way before. I know I we all should make sure we thank the women who came before us. Without those women and moving forward none of the future generations would be where there are today.

i couldnt agree more. really, i am not studied or even titled feminist. just a woman. and i didnt know about waves, just learning stuff and expressing from experience. i wonder sometimes why it is so hard not to bring things to a stillness, when in real life, it just is not that hard. kinda easy. lol

but i agree absolutely. i told someone last night. there will be things we always disagree on, but disagree respectfully. some of my funnest men posters dont agree with me, but we enjoy discussing our differences. and trust. trust..... it isnt so hard. but it is invaluable.

thank you

And the excerpt you posted from it was the best bit, especially this line: 'I think we need a No Wave feminism, one that understands and respects that people and movements are complicated, that we're all going to have different beliefs, and that we can talk about these and even disagree without having an enormous schism.'

The only ones who gain out of feminist infighting are misogynists, imo. We should all be standing side by side, not treating fellow feminists like they're the enemy because they're this or that wave or generation...

Thanks for posting that, justice

Last edited Fri Feb 10, 2012, 11:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm probably about to open a can of worms, but I think it's a can that needs to be opened.

I'm not doing this to start another flamewar or fight or whatever, but I feel it's important for other's to know where I stand.

I'm of the school, that feminism to me, is allowing women to make the choices they want to make--whether I agree with those choices or not. To me, that's feminism.

If a woman MAKES the choice to make porn for a living, who am I to tell her not to? Do I like that she made the choice, do I wish she'd made a different choice? Sure but it is not my place to tell her not to do this. I know all about the issues surrounding porn and women's issues but, again, to me, if we take away that woman's choice, we are no better than men (or other women) who tell women what they can and cannot do. To me, that's sexist. To me, it's not a black and white issue.

The whole beauty pageant thing that created such a huge kerfuffle; I'm proud that two OUT lesbians made the choice to break that barrier. Do I agree with the concept of pageants? No, I don't but breaking barriers IS a good thing and these two lesbian women broke barriers. Do I wish one of them were the first openly lesbian President of the United States instead of beauty pageant contestants? Hell, yes I do but breaking down any barrier, IMO, is good whether I agree with what they did.

I see a lot of judgement of other women's actions by some feminists and I think, as I stated above, feminism is not a black and white issue. Women are not black and white, there are shades of grey in all of us and if we treat everything to do with feminism like it can fit in some rigid description, it's only going to continue causing issues within the feminist community. I'm not suggesting everyone has to think of things like I do but I do ask that people think about what they're saying and if what they are saying takes choice away from women or judges them.

EDITED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING:
I realized I left some things out.

On the subject of pearl clutching, b*tch and c*nt -- these words don't bother me. I understand how they can be denigrating to some (if not most women or the LGBTQ community) but I choose not to allow these to bother me. There are bigger things that worry me in life. My biggest issue with these words aren't the words themselves but the intellectual laziness that goes with the use of them. So it's likely you will not see me jumping in on threads fighting against these words or phrases. There's also the probability that I am not aware these battles are going on either.

I've seen other's questioned on these things and I think accusing other feminists of not supporting other feminists in certain battles is not productive. As I've stated above, we all are not going to agree about things and expecting us all to agree on all issues and then throwing that in our faces makes nothing but animosity.

and i would love the opportunity to say, clearly and with precise words that matter. because i am picking my words for specific meaning.

i think a woman has the right to make her choices, too. absolutely. no quibble and seesawing on that at all. i am emphatic, that women have that right.

i have been known to talk about prostitution, stripping and porn. you never hear me say they do not have the right to do it. what i do discuss is the effects on society, our men, our women, our children. our society. i understand there are all kinds of reasons a woman will make these choices. all of who she is, is not this choice. not even a part of who she is, is these choices. it is something she does, not who she is.

i really wanted to clear that up.

the beauty pageant? the only issue i had in that whole thing was men putting a number on that woman. and what pissed me off most was a couple of the asshole men who gave her a low number. and was a real who the fuck are you, to put a number on this woman, like this. that .... is what pissed me off.

the only other comment i made was..... yea, a gay woman broke that ceiling.

but that is where the importance of what you are doing, is. we have to actually listen. and instead of saying, they are anti porn, or anti stripper..... understand the grey of the issue. that it isnt about the individual and the choices made, but the reality of the effects on our society that we are discussing. the argument we will always have is it is not taking a choice away and really, not judging that person, though i know that is a really tough concept people will not accept. my position is not being quiet about how it effects us all.

so, how is this, fun? i think so. i see wonderful opportunity. in differing views, that may not be that different. or maybe they are.

