Why don't women collectively rise up against their oppressors?

[DaveinJapan]

Serious question here. Many minority groups have certainly banded together over the years in order to effect change, and we're all well aware of the gay community rising up collectively in order to further their efforts towards equal rights...but why is it that women have not found common enough ground to create their OWN groundswell of support against those who would oppress them?

I'm thinking particularly about the new Oklahoma law insisting on invasive procedures for women seeking to terminate their pregnancy, but beyond that there are a whole host of issues that I would think the majority of women in America would be in favor of (and yet, it seems like cohesion is something impossible to achieve for some reason, in comparison to minority groups, gays, heck even "white power" seems to be making a cohesive comeback these days sad to say).

Thoughts?

[Captain Hilts]

1. We're too interspersed with oppressors and many suffer from the Stockholm syndrome, hence, why women

are not a voting bloc. Nearly half voted for Bush.

Now, when you compare this with activism in the Gay community as a result of the AIDS crisis, you can see how the fact that gays live in communities that have a high number of gays and how communication within that community is high gets information around. Women don't have anything like that.

[DaveinJapan]

2. Thanks.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this fact, when I read stuff like what happened in Oklahoma I'm utterly baffled as to why women, as a whole, don't cry out against it.

Your comments make a lot of sense. Thanks.

I do certainly hope that things can be improved (heck, I'll sign on as a "fierce advocate" any day!).

[Captain Hilts]

5. Yes. There is, for example, no 'one' or small group of source of information for women -

whereas there are a couple of journals most gays read. And there are a couple of news sources that blacks or Jews read, but nothing comparable for women that crosses just enough demographic boundaries that a wide selection of women read it. Even many Jews that do not read 'The Forward' are aware of it and see it, for example. Black Americans had, for many years, a few: Ebony, Jet, etc. along with local newspapers for the black community such as Baltimore' Afro-American.

'Women's' magazines seem to cover - exclusively - one of two groups: 'homemakers' OR 'teenyboppers/fashionistas'.

Women, also, do not have the collective experience that the military was for generations of men. Nor do they have the economic/health insurance safety net that service provided.

[PassingFair]

32. At any given time in our lives, we also have dependent children.

It is impossible to give yourself to a cause
when you're already taken.

Thomas Hardy warns that having children is
giving hostages to fate.

Sadly, by the time many women have time for
fighting for reproductive rights, it no longer
makes a difference to them personally.

50-60 -something mothers with daughters are
the most active women I'VE seen in democratic demonstrations,
whether anti-war, or pro-choice.

[Captain Hilts]

44. Explain that to the folks further down in the thread. nt

[Greyhound]

3. K&R, gotta run now, but to see if this goes anywhere. n/t

[secondwind]

4. traditionally, women -- the caregivers -- are tied down with children, etc. I remember

in the 60's and early 70's, however, when we took to the streets, with kids on our backs or in strollers,to march for Equal Rights, Civil Rights, and against the Vietnam War, etc.

[Captain Hilts]

6. The suburbs atomized women. nt

[glowing]

8. Now, if it were mom issues like day care, school, health care, time off

issues that effect family... Mom's would def. be there along with grannies and daughters... time management issues are sucking wind on women today. Our foresisters got the vote, marched for equal rights, jobs, burned bras... but forgot to bring the men into the fold. Had men and women workers stood together, perhaps we would have 30hr work weeks, safe govt regulated daycare centers, after school programs, at least 4 weeks of vacation, mandatory pd maternity/ paternity leave, and universal health care. But divided and conquered and now everyone is in the rat race and its the race to the bottom.

[Captain Hilts]

9. The women's rights movements of early 20th Cent. were run by wealthy women and lesbians because

neither of these groups had to do housework or prepare dinner.

[Berry Cool]

24. Lesbians don't have to do housework or prepare dinner?

What?? You mean, if you're a lesbian you automatically get the free services of a maid and a cook?

I'm signing up!!!! That's the best recruitment incentive Teh Gheys have EVER come up with!! :bounce:

[alphafemale]

38. !

