Election 2004 And the Collapse of Feminism

[OrdinaryTa]

Whatever happened to feminism, remember it? It used to address a much wider range of issues than it does today. In fact we hardly ever hear of it any more. Republicans have always opposed feminism, but now, even Democrats ignore it.

Who in the 1960's and 70's would have thought that the Millennium would pass without a woman being seriously considered for the presidency? It's a betrayal of the hopes of that generation that today's Democrats consider combat experience a significant qualification. How are women going to be elected president when traditional masculinity is one of the qualifications?

The gains of previous generations are being eroded - what what was once thought achievable is now entirely remote. Today the president is more than the head of the federal government; this person must also be an alpha male. It's disappointing how many women buy into this.

[Larkspur]

1. Women need to put themselves in position to be seriously considered

President.

Being a successful governor, who can manage a state's affairs well, take a bad situation and make it better, and handle with confidence and competently natural and human made crisis, is a way to generate confidence in a woman's ability to lead this nation. Also, getting re-elected at least once prior to running for President would prove that women are political winners. Experience and previous successes in elected office are key ingredients as well as positions on issues.

What feminist groups need to do or keep doing is work together to help raise funds and organize networks of supporters that will help female candidates enter and rise in power in elected office.

[OrdinaryTa]

14. Women in Politics

What feminist groups need to do or keep doing is work together to help raise funds and organize networks of supporters that will help female candidates enter and rise in power in elected office

Clark didn't have to do any of that! His entry into politics is right at the top. And what is the basis for his qualifications? He bombed the hell out of Kosovo.

The "new" role for women in politics is suspiciously like the "old" role: stuff envelopes and make sandwiches.

[Larkspur]

26. This feminist doesn't support Clark

and Clark does appeal to white males who have a male inferiority complex.

But Clark's sudden rise to the top of the national polls does not excuse female candidates from earning their positions legitimately. Clark's Prez run, in my opinion, is a chimera - a foolish fancy, and he doesn't have the experience at campaigning that my choice, Dean has.

In my opinion, female candidates need to run for and win the governorships of their states. Once in that office, they need to manage the affairs of their state well and be able to handle crisis confidently and competently in order to win over those, men and women, who distrust women in political leadership positions. That's the only way I see a woman being accepted for President as normally as a man is.

[Mikimouse]

2. Not sure about the decine of feminism

If you look around and listen to some of the RW talking butts, there is a central theme to their screeching. That theme seems to echo the trend started by Mr. "I have no talent, but since the repeal of the Fairness doctrine, I am a millionaire", and that is to demonize all progressive women (feminazis). To me, this is a real indication of a deep fear on their collective part. They ordinarily do not attack people from whom they perceive no threat, so they must really be sweating it out right now. Anyway, that's my take on the current situation. :hippie:

Edit: note to myself- spellcheck is your friend!!!!!!!!

[demnan]

3. I so agree with this!

I think we have slipped backwards. It does anger me that the younger generation doesn't realize what we baby boomers (and of course before!!) had to put up with - lower wages, sexual harassment on the job, lack of opportunity or promotion.

I experienced all of these, I'm 46 years old, graduated from a good college with a BA and couldn't get a job that paid worth a shit. I saw white men with the same qualifications go up, up up. I went back to school and got great technical skills and during the Clinton years from going from job to job I finally got a fairly good salary.

My mother actually was a WWII torpedo factory worker (in Alexandria, VA - yes, it was actually a torpedo factory) - and she said that the men (slackers avoiding WWII) resented the women who came in because the women pushed up the average. (These young women, most of them, like my young married mother, had loved ones in the war and they wanted to work as hard as they could - they were patriots working for the war effort.)

When the men came back from the war, they immediately fired all the women. It wasn't even questioned.

Hey I remember in the sixties when there were two columns in the Classified section of the newspaper - one for men wanted and one for women wanted. The young women coming up never experienced this. I started reading the papers when I was nine.

A great aunt of a friend of mine (who died three years ago at the age of 98) worked for the railroad company and in the forties wanted to get into the computer field, but the company wouldn't allow it - they said, women have no mind for computers. I guess they never heard of Grace Hooper. This was again, Alexandria, Virginia, not some far off rural place.

Well here's a thought, do you think that Jessica Lynch might someday be persuaded into getting into politics? What party do you think a working class girl from West Virginia would support?

