Page 1 of 1 pages
ITT needs more women posting comments and taking part in these discussions. It is interesting that it is mostly men who take part in these discussions. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems the guys outnumber the ladies by a large margin.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 24, 2005 at 6:51 PM
I have noticed this trend in many a media outlet , and I am seeing it as a good sign. there is someone out there who is frightened of us, so frightened that it is trying to enforce the idea that feminism does not work. And is addressing this to the women who have made it to the top.
Seems someone at the Times is afraid for his chair
Posted by darken on Nov 25, 2005 at 4:39 AM
THANK YOU! I read Dowd’s article in the Times and was pretty disgusted by it considering I am a 26 year old female single, professional. I read it online and noticed that it was the top emailed article on the Times.
What a crock of SHIT! Women like that can continue to be financially dependent on their husbands and waste their ambition if they want. It’s just a high-society fuckin fantasy she’s living in.
Posted by m goodwin on Nov 25, 2005 at 8:02 AM
I fully agree
the woman does not speak for me, nor for anyone in my generation.
Posted by darken on Nov 25, 2005 at 8:09 AM
This was a great piece. I rarely read the Times anymore. Its propaganda in the build-up to the Iraqi War has really exposed the Times as a mouthpiece for neo-liberal drivel. But I have noticed the media trend reporting women want to go back to more
Posted by Wbblack on Nov 27, 2005 at 8:11 AM
Yes, good piece. I hesitate to point out that, when it comes to television, advertising and programming (pun intended), there are many instances where men are portrayed as bumbling morons and women as clever geniuses. An equally undeserved stereotype for both, in all it’s variations. Yes?
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 27, 2005 at 6:49 PM
<cite>when it comes to television, advertising and programming (pun intended), there are many instances where men are portrayed as bumbling morons and women as clever geniuses.</cite>
Fabulously beautiful, clever, geniuses. Plain women are moms. They serve Jello to their children or bring Pepsi to soccer games. Look deeper David.
Posted by CornChip on Nov 27, 2005 at 9:17 PM
Looking deeper into the depths of hell ... aah yes, I see it now too. Thanks CornChip.
Posted by David in Canada on Nov 27, 2005 at 10:30 PM
Susan J. Douglas is right, but despite that she doesn’t quite see the forest when she looks at all the trees.
It is NOT the NYTimes which is to blame, but OTHER women.
Feminism planted the seeds of it’s own failure by deciding early on that attacking another successful woman was verbotin.
The NYTimes is merely a platform. The actual perpetrators of the crime, the women who wrote the articles partly backed up by their “me-search.” (great on-the-fly term) were NOT forced to write the articles by men NOR directed to write about these topics or push particular viewpoints.
It was the choice of those women alone.
If Feminism is to start winning again, it needs to realize that it’s greatest enemy are successful women who turn their back on the feminist principles that made their success possible,
Talk about and to ODowd and women like her directly. Redirect the comments made about the NYTimes to them.
It’s clear that the idea that successful woman by merely by existing do more good for the feminist cause whether they support it or not is FALSE.
Feminist stratigests never learned the lesson that Phillis Schaffley taught them in her defeat of feminism and the ERA.
She beat feminists mainly, because she was able to launch her repeated, vicious and absurd broadside attacks on her Feminist opponents without ever being attacked the same way.
It’s still upsetting to recall watching Elenor Schmeal appeal to Phyllis after being ripped apart to accept that Elenor’s arguments were valid. Phyllis wouldn’t even aknowledge that Elenor was there. Once Elenor was done pleading, Phyllis picked up her attack on Elenor and her ideals.
The inablity of feminists to engage successful women who oppose the feminist positions, has to be confronted.
The benefits that all women get from having women in positions of power and influence is negated if the woman in power uses it to attack and destroy feminist ideals.
At the very least Odowd and her ilk should be treated the same way as any man who wrote they do.
After a few encounters with other women willing to express their disgust and profound personal disappointment to ODowd and women like her, I bet you anything we’d start to see a lessoning of such writing BY WOMEN.
As long as being a successful woman immunizes anti-feminist women from criticism and for some gives them celebrity status in the eyes of other women. We will continue to see such attacks on feminism’s ideals and concepts.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Nov 28, 2005 at 8:38 AM
Johnny, I could not agree more if i wanted to.
Posted by darken on Nov 28, 2005 at 8:51 AM
Thank you Thank you Thank you.
You left nothing out. This is exactly what I and others have been grousing about at the Times for years now. This is precisely it.
“Times seems to take perverse delight in goading women about the alleged bankruptcy of feminism.”
Goading. that is exactly how it has seemed to me and others. And let’s not forget the “hers” section of the magazine. My god.
Posted by marge on Nov 29, 2005 at 4:54 PM
Johnny, Don’t believe for a second the Times is facing a dearth of talent and stories. The Times definitely has people at the helm deciding this is the tack to take. Don’t be so clever about it. The fact is, the Times has a definite slant and this has been going on for years. They are accountable. It is unmistakable. Also, give an insider like Douglas a little credit for having a better idea than you or even I about what goes on at the Times.
Posted by marge on Nov 29, 2005 at 5:00 PM
Johnny—you are just wrong. The Times has access to the work of dozens of very talented successful feminist women who could provide good material about women’s issues.
The New York Tiimes doesn’t want them.
The Times has deliberately chosen to choose THESE women to write drivel which undermines the women’s movement and mistakes rich women for women in general.
The choice of articles is made by the editors. There is no dearth of excellent material out there.
Why isn’t Barbara Ehrenreich a contributor to the Times Op-Ed page? Now that is a well-known, widely-read woman with something of import to say to working class women (and everyone else, too). But editors at The Times have deliberately chosen to highlight the self-lacerating anti-feminist fluff of Maureen Dowd. Truly, it seems that they are deliberately trying to make women look bad.
The Times are just part and parcel of the retreat of “elite” women into more traditional roles than those taken up by women in general due to the ridiculously high pay and ridiculously low tax rates of so many “elite” (actually, just rich) men in places like New York City. It is possible for the women who marry these men to live as appendages, personal assistants and fancy household help, simply due to the flow of wealth to this class of men.
If it weren’t for the increasingly Latin-American-style income inequality of the USA, we wouldn’t be seeing this development of a subculture of “servant wives” among the elite.
We need to regulate CEO pay, re-introduce a respectable progressivity to our income tax structure, limit allowable hours of work per week, require prorated benefits for part-time work, demand mandatory family leave with unemployment benefits for BOTH parents, create and fund a national childcare system and otherwise regulate the labor market to support working parents.
And we need to start simply ignoring these “elite” women for the tiny, irrelevant clique of 18th c. throwbacks struggling, Pride-and-Prejudice-style, to attach themselves as appendages to wealthy men they are.
Jan VanDenBerg
Posted by janvdb on Nov 30, 2005 at 10:12 AM
Johnny—you are wrong on another front, as well. The main strategic error of the women’s movement is NOT failing to attack successful women who don’t hew to their “line.” It is in the failure of the women’s movement to actively EMBRACE women who have succeeded in a man’s world by looking, acting and thinking in a “man-like” way. That is to say, in a selfish, acquisitive, rational, ambitious, money-making, possibly even right-wing-looking manner.
The women’s movement is weakening itself by dividing into, on one hand, a group of separatist lesbian utopitans, and on another, a group who trails along with the anti-capitalist, anti-money-making, anti-ambition, anti-business leanings of large chunks of the left, and on another, another group who trails along with racial subgroups and focusses more on “people of color” and attacks “upper-class white women’s feminism” and so on—all of whom are abandoning and even attacking the very women who are doing the most for women themselves, which is that group of money-making, reality-addressing, get-it-done businesswomen who have pushed the envelope in the real world.
