Herding cats. We are each a little different with different sensibilities. Some of my best friend's are real bitches. Love them!

partly, because of my age. partly because i think intersectional policies/policies/views are necessary and more interesting

as i said, i have never been a part.... just what i live and see has been the influencing factors, until recently.

but i agree.

i can hear the division though, in this type perception. how it could work against the whole.

our conversation last night had me thinking, so this morning i did some reading. seeing how they particularly discussed the gay community and the 2nd wave felt gays caused movement harm, if my interpretation is correct.

for instance when we say "xyz is harmful to women", sometimes its true for All women (rape/murder) and sometimes its true for your immediate category of women and not all women. when you suggest a cure to this, again sometime you may actually be talking about all women (rape laws) but sometimes you are talking about what would be helpful for women exactly like yourself.

i think we very rarely keep this in mind.

sex work is something i feel often falls into this category, but there are great essays written by black women and their particular problems with domestic violence & dv laws that started my thinking about intersectionality and that no analysis is complete without considerations like race/ethnicity/sec/sexual orientation/country etc.

its also important to keep in mind that if you are white and middle class in this country and a women, you have only one oppression to worry about. therefore you can feel like all women should bond together. however, the more oppressions i have, my in groups maybe different. my allegiance to the lgbt community will always outweigh my allegiance to straight women. my allegiance to the south asian immigrant lgbt community will outweigh my allegiance to the larger lgbt community. these are all things we should keep in mind, when talking about movements/issues/politics/whatever

i understood the issue with black women, and there different situations than other groups. i had a friend sit me down and explain differences in the two cultures when it came to genders. not to mention what i have read. and they were certainly left out of the 2nd wave. i think the women of that time recognize how they failed the AA community.

i think with the sex worker issue is where a lot of miscommunication and understanding happens. but, they too, are part of the whole.

i think the problem with a lot of people speaking about sex work, is that the voice of sex-worker is almost never heard. its akin to men proposing all sort of solutions to women, without much if any input from women. there was a really interesting study released in india, about sex workers, and really put a dent in assumptions a lot of us make about sex workers in india.

i dont think you can talk about all women and all girls, because you dont necessarily share their other oppressions. you can only really meaningfully talk about your own and those of people like you. ( i dont mean you, per se, i mean one)


anyway, i have to go now. do some real work.

and work to the betterment of the whole. altruism.

i believe in it.

i dont think white feminists are bad people who want to spite people of color at all. i think we dont often and cant often realize our own limitations and our privileges

depending what part we look at. we can show where we are not capable. and we can show where without that understanding, progress would not happen.

so

here we are at a point, seeing the issue from two different perspectives.

that is fine.

(taken from a larger article - http://www.fjaz.com/kimmel.html)

A white woman and a black woman were discussing whether all women were, by definition, "Sisters," because they all had essentially the same experiences and because all women faced a common oppression by men. The white woman asserted that the fact that they were both women bonded them, in spite of racial differences. The black woman disagreed.

"When you wake up in the morning and look in the mirror, what do you see?" she asked.

"I see a woman," replied the white woman.

"That's precisely the problem," responded the black woman. "I see a black woman. To me, race is visible every day, because race is how I am not privileged in our culture. Race is invisible to you, because it's how you are privileged. It's why there will always be differences in our experience."

to be able to work for the benefit of all, even that we dont experience.

Being aware of someone's less privileged circumstances, being compassionate & empathetic, could make for a kinder society overall, which could lessen inequality. However, it's still not the same as living it day to day.

Empathy does not seem to be considered a good character trait anymore.

people equate that to doormat and that is not true.

that being said, there is empathy and the knowledge that one that has not experienced does not know. i agree with you. i want to clarify so all understand, that i know, i dont know, if i have not experienced it.

hence, the listening.

I had to almost become homeless before I started to really think about what that life is like.

Before reading this thread I was one of those white middle class women that thought all women bond equally. Iris' anecdote
above - it struck a chord that hadn't been struck before. Ok, I'm sort of laughing, but also shaking my head at my naiveté on this, but it is this kind of 'change of perspective' moment I mean. So now when I go out into the world, I'm more aware of other women's circumstances.

Yes, listening. Very important! My grandma used to say that's why God gave you two ears & one mouth. I haven't thought of that one in years. ~lol.

2nd wave lacked a focus on intersectionality...for example, fighting for the right of "women" to enter the workplace as though thousands of poor women/queer women/women of color hadn't been working for decades just to keep their children fed.

BUT..too many 3rd wave voices seem to want to boil feminism down to "whatever choice a woman wants to make is feminist!" without looking at the patriarchal forces behind it. I seriously got into an argument once with a self-identified 3rd-waver who said it was perfectly fine for Michelle Duggar to teach her daughters that MD's chosen life of domestic servitude was the correct and Biblical way...not because said 3rd waver agreed with it, of course, but because "that's her choice".

sure, i understand what she teaches her child is problematic, but how do you think feminists should handle how women raise their children? we have religious freedom in this country (thankfully), so in this particular instance what should feminists do? if an islamic mother teaches her daughter to wear a veil because its modest, is that not her choice? should we interfere?

i think laws should be created so that if one of md's children wanted to not live in servitude, or a girl not want to wear a veil, these are options that open to them and in this country these option are open to them. however, where in this situation should we interfere?

so much as educate.

