or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › The Granola Extreme
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Granola Extreme - Page 15

post #281 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylith View Post
In any social movement, isn't it the very small, "extreme" fringe group which helps shift the mainstream? It's kind of similar to third-party politics. The Libertarians, say, don't really expect their Presidential candidate to be elected, but because they run one, people will be exposed to ideas they otherwise might not encounter.
This is likely true. And, so, with any social movement, it is important (for those who align themselves with feminism) to consider what the 'extreme' means for all women, or to ask ourselves how does this affect women? YKWIM? Who are the folks that promote and practice this ideology?
post #282 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
This is likely true. And, so, with any social movement, it is important (for those who align themselves with feminism) to consider what the 'extreme' means for all women, or to ask ourselves how does this affect women? YKWIM? Who are the folks that promote and practice this ideology?
I don't think AP/NFL values are inherently antithecal to feminism.

Setting impossible standards for mothers is hardly new in our culture. It's a big part of our culture's ambivalence toward women. In the middle ages, the european image of ideal motherhood was Mary. I think virgin motherhood is about as extreme as impossible standards have ever been, but I can see how earth motherhood could result in self-martyrdom too.

But, you know, the so-called mommy wars didn't start here, and continue to rage in "mainstream" culture as well. If we are sacrificing ourselves on the altar of some unattainable standard of motherhood... well, it's about our internalization of the patriarchy, and the "granola" part is just a matter of picking your poison (so to speak.)

It seems to me that many of the things the AP/NFL movement holds dear are about mothers' empowerment. I see so much passion here about mothers' rights: to control our reproduction throughout pregnancy and birth, to breastfeed without shame, to be able to maintain their connection with their children if they WOH, to avoid disenfranchisement if they SAH. And human rights too, most obviously the rights of children.

I am not quite able to gather my thoughts and say what I want to say, and I need to get away from the computer. Basically I think it's a red herring to talk about the "granola extreme" because IMO that is not the root of the problem, just one version of it.
post #283 of 327
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylith View Post
I don't think AP/NFL values are inherently antithecal to feminism.
No, I don't think they are either. Quite a bit of it reflects a resistance to our materialist, capitalist culture, which, is a good thing. Where the values can become oppressive (in practice) is when mothers take on the sole-responsibility for fullfilling all the needs of their children.

Quote:
Setting impossible standards for mothers is hardly new in our culture. It's a big part of our culture's ambivalence toward women. In the middle ages, the european image of ideal motherhood was Mary. I think virgin motherhood is about as extreme as impossible standards have ever been, but I can see how earth motherhood could result in self-martyrdom too.
yeah, I think the virgin mary icon must be the epitome of 'idealized motherhood'. But, it's interesting how mothers are often split--either idealized (for their self-sacrifices..etc), or denigrated for expressing their own needs. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium where women can be both 'good mothers', and 'individuals' without tension and/or contradictions.

Quote:
But, you know, the so-called mommy wars didn't start here, and continue to rage in "mainstream" culture as well. If we are sacrificing ourselves on the altar of some unattainable standard of motherhood... well, it's about our internalization of the patriarchy, and the "granola" part is just a matter of picking your poison (so to speak.)
I think it's more than that though. Can't articulate it right now, but I'll think about it some more.


Quote:
It seems to me that many of the things the AP/NFL movement holds dear are about mothers' empowerment. I see so much passion here about mothers' rights: to control our reproduction throughout pregnancy and birth, to breastfeed without shame, to be able to maintain their connection with their children if they WOH, to avoid disenfranchisement if they SAH. And human rights too, most obviously the rights of children.
I agree 100%

Quote:
Basically I think it's a red herring to talk about the "granola extreme" because IMO that is not the root of the problem, just one version of it.
What do you think the root of the problem is? (no snark--I'm asking as a passionate mama and feminist)
post #284 of 327
Not Sylith but my take on it is this

Someone mentioned Calvinism a few hundred post back and I think that the protestant work ethic (PWE) has something to do with the whole parenting/ feminism/extreme thing in some way.

I can't put my finger on it exactly but it's do do with everything we do having a 'work' focus and transactional element.

The PWE leaves little room for leisure - the devil and idle hands......... and in modern time I believe that we have come to see leisure as our reward for hard work, but that leisure cannot come *without* work.

Thus the pursuance of a 'leisurely parenting style' or SAH seems to be without value and therefore somehow unseemly. On order to maintain the work/reward balance, parenthood and motherhood in particular has become more workplace-like and the day is measured by the achievements of parent and child and day to day life is presented as work.