We all need to focus on what we have in common and what we ALL need to do for the benefit of ALL women.
The worst thing we could do is follow the advice of a guy like Johnny and start attacking ANY women. Even turn-coat queen bees like Condi Rice are one of us and we should support her.
Jan VanDenBerg
Posted by janvdb on Nov 30, 2005 at 10:24 AM
much of this discussion portrays the women’s movement as just a collection of individuals, and the Dowds and Schlaflys as just individuals making choices. THESE CHOICES ARE SHAPED IN THE REAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT of the publishing world (increasingly profit-driven), the current strength of the radical/religious right (which has been built up since the 1960s), and the overall growing disadvantage of women (especially low-income single moms). Schlafly is not *just* an individual, but someone well-connected in a rad right movement. Dowd is not just an individual, but a well-established writer for a major newspaper, one who has held onto a great job despite her formulaic writing. This is why it’s important to take the NYTimes to task for whose ideas it’s putting out there. And this is also why IF anyone is going to attack them, it needs to be strategic, and to be effective it needs to get press (that is, as much press clout as the NYT or Fox—fat chance).
Right on jan—this is great:
” The Times has deliberately chosen to choose THESE women to write drivel which undermines the women
Posted by kimaszi on Nov 30, 2005 at 11:01 PM
Jan VanDenBerg just where did I say you should start attacking other women. I said women who actively promote anti-feminist positions should NOT be treated any differently than men who do the same. DOES THAT mean “attack” to you? It does NOT mean that to me. What it means to me is being a woman should NOT inoculate someone from the proper and expected reprobation when one turns traitor to the cause.
By your logic, Phyllis Schaffley should be a feminist Icon. Is she a feminist Icon to you? Your completely closed reasoning makes it impossible to exclude Phyllis from the pantheon of female greats who have sacrificed so much for women.
To infer as you do that I think Condi is anti-feminist IS WRONG. Condi Rice IS an incredible success story on many levels. She is also quite feminist in her positions. She has been vocal when she has spoken about feminism in her support. I love Condi for all she represents. Your hewing to the ideological righteousness is the blindness I speak of.
I also am NOT wrong about embracing women who succeeded in a man’s world by being man-like. I NEVER addressed that. How you think I did, I do not know. I am all for women who succeed in ANY way. However UNLIKE YOU, I do NOT think succeeding by attacking other women or demeaning feminism is included. If a woman’s success is based on such success, she should NOT be lionized or praised, instead she should be shunned, and women should be vocal in their disgust. Again if that translates into “attack” for you so be it. To me it’s appropriate treatment of an ideological traitor.
It’s clear you did not read what I wrote, because of my name. You will NOT even try to understand my point because I am a man. A man who is more feminist than most women I’ve met, yet in your sexist view of the world all my views are suspect because I have a penis I suppose.
Believe it or not some of the biggest and most heartfelt support for women is NOT sourced in women but IN MEN. Men who understand that most all the good things in society stem from the critical activities of women. To abruptly turn your back on women’s greatest ally is to turn down women’s greatest potential allies, men willing to fight the patriarchy in the name of feminism.
IF MEN NEVER AGREE, women will ALWAYS be second class citizens.
If you’d just stop being blinded by your own righteousness, you’d understand this, and understand how damaging this is to feminism
NO matter what some feminists think, the overwhelming majority of women want, need and love men. Any attack on their brothers, fathers and sons turns feminists into enemies of almost all women.
In your us against world women can never win. You set up a false dichotomy between men and women that makes all men adversaries and all women allies. This false world view is feminism’s Achilles heal, and one the patriarchy and it’s female lackeys utilize all the time to cripple feminism.
It’s ironic that you adopt the position of the man-hating minority in feminism in order to attack me. It’s still sexism, when the ONLY reason someone is allowed to attack women is because they are a woman. Yet that is what you say is good, because at least those women are successful????
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 2, 2005 at 2:07 PM
kimaszi:
Thinking about it a bit more carefully, I realize that it is not “feminism” which has failed to accept and include money-making businesswomen. It is the LEFT. The mainstream LEFT.
The mainstream left too frequently gets so caught up in its anti-capitalist anti-money attitudes that it has alienated core feminists and core feminist ideals, which are certainly at least about getting women into positions of power. Having money is essential to power. If women don’t make money, who will fund pro-woman causes and foundations?
If a high-earning female, say, bond trader or real estate developer, tries to make contact with most of the left, they will have nothing to do with her. Too capitalist. These women are totally unwelcome in the right and the left, also, won’t have them. This is a mistake of the left. These women are, surely, feminists and share most values of the left. Women need money or we will never get anywhere.
I think a very important goal right now among women is to reduce internal strife between women and to focus on what we all have in common, rather than allowing ourselves to be drawn into the conflicts between groups (led by men) of which we are also members. Race, lifestyle, consumption level, religion, income level—these are markers of other groups we also belong to which are trying to set we women at each others’ throats.
We need to ignore them, ignore what the media says “feminists” are doing and saying (it’s usually deliberately misleading lies), ignore everyone’s attempts to get us fighting and competing among ourselves.
Johnny: There is a difference between a successful woman like Condi Rice and a woman who aggressively attacks feminism, like Phyllis Schafly.
Condi Rice is a turncoat and the tool of a horse’s ass, but she is still a successful woman who does not directly attack feminism. Her accension to a position of power and access is a positive for women. I don’t think a woman should have to be openly preaching feminism to be a positive role model.
Phyllis Schaffly is an entirely different matter. She has directly attacked feminists and feminist ideas and goals. Yes, I think we should excoriate her. Ditto Anne Coulter. She directly attacks principals of feminism and directly attacks well-known women leaders in a vicious and self-promoting manner. Yes, I just hate that media whore and I’ll tell anyone who will listen.
We women should malign Maureen Dowd, you say? Surely you jest. She’s retrograde in her personal life, but I don’t blame her for that. She’s TRYING, for crying out loud.
I do not agree with you that there is any shortage of intra-female criticism, backbiting, mutual tearing-down and “attacking” going on. I’ll attack who I want to and when it comes to women, that is a very small, extreme group of aggressively anti-feminist women who have already attacked me or my ideals.
Women criticize each other far too much already and we sure don’t need a man egging us on to ANY of us.
Jan VanDenBerg
Posted by janvdb on Dec 2, 2005 at 11:53 PM
Jan VanDenBerg
It sounds like our positions have converged quite a bit. I don’t disagree with anything you said really. I just think I should try and clarify a few things.
My comments in regards to Odowd are directly linked to the article that started this exchange has to say about Odowd’s book and it’s treatment of feminism.
If her treatment of feminism is so bad, why is she spared any of the criticism directed at the NYTimes? At the very least it should be stated Maureen, you let us down, you let feminism. Instead only blaming the NYTimes effectively absolves Odowd. The NYTimes may indeed have an anti-woman agenda. However the success of such an agenda based on the writer of this article says is dependent on the willful cooperation of Odowd and women like her.
I then went on to use it to explain what I think has been a big weakness of feminism. I am far less critical of what I’ve read that Odowd wrote than the auther of the article was however.
I take it you call Condi what you do, because politically on non-feminist issues she is a conservative? When it comes to feminist issues, I’d hardly call her just silent. She actually promotes particular key points of feminism, but does avoid giving feminism credit. You are totally right she doesn’t need to preach to be a role model though. I think this kind of success for women is wonderful.