Curricula which promotes egalitarianism as part of basic education in public schools, media and advertising which does the same, those are the best kinds of ways to reach children, IMO. And also IMO we shouldn't be stepping in and interfering with parenting absent some socially-agreed on form of abuse occurring in the home.

something is horrific to me, we still need to leave it alone.

i dont think that story is a fair criticism of third wave feminism. i am not saying third wave is perfect, just that that particular narrative doesn't explain problems in 3rd wave feminism.

I just kinda play it by ear, and try to do the best I can to communicate and understand.

everyone had their choices in all of life. not just women. free will. one can accept and be nonjudgmental in a persons choice. and one can be honest in conversation with repercussions, harm to self and the whole, reasons why people make these choices, AND understand that it is a persons choice.

it is when we dont have a conversation because we are promoting choice only. it is when we wrap choices up in a pretty bow to be supportive of choice without honesty, that there is a problem.

in my world, there are no good or bad.

but there is action/reaction.

keeping it real

not creating illusions.

a woman is somehow a feminist act.

I'm not arguing that we should "do" anything in these cases, except NOT promote it as some sort of bizarro-through-the-looking-glass feminism.

Women make choices, and should be free to make those choices, but chosen servitude to males, or chosen forms of inequal gender-based modest dress, do not advance the idea that women are as fully human as men, and should not be celebrated as if they do.

just that it was a choice, and a choice that we can't interfere in.

strange enthusiasm the woman I was arguing with had for Michelle Duggar.

i think it maybe her particularly and not the movement per se

but yes, it is indeed pretty odd to celebrate the duggars

quite a big jump to conclusions for me to extrapolate from one person's opinions to those of a whole movement.

I'll bet Rebecca Walker, for instance, would not celebrate any of the above mentioned choices.

always, since before there was a Third Wave to be a part of. All power starts with the self, and spreads outward from there.

When I was 3 years old, and yes I am dating myself, mom took me door to door with her while she advocated for the ERA. I've been interested in politics ever since.

I've always supported women's issues and causes, planned parenthood, emilys list, etc. When a friend introduced me to 3rd wave thinking, it was like, aha, this makes so much sense. I've tried to pass 3rd wave thinking on to my daughter, who definitely does NOT have the politics bug. I think she spends more time living feminism than thinking about it, if that makes sense.

her living her feminism is kinda the definition, so yea her, listening to you?

Are you criticizing my attempt to expose my daughter to literature and the thinking of folks like Walker? Because, a father shouldnt do that in your opinion?

and i really dont get it yet. so listening to people discuss it may help me to get it better. or see how people see it differently.

and how i perceive 3rd wave seems to be what your daughter has adopted. but, having stated my own uncertainty, i am not too sure. hence me asking in the first place

and having a conversation with your daughter about 3rd wave is a yea to me

a good thing

something i like seeing a father doing with a daughter.

excellent parenting in my view

a huge pat on the back, though parenting should not get a pat cause it is our job, i am doing it anyway

and since your daughter seems to be doing it her way, which seems to be 3rd wave, which is what you are discussing with her.... i thought maybe.... she may be listening to you

and i ALWAYS applaud the child that listens to parents.

it is all good in the bonding, unit, family, upbringing thing.

First, I've bought her a number of feminist leaning books to read, most recently, on becoming Fearless by Arianna Huffington--> http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Fearless-Love-Work-Life/dp/B001Q3M79C . I was actually at an event where Arianna was speaking and got my daughter an autographed copy of the book.

Second, I made sure she learned public speaking, science, how to play sports, all of those things usually parents do for and encourage young boys to be involved in. She actually came in second in a county wide teen public speaking contest not long ago. She recently found out she has both an academic and sports scholarship to the college she will be attending in Fall of 2012.

I've had lots of conversations with her about sex and romantic relationships. I've told her things like women have as much right to want to have and enjoy sex as men and that also works in the reverse, women have as much right to not want to have sex with someone as men. Sex is a positive and good thing, one just needs to be emotionally ready and be able to deal with the consequences and protect onesself as much as possible from the adverse ones. My preference from her as a father would be that she waits until she is in a position to realize her career goals (she wants to be a Doctor) and that stems from the risks of pregnancy and the distraction. I also told her that the main idea here is that her first point of decision about having sex should be whether she is fully sure it is something she wants to do at that moment with that person. I also told her I never had sex with one of my classmates in high school and that is something I highly discourage as, for me, I could not have imagined the aftereffects of a broken up relationship and that person then going on and dating someone else with the knowledge that the new couple (and my former partner) was sexually active. I was not emotionally ready to deal with that in high school. I am not sure many adults ever become emotionally ready to deal with that in an office environment for instance. I also let her know that if she became pregnant, I would support any decision she made and if she was a lesbian, I would support that too.

