any radical feminists on MDC? - Page 5

[Shabbers]

Teenytoona - did you used to post at the old Ms. Boards? Your name is familiar...

[Teenytoona]

Yeap, same SN there. I take it you did too?

[Shabbers]

Yep! I was Oni no Maggie there... nice to see you again

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by almadianna

What does it say about our society that partners are given a figurative "medal" for sticking around? How can we change this? Why this double standard?

I am truly concerned about the messages thsi sends out to young women, that they are somehow "lucky" that they got a partner to stay with them.

How do you handle these messages with your daughters? (or how would you, for those of us with daughters).

I have only boys, and once someone discovers that baby #3 is indeed a boy, I inevitably get, "Oh, you're lucky they're boys! So much better than all girls. Boys are so much easier..." It always baffles me that people seem to feel a need to console me when I'm really happy with my boys. And then when you try to narrow down why they think boys are easier, it usually comes down to worrying about your teen girl getting pg. I don't get that. Why would I worry less about my boys? If they get a girl pg, I assume they will be just as affected as the mother. And they may have no say over what happens to that child (because of course it is her body, her decision with everything from whether/how/where to birth, whether to bf,etc.). But there is a societal expectation that pg is not a problem for boys.

I don't think there's much point in debating which gender is most harmed or oppressed. The fact is that patriarchy harms both males and females. It just harms them in different ways. Maybe I'll keep notes so I can eventually write that book about raising boys as a feminist mom! I have really been toying with the idea of starting a blog along these lines, but I'm pretty unfamiliar with the blogging world in general.

[Arwyn]

honeybee: that was what made me start my own blog! And of course, after I started it, I discovered there is actually a pretty large group of feminists blogging about parenting, and parenting boys in particular. But I always think adding another voice is a good thing!

There are some really interesting responses to the question "what does a feminist mother look like?" here.

[honeybee]

Thanks for the link! It looks really interesting. I think I will have to investigate blogging a little more to see if it's something I'm really interested in. I love to write, and I keep thinking about all these ideas I want to write down... but then again, I'm pretty strapped for time these days.

[honeybee]

So, I found a really GREAT book in the used section of Schuller's yesterday, and I just wanted to share with those who will understand my excitement.:

It's called The Wandering Uterus, and it's about reproductive rights, looked at from a feminist perspective. BUT, it challenges the idea that all these new technologies are actually improving womenkinds reproductive choices or freeing them from patriarchy. I've only read the first chapter, but I'm finding it really fascinating. This goes way beyond the A debate, which I know is banned from discussion here. It is talking about everything from fertility treatments to birthing, etc. The first chapter really hit home on how women's reproduction is regulated all over the place, but there are NO regulations on the corporations and businesses profiting from them (as infertility treatments is BIG business). The book was written in 1997, so I'd be interested to find out if any more regulations have come into place since then.

[Hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Shabbers

Yep! I was Oni no Maggie there... nice to see you again

oh I remember you! I was eisbaer. hi.

[Teenytoona]

Originally Posted by Shabbers

Yep! I was Oni no Maggie there... nice to see you again

Nice to see you again too!

Originally Posted by Hazelnut

oh I remember you! I was eisbaer. hi.

Ahh the reunions! I love it!

[MittensKittens]

That link is really interesting - thanks Arwyn!

[MittensKittens]

Are you all still alive?

[Hazelnut]

I was going to ask you all what you thought of that whole Letterman thing. I don't watch him, but it was in the papers.

[transformed]

I do not know If I am a feminist. LOL. Certainly more so than when I started here at mdc.

I enjoyed this immensely: http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/node/681

I am completely disenfranchised that my choice to stay at home is 150% not valued y my husband OR society.

I just read a story about "cougars" in NPR that made my blood curdle. Just at the mere mention of the word.

I find myself increasingly wondering why men can have bachelor parties with naked women and sex and women aren't supposed to. And why it is glorified.

I asked my husband if he thought I could et a shirt altered and he said "No, you just need larger tits."

I am trying to start a business and that makes me a lazy a$$ but if my husband was trying to start a company - he would e an "entrepreneur"

:

I am kind of.


I have my opinions. Some of them fit into that definition....certainly some dont....I dont know what that "makes me."

