course still bring a lot of shame to the teen mothers. But aren’t there in fact more adult women having abortions than teenagers? So for the moment let’s look at the issue of adult abortions.
In that case, the more serious issue is finance. Poor women cannot afford to raise a child by herself. This indeed a serious issue, and so I will always continue to support choice of legal abortions.
But at the same time, I think we need to recognize that time has changed, and perhaps the debate needs to shift. Shouldn’t we at least ask the question that, in today’s environment, when contraceptives are so widely available, women must take responsiblity to take better care of herself? I’ve known women who had abortions. It is a traumatic experience. The fact that the choice is legal and available doesn’t mean that women should want to put herself in a situation where she will have to go through that experience.
Choice must remain available for instances of contrceptions failures, rapes & & illnesses of mothers. It must also remain available for women who sometimes just made bad choices and decisions. But if we can move the talk to eliminating risks based on bad choices and bad decisions, won’t we arrive at the place as closely in sync with both sides of this debate? And we do that by campaigning for (1) public education for use of contraceptives ALL THE TIME if a woman is sexually active and doesn’t want to become pregnant, AND (2) it is indeed better for women when they take themselves seriously, take responsbility for themselves and take better care of themselves to make better decisions, so that they don’t have to undergo the abortion experience? They shouldn’t leave the entire matter to the government to decide on choice. Women should actively avoid unwanted pregnacies, regardless of what the law says.
If women no longer needs abortions (other than the exceptional cases of rapes, illnesses, birth control failures, etc), then the whole debate can subside.
The problem with this debate is that both sides just won’t budge at all. It’s “you’re wrong and I’m right” all the time. But that’s not true. Pro-choice liberals need to acknowledge the merit of the conservatives’ argument of responsibilty. Anti-abortion conservatives need to acknowledge the reality that the only way to massively minimize abortions is for every woman to use contraceptives. They can’t rile against abortions and then avoid the subject of birth control and contraceptions entirely.
Hillary Clinton talked years ago about needing to make abortions safe, legal and rare. But she never outlined any proposals really, on how to make it rare. I think Sarah Palin is in a really unique position to tackle this subject in a meaningful way, since her daughter Bristol became a teenage single mother. She can talk about how better use of contraceptions would’ve helped her daughter, and also talk about how it is ok to take responsibility for the outcome even if doing so is a struggle.
Basically, I think we women do ought to ask ourselves why there should be so many unwanted pregnacies when birth control is legal and there is practically no stigma for using it anymore. In any event use of birth control is a private matter. If finance and lack of access, or ignorance of birth control are the reasons for people not using them, then perhaps the political debate need to change and address how society can make birth control even more accessible and readily available. The extreme right can lament how that may encourage loose mores, but tough luck. It’s that or abortions. You can’t have both, it’s one or the other. And women need to start talking about responsibility, and only then will we be able to stop male politicians from using abortion as a straw man to manipulate women’s votes and other legislations.
Finally, my concluding thought is that if Sarah Palin does choose to run for the White House in the future, maybe she can give speech on Women and America, like how Obama gave a speech on race.
Most women appear to be ashamed of being a woman.
So they call themselves and other women with a pejoritive lable: GIRL.
As well as bitch and [fill in the blanks].
Only a very few stand up for other women and they are smacked around.
Mostly, by other women.
As long as women are gutless and satisfied with the status quo they will continue to be second class.
Well, I am a feminist and proud of it. I respect the feminists who have sacrificed so much so that women of today have the rights that they do.
Proud Feminist,
I’m glad that you are proud. As I mention, the work down by brave women in the 1960s and 1970s is tantamount to our every day freedoms today.
That said, polls do not lie. 80% of women in the Daily Beast poll do not identify with the word (and 83% don’t want their daughters to be -even more telling perhaps). Yet, these women DO care about women’s issues – many do.
A new ideology that can represent the issues currently facing women is needed. We can celebrate the old, while welcoming the new.
Think of it this way – when I was a girl, people with black skin were known as “colored” – then it was “black” – then iterations to eventually become “African American”. Terminology can and must change over time to capture the needs of a group of people.
We’re looking for suggestions!
This is to Janis. I have thought long and hard about your support all women stance and as much as I hate it I love it. In a way, it might be the only way for equal or better representation even though it may not change the power paradigm if the women turn out to be like Nancy P. I don’t know if I can stomach it, but after the last 2 years nothing would truly surprise me.