We also agree in regards to Phylliss the baby eating Schaffley and Anne the whore for a dime Coulter.
No doubt you are accurate that there is a lot of feminist self-criticism, but the problem is it is behind closed doors in relation to society at large. Which means the supermajority of women not directly involved in the movement do not share or learn about the right and the wrong, the good and the bad, the rewards and the costs of the struggle. Worst of all it allows the truly anti-feminist media to report as they will effectively distorting and opposing feminism by using women who are willing to betray all other women for their own gain.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 3, 2005 at 3:40 PM
Jan VanDenBerg,
What is the mainstream left? Sounds like an Oxymoron to me. But we live in a worlds where red has come to mean reactionary, so who knows.
wbblack
Posted by Wbblack on Dec 4, 2005 at 7:28 AM
Johnny:
I think there is already far too much criticism of other women by women in our society. Our first instinct is to attack one another. It’s all behind closed doors? You must be deaf. Women attack one another constantly. And besides that, you have RAMPANT competition for male attention.
We need to REDUCE this behavior, not step it up.
It is NOT women’s fault that the powers that control everything deliberately set us against one another by picking out from among us the most retrograde, patriarchy-collaborating back-stabbers among us to promote and amplify. That is the fault of the powers-that-be, the fault of those who control the media.
The women who go along with it are just weak. Not vicious. We need to forgive and accept them back, when they stop taking the whoremonger’s money and apologize for their transgressions.
The last thing the fragmented women’s movement—a movement that can’t get press, can’t get what it actually thinks in the press, has no mainstream voice whatsoever and gets words put into its mouth by its enemies in the press constantly—needs to do is waste what little space it can get on attacking some other women.
We discredit Dowd and the New York Times will just find another shill, another tool. There is a limitless supply of buyable meat in the world to fill in that slot. Attacking and discrediting one woman in it will only cause the newspapers to call up the next. Attack her, here comes the NEXT. And the NEXT.
It’s the behavior of the newspapers and mags which is the cause of the problem and that is where we need to direct our attention.
The correct approach, without doubt, is to boycott, criticize and pressure the newspapers and magazines. The women, the tools, the shills—ignore them for the misguided nonentitites they are.
Look at that woman whats-her-face at The New Yorker who made her name attacking successful women for hiring nannies? She’s WAY worse than Dowd. Discredit her, and closet sexists at the New Yorker will just find another—so boycott the New Yorker, like I did.
It’s not just women, either. Look at climatologists and the global-warming-deniers—there will always be a few “experts” who will put their imprimatur on any line that huge corporations with big money to spread around want put out. The actual experts can criticize all they want but they can’t keep this bought-meat from getting press.
Look at Arthur Laffer. He’s just a wanna-be-economist whore to the tax-cutting crowd, but money has made this nonentity famous. Can mainstream economists, 99% of whom agree that cutting taxes does not increase tax revenues or reduce the deficit, stop this guy? NO. I heard some Republican politicians the other day saying that they were busy trying to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes—10 years after “The Laffer Curve” was completely discredited. Outrageous. Even a mafia hit on Laffer wouldn’t stop it.
When there is enough money behind it, you just can’t kill a lie like that by attacking the bought meat that shills it. You just need to recognize the lie for what it is, ignore it and criticize the wellspring of the lies—the monied interests which promote it.
Jan VanDenBerg
Posted by janvdb on Dec 4, 2005 at 12:40 PM
Jan V.
The fact that women in general are not to blame for what you describe does not mean the feminist movement doesn’t have to counter it to win.
The only women I hear critisizing other women are the Schaffley and Coulter types ripping apart the feminists, and the feminists response is exactly what you recommend, silence basically.
Silence is suicide in any struggle. It allows the enemy to define you, and the anti-feminist forces have had a field day defining the feminist and her ideals.
I’m sure you are aware of the absurd stereotypes many women associate with being a feminist. Stereotypes that true feminists refuse to counter, because they don’t want to dignify such tripe with a response.
In the real world silence also means you’re afraid to stand for your convictions. Silence means you are wrong.
In American culture people EXPECT you to get angry and get aggressive when someone repeatedly tells lies or defames your character. When that is NOT the response, they assume the lies must be true.
Women raised in the patriarchy are virtually brainwashed into believing the lies. The suffering they endure does NOT automatically awaken them to the truth. That takes a concerted effort by those who have awakened, the feminists.
Part of this effort is shouting back, fighting back against ANYONE who seeks to support the patriarchy of lies.
Your desire not to alienate these anti-woman women rests on a false notion. You assume sooner or later they will realize the error of their ways. At that time feminists need to be ready to forgive and forget. Attacking these women would make this final stage of forgiveness impossible.
Well, the whole idea that these women actually understand what they are doing in feminist terms, and will sooner or later come back to feminism IS WRONG.
I don’t recall Phyllis Schaffley ever recanting her ideals. She still spits her venom from her Eagle Forum. You can bet Coulter and her ilk will be spouting their anti-feminist propoganda well into their senior years.
Feminists need to accept that some women are their most ardent foes. Foes who believe ardently in what they say. Women like Coulter are NOT going to change their views.
Feminists will NEVER have a chance to forgive and forget with Coulter and her ilk. They say what they believe.
They do NOT buy into the feminist reason or logic, regardless of whether they practice basic principals of feminism. They will not allow themselves to be co-opted by feminism.
To make exceptions based on the gender of the attacker is to allow traitors freedom to betray women.
All I am saying is they should be treated NO DIFFERENTLY than a man who says this crap.
OF course this begs the question as to how harsh your treatment is of men who are so sexist. LOL
In doing so the struggle becomes simpler. It becomes an us vs. they rather than the fractured back-biting beset struggle that it is now with everyone trying to justify the expections they make for themselves.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 5, 2005 at 10:51 AM
Johnny:
In an ideal world, I would agree with you.
However, I don’t think that you have yet fully absorbed what is a very important reality for feminists: WE CANNOT GET HEARD.
We can’t get press to say anything or criticize anyone, much less Anne Coulter.
When “we” do get press, at least 60% of the time, it is someone who is NOT a feminist saying “feminists say . . . fill in the blank with a lie.
When is the last time you read a direct, complete quote anywhere from Eleanor Smeal of Feminist Majority? She and Kim Gandy of NOW are the two highest-profile, full-time, professional feminists with easily-located phone numbers in the US. They are out there relentlessly and yet we hear very very little from them. The mainstream press does not call them up when they have an item about a woman’s issue and get what is probably the actual mainstream feminist line—they would prefer to call in the wife of some friend of theirs or just ask the closest female, apparently.
Then, we can’t figure out why we are all so confused about what “feminism” is trying to say.
We never hear what “feminism” is trying to say, unless we go past the press and straight to their websites and books.
One sees aggregious examples of this selection process by editors and TV schedules all the time—all kinds of miscellaneous, unaffiliated women of unknown persuasions are called upon and quoted on women’s issues when we have recognized leaders whose opinions should be quoted.
It’s largely the media and their perverse selection, cutting, and editting that is responsible for the rough sledding feminism has run into in the last ten years.
We need to be a lot more skeptical of whatever we see getting press. Go on the websites of mainstream feminist organizations, read the fringe feminist zines or websites and get it from the horse’s mouth or don’t assume you have any idea whatsoever what “feminists” are saying or thinking.
So, Johnny, you can’t assume that feminists AREN’T criticizing these women we hate (I’ll excoriate Anne Coulter in the strongest terms for you anytime) just because you don’t hear it anywhere.