[ursusarctos]

Discussion question: how does radical feminism shape your religious/philosophical views? Yes, I know that's vague... or perhaps "open ended" is a nicer way to put it

One thing I get really worked up about is how I am supposed to just "get over" the fact that the great majority of philosophers both western and eastern were explicitly misogynist. You read about their ideas of what humanity's problems are and their solutions, and then you come to the "about women, the other, separate group that cooks, cleans and bears our babies" part. Women just didn't fall under these guys' definition of "human". So now that the definition of human has expanded to include women, words originally intended only for men are supposed to apply to me too? The argument "but they were important thinkers!" doesn't really cut it for me anymore - I don't care what the sociohistorical context is, if a man thinks of women only as objects (as opposed to subjects) it causes me to seriously question the validity of the rest of his opinions.
The more I identify as a woman, not a "human" (which means male-identified as the term is used in our society) the less I am able to let "just a little misogyny on the side" slide. For example, as a teenager I very much liked the Beats - Jack Kerouac especially. Then I realized that women had no place in their idea of humanity - in their world women existed to take care, to bail out, to put out, to wait at home while the men had their counterculture adventures. Again, women were objects, not fellow subjects. And as I identified more and more as a woman, I realized that they were not speaking to me, and their work mostly lost its appeal for me.
As for religion, similar problem as I have with philosophers - women are left out, on the side, if they are not directly put down. And now that women are people too, we are expected to just pretend that all these old males were actually speaking to everyone, not just men. Which was simply not the case. Am I making any sense here?
I also find it interesting how the ideas of a lot of enlightenment thinkers helped to form the society that eventually enabled feminism to exist as an open movement - yet also formed the basis for the materialist, mechanistic worldview that invalidates the subjective, physical, emotional, intuitive and is currently destroying the environment and quality of life of pretty much everyone in more or less blatant ways.
Anyway, just a little ramble - anyone else have thoughts?

[MittensKittens]

Absolutely. "When you ignore the misogyny, their work is actually really good" doesn't do the trick for me. Of course, there are philosophers who are not misogynist.

[ursusarctos]

Originally Posted by MittensKittens

Absolutely. "When you ignore the misogyny, their work is actually really good" doesn't do the trick for me. Of course, there are philosophers who are not misogynist.

Of course... I think. But then I try to think of some (especially males) and I can't come up with any It seems that sympathizing with the plight of women is what counts for non-misogyny in the minds of most people - but that doesn't always add up.
Though I certainly don't have a degree in philosophy. Quite possibly I am missing a lot

[Hazelnut]

Interesting post, ursaarctos. I agree. I've had the same issue with writers. And you almost feel grateful when reading about them and literature about them even acknowledges that they were misogynist. Like, well that sucks, but thanks for thinking it worth mentioning...I'll stop reading Alexander Pope now, lol.

I would say it's the same for all male historical figures. We're supposed to just shrug off their misogyny as their being a product of their times...which would indeed seem to invalidate some of their greatness, imo. I recall at work bringing this up wrt some history textbooks and my point was largely ignored. I just thought it should be acknowledged. I think it's just a testament to the lingering misogyny- the apathy.

And then what gets me is that any time the "Are you a feminist?" question comes up, so many say that they're a "humanist!" as if we're all equal, and have been for so long, and this feminist word is so alienating to men. Grr.

[ursusarctos]

Originally Posted by Hazelnut

And then what gets me is that any time the "Are you a feminist?" question comes up, so many say that they're a "humanist!" as if we're all equal, and have been for so long, and this feminist word is so alienating to men. Grr.

Yes! I agree. I used to be one of those people too - until I realized that I'm a woman, that is. If a lable basically invalidates your way of being/experiencing the world/experiences of discrimination (as the word "humanist" does to all subjectivities not white heterosexual male), it's not a lable you want to be claiming.
I think part of the fear of calling oneself feminist comes from the bad image feminism has been smeared with. It also invites conflict and disapproval, which is not something people want to deal with. And of course women especially are not supposed to seriously dissent.

[MittensKittens]

Originally Posted by ursusarctos

Of course... I think. But then I try to think of some (especially males) and I can't come up with any It seems that sympathizing with the plight of women is what counts for non-misogyny in the minds of most people - but that doesn't always add up.
Though I certainly don't have a degree in philosophy. Quite possibly I am missing a lot

Well... I would like some help on that one too, because I might be missing something, and if that is the case, I would certainly be very interested in some new reading material. Perhaps even mentioning those I was thinking of might be controversial but indeed, they are the only philosophers I can think of who are not misogynist - Marx and Engels.

[1littlebit]

what i don't get is the perspective of some people (feminists included) that consider some of my beliefs and practices anti feminist. i am a SAHM b/c i choose to be... but some people think this is an insult to feminists... huh? i have a choice... i made my choice... thats the point of feminism IMO. I don't understand why some people consider not using birth control, opting for out of hospital or drug free births, SAHMing, extended BFing etc. anti feminist. i actually think that birth is a huge feminist issue and anyone who believes advocating for our right to birth at home, vaginally, with our intervention etc as anti feminist is totally missing the point.

same for extended BFing, AP, and other things that 'tie me down' ... i see these as huge women's rights issues... the right to NIP, pump at work, extended maternity leave etc are not demeaning to women... at least IMHO they are empowering, and they are choices we should have the right to make. what do you all think?