As far as Sarah Palin goes, as a radical feminist I would like to state for the record that I am not FOR abortion. I am just not for the opposite of not having the right to obtain an abortion. Abortion is killing a child, and no one is FOR this. I just do not think that we can force a woman to have a child and still be a civilized country. Sarah is perhaps MORE feminist in her thought process than those women who feel feminism and abortion rights are synonymous. They are to some extent, but only in the sense that the latter is a human right and the former needs to concentrate on equal pay, sexual freedom, equal access to proper medical care, and perhaps even the right to be president if one gets the most votes.
Where the left and the current circle of feminist leaders are so very wrong is that they think that the freedom to abort is the greatest freedom for women. It most certainly is not. In fact, the freedom to be free from sex would be the single greatest freedom for women (and please remember that when I am talking about women I am including the entire world of women) and would, in and of itself, change the power paradigm almost immediately. Imagine third world countries full of women able to run faster, fight harder, and work at paying jobs versus being pack mules for child bearing. Imagine an America where young girls are not trained to be dumb hookers who don’t even charge from day one. Imagine an America where….
I can’t see her because the tears are clouding my vision but you get my drift. I am so sad these days I can hardly bear it. We need a world of Andrea Dworkins and instead we have a world where it appears that MTV will continue to set the standards for young women and at this point there does not seem to be a point so low that they will not go.
Casual sex is killing the world (AIDS, teen pregnancy, STDs, 10 million PLUS women in third world countries who cannot control their bodily functions because they were underfed their entire lives and had children too early, etc., etc), and it is certainly dragging young women down first and hardest. 2010 should and perhaps must be the year women challenge themselves to define their worth as wholly separate from men and sex. Let us dedicate ourselves toward social, academic and professional achievements and once Sarah is elected President in 2012 then we can discuss what to do about men.
Feminism is simply focusing on women. Our issues, our lives, our bodies, our happiness. It is time girls, it is time.
Oh, and Amy, a name change will not save Feminism. It isn’t the name, it is the focus and what a successful outcome would mean for the world. We have too many men AND women entrenched in this dumb patriarchy thing. Don’t even get me started on the problem of how many women have sexualized and actively act out daily their subjugation…..
We are up against the enemy girls and his name is MTV, pornography, OBAMA, MS. Magazine, Catherine MacKinnon, Feministing, and every other traitor to our cause. We have to separate women from sex, we have to redefine what a woman is, what sex is, what a successful woman is, etc., etc. But it will not matter what we call it ‘they’ will still hate it.
Don’t forget that there are men in the subgroup of black Americans and this means that at least half of them are part of the patriarchy. Women as a group have no men, and as such we are the true niggers of the world — a truer statement from Yoko Ono I have never heard. Until you understand that the economy of the world is played out over women’s bodies and depends on our subjugation feminism and the issue of women’s equality will just be words. empty ones at that….
Jennifer, right on!
I am less emotional and more data oriented. So this will hardly seem impassioned after some of the previous thoughtful responses but I also think abortion needs to take a back seat. There are issues that affect all females, lower wages for the same work, lack of a true female voice in media, misrepresentation of females by media, lack of representation in and by the government which taxes us, violence against women, etc. But reproductive rights does not affect all women because some women are to young or old to be fertile (under 13 or over 50) and some women in the fertile years don’t have sex with men. So why not concentrate on the issues that affect all females first? Especially since reproductive rights have been the single issue for so long.
Also the reason why media misrepresentation of females is a huge issue is because at this point in history media drives our culture so medias toxic images of females have a huge impact especially on youth who have difficult family lives. Throughout history culture was determined more by family and religion. Men may have dominated politics and war but women dominated day to day in the home. With malecentric medias intrusion into the home bringing their toxic images of femaleness that dynamic has been shattered. Media does not reflect our culture, it reflects the culture of the white, old, mostly Jewish men who own media companies and are the only ones who have voice.
Our freedom from sex and ultimaetly men, means the future of humanity. We live in such a dirty and dark age. Only the truly ignorant think we live in a rennaisance of technological achievement. We live in misery, crudeness, and destruction.