What you've described in allowing women to make the choices they want to make is what the core essence of feminism is for me as well...

I get what yr saying about breaking down barriers, even if it was a beauty pageant, which I also disagree with the concept of, and have a theory that the poor kids from 'Toddlers and Tiaras' will turn up at them one day trailed by their stage mothers. It was another barrier that was broken, and it wasn't all that many decades ago that women were breaking barriers in their fight for equality here. My grandmother used to be proud that she was the first woman where she worked who was allowed to keep her job when she got married, and I used to sit there thinking to myself WTF? Continuing working after getting married is a no-brainer! But sometimes the big barriers of becoming the leader of a country can be a poisoned chalice. Those big barriers that don't look like being broken any time soon in the US have been broken here. While she's no Maggie Thatcher, I really wish our first female Prime Minister could have been someone who's actions I was proud of, but she opposes gay marriage, and has turned her back on her socialist roots....

The easy way out. If somebody wants to be an object, let her.

Me, I am actually concerned about others. Hm, isn't that what the criticism of the old-schoolers is? That we weren't concerned about others, just about our privileged selves (even if we weren't actually privileged at all)?

I don't believe that any woman's choice is free unless the constraints that all women operate under in society are removed.

If it's somebody's choice to be a sex worker, then it is somebody else's choice to be an abused wife.

There simply is no way around that.

Some groups and some individuals are vulnerable and disadvantaged from the outset. I believe that a decent society has a responsibility to protect its vulnerable members. I believe that responsibility overrides individual freedom in some instances. The extreme vulnerability of women all over the world to sexual abuse and exploitation overrides the "choice" of some privileged woman (privileged by virtue of the very fact that she lives in a developed society, for starters) to play at being a sex object for whatever reasons she may assert.

I believe there are bad choices, choices that some women make that harm themselves or other women or their society at large, whether they make them because they actually have no choice or because they are simply self-interested and have no regard for anyone but themselves.

In some cases I will indeed "judge" those women and their actions, where they seem to be acting with a minimum of constraints. In the case of the young woman in Thailand I saw a documentary about some years ago, who prostituted herself in the city in order to support her rural family, I will judge her a hero; the constraints in her life left her little choice, and she made the choice that did the most good for other people. She was not the source of women's problems, she was a victim of them. In the case of the North American woman demanding the "freedom" to prostitute herself for profit, I will judge her for what she is: self-interested and selfish, and not in any way deserving of my concern if her choices are limited against her wishes in an effort to improve the lives of women living without choices. Because she is very definitely part of the problem.

A feminism that demands that all choices women make be given equal respect is the real feminism of privilege, the "feminism" of those who are lazy and self-absorbed.

I don't see much I disagree with, so please don't think my lack of lengthy reply says anything about yours.

On the topic of words:
I consistently, on DU, would never let stand the use of any phrase or word the is denigrating to women, minorities or the LGBTQ community (provided I see the thread that these words take place in). Just because I don't have personal issue with such things, doesn't mean I recognize others do.

and appreciated.

or weeks --

you lost me completely with your first 2 sentences. Hint: that's NOT how to win friends and influence people.

And I find this pretty offensive too: it appears, at times, we are the stereotype that women can't get along).

but it also happens to be true. If you can honestly say that women, at times, can't get along (I think there is some pretty empirical evidence of that right here on DU) then I'll take those words back.

As far as winning friends and influencing people, well, I'm not naive enough to think that my OP would ever do that. I knew when posting this that there would be some that would take an opportunity to find fault with it. I'm actually shocked that with 261 views of my OP, there is only one person thus far who has had issue with it. And I'm saddened that only 7 people have replied because, as I stated, I think we need to have this discussion.

The entire left is riven with divisiveness and disagreement, as are most (all?) other groups and movements.

I have been reading this morning, read all the comments at jezebel too. I want to make sure what I say is something I've considered and not off the cuff, as I consider this important.