I think that this attribution of work currrency to normal family life is what gives rise to the refrain 'I've had the kids all day - now its your turn' often heard IRL here along with 'If I bf I will have to do all the work at night as well ugh'

Back in the early 90s when I first became a parent I met very few women my own age who were mothers. The other mothers I met at toddler groups and in the park were in their 30s, educated and recently dropped out of the work environment into a foreign land.

I saw these mothers timetabling naps, feeds and activities and was aghast; it seemed like such hard work. Over the years I have watched them become professional parents transferring the skills of the workplace to family management researching, evaluating, assessing, calculating, planning their family trajectory from toddlerhood to university.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong to do this I'm just wondering if the granola extreme is similarly driven, if this is indeed a driver at all.
post #285 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
I have seen it drive my DH's ex literally to her wits' end. With her next pregnancy I expect to run across her lying under some bushes in the park, in midwinter, holding a stick between her teeth and giving birth alone. Because a homebirth isn't enough, an unattended birth isn't enough, it's gotta be something even *more* natural. Rather than keeping up with the Jones, she's keeping up with the Raynbow Arwen Starrs.
OMG! **spews coke** That had me laughing so hard I had tears! My hubby's ex is just like that! LOL! She is working on her third unassisted (which Im not against, persay) and it seems to be a bragging right for some people, not a choice they make because they really feel its right for them, but something they do to say they are tougher than another mother.

That being said, I do live as naturally as I can afford. I use natural cleaners and pest remedies, and some more holistic-type healthcare. But I am not the type that will refuse to go to the doctor or take my child when I feel its something that is out of my scope of holisticity (think I created a new word!)I know some people who REFUSE any kind of outside help (ie doctors etc) but I know that there are just somethings that I dont have the training and full understanding of that could be detrimental to my child or family's health and Im not going to compromise it just to say Im extreme.
post #286 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangefoot View Post
I saw these mothers timetabling naps, feeds and activities and was aghast; it seemed like such hard work. Over the years I have watched them become professional parents transferring the skills of the workplace to family management researching, evaluating, assessing, calculating, planning their family trajectory from toddlerhood to university.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong to do this I'm just wondering if the granola extreme is similarly driven, if this is indeed a driver at all.
I would argue that the granola 'extreme' is driven by an active rejection of culture, in favour of 'nature'--a concept that predates history/culture and is understood as 'pure' and unmitigated by human manipulation. That there is one 'true' way of being that is separate from how we (society) construct our social environment.

It seems that at the 'exteme' end of AP/NFL values, is a way of life for mothers (women), that is based entirely on the body. I consistently hear mama's talk of 'instinctual' parenting, and choice-making based on an inherent trust of nature. But, this doesn't seem to be the case for fathers, and so, there is a very gendered element involved, which, may be an unsettling factor for some feminists.
post #287 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
I would argue that the granola 'extreme' is driven by an active rejection of culture, in favour of 'nature'--a concept that predates history/culture and is understood as 'pure' and unmitigated by human manipulation. That there is one 'true' way of being that is separate from how we (society) construct our social environment.

It seems that at the 'exteme' end of AP/NFL values, is a way of life for mothers (women), that is based entirely on the body. I consistently hear mama's talk of 'instinctual' parenting, and choice-making based on an inherent trust of nature. But, this doesn't seem to be the case for fathers, and so, there is a very gendered element involved, which, may be an unsettling factor for some feminists.
. . . I'm struggling for words here (as I'm sure you were as well) . . . for me, the extreme is something that is along the lines of "be the change you want to see in the world" (Gandhi) - and it has less to do with me as a mother or even as a woman than as a member of the human race . . . it's less about being separate from society (although a poem I wrote in highschool did incorporate the line "the call of 'civilization' sends chills up my spine") and more to do with re-integrating with the rest of nature (since I believe humans' separation from the natural world is ultimately the root cause of her destruction). It's not just about the body, but since I'm not really sure what you meant by that, I'll leave that bit alone. I'm concerned about the future of my line, most specifically - my great great great great grandchildren and what kind of world they will have . . . my username means "Mother Earth Warrior" . . . I don't think any of this is inconsistent with feminism . . . quite the opposite, I find knowledge of 'extreme' alternatives very empowering . . . I also don't think that biologically inherent gender differences are something to be ashamed of . . . especially given that there is no straight line, there's a whole spectrum to choose from, and frankly even being born one gender does not automatically mean one is that gender . . . I'm starting to babble, so I'll end here, I'll respond again when I feel like I'm able to make a point
post #288 of 327
Well, here I am posting again without reading the whole thread, but...