i was really clueless to the age of your daughter. i was really feeling she was younger, but obviously she is not. i was working from a wide age range there.

i pretty much have the same kind of discussions with my boys. we are open in our house. wonderful stuff.

how do you define 3rd wave?

or is it too open of a question. that is my problem with it. i dont have a real definition of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133497#post229

in the context of the LGBT woman participating in the pageant.

for an understanding, in a world of misunderstanding.

i was totally amazed how now, the supposed 2nd wave are the evil ones when the reality is, a bunch of men were rating a woman as if she was a thing, an animal. and regardless the number of times a woman said this, this point was ignored.

i addressed the issue with the intent (supposedly) the Op provided the thread. yet i was specifically called out.

it made no sense.

your posts made no sense

it made no sense not saying a word to the men rating this women, and not saying one word to the men using every desexulizing insult to women on this thread, to then pin it on the woman

so tell me

though we understand a persons right to support the repug party, do we not address the cause as a whole

like

cain
steele
the poor
women
log cabin repugs.

even though we know they have the right to vote repug, do we not ask about their part in the bigger scheme and their own self interest?

of course we do.

i dont know 2nd and 3rd, but i am really curious how 2nd became the greater enemy than a man dehumanizing other people.

I guess what also disappointed me and disappoints me about second wavers is that they seem to discount the idea that people find each other sexually attractive and like to look at each other.

Heterosexual men like to look at women in various stages of dress or undress. Gay men like to look at men in various stages of dress or undress. Gay women like to look at women in various stages of dress or undress. Straight women like to look at men in various stages of dress or undress. Bisexual men and women like to look at women and men in various stages of dress or undress.

There is nothing wrong with any of that.

It doesn't somehow become wrong in 1/5 of those instances and not the others. Nothing will allow me to buy that.

We were talking about my daughter earlier. When I go with her and her friends to the beach, you better believe they are scoping out guys they think are cute in their bathing suits. Tell me, should I yell at her for that? Are you going to tell me I should lecture her about dehumanizing the guys? I'm not going to do any of that.

What we are talking about is not dehumanizing, it's human. Look, I get it. My ex wife wanted my daughter to be in pageants and she wanted her to be a cheerleader and I fought both of those things, hard. (after we divorced my ex married a conservative guy and became a Republican. Go fig). I am not in favor of anyone participating in a pageant. I think that pageants superficially emphasize looks over substance. My daughter reflects exactly what I want for all women, she is brilliant, strong, aggressive, fearless and a force to be reckoned with and I believe she will achieve her goal of becoming a doctor. But I also recognize that what I want doesnt necessarily mean all women want that for themselves.

If a woman like the gay woman in the pageant wants to do that, if she wants to be judged on her looks, should I get upset about that? Should anyone else? Using my above example and point, should I get upset if a man wants to be judged on his looks? How about if a man wants to exhibit himself to other men or a woman wants to exhibit herself to other women? How about a bisexual man or woman who wants to exhibit themselves to both sexes.

Second wave thinking does not work when you consider those examples. It's why I became a third waver. Your body is your body. My body is my body. We both have the right to do pretty much what we want with them and express ourselves sexually in a way that we want (assuming any participants/recipients or viewers are concenting adults) gender bias does not enter into that equation.

do you get that? you say it yourself. you get where the issue with with the pageant. me? i care even less about it. and a person choosing to participate.

but, i too, recognize the inherent issues.

all the stuff you said in your post is NO different from anyone else.

you want to see your daughter strippin for others? of course you dont. for all the inherent problems and issues in strippin for pay.

the difference is, you validate and justify you desire to play in that at the expense of ANOTHER persons daughter (and i am not talking you personally), whereas i chose NOT to participate because i understand what i am doing to another human being, the issue as a whole and reality.... personal.

what i find amazing is the lack of honesty in the third wave.

i really dont get what wave i am in. i really dont give a shit.

but i am not going to tie a pretty bow on it when i know damn well there is not a pretty bow. want to do it, fine. call it what it is. pretending it is something else to make it all pretty is dishonest to me.

every person (besides the guys dehumanizing this woman) declared they dont like pageants because of the problems they cause. every person.

that says something.

i dont see where the battle is. even again, after listening to you, i dont see it.

there is a battle. i see that clearly. but as of yet, i dont see what the difference is. besides wanting to do whatever you want without having to realize the consequences. and no one gets away from that. that is just life. it may be the whole that suffers. but there are always consequences....

on edit... reading my point. very messy. i cannot get clarity on it. seems talking past, beyond, around each other and it all feels the same. will think on it.

I don't see pageants as problematic from a gender standpoint, just that they emphasize superficial things that don't need further emphasis. So, sure, I would steer my child away from that.