Duh!

[wryter2000]

4. Sometimes I want to scream

Whenever I hear some young bimbo declare "I didn't need feminism to get where I am," I want to scream, "You damned well did. The work of lots of good women and men who came before you."

But sometimes you can get their attention by telling them there were so few women doctors, they were called "lady doctors." Women couldn't get credit in their own name. They couldn't go to Harvard or Yale.

[OrdinaryTa]

11. Images of Women on DU

I remember in the sixties when there were two columns in the Classified section of the newspaper - one for men wanted and one for women wanted. The young women coming up never experienced this

What I remember from those days is that feminism was regarded as an ongoing struggle and that if you stopped pushing the boulder up hill, it would roll back on you and gain momentum. That seems to be happening. Here are two images I've seen posted here:



Women for Wes. Clark is on record as opposing the glass ceiling. But with no political background at all, he proposes to be the head of the federal government. Women are held back because of their lack of experience, but men aren't. Note the sign that suggests women support this arrangement.



Rosie the Riveter. This graphic defines strength in a way that advantages men. Men are muscular; women aren't. It really sends conflicting messages to women: Compete with men but it's mannish to do so. Also, as you've noted, Rosie the Riveter was promptly fired when the men came home from the war.

[shance]

5. Great question that I was thinking about the other day.

I have theories, one being that much of the feminist party was brought on by significant issues, the right to vote, abortion rights, which are probably the biggest issues that brought us together.

I also believe that the Lesbian community which has also been an element of the feminist movement was confronted by the AIDS movement and many of their friends, so I believe in many ways that for lesbians and other feminist women as well, many of us became immersed in that cause, and for good reason, but I also think like women are prone to do, we put our needs and issues aside and allowed ourselves to lose focus on our goals as women at large.

I think we are also now faced with a plethora of issues. I believe that the right to choose is vital for woman. Due to mass campaign mainly financed and led by men (not to bash men, but its the reality -I have been involved in Choice politics for years)and many institutions and denominations of Christianity, women have been targeted, and due to the fact that many young women and women my age have always known that abortion was an option have taken the sacred right for granted. Women must learn to unite, and it is difficult in a staunchly patriarchal system we live in. Many women have no concept or have ever been taught principles by which to live by concerning friendship and/or relationships in general with women. I think men through sports and fraternities etc, have learned it. Young women are learning through sports now and I think for older women, spirituality groups and heck, bridge clubs are a great bonding place. Its certainly a beginning.

I think we have been largely conditioned to value friends up to a point, and then other factors, including men, are to supercede those friendships. I was very lucky early on and had a wonderful friend who through her actions and consistency taught me how to be a good friend. I think because of societies own marginalization and/or either idolatry of young women, we have come to marginalize ourselves and others and have channeled alot of our power and identity into rather superficial areas. Not to mention, we have allowed a male-dominated society to dicate our importance and our worth, instead of valuing each other and dictating our own worth.

I believe essentially many American women lack a spiritual base that celebrates women and lack an understanding and a way to know how to connect with one another, and I think its important that the feminist movement and all of us look to listen to one another and build circles and communities that provide what is lacking in the mainstream world. There is movement and the so-called feminism movement is still alive, but it can be difficult to find, especially in the red states*** I think it could growing in developing community groups and go from there.

[AP]

6. A year ago I posted a thread about how I thought there was an organized

backlash against feminism in the media. I said that movies like Sweet Home Alabama were part of the media's orchestration of this backlash. I think the way that this election seems to be going sort of explains why it was important for the media to elevate masculinity and devalue feminism.

[soleft]

7. The thing is the feminine is not exclusively a female characteristic

As the masculine is not exclusively a male characteristic. You know this, we all know this, all human beings possess the masculine and the feminine and just as those qualities get repressed in either of the sexes, we as a species tend to repress this knowledge and associate the feminine excessively with women. Hence the term feminism to describe the woman's movement. Many of the actions that were taken during the movement - marching, mobilizing, attacking stereotypes and prejudice were all actually very masculine activities.

I consider myself a feminist not because I support women's advancement, which I do, but because I feel there is an inbalance in the world between the masculine and the feminine. As a culture we have been valuing the masculine - in both sexes - the outgoing, agressive, action oriented qualities power, speed, brute strength. We, as a species, have been overlooking the values of patience, endurance, nurturing, stillness, and thus the feminine is not valued in either sex.