:spray:

:rofl:

[Captain Hilts]

41. Most were unmarried and had no kids. And for those who had families, they were bigger then.

Historian Susan Ware discussed - and charted - the wealthy and/or - unmarried status of the women who stoked the women's and labor rights movements.

[Berry Cool]

51. But it's ridiculous to suggest that lesbians never had to do housework or cook dinner!

You just walked into that one. True, if they were middle to lower class and they remained single rather than marrying (which not all of them did), they didn't have to cook and clean for a husband and family the way middle- and lower-class women were expected to. But that's always been true of single women (gay or not). It doesn't mean we get out of having to cook and clean for OURSELVES.

[glowing]

27. I don't really care who ran them.. I appreciate having a vote and not being seen as

a piece of property by my husband...

But divided we fail... AND pitting men workers against women who'd like a chance to try to work ended up with a race to the bottom.. but a better deal for Uncle Sam who was getting a better tax deal..

Oh and if these family issues were dealt with along with real sex education and access to b.c. devices, abortions would become more rare and wouldn't be the choice of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Captain Hilts]

42. That's right. nt

[uppityperson]

34. "lesbians don't have to do housework or prepare dinner"? wtf?

Wow, maybe I should sign up also. Get the toaster and not have to prepare dinner or do housework? cool

[Captain Hilts]

43. Few had children and families. Read the history of the women's movement

in the '20s and '30s. Non-wealthy, married women with children were not active participants.

Historian Susan Ware has examined how the folks that did a lot of the movement's work were wealthy or unmarried.

[Berry Cool]

52. It still doesn't mean the unmarried ones didn't have to cook and clean.

It's just easier to do for one person (usually) than for a family.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

56. Exactly! Elizabeth Cady Stanton was actually the main figure in the suffrage fight

She had 8 or something kids, but in addition to her unique qualities of boundless energy and leadership, she ALSO had full time nannies and domestic help.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Today, it's men who are at home with the strollers. n/t

[glowing]

7. because women are a gender only with a ton of diversity. In general,

we rally against something horrible.... but the whole abortion issue is a personal issue and many women feel its not their place to make the judgement... so rallying against restrictions seems like an odd battle cry.. Esp in OK.. I think the state has like 1 clinic. If you roll in the hay, and end up preggo, you probably marry the farm boy or football star and go on with life.

[Frosty1]

10. We tried

If you will recall the attempt at ERA ended with the likes of Phyllis Shafly
:nuke:

[seabeyond]

11. yes. one would think, hope that the okl laws would be enough to galvanize

the same as the az law has.

or the patriot act
or the tsa rule
or nsa lawbreaking

too many of us simply aren't bothered

but then if women did stand up and fight, it would probably be a protest of stripping down. seems the only way women know how to speak out today.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Funny how this thread has been unrecommended. nt

[seabeyond]

i guess shaming and humiliating women/girls during abortion is a good thing. nt

[Captain Hilts]

17. Sure seems that way. nt

[NNN0LHI]

13. Will never be true "equal rights" for women until they start registering women for selective service

Thats the true equalizer.

Don

[seabeyond]

15. really this is old and tired. there is not a draft, has not been a draft and doesnt appear

will be a draft. should not be a condition in equality.

does not mean humiliating and shaming females, opressing, degrading, dehumanizing females is free game.

[Captain Hilts]

18. I see your point, but that's not the issue here. nt

[Book Lover]

33. Yeah, that's worked *so well* to unite, say, black and hispanic men against racism (nm)

[EFerrari]

35. You realize that Latinos come in all colors, right?

[Book Lover]

37. Thank you for the correction

I spoke off the cuff, and incorrectly as you point out. Thanks.

To refine my point, the draft has not united or equalized men; why would it do so for women?

[slampoet]

60. If you read your history you'd find the Civil Rights movement of the 20's and 30's was started by

veterans from The Great War. They were greatly influenced by the freedom they saw other places.

[JNelson6563]

14. There are a lot of women out there

who work pretty hard to set us back in a big way. They live to serve their man, keep the house and look nice.