Ultimately, the pageant argument leads to concepts that are similar to the sex positivity argument. Wikipedia has a great article on that culled from various third wave and second wave authors --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

I cannot get to where second wavers are on this. It seems so anachronistic, so Victorian. Not that I agree 100% with all third wavers on this. When a small minority of third wavers started to talk about repealing statutory rape laws (talked about in the wiki article) they were going to a place I definitely could not follow.

women with sexist accusations like hysterical.

i saw no victorian behavior. the issue was objectification. i didnt even get into that cause it is obvious. emphasize superficial would be the issue with objectification. i think a lot of people are battling with 2nd wave adn created a battle that wasnt there. and they dont have the guts to address it, but you, lol. i was accused of being middle aged white women. the only thing i did was discuss it like it was meant to be discussed, even saying, of all things, bottom line, i am glad she won breaking the glass ceiling of norm. but wtf.... that is ignored and we seem to be pretending shit was in the thread that wasnt.

i am going ot read the link you gave me.

opposed to the 2nd.

and no wonder that posters who start a thread on mocking a man saying porn harms is all over women that say, porn can harm.

so this whole battle is over porn?

wow.

hm

lol

ok

That, I think, is the impression many of us get about the opinion of second wavers. And you just stated it without any prompting at all.

You seem to have not read what I posted or what it was posted in response to. Why don't you try again.

Quoting Gayle Rubin who criticized second wave thoughts on sex as having "condemned virtually every variant of sexual expression as anti-feminist," arguing that their view of sexuality is dangerously close to anti-feminist, conservative sexual morality. Rubin encourages feminists to consider the political aspects of sexuality without promoting sexual repression. She also argues that the blame for women's oppression should be put on targets who deserve it: "the family, religion, education, child-rearing practices, the media, the state, psychiatry, job discrimination, and unequal pay..." rather than on relatively un-influential sexual minorities.

Your post here further confirms that you aren't responding to what I posted.

why it may feel like a battle purposely being created.

I really think that is how second wavers view things. Deep down I think they think that sex itself is an expression of patriarchy.

That is how it comes out, at least.

wrong. surely i am allowed to know my sexuality and desire, more so than you. deep down and all around.

2nd wve, from what i understand (and maybe i am a bet beyond second, grew up in sexually free 70s and 80s before so much hit that we didnt have to be concerned about)

i dont get it.

but i do know, you would be wrong on the sex issue.

it feels like kids talking about parents. how they dont know anything about sex, they dont even do it, by gosh.

all the while the parent is ltao having been there, done ALL that, a number of times.

I cannot get to where second wavers are on this. It seems so anachronistic, so Victorian.

You know what you might do?

You might try trying.

It's Victorian that women object to the exploitation of women. Funny, very few Victorians actually did that. And if you think that Emma Goldman would be dancing at a beauty pageant, you're mistaken.

My dear young chap, I had sex with more people in the first year of having sex than most "sex-positive feminists" will have in their life. (I say "people" so as not to sound exclusionary, you see; in my case, of course, they were men.) I was screwing my heart out when these third-wavers' parents were in diapers. And so was every feminist friend of mine.

Where do you get your strange ideas from?? You do realize there were, and are, millions of us -- and YOU DO NOT KNOW US, right?

What on this green earth does a few million men leering at women on their television screens ... and a few corporations making a big fat bundle of money out of the proceedings ... have to do with SEX?

Nothing. Absolutely precisely simply nothing.

You know one thing I find particularly amusing?

The most radical of the crowd you abhor, small as it was, who rejected sex to any extent were rejecting sex with men, and were the radical lesbians. And yet the self-proclaimed "sex-positive feminists" hereabout are, in large numbers, lesbians ... Funny, eh? Enough to make your head spin. And yet here it's all being laid at my and our doorstep.

I don't see pageants as problematic from a gender standpoint, just that they emphasize superficial things that don't need further emphasis. So, sure, I would steer my child away from that.

Gosh. Your reasons are so very excellent, and have nothing at all to do with the fact that "emphasizing superficial things" pretty much sums up how WOMEN are portrayed and treated and expected to act, and the fact that it is WOMEN who are treated and portrayed and expected to act this way in pageants.

Yeeeeesh.

(forget the other post. i am trying to figure this out. this implication the 2nd doesnt like sex, do sex, or recognize we are attracted to each other. go figure, didnt know.)

i was reading an article about a young woman who wrote a book telling women how to dress and behave, using sex to climb the corporate ladder.

that is what i see this third wave feminism is.

that is what i am seeing explained sex positive, is. how to capitalize on the objectification and dehumanization. jump on in and participate, because if we gain from it, more power to you. fuck the other women. and the men for that matter.

is this what we are talking about?

I'll bet if we emailed what you just wrote to a Rebecca Walker, or a Gayle Rubin, or Naomi Wolf, they would respond with something along the lines of:

We would want the woman in question to be able to get where she wants through her intellect and competence. Our main concern would be that bias and patriarchy not prevent her from realizing her goals. While using sex to climb the corporate ladder isn't what we want for women, we're not going to spend our time on it as if it were the main issue.
-----------

And it isnt the main issue. If a sexy man or woman does what you have described, and unfortunately at various jobs I've seen both, it isn't an equality or gender rights issue.

