Sororities and Feminism

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

This thought process is coming back with a group of very religious people called "Quiverfull" that believe a woman's place is in the home and God has placed the man as the head of the household in order to provide for the family.

And without going as far as the Quiverfull folks, there's the complimentarian view, also a conservative religious view.

I don't personally understand why a woman would want to do this, or a man for that matter, since I don't want to be the sole supporter of any able adult.

But surely a feminist couple can make the choice that, for them (whether for the short term or long term), it makes sense for one to work outside the home and one to stay at home. I think there's a very real difference between, say, the wife not working outside the home because she's not "supposed to" and the wife (or husband) not working outside the home because she/he/they have made the decision that it's what's best for them.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And without going as far as the Quiverfull folks, there's the complimentarian view, also a conservative religious view.

But surely a feminist couple can make the choice that, for them (whether for the short term or long term), it makes sense for one to work outside the home and one to stay at home. I think there's a very real difference between, say, the wife not working outside the home because she's not "supposed to" and the wife (or husband) not working outside the home because she/he/they have made the decision that it's what's best for them.

Certainly. The Quiverfull group is just the extreme end of the anti-feminist spectrum and why I used them as an example. Women (and men) should have the option to stay home if they feel it's the best for their families, but it goes a little farther with this group.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Certainly. The Quiverfull group is just the extreme end of the anti-feminist spectrum and why I used them as an example. Women (and men) should have the option to stay home if they feel it's the best for their families, but it goes a little farther with this group.

You're being charitable when you say "a little farther."

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Titchou

Having spent about 20 years in the construction industry when women were not as visible there are they are today, I've been in both worlds as women move towards equality in the workplace and it hasn't been easy. But I have found that men for the most part will respect you when they see that you are capable and know what you are doing. And you have to earn that respect by being professional. I don't mind being "tested" - I've done it to them when they didn't even realize it!

This is the difference between good feminism and bad feminism. Good is what Titchou described - being given a chance to show what you could do and showing that you are every bit as capable as a man. Bad feminism is "women have been sooooo oppressed for soooooo long, you have a RIGHT to be in this job, even if you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground. Oh and a man who does his job well should probably be fired while we're at it so we can hire another woman and make it a nicer environment." Unfortunately, the bad feminists are usually the loudest and that's what makes many women loath to identify as one. As with all other things in life, the crazies ruin it for the moderate majority.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by 33girl

This is the difference between good feminism and bad feminism. Good is what Titchou described - being given a chance to show what you could do and showing that you are every bit as capable as a man. Bad feminism is "women have been sooooo oppressed for soooooo long, you have a RIGHT to be in this job, even if you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground. Oh and a man who does his job well should probably be fired while we're at it so we can hire another woman and make it a nicer environment." Unfortunately, the bad feminists are usually the loudest and that's what makes many women loath to identify as one. As with all other things in life, the crazies ruin it for the moderate majority.

I think the crazies are FAR rarer than the number of people who parody them in this way, e.g. Rush Limbaugh using "feminazi" to describe anyone who believes in gender equality. Just because the opposing side sets up this strawman doesn't mean it is a prominent argument.

[HQWest]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I think the crazies are FAR rarer than the number of people who parody them in this way, e.g. Rush Limbaugh using "feminazi" to describe anyone who believes in gender equality. Just because the opposing side sets up this strawman doesn't mean it is a prominent argument.

Indeed. Again - paralleling the arguement for and against the Greek system - just because the stereotype persists and one or two people conform to the stereotype, that is not representative of the whole group.

It also allows the opposition to eliminate rational discussion of the topic if sane people are not willing to provide critical insight or to point out the insanity.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I think the crazies are FAR rarer than the number of people who parody them in this way, e.g. Rush Limbaugh using "feminazi" to describe anyone who believes in gender equality. Just because the opposing side sets up this strawman doesn't mean it is a prominent argument.

Rush Limbaugh supported Sarah Palin who self-described as a feminist. He uses feminazi to describe feminist extremists, not women who support gender equality.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

Rush Limbaugh supported Sarah Palin who self-described as a feminist. He uses feminazi to describe feminist extremists, not women who support gender equality.

Again, please name some of these feminist extremists that are such a threat to Rush and his ilk.

[Titchou]

I agree, Belle. It's difficult when you have to check all the boxes to be considered a Catholic, a Republican, a whatever. Very few people check or uncheck ALL the boxes in a description. But most people assume that they do! Perception is everything unfortunately. We are all conundrums is some way, shape or form in that we don't fit into all the boxes of any particular group. Most of us have a foot in each world. Labels just don't explain who we are as individuals.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Titchou

I agree, Belle. It's difficult when you have to check all the boxes to be considered a Catholic, a Republican, a whatever. Very few people check or uncheck ALL the boxes in a description. But most people assume that they do! Perception is everything unfortunately. We are all conundrums is some way, shape or form in that we don't fit into all the boxes of any particular group. Most of us have a foot in each world. Labels just don't explain who we are as individuals.