One thing I can say right off is that this part really resonated with me:

but the stereotype is. This is why I mentioned the stereotype and very carefully chose how I worded it.

I think a lot of conversations/debate etc. is taken personally but then again, I think some of the conversation and/or debate on DU (I don't frequent other message boards that often) are attacks. People get so wrapped up in their point, they make it personal. Things are said that can certainly be construed certain ways, feelings are hurt or people are angered and the next thing you know, it's a raging battle that just seems to go on and on and on and on and on... oh, and on.

That said, it's hard when you hold certain beliefs, to not feel as though YOU are being attacked when you state your opinion about things, because you may feel so passionately about those things that the debate feels personal. (I'm using 'you' in the general sense).

Maybe posting some articles on internet debate would be helpful.

Though because they both -- women and men -- are human, and because of acculturation issues which also applies to individuals as well as to the genders, there are likely to be differences in how they handle it.

I can pretty well guarantee you that more than 1 person took issue -- I'm just the one brash loudmouth willing to risk being alerted on, which seems to be all the rage here in this group these days, to say so. Maybe that's why only 7 have replied? Maybe not everyone agrees that "we need to have this discussion," especially given the particular premises you outlined. Maybe because of the bullying that's gone on lately, including the rash of alerts, few feel safe enough to say anything even if they don't get alerted on.

But of course, who knows? I could be wrong about all that.
"

Men do not have the stereotype of not getting along, not once did I say that men and women didn't have the same issue--don't put words in my mouth.

As far as the alerting goes, I'd guess comments or threads wouldn't be hidden if a random jury didn't find some validity in the alerts. One could argue the outcome is just. One could argue that there is a legitimate reason for the "rash of alerts." One could argue that the alerting isn't all one way, however, that's a discussion better served in Help & Meta and not all germaine to the OP (and technically, I guess, make it a violation of the group SOP).

Anyway, I'm glad to see you've decided to take one for the team, so to speak, for all those women (or men) who, according to your words, don't feel safe enough to speak for themselves (which, by the way, is really insulting in its grandiosity) but your reply really does speak to the point of the OP. Thank you for validating it.

that the so-called justice system in this country rarely is (just, that is) but is often corrupt or corruptible and in fact is built to be corruptible (from my perspective), and that that failure to match reality to "as advertised" components of that sort might even extend to other places in our society, maybe even including such places as alerts and juries in forums like this.

As for "taking one for the team," what a ridiculous conclusion to draw from what I said. And if you're REALLY interested to what I said "according to my words," you'd exercise a little more caution and note I wasn't making assertions but speculating:

or sometimes, the squeakiest wheel or loudest voices. Yes, justice can be unjust but I don't hold a grudge about the two items of mine that have been hidden by juries, I learned from what I said and strive not to repeat those mistakes.

I stand by the point that even your speculating that you are the only one "brash" enough to talk about the subject is insulting. That would be like me saying, maybe I'm the only brash enough lesbian feminist to reply to your comments. That's insulting to other lesbian feminists--it's belittling and a huge assumption that is not mine to make.

Here are two examples of why I think there hasn't been more participation (but you know this already):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1139740
http://www.democraticunderground.com/124029420

If you continually go looking for ways to take things wrong, or sideways or as insults, you will most certainly find them. That's been my main -- or at least overriding -- experience of you, FWIW, in our exchanges. It doesn't seem to me YOU have read your own OP:

I see it as a disagreement, not an attack. I disagreed with several things you said but in no way do I feel attacked by those disagreements.

I ignored the very obvious problems with that preamble of yours when I posted my reply above, but you should not imagine that nobody else noticed them. They were intentional and they belied pretty much eveything else you said.

we need to quit fighting each other and recongnize we all come from a different place, background, etc. If we can all be respectful without attacking and reacting personally it would make this group a much more welcoming space for all of DU women.

and comment on it.

As I pointed out in another thread regarding this post, we don't necessarily have to like one another but it'd be nice if an effort were made to be civil. I'll be the first to admit, that some days, I just can't reign in my snark, so I understand it isn't always going to be, in the words of Remember Me, "lovey-dovey" but this whole us vs. them thing is counterproductive.

on the net and here in this group. Learning a lot from everyone and a lot more about myself.