Let's put it another way. If a gay or bi-sexual man sleeps his way to the top by sleeping with men, are we still looking at a gender bias issue? I am going to come back at you with that with virtually every example you give me where you think sex is a gender bias issue. If it doesnt work with gay men/men, gay women/women, it doesnt belong in a discussion of gender bias.

There is nothing wrong with people having their individual idea of what is a moral sex behavior. In the case you mentioned, I agree, it is amoral. The problem is when you project it onto equality issues where it doesnt fit IMHO.

you know, she is not gung ho about porn either. has quite an issue.

She was right about the warning, wrong about the outcome. As she foretold, pornography did breach the dike that separated a marginal, adult, private pursuit from the mainstream public arena. The whole world, post-Internet, did become pornographized. Young men and women are indeed being taught what sex is, how it looks, what its etiquette and expectations are, by pornographic training—and this is having a huge effect on how they interact.

But the effect is not making men into raving beasts. On the contrary: The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.

Here is what young women tell me on college campuses when the subject comes up: They can’t compete, and they know it. For how can a real woman—with pores and her own breasts and even sexual needs of her own (let alone with speech that goes beyond “More, more, you big stud!”)—possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will, who comes, so to speak, utterly submissive and tailored to the consumer’s least specification?

For two decades, I have watched young women experience the continual “mission creep” of how pornography—and now Internet pornography—has lowered their sense of their own sexual value and their actual sexual value. When I came of age in the seventies, it was still pretty cool to be able to offer a young man the actual presence of a naked, willing young woman. There were more young men who wanted to be with naked women than there were naked women on the market. If there was nothing actively alarming about you, you could get a pretty enthusiastic response by just showing up. Your boyfriend may have seen Playboy, but hey, you could move, you were warm, you were real. Thirty years ago, simple lovemaking was considered erotic in the pornography that entered mainstream consciousness: When Behind the Green Door first opened, clumsy, earnest, missionary-position intercourse was still considered to be a huge turn-on.

Well, I am 40, and mine is the last female generation to experience that sense of sexual confidence and security in what we had to offer. Our younger sisters had to compete with video porn in the eighties and nineties, when intercourse was not hot enough. Now you have to offer—or flirtatiously suggest—the lesbian scene, the ejaculate-in-the-face scene. Being naked is not enough; you have to be buff, be tan with no tan lines, have the surgically hoisted breasts and the Brazilian bikini wax—just like porn stars. (In my gym, the 40-year-old women have adult pubic hair; the twentysomethings have all been trimmed and styled.) Pornography is addictive; the baseline gets ratcheted up. By the new millennium, a vagina—which, by the way, used to have a pretty high “exchange value,” as Marxist economists would say—wasn’t enough; it barely registered on the thrill scale. All mainstream porn—and certainly the Internet—made routine use of all available female orifices.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

That article had a big impression on me when it came out and it's something I am still thinking about.

But you understand that the issue that she has with porn is not the issue second wavers have with porn. Her issue is (from the article):

"The reason to turn off the porn might become, to thoughtful people, not a moral one but, in a way, a physical- and emotional-health one; you might want to rethink your constant access to porn in the same way that, if you want to be an athlete, you rethink your smoking. The evidence is in: Greater supply of the stimulant equals diminished capacity."
--------------------------------

That is not a gender bias or equality issue. That is not a 'patriarchy is oppressing women through pornography' issue. In fact, that argument isnt even one that suggests you should not view porn at all. It's one that says you shouldnt view it as often.

I have gone back and forth on the points she raised. I cannot decide if it is perception or not. I think we all experience some angst regarding whether we are as attractive as we were once we pass 40 and perhaps it is easy to blame some external force on that.

these posts and i hear it often on the board.

women have continually said talking about the porn issue it is NOT A MORAL ISSUE. repeatedly. over and over and over again. yet continually what is given back to us, is that we are prudes and it is about puritan view. i have posted articles that speak better than i that it is NOT A MORAL ISSUE. but no one listens. ever.

i dont find any sex as a moral issue. none, nada, not a single bet. ever. at all.

now what.

are you going to believe it yet, or is it still once again and always, "victorian".

what that woman is arguing, i was arguing long before i read her article. i didnt need to read the article to see what was happening.

To me, acting against someone due to bias or prejudice is amoral.

i dont know where you are going with this.

moral meaning sexual mores.

However, I regard issues of bias and discrimination as moral issues as well. WHen Naomi Wolf said "its not just a moral issue..." or words to that effect, I think she would also view issues of bias and discrimination as 'moral'.

Wolf is a self described third wave feminist. http://bigthink.com/ideas/14391

more media savvy, well, internet. that is a given with younger generation. not really a lot in that bet. but that is cool. i am getting it more. i am not at all impressed with what i see this battle being. i do do think it is very much that. i dont particularly know why. i didnt understand it at all when it was brought to my awareness not long ago. but, i have a better understanding now, i think

i dont do these battles and it makes no sense. but now i better understand, i will be able to not be a part.

a waste of time to me. and i think a lot of it is manufactured and just not worth it.

i appreciate you conversation

together.