A few thoughts about the history of feminism in the U.S. (hoping my grad US history seminars will come back to me accurately )

Since about the late 19th century, there have been 2 varieties of feminism. You might call them 'maternalist' feminism and 'equality' feminism. It's actually historically inaccurate to call maternalism 'feminism'--feminism is associated with equality, while maternalism or the 'woman movement' is associated with emphasizing women's *difference,* mostly associated with childrearing and nurturing -- and trying to create a society in which these are actively supported. Feminism is about creating equal access to education and careers, and NOT essentializing women as mothers and caregivers.

As you might expect, feminism has long been a middle- and upper-middle-class white woman's movement (since, like the men in their social class, these are the women who most realistically could get higher education and a career--they don't have to work in factories and until not that long ago would have had maids and housekeepers). Maternalism was much more inclusive--though still typically led by middle-class white women reformers.

(It's interesting to note that some of the European countries with the longest-running maternalist policies (like paid support to families or to mothers) were actually the most traditional. Germany, for instance, started actively supporting families with worker's insurance and other social programs in the late 19th century because they wanted women to stay home.

But in the U.S., social programs that support mothering became associated so strongly with single mothers and 'undeserving' welfare cases in the 1960s that we now think of such social programs as ANTI-family. Here, the policy has been for government to NOT support motherhood and children, because it is seen as DISCOURAGING father-led families. The social programs we do have, like Social Security, were originally and deliberately designed to keep women from becoming economically independent. We have totally detached public financial support for mothers and families here from the 'family values' rhetoric, which assumes that the best way to 'support' families is by NOT involving government but instead keeping everything private. Conservatives usually show no awareness that things like national health insurance, a much higher minimum wage, and year-long paid maternity leaves might actually work to KEEP mothers at home.)

Anyway---on feminism. The question "Is AP compatable with feminism?" is actually a really historic question that has been debated in one form or another for more than 100 years, if you think of AP as being 'maternalist.' And the way American feminism often goes, AP is actually NOT very compatible.

Another way to think about it. Since the 1970s or so, there has been 'difference' feminism and (again) 'equality' feminism. 'Difference' feminism celebrates what are usually considered 'female' attributes--intuition, caregiving, being close to nature. 'Equality' feminism, on the other hand, sees all these as being socially constructed cultural myths that actually support patriarchy. (How convenient that women are naturally closer to nature. That means, among other things, we don't actually have to give their science and math education much thought, or worry about the fact that there are almost no women engineers or computer scientists or, er, any occupation that actually structures the way the human world currently works.)

It all makes me a bit boggled, because I have been so strongly on BOTH sides. I have now started to reach the conclusion that we can be both, and also that this is not really the true issue. The REAL issue is getting men to expand THEIR social roles--and expand them a LOT. We need to insist that men care for their own babies and small children at least half the time, and we need to get women into decision-making roles that will alter the structure of work, law, education, manufacturing and retailing to allow the necessarily flexibility for EVERYONE to be able to care for small children.

The problem is that AP is almost entirely a women's movement. It needs to be a men's movement too.

But because AP is so intimately connected to the ONE thing that women get praise for in our society, I think we are loathe to share it sometimes.
It's why I think some SAHMs don't really WANT their husbands to care for the kids. What would the woman who feels her whole identity is centered on her AP motherhood say if her husband said, "Hey, *I* want to stay home with the kids half the time, OK? and you can get a job for when I am home"? It's like, "Dude, you get to run the world, and now you want this too???" But what would it be like if both moms and dads identified themselves as both 'mothers' and as active participants in the outside world? I think things would look pretty different.
post #289 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
What do you think the root of the problem is? (no snark--I'm asking as a passionate mama and feminist)
Well... the basic problems I see people talking about on this thread are ultracompetitive and bullying behaviors. As your mama may have told you, the reason people do those things is because they're insecure.

And *why* are we so often insecure? I think it has to do with the way we are taught to measure our own worth. Orangefoot mentioned the "work ethic" and I think that's part of it: we have value according to how hard we work. But, for women, I think there is also a layer of... how to say this... we have value according to how much of ourselves we are giving to other people.