Regarding MTV Pornography etc. Remember that people in the USA do not pick what channels they subscribe to as far as Cable or Satellite media go. You either take the pre packaged bundle or you take nothing. What makes up that bundle is determined by the men who run media and it in no way reflects the true taste of Americans or says anything about our culture. Notice that the “women’s content” or rather what men think women should watch has few viewers, Oxygen was in 70 million homes and averaged 100,000 viewers probably mostly male. Look at the channels that have the highest viewership and they are channels with better representations of women. I think MTV is around #40 for viewing. If consumers were allowed their choice of 15 channels for a set price most of the worst sexist garbage (including “women’s content” and it’s offensive ads) would be driven out of business.
Also most of the women who have found their comfortable little place in the patriarchy and cling to it (most women in media today) are not people with strong convictions. If a woman positive system took over they would snuggle right up to it. So they really don’t present a problem to change.
Remember that the whole goal of the Patriarchy is that every man have atleast one vagina to lord over, even if they have to destroy the planet to maintain that goal. Feminism should be based wholly on the knowledge of that simple truth.
To Ann: I don’t think men care that much about each other that they want every man to have one vagina although they might agree that that is the one thing that could lead to world peace. More likely they want as many vaginas as possible for themselves and feel the other men can and should all go to hell. I don’t know why but that brings to mind I would love to see a rousing production of Lysistrata put on at the community theater level so it isn’t run through the dull and distorting minds of Hollywood.
and yes Feminism should center its focus on helping women achieve, and unlegislating as much of the Patriarchy as possible. But we also need to give women and girls the tools to fight the Psychological warfare being waged against them by men (and women) desperately trying to enforce Patriarchy that is losing legal status. Where men grow up believing that the entire world is at their disposal, for them, and that they are the center of importance, and where women are dismissed, in many different psychological ways. This is why you see men get so bewildered when Feminism isn’t about them, and the logical argument of a woman new to Feminism is a “But what about the men” argument. Of course, our world is the product of incompetence, that I am beginning to believe actually is natural and innate to men. Men created the world in their image, through violence and force, and when the incompetent force their hand, you end up with this.
AC your views are so very correct. Young women do not remember the 60’s and 70’s before roe, before the pill- the coat hanger, when condoms were hidde3n behind a counter( I remember my first time having to buy one- humiliating) etc…Abortion should not be the contraceptive of choice- but a rare last option, if at all , not the oh well I can always get an abortion- as an excuse for poor choices
There is a call for a name to replace “feminism”?
We already have it. We of the 1950- + years of THE WOMEN’S MOVEMENT FOR EQUALITY. We who now watch MANY OF our daughters and granddaughters piss away much of what we fought for.
We didn’t put all of us in a box that only recognized the male construct of the ideal woman – vacuous, brainless and feminine. We knew that many of us did not fit that paradyme – we were people! Women! Hear us roar!
Some of us were cute and frilly and childish but most of us were adults – strong and competant STRIVING TO DEFINE OURSELVES.
Great piece, Amy.
I have to admit, I was initially taken aback when you stated that you are not a feminist. But with further thought I decided that you are being very, very smart. It is an outdated and loaded term that means too many things. And perhaps it is time to move on.
African Americans did not call themselves “Africanists” – and I do not believe such a term would have been embraced by larger audiences, including many African Americans. They simply called their movement civil rights.
I think simplicity is better in regard to the language that we can use to identify what women feel today in regard to gender equality. Women’s Rights, Gender Equality, Civil Rights for Women, etc. I think any word with an “ist” at the end of it will imply separatism.
In regard to Palin and her book… I have begun reading it and I am truly impressed. I voted for McCain / Palin since (for a variety of reasons) I thought Obama was an impossible choice, yet I’ve always been hot and cold about Palin. But I’m feeling more warm to her after beginning her book. And I can see why the campaign against Palin had to be as forceful as it was (with a focus on lies, sexism and the inconsequential). If the average American knew the real Sarah and her real background in politics I believe the average American would be impressed whether they approve of her conservative philosophy or not. She is indeed an inspiring Independent.
And good advice for Sarah. She should make women’s issues a strong component of her dialogue with the American people. This could include domestic violence, anti-women/girl Hollywood culture, support for mothers, International Women’s issues, etc.
“This is to Janis. I have thought long and hard about your support all women stance and as much as I hate it I love it.”
Just repeat as often as needed: I don’t have to like that bitch, I just have to vote for her.