I think a combination of the millenium, concerns over the world's eroding resourses, a return to fundamentalist ideologies, the remaining threat of nuclear holocaust - all of these things tap into everyone's primals fears of death. And in times of physical peril, you need someone who's going to step up to the plate and save the day - whether it's John Wayne on a stage coach or Shelly Winters diving into flooded engine room.

It's true. People want a hero right now. We need to understand that anyone can fill that role - male or female. And we also must realize that if we continue to fufill that need to the total exclusion of filling deeper long term needs, needs that are met with our feminine qualities - we will remain out of balance and we will continue to suffer.

[OrdinaryTa]

15. Gender-Neutral Analogies

in times of physical peril, you need someone who's going to step up to the plate

If we want to overcome the cultural prejudice that masculine is good and feminine is bad, it means readjusting our thinking. "Stepping up to the plate" is a gender-biased analogy: major league baseball is all men. Instead, use terminology like "rise to the occasion" or "meet the challenge". This is not a quibble.

The campaign here on DU against the analogy between courage and testicles has been largely successful. With some exceptions, people here have stopped using the term "balls" or "cojones" to mean bravery. However, there is still an unfortunate tendency to resort to the rhetoric of violence to express disagreement. We're working on it.

BTW, America was not in physical peril when Bush attacked Iraq. He invented the threat. Even if there were a real threat, the response would not be to "step up to the plate".

[soleft]

16. I can see your point, if that's your only orientation to that phrase

However, stepping up to the plate is not the gender exclusive phrase of men or major league baseball. The fact that I as a woman used it is evidense of this as is my skinned shin from sliding into second base last night after I in fact stepped up to the plate. By saying that you perpetuate the idea that sports is the domain of men which is unfortunate for every little girl who dreams of hitting to the opposite field.

Is it a masculine phrase, of course. Is it a male gender based phrase, no.

[damnraddem]

8. Remember Nov-Dec 2000?

That's where a lot of things went. Let's bring them back!

[0rganism]

9. Have you told Carol Mosely-Braun that she's not a serious candidate?

She recently announced her candidacy, so you can save her some time by letting her know early-on.

I saw her in the debates, and she was kicking ass all over those "alpha males". I could have sworn she was a contender. Oh well, I guess she's not worth considering because you said so.

[OrdinaryTa]

13. Dan Rather

Dan Rather commented on Mosely-Braun's candidacy last night, calling it an "ego trip". Can you imagine him doing that to a male candidate?

What is the frequency, Kenneth?

[virtualobserver]

29. You know, he's right.....

but there are eleven on an "ego trip", not just one.

[KaraokeKarlton]

10. Feminism is so 90's

Humanism is all the rage now, and it covers everyone equally. Humanism is about unification of all to further the cause of all. It's a much, much better option.

[shance]

12. Humanism covers everyone equally? Kind of like Viagra versus the pill?

If you are a woman, then you probably have not been effected by the so-called humanism movement.

I would like to know how women have benefitted from this "rage"?

Rage is actually a great way to put it, because there is no doubt in my mind that testosterone is the rage these days, and as a consequence is dictating all of America's decision making in the process.

You can hopefully see where this has led us. Without a balance of feminism and the qualities that are innately feminine inspiring and contributing to policy, we are teetering on the brink of catastrophe.

Yes, there are women in our government, but in reality that means little in a patriarchal society. Many women are in those positions because they know how to act and even resign to men.

[KaraokeKarlton]

21. I am a woman and I have real problems with the current feminist movement

I have great respect for the equal rights moovements of the past, but I feel it's been hijacked by radicalss, which is why I have a pretty negative view of feminism as it stands today. I don't support any movement that demonizes another group of people and represents only that group's issues. I feel that the movement has strayed from being about equal rights and is more about gaining special priveledge and blaming men for everything and anything.

Oh, and the reason that there aren't more women in higher power positions is that there is a natural process that takes time to play itself out. It's beginning to happen on a wider scale at this point, as well. It hasn't been all that long that most women have been in the work place full time in serious careers. Yes, there were some much earlier, but not like the numbers we see today. Executive jobss and political offices don't just fall into someone's lap (with the exception of family members being executives), and those who get them usually have to put in a lot of time to advance to that point. In another 10 years you will see a huge balance shift that will look far more even than what you see right now.