I can’t just imagine that Eleanor Smeal, that old battle-ax, (thank goodness for that, too) hasn’t had some nearly unprintable comments to make about Phyllis Schafly over the years they have tangled. Eleanor’s comments have just not been repeated anywhere for you to see them.
We’re criticizing the kind of women you are talking about, it’s just not getting any press. If it does get press, it is presented in the most negative and distorted terms. One of the easiest things to twist and distort is a negative comment, which is part of the reason many feminists steer away from them.
You must remember here, you are engaged in a conversation here with a “person” who has a big chunk of duct tape stuck over their mouth!!
Jan VanDenBerg
Posted by janvdb on Dec 5, 2005 at 9:51 PM
Jan V.
I believe you, but if the problem is so bad, then the leaders of the feminist movement need to step back and examine their tactics and marketing YES marketing. LOL
Nothing, not even the very best idea or ideal gets a free ride in our consumer society.
The one thing the media conglomerates in this country care about more than anything is making money.
Getting viewers to watch makes them money.
Just what are feminists doing today that is attention getting to the NON-feminist?
I wish there were a way to get involved in marketing feminism if such opportunities exist. I’m great at marketing.
However I wonder too if the idealistic nature of some feminists prevents feminism in general from adopting certain tactics and methods due to their distasteful nature? The refusal to use sex to get Attn. comes to mind.
I don’t mean porn, but check out women’s tennis UNDER the guidance of Billie Jean King (until recently) Women’s tennis has wholeheartedly embraced the sex appeal of some of their top stars to make tennis the most popular women’s sport and their athletes among the top grossers for men or women.
Of course by taking control of it, they are able to expunge the most offensive elements that such marketing has used when men directed it, and have turned it into a feminist positive effort.
Who can argue that women who are made multi-millionaires before the age of 20 and also get praise for their genius and overall skills is a bad thing. They used their sex appeal to get the initial Attn. Once they got it, they re-focused it to their goals.
I am NOT saying that is a panacea, but just one example of feminism passing on a tried and true tactic of reaching people due to certain principals.
In some ways perhaps the self-image many feminists is a bit dated. Today’s younger women seem to revel in their sexuality regardless of whether they are in perfect shape.
Yet sex is treated in almost a victorian manner by some traditional feminists. They don’t want to hear, see or talk about it, because they refuse to be seen as just sexual objects.
Obviously a lot of work needs to be done if feminists are going to get heard, but one thing must always be remembered.
When the reason you are not heard is always due to the actions of someone else, you make yourself powerless to change it.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 6, 2005 at 3:04 PM
As far as using “sex” to get attention, last I heard, someone was actually accusing “feminists” of being behind the “pornification” of our culture.
That someone is Ariel Levy, a New York writer and a self-avowed feminist, who wrote “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.”
She is saying that far from failing to use sex, that somehow “feminists” are responsible for or at least implicated in or being used as an excuse for the rampant partying, blatant sexuality and tit-flashing we see on shows such as “Girls Gone Wild.”
I’d say it is a lot more likely that the old enemy, patriarchy gone wild, is to blame for this trend but, anyway, feminists are, as usual, being blamed.
It’s just like when all the rich old men who were sick of paying through the nose to get divorced pushed no-fault divorce through state after state in the 60s, the “feminists” took the blame for that, too.
Or when shotgun marriages went out of style and men started simply refusing to marry girls they had impregnated, causing “illegitimacy” to skyrocket—oh, that was feminism at work again, too. Not possibly a change in MALE behavior.
And then there were the “feminists” who created the necessity of career women hiring brown-skinned nannies, which was exploitative of the brown-skinned nannies. Couldn’t possibly have been due to the time demands of corporations, the prospect of no-fault divorces and the nature of the labor market for domestic help.
So you can see the problem. Feminism seems to be as its enemies say it is.
Look at the huge, and I do mean huge, march that ACTUAL feminists organized on Washington last spring. Bet you didn’t hear about it. It was the largest march on Washington EVER. Got no press.
It’s just a very serious problem. People need to go directly to the websites, blogs and books of actual feminists to hear about them. Anything second-hand is probably a deliberate lie.
I just don’t see any way that using sex is going to get us anywhere in this situation, other than possibly accused of being overly sexual, promiscuous or something absurd like that.
Could you possibly produce a specific example of how that could be done?
Thanks—I do think that your heart is in the right place and we agree on everything but tactics.
Jan VanDenBerg
Posted by janvdb on Dec 6, 2005 at 3:32 PM
Jan Van
The problem you talk about is far too complex for an easy answer. However you do say one thing that is a potential key:
You Say - Feminism seems to be as its enemies say it is
Which is due to what I have been saying silence is deadly.
This reality is in part due to the strategies feminism decided on early in the movement when the whole nation was experiencing self-doubt and re-evaluating it’s values right after the Vietnam War.
At that time Feminists decided on a course of action based on an idealism at its most extreme. Feminism decided it would only take the high road when doing battle - NO MATTER what the cost, believing naively that truth wins out in the end.
Feminists would respond to lies with reason. Feminists would refrain from personal attacks on opponents and stick to issues. Feminists would be in the vanguard of civil political discussion Etc.
That decision has been extremely costly to feminists.
Over the years the patriarchy has used every tactic to win, no matter how dirty. The partriarchy has no problem with personal attacks, or being uncivil. Their favorite is the big lie.
As you know and sited in your examples its stating the most rediculous stupid thing as true about your enemy. Accuse them of that, demand they defend themselves. Ignore what they say and continue to repeat the big lie as loudly and as often as possible until the nation at large perceives it to be true. (If it weren’t someone would speak up wouldn’t they.)
To beat the big lie, one must use the big lie.
This is something Feminists won’t do, because it requires them to lie.
For the feminist, the rightness of the ends are defined by the means. For the partriachy the ends always justify the means.
In such a match-up the latter will always win.
One concrete way Feminists could dramatically alter how feminism is perceived is to acknowledge the power of hollywood and its control for now of the female image.
Instead of decrying it, find actresses who are also strong feminists AND almost perfectly fit that stereotype and enlist them as the “face of feminism.”
Feminism won’t do this now, because they think it will re-enforce the unhealthy image of women in society today and perpetuate the stereotype of women as mindless sex objects. But NOT doing so does not make these images go away. It exist regardless, and by NOT co-opting it for their own it’s left for the patriarchy to use them at will.
Imagine how different it would be if the top female stars of hollywood loudly proclaimed “I am a feminist” or the top female music performers.
Imagine how much easier the battle would be if top male celebrities proclaimed loudly “I think a feminist woman is a beautiful woman.”
Like it or not feminism has to find a way to co-opt the symbols of society that define women TODAY, no matter how much they contradict the ideal feminist image of a woman.
Feminism has to re-evaluate the practicality of being so idealistic, and egalitarian.
Once co-opted these anti-woman stereotypes can be remade from within to better fit and reflect the real needs of everyday women.
I guess the cliche “if life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”
Feminists should start claiming credit for everything SOCIETY sees as good about women. NO MATTER how opposite it is of feminist ideals.
This claiming of everything good is exactly what the patriarchy has done to the great things society received from feminism. By claiming them over and over again, people now believe that the freedoms that women do enjoy vs. a vs. the woman of 100yrs ago have little to do with feminism and feminism
You know we are straying far off topic now, if you want to continue this directly I’d be happy to. Let me know.
ALso directly we could answer each other’s points more specifically.