It's pretty sickening actually and it's far more common than DUers are apparently willing to admit/believe (judging by the replies in this thread).

Julie

[Darth_Kitten]

16. What? What was the 20th century about?

I'm thinking women were mighty pissed.

[Fire1]

19. For there to be common ground all things must be equal and

that's not the case. As one DUer so aptly put it and I paraphrase, all women do not exist on the same social and economic strata.

[political_Dem]

25. +10000

Angela Davis, Audre Lorde and bell hooks write of these dichotomies.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. This train of thought is part of the problem.

This is gross reductionism. The Oklahoma law has plenty of support from both genders. If we fight it on your basis, we lose because it fundamentally misunderstands the problem.

Were this simply an issue of societal oppression, you wouldn't expect to see;
a) girls are 50% more likely to attend college than boys
b) women live 7% longer than men
c) nine times as many men are jailed as women
d) men are far more likely to be the victim of violent crime than women
e) 93% of workplace fatalities are men
f) Women make up more than half of the workforce
g) 20% of US men are unemployed
h) During this recession, men represent 3 of every 4 jobs lost

Arguing that this is about systemic oppression invites a very good counterargument.

The OK law is bad, but we need the support of men to get rid of it.

This is neither the fault of women for failing to collectively act, nor is the solution to marginalize men in the discussion.

Those who favor abortion rights presumably share my belief that fetuses do not possess "personhood"--that they are not meaningfully human. That is very different from declaring that fetuses are fully-realized human beings, but women should be able to abort them anyway. Defining abortion as a "women's issue" all too easily enables opponents to characterize the struggle as one between the "rights of the mother" and the "rights of the child"--which, to pro-choice thinkers, it most certainly is not. Often, this leads abortion-rights advocates to be perceived as agents of identity politics, as part of a special interest group (ie. women) promoting its private agenda. Rather than "winning" the abortion debate, efforts to tag abortion opponents as bigotted against women merely cloud the underlying issues. For example, the proposition that it is sexist for states to pay for Viagra but not for abortion, which one hears all too often in liberal circles, sounds speciously appealing, but is actually rather reductive and shows a stunning inability to grapple with the ideology of abortion opponents. (If one believes abortion kills babies, as some folks sincerely do, of course the taxpayers shouldn't pay for it.) I can think of hundreds of powerful reasons why the government should pay for abortions--but the frequent claim that it's sexist to pay for ED drugs, but not pregnancy termination, or even women's contraceptives, is so deeply illogical and philosophically simplistic that it actually adds to the challenge of making the case for public funding.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/transcending-ovaries-towa_b_559843.html

[seabeyond]

23. "we need the support of men to get rid of it."... agree. nt

[depakid]

22. Because in many instances, it's women oppressing other women!

[Berry Cool]

26. The answer is: women don't think of their problems as collective women's problems.

They think of their problems as individual issues, to be solved by themselves individually.

In other words, most women think it's their job on their own to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and, if they find themselves with one, to somehow manage to get an abortion if that's what they choose. They tend to regard the problem as "theirs" to solve because, after all, they had the sex, right? No one made them do it. Now they have to pay the piper.

If they have problems with employment, equal pay, equal treatment, they tell themselves that if only they'd planned to enter some occupation with better pay than the kinds of jobs most women choose, it wouldn't be an issue, but they chose teaching or nursing or retail work or secretarial work or journalism or whatever, so their poor pay is their own fault. If by some chance they chose a traditionally male field of endeavor and they still have problems in that area, they think it must be their fault for not trying hard enough to "act like one of the boys" so they'll get respect. Or because, well, they do kind of get cut a lot of slack when they have to come in late or go home early because of a kid issue, and the men never have kid issues, so there's a good reason they deserve to do better.

If they have a problem with the men they couple up with--anything ranging from insensitivity to physical abuse--they blame it on themselves, even to the point of blaming themselves for having picked the wrong man. If a man rapes them, they blame themselves for walking alone on that dark street at night, or opening the door to that guy, or getting too drunk with that stranger and no longer being able to control things.