“In a way, it might be the only way for equal or better representation even though it may not change the power paradigm if the women turn out to be like Nancy P. I don’t know if I can stomach it, but after the last 2 years nothing would truly surprise me.”
A few will be like Pelosi. A few others will be like Bachmann. Most will be in the middle someplace. It’s like card-counting: when the math says you have to take a hit on a twenty, just do it. It’ll all even out in the end.
And again, even if nothing changes, something will have changed. Pick which world you’d want to live in:
1) War, global warming, traffic jams, disease, and the constant metaphorical gang-rape of women who dare to run for public office, and
2) War, global warming, traffic jams, disease, and half women in office.
Even that is enough of an improvement for me.
Ok, I am going to have to buy and read the Palin book. You all have me very curious and I love Palin. Also I wonder if Hollywood even knows it pushes an anti-woman/girl culture? I don’t give them credit for being able to form an anti-female policy and coordinating enough to stick to it. I think it really does reflect the creepy mind set of the men who own and run media and nothing more. I also wonder, if they ever realized that they could make more money making content women actually wanted, would they go against their distorted instincts and go for the money? Whatever they have been worse stewards of media and culture than anyone could imagine in their wildest dreams. And fortunately their death grip has been loosened now that we can gain access to the few shows we want for free through the internet and no longer have to subsidize sexist content with our cable payment. Since anyone can post content on youtube we can watch stories from people who would never have been given a chance to create in the old mans system.
“Frankly, the women in my generation — the PTA and soccer moms — generally do not consider themselves to be feminists. I was hardly surprised when a Daily Beast poll found that 80% of women don’t associate with the word (and yes Tina, we are looking for a replacement term).”
Really, who the ef cares what you call yourselves? Y’all seem to want to look “nice” and “cool” and “hip”. Great. Now women’s rights that both women and men have fought so hard for are being squandered by young women and men. This hurts not only women but the whole society. When you’re old ladies you can see your great grand kids struggle with regaining lost rights that this generation has frittered away.
It is unfortunate that you let a term stop you from looking into the movement in a deeper way. It is not about women vs. men. It is about a systemic sexism infecting a society and culture. Both women and men embrace it, and there are individuals of both genders who have tried to lead to a more evolved cultural view.
This current generation of young and early middle age women have been given so much and are taking it for granted. Not a smart move.
A quick comment (yes, I can do that!):
“What we have to liberate ourselves from is the ’snark-and-malice-female’ who shills for the man … ”
And we have to liberate ourselves from that when it surfaces within ourselves as well, as it does from time to time in every one of us. For the moment, I think the best way to do it would be to just go cold turkey on criticizing women. Is it unfair? Who cares? We’re living in a world that’s unfair. I think that even for me and the other women here, it’s too easy to criticize another woman using the weapons of sexism because they are the most commonly used and most successful weapons to use. It’s almost impossible for us to do without falling into the “look at her hair and those stupid shoes and how many kids she has” trap while letting similar competing men off scot fucking free.
So we go cold turkey. Just pack the government with as many of us as we can, and then we can start picking and choosing. Right now, we can’t. Once there’s enough of us in power, then we can start seeing the differences between their issues. As long as we’re still tokens, we can’t, and the few women there will always be The Chick. And she’ll always be criticized — or seen as being criticized — for being The Chick.
Step zero: Pack the government with as many of us as possible. When we’re over 50% and still moving forward, then
Step one: Start differentiating and picking the ones you like most, and not until then.
Not until you get to pick from between women in every election with multiple positions do you start to pick women based on their positions. Until that point, if she’s got a vag, you vote for her. That’s how you get to the fantasy paradise world of being able to pick from between multiple female candidates.
(And apparently, no. I can’t “do that.” Not even to save my life.)
Z,
It absolutely matters what you call yourself.
Do you remember Ebonics? Everyone HATED the idea of African Americans children being taught “Ebonics” in k – 12 schools! Everyone from the New Yorker, to Jesse Jackson to Rush Limbaugh etc. It was a complete and utter disaster.
Which is a shame because I studied the Ebonics curriculum in graduate school. I was expecting the worst and instead found a fantastic and effective educational approach for teaching African American children literacy and standard English.
So what I would like to know is, who in the world thought it would be a great idea to call this curriculum and educational strategy Ebonics???? Way to go in helping to fan the flames of a controversy that never should have been!