I know that when I've made a better effort to take people in good faith, that better communication happens. It's a challenge, because often I interpret things in very different ways and have a hard time seeing things from a totally different perspective.

We get set in our ways and seeing different perspectives becomes more difficult. I try really hard to see other people's perspectives, though I may not always agree with them.

I know one of the things that really bothers me and I have a difficult time with is confrontation. I HATE confrontation. It's such a waste of time, but I know it's also inevitable, and I have a bad habit of not suffering fools gladly. But, I'm a work in progress and nothing is more important to me than learning so you can grow as an individual.

just sayin

suffering fools gladly is an idiom that says more about my anger than someone's foolishness.

In every oppressed group there are individuals who are willing to go along with the privileged majority by selling out or abusing their fellows. I think that sociologists call these "token torturers." The phenomenon is also known as "parallel violence," I believe. I don't know much about feminist theory - just a little bit - but this sounds reasonable to me.

For example, in the novel The Handmaid's Tale, there are women characters who gain privilege and power by abusing other women. The Stepford Wives movie (at least the one that came out in 1975, I haven't seen the remake) shows the same thing, only in that case the men actually create robots that look like their wives. The robots murder the wives and take their places. This is a metaphor of what happens when women undermine other women in an effort to gain privilege from those in power.

It happens with every oppressed group. Clarence Thomas is an example. The gay conservative groups are another example. Phylis Schlafly is a very good example.

You were quoting Jack, right?

It does seem a bit of eating their own, doesn't it? It even seems to be encouraged by society -- further driving a wedge between groups so they can't work effectively together.

BTW, thanks for the comment, appreciate the discussion.

I'm old as dirt and don't own a TV. Recent cultural references are "lost" on me.

Wait. I can watch it on my computer on a cd, right? I knew that. That's the ticket...

otherwise, you will forever miss the loveliness of Lost.

i have three others in the house. and the only channels they seem to watch is espn, history and sometimes discovery. the kids rarely have the tv on.

husband will put on stewart and colbert, at night. that is about it.

I don't have anything against watching TV. It's not that I'm snobby or anything. I just prefer to be on the internet or read when I'm relaxing.

a bunch of folks crashed (plane) on a mysterious island.

Here's a clip of the "Live together, die alone" speech:

(The remake of The Stepford Wives is hilariously campy, only see it if you're in the mood for something silly.)

Margaret Atwood saw the future.

One of my favorite books ever.

It seems quite dry but if it's worth it, I'll trudge through it.

Natasha Richardson (so sad) was great in it, but the script was rather suckoid.

You get sucked right in. The fact that it seems totally plausible too really kept me engaged. There's no part of it where you think, nah, that could never really happen that way.

Thank you for posting it.

I think this part is important, but often difficult to achieve: "The personal may be the political, but taking shit personally often gets you politically nowhere, and there's no worse way to answer a critique than to construe it as an attack."

I think having honest communication is always hard to achieve because everyone has feelings and eventually feelings get hurt. Unless you're extremely callous, that often puts you in an awkward position too. Do I hammer home the point and disregard someone's feelings or do I take a moment and think about how I'm going to make my point? It's a fine line and not always achievable.

and don't interpret criticisms of situations or ideas as if they are personal attacks. I agree with this, but I don't think we need to start making up new names for it.

The idea that making up another brand of feminism would meaningfully change anything is silly IMO. Instead of reacting to the US-centric division between this wave and that, my solution would be to just let it go.

I also bristle at the notion that women need to do anything to avoid being stereotyped as 'unable to get along'... people use ignorant stereotypes all the time. We will have our disagreements and we can discuss them rationally and calmly... and we can also make more of an effort to handle incidents where reason fails and emotion takes over with more empathy and understanding, and less nastiness and snark.

I think she was proposing we get rid of all labels but I could have misinterpreted that.

As far as stereotypes are concerned, IMO, there's nothing as women or individuals we can do to avoid being stereotyped, since it isn't us necessarily stereotyping ourselves. Certain behaviors are going to cause other people to stereotype... for some reason people really seem to love their stereotypes. I don't know if that comes from a fear of learning or just no desire to learn.

i couldnt disagree more. further, i think this defeatist perception is what harms us most.