Jon
Posted by johnnyincentx on Dec 6, 2005 at 5:23 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
ITT needs more women posting comments and taking part in these discussions. It is interesting that it is mostly men who take part in these discussions. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems the guys outnumber the ladies by a large margin.
I have noticed this trend in many a media outlet , and I am seeing it as a good sign. there is someone out there who is frightened of us, so frightened that it is trying to enforce the idea that feminism does not work. And is addressing this to the women who have made it to the top.
Seems someone at the Times is afraid for his chair
THANK YOU! I read Dowd’s article in the Times and was pretty disgusted by it considering I am a 26 year old female single, professional. I read it online and noticed that it was the top emailed article on the Times.
What a crock of SHIT! Women like that can continue to be financially dependent on their husbands and waste their ambition if they want. It’s just a high-society fuckin fantasy she’s living in.
I fully agree
the woman does not speak for me, nor for anyone in my generation.
This was a great piece. I rarely read the Times anymore. Its propaganda in the build-up to the Iraqi War has really exposed the Times as a mouthpiece for neo-liberal drivel. But I have noticed the media trend reporting women want to go back to more
Yes, good piece. I hesitate to point out that, when it comes to television, advertising and programming (pun intended), there are many instances where men are portrayed as bumbling morons and women as clever geniuses. An equally undeserved stereotype for both, in all it’s variations. Yes?
<cite>when it comes to television, advertising and programming (pun intended), there are many instances where men are portrayed as bumbling morons and women as clever geniuses.</cite>
Fabulously beautiful, clever, geniuses. Plain women are moms. They serve Jello to their children or bring Pepsi to soccer games. Look deeper David.
Looking deeper into the depths of hell ... aah yes, I see it now too. Thanks CornChip.
Susan J. Douglas is right, but despite that she doesn’t quite see the forest when she looks at all the trees.
It is NOT the NYTimes which is to blame, but OTHER women.
Feminism planted the seeds of it’s own failure by deciding early on that attacking another successful woman was verbotin.
The NYTimes is merely a platform. The actual perpetrators of the crime, the women who wrote the articles partly backed up by their “me-search.” (great on-the-fly term) were NOT forced to write the articles by men NOR directed to write about these topics or push particular viewpoints.
It was the choice of those women alone.
If Feminism is to start winning again, it needs to realize that it’s greatest enemy are successful women who turn their back on the feminist principles that made their success possible,
Talk about and to ODowd and women like her directly. Redirect the comments made about the NYTimes to them.
It’s clear that the idea that successful woman by merely by existing do more good for the feminist cause whether they support it or not is FALSE.
Feminist stratigests never learned the lesson that Phillis Schaffley taught them in her defeat of feminism and the ERA.
She beat feminists mainly, because she was able to launch her repeated, vicious and absurd broadside attacks on her Feminist opponents without ever being attacked the same way.
It’s still upsetting to recall watching Elenor Schmeal appeal to Phyllis after being ripped apart to accept that Elenor’s arguments were valid. Phyllis wouldn’t even aknowledge that Elenor was there. Once Elenor was done pleading, Phyllis picked up her attack on Elenor and her ideals.
The inablity of feminists to engage successful women who oppose the feminist positions, has to be confronted.
The benefits that all women get from having women in positions of power and influence is negated if the woman in power uses it to attack and destroy feminist ideals.
At the very least Odowd and her ilk should be treated the same way as any man who wrote they do.
After a few encounters with other women willing to express their disgust and profound personal disappointment to ODowd and women like her, I bet you anything we’d start to see a lessoning of such writing BY WOMEN.
As long as being a successful woman immunizes anti-feminist women from criticism and for some gives them celebrity status in the eyes of other women. We will continue to see such attacks on feminism’s ideals and concepts.
Johnny, I could not agree more if i wanted to.
Thank you Thank you Thank you.
You left nothing out. This is exactly what I and others have been grousing about at the Times for years now. This is precisely it.
“Times seems to take perverse delight in goading women about the alleged bankruptcy of feminism.”
Goading. that is exactly how it has seemed to me and others. And let’s not forget the “hers” section of the magazine. My god.
Johnny, Don’t believe for a second the Times is facing a dearth of talent and stories. The Times definitely has people at the helm deciding this is the tack to take. Don’t be so clever about it. The fact is, the Times has a definite slant and this has been going on for years. They are accountable. It is unmistakable. Also, give an insider like Douglas a little credit for having a better idea than you or even I about what goes on at the Times.
Johnny—you are just wrong. The Times has access to the work of dozens of very talented successful feminist women who could provide good material about women’s issues.
The New York Tiimes doesn’t want them.
The Times has deliberately chosen to choose THESE women to write drivel which undermines the women’s movement and mistakes rich women for women in general.
The choice of articles is made by the editors. There is no dearth of excellent material out there.
Why isn’t Barbara Ehrenreich a contributor to the Times Op-Ed page? Now that is a well-known, widely-read woman with something of import to say to working class women (and everyone else, too). But editors at The Times have deliberately chosen to highlight the self-lacerating anti-feminist fluff of Maureen Dowd. Truly, it seems that they are deliberately trying to make women look bad.
The Times are just part and parcel of the retreat of “elite” women into more traditional roles than those taken up by women in general due to the ridiculously high pay and ridiculously low tax rates of so many “elite” (actually, just rich) men in places like New York City. It is possible for the women who marry these men to live as appendages, personal assistants and fancy household help, simply due to the flow of wealth to this class of men.
If it weren’t for the increasingly Latin-American-style income inequality of the USA, we wouldn’t be seeing this development of a subculture of “servant wives” among the elite.
We need to regulate CEO pay, re-introduce a respectable progressivity to our income tax structure, limit allowable hours of work per week, require prorated benefits for part-time work, demand mandatory family leave with unemployment benefits for BOTH parents, create and fund a national childcare system and otherwise regulate the labor market to support working parents.
And we need to start simply ignoring these “elite” women for the tiny, irrelevant clique of 18th c. throwbacks struggling, Pride-and-Prejudice-style, to attach themselves as appendages to wealthy men they are.
Jan VanDenBerg
Johnny—you are wrong on another front, as well. The main strategic error of the women’s movement is NOT failing to attack successful women who don’t hew to their “line.” It is in the failure of the women’s movement to actively EMBRACE women who have succeeded in a man’s world by looking, acting and thinking in a “man-like” way. That is to say, in a selfish, acquisitive, rational, ambitious, money-making, possibly even right-wing-looking manner.
The women’s movement is weakening itself by dividing into, on one hand, a group of separatist lesbian utopitans, and on another, a group who trails along with the anti-capitalist, anti-money-making, anti-ambition, anti-business leanings of large chunks of the left, and on another, another group who trails along with racial subgroups and focusses more on “people of color” and attacks “upper-class white women’s feminism” and so on—all of whom are abandoning and even attacking the very women who are doing the most for women themselves, which is that group of money-making, reality-addressing, get-it-done businesswomen who have pushed the envelope in the real world.
We all need to focus on what we have in common and what we ALL need to do for the benefit of ALL women.
The worst thing we could do is follow the advice of a guy like Johnny and start attacking ANY women. Even turn-coat queen bees like Condi Rice are one of us and we should support her.