If people tend to associate “feminism” with all sorts of horrible things well that is a shame. But there’s much to say about the public relations aspect of a movement and I am starting to doubt whether using the term feminist is the smartest form of identification for women’s rights.
Alison
Janis your last note sounds like it was written by me lol happy new year everyone
“It is unfortunate that you let a term stop you from looking into the movement in a deeper way.”
It’s unfortunate that she’s admitting that this is a problem for a lot of women and should be addressed … ? I guess such shallow, worthless women are no help to feminist — despite being 80% of all women — and feminism is better off without them.
Feminism’s apparently addicted to flushing its most dearly held principles straight down the toilet for any male with a D after his name, though. We’ll bat our eyes and water ourselves down and do any damn thing to get fair-weather male “allies” like that on our side, but nothing to persuade 80% of our own gender that we care about the same things they care about … ?
Amy, you’ve got my suggestion. Pro-woman. Period. Not pro-this-issue or pro-that-opinion, or pro-that-stance, or this-ist or that-ist.
It’s ultimately about WOMEN. Individual women living and breathing and standing right next to us. Pro-WOMAN. Can’t be gerrymandered, can’t be nitpicked (much), and can’t degenerate into “is she or isn’t she?”
Pro-woman. That’s literally all it takes, and it encapsulates the whole thing. We don’t have to support everything every woman thinks and feels, but damn it, we have to support her against sexism. The message must get across: No Patriarchy, you do not get to humiliate, rape, and degrade ONE SINGLE GODDAMNED WOMAN ANYWHERE ON EARTH without us at your throat. PERIOD.
Pro-woman. Catchy, quick, and instantly recognized.
Feminism, women’s equality, women’s rights, equality, good stuff, you can package it anyway you want but the men and women who want to protect them will see it coming a mile away. ANYTHING that threatens the patriarchy will be destroyed simply because it threatens the patriarchy. Look at Hillary. This country actually allegedly voted for Barack Hussein Obama, a man with worse credentials than your average part time crook/part time politician/ full time asshole who attended the most racist misogynist church in America and whose history is virtually unknown except for some really bad shit. And for President, no less. THINK ABOUT THIS. Really think about it.
And as far as MTV goes let me make this point clear. Parents for the last 30 years have done a really bad job–a really really bad job–raising young women. MTV can be offered on your cable package, but you can block it quite easily. When the ‘feminists’ at Feministing win awards and write books and talk incessantly about how violent sex is empowering for women and who wouldn’t be able to name 10 famous women NOT connected to the sex industry are heralded as leaders for women, when scholars like Catherine MacKinnon can sell out not only women but the human race and endorse Obama (may you rot in hell Catherine), when Ms. Magazine can name Obama as a feminist, when parents encourage 8 and 10 year old to have boyfriends and girlfriends, and when premarital casual sex is encouraged this is when you know the end is near. We should have said no, but instead we have 30-50 year old mothers living vicariously through their pre-teens and buying them birth control at age 10 instead of sending them to all girl schools and encouraging them to take science and math classes. MTV is just the worst of the worst and as such I call attention to it but it simply epitomizes the total and complete sexualization of the female child that Hugh and Larry have been working on since 1950. God damn them, but God damn us for allowing it. All we had to do was say no. But we failed.
Anyone still clinging to liberalism needs to let go–only difference between liberals and conservatives in relation to women is that the former allow us to get abortions some of the time. Women need a new political party or they need to NOT vote for the liberal/progressive because this theft from Hillary and selection of Obama is the worst cut ever and nothing a Republican could do could be worse. And, for the record, abortion is going nowhere people it is harder to get now than ever thank you Democrats but it is not going anywhere. Women need to demand more than the right of abortion–a lot more.
The question of whether we can succeed at anything at this point is questionable. I don’t know if we can gather enough momentum. When I listen to the news it makes me dizzy because the lies are so complete and so awesome in their ability to make the masses more oblivious (if this is actually possible) to what is really going on. I keep thinking that any minute now they will wake up, but they never do. Sort of like that women in that picture pretending to like having sex with a dog, I keep thinking she will get up and walk away but she never does. And I am really ready for her to walk away…..
I agree with Janis and think that unless the man is better vote the woman in. But in the end the only thing that will help women will be radical change. It starts at home girls. No more MTV, no more Feministing, no more sex at an early age, we have to change the way women see themselves and we have to do it NOW so that young girls can have the role models they need to be president instead of pregnant. We just have to take the power back personally and this will culminate in a shift in power that will change the world. Make it your new year’s goal. Take your power back. Now.