No, that isn't quite what I want to say, either, but I don't want to blow off this thread. I'm going to just put this out there, and if I figure out what I really mean I will edit it later.
post #290 of 327
Anyway---on feminism. The question "Is AP compatable with feminism?" is actually a really historic question that has been debated in one form or another for more than 100 years, if you think of AP as being 'maternalist.' And the way American feminism often goes, AP is actually NOT very compatible.

I tend to disagree, b/c I think this notion is rooted in the idea that things historically done by women (childcare, cooking, homemaking) are less worthwhile and less valuable than the things men traditionally have done. And that notion itself is sexist. It seems like we should be able to define a feminism where traditional women's work is valued but not expected of all women, for starters, nor the sole domain of women.

I think AP (or maybe NFL even moreso) ideals can wind up being just another tool to overburden women, but I don't think it's inherently incompatible with feminism at all. A lot of it to me just seems like following instincts, using common sense, and not buying into the materialistic excess surrounding the raising of babies.
post #291 of 327
I can't form a full post right now but I wanted to sub...
post #292 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazelnut View Post
I think this notion is rooted in the idea that things historically done by women (childcare, cooking, homemaking) are less worthwhile and less valuable than the things men traditionally have done. And that notion itself is sexist. It seems like we should be able to define a feminism where traditional women's work is valued but not expected of all women, for starters, nor the sole domain of women.
Love it.
post #293 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
I would argue that the granola 'extreme' is driven by an active rejection of culture, in favour of 'nature'--a concept that predates history/culture and is understood as 'pure' and unmitigated by human manipulation. That there is one 'true' way of being that is separate from how we (society) construct our social environment.
very interesting observation. Unfortunately the "natural" argument is based on a fallacy that there are humans outside of human manipulation - that culture is a cloak we can shake off if we put our mind to it. Unfortunately, humans are inherently social creatures so our involvement in and creation of society is part of what makes us human.

The particular form of that society can and does change, of course. But I cringe whenever I see the "what would a caveman do" threads or, "what do hunter/gatherer tribes in the amazon do" types of analysis.

I found Guns, Germs, Steel by Jared Diamond, to be a great introduction to a true evolutionary approach to cultural formation. Culture is not a linear progression from simple/less complex/early to complex/later - but rather all culture is very very complex, and adapted to the environment in which it exists. And it is constantly changing.

"Our babies, ourselves" actually addresses this fact dead on. There are good reasons why US culture prioritizes independence over attachment - because those values and skills prized in our current environment. This doesn't mean it is right or ideal or wrong or anything - it is what it is - a direct reflection of the current cultural priorities.

However, I think it is fascinating that the AP/NFL movement is moving out of smaller pockets and into the mainstream - after all, I can now buy organic food at my local safeway, Dr Sears writes a column in parenting magazine, breastfeeding is at an all time high, etc etc. The culture is changing. Something about AP and NFL is striking a cord with more and more people in this society - the values in AP and NFL are resonnating with more and more people.

Sure, the practices may be watered down or picked and chosen based on individual preferences, but the philosophy is increasing in popularity. And this to me shows a sea change in our culture - in 10 years, we will have a different american culture than we do now, I predict.

Other aspects I have seen - more focus on work/family balance in Gen Xers - we demand and expect it and will vote with our feet to get it. Baby Boomers retiring en masse, meaning a huge change in our economic structure is coming- hopefully a stop to the slow decline in economic spending power. The impact of global warming is becoming defacto accepted, and more and more people realize that they *should* do something, like buy smaller cars, use more efficient electricity, etc. There is increasing concern over exposure to media by our kids. And we are demanding more options for schooling, childcare, work, and healthcare.

So there is a lot of change out there. The extremes are important to push the boundaries. But most people don't live in the extreme. Most people aren't even at the cutting edge. I think MDC is made up of some bleeding edge, some cutting edge, but mainly early adopters of this new cultural approach.

My 2 cents.

Siobhan
post #294 of 327
*shrug*

I always took my position in life as doing what I could to be anything I wanted to be.

I'm not bragging, just trying to give perspective...I have a double degree, with a double minor...and i'm a stay at home mom.

I do what's right for my family in one particular moment of time.

It might be anti-feminist, or anti-AP, but it's pro-my-family.

Am I missing the big deal?
post #295 of 327
Feminism again. Well, American feminism *has* ended up being more about getting women to be able to achieve things equally with men--getting access to education and careers, and being able to live life as an autonomous individual. That's what we value in this society, as was mentioned above.