We're on a "progressive" web site right now and stereotypes fly around all over the place. It would be great if we lived in a world where other's didn't insist on stereotyping or labeling people but I don't see that ever going away. Maybe that is a defeatist attitude but I happen to think it's reality too.

Heck, people sometimes still ask me in lesbian relationships who's the man and who's the woman.

" there's nothing as women or individuals we can do to avoid being stereotyped"
"So you think people won't always stereotype other people?"

there is nothing we can do.... yes. there is. there is much we can do to combat stereotypes. but, one has to actually be willing to speak up and out. one has to actually be willing to teach others the harm in it. one has to actually see an issue and not shrug and say, nothing we can do about it, doesnt bother me, others should not be bothered, either.

but, and I'll admit I'm a pessimist, I don't think that will do away with stereotypes. People like to hold on to them to make themselves feel better about views or opinions that aren't popular.

employment, bare foot and preg. black, an inferior race.

has it been wiped out? no. has attitude shifted over the decades thru education. you betcha.

i am raising children. i know how important and easy education is in getting rid of the stereotypes.

- Equal pay for equal work

- Campaigns against domestic violence and rape

- The fight against workplace harassment.

etc.

We all know which topics to avoid, should all of us really want to avoid conflict.

Even 'those' topics can be skirted by an agreement to fight for living wage jobs across the board.

I do not see the value in sanitizing this forum so that only topics we all agree with can be discussed. That is not how any other area of this board is handled and I do not subscribe to the idea of doing it here as a special case.

If one wishes not to participate in discussions of contentious issues, there is always the option not to do so.

I would, of course, prefer that everyone just agree with me, but barring that, I have no problems mixing it up.

the whole point of the OP is to have civilized discourse. Doesn't mean that we all have to agree but it should at least be civilized. I think arguments can be good but if it gets to a point where it devolves into name calling, etc. that's where the real issue is, IMO. And just as you, I'd prefer everyone agree with me too but I know that ain't gonna happen.

More importantly, I dont think we advance the cause of women's rights to constantly refight the 2nd wave vs 3rd wave disagreements on sex positivity and other issues.

Again, I will defer to the women here if they disagree with me just like I defer to the members of the LGBT forum if they disagree with me because I am not a member of the class being discussed, just a mere supporter.

good post!

Very interesting line of thought. Scholars mark theoretical waves of feminism as if the ocean's tide (women's movement) was in retreat thus, needing to recoil its energy from the abyss only to return with momentum enough to swing the pendulum. Perhaps, theorists needed to retreat to address matters of transcendentalism or metaphysical universals, but the women never stopped their activism. Shall I say it again? They did not stop their activism nor did they disband all organizations. Instead, when dispersal of women (note that division has always been) occurred upon ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, most women thought equality had been won. Pathways opened wide for women to leave the 72-year long struggle and pursue their personal interests in women's rights (which is what we see in organizations today on a domestic and international scale). The division (protective legislators/difference fems vs egalitarian fems) survived and thrived through the 1920's (crash of 1929) and began international campaigns for equality (man's life should not be more valuable than a woman's) with the Equal Rights Amendment (Alice Paul). Of course, the difference fems, so closely aligned with labor unions (Women's Bureau of Labor), was a staunch opposition for equality fems. The political party in power (Dems) were closely aligned with labor unions (as they are today), and President Roosevelt's administration financially benefited from this alignment. Eleanor Roosevelt, aligned with the League of Women's Voters (aka NAWSA - Carrie Chapman Catt), became the most antagonistic of all to the ERA amendment; the ERA threatened to wipe out protective legislation that limited women in the workforce (yes, limited and not helped). Hard to imagine the lady so closely associated with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights in opposition to the women's equality principle within her own country. The waves are symbolic of scholar-activists that attempt to 'box in' the movement as if boundaries ever existed. It gave them ample time to theorize and develop scientific reasoning that worked to oppose women at every turn. It didn't work. While a dry spell occurred from 1896 to 1910, there was no other period of inactivity. I agree with the eradication of the wave concept...it was more of an ebb and flow that did turn and continues to turn the tides of women's social, political, and economic legitimacy.

In situations like these whether it is a discriminated against group, or negotiation of a treaty or various other things, my advice is always to cement an agreement to move forward on the areas on which there is consensus and address the rest later.

Unfortunately, some people cannot seem to do that and want to focus on the areas of disagreement.