Jeniferintexas “ANYTHING that threatens the patriarchy will be destroyed simply because it threatens the patriarchy.”
Couldn’t agree with your whole brilliant comment more! Go ahead and use whatever word suits, but be careful – they are all threatening. Its not just MTV, its all the myths – the great hero is going to come, sweep a gal off her feet, and save her. So we get so many women fantasizing about Obama being this or that…. things that he is not and has never been.
I don’t call myself anything about gender, but feminist would be just fine. If that’s icky or threatening to some, OK. I don’t mind letting the girls in my family and life see me out there, fighting, sticking up for them, carving rights for women and balance and equality as much as I can. Micro lending, supporting colleagues, being a cultural supporter – all worth while too. Hell, sometimes just surviving the sexism with an ounce of humor and good cheer is almost overwhelming sometimes. There’s much to say about being a role model, and not just for young girls.
The thing about MTV is many Mothers do block it but you would have to block it at every friends house to make sure your child is not exposed. That is not possible. Also children need to be taught how to deal with the environment they live in now. The best I could do was block MTV and actually about half the channels force fed into my home by the Media Cartel, then tell my children why I blocked them and provide them with other activities so that they had little time or desire to watch ANY TV. This is really expensive in time and money but I had enough time and money to manage it. But as a society this problem needs to be taken on because not every Mother has the time and money to make this a top priority. This leaves the most vulnerable children who have no one to advocate for them with only MTV style channels providing them with a life plan. Rather than complain at media companies to try and get them to offer positive programing aimed at young women I think feminists need to step up and do it. Yeah no one is going to be able to break in to the malecentric old media but we can set up the most compelling web site and promote it.
My Daughter who is a freshman in college tells me they have a petition going in the dorms to make the school add Disney channel to their line up. MTV is not one of the top viewed channels regardless of what Viacom want us to believe.
My college senior daughter and younger family members and friends didn’t watch that much MTV, and I can’t stand the stupid station. One thing changed, tho, for them, and that was the young girls can do sports. My generation did not. Now the girls are actually learning to play a team sport – support their team mates and compete in a healthy way. Supporting girls’ and women’s sports is great! Another positive change is the young girls and women aspire to a far greater range of careers than my generation. And not monolithic ones also. Most want to carve time out for parenthood, exploratory work and a career out of the home at some point. And more and more women are making that happen.
Happy new year, may 2010 be better than 2009! Good work on this site and all of your efforts – makes a difference!
Z, well said micro lending is a very good program. Modeling behavior is important also, children should be taught how to reject the dominant culture should they choose to so they won’t be limited by it. When I see some MTV tart grinding away I always say to whomever is around, “I always wonder about all the talented young women we never get the chance to appreciate because they won’t lower themselves to grind around half naked while they sing”. You can take the kids to any community theater or performance and since it isn’t run by a male power structure you will see all kinds of talented women performing interesting female characters. True you wind up living in a sub culture but it is a vibrant supportive subculture. Teaching children of both sexes to locate and thrive in a subculture of their choosing is one answer.
Janis “It’s unfortunate that she’s admitting that this is a problem for a lot of women and should be addressed … ? I guess such shallow, worthless women are no help to feminist — despite being 80% of all women — and feminism is better off without them.”
Was that a comment for me? Couldn’t be quite sure, and not following your comment if it was directed at me. My point about being called a feminist is that whatever a female does to assert herself in a progressive way out of patriarchy will be seen as negative by many people (both genders) –no matter how nice she tries to be–. This kind of change takes courage. And thick skin. Need skin thickening creme.
My theory is we are wasting our energy trying to make the patriarchy stop their destructive ways, they are stupid and they can’t see another way, they are happy wallowing in garbage. Women could better spend our energy creating a vibrant alternative to their garbage and promoting it loudly. And we need to be welcoming to all who want to participate not just the ideologically pure.
Bes, Not a bad idea. There’s that saying “where the wallet goes there goes hearts and minds” (or at least it should be a saying).
great article Amy and so many thoughtful comments.