Right, and you can, for example, stay home with the kids and still be a feminist. Because you know what? We live in a society where the pressure on women to do so is unequal to the pressure on men to do so. You can recognize that pressure, be ideologically against that pressure, work to make changes that reduce/eliminate that pressure, and STILL make the choice to stay home with your kids, and that's okay.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by Titchou

I agree, Belle. It's difficult when you have to check all the boxes to be considered a Catholic, a Republican, a whatever. Very few people check or uncheck ALL the boxes in a description. But most people assume that they do! Perception is everything unfortunately. We are all conundrums is some way, shape or form in that we don't fit into all the boxes of any particular group. Most of us have a foot in each world. Labels just don't explain who we are as individuals.

I agree completely.

I consider myself a Republican, however I am pro-choice and pro-gay rights. To some people, that means I cannot be a republican - but I still identify with their stance on most issues. However, I hesitate labeling myself as such because some people associate Republicans (this is just an example) as being something very negative. (Again, this is just an example. Some people identify Democrats, Catholics, whatever as being something negative as well.)

I am pro equal rights for women, but I hesitate to use the term "feminist" because when I think of the term feminist, I sometimes think of women who say "let's take over the world and make men stop working so we can take over all their jobs and run everything."

Labels kind of suck.

[DubaiSis]

While I consider myself a feminist in all the most obvious ways, I do think you have to consider it, like most political things, on a scale. And the feminist from 1970 was fighting for very different things than the feminist of today. I was raised Catholic and for awhile could live with the contradictions in my beliefs, but at some point I had to give up on them because they can't be wrong on THAT many levels and still have me as a member at any level. I think the same thing would be true of a woman calling herself a feminist. You may not believe in all of the 10 things you think make up feminism to call yourself one, but if you believe in most of them and the 1 or 2 things you dissent on aren't repugnant to you, you can call yourself a feminist. But I see feminism as a desire for equality between men and woman on a macro level, equal pay for equal work being the mac daddy of that.

I don't see how a gay person or a woman could be a Republican, but if you can compartmentalize the parts you disagree with and be happy with the party as a whole, then great. But you are definitely part of a small and shrinking minority and you might want to ponder the reasons for that. I mean, you might be able to compartmentalize "legitimate rape" but when those comments start accumulating onto a 2nd or 3rd hand, isn't it time to reconsider your loyalties? The same would be true on whether or not you think you are or should be a feminist.

And to quote EMILY'S List - When Women Run, Women Win! Be a feminist or not, but run for office! You can change the world, and I think women are vastly better legislators, even when I don't agree with them.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

I don't see how a gay person or a woman could be a Republican, but if you can compartmentalize the parts you disagree with and be happy with the party as a whole, then great. But you are definitely part of a small and shrinking minority and you might want to ponder the reasons for that. I mean, you might be able to compartmentalize "legitimate rape" but when those comments start accumulating onto a 2nd or 3rd hand, isn't it time to reconsider your loyalties? The same would be true on whether or not you think you are or should be a feminist.

AND THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. The Republican Party was not founded to politicize abortion, gay rights, etc....it was founded on the concept that less government = better. But nowadays way too many people take DS's attitude because the nuts (who are probably 5% of registered Republicans) have taken over the party and made themselves the spokespeople. Same with feminism.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

I don't see how a gay person or a woman could be a Republican, but if you can compartmentalize the parts you disagree with and be happy with the party as a whole, then great. But you are definitely part of a small and shrinking minority and you might want to ponder the reasons for that. I mean, you might be able to compartmentalize "legitimate rape" but when those comments start accumulating onto a 2nd or 3rd hand, isn't it time to reconsider your loyalties? The same would be true on whether or not you think you are or should be a feminist.

AND THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. The Republican Party was not founded to politicize abortion, gay rights, etc....it was founded on the concept that less government = better. But nowadays way too many people take DS's attitude because the nuts (who are probably 5% of registered Republicans) have taken over the party and made themselves the spokespeople. Same with feminism.

[DubaiSis]

Originally Posted by 33girl

AND THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. The Republican Party was not founded to politicize abortion, gay rights, etc....it was founded on the concept that less government = better. But nowadays way too many people take DS's attitude because the nuts (who are probably 5% of registered Republicans) have taken over the party and made themselves the spokespeople. Same with feminism.

I agree. As a Democrat, I don't think it's my job to fix the Republican party (I'll let them implode on their own), but when they turned away from government and economy and toward invading your personal life, it was the beginning of the end for them. The good news (for them) is that the 2 major political parties swing in a pendulum. Most of what Democrats believe today is what Republicans of 30 years ago believed. They'll come around and the Democrats will end up having to find a way to re-define themselves.

I think "feminists" (in quotes because I am guessing what many people mean by the word) are having to shout from the mountain tops because basic rights that many of us thought was a done deal YEARS ago are back in play. I mean seriously, birth control? What else are they going to want to take back? Oh wait, voting rights is back in play too, so who knows what other basic freedoms are at risk.