I could toss out many arguments against common feminism talking points, but I'm really not in the mood to try to respond to the ensuing flame fest those arguments will lead to. It's best to just leave it at the fact that although I have much respect for the feminists of yesteryear, I don't have that same respect for the current feminist movement and I have my reasons. And this will be my last post on this thread, so anyone intending to flame me for my view shouldn't expect a response.

[spooky3]

27. I think you may want to look at research

on changes in the labor force and related topics. There have been controlled studies examining what you propose, and they don't in general support your hypotheses. In nearly every well-respected study I have seen, after "legitimate" variables, such as experience and education, were accounted for (and even these could reflect unequal access, yet were treated as fully non-discriminatory by most authors), there was a great deal of unexplained variance in the differences in career attainment, pay, etc. Absolutely NO study that I am aware of in a top research journal has ever supported the notion that 10 years the "huge balance shift" you predict will occur.

The Civil Rights Act outlawing employment discrimination was passed in 1964. That was 40 years ago--PLENTY of time fo the "natural process" you believe accounts fully for the small number of women in powerful positions to play out. The data show that the gap has narrowed but not by much. The same things you say ("things are getting better; it just takes time") were said in the 70s when women entered the workforce in record numbers. But many male top managers (and politicians) today are 55 or younger, so they have obviously had enough time to get to the top. There are plenty of women who went to business school with them. Where are they?

If you want to be persuasive, you need to make sure you are acquainted with the data. If instead you just want to bash and run, you really are no better than the sexists against whom those old feminists you say you admire fought so hard.

[gottaB]

22. Humanism is not antithetical to feminism, or vice versa

Humanists for Carol Moseley Braun!

Really, as a self-proclaimed humanist, do you have any problems with, for example, the proposition that "Woman is the measure of all things"?

[loyalsister]

23. "Humanism" IS feminine in it's nature

One thing about women is that they are more inclined to facilitate progress through networking. Women have been the primary creators and administrators of most nonprofit organizations.
This is because they don't tend to use ladder climbing as a mechanism to define their success. Success to women is more based on building connections. That is what they are good at because of their communicative abilities. I can see why some women might be going for the whole practical idea of Clark or maybe the regressive alpha-male things, but which candidate speaks to women who have any level of self-awareness???? That would be Howard Dean who is talking about restoring communities, and volunteerism. Not to mention his very proactive position on women's health. The numbers may bear it out eventually.
There is a division amongst feminists lately. Some of the up and coming feminists who are begining to recognize their own talents and differences from men for what they are. Others rebel against that idea considering it an unhealthy "seperate but equal" stance.
I think that's ridiculous. We're different and the sooner we pay attention, the sooner we can capitalize on what we have and focus our abilities.
I'm repulsed by the alpha male thing. Knee jerk soldier worship coming from men or women is just sickening.

[stevedeshazer]

17. Bull shit.

Please explain.

What does the term 'feminism' mean to you? What "wider issues" did it used to represent vs. today?

You state, "what was once thought achievable is now entirely remote." What was once achievable that is not now? Is there not a serious movement, for example, to nominate Hillary Clinton?

In my world, we should be fighting not for equal treatment for women, blacks, queers, Chechens, and whales. We should be fighting for EVERYONE.

[OrdinaryTa]

18. Hillary and the Decline of Feminism

Hillary is a problem for feminists. Let's state the obvious: she's a senator today because of who she was married to. She also voted for the war.

I don't know if feminist texts have been updated. It's quite possible they haven't. There's been so much backsliding that DU males are quite comfortable ridiculing feminist viewpoints.

[stevedeshazer]

19. Well,

I'm not ridiculing feminist viewpoints, if that is what you are suggesting. And I don't see Hillary as someone who is a senator simply because of her husband. That isn't obvious to me. She is who she is in her own right. I don't see her as a problem; I see her as a solution!

I am merely asking questions. I'm not backsliding; ask my mother, wife, or daughter.

The day a woman becomes POTUS will be happy day for me, please don't misunderstand.

I just see that women have come a long way. My wife, for example, has a job that would not have been available a generation ago.