Jan VanDenBerg
much of this discussion portrays the women’s movement as just a collection of individuals, and the Dowds and Schlaflys as just individuals making choices. THESE CHOICES ARE SHAPED IN THE REAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT of the publishing world (increasingly profit-driven), the current strength of the radical/religious right (which has been built up since the 1960s), and the overall growing disadvantage of women (especially low-income single moms). Schlafly is not *just* an individual, but someone well-connected in a rad right movement. Dowd is not just an individual, but a well-established writer for a major newspaper, one who has held onto a great job despite her formulaic writing. This is why it’s important to take the NYTimes to task for whose ideas it’s putting out there. And this is also why IF anyone is going to attack them, it needs to be strategic, and to be effective it needs to get press (that is, as much press clout as the NYT or Fox—fat chance).
Right on jan—this is great:
” The Times has deliberately chosen to choose THESE women to write drivel which undermines the women
Jan VanDenBerg just where did I say you should start attacking other women. I said women who actively promote anti-feminist positions should NOT be treated any differently than men who do the same. DOES THAT mean “attack” to you? It does NOT mean that to me. What it means to me is being a woman should NOT inoculate someone from the proper and expected reprobation when one turns traitor to the cause.
By your logic, Phyllis Schaffley should be a feminist Icon. Is she a feminist Icon to you? Your completely closed reasoning makes it impossible to exclude Phyllis from the pantheon of female greats who have sacrificed so much for women.
To infer as you do that I think Condi is anti-feminist IS WRONG. Condi Rice IS an incredible success story on many levels. She is also quite feminist in her positions. She has been vocal when she has spoken about feminism in her support. I love Condi for all she represents. Your hewing to the ideological righteousness is the blindness I speak of.
I also am NOT wrong about embracing women who succeeded in a man’s world by being man-like. I NEVER addressed that. How you think I did, I do not know. I am all for women who succeed in ANY way. However UNLIKE YOU, I do NOT think succeeding by attacking other women or demeaning feminism is included. If a woman’s success is based on such success, she should NOT be lionized or praised, instead she should be shunned, and women should be vocal in their disgust. Again if that translates into “attack” for you so be it. To me it’s appropriate treatment of an ideological traitor.
It’s clear you did not read what I wrote, because of my name. You will NOT even try to understand my point because I am a man. A man who is more feminist than most women I’ve met, yet in your sexist view of the world all my views are suspect because I have a penis I suppose.
Believe it or not some of the biggest and most heartfelt support for women is NOT sourced in women but IN MEN. Men who understand that most all the good things in society stem from the critical activities of women. To abruptly turn your back on women’s greatest ally is to turn down women’s greatest potential allies, men willing to fight the patriarchy in the name of feminism.
IF MEN NEVER AGREE, women will ALWAYS be second class citizens.
If you’d just stop being blinded by your own righteousness, you’d understand this, and understand how damaging this is to feminism
NO matter what some feminists think, the overwhelming majority of women want, need and love men. Any attack on their brothers, fathers and sons turns feminists into enemies of almost all women.
In your us against world women can never win. You set up a false dichotomy between men and women that makes all men adversaries and all women allies. This false world view is feminism’s Achilles heal, and one the patriarchy and it’s female lackeys utilize all the time to cripple feminism.
It’s ironic that you adopt the position of the man-hating minority in feminism in order to attack me. It’s still sexism, when the ONLY reason someone is allowed to attack women is because they are a woman. Yet that is what you say is good, because at least those women are successful????
kimaszi:
Thinking about it a bit more carefully, I realize that it is not “feminism” which has failed to accept and include money-making businesswomen. It is the LEFT. The mainstream LEFT.
The mainstream left too frequently gets so caught up in its anti-capitalist anti-money attitudes that it has alienated core feminists and core feminist ideals, which are certainly at least about getting women into positions of power. Having money is essential to power. If women don’t make money, who will fund pro-woman causes and foundations?
If a high-earning female, say, bond trader or real estate developer, tries to make contact with most of the left, they will have nothing to do with her. Too capitalist. These women are totally unwelcome in the right and the left, also, won’t have them. This is a mistake of the left. These women are, surely, feminists and share most values of the left. Women need money or we will never get anywhere.
I think a very important goal right now among women is to reduce internal strife between women and to focus on what we all have in common, rather than allowing ourselves to be drawn into the conflicts between groups (led by men) of which we are also members. Race, lifestyle, consumption level, religion, income level—these are markers of other groups we also belong to which are trying to set we women at each others’ throats.
We need to ignore them, ignore what the media says “feminists” are doing and saying (it’s usually deliberately misleading lies), ignore everyone’s attempts to get us fighting and competing among ourselves.
Johnny: There is a difference between a successful woman like Condi Rice and a woman who aggressively attacks feminism, like Phyllis Schafly.
Condi Rice is a turncoat and the tool of a horse’s ass, but she is still a successful woman who does not directly attack feminism. Her accension to a position of power and access is a positive for women. I don’t think a woman should have to be openly preaching feminism to be a positive role model.
Phyllis Schaffly is an entirely different matter. She has directly attacked feminists and feminist ideas and goals. Yes, I think we should excoriate her. Ditto Anne Coulter. She directly attacks principals of feminism and directly attacks well-known women leaders in a vicious and self-promoting manner. Yes, I just hate that media whore and I’ll tell anyone who will listen.
We women should malign Maureen Dowd, you say? Surely you jest. She’s retrograde in her personal life, but I don’t blame her for that. She’s TRYING, for crying out loud.
I do not agree with you that there is any shortage of intra-female criticism, backbiting, mutual tearing-down and “attacking” going on. I’ll attack who I want to and when it comes to women, that is a very small, extreme group of aggressively anti-feminist women who have already attacked me or my ideals.
Women criticize each other far too much already and we sure don’t need a man egging us on to ANY of us.
Jan VanDenBerg
Jan VanDenBerg
It sounds like our positions have converged quite a bit. I don’t disagree with anything you said really. I just think I should try and clarify a few things.
My comments in regards to Odowd are directly linked to the article that started this exchange has to say about Odowd’s book and it’s treatment of feminism.
If her treatment of feminism is so bad, why is she spared any of the criticism directed at the NYTimes? At the very least it should be stated Maureen, you let us down, you let feminism. Instead only blaming the NYTimes effectively absolves Odowd. The NYTimes may indeed have an anti-woman agenda. However the success of such an agenda based on the writer of this article says is dependent on the willful cooperation of Odowd and women like her.
I then went on to use it to explain what I think has been a big weakness of feminism. I am far less critical of what I’ve read that Odowd wrote than the auther of the article was however.
I take it you call Condi what you do, because politically on non-feminist issues she is a conservative? When it comes to feminist issues, I’d hardly call her just silent. She actually promotes particular key points of feminism, but does avoid giving feminism credit. You are totally right she doesn’t need to preach to be a role model though. I think this kind of success for women is wonderful.
We also agree in regards to Phylliss the baby eating Schaffley and Anne the whore for a dime Coulter.
No doubt you are accurate that there is a lot of feminist self-criticism, but the problem is it is behind closed doors in relation to society at large. Which means the supermajority of women not directly involved in the movement do not share or learn about the right and the wrong, the good and the bad, the rewards and the costs of the struggle. Worst of all it allows the truly anti-feminist media to report as they will effectively distorting and opposing feminism by using women who are willing to betray all other women for their own gain.
Jan VanDenBerg,
What is the mainstream left? Sounds like an Oxymoron to me. But we live in a worlds where red has come to mean reactionary, so who knows.
wbblack
Johnny:
I think there is already far too much criticism of other women by women in our society. Our first instinct is to attack one another. It’s all behind closed doors? You must be deaf. Women attack one another constantly. And besides that, you have RAMPANT competition for male attention.
We need to REDUCE this behavior, not step it up.
