Generations of Feminism

Are some feminists incapable of learning from history? I can't believe there are well-meaning misguided feminists still out there petty-quibbling because other feminists don't always share their exact same views. I wish they'd direct their time and energies outward instead of wasting them internally on other feminists with whom they have a shared goal for equality.

Nothing served more to undermine the feminist movement years ago than some of the negative condemning attitudes and positions I've read expressed here. I am perfectly willing to accept others positions, but I wish they would please stop trying to force them on everybody else, any more than I would force my views on them.

Don't sit in judgement that others are not "good" feminists because they believe we are able to accomplish feminine goals much more successfully through inclusion of all genders. I fail to understand what is to be lost by taking that approach. I believe the word that best describes that state is equality. How can we expect equality if we aren't willing to give it, and are still faced with demonstrating to some of both genders our rights as humans?

Why can't we just move on with the issues that really matter, instead of this ridiculous internal fighting which gives new meaning to cat-fighting? This behavior belittles all feminists, siphons off the time and energy for meaningful effort needed from everyone who believes in our entitlement to deserved parity in the world and continues to work toward that goal.

Anyone who doesn't recognize the gains made over the past fifty years, simply is unfamiliar with the specifics of life then, compared to today. I was there, defending the movement as best I could despite the damage these same devisive destructive positions began to make. I saw and heard the diminishing support the feminist movement received those years later when all these in-fighting topics, unfortunately, were increasingly aggressively and overbearingly injected into the dialogue. Those who did so, and do so now, should look unto themselves if they wonder what happened to the movement then, and ask themselves if they aren't thwarting the very goals we've all wanted to achieve since and now.

There was a comic strip years ago called "Pogo." I don't recall the exact lines, but as long as this infighting persists, Pogo's observation, which went something like this, is applicable: "The enemy is here. The enemy is us."

Lest there be any doubt I believe Ronni Bennett's voice is reasonable, rational, and intelligent. She provides an honest, realistic perspective we would all do well to heed. I find her words often express my views much better than I can write them. I strongly support what she has said here and her blog at Time Goes By.

Joared
http://joared-along.blogspot.com

Amen everybody. I need a white board and magic marker to scrawl these down:

Cowtown Pattie:
Who needs "nice" when you can have spicy, intelligent, biting, gutsy, and inspiring for adjectives?

So if I take Cowtown Pattie's advice, I'll say what I think. In my own voice. Diplomacy is one thing, but hypocrisy is another.

Ronni:

My style of feminism is as valid as your style of feminism.
Karma runs over dogma. As it should be. To Ronni's point, I can and should write my own version of the way the world should work for women, one that fits my own heart and mind, rather than adhering to someone else's treatise that may rub me raw...now all we need to do is create a world where that brand of female autonomy is possible.

Ronni again:

Just because we disagree doesn’t mean we can’t be friends....
Yes! Let people assume that if I debate them it's because I care what they think. Because I do. And may I always be confident enough about my own opinions to argue them ad nauseum, without a cataclysmic event in my relationship with the arguee...that said, I fight fair and I want fair fights. So, as we told the six-year-old last night, can we try that again without the door slamming?

Elana:
Men are not the enemy and women are not necessarily our allies. It's not the chromosomes that makes the feminist --its the world view. And, in order for women to achieve equality that world view must be gender neutral.

Ah yes, the good Rev. Elana is right: I should fight my own stereotypes about the world and its people, even as I fight against them for myself.

I pulled these comments because they represent, for me, the single biggest opportunities that women working together face today. If we can get beyond these issues, we can tackle gender neutrality in health care ( http://www.ahrq.gov/QUAL/nhqrwomen/nhqrwomen.htm#w... ), education ( http://portal.unesco.org/unesco/ev.php?URL_ID=3333... ), wages ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Careers/10/22/equal.pay... ), and freedom from violence ( http://www.vday.org/contents/violence/statistics ).

This is what I needed to turbo-boost my week. Thanks you all!

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://www.blogher.com/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

I was going to comment but don't need to now. Just 'cut and paste' Mata's words into this space, too.

laurie
www.notjustaboutcancer.blogspot.com ( http://www.notjustaboutcancer.blogspot.com )

Call me feminist, please. It speaks to reality. I have put up with way to much unadulterated prejudice in my life to play nice just as a humanist. I may ALSO eventually be a humanist, but I am at core, a feminist.

There are plenty of self-hating women out there -- or women so low in self esteem that they feel subservience to a man is the way to security.

I love men. But that isn't the point. I also feel equal to them, and different from them at the same time. I do not think we are all one androgynous lump of throbbing humanity. I acknowledge the differences between us from our souls to our levels of economic, social and political power.