[MrPrax]

28. Agreed...

It has been said that Hillary tookover the health care platform and essentially in 18 months dismantled a health care coalition that took years to build...
There are a lot of problems dealing with feminism (any pure theory really), but there are 'problems' with 'free market' ideology, socialism, etc etc...
One of the 'declines' in feminism can be attributed to classism and lack of a class perspective and this cuts to the simple fact that making board rooms or political parties more gender reflective is not going to change them...
That is a tired old feminism canard that no one is buying anymore...

[shance]

20. I half-way agree. The other half says you are likely "none of the above"

I couldnt agree more that we all should be working for equality for all.

The problem is some of us are more equal than others. I am white, and I will be the first to say in many ways we receive preferential treatment at times merely because of the color of our skin. It is amazing and incredibly immature that is the case, but often those in power are immune and disconnected from those who are not in power. So many become indifferent and even buy into delusions that they were some how deemed better. Insane I know, but look at the insanity and immaturity enveloping our culture these days.

If more of us actually got out of our box and ventured into meeting others from different cultures and even travelled more abroad, we begin to realize how much more alike we are. I believe the narrow minded, limited mental capacity for certain people could easily be remedied if people would just get out of their comfort zones and actually try to learn something new. Our perspectives always change when that happens. But many Americans are comfortable and lazy and dont want to branch out and meet new people. I have certainly been there from time to time. But I also know when I do branch out I learn something new that I otherwise would never have had the opportunity to learn.

There is prejudice, and usually the ones who are not experiencing the prejudice often have little if any concern for those who are discriminated against on a regular basis. Of course that can easily change if they become the one discriminated against. In the end, we all are discriminated against somehow.

[bloom]

24. I have been thinking about this recently, as well.

I think the Hillary bashing that occurred - set back the clock.

There are many factors in our society that are working against feminism. I think without there being a conscious awareness of the problems and a conscious desire to change - progess stops and reverses.

[OrdinaryTa]

25. Ignoring Women

The Democrats are backsliding into good ol' boy politics because they see women as a captive constituency. There's no reason to include feminist goals into the party agenda; in fact because Bush is so popular, Democrats seem to be de-emphasizing feminism.

Bush-style feminism is perfunctory - put a few women in cabinet positions to shut them up. But Democrats aren't offering much more than this. Feminism used to be more widely defined than it is today. Democrats aren't framing issues from a feminist perspective as they used to do. As a result, the gender gap will narrow, to Bush's advantage.

Most alarming of all is that anti-feminists have returned to the use of ridicule as a way to suppress feminism. As we saw in the 1960's, feminist goals are denounced as "laughable", "unrealistic" and "silly". It's an ongoing struggle. Forward momentum stopped long ago.

[CBHagman]

30. What do you mean "We," Kemo Sabe?

Do you mean you completely discount those of us who belong to women's groups, demonstrate, organize, lobby, write, and publish concerning women's issues?

Do you mean you discount all those of us who subcribe to and/or purchase feminist writings, whether in periodical form or book form?

Have you heard of Barbara Mikulski, Nancy Pelosi, and Patty Murray, and do you know what positions they hold in the Democratic Party?

Really, there are so many unfounded assertions in your initial post that I hardly know where to begin.

And this is a huge whopper:

"Republicans have always opposed feminism, but now, even Democrats ignore it."

Not true. Some of the early suffragists received support from the Republican Party. And as for feminism being ignored by the Democratic Party, I'm a registered Democrat and the issue is of huge concern for me.

Besides, by their fruits shall ye know them. Feminism embraces a good many issues (for example, child care, equal opportunity, family planning), and we can see where the activists on those issues are in the Senate and House. Some of our allies in those areas ARE Republican, though of course the administration and a good chunk of GOP leadership are on the opposing side.

So go back to the library after I finish administering this spanking.

:spank:

[gottaB]

31. Aren't you struggling a teensy bit to miss the point?

Ta's post was about the presidency and the presidential race.

In case you missed it, there's a woman running who is being dissmissed by the media and many in the Party. Not just dismissed but ridiculed. The ridicule has extened to NOW and other feminist groups. It has been suggested in authoritative publications such as the NYT that Carol Moseley Braun and her supporters are not qualified to represent feminists, not qualified to represent women, and not qualified to represent the nation.