It is NOT women’s fault that the powers that control everything deliberately set us against one another by picking out from among us the most retrograde, patriarchy-collaborating back-stabbers among us to promote and amplify. That is the fault of the powers-that-be, the fault of those who control the media.
The women who go along with it are just weak. Not vicious. We need to forgive and accept them back, when they stop taking the whoremonger’s money and apologize for their transgressions.
The last thing the fragmented women’s movement—a movement that can’t get press, can’t get what it actually thinks in the press, has no mainstream voice whatsoever and gets words put into its mouth by its enemies in the press constantly—needs to do is waste what little space it can get on attacking some other women.
We discredit Dowd and the New York Times will just find another shill, another tool. There is a limitless supply of buyable meat in the world to fill in that slot. Attacking and discrediting one woman in it will only cause the newspapers to call up the next. Attack her, here comes the NEXT. And the NEXT.
It’s the behavior of the newspapers and mags which is the cause of the problem and that is where we need to direct our attention.
The correct approach, without doubt, is to boycott, criticize and pressure the newspapers and magazines. The women, the tools, the shills—ignore them for the misguided nonentitites they are.
Look at that woman whats-her-face at The New Yorker who made her name attacking successful women for hiring nannies? She’s WAY worse than Dowd. Discredit her, and closet sexists at the New Yorker will just find another—so boycott the New Yorker, like I did.
It’s not just women, either. Look at climatologists and the global-warming-deniers—there will always be a few “experts” who will put their imprimatur on any line that huge corporations with big money to spread around want put out. The actual experts can criticize all they want but they can’t keep this bought-meat from getting press.
Look at Arthur Laffer. He’s just a wanna-be-economist whore to the tax-cutting crowd, but money has made this nonentity famous. Can mainstream economists, 99% of whom agree that cutting taxes does not increase tax revenues or reduce the deficit, stop this guy? NO. I heard some Republican politicians the other day saying that they were busy trying to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes—10 years after “The Laffer Curve” was completely discredited. Outrageous. Even a mafia hit on Laffer wouldn’t stop it.
When there is enough money behind it, you just can’t kill a lie like that by attacking the bought meat that shills it. You just need to recognize the lie for what it is, ignore it and criticize the wellspring of the lies—the monied interests which promote it.
Jan VanDenBerg
Jan V.
The fact that women in general are not to blame for what you describe does not mean the feminist movement doesn’t have to counter it to win.
The only women I hear critisizing other women are the Schaffley and Coulter types ripping apart the feminists, and the feminists response is exactly what you recommend, silence basically.
Silence is suicide in any struggle. It allows the enemy to define you, and the anti-feminist forces have had a field day defining the feminist and her ideals.
I’m sure you are aware of the absurd stereotypes many women associate with being a feminist. Stereotypes that true feminists refuse to counter, because they don’t want to dignify such tripe with a response.
In the real world silence also means you’re afraid to stand for your convictions. Silence means you are wrong.
In American culture people EXPECT you to get angry and get aggressive when someone repeatedly tells lies or defames your character. When that is NOT the response, they assume the lies must be true.
Women raised in the patriarchy are virtually brainwashed into believing the lies. The suffering they endure does NOT automatically awaken them to the truth. That takes a concerted effort by those who have awakened, the feminists.
Part of this effort is shouting back, fighting back against ANYONE who seeks to support the patriarchy of lies.
Your desire not to alienate these anti-woman women rests on a false notion. You assume sooner or later they will realize the error of their ways. At that time feminists need to be ready to forgive and forget. Attacking these women would make this final stage of forgiveness impossible.
Well, the whole idea that these women actually understand what they are doing in feminist terms, and will sooner or later come back to feminism IS WRONG.
I don’t recall Phyllis Schaffley ever recanting her ideals. She still spits her venom from her Eagle Forum. You can bet Coulter and her ilk will be spouting their anti-feminist propoganda well into their senior years.
Feminists need to accept that some women are their most ardent foes. Foes who believe ardently in what they say. Women like Coulter are NOT going to change their views.
Feminists will NEVER have a chance to forgive and forget with Coulter and her ilk. They say what they believe.
They do NOT buy into the feminist reason or logic, regardless of whether they practice basic principals of feminism. They will not allow themselves to be co-opted by feminism.
To make exceptions based on the gender of the attacker is to allow traitors freedom to betray women.
All I am saying is they should be treated NO DIFFERENTLY than a man who says this crap.
OF course this begs the question as to how harsh your treatment is of men who are so sexist. LOL
In doing so the struggle becomes simpler. It becomes an us vs. they rather than the fractured back-biting beset struggle that it is now with everyone trying to justify the expections they make for themselves.
Johnny:
In an ideal world, I would agree with you.
However, I don’t think that you have yet fully absorbed what is a very important reality for feminists: WE CANNOT GET HEARD.
We can’t get press to say anything or criticize anyone, much less Anne Coulter.
When “we” do get press, at least 60% of the time, it is someone who is NOT a feminist saying “feminists say . . . fill in the blank with a lie.
When is the last time you read a direct, complete quote anywhere from Eleanor Smeal of Feminist Majority? She and Kim Gandy of NOW are the two highest-profile, full-time, professional feminists with easily-located phone numbers in the US. They are out there relentlessly and yet we hear very very little from them. The mainstream press does not call them up when they have an item about a woman’s issue and get what is probably the actual mainstream feminist line—they would prefer to call in the wife of some friend of theirs or just ask the closest female, apparently.
Then, we can’t figure out why we are all so confused about what “feminism” is trying to say.
We never hear what “feminism” is trying to say, unless we go past the press and straight to their websites and books.
One sees aggregious examples of this selection process by editors and TV schedules all the time—all kinds of miscellaneous, unaffiliated women of unknown persuasions are called upon and quoted on women’s issues when we have recognized leaders whose opinions should be quoted.
It’s largely the media and their perverse selection, cutting, and editting that is responsible for the rough sledding feminism has run into in the last ten years.
We need to be a lot more skeptical of whatever we see getting press. Go on the websites of mainstream feminist organizations, read the fringe feminist zines or websites and get it from the horse’s mouth or don’t assume you have any idea whatsoever what “feminists” are saying or thinking.
So, Johnny, you can’t assume that feminists AREN’T criticizing these women we hate (I’ll excoriate Anne Coulter in the strongest terms for you anytime) just because you don’t hear it anywhere.
I can’t just imagine that Eleanor Smeal, that old battle-ax, (thank goodness for that, too) hasn’t had some nearly unprintable comments to make about Phyllis Schafly over the years they have tangled. Eleanor’s comments have just not been repeated anywhere for you to see them.
We’re criticizing the kind of women you are talking about, it’s just not getting any press. If it does get press, it is presented in the most negative and distorted terms. One of the easiest things to twist and distort is a negative comment, which is part of the reason many feminists steer away from them.
You must remember here, you are engaged in a conversation here with a “person” who has a big chunk of duct tape stuck over their mouth!!
Jan VanDenBerg
Jan V.
I believe you, but if the problem is so bad, then the leaders of the feminist movement need to step back and examine their tactics and marketing YES marketing. LOL
Nothing, not even the very best idea or ideal gets a free ride in our consumer society.
The one thing the media conglomerates in this country care about more than anything is making money.
Getting viewers to watch makes them money.
Just what are feminists doing today that is attention getting to the NON-feminist?
I wish there were a way to get involved in marketing feminism if such opportunities exist. I’m great at marketing.
However I wonder too if the idealistic nature of some feminists prevents feminism in general from adopting certain tactics and methods due to their distasteful nature? The refusal to use sex to get Attn. comes to mind.