This entire discussion becomes moot in an environment where there is a living wage, no discrimination in hiring and promotions, and equal pay for equal work.

Those are the things that are the primary battlefield.

Everything else becomes much easier to address once you get there. When women own just as much wealth, have just as much power in the boardroom and elected offices and when everyone can easily obtain a living wage job, then let's see what issues are left.

Something tells me what is left in terms of issues becomes really small or non-existent.

there will be no equal pay for work. There will be discrimination in hiring.

Call it Victorian and dismiss it if you must, but objectification is dehumanization, and that is the root of the problem. Women are being treated as things. How can things have equality? As long as women are the sex class, we will not get there.

want to work for equal pay for equal work, equal share of wealth, equality in promotions etc?

a womans concern that for them is so connected adn wrapped up to all the issues including equal pay and share the wealth, is not going to be an issue women stfu with.

I have to say that people who espouse third wave thinking get pretty harsh treatment. If anything, it is those people who it seems are being told to STFU.

if you want support for....

then stfu about....

i say, if we believe differently, that is cool but dammit support the things we agree on like equal pay

Spot flipping on.

It's a fact.

Military campaigns have used dehumanization tactics for very specific reasons.

I will not shut up about these uncomfortable facts in order to coddle anyone who gets their feathers ruffled when confronted with things they'd rather not think about.

Hopefully their concern for those issues will eventually lead them to realize that as long as the dehumanization of women continues, they will not get those things.

force a philosophical point on someone?

If someone wants to "work for equal pay for equal work, equal share of wealth, equality in promotions etc", they're quite free to do it, I think. Whether they are feminists or not, whatever wave of feminism they might claim to belong to or might be labelled as, etc.

If they're alienated by feminists' efforts to broaden their understanding or to attack women's problems on different fronts, to the point that they abandon their equality-seeking efforts, they weren't very committed in the first place.

Just look at me. Still 100% committed to the equal treatment of GLBT people, regardless of anything said to and about me by anyone!

and about me by anyone!

yup

http://www.priestsforlife.org/prochoice/ourbodiesoursouls.htm

Hard time distinguishing her from the anti-choice brigade, myself. You don't support reproductive rights by writing screeds about the immorality of abortion.

Her lines on pornography -- like a true third-waver, it's all about her ...

It doesn't somehow become wrong in 1/5 of those instances and not the others. Nothing will allow me to buy that.

Nobody was selling it, so you're quite safe.

You did notice that the people in the thread in question doing the rating were not lesbians?

You did notice that the people objecting to those responses were not objecting to lesbians doing or saying anything at all in respect of other lesbians or even other women?

What brought this on, then?

Are lesbians in beauty contests not subject to the same objectification BY MEN as straight women in beauty contests are? Was THIS not what was happening in this thread? Was THIS not the objection to beauty contests that those objecting to the rating comments might honestly be assumed to have?


If a woman like the gay woman in the pageant wants to do that, if she wants to be judged on her looks, should I get upset about that? Should anyone else?

If a woman feels intimidated in the public and private spaces of her life -- the streets, the schools, the workplaces, the internet discussion forums -- by being objectified -- leered at, commented on/to as an object of uninvited sexual attention -- should you get upset about that?

Hell, why would you? It's not as if the objectification of women actually has any ill effects on women, well beyond intimidation resulting in exclusion from the public spaces of the world women live in.

Why would you bother giving two seconds' thought to why a woman might want to do this, to be judged by her looks? Why would you give a third second's thought to the effect her choices might have on the world that other women live in?

I'd think it might be because you have a daughter, if for none of the other many reasons I could think of at all. But I guess your daughter will be the one who is never sexually assaulted or exploited, who never has an unwanted pregnancy, who is never abused in some way by a partner, who never has her opportunities limited by her sex. She'll be a real one percenter if so, but who knows, maybe she'll win the jackpot. And the hell with all the rest of us.

We both have the right to do pretty much what we want with them and express ourselves sexually in a way that we want (assuming any participants/recipients or viewers are concenting adults) gender bias does not enter into that equation.

No, of course it doesn't. Because you say so, I guess. Facts be damned.

It doesn't somehow become wrong in 1/5 of those instances and not the others. Nothing will allow me to buy that.

You have no answer for that so everything else you say is moot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x1

Quite apart from your refusal to say something that is at least true, and your choice to reiterate the false representation of the women in this forum by reposting the portrayal I already refuted:



When you address the inconsistencies in your approach, I'll enter into a lengthy dialogue

When you identify an inconsistency in my approach, or do anything else that can be characterized as engaging in civil discourse (which misrepresenting opposing views and those who hold them is not), I'll give a shit.