# 1 the term feminist. always called myself a feminist and am quite aware that the patriarchy is making fun of it. any young woman interested to get her man most likely doesn’t want to be a feminist, in case she is unaware of the grave disadvantages she is running up as female. I think it does not make a difference what term you use, the jokes against the term will be coming. a woman who stands up for women will be ridiculed. remember the ways suffragettes were portrayed. she kept going and the movement kept growing and thanks to Alice Paul we can vote. this was a successful movement who just kept going with the worst label around.
# abortion. I really like the comments from AC and Jeniffer in Texas. was always pro choice and will be despite that I find abortion a very troubling procedure. as pathologist have seen thousands and it is not a bunch of cells but tiny human beings. but this is a woman’s body and it has to be her choice. but our focus should be unwanted pregnancies. I see impregnating young females against their wishes as crime. as so many here said the sex industry defining all women as nothing but body parts, and sexualizing younger and younger girls and brutalizing boys. TV is addicting and hardly any youngster can stand up against it. Our TV is most of the time gone, otherwise we would have no peace in the house. and the kids get indoctrinated that sex is always fun. and if the want to be with the crowd they have to be sexy. and they have no idea that sex has something to do with procreation. since they believe sex is always fun and everybody does it and you are not belonging if you think otherwise, we have to teach them the ugly side of sex. that sex can be violent, boring and only sometimes fun, right time right person etc. and that may not always want sex even if you are older and have the right partner. this whole theme fo sex starts way before they know who is a true friend and not a friend today and not tomorrow. by elementary school time gender stereotyping is so prevalent, no matter what you as parent do, that girls likely do less for school or their hobbies to impress the boy. and then the dramas I hear from my 8 y/o from her friends who have boyfriends, the break-ups.
I would have never thought I talk about rape, prostitution, sex industry, sexual violence to my 8/9 y/o. but she needs to know why I will not approve of early sexual relations. CNN had recently a story on rape in college, about 20% and only 5% reported. Rape victims were telling their stories to other female college students. date rape drugs and now also sprays, they need to know and how to protect themselves.
Janis suggested:
“Amy, you’ve got my suggestion. Pro-woman. Period. Not pro-this-issue or pro-that-opinion, or pro-that-stance, or this-ist or that-ist.”
Glad to see the “woman” part instead of some limiting, girley term but fear the PRO would soon be misconstructed as whore – a pro, a prostitute.
Also agree out with the “ist”. When did you ever hear of a masculinist? Never will. Men do not divide their gender; they do encourage and facilitate women to do so. Divide and conquer has worked well for them.
“And we have to liberate ourselves from that when it surfaces within ourselves as well, as it does from time to time in every one of us”
Janis, thanks for more fully elaborating that idea; that’s what I was striving to get across: the “let it begin” with me idea.
I admire Amy of The New Agenda and Riverdaughter of The Confluence for their incisive political analyses. At the same time, I find Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin articulate and admirable. I don’t feel like hating them because they are younger, better looking, and have more conservative values. And I certainly am not going to disparage them because some liberal male is invested in discrediting them.
With respect to the feminist label, as a 60’s feminist, it seems my daughters and their friends (women and men) have in many ways INTERNALIZED feminism because of what the women of my generation did. I come from a working class environment and went to college the long, hard way thru night school. But what I see in the next generation were young women who went to college right after high school, are self-supporting, and obtained jobs in finance, technology, law enforcement. I’ve seen their pride in themselves and felt gratified to have helped pave the way.
Meanwhile, let me wish everyone a Happy New Year. Every post and poster here contributes to a resurgence of sanity and justice that our country sorely needs. The New Agenda is always a terrific and heartening refuge these days.
“Glad to see the “woman” part instead of some limiting, girley term but fear the PRO would soon be misconstructed as whore – a pro, a prostitute.”
I think that’s more easily dealt with than the problem of saying that your pro-issue or something-ist. The inevitable response from both people who legitimately disagree and from contrary pains in the ass is, “What if I’m NOT one of those?” Pro-woman can’t be picked at like that. There is no way to say, “I’m not at their lunch table.”
Yes, you are. If you try to run for office, and the media would pay more attention to your earrings and shoes than to your position on the issues, then you’re one of us.
I also think that the “new movement” needs to narrow itself down. GET WOMEN IN POWER. That is literally all that needs to be done. No more laundry list horseshit to keep everyone from feeling excluded while we truly do exclude women who “aren’t of the tribe” to be ripped apart limb from limb by the media for the crime of disagreeing with us.