If they come to suspect they're lesbians, they worry that it's their fault that they're not attracted to men like they should be.

If they have problems with juggling work and child rearing, they assume they're on their own to figure out a solution. They tend to assume that the primary job of child-rearing falls to them, and try to work their lives and jobs around it, while the man in their life doesn't really have to make that many adjustments to be a dad. As a couple, they assume it's up to them to figure out whether one of them can afford to stay home with their kids and for how long (and if they can, it will probably be her), or how they will afford day care if they simply can't. They don't say to their government, "Hey, if you want people to have kids, it would be great if you would help them out by offering free or low-cost day care subsidized by taxpayers."

If they have a health issue, they figure it's because they failed at doing something all the women's magazines and news programs and TV shows are constantly exhorting them to do to stay healthy. They eat too much. They don't get enough exercise. They don't cut down on dietary fat. They don't try hard enough to reduce stress. They don't think positively enough.

Oh, and because they're women, they're judged by the world heavily on their physical appearance--about which nobody can do anything other than themselves. They worry about whether the world thinks they're ugly, or too fat, or too thin, or dressed incorrectly, or their hair and makeup don't look good. And if they think something's wrong in that area, they assume it's strictly their job to fix it.

In short, they swallow whole the idea that if they have problems with their lives, the problems are all their own particular personal fault, and hence they are all in need of personal solutions, not collective ones from which many other women suffer and for which they might find relief if they stood up together with other women and said "Enough!"

[cap]

39. in other words, too atomized

We lost our ability to organize; we don't even know our neighbors and don't care to .

[PatSeg]

46. Much of what you said,

would have applied to me at some point in my life and it was exhausting. My generation was the first one where woman entered the work force in large numbers and often raised children on their own. We had no model to emulate, so we had to improvise. My expectations for myself were often unrealistic and I felt I had to try harder because I was a woman.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. This begs clarification.

Your subject says that women are unused to solving their problems collectively.

For the moment, we'll set aside the obvious; men are infinitely less inclined than women to solve their problems collectively.

The body of your post then lists a bunch of individual problems which are arguably problems because of external social pressures. Which is it? What collective action do you suggest which will prevent individuals from having unwanted pregnancies, choosing low-pay careers, being attracted to other women or the wrong man, or developing poor self image?

The downside of self-determination and autonomy is a reduced role for communal decisionmaking. It is difficult to have it both ways.

[Captain Hilts]

48. But men have collective, institutional support that women don't have.

Veterans organizations, for example.

[Berry Cool]

54. I disagree that men are more disinclined to solve their problems collectively.

True, men get a lot of social pressure to be rugged individualists who don't need anyone's help. But they also learn from a young age, most of them, to play team sports. Team sports are all about solving problems by putting heads, and bodies, together to create winning strategies. Business is much the same when it comes to solving collective problems--not everything is accomplished by the mind of a single genius--and men have dominated business.

What collective actions do I suggest which will prevent individuals from having unwanted pregnancies, choosing low-pay careers, being attracted to other women or the wrong man, or developing poor self image? Let's see...

--advocacy for better birth control and better birth control information, as well as laws related to abortion that respect women's right to choose it;

--advocacy for better education of girls and young women in terms of exposing them to a broader spectrum of career options and incentivizing their entry into nontraditional careers;

--advocacy for the rights of LGBT people;

--advocacy for better education for young girls in terms of teaching them the kind of self-respect and self-esteem that will cause them to naturally avoid men who will belittle, disrespect or abuse them and also teach them that their worth is not summed up in their looks;

--advocacy for the kinds of equity in the workplace that will make women less financially dependent on men so they feel less compelled to stay in abusive relationships for financial reasons.

[salguine]

28. Why don't people rise up and burn down HMO headquarters buildings? Why do we

put up with any of the ridiculous shit we put up with? I ask myself this every day of my life.