I don't at all disagree with the idea that degrading work associated with women--caretaking, mothering--is deeply sexist. And I know that there are many people who consider themselves feminist who are SAHMs.

But--if you look at what feminism has actually been able to achieve in the U.S., it is NOT social support for motherhood in the form of things like long paid maternity leaves, 'mothers' pensions' etc. There was one last big stab at that in 1972---a low-cost child care bill, I think--but Nixon vetoed it. What American feminists have been able to accomplish (which is possibly different from what they would LIKE to accomplish) is legal equality.

However, since 'equality' in this case mostly means equality with men--NOT men taking on roles equal to women--we end up with a society that's pretty similar to the one we had before, only with a few more women in decision-making roles.

What many feminist women want is the chance to be able to become something OTHER than a wife and mother--to not be defined by her biology. That's why 'maternalism' has never been very appealing to many feminists. I know a couple of women who are disgusted if anyone assumes they are somehow naturally more nurturing or cooperative (read: submissive) than men--they actively resist these labels. (and are sometimes thought to be bitches as result.) Nancy Pelosi was criticized by some feminists for bringing her grandchildren to Congress on that first day because it reinforced the idea that women are mothers first and anything else second. But 'maternalists' would be just the opposite--they would love to see a world where mothering always came first.

I agree with siobhang (yay, Gen X mommies!) that AP is becoming mainstream, and that this has the potential to be a pretty big deal. The new mothers' movements are also really interesting to me, because I finally see the possibility of uniting the maternalists and the feminists. I see the possibility for a real restructuring of society in ways that benefit everyone--men, women, and children-- and I am all for this.
post #296 of 327
Siobhan - I'm curious about why it is that you cringe about hunter/gatherer questions? IMO, as a general rule, hunter/gatherers tend to live much more in concert with/to the benefit of Mother Earth, and have a much more interdependent/healthier social structure than the corporate/industrial Western culture.
post #297 of 327
Well...I'm not as optimitic as you are Fuller, about the possibility of uniting the 'maternalists' and the 'feminists' in a re-visioning/re-conceptualizing of 'women as mothers'.

It seems to me that at the core of maternalist ideology is the notion that there is an essential 'female nature'; and because women are perceived (now, and historically) to possess the inherent qualities of: nurturance, sensitivity, empathy..etc, mothers are seen (and see themselves) as in the unique position to protect the family, and the larger society against the 'evils' of materialism, capitalism, consumerism...etc.

There's nothing new here. The early American female moral reformers advocated for legislation, which would help protect the mother-child bond (pensions, public funding for mothers without a spouse, working conditions, etc). However, the result was that these laws limited women's participation in the labour force, promoted women's economic dependence on men, and defeated the day-care movement.

So, the fundamental values of the maternalists really work to undermine the feminist agenda to challenge the structure of gender relations. Even as the goals of both maternalists and feminists are to transform 'society' and achieve more gains for women and children, the strategies to that end are incompatible.
post #298 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
Siobhan - I'm curious about why it is that you cringe about hunter/gatherer questions? IMO, as a general rule, hunter/gatherers tend to live much more in concert with/to the benefit of Mother Earth, and have a much more interdependent/healthier social structure than the corporate/industrial Western culture.
Because we don't live in a hunter gatherer society. We don't forage for food or hunt and kill our dinner. We don't live in nomadic tribes of under 100 people where rules of behavior are passed down from generation to generation, where literacy is unheard of, and individuality not supported. We don't live in a society where a disabled child or wounded adult is routinely killed because the society cannot support it. And we don't live in a society where intermittant warfare against the neighboring hunter gatherer tribe is an ongoing affair.

We don't suffer from seasonal malnutrition nor do we suffer from many of the illnesses that hunter/gatherers do (especially modern day ones who are infected with larger population based illnesses - those diseases are devastating to those communities). But even in "ye olden times", hunter/gatherers had a life expectancy of around 45 years, and suffered from worms, parasites, malaria, etc etc etc. Life wasn't eden out on the savannah.

I actually strongly disagree that hunter/gatherers are inherently healthier social structure - by what measurement are you measuring healthier? Physical? well, our life expectancy is age 79, theirs 45 and our infant and maternal mortality rates incredibly low. Mentally? Not sure how to compare mental health, especially since our measurements of mental health were invented by our society to measure ourselves - they don't make sense in other societies.