And as long as there is a gap between what is considered the turf of a man and what is considered the turf of a female, as long as there are rights defined by gender -- call me a feminist. When we get around to equal work for equal pay in this country I might add "humanist" to the list.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

I laughed out loud at this:

Although anyone who has known me for any length of time would put “nice” at the bottom of any list of adjectives describing me.

Who needs "nice" when you can have spicy, intelligent, biting, gutsy, and inspiring for adjectives?

That's the Ronni I love and admire.

So, according to your reader, I am a less than perfect feminist because I adore men? (Well, most anyway.) Ying without Yang makes Pattie a dull girl.

Not to belittle the women before me that fought the long fight so that I can enjoy the fruits of independence, but I think I would prefer to be viewed as a "humanist" rather than a "feminist" any ol' day.

What I like about feminism is that is acknowledges that women are people, too. Thus, as people, we are privvy to the same personality flaws and ideological pitfalls as people. It's kind of cool. It's also why, as a subset of my misanthropy, I am a misogynist. And a proud feminist.

On the other hand, I don't agree that all women are feminists. There are plenty of women out there who do not remotely think that women and men are entitled to the same rights and privileges. What's really scary is that these days, they are not "fringe" elements of society either, but often leaders of huge movements and policymakers. We need to acknowledge that, or we dilute the power of the basic message (women and men are entitled to the same rights and privileges) and that's how we wind up in these insane debates about whether one is committed enough to the cause.

Great post.

Suzanne ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

Great post, Ronni.

I was recently at a rather small meeting (~40 people) that was heavily populated with second wave feminists, including the amazing Ms. Steinem. At age 42 I actually was one of the few representatives of this "younger" generation! (I'm the last official year of the Baby Boom, actually.)

There was a long (and many thought too long) discussion of the word "feminism" itself, and whether the way it had been morphed into something with negative connotations meant that it should be discarded altogether.

Something interesting was brought up: the word feminist, as applied to the movement, was chosen specifically back then because it was the only word that easily included men. Using "women's lib" or the "women's movement" would have been, in their opinions back then, less inclusive. Meanwhile, anyone can be a "feminist." Not sure I quite agree with the logic, but it's funny that this goal of inclusiveness (or at least the perception that the goal existed) didn't stick.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

Men are not the enemy and women are not necessarily our allies. It's not the chromosomes that makes the feminist --its the world view. And, in order for women to achieve equality that world view must be gender neutral.

Keep up the good fight. Your voice is needed.

elana
Blogher Contributing Editor,Business&CareersFunnyBusiness ( http://funnybusiness.typepad.com/funnybusiness )

Just keep doing what you're doing. It's perfect.

Although I confess that as I read your reasoned, charitable response to this criticism, I kept mentally envisioning a hilarious face slapping a la dooce ( http://dooce.com/ ).

http://www.webteacher.ws/
http://first50.wordpress.com/

You are such a class act, Ronni. I had to recall Katharine Hepburn's writings of her suffragette mother, who got more done for the women's movement in the early 20th century by literally offering more sugar during her famous activist teas than she would have ever been able to achieve torching her corset.

I completely respect your commitment to being gender inclusive withing your blog. I have to believe it's your experience and maturity that allows you to realize that the longer you live your life, the more level the field in the battle of the sexes.

Having said that--it does appear that we need to reassess the word "feminist" and take on the position of a more humanist movement. Afterall, while corporate America is set up to reward men--paying them more, implicitly penalizing women who dare to take on the Mommy track--our society as a collective whole, is killing them earlier off as well.

When was the last time the Wall Street Journal honored a man who decided to be a stay-at-home dad? What's the ratio of men's health initiatives in the workplace compared to diversity-in-hiring or women's networking programs? And how many females, albeit reluctantly, gladly surrender the breadwinner status to their male companion, if not because they are simply tired of the grind and corporate bullshit?

This is not to say that we should not support women's rights to equality or toss away the feminist notions. Women should all work together to support one another in every way possible. But feminism historically does have a tendency to exclude, whether it believes it or not. And we DO get lost in the minutiae.

As for Ronni's reference to being kind to your sisters--even the weepy ones--I have just one thought. We are society that embraces the word bitch and relishes bitchy behavior.

It has got to stop. And that all starts with us.

The reality is: we're all in this together. To live, to love and to thrive.

If that means banding with your sisters to get it done, please do. But don't dismiss your brothers, sons or husbands just because they're guys. And respect the women of the movement, like Ronni, who opened the door to the workplace for us--and forced open the eyes of men who thought we were only good as secretaries.

It IS our turn now to respect the past--and accept the responsibility of the future--but let's do so by including all people, male, female, young and old, to work toward this more humanist goal. Live. Love. Thrive.

Perhaps Ronni's blog on the experience an elderlife could be a lauching point for such a humanist argument if it's not already? Because as anyone knows, aging gracefully and the eventual transition into caregiving and even--gasp! death--are entirely gender inclusive.