[skygazer]

29. We've been doing that since the Seneca Convention

But obviously no one has been paying attention. :eyes:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Anyone who aserts gender solidarity is seriously clueless

[Book Lover]

31. I cannot recommend Gerda Lerner highly enough to you

Most especially her book "The Creation of Feminist Consciousness"

http://books.google.com/books?id=7eYM2NWzQugC&dq=Gerda+Lerner&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=ebHdS5KwE4TStgP5qt3NBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CDAQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you're feeling adventuresome, I also recommend http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/ particularly the comments; that's where you'll see us eating our own on naked display.

[ismnotwasm]

36. Some have, some do

Some have died for it. Many of us continue to fight, but we're not media darlings, 'feminazi' is sometimes the kindest thing you hear about us.

Women, for much of history had no rights and no legal or political clout. We were property. We fought against major religions and our best philosophers that tell us that we're subhuman, a 'failed male' while clinging to our right to spirituality. These same religions subverted sexuality, making sex a shameful act rather than an act of joy. Scientists and psychologists debated women's sexuality itself, for instance, considered the clitoris some sort of penis (it isn't) Came up with odd psychological disorders like nymphomania or frigidity.

We are talking about centuries and centuries of this shit.


Women were considered emotionally fragile, prone to mental disease, less able to handle stress. And not to forget, of less value that a fetus.

In general value of a women still resides in her sexual desirability, her ability to bear children, her status as a mother--not in her intellect, her wisdom, her strength--No matter what heights we rise to, we are still defined by our wombs. It's been a tough fight and it's not over in any way. What a long strange trip it's been

[BlancheSplanchnik]

58. word.

word word word.

What efforts women do make, in almost every venue aside from sexuality and breeding display are "invisible-ized"; that in addition to the many other factors impeding our focus.

Even Women's History Month, that was a perfect example. Crickets. Compare that to the nation wide, enthusiastic support and participation throughout Black History Month...public awareness spots on every channel, nearly every hour.

[NaturalHigh]

40. You would be surprised how many in Oklahoma agree with the new ultrasound law.

I know many who are. You can't lump all women into one way of thinking any more than you can all men.

[Heidi]

45. Stockholm syndrome. (nt)

[frustrated_lefty]

49. I think you're trying to impress some chick and get laid.

It's a good thought, your title I mean, but when you see men and women as enemies, the oppressor and the oppressed, you lose the ability to consider the notion that they might work together.

[Berry Cool]

55. I didn't read the OP's title as meaning that men were necessarily the oppressors.

Perhaps what the OP meant is various elements in society, of which men are but one.

It's not so much demonizing a sex as it is asking why women don't work as a group to combat whatever keeps them down.

Oh, and could you really come up with nothing better than the old canard that any man (is the OP a man?) who claims to be a feminist or support feminist ideas is just trying to get laid?

[Sparky 1]

50. THANKS! Women do most of the shopping. Maybe we should boycott ALL these states?

http://theweek.com/article/index/202399/Americas_5_strictest_abortion_laws

Oklahoma
Nebraska
Kansas
Louisiana
South Dakota

But the question is, how do we get the word out?

[Xenotime]

53. Good discussion. What happen to feminism?

I thought it was supposed to put men and masculinity in its place?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

57. excellent question

unfortunately I can't really join the discussion right now...gotta run to work

[SoCalDem]

59. In general, because women are the primary child-rearers for the most part

and as such, their "career-paths" and childbearing often are synchronized, and during that time they "may" need financial support other than what they can earn on their own.

Women in the workplace is a relatively "new" thing, except for the obvious cases where women have always been "free labor" for family owned businesses and farms.

Men have run the show for a very long time, and have viewed women as "less" than a man.

Even when women have surpassed men in the business world, it's often because they were MORE ruthless, MORE willing to be "tough", and as a result, many were then just despised by BOTH men and women in their workplace..(men because of hating to work FOR a woman, and by women because they were often "meaner" than the former male bosses).

Women as a group have always had a built-in "weakness", and that is "family responsibility". Until our society lifts that responsibility form women and redistributes it equally between men and women, this perception will continue.

There are exceptions, but for the most part women who care for children or feel more responsible for them, will always lag behind men, even though women are often more capable, and higher educated than the men who boss them around..