I look at societal formation from an evolutionary perspective - humans are constantly adapt their society to fit their needs in a "good enough" fashion. IF a societal formation doesn't work, it will cease to exist - the individuals will change their societal formation to something that does work, or they will die or be absorbed into another societal formation that is more sustainable.

There is a reason why hunter/gatherer communities are nearly extinct. Their societal formation is directly at odds with current world environment - and their relative powerlessness compared with other societal formations makes them extremely vulnerable to decisions outside their control. Their ability to adapt their environment is limited - most do change their societal formation or allow themselves to be absorbed into a broader culture.

Is this a good or bad thing? I don't know. I don't care. It just is. Cultures grow and die all the time. It is the nature of human society that we are constantly changing, constantly adapting to meet our every constantly changing environment.

The thing that bugs me the MOST is the assumption that hunter/gatherers we know today are somehow this untouched, trapped in amber, society which is closest to how people lived 35,000 before the advent of agriculture. It is incredible naive, and patronizing of these individuals, who are in fact showing tremendous agency in definining their lives the best way they know how, with no desire nor intention to be living museum exhibits for "Westerners" to learn from.

The fact is that these people live in the same world we do - the few that are left are able to live in a hunter/gatherer lifestyle BECAUSE they live in close proximity to other types of social groups who protect them or at least deflect attention away from them. Many members of those communities have strong ties with agricultural groups, and some move back and forth between the two. Ideas, illness, and material things are shared quite a lot between most hunter/gatherer communities and the rest of the world.

In addition, almost all hunter/gatherer communities live in the most marginal areas on the planet, because the more powerful societal formations (agriculturalists and now industrialists) took all the good land. They also also have strong impact on the animals available to hunter/gatherer communities to hunt or use. So even if the hunter/gatherers are "untouched" by the outside, the fact of where they are forced to live and what animals, water, plants, environment they are exposed to means that by definition, they are directly influenced by the rest of the world.

We can learn a lot from hunter/gatherer communities - in terms of how one set of people deal with very specific living environment. But we can learn a lot from all commmunities in this way. Hunter/gatherers don't inherently teach us MORE just because they have less.

Sorry to get all strident about this - you can tell I get a bit ranty about this topic.

My applied anthropologist/international development hat is firmly affixed to my head.

Siobhan
post #299 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
So, the fundamental values of the maternalists really work to undermine the feminist agenda to challenge the structure of gender relations. Even as the goals of both maternalists and feminists are to transform 'society' and achieve more gains for women and children, the strategies to that end are incompatible.
here is the way I see it, and I think what fuller was getting to.

In some ways, I am different from my husband. I have a uterus and boobs - I went through childbirth and breastfeeding. These are not cultural constructs and to suggest otherwise is silly. These differences have very important behavior and time expenditure impact.

In other ways, I am not different from my husband - we have similar values, goals, desires, etc for ourselves and our family. To limit or differentiate between our goals and values based on gender is also silly.

I think feminism needs a bit of both "viva la difference" and equality.

Where i think equality feminism failed was by moving away from the "women are different than men" argument, they implicitly embraced the male rolemodel for how women should behave. Feminism in the 70s and 80s was about how women should join the male world, and not about how to bring the female and male worlds together in some fashion.

The fact is, the biggest change in the workforce today is coming from women who are saying that they are NOT shorter/softer/less hairy versions of men. Instead, they are saying that they do have different needs than the traditional worker has (how valid that traditional worker's needs are is another topic deserving attention) and that if company's want to keep and promote women, they have to acknowledge those differences and be supportive of women. I.E. the traditionally male workforce has to incorporate female world.

And I think true feminism occurs when those changes to the workforce are applied to ALL workers - making it socially acceptable as well as legally valid for men to say that maybe they too have needs not met by the traditional worker model.
post #300 of 327
Thanks siobhan, I appreciate your answer.

Looking back at my post (I was really struggling for words to explain what I meant, and admittedly, I still am), I suppose what I meant by healthier was healthier from a spiritual perspective - I do realize that this is not a perspective shared by many, however, so Im good with agreeing to disagree on that one (sorry, comma not working). I dont mean to say thats true of every huntergatherer culture (slash not working either), but I think people that live closer to the earth in general are more aware of the energy around them (any continuation of this vein would branch off into the metaphysical, which again I realize most in our society are loathe to believe in, but therein lies the problem, imo). Of course Im aware that its not just huntergatherers that lived in tribal societies and were close to the earth, its just sometimes easier to compartmentalize that way . . . anyway, thats probably enough OT for now
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › The Granola Extreme