NOW's reasons for endorsing Braun are crystal clear. Their detractors, what can we say about their reasoning?

Well, meanwhile, as Ta notes, combat experience has been put forward as a significant qualifaction for the presidency. Of course it doesn't stand to reason. AWOL has none he can boast of. Clinton had none. Bush 41 had some, but a lot of good it did him. Reagan made movies.... It doesn't stand to reason, or rather, for those who make the argument, a wealth of tortuous reasoning and supporting argumenets is required to back it up.

Do we see that in the media? Not much. If there's any justification given it usually comes down to untenable assertions of fact and argumentation based on emotional appeals or faulty logic. No surprise then that reasoned argument is frequently bypassed by those making the claim. Indeed, Ta appears to be correct that "traditional masculinity" has become accepted by many Democrats as a legitimate qualification for the office of president.

Thus, your cavilations eggregiously dodge the point. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that your multitude of feminist writers and thinkers and activists and Senators have galvanized around this issue and made the point in no uncertain terms that masculinity is not a qualification for the highest office, and by the same token being a woman is not a disqualification. And I mean like right now, not over the last ten years in some cloistered colloquies. Ta's argument is all about the here and now.

Oh a woman can escape our scorn, but not this woman, it will be said. Oh, one need not be a man, but such a manly man this is! Isn't that the way it is? Right now?

Patty Murray. I plan to vote for her and proudly, but mark my words: Carol Moseley Braun was the first victim of the Karl Rove backlash machine; she will not be the last. Murray is on the radar, and if the Republicans have their way, the fight for her senate seat will be about her being a "silly" woman who couldn't possibly understand national defence.

That brings me to my final point. About the Republican Party, Ta was making a generalization, a perfectly reasonable one to make here at Democratic Underground. You know darned well that the Republicans work hard to keep feminist issues out of their platform. Of course there are exceptional Republican women, but they are exceptions to monotonous uniformity of anti-feminist and anti-women opinion and political action. The Democratic party, by contrast, in my lifetime at least, has been more open to women and to espousing and acting upon feminist concerns.

You know what the gender gapping is like between the parties. You know that in the last presidential race it was even more pronounced. You know that support for Bush continues to be weak among women. You know that support for our present military actions continues to be weak among women. And yet when somebody makes a point that our Party leadership is being unresponsive to it's feminist base, and taking women's votes for granted, you forget everything you know to administer a little spanking. What's up with that?

[OrdinaryTa]

32. Blurting Out the Truth

Have you heard of Barbara Mikulski, Nancy Pelosi, and Patty Murray, and do you know what positions they hold in the Democratic Party?

I certainly have heard of these women, and I also know the positions they hold in the Democratic Party. I'm unaware of any talk of drafting them for president. The one woman who is running - Carol Mosely-Braun - is thought to have no chance at all of winning. Why aren't women in serious contention to head up the American government? It's a reasonable question, don't you agree? Over half the American population is female.

In previous posts I've used the term humane values as being imperiled by the policies of the Bush administration, but it occurred to me that in the 60's and 70's these were called feminist values. In those early days, some of the hopes for feminism were unrealistic. It was thought, for example, that if a woman were National Security Adviser, she would not support the aerial bombardment of civilian populations. How wrong we were!

The term feminist values has lost its larger meaning and now refers narrowly to such women's concerns as child care and reproductive rights, etc. These things are important but feminism used to cast a much wider net. How unfortunate for all of us that it no longer does.

The government has long opposed feminism in its larger meaning. Judy Bari, leader of protests to save California's ancient redwoods, was hounded by the FBI but eventually won her lawsuit against them. Poet Muriel Rukeyser was also hounded by the FBI for her writings about social issues like the death of miners from silicosis. http://www.system.missouri.edu/upress/spring2003/dayton.htm



Judy Bari

Patriarchy is the oldest and, I think, deepest form of oppression on Earth. In fact, it's so old and it's so deep that we're discouraged from even naming it. If you're a white person, you can talk about apartheid; you can say, "I'm against apartheid" without all the white people getting huffy and offended and thinking you're talking about them. But if you even mention patriarchy, you are met with howls of ridicule and protest from otherwise progressive men who take it as a personal insult that you're even mentioning the word.

http://www.judibari.org/revolutionary-ecology.html