Did you really expect a serious answer to a snarky and unnecessary existentialist question?

http://vimeo.com/15088654

I'm not a sports fan, but even I can see she's a quite able soccer player. Also beautiful, and I love her ambition. Thanks for sharing that. I really enjoyed watching it and seeing this fine young woman you're justifiably so proud of.

Again, good for you, dad.

More than anything else, being a feminist to me as a man and father means raising a young lady who is no shrinking violet in ANY way. She knows what she wants, she knows what she doesn't want and she is not going to take any crap. I wouldn't have it any other way.

instead of being. i was a competitive swimmer myself and it game me wonderful stuff. that being said, even if my daughter chose a pageant, i would be proud, if there is effort, grounded and hard work.

you daughter is great.... loved it. thanks.

you did a wonderful job putting a video together.

didnt you say she was in college? or is she off to college next year?

thanks

she also has at least one academic scholarship (several others are in the works).

I still remember taking her to the park when she was 2 years old and teaching her how to play soccer and how to hit a ball pitched to her with a bat. Sigh.

we are looking to use his cross country adn grades to help us out, too. but i dont think a video would work so well with cross country. but that is very clever and creative. we are going to have to start working on all this soon. he is hearing from a lot of colleges, but we haven't done much yet.

good for her. and you

Just kidding.

Good for you, dad.

I went to the site on the link and found the definitions of the waves. I must be a second wave. I had to fight tradition from the 50's subservient housewife era. I have door mat personality disorder. That is why I admire women strong enough to be unafraid to speak out. That sometimes leads to the unmentionable word that I am wishing I was more like.

Peace out.

after saying i did not want to do something, and did not want my kids to experience it, i was ignored and the two leading men did it anyway. by the time i realized what they had done, and taught two younger girls (13 and 16) to lower head and keep mouth shut, i was soooooo mad.

it was a group of 18. i was one, facing 17. and had to stand up to the group.

afterward, i told husband. do you think it is easy to speak out to 17? do you think that is easy to do?

i was the ONLY adult, parent, that spoke out for the women who didnt want to do and the kids who should not have done.

it isnt easy. people think it is. they roll the eyes. they sigh... they say, not again.

i didnt do anything. i wasnt the one that chose to be disrespectful. but cause i dared to say.... NO, i was the one that got the sighs.

it is not easy.

on edit... i am glad you are speaking out now. i am glad you got something out of the article.

Hello everybody

I'm new here and am looking for a place to have some discussions about feminism, media, and theory.

I know that I most identify as a 3rd wave feminist. But I also know that 1st and 2nd waves were important parts of the evolution of feminist theory, and I think they still retain key lessons. To me, its hard to just stick with one "wave." I see it as a way to group and categorize different patterns of thought on a timeline, but I think we can all embrace all three waves.

This was a great breakdown of the different waves.

Hi! Thank you and thank you!

a great breakdown of the different waves. I don't mean to jump on YOU -- welcome, by the way -- it's just that you offered the too perfect jumping in place.

I'm a confirmed 2nd Waver, and I did not recognize our movement in there.

And what I saw of 3rd Wave, as described, leaves me very annoyed because it makes women of that era look simply ignorant -- ignorant of the rationale, theory, HISTORY, as well as too pampered, lazy and narcissistic to bother doing any better.

And it makes me angry because some of the things ascribed to 3rd wave women are dangerous (harmful) for women as a class and I don't know how it happened, but I strongly suspect some of our foes crept into some of the universities somehow and infected the women's study curricula with anti-woman lies wrapped up and sold as "improvements" and "advances" when they're nothing of the sort. People like Christina Hoff, for example, or Camille Paglia. Blech.

i do agree some of the supposed third wave in lacking insight and causing problems. more like the victim embracing the jailer or whatever. but i certainly feel an identity with third wave, too, in ways. smack in the middle of the two.

i think much of the second wave, much that was being said was ignored, so they could be attack, ridiculed, shamed to stfu.

I never quite realized the finer intellectual differences between the waves. This was a great read. Thanks OP!

is part of the backlash AGAINST feminism. I really do.

As for what's wrong with it (or wrongheaded), I just found this comment in another thread which IMO demonstrates perfectly why and how one aspect of 3rd wave feminism is dangerous to women:

thread: Research from Geena Davis's Institute on Gender in Media.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=351

comment:

16. Just watched A League of Their Own last night.

I love Geena Davis the actress and the activist in gender equality. Women and girls are constantly being portrayed as nothing more than sex toys for men's pleasure. We are more often than not taken less seriously because of our gender and that limits our potential success in society.

Note: Because of the above comments on the girl with the dragon tattoo - I rented it and returned it the same night. Anyone who found that to be entertainment is morbid. Sexual violence is not entertainment, it is an epidemic that should be shamed and eradicated - not sold as recreation.

First, there was NEVER a prohibition by 2nd wavers on sex or enjoying sex. If anything, we invented the term "double standard" and were absolutely adamant that women could be just as promiscuous as men (if they wanted) and not be denigrated for it. We led the way in getting a woman's previous sexual history and behavior just prior to rape excluded from rape investigations and trials. And so forth and so on. Not that these are all adequately nailed down, but that we were right there on the front lines for these and other issues.