I don’t mean porn, but check out women’s tennis UNDER the guidance of Billie Jean King (until recently) Women’s tennis has wholeheartedly embraced the sex appeal of some of their top stars to make tennis the most popular women’s sport and their athletes among the top grossers for men or women.
Of course by taking control of it, they are able to expunge the most offensive elements that such marketing has used when men directed it, and have turned it into a feminist positive effort.
Who can argue that women who are made multi-millionaires before the age of 20 and also get praise for their genius and overall skills is a bad thing. They used their sex appeal to get the initial Attn. Once they got it, they re-focused it to their goals.
I am NOT saying that is a panacea, but just one example of feminism passing on a tried and true tactic of reaching people due to certain principals.
In some ways perhaps the self-image many feminists is a bit dated. Today’s younger women seem to revel in their sexuality regardless of whether they are in perfect shape.
Yet sex is treated in almost a victorian manner by some traditional feminists. They don’t want to hear, see or talk about it, because they refuse to be seen as just sexual objects.
Obviously a lot of work needs to be done if feminists are going to get heard, but one thing must always be remembered.
When the reason you are not heard is always due to the actions of someone else, you make yourself powerless to change it.
As far as using “sex” to get attention, last I heard, someone was actually accusing “feminists” of being behind the “pornification” of our culture.
That someone is Ariel Levy, a New York writer and a self-avowed feminist, who wrote “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.”
She is saying that far from failing to use sex, that somehow “feminists” are responsible for or at least implicated in or being used as an excuse for the rampant partying, blatant sexuality and tit-flashing we see on shows such as “Girls Gone Wild.”
I’d say it is a lot more likely that the old enemy, patriarchy gone wild, is to blame for this trend but, anyway, feminists are, as usual, being blamed.
It’s just like when all the rich old men who were sick of paying through the nose to get divorced pushed no-fault divorce through state after state in the 60s, the “feminists” took the blame for that, too.
Or when shotgun marriages went out of style and men started simply refusing to marry girls they had impregnated, causing “illegitimacy” to skyrocket—oh, that was feminism at work again, too. Not possibly a change in MALE behavior.
And then there were the “feminists” who created the necessity of career women hiring brown-skinned nannies, which was exploitative of the brown-skinned nannies. Couldn’t possibly have been due to the time demands of corporations, the prospect of no-fault divorces and the nature of the labor market for domestic help.
So you can see the problem. Feminism seems to be as its enemies say it is.
Look at the huge, and I do mean huge, march that ACTUAL feminists organized on Washington last spring. Bet you didn’t hear about it. It was the largest march on Washington EVER. Got no press.
It’s just a very serious problem. People need to go directly to the websites, blogs and books of actual feminists to hear about them. Anything second-hand is probably a deliberate lie.
I just don’t see any way that using sex is going to get us anywhere in this situation, other than possibly accused of being overly sexual, promiscuous or something absurd like that.
Could you possibly produce a specific example of how that could be done?
Thanks—I do think that your heart is in the right place and we agree on everything but tactics.
Jan VanDenBerg
Jan Van
The problem you talk about is far too complex for an easy answer. However you do say one thing that is a potential key:
You Say - Feminism seems to be as its enemies say it is
Which is due to what I have been saying silence is deadly.
This reality is in part due to the strategies feminism decided on early in the movement when the whole nation was experiencing self-doubt and re-evaluating it’s values right after the Vietnam War.
At that time Feminists decided on a course of action based on an idealism at its most extreme. Feminism decided it would only take the high road when doing battle - NO MATTER what the cost, believing naively that truth wins out in the end.
Feminists would respond to lies with reason. Feminists would refrain from personal attacks on opponents and stick to issues. Feminists would be in the vanguard of civil political discussion Etc.
That decision has been extremely costly to feminists.
Over the years the patriarchy has used every tactic to win, no matter how dirty. The partriarchy has no problem with personal attacks, or being uncivil. Their favorite is the big lie.
As you know and sited in your examples its stating the most rediculous stupid thing as true about your enemy. Accuse them of that, demand they defend themselves. Ignore what they say and continue to repeat the big lie as loudly and as often as possible until the nation at large perceives it to be true. (If it weren’t someone would speak up wouldn’t they.)
To beat the big lie, one must use the big lie.
This is something Feminists won’t do, because it requires them to lie.
For the feminist, the rightness of the ends are defined by the means. For the partriachy the ends always justify the means.
In such a match-up the latter will always win.
One concrete way Feminists could dramatically alter how feminism is perceived is to acknowledge the power of hollywood and its control for now of the female image.
Instead of decrying it, find actresses who are also strong feminists AND almost perfectly fit that stereotype and enlist them as the “face of feminism.”
Feminism won’t do this now, because they think it will re-enforce the unhealthy image of women in society today and perpetuate the stereotype of women as mindless sex objects. But NOT doing so does not make these images go away. It exist regardless, and by NOT co-opting it for their own it’s left for the patriarchy to use them at will.
Imagine how different it would be if the top female stars of hollywood loudly proclaimed “I am a feminist” or the top female music performers.
Imagine how much easier the battle would be if top male celebrities proclaimed loudly “I think a feminist woman is a beautiful woman.”
Like it or not feminism has to find a way to co-opt the symbols of society that define women TODAY, no matter how much they contradict the ideal feminist image of a woman.
Feminism has to re-evaluate the practicality of being so idealistic, and egalitarian.
Once co-opted these anti-woman stereotypes can be remade from within to better fit and reflect the real needs of everyday women.
I guess the cliche “if life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”
Feminists should start claiming credit for everything SOCIETY sees as good about women. NO MATTER how opposite it is of feminist ideals.
This claiming of everything good is exactly what the patriarchy has done to the great things society received from feminism. By claiming them over and over again, people now believe that the freedoms that women do enjoy vs. a vs. the woman of 100yrs ago have little to do with feminism and feminism
You know we are straying far off topic now, if you want to continue this directly I’d be happy to. Let me know.
ALso directly we could answer each other’s points more specifically.
Jon
tiffany co jewellery
tiffany jewellery
tiffany
Tiffany Necklaces
links of london
Tiffany jewellry hot sale now with discount. Tiffany provides the best Tiffany & Co jewelry, including
Necklaces, Bracelets, Earrings, Pendants
Cheap ugg classic boots-Various discount uggs & outlet uggs
As one specialized outlet uggs on sale,here offers various ugg boots cheap for comfort and fashion, ugg boots clearance is worthy of every penny.
ugg bailey button ugg bailey button
Ugg Bailey Button Boots Triplet Ugg Bailey Button Boots Triplet
UGG Classic Tall Boots UGG Classic Tall Boots
Ugg Classic Cardy Boots Ugg Classic Cardy Boots
ugg Classic Short Bootsugg Classic Short Boots
Ugg Classic Mini BootsUgg Classic Mini Boots
try
Belstaff|Belstaff Jackets|Belstaff UK|Belstaff Clothing|Belstaff Leather|Belstaff Sale|outlet Belstaff|Belstaff online|belstaff bags
Belstaff,Belstaff Jackets,Outlet Belstaff,Belstaff Leather,Belstaff Clothing,belstaff Sale 60%-80% - Belstaffonsale.com
mt
cheap uggs uk
ugg boots clearance
uggs boots sale
uggs online|uggs outlet|cheap uggs
uggs boots sale cheap uggs uk online in uggsofuk.com with free shipping
Uggs Bailey Button|Uggs Classic Short Boots|Uggs Classic Tall Boots
kopu
register a new account »Posting Security