Just elect women. After that, then you move to step one. An argument can be made that that IS setps zero, one, and through to infinity, because once women are in overwhelming positions of power … well then each one gest to put forth her own positions, and we decide and get down to the neverending business of running things and jockeying back and forth. The game isn’t going to end. Playing the game IS the point.
No -isms, no philosophies that can be nitpicked. Pro-woman, and if anyone asks, yes. That IS all women, and we’re not apologizing for it. No more ideological boundaries. Women from all sides get this shit, and THAT is all that matters. Hillary was ripped to pieces for decades, Sarah Palin has been attacked savagely, Cynthia McKinney has been made fun of for her hair and clothing, Nancy Pelosi was all but called a pussy, and Michelle Malkin was threatened with a “hate-fuck” in a globally published magazine. CLEARLY, the enemy isn’t working any harder to distinguish between us any more than a smallpox virus would.
Pro-woman.
Janis but what about the problem of men’s violence? Men want freedom, and they legislate freedom, but the problem is they want freedom for the elite class only, and not freedom for women. The problem when they make a constitution is that women can vie for their freedoms through the legal process and have it legislated and we can vote and we can vote for women. But once men see the destruction of their Patriarchy at the hands of the freedom they want so badly for themselves, against Might=Right, they will once again resort to violence and violent take over. Actually, violence is on the rise, esp violence against women. I’m tired of seeing men on the media news screen smiling while they admit they want Palin to “sit down and shut up” or Hillary to be “taken into the back room” while they smile at eachother gayly as if they can’t wait to screw eachother over it on break.
I guess essentially the problem is that freedom is a Matriarchy
and if you gave any one man a choice: suicide or full liberation of women, the man would pull the trigger and call himself a martyr
Kiuku, I don’t know. Honestly. I think there is a spectrum of violence in men, but it always seems to be there. There are places where it’s not as bad as it is here; the US is infatuated with violence compared to a lot of more laid-back places. I think that they’re already beating the hell out of us, so we might as well just fight them if all they’re going to do is give us more of the same. I’d rather get beaten for fighting on my own behalf than beaten for not fighting on my own behalf.
And I agree with you on your last comment (she said wryly). I wish I didn’t. But to riff off of the choice I mentioned in one comment, if men had to choose between the following:
1) A world with war, disease, global warming, traffic jams, and women treated like garbage, and
2) A world with peace, health, a healthy environment, clean streets, and women as full equals,
they’d pick the first because the full equality of women would be too much of a down side for them. I used to like to tell myself that it wasn’t the case, but the older I get, the more I realize that it is.
Neither men nor women even know what “equality for women” means.
I just wish there was an easy way to get rid of men. Can we just not produce anymore? How is that for a voting block?
I think there are universes out there in which they are not what they are in this one, and that their genetics has the potential for it. I keep remembering a story I read (and tried to link to in another comment but I think the Spamulator ate it) where a dude name Bob Sapolsky talks about how a baboon troop became pretty much pacifist (for baboons, at least) and much nicer to live in for the animals in it when the nasty, bully alpha-male animals were all killed after gorging themselves on tubercular meat. (Google “sapolsky baboon paradise” and read the first article that turns up.)
I typically hate primate ethology arguments since they are usually used to brush off women that “evolution likes rape, honey, so it’s a-okay” or “but girls like hawt sexxx, too!” But this is interesting. All it took was one massive shakedown, and it revealed a completely new way of being a baboon that was much less stressful and pleasant for all animals.
Humans are as complicated as any other animal or certainly as any other primate. A similar wipeout of alpha bullies would probably have the same effect on us, meaning that the way we are now is not the only way we can be.
But is there a path to getting there? I doubt it. The whole point of that tuberculosis die-off was that it was random and out of the control of the animals that were left over. A lightning bolt from the blue was the only way to ensure that only the nonviolent animals were left behind; had the “nonviolent” ones risen up and killed the bullies off … it would have been more of the same.
Hence, while there is probably a perfectly stable universe out there someplace filled with humans who live pacifically and in equality, short of an outbreak of tubercular pizza on Superbowl Sunday worldwide … I don’t see a path to getting there from here.
Men and women have the capacity to be much, much different than we are in our genes and brains. But if we can’t get there from here, it doesn’t matter. I just don’t know what the answer is.
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...