It was feminists who created COYOTE, Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics -- a rights group for prostitutes.

But 2nd wave feminists also clearly identified the nexus between the sex industry and the degradation of women in other ways. I am personally convinced that we will NEVER be equal and free while pornography and other parts of the sex industry flourish. That's not calling for them to be outlawed, but for people to be at least educated and/or shamed away from participation. (Shame in the sense of: gee, now that I understand how it hurts women, I won't support that. Just as many people have been educated/shamed away from drunk driving.) Feminists also identified the nexus between both the economic oppression of women and sexual abuse as contibuting factors to women (and also men) entering the field as workers -- both horrible human rights blights on humanity. So I concur completely with this statement from the OP:

Other critics argue that the Third Wave feminists do more damage than good by equating women’s sexuality with power. Critics argue that this kind of sexual empowerment is purely individual and does not lead to social change, and in fact promotes the sexualization of women.

Anyone who equates their sexuality as women with power have been sold a bill of goods -- and by whom? Supporters of patriarchy, of course.

Third Wave feminists are encouraged to build their own identities from the available buffet, and to not worry if the items on their plate are not served together traditionally. Women can unapologetically celebrate a plate full of entrée choices like soccer mom, career woman, lover, wife, lesbian, activist, consumer, girly girl, tomboy, sweetheart, bitch, good girl, princess, or sex symbol.

The buffet was made possible by 2nd wave feminists, and it worries us (okay, makes some of us absolutely hysterical) to see it so poorly understood and appreciated that 3rd wave women risk it all through their inattention to political realities, their complacency, and their gleeful, wrongheaded pursuit of "sexual freedom" which they believe empowers them (?????? that last doesn't even pass the common sense test).

We're not looking for thanks, but merely the political sensibilities that 3rd wavers so they can help safeguard what passes for a little equality and not lose any more ground.

Does anyone who thinks of themselves as 3rd or in between 2nd and 3rd understand what the motto, "The personal is the political" means? Have any of you ever given it any thought? I think I'm going to open a separate thread for that.

do open another thread. and i love what you say in this post. certainly, most all know that i have the issues that you bring up with third wave.

Thanks. I was just doing a little research and found some fascinating stuff.

So how's that working out for you then?

More to the point, though -- how's it working out for the women of colour, low-income lone-parent women, women victims of spousal violence and all the other forms of male violence against women, low-wage working women ... all the women that "second wavers" were beaten about the ears for allegedly not including?

I'll bet that all of them are really happy that they're free to be soccer moms, princesses and sex symbols. In the spare minutes they get after working two jobs and doing all the household work, and between trying to figure out where next month's rent is coming from and dodging the sexual harassment at work ...

I see the article quoted mentioned that question. Seems to me it's the central one.

Seems to me third-wave "feminists" are pretty much a waste of space.

thank you for bringing this up. that was going to be exactly my question with all this. how is it working out. the frat boys chanting yes means no, how to rape a girl. more and more disrespect between the genders.

i could go on and on.

i was thinking about this going thru the different forums about the pageant thread, listening to people.

As is characteristics of Generation X and Generation Y, Third Wave feminists express themselves through popular culture and use it in their personal journeys to define identity. They look for women, images, and musicians who represent their own struggles. They also take ironic pleasure in outrageously sexist or sexualized representations, like Paris Hilton or reality shows like America’s Next Top Model.

That describes me, but I've never heard of this wave stuff before now. I need to get out more

and i say that with love, grinnin. (i will call my son an ass, then say, saying with love, lol)

but i think my big question with this attitude is

for me

and what i see

it is like asking men (boys) to be disrespectful and not getting the insult.

since you identify, and i am not judging what is, your right, i am exploring thought. but i might have to think a bet about how i want to ask the question.

As is characteristics of Generation X and Generation Y, Third Wave feminists express themselves through popular culture and use it in their personal journeys to define identity. They look for women, images, and musicians who represent their own struggles. They also take ironic pleasure in outrageously sexist or sexualized representations, like Paris Hilton or reality shows like America’s Next Top Model.

I doubt that you think that Paris Hilton and America's Next Top Model are actually empowering and advancing the cause of women.

I think the problem we senior citizens would have with that statement is if it is all someone does, i.e. if they are not concerned about, let alone if they dismiss or oppose efforts to advance, the interests of women to whom a "personal journey to define identity" is an unattainable luxury or simply does nothing to address their real problems; or believe they can liberate themself through a personal journey (or that women can do that); or think that engaging in a personal journey, regardless of what it might be, is all it takes to qualify as a feminist.

It's an inversion of "the personal is political". It isn't recognizing the politics of the personal. It's pretending the purely personal is politics.

i came across this in gogle so kicking for anyone wanting to read. but still, hunting something specific here. edit: (sorry. as i said, i saw this on google. thought it was in hof. was kicking for a discussion in hof)

ah... it is good to get a wave from you.